Don’t forget to sign the petition, and let everybody know about it, too!

[Updated to add: current government spend is about 0.6% of GDP; so we're asking for an increase of ~£2 billion.]

We, the undersigned, urge the Government to increase its direct contribution to research and development to at least 0.8% of GDP – the G8 average.

We are asking the Government to demonstrate its long-term commitment to funding science and engineering as part of an overall strategy of innovation and training to boost growth and enable the UK to meet the social and technological challenges of the 21st Century. Committing to this target, endorsed by some of the UK’s top scientists, will send a clear message to industry, potential investors and the brightest minds of the next generation that the UK will continue to be amongst the best places in the world to do research now and in the future.

In 2010, the core research budget set by the Department of Business, Innovation & Skills was ring-fenced, but frozen in cash terms. However, cuts to capital expenditure and the R&D spend of other departments, combined with the effects of inflation, have significantly eroded the overall science budget, despite the introduction of substantial additional funds targeted to specific research areas.

We call on the Government to reverse this decline and, by setting an ambitious target to increase its R&D spending, to demonstrate to citizens and investors alike its vision that science is vital for the United Kingdom.

Once you’re done here, don’t forget to take the survey if you haven’t already!

SIR – We urge the Government to demonstrate its long-term commitment to funding science and engineering as part of a strategy to boost growth and enable Britain to meet the social and technological challenges of the 21st century.

In 2010, the core research budget disbursed by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) was ring-fenced. However, the overall science budget has since been eroded by cuts in capital expenditure by BIS and to research and development in other departments, combined with the depreciating effect of inflation.

The Government has introduced some specific targeted funds since the 2010 settlement. These are welcome, but they only slow the reduction of scientific activity in Britain, when our economic competitors are boosting their research spending.

The Government understands that public funding of science is crucial to growth, but that understanding needs to be translated into sustained investment. It is vital that the policy of managed decline be reversed.

We call on the Government to increase research and development spending to at least 0.8 per cent of GDP – the G8 average – to enable us to compete more effectively with the leading economies of the world.

Signed,

Research funding in the UK is in a state of managed decline. This is in marked contrast to the many countries worldwide that have decided to invest in science, in order to stoke growth and fuel economic recovery. Our letter challenges the government to set a target for public investment in science of at least 0.8% of GDP; this benchmark was chosen because it’s the average governmental expenditure on research and development across the G8.

However, it doesn’t really matter with whom you choose to compare the UK: British public investment in science is below average globally. Using UN data for the amount spent by governments on research and development as a fraction of GDP, let’s find out how the UK stacks up.

The UK government’s poor performance relative to these international averages has been consistent since at least 1996, when this dataset begins (and before the eurozone even existed!). It will be interesting to see how this situation changes as the latest data trickle in, but by then it will be too late for many young scientists whose future careers depend on sustained funding now.

The UK government is cutting funding via a convoluted set of changes to science spending, including redefining what is included in the ringfenced ‘science budget’. This has ultimately resulted in reductions in capital spending, and smaller research budgets for a number of departments.

Investing an extra 0.1% of GDP in science would cost us about £1.5bn per year (which is pretty small fry in a government budget of nearly £700bn), so keeping up with—or even exceeding—the G8 average wouldn’t be too expensive. And it’s wrong to think of this as a simple expense anyway: money spent on science is an investment with the potential to solve some of the biggest technological, social and economic challenges facing society. Whether looking for treatments for the deadliest diseases, or seeking cheaper, greener energy, science and engineering provide the potential for large social and economic returns on a small initial investment.

So, join with 53 Nobel laureates and eminent scientists, share the letter on Facebook, or Twitter, and be part of the debate about the future of UK science.

This post is reproduced on Scienceogram UK, a new website making the case for more science funding by making sense of the stats.

Data sources

The UN publishes a range of statistics on scientific research and development on its online Data Centre. We used the most recent values of ‘GERD financed by Government’ (GERD = Gross Expenditure on Research and Development) to work out where nations sit relative to one another on an internationally uniform scale.

