June 5, 2013

experts comment on forthcoming spending review

Further quotes to accompany a briefing held at the SMC on the scientific community’s thoughts on the science budget in the run up to the Spending Review.

Dr Ted Bianco, Acting Director of the Wellcome Trust, said:

“A decision to transfer responsibility for medical research from BIS to the Department of Health would be a profound change with far-reaching consequences, which should not be undertaken for the sake of short-term budget management. We believe such a move would be ill-advised and potentially damaging to a stable science funding system that works well. It would risk changing the very nature of medical research in the UK, impairing opportunities for inter-disciplinary collaborations with other fields of science and engineering, and shifting the balance from fundamental to applied research when both are essential to medical progress.

“As the Medical Research Council serves the UK as a whole while the Department of Health covers England alone, it would also needlessly disrupt the funding of centres of excellence in all four nations, and limit the overall impact of British research.”

Lord Phil Willis, Chair AMRC, said:

“We must be alert to the manipulation of the science budget to plug gaping holes in departmental budgets. The threat of the MRC moving into the Department of Health is particularly worrying as this could lead to the amalgamation of NIHR and MRC budgets, greater political influence on curiosity driven research and a threat to the Haldane principle. The  removal of MRC from the research council family could have far reaching consequences  for the growing need for interdisciplinary research programmes. Let us hope that achieving even a modest increase in real terms spending is not a Pyrrhic victory.”

Sarah Woolnough, Cancer Research UK said:

“Cancer Research UK urges the Government to keep the ring-fenced science budget so the UK can continue to deliver world-class science. This is a thoroughly worthwhile investment because it will lead to better treatments for patients while offering economic growth for the whole country.”

Dr Sarah Main, Director of Campaign for Science and Engineering, said:

“CaSE recognises the challenge for the government in making budget efficiencies whilst also stimulating economic growth. Science and engineering are stimulators of economic growth and are part of our country’s story of prosperity. Therefore we urge the government to set a positive long-term trajectory for public investment in science and research that will not only stimulate recovery from our current financial situation, but will also maintain the vital flow of discovery and innovation that has fed our country’s economy for centuries. 

“A long-term framework for increased investment in science and research would send a positive signal that will stimulate growth: by inspiring confidence in foreign investors, by reaping the rewards of competing in the premier league of scientific nations, and by enabling the companies, charities and universities that invest in UK science to construct their investment strategies around a secure government framework.”

Dr Mark Downs, Chief Executive of the Society of Biology said:

“For the Government’s growth agenda to work, investment in the science budget is fundamental; this is incontestable.   Nearly 30% of the nation’s GDP is attributed to the science and engineering sector, and this economic benefit comes from the development of products and processes, employment, and importantly, avoided costs. The UK has a world leading reputation for science; this can only be maintained if the Government commits to supporting the sciences long term and demonstrates this commitment through greater investment in scientific research in UK institutions and government departments.

“The science budget is much more than Government’s investment in the research base via the Research Councils, vital though that is. Research funded within, and from, all government departments is critical to the UK’s competitive future and the health and well-being of the nation. We cannot afford to let this wider research resource dwindle further in future budget settlements.”

John Hardy, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s researcher said:

“The government should ask itself, “do we want the UK to be a knowledge based economy?”.  If they want that, then they need to invest in the creation of knowledge and in higher education.  We will judge their true intentions by their actions.”

Stephen Whitehead, Chief Executive of the ABPI said:

“If the UK is to remain a global leader in science it is essential that the Government sustains investment and protects the science budget against rises in inflation. I am hugely proud of the UK’s historic role in furthering scientific discovery, but taking this for granted is the first step towards decline in face of stiff international competition.

“The life sciences industry is a key driver of economic growth in the UK and the Government has committed to supporting our work to make the UK both healthier and wealthier. But so much of what we achieve in the UK is underpinned by a strong science base which includes world class facilities and leading educational institutions. Without this strong base, the life sciences industry would struggle to tap in to the best brains and talent to develop new medicines, and many companies would therefore think twice about investing in the UK.”

Ian Blatchford, Director and Chief Executive of the Science Museum Group said:

“We welcome the Government’s commitment to science and engineering and the recognition of its importance for boosting the economy.  The Science Museum Group plays a vital role in helping to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers to drive the economy. However, for this success to be achieved, it is essential that the Government’s science policy is more joined up and that this is reflected in an ongoing commitment to funding across the scientific community.”