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/education/2016/jul/16/research-funding-hit-by-brexit-vote
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Cancer, sea life, mental health: the UK research that will be hit by Brexit | Cancer, sea life, mental health: the UK research that will be hit by Brexit |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Within a day of the announcement of Britain’s decision to quit the EU, Prof Dame Til Wykes was contacted by a leading candidate for a professorship in her department at King’s College London. The candidate no longer wished to be considered for the post, she was told. Three days later, a similar message was received from a second candidate. One of the most important centres for the study of mental illness in the world had suddenly lost its allure, it seemed. It was not hard to work out what was the problem. | Within a day of the announcement of Britain’s decision to quit the EU, Prof Dame Til Wykes was contacted by a leading candidate for a professorship in her department at King’s College London. The candidate no longer wished to be considered for the post, she was told. Three days later, a similar message was received from a second candidate. One of the most important centres for the study of mental illness in the world had suddenly lost its allure, it seemed. It was not hard to work out what was the problem. |
| “It is pretty straightforward,” says Wykes. “If Brexit goes ahead, then scientists here might not be able to attract European Union research grants in future. And if you are coming here to take up a professorship for the next 10 years of your life, the prospect of losing a major source of grant money in the process looks a pretty poor bet. Frankfurt or Paris suddenly look much better shots.” | “It is pretty straightforward,” says Wykes. “If Brexit goes ahead, then scientists here might not be able to attract European Union research grants in future. And if you are coming here to take up a professorship for the next 10 years of your life, the prospect of losing a major source of grant money in the process looks a pretty poor bet. Frankfurt or Paris suddenly look much better shots.” |
| Related: Science chief calls for action on research funds post-Brexit | |
| The problem is not unique to King’s College. The threat of withdrawal from the EU is already causing scientific tremors across the UK. Candidates are quitting, collaborations are being questioned and the future funding structure of UK science scrutinised as never before. Many believe that the EU research gravy train – from which UK scientists have benefited deeply in recent years – may soon grind to a halt, with grievous consequences. The issues are not straightforward, however, as Royal Society president Venkatraman “Venki” Ramakrishnan makes clear. | The problem is not unique to King’s College. The threat of withdrawal from the EU is already causing scientific tremors across the UK. Candidates are quitting, collaborations are being questioned and the future funding structure of UK science scrutinised as never before. Many believe that the EU research gravy train – from which UK scientists have benefited deeply in recent years – may soon grind to a halt, with grievous consequences. The issues are not straightforward, however, as Royal Society president Venkatraman “Venki” Ramakrishnan makes clear. |
| “Yes, we put money into the EU and we get money back for various programmes,” he says. “And in terms of science projects we get more proportionally than we put into the EU in general. But a Brexiter would still argue that the UK puts in more money in total to the EU than it gets back. | “Yes, we put money into the EU and we get money back for various programmes,” he says. “And in terms of science projects we get more proportionally than we put into the EU in general. But a Brexiter would still argue that the UK puts in more money in total to the EU than it gets back. |
| “It is a point, but it ignores many key facts. For example, when science funding in Britain was flat – and declining in real terms – during the first years of the coalition government, it was EU funding that allowed us to stay competitive. It paid about 10% of our overall university research funding and kept us afloat.” | “It is a point, but it ignores many key facts. For example, when science funding in Britain was flat – and declining in real terms – during the first years of the coalition government, it was EU funding that allowed us to stay competitive. It paid about 10% of our overall university research funding and kept us afloat.” |
| Scientifically, the EU saved the day, but that funding is now threatened, with potentially grim consequences for UK science. Between 2007 and 2013, Britain contributed €5.4bn to the EU’s research funds – and got €8.8bn back. Our researchers have punched way above their weight, it is now clear, and used European money to fund work that covers cancer projects, mental health research, marine biology, improving fertiliser use on farms and a host of other projects that sustain our industries and keep them competitive. Such projects are now threatened – a prospect that the majority of British people were either ignorant of, or thought was unimportant, when they voted to leave Europe. | Scientifically, the EU saved the day, but that funding is now threatened, with potentially grim consequences for UK science. Between 2007 and 2013, Britain contributed €5.4bn to the EU’s research funds – and got €8.8bn back. Our researchers have punched way above their weight, it is now clear, and used European money to fund work that covers cancer projects, mental health research, marine biology, improving fertiliser use on farms and a host of other projects that sustain our industries and keep them competitive. Such projects are now threatened – a prospect that the majority of British people were either ignorant of, or thought was unimportant, when they voted to leave Europe. |
