With the recent publication of the Government’s science budget, scientists have felt the full force of a Whitehall head-but. ‘Big physics’ received an especially brutal hit, with public funds for new research grants cut by 25%, and renowned facilities, such as the Jodrell Bank telescopes, facing closure.
Despite recent setbacks, I am proud of our world-class scientists. I could almost be optimistic about the future. Sadly, it seems that ministerial meddling, creeping centralisation and poorly allocated budgets are putting the independent direction of science at risk.
As Parliament’s science committee has found, the Government exerted significant influence on spending decisions in the 2007 science budget, and tied funds to research initiatives that followed a Government agenda. This is not an isolated problem. In 1997, just 2% of the science budget was controlled centrally, with the remainder handled by research councils. Today, over 20% is controlled from Whitehall. This stranglehold over science funding raises questions about ministers’ commitment to the Haldane Principle, which asserts that detailed spending decisions rest with scientists rather than politicians. It also means that the Government cannot escape responsibility for the cuts.
Ministers set research council budgets, and they forced the Science and Technology Facilities Council to enter its first full year of operations with an £80 million shortfall, despite warnings about the impact of a ‘flat cash’ settlement. This was either a deliberate decision by the science minister to undercut the research council, or an unforeseen oversight in his department which he could not control. Whichever is closest to the truth, science will suffer. That’s why I have called on the Government to extend the terms of its ‘health of physics’ review to include a thorough assessment of the discipline within the current spending round.
Beyond then, we must also think more creatively about how we can improve science funding without stifling scientists’ freedom any further. When science holds the key to solving many of our problems – in areas like health, energy, transport and global warming – I would certainly welcome more investment. Whilst the state science budget remains the backbone of that investment, I also want to see more money flowing into science from a wider range of sources. That’s why ministers must understand the risks of too much state control. A top-down science policy risks crowding out investment from private and charitable sources which have a long and successful history of supporting research. Private sector R&D in the UK is already below the OECD average, and government has a responsibility to remove the obstacles which prevent this improving. That could mean encouraging deeper collaboration between charities and universities, and expanding the reach and efficiency of the R&D tax credit.
But there are other groups willing and able to support scientific research. Private investment is not just the preserve of a handful of wealthy benefactors, as many charities will testify. There is plenty of goodwill across the country to support more investment in science – from families with children learning about space for the first time, to friends and relatives of cancer or Parkinson’s sufferers who feel motivated to donate money to their respective causes. Not only can these voluntary contributions complement a growing science budget, but a thriving charitable culture could be a sign of a society that understands the importance of science.
Public support for science and innovation is an economic necessity. With a little more care from ministers, I am optimistic about the benefits it can bring.
By unlocking the potential for private, personal and voluntary contributions, we can also begin to roll back the tendency towards central control and encourage more money to flow to researchers on the front line. And I look forward to developing these ideas with my colleagues.