It’s worth noting that, whilst these are the latest figures, they’re still patchy over recent years. The UK figure is for 2010, so doesn’t fully reflect the real-terms reduction in science spending since then. Data for most other countries are for 2008–2010. Full data and calculations are available in a spreadsheet produced by scienceogram.org.

Finally, note that while UNESCO make the separation of the ‘source’ of funds and the ‘sector of performance’ obvious, other data sources report in a more confusing fashion. For example, Government Expenditure on R&D (GovERD) refers to R&D performed by government bodies, and doesn’t specify who picked up the bill. Conversely, ‘GERD financed by Government’ (the statistic we used) refers to R&D paid for by the government, irrespective of where it was performed.

For immediate release

The grassroots, volunteer-run group Science is Vital, with support from six Nobel laureates and many other leading UK scientists, today published in the Daily Telegraph a letter urging the Government to commit to long-term funding of science and engineering. This commitment should be a central feature in an overall strategy to boost growth and enable the UK to meet the social and technological challenges of the 21st Century.

In the lead-up to the 2010 Spending Review, Science is Vital garnered widespread publicity by mobilising scientists and supporters of science across the country in a bid to protect science funding. Compared with the draconian cuts for most government departments, the outcome was relatively favourable for science. The core budget was ring-fenced and held fixed in cash terms. But the budget for capital was subsequently cut deeply, and research budgets for individual departments were not protected.

The letter published today is signed by 50 of Britain’s best-known and most distinguished scientists, including Stephen Hawking, Martin Rees, Brian Cox and Paul Nurse. It calls for the Government to support science funding and set a clear target to increase total public expenditure on R&D from its current level of ~0.6% of GDP to at least 0.8%, the average spend across the G8 nations. For example, the US and French governments spend 0.9% of GDP on R&D.

The Government is preparing to announce the framework for its budgetary plans for 2015-16 and beyond, taking us up to and past the next general election. Science is Vital is concerned that the cash freeze imposed on the core research budget in 2010 might be prolonged. While the scientific community appreciated this relatively generous settlement at a time of austerity, the effects of inflation and the deep cuts in scientific capital expenditure and the science spend of other Government departments has placed the overall UK budget on a downward trajectory.

The Government has injected significant additional funds targeted to specific areas since 2010. But the erosion of the overall UK science base is jeopardizing our future competitiveness, while our major economic competitors – France, Germany, South Korea and China among them – are boosting their spending on research.
        
From public pronouncements it is clear that the Coalition government understands the importance of public funding of science as a key part of the complex ecosystem of education, discovery and innovation that is so crucial to growth in knowledge-based economies. But that understanding needs to be translated into sustained investment, both to maintain the world-leading quality of UK research and to give industry confidence in the durability of our aspiration to be a strong, high-tech economy. Unfortunately, the present policy is effectively one of managed decline: it is vital that this trend be reversed.

Science is Vital is now launching a campaign to urge the Government not only to protect, but to increase R&D spending, so as to underpin future recovery.

Science is Vital founder and chair Dr Jennifer Rohn, Principal Research Associate at University College London, said, “The cash freeze in 2010, with its significant erosion of real-term funding, is already affecting the ability of UK scientists to do the great work that we need to fuel innovation and get the economy back on its feet. It’s crucial that we don’t end up with another cash freeze in the next budget decision – British science, already struggling, could reach a point of no return.”

Vice-Chair Professor Stephen Curry of Imperial College said, “Economic pressures remain intense and the research community has to be sensitive to that but it is still vital that the UK commits to reversing the decline in its R&D budget. This change of direction is needed to maintain the quality of UK science and is a crucial part of integrated policies on industry and education needed to connect research to economic activity.”

Professor Colin Blakemore, a former Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council, said: “Everyone recognizes that economic recovery depends on science and innovation. We rightly pride ourselves on the quality and efficiency of UK research, but we can’t continue to compete if public funding is cut further. In the past 30 years the UK has fallen from top position in R&D funding to below the average for G8 and OECD nations. Now is the time for bold action from Government to reverse that decline.”

The campaign expects to be able to gather further support to strengthen the message sent out in 2010: science is vital for the economic health of the UK, enabling the country to meet the technological and social challenges it will face in the coming years. Science is Vital believes that this can only be secured by a clear Government commitment to long-term support, and welcomes wider public debate on this issue.