| A rough rule-of-thumb calculation suggests that an extra £500m a year will now have to be found by the government to compensate our researchers for their loss of EU funding. Many Brexiters insisted, before the referendum, that this would be forthcoming. Few senior scientists believe it will be the case. | A rough rule-of-thumb calculation suggests that an extra £500m a year will now have to be found by the government to compensate our researchers for their loss of EU funding. Many Brexiters insisted, before the referendum, that this would be forthcoming. Few senior scientists believe it will be the case. |
| “I am very sceptical that the government will compensate for those lost funds,” says Professor Mark Sutton of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, near Edinburgh, and a leader of a EU Horizon 2020 project on nitrogen and phosphorus pollution on farmland. “More to the point, most of my colleagues don’t think it will happen either.” | “I am very sceptical that the government will compensate for those lost funds,” says Professor Mark Sutton of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, near Edinburgh, and a leader of a EU Horizon 2020 project on nitrogen and phosphorus pollution on farmland. “More to the point, most of my colleagues don’t think it will happen either.” |
| Neither, for good measure, does the newly reappointed science minister Jo Johnson. He told a House of Lords committee in March it would be rash to pretend it would be easy to replace the financial support the EU provides to UK science in the event of Brexit. “We would not know what other claims there might be on the public purse, or what state our economy would be in,” he said. | Neither, for good measure, does the newly reappointed science minister Jo Johnson. He told a House of Lords committee in March it would be rash to pretend it would be easy to replace the financial support the EU provides to UK science in the event of Brexit. “We would not know what other claims there might be on the public purse, or what state our economy would be in,” he said. |
| Loss of funding seems inevitable, a “worrisome” development, as Ramakrishnan describes it. “Unfortunately, there are even more worrying things in the pipeline,” he says. Consider the networks and contacts that the UK has established with our European counterparts over the decades. Science is a highly collaborative process and thrives on interactions. These could easily evaporate if Britain is no longer involved in EU research projects as a full partner. | Loss of funding seems inevitable, a “worrisome” development, as Ramakrishnan describes it. “Unfortunately, there are even more worrying things in the pipeline,” he says. Consider the networks and contacts that the UK has established with our European counterparts over the decades. Science is a highly collaborative process and thrives on interactions. These could easily evaporate if Britain is no longer involved in EU research projects as a full partner. |
| “For a start, we learn a great deal from these interactions,” says cancer expert Professor Mark Lawler, of Queen’s University Belfast. “Take the example of early cancer diagnosis. That is something that the UK has been poor at in the past. However, with recent collaborations, particularly with Denmark, we have been learning how to improve them. Now this process is threatened. | “For a start, we learn a great deal from these interactions,” says cancer expert Professor Mark Lawler, of Queen’s University Belfast. “Take the example of early cancer diagnosis. That is something that the UK has been poor at in the past. However, with recent collaborations, particularly with Denmark, we have been learning how to improve them. Now this process is threatened. |
| “In addition, there is our ability to direct science policy and projects. We have been closely involved at the very beginning of major projects – such as those emanating from the EU’s vast Horizon 2020 research programme. We have played a key leadership role in setting them up, selecting personnel and establishing the direction of research.” | “In addition, there is our ability to direct science policy and projects. We have been closely involved at the very beginning of major projects – such as those emanating from the EU’s vast Horizon 2020 research programme. We have played a key leadership role in setting them up, selecting personnel and establishing the direction of research.” |
| An example is provided by research in precision medicine, which uses the recently acquired ability to study individual variability in genes, environment and lifestyle to create new medicines and treatments for cancer patients. A European precision medicine programme is now being set up – initially with the UK playing a key role. “It remains to be seen what our role will be now,” adds Lawler. | An example is provided by research in precision medicine, which uses the recently acquired ability to study individual variability in genes, environment and lifestyle to create new medicines and treatments for cancer patients. A European precision medicine programme is now being set up – initially with the UK playing a key role. “It remains to be seen what our role will be now,” adds Lawler. |
| A similar concern is voiced by marine biologist Claire Gachon, who is based at the Scottish Marine Institute in Oban and has collaborated on major EU research projects that are concerned with ensuring the health of our seas. “Most EU research programmes are designed in Brussels according to suggestions made by member countries as to what research areas should be funded,” she says. | A similar concern is voiced by marine biologist Claire Gachon, who is based at the Scottish Marine Institute in Oban and has collaborated on major EU research projects that are concerned with ensuring the health of our seas. “Most EU research programmes are designed in Brussels according to suggestions made by member countries as to what research areas should be funded,” she says. |
