The Impact Of Spending Cuts On Science And Scientific Research

The pressure to be seen to be making cuts across the public sector is threatening to undermine both the Government's good record on investment in science and the economic recovery. Whilst the contribution of a strong domestic science base is widely acknowledged, methodological problems with quantifying its precise value to the economy mean that it is in danger of losing out in Whitehall negotiations. Scientists are under increasing pressure to demonstrate the impact of their work and there is concern that areas without immediate technology applications are being undervalued. The Committee believes the Government faced a strategic choice: invest in areas with the greatest potential to influence and improve other areas of spending, or make cuts of little significance now, but that will have a devastating effect upon British science and the economy in the years to come.

The pressure to be seen to be making cuts across the public sector is threatening to undermine both the Government's good record on investment in science and the economic recovery. Whilst the contribution of a strong domestic science base is widely acknowledged, methodological problems with quantifying its precise value to the economy mean that it is in danger of losing out in Whitehall negotiations. Scientists are under increasing pressure to demonstrate the impact of their work and there is concern that areas without immediate technology applications are being undervalued. The Committee believes the Government faced a strategic choice: invest in areas with the greatest potential to influence and improve other areas of spending, or make cuts of little significance now, but that will have a devastating effect upon British science and the economy in the years to come.

Dated July 2010. Government response to the Committee's 6th report, HCP 335-I, session 2009-10 (ISBN 9780215545190)

The United States faces a new challengeâ€"maintaining the vitality of its system for supporting science and technology despite fiscal stringency during the next several years. To address this change, the Senate Appropriations Committee requested a report from the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine to address "the criteria that should be used in judging the appropriate allocation of funds to research and development activities; to examine the appropriate balance among different types of institutions that conduct such research; and to look at the means of assuring continued objectivity in the allocation process." In this eagerly-awaited book, a committee of experts selected by the National Academies and the Institute responds with 13 recommendations that propose a new budgeting process and formulates a series of questions to address during that process. The committee also makes corollary recommendations about merit review, government oversight, linking research and development to government missions, the synergy between research and education, and other topics. The recommendations are aimed at rooting out obsolete and inadequate activities to free resources from good programs for even better ones, in the belief that "science and technology will be at least as important in the future as they have been in the past in dealing with problems that confront the nation." The authoring committee of this book was chaired by Frank Press, former President of the National Academy of Sciences (1981-1993) and Presidential Science and Technology Advisor (1977-1981).

Following a two-year absence the Science and Technology Committee was re-formed in October 2009 to conduct cross-departmental scrutiny of science and technology. This report summarises the Committee's work of this session. It also reviews the historical landscape of science scrutiny in Parliament across the work of predecessor committees, and documents the impacts they have had on policy and the culture of scientific debate within Westminster. The Committee highlight several inquiries and reports that have had significant impact in informing legislative decisions and holding government to the standard of evidence based policy making.

This report finds that the UK has an excellent research base but is still failing to maximise its potential by translating research into wealth and health. The road to economic recovery will depend, in part, on exploitation of the UK's research base, which in turn requires efficient translation to generate returns on investments. Some areas of bioengineering, such as stem cells, have clearly benefited from strong Government leadership and support, backed up by generous levels of funding from both the public and private sectors. Others, such as genetically modified (GM) crops, are less well supported and funded. This is curious when GM crops are considered by the Government to be safe and offer potential benefits. GM crops are certainly the poor cousin in the bioengineering family, and we strongly urge the Government to signal its support for GM crops as well as improving the regulatory situation in Europe. Regulation of bioengineering is complex and researchers have found that regulations inhibit research and translation, either because of regulatory complexity (stem cells) or a flawed operation of the regulatory process (GM crops). There are good indications that the UK is learning from past experiences in bioengineering when handling new emerging technologies, such as synthetic biology. The Government and Research Councils have recognised the value of synthetic biology early, and are providing funding. The Committee is also concerned that while research is well funded there is not enough forethought about synthetic biology translation, for example developing DNA synthesis capability, which would provide the UK with an excellent opportunity to get ahead internationally. If this is not addressed, synthetic biology runs the risk of becoming yet another story of the UK failing to capitalise on a strong research base and falling behind internationally.