This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/17/science-engineering-research-funding-threat-campaign
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Scientific prizes don’t come without public money | Scientific prizes don’t come without public money |
| (7 months later) | |
| There’s a hair care advert that says “There’s more to life than hair… but it’s a good place to start.” I have been pondering the science equivalent in recent weeks. There surely is more to life than science. But, my goodness, it’s a good place to start. This very week, in 1986, British scientists were so worried about the fate of science in this country that they placed a full page ad in the Times calling on the public to “ask your Member of Parliament to help save British science before it is too late”. The advert was paid for by contributions from 1,500 scientists across the country, long before the notion of crowdsourcing. This extraordinary uprising was prompted by a dire situation. The advert spoke of “science in crisis”, “opportunities missed”, “scientists emigrate”, “whole areas of research in jeopardy”. In a time of swingeing cuts to universities and a falling science budget, scientists felt they needed a voice to stand up for science in parliament. The pressure group Save British Science was founded, later renamed the Campaign for Science and Engineering, and we have strived to provide that voice ever since. So was science saved? Does it still need saving? | There’s a hair care advert that says “There’s more to life than hair… but it’s a good place to start.” I have been pondering the science equivalent in recent weeks. There surely is more to life than science. But, my goodness, it’s a good place to start. This very week, in 1986, British scientists were so worried about the fate of science in this country that they placed a full page ad in the Times calling on the public to “ask your Member of Parliament to help save British science before it is too late”. The advert was paid for by contributions from 1,500 scientists across the country, long before the notion of crowdsourcing. This extraordinary uprising was prompted by a dire situation. The advert spoke of “science in crisis”, “opportunities missed”, “scientists emigrate”, “whole areas of research in jeopardy”. In a time of swingeing cuts to universities and a falling science budget, scientists felt they needed a voice to stand up for science in parliament. The pressure group Save British Science was founded, later renamed the Campaign for Science and Engineering, and we have strived to provide that voice ever since. So was science saved? Does it still need saving? |
| In some ways, UK science and engineering are in rude health; a spacewalking British astronaut, another Nobel prize in chemistry, scientists on primetime TV. But while the remarkable achievements of a few capture our imaginations, there is a quiet army of many thousands throughout the UK searching, investigating, inventing for our futures. It is these people who rely on the government, whether they’re forecasting rainfall in developing countries at the Met Office or pipetting invisible pellets of HIV in a university Category 3 containment laboratory. The government funds research through all manner of bodies and departments, across all imaginable disciplines. More money, more experiments, in short. | In some ways, UK science and engineering are in rude health; a spacewalking British astronaut, another Nobel prize in chemistry, scientists on primetime TV. But while the remarkable achievements of a few capture our imaginations, there is a quiet army of many thousands throughout the UK searching, investigating, inventing for our futures. It is these people who rely on the government, whether they’re forecasting rainfall in developing countries at the Met Office or pipetting invisible pellets of HIV in a university Category 3 containment laboratory. The government funds research through all manner of bodies and departments, across all imaginable disciplines. More money, more experiments, in short. |
| Although the government’s science budget fell in the 1980s, it rallied through the 1990s and early 2000s. In recent years, science has been loudly championed by the chancellor and the science budget has been afforded relative protection during a long and deep recession. But science and engineering are not just funded by the “science budget”, but by research budgets across all government departments – defence, energy, climate change or health – and here they have been hit hard. In fact, total government spend on science, engineering and technology is now almost as low as it was in 1986. | Although the government’s science budget fell in the 1980s, it rallied through the 1990s and early 2000s. In recent years, science has been loudly championed by the chancellor and the science budget has been afforded relative protection during a long and deep recession. But science and engineering are not just funded by the “science budget”, but by research budgets across all government departments – defence, energy, climate change or health – and here they have been hit hard. In fact, total government spend on science, engineering and technology is now almost as low as it was in 1986. |
| I can sympathise with the difficult job of making large budget reductions, and I can see why cutting a research budget is tempting. Will anyone notice? But research solves expensive problems, finds smarter ways of doing things, actually creates money and reaps rewards for us all. And when areas of science are cut, it takes a very long time to recover. From nuclear R&D to semiconductor chips, to plant breeding and food security, the UK has lost its edge when government has cut funding, even for a short time. | I can sympathise with the difficult job of making large budget reductions, and I can see why cutting a research budget is tempting. Will anyone notice? But research solves expensive problems, finds smarter ways of doing things, actually creates money and reaps rewards for us all. And when areas of science are cut, it takes a very long time to recover. From nuclear R&D to semiconductor chips, to plant breeding and food security, the UK has lost its edge when government has cut funding, even for a short time. |
| Science and engineering are long-term endeavours. The Rosetta mission was 20 years in the planning. The capability of the UK to send expert virology teams to Sierra Leone in the Ebola outbreak was the result of decades of world-leading virology expertise, not a happy coincidence. | Science and engineering are long-term endeavours. The Rosetta mission was 20 years in the planning. The capability of the UK to send expert virology teams to Sierra Leone in the Ebola outbreak was the result of decades of world-leading virology expertise, not a happy coincidence. |
| But what do we want out of the science and technology sector? What can we expect from it? I think of problems that bother me: from health issues big and small, to opportunities for young people, to connecting with my family and loved ones. Science will play a role in addressing all of these in future. It already has.And the grander challenges that we face together can truly be addressed when science and engineering are used in combination with the myriad skills of people across all sectors and disciplines. | But what do we want out of the science and technology sector? What can we expect from it? I think of problems that bother me: from health issues big and small, to opportunities for young people, to connecting with my family and loved ones. Science will play a role in addressing all of these in future. It already has.And the grander challenges that we face together can truly be addressed when science and engineering are used in combination with the myriad skills of people across all sectors and disciplines. |
| In 30 years time, science and engineering will be integral to shaping what life is like across the world. I wonder if the UK will be a creator of new knowledge and solutions to the world’s problems or a follower waiting for other countries to lead the way? The answer lies not just with scientists and MPs, but all of us. We could ask our MPs to save British science, but we could also champion science ourselves. An encouraging word to a child, a question seeking evidence, a choice of study or career, a celebration of success. Could you stand up for British science? | In 30 years time, science and engineering will be integral to shaping what life is like across the world. I wonder if the UK will be a creator of new knowledge and solutions to the world’s problems or a follower waiting for other countries to lead the way? The answer lies not just with scientists and MPs, but all of us. We could ask our MPs to save British science, but we could also champion science ourselves. An encouraging word to a child, a question seeking evidence, a choice of study or career, a celebration of success. Could you stand up for British science? |
| Sarah Main is director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering | Sarah Main is director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering |