June 29, 2016

expert reaction to brexit and what it means for uk science

Experts give their reaction to what impact the UK’s decision to leave the European Union will have on UK science.

Prof Guy Goodwin, President of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, said:

“The referendum result came as a surprise. It followed a campaign of stunning awfulness by both sides. It remains unclear currently what will happen.

“However, I feel obliged to explain and not complain. Euroscepticism cuts across the conventional political battle lines in this country. It is focused on how one views the Brussels bureaucracy and the main difference between the two ‘sides’ is between those who would like to see reform from within and those who see a better chance of reform from stepping out. It was not a vote for ‘leaving Europe’.

“I regret that the result provides a distorting mirror from which commentators from across Europe can reflect their own essentially local conclusions. So, I have seen it portrayed as either a crime against humanity or a great victory, and many things in between. As a matter of fact, the majority of a very high turnout who voted to leave gave sovereignty as the major reason, and that concern is legitimate. Anyway, to speak personally, it was the only issue on which I agonised in deciding which way to vote.

“The academic community had a strong self-interest to vote to stay in the current arrangements and did so by an overwhelming majority. So you will not meet many of my colleagues who voted to ‘leave’. Clearly, participation in networks for research in Europe, notwithstanding world-class levels of bureaucracy, is a positive for UK biomedical science. We have been much the richer for it. Academic work is universal and internationalist by its nature, so support for science by the EU has been very good for us. It really would be a disaster for both sides if ways are not found to continue to collaborate in the future.

“I know that I speak for all my colleagues here in the UK in saying that our enthusiasm for a working co-operation with friends at the European level is undimmed, and unaffected by whatever institutional changes ensue after Brexit. Since ECNP already has a broader definition of Europe than the EU, perhaps it can go on facilitating how such co-operation can happen. I certainly hope so.”

Prof. Maggie Dallman, Associate Provost, Imperial College London, said:

“I am saddened by the referendum result. The scientific community is especially dismayed by reports of attacks and abuse directed towards Europeans and other migrants. These are our friends and community, and such actions cannot be condoned.

“We should be clear that these tensions are not arising within the UK scientific community. We may be fiercely competitive but we are also hugely tolerant of divergent views – that is what science is all about. We are an international community tackling problems that affect the whole world, we will continue to think and act in this way and we must keep an open door for European and international colleagues – as we hope they will for us.

“The biggest risk to our science right now is uncertainty and misperception about studying and working in the UK. Whilst it will be challenging, we are confident that we can manage the funding questions that will arise over the coming years. We must keep shouting that UK science is open for business and help the government ensure that this remains the case.

The UK is a wonderful, outward looking and resilient place for science, discovery and innovation. We can’t and won’t let that change.”

Prof. Des Tobin, Professor of Cell Biology and Centre for Skin Sciences Director, University of Bradford, said:

“Now that my initials feelings of shock, which quickly turned to despondency, have moved on to feelings of keen concern, I have become a news-junkie for what the hell may happen next. As an Irish citizen directing a skin sciences research centre in a British University that is peopled with researchers from more than 10 distinct nations, I  have started to imagine (as we hopelessly fumble about in a mirage-filled desert bereft of any reliable information) the potential costs of this split decision.

“Short of the England/Wales being towed out into the mid-Atlantic (as some kind of 51st Trump-land state), Britain will of course continue to be a European country. But I fear that this Wal-Eng decision risks rendering the UK a ‘busted flush’ to use poker parlance. How will we go about putting Humpty Dumpty back together again is anyone’s guess? In an increasingly insecure world,  it seems so bizarre to me that some folk would have voted to ‘go native’ in this way and at this time.

One bright spot however, in this otherwise confusing situation: it has been wonderful it is to see how the vast majority of academic colleagues appear to be of a similar view on this – really quite something given the herculean challenge is usually is to get academics to agree on anything at the same time.”

