Campaigning is a strange game for scientists. To be politically effective, the message needs to be simple and repeated again and again. That’s what those of us involved in Science is Vital have been doing for the past couple of months.
But this practice doesn’t sit well with our scientific training, which is all about delving into the details (right down to the atomic and molecular level in my case), and never saying anything without caveats, (except perhaps occasionally).
Campaigning can also be a tricky game, because it is difficult to calibrate the message.
For instance, the present situation appears grim. The Treasury is preparing to announce the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) on November 25th, which will set the course for the government budget for the term of this parliament and, as is widely known, the Chancellor has demanded spending cuts of 25–40% from all non-protected departments. This includes the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS, which oversees publicly-funded research in the UK). But does anyone seriously believe that cuts on this scale will be applied to the research budget? Such a move would be out of line with George Osborne’s proud boast to “make Britain the best place to do science and apply it”.
But how bad will it be? And what level of funding should the scientists and supporters of science be asking for? The message from insiders (relayed by some of my senior colleagues) is that the researchers should not be continually harping on at politicians about the importance of funding research. They get it, we are told. It won’t be as bad as you think, goes one version of the carefully calculated mandarin speak that I have heard reported. But what exactly does that mean?
I hope that in the current Science is Vital campaign we have largely avoided the coarser forms of political debate. We are not out to bash politicians. Our message may be simple – the UK government needs to increase public investment in R&D – but we have acknowledged the complexities of the bigger picture. We have welcomed the commitment to capital spending for the next 5 years, and the sporadic and substantial injections over the previous five that have reduced the severity of the decline of the UK research base under a flat-cash settlement. Indeed we have been pleased over the past several years to hear George Osborne – and the previous science ministers, David Willetts and Greg Clark – speak warmly of the value not just of UK scientific prowess – which remains for now among the very best in the world – but also of blue-skies research. They have given every appearance of understanding that science, in contrast to political careers, cannot easily be held to the exigences of a five-year electoral cycle. It needs steady, long-term support.
And we know too that the public finances remain in severe difficulty. Getting the deficit down will be no easy task given the state of the economy in the UK and worldwide. But between the installation of the new government, and the CSR announcement later this month, the government has gone quiet on its plans for science. Jo Johnson, the new Minister for Universities and Science has twice gone before the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, and twice only been able to make vague assurances about the government’s plans for science, bound presumably by Treasury insistence on keeping the details secret.
Frustratingly, the purdah enforced by the CSR interrupts any ongoing dialogue between politicians and the research community – except perhaps for senior figures privileged to have quiet conversations behind closed doors? Into that void pour the fears stoked by a Chancellor who, despite his oft-avowed support for science, has set ambitious – some might say aggressive – deficit reduction targets.
Researchers cannot ignore the wider political landscape in which government has to operate. But nor should we shrink from making the case that investment in the research base is a valuable and vital way to plot a path for economic recovery, and to provide the country with the technological strength, and the intellectual and cultural vitality, to face the challenges of the future.
And so the message from the Science is Vital campaign, reiterated at last week’s rally in Conway Hall, is that the UK research budget has to be increased. The UK has to be ambitious for the future. Five years of flat cash have seen public research funding in Britain eroded by around 5%. The UK is now at the bottom of the G8 league of nations in terms of the fraction of GDP devoted to public R&D – just 0.44%, compared to the G8 average of over 0.7%. We are now less research intensive than China.
Five more years of flat cash would mean further erosion, and signal to the world – and any high tech industries looking to invest in the UK (or thinking of leaving) – that we have lost our ambition to be the best place in the world to do research. In turn, as argued adroitly by Richard Jones, it would further weaken our capacity to solve the problem of stalled productivity, which has to be tackled to get the deficit under control.
And yet that instrumental argument carries other risks – triggering reservations from some quarters of academia. One respondent to our call for support claimed to speak for many scientists in warning of the dangers of the scientific community forging a “Faustian pact” with government, by promising applied or translational research in return for funding. He appealed to the organisation to speak out strongly in favour of a shift back to basic research.
Such a view is not unreasonable but the campaign has to try to push the government’s buttons in the most effective manner possible. To discount the utilitarian value of public R&D would be a foolish manouevre.
That’s not to argue that only research that can be predicted to lead to innovations and economic benefits should be funded. Such linear thinking might have seductive appeal for politicians on a short electoral leash but I think we are fortunate in the UK in having progressed the political debate to a level of sophistication where the value of funding curiosity-led research is widely-acknowledged.
Beyond this, it is also important to celebrate the achievements and the cultural significance of research that informs our understanding of what it means to be human. That much was clear from many of the messages at the Science is Vital rally in Conway Hall last week.
As scientists we are used to testing and re-testing the evidence. But that process cannot be confined to the laboratory or the library. We also need to constantly review the evidence for the value of science in our society – to check and re-tension the arguments. And an important part of that is participating in the discussion of how society values science. For some scientists that’s an uncomfortable role and tricky territory to navigate – they would rather just get on with their research. But if we are asking for public funding, we have to step up and make the argument, as powerfully and as broadly and as reasonably as we can.
To that end, can I ask you to add your message to the more than 1400 or so that have been submitted through the Science is Vital website from all around the country, urging George Osborne to make a bold plan for UK science? Tell him why you think science is vital. We want him to hold fast to his ambition to make the UK the best place in the world to do research base – and you can help by offering him your support.
@Stephen_Curry is a professor of structural biology at Imperial College, vice-chair of Science is Vital and a director of CaSE.
