Labour recently launched its science green paper, with a speech by Liam Byrne, shadow minister for universities and science, and associated articles for the Huffington Post and the LabourList blog. It sets out the Labour view of the state of science in the United Kingdom and calls for input to form Labour’s science policy for the next 15 years. Science usually meanders low under the national politics radar, but this time round it could be very different – scientists finally have a good shot at getting what we have been demanding for a long time.
The science community is not used to being in the middle of a political tug-of-love, but George Osborne has newfound starry eyes for science and this changes the dynamic. The chancellor now eagerly promotes a £200m polar science ship as a beacon of climate change research, gives speeches championing science in Cambridge and at the Royal Society, wants the north to become a new powerhouse of innovation, wants female scientist role models, and wants maths and physics postdocs to take up £40K teaching jobs. Such campaigning follows what has been known to science advocates and the Treasury for many years: research and innovation can drive economic growth and good jobs more reliably than the merry-go-round financial markets.
Portraying himself as a visionary champion of science is also better for Osborne’s likeability than being known as the heartless dark emperor of austerity. With David Willetts, minister of state for universities and science, working in close tandem with Osborne the Conservatives are courting scientists in a way that means Labour can no longer take them for granted. With both major parties keen to place science as a centrepiece of economic policy, the science community could find itself thrown into the political foreground during the coming year. This will give scientists more leverage to make demands.
What will those demands be? The top demand will undoubtedly be an increase in funding. The United Kingdom’s spend on science as a percentage of GDP is dropping and currently sits behind Slovenia, Estonia, the Czech Republic and the EU 28 average. The scientific community has been begging for a reversal of this trend. The litmus test (pun intended) of both political parties will be whether they really put their money where their mouth is.
Bluntly put, all parties have dropped the ball on science investment. Yes, there have been a few good initiatives, but, relative to other leading economies, we have fallen short. Politicians tend to be lawyers and professional politicians so talking science to them is often hard work. Science has been low on the political agenda for a long time and British science infrastructure has, like manufacturing, been left to decline to less competitive levels. Why else do organisations like Science is Vital and the Campaign for Science and Engineering, previously called ‘Save British Science’, exist? The amount we spend per person on researching problems like energy or cancer is pathetically small relative to the size of those problems. The scienceogram website likes to frame this in the light of our everyday expenses. Public engagement such as this is important. Science is often regarded as a nation’s ivory-tower luxury or bonus, so it is an easy thing to sideline or cut back on in the public eye. However, perceptions are now changing around the globe.
The new promise of science is its proven capacity to drive economies out of tight spots, as in the cases of Finland and Korea. Connecting a nation’s scientific engine, as the new mantra goes, with businesses large and small gets solid economic traction on the ground. This may prompt fear that some politicians will now see science only as a milch cow for business. To his credit, Willetts made it clear in a speech at UCL recently that he sees science as more than that. Let’s hope so. He also stressed the need for cross-party collaboration on science. This is certainly important and would benefit the UK, but of course we need healthy competition of ideas too. Whether it is government Euroscepticism hamstringing the UK science boon from Europe, lab work being cut out of A levels, neglect of Kew Gardens’ critical science, or the puzzling naivety in recognising the threat of the recent Pfizer bid, there is much that calls into question the science-management skills of the current government. Labour has been too slow on these and must sharpen up its appetite for getting into the political mix over science. It could also be bolder with their science plans. The science community should get ready to have its say and make its demands known. It can start right away, by responding to Labour’s green paper and getting its ideas heard loudly in the policy formation process.
———————————
Mike Galsworthy is head of R&I policy development for Scientists for Labour. You can contact him on: [email protected]
The lights are going out in university and hospital research labs and research institutes up and down the land.
So yes, we need more money for science.
But [a] where from and [b] can we use the little we get better?
[a] Tax breaks for R&D to private companies need to be scrutinised. Can it really be that we want to give more tax breaks to Barclay’s bank than any other company… presumably to undertake R&D on how to fiddle the LIBOR rate better. For some companies, R&D tax breaks are just an accountant’s way of avoiding tax. That has to stop. The money saved should be spent on REAL research and innovation.
[b] Yes, we can do better with the little we get by breaking down the silos within and between the institutions. By building research networks with a focus on the grand challenges of our society in health, food, environment, climate, energy, transport. We don’t need new shiny palaces – we need to use better the expertise and faciities scattered across our country and our continent. We need to re-organise R&D to make it fit for 21st century science.
That should be Labour’s 2015 pledge.
[a] – yes, entirely agree that R&I funding that goes into business needs to be primarily in the form of assistance to get small innovative businesses into competitive shape, rather than as pats on backs to larger companies that will invest in R&I anyway (and have the resources to invest and borrow), if they identify productive R&I opportunities. Like you say, currently tax-break systems have not been duly scrutinised to identify where they are most effective.
[b] – also agree. Creating coordinated networks/ pools of resources saves on doubling-up, get resource availability to smaller centres and can also help seed new fusions/collaborations.
One thing I didn’t particularly like in Labour’s science green paper was the constant emphasis on “winning the race to the top”. I think that totally misunderstands the major challenges facing humanity and the real role for science as we stare into climate change, food and water security, cyber security, tackling disease burdens, making energy and healthcare systems sustainable, etc. These are global challenges where we should be part of or leading the global team, with fair rewards portioned out for all. I dislike the notion of some countries being winners and others losers, racing at break-neck speed to out-do each other economically as we hurtle to the brink. Not smart nor visionary. We need to harness science to enhance quality of life for all so that everyone is a winner in a healthy stable world. Sure, we need to preserve our quality of life nationally, but the broader context is finding the sustainable win-win, not the dangerous win-lose.
The ‘race to the top’ is another example of Labour falling in to the trap of letting Tories dictate the language of the debate. For some time now, during this parliament, the Conservatives have been talking about needing to be at the forefront of the ‘global race’ and have also been talking about socialist values leading to a ‘race to the bottom’.
While the need to trample on other nations as we try to stay ahead is jingoistic at best (xenophobic at worst), there are some considerations beyond merely the need to collaborate on global problems such as climate change.
The UK is a ‘knowledge economy’. We make designs and management decisions and then outsource the low paid manufacturing jobs to China, Bangladesh etc. In order to maintain this position as overseer, Britain arguably needs to be seen to have the quality science and engineering expertise to warrant that position and it also needs to be the one coming up with the ideas for the products to be made. The alternative is that all the shanzhai manufacturers in e.g. China will start commissioning their own high end goods and manufacturing them locally (much like XiaoMi has already done), leaving the UK as a consumer with nothing to barter.
Of course, it has oft been said that the UK needs to diversify its workforce so perhaps this type of change could be managed to be beneficial in the long term. But for the UK to become the manufacturer for other nations would require relative wage decreases in the UK that would not be popular.