| “From now on – while uncertainty remains following the Brexit vote – it is hard to see how the UK’s interests can be represented in the design of new calls. In other words, other EU countries are likely to gear future funding opportunities towards their own priorities. It is extremely hard to see how the UK’s leadership could be retained in such a context.” In other words, bang goes Britain’s ability to lead European science. | “From now on – while uncertainty remains following the Brexit vote – it is hard to see how the UK’s interests can be represented in the design of new calls. In other words, other EU countries are likely to gear future funding opportunities towards their own priorities. It is extremely hard to see how the UK’s leadership could be retained in such a context.” In other words, bang goes Britain’s ability to lead European science. |
| However, scientists stress that all is not lost. Brexit negotiations could still see Britain retain roles in Horizon 2020 projects and other collaborations, just as non-EU nations such as Switzerland, Norway and Israel do at present. “We have got to retain the maximum level of participation,” says Ramakrishnan. “We have to try to be allowed to continue in EU projects.” | However, scientists stress that all is not lost. Brexit negotiations could still see Britain retain roles in Horizon 2020 projects and other collaborations, just as non-EU nations such as Switzerland, Norway and Israel do at present. “We have got to retain the maximum level of participation,” says Ramakrishnan. “We have to try to be allowed to continue in EU projects.” |
| However, the UK’s science headaches do not stop here. There is also the issue of recruitment – not just for professors but for PhD students. As Gachon points out, high overseas tuition fees and residential tests already reduce the recruitment of academically excellent non-EU citizens in UK labs. | However, the UK’s science headaches do not stop here. There is also the issue of recruitment – not just for professors but for PhD students. As Gachon points out, high overseas tuition fees and residential tests already reduce the recruitment of academically excellent non-EU citizens in UK labs. |
| “Should similar limitations be erected for EU students and employees, I fail to see how I could sustain a world-class research group with a recruitment base shrinking effectively from 500 million people down to 60 million,” she says. “With great sadness, I would seriously explore options to relocate my research group elsewhere in the EU.” | “Should similar limitations be erected for EU students and employees, I fail to see how I could sustain a world-class research group with a recruitment base shrinking effectively from 500 million people down to 60 million,” she says. “With great sadness, I would seriously explore options to relocate my research group elsewhere in the EU.” |
| For Wykes, at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at King’s College, the problem she and her colleagues face is the nature of funding for mental illness. “We do not get support from major charities, so cannot launch vast research programmes without the help of the EU. It has given us the means to do that,” she says. | For Wykes, at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at King’s College, the problem she and her colleagues face is the nature of funding for mental illness. “We do not get support from major charities, so cannot launch vast research programmes without the help of the EU. It has given us the means to do that,” she says. |
| “For example, we have just launched the Radar-CNS project with €22m of EU money. It involves 24 universities as well as technology and pharmaceutical companies and aims to perfect ways to monitor the activities and moods of patients with depression and other conditions so that we can help to provide more tailored therapies for them. We got our money a week before Brexit. Who knows what will happen the next time we set up such a programme.” | “For example, we have just launched the Radar-CNS project with €22m of EU money. It involves 24 universities as well as technology and pharmaceutical companies and aims to perfect ways to monitor the activities and moods of patients with depression and other conditions so that we can help to provide more tailored therapies for them. We got our money a week before Brexit. Who knows what will happen the next time we set up such a programme.” |
| A similar point is made by Lawler. He points to the Collaborative Oncological Gene Environment network whose funding included an EU grant of €11.7m. UK scientists played a major role in identifying new susceptibilities for breast, ovarian and prostate cancer, and also in recent breakthroughs in cancer immunotherapy by working with their counterparts in Europe. | A similar point is made by Lawler. He points to the Collaborative Oncological Gene Environment network whose funding included an EU grant of €11.7m. UK scientists played a major role in identifying new susceptibilities for breast, ovarian and prostate cancer, and also in recent breakthroughs in cancer immunotherapy by working with their counterparts in Europe. |
| As he says: “Cancer has no respect for borders. So why are we introducing barriers that will inhibit cancer research and thus lead to poorer outcomes for UK citizens? It makes no sense.” | As he says: “Cancer has no respect for borders. So why are we introducing barriers that will inhibit cancer research and thus lead to poorer outcomes for UK citizens? It makes no sense.” |