science and funding
It is perfectly understandable, predictable and expected that the Science Establishment should find the idea of budget cuts unpalatable. Through the various recent financial crises Universities and Scientific establishments globally have come through relatively unscathed. But like all bubbles that have burst and are bursting it is perhaps time that the protected science funding bubbles took their share of the hit. It is also perhaps time for a return to the quest for scientific knowledge rather than the quest for science funding.
They cannot, on the one hand, use the excuse of “consensus science” to pour money down rotten drains and on the other demand a privileged position protected from the ills being suffered by the majority of society.
Democracy in Science to determine priorities and funding for paths of investigation is both inevitable and correct. But the science itself is indifferent to what the majority vote might think it should be.
In business and management it is almost a cliche that the greatest strides in productivity and effectiveness come at the time of budget and manpower cuts. I see no reason why this should not also apply to science and scientists. The weeping and the tearing of hair would be a little more convincing if it came from third parties and not the Scientific Establishment.
Martin Rees, the president of the Royal Society and all University Vice Chancellors are most perturbed at the spending cuts that might be implemented by the new UK government.
The New Scientist’s Roger Highfield bemoans the damage that could be done to SCIENCE.
Rees was speaking with five university vice chancellors as scientists steel themselves for deep cuts at the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills.
The gory details will be laid bare in October’s Comprehensive Spending Review, in which all government departments have been asked to prepare for budgets to fall by up to 25 per cent, perhaps even more.
In their submission to the Treasury, the Royal Society has described the potential effects of the cuts, where “an X per cent cut would lead to a much more than X per cent decrease in output, because we would lose the most talented people”. They outline three scenarios:
- 20 per cent cuts are the “game over” scenario, which would cause irreversible destruction and be “very tragic”, said Rees.
- 10 per cent is the “slash and burn” option with “serious consequences”.
- Constant cash, a reduction in real terms, “could be accommodated”.
At the Royal Institution, during an event organised by the Campaign for Science and Engineering and the Science Media Centre, Rees also made the point that the UK will be less attractive to mobile talent and young people as other countries invest more in research.
Just to make sure that the Treasury gets the point, the Vice Chancellors also weighed in:
- Glynis Breakwell of the University of Bath warned about “short termism” and the perils of stop-go funding, which would be “fatal”.
- Malcolm Grant of University College London described how the cuts will damage research that “touches people’s lives”, squander the investment of the past two decades and damage an asset of great national importance.
- Andy Haines of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine outlined how the cuts would harm health research as competitors, such as the US and China, are investing more in these areas.
- Rick Trainor of King’s College London talked of the damage to long-term research capacity, and Simon Gaskell of Queen Mary, University of London once again underlined the harm to the pool of national talent.
Tags: consensus science, Science, science funding
The k2p blog 