Last week, the UK government published its response to a report on what Brexit means for the nation鈥檚 science by the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee. That response was short on substance 鈥� another missed opportunity for the government to spell out how it intends to ensure that research thrives.
Both the House of Lords and House of Commons have now conducted huge inquiries into this, with input from hundreds of science bodies. Together, the conclusions identify the wide-ranging challenges and scant benefits associated with the UK鈥檚 impending withdrawal from the European Union.
The government has a substantial job on its hands to prevent considerable damage to UK science. The referendum result itself immediately impacted the community; overnight it produced stories of candidates from abroad turning down UK jobs, a grim mood in labs and downsizing of UK roles on multinational projects.
Advertisement
To get UK science off the back foot requires funding, guarantees, openness and an energising, outward-looking perspective.
Mixed response
November鈥檚 report by the Commons Science & Technology Committee was purposeful. It fully appreciated the need for urgent and strong action. It called for four things: immediate guarantees that EU scientists working in the UK can stay, an increase in research funding to total 3 per cent of GDP, a bold new 鈥渧ision鈥� to restore the Brexit-battered UK science brand and a chief scientific advisor within the government鈥檚 Department for Exiting the EU (DExEU).
How has the government responded three months later? In a very mixed way. On the positive side, it has clearly recognised that UK science cannot be allowed to die in a ditch. There is full acknowledgement that UK science is not only an engine for the country鈥檚 economic future, but also that it is world-leading.
The government has committed to provide an extra 拢2 billion of public research funding a year by 2020-2021 and put science at the heart of its new industrial strategy. If that money leverages private funds as expected, it would constitute science investment of around 2 per cent of GDP. Not 3 per cent as demanded by the committee, but an increase and a clear political prioritisation.
However, faced with demands for immediate protection of EU citizens working in science in the UK, the government merely waffles. UK science will haemorrhage talent during this period of inaction. University applications from EU students, for example, are abruptly down 9 per cent after years of growth.
No time to be casual
Similarly with the bold new vision of UK science on the European and global stage; there is nothing yet and the weeks and months of waiting only serve to make the UK science brand less attractive.
Finally, on the call for a chief scientific advisor, the government is also sitting on its hands, still considering the idea. This could prove unwise.
Recently, the text of its EU withdrawal bill was released. Casually tucked into the explanatory notes was a mention that the UK would also pull out of Euratom 鈥� an EU-linked 60-year-old treaty on nuclear safety and research. The science community went up in arms.
The Euratom issue had not been duly addressed in the Lords or Commons reports and the government had not published any risk assessment. Maybe a chief scientific advisor in DExEU would have caught the faux pas. The government cannot be casual at this stage; it still has a very long way to go to earn the confidence of the UK science community.
