Mike Galsworthy, Author at ��è��Ƶ

These are the three biggest obstacles for a Brexit science deal

Mike Galsworthy — Wed, 13 Sep 2017 10:15:42 +0000

The government says it wants to preserve EU science ties in a Brexit settlement but fails to acknowledge the major stumbling blocks ahead, says Mike Galsworthy

As Brexit looms, a soundbite strategy for UK science won’t do

Mike Galsworthy — Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:07:15 +0000

The government is still failing to offer detail on how it will counter the many risks to UK science posed by quitting the EU, says campaigner Mike Galsworthy

Angry scientists must fight to pick up the pieces after Brexit

Mike Galsworthy — Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:46:12 +0000

Michael Gove: man without a plan?

Andrew Parsons/Rex/Shutterstock

Earlier this month, I wrote on this site that a vote for Brexit would do terrible damage to UK science (see “In a world of cross-border cooperation, Brexit will harm the UK“). Now it has happened, I haven’t changed my mind. If anything, I am very frustrated at this turn of events.

There are some who say that Prime Minister David Cameron should never have called the referendum. I disagree. With so few in the UK understanding how the EU worked, it was time to put the issue on the table and have an informed debate.

Unfortunately, what we saw was misinformed debate, long on personalities and hyperbole and short on insightful information. Where were the expert-led public debates on issues such as science, technology, farming, fishing, defence and universities?

Science is the future of the UK’s economy and an unequivocal success story of the EU. All the issues of the referendum debate – immigration, democracy, sovereignty, money – could have been discussed through practical examples like science.

We tried

As programme director for the campaign group , I can assure you that we constantly tried to put science on the agenda. We wrote letters and articles, explaining the added value of teamwork across shared policy development, infrastructure, pooled funding and freedom of movement. These have all lowered barriers to scientific progress, empowering UK researchers and bringing huge value to the country.

However, there appeared to be widespread mistrust of analysis brought to the debate. Repeated warnings from universities, economic bodies, health professionals and scientists were dismissed and widely disbelieved.

I do believe the official Remain campaign made mistakes. It used up all of its oxygen on at the expense of giving visibility to the myriad pro-EU grassroots campaigns at its disposal. However, Remain’s basic pronouncement was correct. And I believe it was right to relay solid, independent expert opinions on the consequences of Brexit. It was uninspirational, but it was true.

The country has now been hauled into a no-man’s land without a plan. The result ejects the UK from its driving seat on the EU’s colossal science engine and leaves its relationship with the science programme in limbo. If anything is certain, it is that this uncertainty will have a negative impact on investment, hiring and probably on the inclusion of UK scientists in research consortia that are currently shaping up.

Throughout, the science community was overwhelmingly for Remain. . Many scientists in the UK, myself included, are distraught and angry at the result. But we must get over our disbelief and fight to pick up the pieces.

In a world of cross-border cooperation, Brexit will harm the UK

Mike Galsworthy — Wed, 01 Jun 2016 12:00:00 +0000

THE EU is the world’s science superpower and the UK is in the driving seat. The union of 28 nations produces a – 34 per cent more than the US. That gap has widened by 4 per cent over the past six years. Collectively, Europe . The EU is the glue that has networked European countries into a powerful hub with global reach. A common budget, common policies and freedom of movement harness an economy of scale to lower barriers, unleash academic freedom and return huge added value. EU researchers form a talent pool from which universities and small businesses can hire without visa hurdles. Its science programmes are growing rapidly, facilitating multinational research between . On policy, EU members collaborate to design science programmes, common academic standards and the innovation standards of the single market. All of these magnify British science. Whether it’s UK technical standards becoming EU standards then global standards thanks to the single market’s size, or the fact that international collaborations have 50 per cent more impact than domestic research, it’s all about increased value through team play. The overwhelming majority of UK researchers and engineers – 93 per cent in a – regard the EU as a “major benefit” to UK research. It’s less about the money, which “only” and about 5 per cent of the total UK research landscape. It’s more that cross-border policies and funding cannot be replaced at national levels. The EU is the glue between European institutions catalysing our multinational capacity. Brexiteers regularly argue that the UK could buy back into the EU science programme from outside, citing examples of small non-EU countries. Their presumptions show little understanding of the balance of interests for the remaining EU members. Yes, the UK would get some access, most probably partial access like Switzerland has. However, full associated status is most likely to be dependent upon retaining a freedom of movement agreement and also some net financial contribution. Even then, there’s no guarantee and the UK would have given up its policy voice. Some might muse that issues of science are trivial relative to the issues of “democracy” or “sovereignty” proclaimed with zeal from some quarters. To quote the English novelist John Galsworthy: Those that work in science policy see the EU’s democratic processes working well for science and the UK’s leading voice in decision-making. EU science works. That’s why every UK minister for universities and science for the last 25 years has warned against leaving, and there isn’t one UK university vice chancellor that supports Brexit.

For another point of view, read “Vote Brexit and British science will still be a powerhouse”

… and find out more about the science of Brexit

This article appeared in print under the headline “Brexit, or not? The UK should stay”

Quit the EU and risk harming the UK’s world-leading research

Mike Galsworthy — Wed, 04 Nov 2015 15:45:00 +0000

The battle over the UK’s membership of the European Union is stepping up a gear. Prime minister David Cameron is about to spell out EU reforms that he regards as crucial if the UK is to remain part of it. Campaigners on both sides have already swung into action ahead of an in-out referendum that could happen next year.

Where does science sit in this melee? So far, the science community has strongly aligned itself with the “in” camp, arguing that UK research will suffer if the country is outside the EU. The grass-roots group I am part of, , has thousands of Facebook followers and a cross-party of leading academics.

In July, the umbrella body Universities UK to stay in the EU. The past, present and incoming presidents of the Royal Society have all for the benefits of membership.

Why is this such an important issue for science? And why should voters care? Investment here in research and innovation, through national and EU funding streams, and high-value jobs, while tackling key social challenges involved in healthcare, sustainability, energy and the environment.

Those campaigning for a British exit – or Brexit – say that leaving would allow some of the UK’s contribution to the EU budget to be invested in research in the country.

The problem is that much research now involves collaboration with our EU partners, and this would be harmed. The UK’s increasingly networked nature has driven it to . More than , compared with 33 per cent in the US. And papers authored by international teams have a much greater impact than those with only domestic authors.

Working together

Collaboration is what EU science budgets support. The that the UK receives from the EU is . A British lab can partner with German, Dutch and Czech counterparts, and apply for a single grant for the team.

The UK is now the largest player in these budgets, shaping policy and despite comprising just 12 per cent of the EU’s population. Non-EU states can of the EU science programme, but the UK negotiating a leading role from outside is unlikely.

However, the biggest danger to science from an “out” vote is the likelihood that would follow. Not only would these disqualify the country from large parts of the EU science programme, because full participation requires freedom of movement, but many talented EU scientists in the UK would respond by simply to seek work elsewhere. That would be a real loss to UK science.

(Image credit: Toby Melville/Reuters)

Mike Galsworthy, Author at ��è����Ƶ