Notes to editors

1. Science is Vital is a volunteer-run nonpartisan organisation with the aim of harnessing the views of the scientific community to promote the value of science and the interests of scientists to policy makers.
2. Originally set up in September 2010 after a call to action from Dr Jennifer Rohn on her blog at http://occamstypewriter.org/mindthegap/, the group’s petition attracted over 35,000 signatures by the time of the Comprehensive Spending Review on 20 October 2010. The campaign to protect science spending culminated in a lobby of Parliament and a demonstration by several thousand researchers and their families outside the Treasury in the run up to the spending review announcement.
3. For more information see http://scienceisvital.org.uk/ or contact Science is Vital Chair, Dr Jennifer Rohn, at jenny@scienceisvital.org.uk / +44 7984 217748
4. Japan’s R&D spend taken from http://www.stat.go.jp/english/info/news/1936.htm. Figure quoted includes higher education
5. European R&D figures available from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/R_%26_D_expenditure

See accompanying article.

AGM Summary

The first Science is Vital Annual General Meeting took place on 13th September 2012 at the Christopher Ingold Lecture Theatre at UCL in London.

A lively group of about 70 people turned up to hear Professor Colin Blakemore FRS and Imran Khan, Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE), speak about the threat to science funding and to discuss ways that Science is Vital can fight that threat. Sandwiched within were a series of reports and elections from and for the Science is Vital executive, topped off with a typically geeky and hilarious performance by comedian Helen Arney, followed by a trip down the Jeremy Bentham to slake our typically scientific thirsts.

Shane gives the Treasurer’s report

The most important part of the meeting was the discussion of how SiV could progress over the next couple of years until the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review (expected in 2014).

A number of key themes emerged:

• Focus on the main issue: science funding
• Expand beyond academia
• Get local
• Maintain pressure on MPs
• Continue to build evidence base

Focus on the main issue

It was acknowledged that one reason for our 2010 success was our single issue focus. Whilst it is tempting to stray from that focus in order to keep up momentum for the campaign the consensus seemed to be that keeping our efforts fixed on the public funding of scientific research is key.

Expand beyond academia

People felt that our broad support base was a great strength of the campaign. We should continue to work to broaden that base through contacting companies and institutes like hospitals and asking them to spread the word about the campaign.

Get local

Science takes place outside London. MPs represent constituencies. There is a lot of support for SiV in universities around the country. It was clear that the more that supporters can do around the country to campaign on the issue the more pressure we can place on MPs to support the campaign and to build numbers of supporters.

Maintain pressure on MPs

It is important that we remain focussed on the key targets for our campaign. In 2010 that was the Treasury. At the next CSR it may be the same. However, it cannot hurt in the meantime to convince as many MPs as possible about how Science is Vital and the political cost to them (and any Prospective Parliamentary Candidates) of not supporting science. Anna Zechoria outlined her plans to invite MPs local to labs at Imperial College in order to convince them of science’s vitality and open lines of communication.

Continue to build evidence base

Whilst no-one felt that SiV was best placed to build the evidence base alone, we could support that process either financially or through using our supporter base to conduct surveys showing the grassroots effect of cuts to science funding.

It is now up to the SiV executive to work out how to help supporters set up local chapters and pressure their MPs, and to build the evidence base.

Science is Vital pin badges—only available here!

A subscription, or membership of Research Professional, is required to view the piece. Our own report will be following in the next few days.

—Richard

Details about the AGM

Date: 13 Sept, 2012
Time: 6.30 — 10 PM
Place: Christopher Ingold XLG1 Chemistry Lecture Theatre, Christopher Ingold Building, UCL, 20 Gordon Street, London WC1H 0AJ
Agenda: In addition to the formal AGM, we will have a line-up of interesting speakers and entertainers, plus food and a cash bar, so it should be a fun evening.

All full members of Science is Vital (those who have donated £3.14 or more to the campaign since 13 September 2011) will have voting rights. Others are welcome but will not have a vote.

