Failure to commit to a reasonable level of public investment in research is bad for science – and bad for Britain. Here’s what you can do about it.
1.There is little fat to trim
Despite Vince Cable’s assertion in 2010 that the UK science base wasn’t up to snuff, 90% of public science funding of science was going to research that the Government’s own assessment had classed as “internationally excellent”. This left little room for improvement through efficiency savings. And UK scientists continue to outperform: according to an analysis commissioned by BIS in 2013, we have 0.9% of the world’s scientists but produce 16% of the most highly cited papers. We have in fact overtaken the USA in terms of research quality. But this level of performance cannot survive another five years of falling funding. Without adequate investment, our capabilities – and our international reputation – will be severely damaged.
2.Our public science spend as a fraction of GDP is now the smallest of all the G8 nations
Other countries are – sensibly – investing in science to rejuvenate their economies, while the inflationary erosion of the flat-cash settlement has pushed the UK to bottom place in the G8. According to OECD figures, we spend only 0.44% of GDP on public funded R&D, a statistic that is all the more disturbing given the accumulating evidence of the returns on investment in public R&D. Public investment in science is an investment: it brings long-term economic benefits and strengthens our capacity to face the technological challenges of the future.
3.We risk driving corporate investment away
Public investment in R&D stimulates industrial and commercial R&D spending. In Britain, much of this private contribution is from international firms, attracted here by our long-standing reputation. Public investment serves as an important signal to these companies that the UK is committed to research. If the government does not act to reverse the decline, Osborne’s pledge to make the UK the best place in the world to do research becomes a hollow boast. International investors will flee to countries that do support research.
4.The UK is increasingly unfriendly to foreign scientists and students
While further cuts in R&D risk driving away international investment, Home Secretary Theresa May also appears determined to drive away researchers. The cap on immigration of skilled workers is damaging the UK’s ability to recruit from the best in the world. Three of the last five UK Nobel prizes in science have gone to researchers not born in this country. May is also wrecking the good standing (and financial viability) of UK universities among international students by insisting that they leave the country as soon as they complete their studies. The message these students hear is that they are not wanted in the UK, so they are applying elsewhere – and who can blame them? Even David Willetts, former minister for universities and science, is exasperated with his erstwhile colleague.
5.Management consultants could hold the key to science funding
In the summer Sajid Javid, (Vince Cable’s successor at BIS) launched a secret efficiency review of all BIS-funded bodies – including the Research Councils. This will be done and dusted well before the consultative review of the Research Councils being conducted by Royal Society president Paul Nurse is completed. Since the general election, we have gone from public consultation to management consulting. This is not an encouraging direction of travel.
UK research funding slumps below 0.5% GDP – putting us last in the G8
And so we must rouse ourselves once again. The situation is deeply serious. Last week, almost 200 organisations from the life sciences – most of them from the industrial and charitable sector – wrote to the Financial Times to urge the Government to “reinforce its commitment to science in the 2015 Spending Review”.
That is a start, but we need that argument to be heard from all across the country. At Science is Vital we are gearing up to help transmit that call. The UK cannot afford another five years of a withering science base. We risk a lost decade that will irreparably harm our international reputation, weaken our economy, reduce our future technological potential in key areas, and erode a research capacity that is, for the time being, the envy of the world.