Oddly, I recently took a day off from work. I use this as an excuse to take a trip into Cambridge city centre. I decided to take the bus in from Trumpington Park and Ride, and on my journey I pass through the massive complex of Addenbrookes. This is a place full of scientific application and research, and it got me thinking: how would the European Union referendum affect this area? Thankfully I do not have to go far to find an answer; a campaign group Scientists for EU has already thrown it hat in to the ring with their first report.
Let’s start at the beginning. What is the position of the United Kingdom’s science within the EU and what is its relationship within the world? According to the latest data available, the EU produces approximately 20 per cent more scientific academic output than the United States – this is mainly down to the European community’s free movement of people, ideas and a single point of bureaucracy. This open science community helps deliver better research by preventing duplication and spreading good practice by greater collaboration with reduced bureaucracy. For example, as part of the EU we – and any other European country – can fund, and get involved with, research involving in a five-way collaboration, where the UK undertakes 20 per cent of the work and benefits in full from the results. Since the 1980s research has become increasing international along with a sharp increase in collaboration within different countries. The UK’s own figures show that in 1981 only 15 per cent of all papers published in the UK were international collaborations; this is now at 50 per cent. In fact almost all growth within this period was in that sector. In comparison, in the US this figure was six per cent in the 1980s and only 33 per cent now. Being part of the EU gives us a pass into international collaboration. This is important as international co-authored papers have substantially more impact than domestic-only papers; all this leads to the fact UK science research is more productive than counterpart in the US.
Within the Eurosceptic view point the following statements are commonly referenced. Leaving the EU frees up money for UK science, and on leaving we simply buy back into EU science fund
Looking at the first statement, that money saved will free up investment in UK science. In 2012 the UK paid a net £9.6bn into the EU, this is around 0.6 per cent of nominal GDP. The Centre for Economic Performance calculates that UK GDP falls in all scenarios, whilst the Open Europe think tank’s optimistic view highlights we could be better off by around 1.6 per cent by 2030. This model includes large deregulation at home as well as massive liberal trade arrangements. Further assessment of this most optimistic scenario shows that following Brexit the overall financial loss is substantially larger than any net contribution by the UK. In terms of science this loss wipes out any free money available for UK science investment for at least a decade.
The second statement; if we leave, surely we can buy back? The UK is a leading player within in the EU, we have won more grants in Horizon 2020 than any other nation. We have significant political say with development of the science budget. A knowledge buy-in is only financial and as such the UK would have no say over collaborations, disadvantaging the UK’s science community. To go for the ‘Swiss model’ we would end up paying more into the EU science budget than we do currently, as the payment would be based on our GDP. Whitehall would have to expand to cover domestic administration requirements based on EU rules, and we have no say in them. Also, when you look at Switzerland you see clear problems associated with this model – a 40 per cent loss in science based investment causing massive disruption to science research development even hitting private sector investment. More importantly the EU has gained a massive appetite for science research with great vision and has a closer democratic accountability for budget setting. The closer union links a wide range of different scientific institutes together with transparency. We simply cannot walk away from this. However, if the UK were to vote to leave and restrict freedom of movement, we would not have access to Horizon 2020 grants for future development. Money and time would be wasted on more bureaucracy trying to negotiate a future possible deal, such as was done in Switzerland, with reduced benefits and returns for the UK.
The report gives a compressive message as to why leaving is bad for UK science, covering facts, figures and deep analysis that the Labour In For Britain campaign can use. However, the biggest message this campaign needs to learn from this report is behind the facts and figures that link the future success of regions like Cambridge to the EU science budget. This is not just down to job and economic loses, it is more the cultural and historical deficit that will occur, ripping out part of the heart of Cambridge and Britain. We have an ageing population, a dramatically increasing problem with our climate, increased antibiotic drug distance, new environmentally friendly chemicals and materials to develop and a whole host of great scientific innovations yet to be discovered. We need funding for science to keep the UK firmly at the frontier of science discovery and development; to deliver this vision the UK needs the EU, and the EU needs the UK.
———————————
Daniel Mayhew is a member of Progress. He tweets @MrMayhemBSC
———————————