Space is limited: please RSVP as soon as you can using this link: http://scienceisvitalagm.eventbrite.co.uk

The Executive Summary and full report are available to download.

Thank you to everyone who contributed!

Science is Vital meets David Willetts (again)

Following the publication of our report on science careers in the UK, which drew on nearly 700 responses to a call for evidence, members of the Science is Vital team met with Minister of State for Universities and Science, the Rt Hon David Willetts, MP, on Thursday 6^th October to discuss matters arising and explore how careers in science can be made more secure and more productive.

Mr Willetts began by commending Science is Vital for raising the issue of careers in science in the panel discussion he took part in earlier this year, and for the report itself, which he said was of great value. He said that he expected only a summary of the issues arising on the evening itself, and that the wider consultation came as a (pleasant) surprise. He then invited Dr Jenny Rohn, Chair of Science is Vital and postdoctoral researcher at UCL, to summarize the issues. Jenny said that the breadth and variety of problems identified in the report indicated a systemic problem with careers in science that needed addressing if British science was to remain internationally competitive.

Jenny also observed that at such a time of austerity with a funding freeze in publicly funded research, such structural problems were being felt more acutely than before—a point reinforced by Dr Richard Grant, who said that the funding increases in recent years had masked the instability in science careers that had existed for nearly forty years.

Mr Willetts acknowledged that the insecurity and high staff turnover that short-term contracts lead to are problematic, and that both funding and links to other career paths need to be strengthened. Professor Stephen Curry (Imperial College) pointed out that more funding was not necessarily the answer, and that the issues raised by the consultation were more to do with the way that funding was allocated and the lack of long-term or permanent research positions.

Mr Willetts contended, at this point, that given spending constraints there would be a trade-off between having more secure positions for postdoctoral scientists and the intake of fresh blood in the form of young scientists with new ideas and energy, something that the Royal Society’s Martyn Poliakoff has identified as being central to a successful research sector. Dr Prateek Buch (UCL) made the counter point that this infusion of new talent shouldn’t come at the expense of continuity and institutional memory within research groups, also crucial to generating good outcomes, and that the balance between the two was currently too far in favour of the former. Richard highlighted another difficulty inherent in short-term contracts: high-risk, ‘difficult’ projects cannot be contemplated. The current system rewards low-risk projects that are guaranteed a large number of papers—the ‘low-hanging fruit’ approach to science. This is not necessarily good for science, or Britain, in the long term.

Mr Willetts agreed with the Science is Vital team that more needed to be done for and by the research community to promote stable careers whilst retaining the competitive drive that makes UK science so successful. He appreciated the analogy made by one of the contributors to the report, which pointed out that it would be ludicrous for the teaching profession to have a career structure whereby all teachers were expected to make it to head teacher by the age of 40—at which point they would do no teaching—or leave the profession.

The team also raised the issue of the somewhat chaotic transfer between a career in science and other professions or jobs—suggesting that greater emphasis should be placed early on in scientists’ careers on training for the eventuality of leaving academic science for industry, teaching or other allied employment. Richard stressed that the Government did have a role to play in encouraging industry to contribute more to the training of students and early postdocs, and in preparing them for a career in industry. There was a brief discussion about how this might be achieved.

The Minister also agreed that science careers were ‘atomistic and not family friendly,’ indicating that a great deal of work needs to be done to support women and families through the scientific career structure—something that Jenny emphasized was of real concern according to the consultation and report. Mr Willetts said that this was an area that the Government could take more action on under an equality agenda.

Mr Willetts also acknowledged how the current imbalance in science careers is reflected in our report, and that this was a matter for the research community to raise with funding bodies, research councils and learned societies. To this end he invited Jenny to attend a roundtable discussion between the relevant bodies, at which the issues raised in our report will be discussed. This enables grassroots scientists to express their concerns, but crucially it will also be the beginning of a vital dialogue between Government, funding bodies and scientists as we aim to reshape science careers to support investigators and keep British science at the top of its game.

Science is Vital was glad of the opportunity to present the report to the Minister, and we wish to extend profound thanks to all our respondents and supporters for providing us with such high quality evidence.

—Prateek Buch & Richard P. Grant