Prof. John Hardy FMedSci, Professor of Neuroscience, UCL, said:

“It is clear that Brexit leaders had absolutely no plan. Our political leaders (apart from Sturgeon) have shown a complete abdication of responsibility. The effects on research and universities will be catastrophic. I have already been sounded out for positions in Germany and the US.  Farage’s speech has been noted across the world with astonishment and disbelief and could not have been better calculated to ensure any easy divorce will not be possible.

“We need to go back to the EU, say sorry, and ask to stay. We need a government of national unity stretching from the moderate conservatives through the libdems and greens to labour and the SNP. Our political class deserves a wholesale cull.”

Prof. Vincent Gaffney, Anniversary Chair in Landscape Archaeology, University of Bradford, said:

“First of all I think we should be clear that British Research is massively successful and operates globally. I myself have attracted significant European grants, moneys from America, from corporate groups and defence agencies.  However, the nature of modern research is that we require global collaborative groups and networks  in order to maintain our position but also to provide the context to attract the best and to undertake the best work – and also to support mobility for British researchers to expand their work experience and therefore capacity . I personally work with groups from America to China and currently EU funding underpins that work. One of my closest collaborator is a Malaysian Chinese academic who moved to Britain-  and I attended his naturalisation ceremony in Birmingham. He now works in China and we collaborate on an EU advanced grant.

“Science isn’t just “doing stuff and we should be clear that EU funding doesn’t just provide money to “do stuff” – what it does is to provide “a cradle to grave” path for research in a manner difficult to achieve at a national level   It  provides linkage at a European levels and also beyond Europe – with a variety of a associations and formal relationships – fundamentally these are opportunities to create collaborative groupings ad networks which are the precursor activities to fundamental research activities. EU money, through for instance ERDF funding , also provides funding for wider public engagement with SMEs and other related group. EU funding is therefore critical to the whole process of research – from inception to implementation and consequently wealth creation.  From global activity to getting practical at a local level – how long would it take to replace this whole process

“At a basic level the EU income is important and withdrawal is pretty much the equivalent of removing an entire research council (research costs 2.6 and 0.18 billion pounds in 2014-15 for the 7 research councils and 4 funding councils – which theoretically could be backfilled from the 10 billion recovered through EU membership costs.  That list of demands is getting greater following the promises of politicians to the NHS.

“Even if that were true it would still not necessarily replace the opportunity costs of not being part of collaborative networks the value of which is difficult to quantify – in the short term will British participants be a risk for other European collaborators

“People and mobility of course is a similar thing. Funding mobility is key to creating networks but the loss of EU infrastructure may simply make the UK unattractive – would peop0le WANT to work here – a plentiful supply of rain and warm beer may not be enough! Of course we cannot say definitively that a future graphene will not be solved by future emigres (Andrei Geim and Kostya Novoselov)  but the danger of not appearing to be integrated or welcoming to the best of researchers should be fairly clear and the withdrawal from EU brings the danger of isolationism – and that rarely makes for innovative thinking or  behaviours

In terms of value- we receive about £730 million PA for research across all types of organisation and 7 billion euros – perhaps 15% of BIS research spend and 16% of  University research income (500 million pounds) – but the loss of infrastructure costs may be less easy to quantify and more insidious as time goes by.”

Prof. Peter Openshaw, President of the British Society for Immunology, said:

“Immunology shares with other branches of science an in-built internationalism that must continue to thrive, whatever the political climate. UK scientists and institutions have always been at the forefront of immunology; we are living through exciting times, with many treatments for previously incurable diseases emerging after decades of hard investment and collaboration in immunological research.  In a changing landscape, we must continue to celebrate and support our internationalism, not limiting ourselves to Europe but reaching out worldwide.

“Those of us who work in the discipline are aware that the UK’s best labs are staffed by a rich mix of talented scientists from around the world. In turn, UK scientists have great opportunities to work in, and learn from, the best labs overseas. We must do all we can to ensure that these collaborations remain and grow; all these gifted colleagues must continue to feel welcome in our laboratories and UK scientists must be free to go wherever they need to do great work. Our scientists must continue to participate in global teams, many of which have taken years to build, and contribute to vitally important research that will positively impact millions of lives.

