September 8, 2010

expert reaction to Vince Cable’s speech on science

The business secretary gave his first major speech on science and its future funding priorities.

Unattributed comment: “This speech is signaling that BIS has lost its fight with the Treasury over science funding. Its failure stems from political weakness and departmental inexperience. The arguments are overwhelmingly strong, but they have been simply swept aside. The best proposal that BIS can now come up with – the climax of the speech – is unbelievably lame, ie ‘That we [Government, universities and business] come together, work together and plan a future together that makes the most of this country’s competitive advantages in financially difficult circumstances for the benefit of us all.’ “So, funding for the fundamental science for which the UK is famous is to be cut, though concentrated through some unspecified method – Cable seems to be unaware that all science funding is already awarded under highly competitive conditions – and what is left will be diverted into new and ‘well-funded’ yet untested Technology and Innovation Centres. This is a truly dire outcome.”

Andy Furlong, Director of Policy, Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE), said:

“We don’t want to see scientists and engineers descend into an ugly scrap over funding priorities, but the status quo is not an option. The world is confronted with many technology challenges, not least the pressing need to secure sustainable supplies of energy, water and food for a rapidly expanding population.

“Innovative process engineering is central to the quest for solutions and it’s important that spending should be directed towards these areas. The UK is well placed to secure a competitive advantage in emerging fields with attractive revenue generating potential, such as industrial biotechnology. Curiosity driven scientific research remains important and pure science has enjoyed a real boost over the last decade. But the financial crisis has changed the game and a shift of focus is needed.

“As ever, the devil is in the detail and we look forward to assisting government with the development of its plans. But for now at least the search for the Higgs Boson may have to wait.”

Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, said:

“Science is an international enterprise where the UK is strong. Other nations, including the US, are raising their expenditure at the same time as our government plans to cut ours. This will make the UK less attractive to mobile talent. And it risks sending a signal to young people that the UK is no longer a country that aspires to scientific leadership. A cut by ‘X percent’ would lead to a decline of much more than ‘X percent’ in top-grade scientific output. It is sad that this government appears willing to risk one of the few areas where the UK has a genuine competitive economic advantage — one which, when lost, could not be readily recovered. The question should not be can we afford the investment – it should be can we afford the cuts.”

Sir Paul Nurse, President-Elect of the Royal Society, said:

“We are living through tough economic times and there is pressure to cut all areas of public spending. What this government appears to be missing is the difference between investment and spending. The UK is a world leader in science but countries such as the US, France, Germany, China and India are investing heavily and will overtake us. The appliance of our science is key to future economic growth as we try to rebalance our economy. Cuts will send out a message that we are not serious about science and as a result, talent and investment will simply move to other countries.”

Prof Paddy Regan, Professor of Physics at the University of Surrey and member of the STFCs Education, Research and Training Committee, said:

“The STFCs operational budget was hammered prior to the election resulting in massive and extremely painful cuts being made to major UK nuclear, particle and astrophysics research projects. In many cases, such as the AGATA gamma-ray array, this meant the UK withdrawing from these long standing international projects. While we are all completely aware of the ‘current economic environment’ and the limitations of budget, the government needs to realise that further cuts in fundamental research budgets, added to parallel university reductions in funding could very well leave the UK as a research and technological wasteland. History tells us that while it’s very easy to cut things, starting up these projects again once things are ‘brighter’ is extremely difficult. ‘Don’t fund now, pay later’ would be a good thing to remember when difficult decisions on science core funding are being made from the public purse.”

imon Denegri, Chief Executive, Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC), said:

“Vince Cable says he wants to see greater collaboration in research. Yet the Business Secretary does not mention the role that charities and their donors play in supporting UK science, a contribution which amounted to over 1/3 of all public expenditure in medical research last year. Charities are not the third sector in medical research. They are often its leaders and catalysts both in terms of their funding and public support. Failing to recognise this will not fill the sector with confidence.”

Richard Barker, Director General of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), said:

“We are pleased to see several key aspects of Vince Cable’s thinking: a focus on globally competitive excellence, productive collaboration with industry, IP generated and kept here in the UK, and the need to keep the UK open to top-class researchers from wherever in the world they originate. The life sciences represent one of Britain’s best hopes for turning excellent research into economic growth: the newly formed Life Sciences Supercluster is a great example of this.”

Imran Khan, Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, said:

“The UK leads the world in science and engineering and yet today Dr Cable had nothing exciting or inspiring to say about government policy in this area.

“His government has yet to demonstrate that they have either the vision or plan for how to make the most of this extraordinary scientific legacy they have inherited.

“At a time when politicians should be looking to science and engineering to help rebalance the economy, they are instead focusing on erecting barriers to scientific collaboration, and damaging our reputation as a global research hub by cutting investment – just as our competitors are increasing theirs.”

Dr Richard Horton, Editor, The Lancet, said:

“The scale of the UK’s public investment in science and its universities is what makes Britain punch well above its technological, economic, and political weight in global affairs. Any contraction in the UK’s science and higher education budgets will signal a narrowing of this country’s vision for its role in the world, a withdrawal from its current international leadership role in science. Our universities are second only to the US in terms of their contribution to knowledge creation and innovation. A reduction in the government’s investment in science will damage our ability to shape our national and international futures. It would be a cut too far.”