Science & Brexit — writing to my MP
In light of our recent submission to the UK Science and Technology Committee (which was co-signed by 1600 fellow early career researchers), I wrote to my local MP Greg Hands & he has kindly written back.
I appreciate that he’s extremely constrained by the Government position (and that we are in the summer recess) but I am not inspired. Here are my thoughts.
I’ve attached my original letter and the response at the bottom of this post. I’m going to quote from the letter and discuss each point raised in turn. (This follows a previous post on Brexit and ECRs)
I quote Greg Hands in bold and my comments are in plain text.
“By investing in science we are backing on of Britain’s greatest success stories and underpinning our future economic growth. The science budget of £4.7 billion will rise in cash terms each year in this Parliament, with a £1.5 billion Global Challenges Research Fund allocated over the next five years to ensure UK research is helping to tackle some of the world’s greatest challenges.”
The science budget is flat in real terms (and rises in cash terms only). The sums to break down each “total” are more tricky than I imagined. However you split things it seems that the ~£1bn of the GCRF allocation of £1.5bn is included within this £4.7bn science budget (the remainder is in the Capital budget). Fundamentally the GCRF was a deft political move where Overseas Development Agency (ODA) money was transferred from the Department for International Development (DFID) to BIS (now BEIS). In cash terms in this A good thing, as a protected flat science budget is better than it could have been. Yet this ODA funding increases the political nature of R&D spend.
Furthermore, while these grand numbers of several billion pounds etc. may sound impressive, comparing us to other major countries in the G20 our spend is poor and while our spending trajectory flat lines, many of theirs is increasing to encourage growth. The UK invests 1.7% of our GDP in R&D, below average of the G20 nations [1].
Furthermore, if we compare UK government spending to the EU funding that was injected into the UK R&D economy, recent concerns by the UK science community become crystal clear.
The UK science budget is ~£5bn per year. The UK won €8.8bn from the EU in 2007–2013 (FP7 and structural funds) which is approximately ~£1.3bn per year at current exchange rates. A loss of EU funding therefore would correspond to a ~20% cut in R&D funding. This is staggering.
“The Government is also delivering on its manifesto commitment to protect the science capital budget. It is investing in new science capital on a record scale, amounting to £6.9 billion in our research infrastructure up to 2021.”
Reading the March whitepaper on Research Allocation from BIS, it is unclear where £6.9bn comes from. The capital budget up to 2021 according to Table 1 is £4.6bn. There is a footnote in the whitepaper that £6.9 includes £1.1bn spent in 2015/2016, this still leaves £1.2bn unaccounted for (any suggestions — please drop me a note on twitter).
“The commitment to science includes a £200 million investment to build one of the world’s most advanced research vessels, a £20 million Institute of Coding to train the next generation in advanced digital skills, and up to £150 million for a Dementia Research Institute to ensure Britain leads the way in tackling this disease.”
Each of these initiatives are laudable. However these “top down” initiatives have been criticised in a report from the National Audit Office as the Department [BIS] has “not used good quality information to decide which capital projects to invest in to optimise scientific and economic benefits.”. Furthermore, the science and engineering communities have raised several objections to large infrastructure projects that offer senior politicians ‘ribbon cutting moments’, but offer only Capital Expenditure (CapEx), rather Resource Expenditure (required for staff, running costs etc.) as delivering CapEx projects as “batteries not included”.
“This investment in research is complemented by the support the Government is providing for innovation in the private sector. The Government is protecting the Catapult Centres to ensure innovative firms can access vital innovation support, and in 2012/14 the Government provided £1.8 billion through the R&D Tax Credit.”
These investments and incentives for UK businesses to invest in UK R&D. However, as an Early Career Researcher is is quite difficult to find suitable opportunities to engage with suitable industrial companies, as core investment in basic science research remains essential to ensure personal growth and continued innovation. We need to continue to develop our leadership through, for example, an EU based ERC starting grant. These early career injections of major funding for blue skies research enable ECR researchers to establish expertise, develop new capabilities, and raise their profile with industrial partners. This maximised leverage of R&D industrial funding, enhancing industrial gearing, and ensures that UK researchers remain partners of choice with major international companies.
“The Government is also taking forward the recommendations of Paul Nurse’s independent review and will introduce a new body — UK Research & Innovation to ensure we are maximising around £6 billion annual investment in these areas.”
This is a review highlights a restructuring of existing R&D infrastructure. This does not address concerns regarding ECR researchers and access to major international research opportunities, such as through participation in EU projects in light of Brexit.
“I appreciate your concerns about the future of science research in light of the recent referendum on our membership will be a matter for upcoming discussions, in the short-term the UK remains a member of the EU and will continue to receive relevant funding. For instance the referendum has no immediate effect on the right of UK researchers to apply or participate in Horizon 2020.”
This is factually correct. The spirit and feelings within the science community are compounded with these facts unfortunately. There have been a number of cases where UK partners have been dropped from large EU proposals already. The uncertainty with respect to UK funding commitments moving forward is having a damaging impact on future bids. Quantitative assessment of these outcomes, as called for by Jo Johnson, will only be seen after the damage has been done.
“These are exciting times for science and I support the Government’s ambition for the UK to be the best place in the world for science and research. Please be assured that ministers across the Government will do their best to support this sector and the young scientists who work within it.”
1600+ other Early Career Researchers are very concerned about the future of UK science and have written to express a series of succinct and direct concerns regarding the future of UK Science and Engineering.
We have expressed this view in our written evidence to the select committee and a brief excerpt was featured in a letter to The Times (published on Friday 22nd July 2016). In this uncertain time I would greatly appreciate the UK Government demonstrating positive and progressive leadership, such as through a guarantee of support EU funding proposals (e.g. Horizon 2020 bids & ERC proposals) regardless of Brexit negotiations. I would also like clarification with regards to the visa status of British nationals in Europe (such as within pan-EU projects such as the European Space Agency) and the visa status of EU nationals who are working in science and adding significant value to the UK economy through their talents, hard work and skills.
Fundamentally, talented young scientists and engineering can add huge value to UK society. They are also highly mobile and will seek the best place to establish themselves on the global stage. This represent a risk moving forward that must be addressed by the UK government, before the arterial bleed saps the UK R&D landscape dry.
Dr Ben Britton can be most easily contacted through twitter.
[1] https://scienceogram.org/blog/2013/05/science-technology-business-government-g20/
If this story interests you, please recommend it below & write to your own MP. Contacting your MP is vital to ensure that your voice is heard. In writing to your MP, please write a letter in you own words. I suggest that you are specific in your own individual concerns and ask your MP for their view and to contact appropriate colleagues. You need to include your home address so that they can identify you as a constituent. For more tips on how to write to your MP, please see here:
https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Letter_writing
EDIT: New release today that Government will back current EU projects. This does not cover projects submitted after the next Autumn statement. Major international programmes take months to negotiate. We must keep lobbying!
https://t.co/SavAq3nbvt