“The British Society for Immunology’s recent report on the internationalism of immunology makes a number of recommendations that will enable immunology to flourish.  We urge both UK and EU ministers, policy makers and funders to look at these proposals and consider how they can best work with us to build on our proud heritage in this new political environment.

“Immunology is a global science. The British Society for Immunology will continue to work with funders and decision makers to ensure that these enormously valuable international collaborations continue to shape the future of bioscience and medicine.”

 Prof. Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, Professor in Cognitive Neuroscience, UCL, said:

“Brexit will be disastrous, and possible catastrophic, to scientific research in the UK.

“The UK is currently extremely competitive in terms of scientific research. We risk losing our international prowess in research and innovation by breaking away from the EU.

“Around 10% of research funding in the UK comes directly from the EU. This is a very substantial amount of research money and it funds all sorts of research, including medical research into cancer, diabetes and mental illness, for example. This research won’t go ahead if the funding is not available. The same applies to engineering, research into new technologies and other areas that directly feed into the economy.

“Science is truly an international endeavour, and very large numbers of UK scientists are EU nationals. Because of the strong international reputation the UK has in scientific research and training, we are often able to select the best scientists from abroad, and UK research benefits enormously from their scientific skills.

“Currently PhD fees in EU countries are much reduced for EU students compared with non-EU students. If this changes, it will be a disaster. Over half the PhD students I have supervised in my lab, and over half of the PhD students on a highly competitive PhD programme that I co-direct, are from the EU. Losing this source of brilliant students will negatively impact on UK science.

“Science and technology is the bedrock on which our economy is built, and alongside the analysis that predicts negative outcomes for our leaving the EU, the scientific community is unified in fearing a profoundly negative impact on research.

“There is a serious risk of brain drain following Brexit. In the past five days, three senior British scientists have told me they are now actively looking for jobs abroad as a consequence of Brexit. They are the cream of the crop and won’t have a problem finding jobs abroad. Of course there will be more and more like them. We risk losing some of our best scientists.

“It’s hard to see a single positive outcome of Brexit for UK science.”

Prof Sir John Burn FMedSci, Professor of Clinical Genetics, University of Newcastle, said:

“There’s a general advice to young chess players not to advance their queen as it might help you win but you might also lose your best piece.  The referendum has instructed the government to make this move, whether bold or foolhardy only time will tell.  Short term we need to protect our science base.  Newcastle University has almost 600 EU staff members who need to be reassured.  We need to be told its OK to go on hiring across Europe.  Our current investment in the European research resource needs to be confirmed so that our academic teams can continue to benefit from EU grants where we bring home more than we send.

“I voted Remain but members of my close circle of friends and family voted to leave.  I understand their decision and love them just the same.  But they now have a special duty along with most of the other 17 million “leavers” to protect our diverse citizens who feel threatened and in some cases are being threatened by the destructive underbelly that exists in all societies.

“In the longer term there will be some potential benefits in regulatory terms.  British attitudes to areas such as stem cell research and diagnostic genetics, especially prenatal diagnosis, diverge from those prevalent in much of Europe for historic and cultural reasons.  I hope more liberal attitudes will encourage our pharmaceutical companies to expand their UK base.  The new NHS Digital has begun to link the records of 60 million people while the National Institute of Health Research has delivered major gains in connecting patients, and the broader NHS, with researchers. We can be the “go to” place for translational research in the decades to come.”

Dr Ruth McKernan, Chief Executive of Innovate UK, said:

“This is not just about science but also about Innovation and the translation of science into business. The UK also ranks first in the SME instrument within H2020. When it comes to productivity and economic growth in the UK, science is our seedcorn and the funding that goes to SMEs and the support that goes to partnership between science and businesses is our sprouting seedcorn. The impact of reduced translational and innovation funding is likely to be seen sooner. I feel that the link between science and business – needs to be made – several of the RUKs have Innovation and productivity as part of their agenda’s with us.”

Declared interests

We have made a decisions not to ask for COIs on this story as almost everyone quoted gets some form of benefit from EU.