Home » science cuts
Category Archives: science cuts
I see that Cancer Research UK last week put out a press statement about the need for the UK to have strategic vision for medical research. You can find further details on their blog and they also issued a document entitled ‘Building the Right Environment for Medical Research.’
Thoughtfully the announcement and document have been sensibly timed so that you and I can carry it under our arms during the party conference season now upon us. All with the aim of stimulating debate in the run up to the Government consulting on and producing a research and innovation strategy. And how overdue is that particular gem I ask you?
‘Building the Right Environment’ is a curious document. It might seem strange but the main thought I had after reading it is that it would be hard to disagree with any of it. Is that because it it’s smack on the mark in terms of its prescription, or not challenging enough? Discuss.
When I jotted down my initial reactions this is what I came up with, warts and all:
- The conclusions are based on interviews with thirty or so Cancer Research UK scientists so, naturally, it reflects the priorities of that community. Nothing wrong in that and many of them are common to us all across science. But if you’re fighting for a rarer cause then your concerns are probably a bit more ‘fund’-amental.
- Other partners involved in research such as patients might have an alternative but helpful perspective.
- The recommendations are all good but quite specific and tactical. Each has a strategic role to play but it would be good to have seen something in it to say how it might all hang together in terms of a coherent vision for UK medical research.
- It misses some of the big stuff. To take clinical research for instance it rightly talks about the new Health Research Authority but there are other tussles that need addressing to get us further – how to integrate all the parts of NIHR into one system for instance, or how to engage the public in such a way as to drive up participation in and recruitment to trials. This is the additional stuff that is going to weigh us down.
- I would like to have seen it pose some strategic questions for debate rather than simply proposing answers to a much-spoken about but ill-defined problem. What are the main challenges to how we do things now and is our model sustainable in the long-term? Again, things like clinical trials networks are well-embedded in the world of cancer but have some way to go in other fields. How do we get there…quickly?
- It doesn’t really look at the relative role played by different research funders and how this might be thought through – together – so we are more strategic as a community. Should charities be clustering around disease areas for instance in the way that we have therapeutic clusters developing between academics and industry (that’s off the top of my head)?
I just throw this out there. As I am sure they would readily admit, Cancer Research UK does not have all the answers to our woes and that’s an open invitation to the rest of us. So, if this document gets us to think a little deeper and debate more then that has to be a good thing.
In that spirit I welcome it just as others have. But I can’t quite get rid of a nagging feeling that it would have been great if it had gone just that little bit further.
I suspect you may have seen the bleak forecast made by charity chief executives in the latest National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) survey published today. 97% of those surveyed said they expected economic conditions to be negative and 55% advised that they would be reducing their staff.
Tough times indeed. And so this seems an opportune moment to publish for the first time, AMRC’s up-to-date evidence of how medical research charities in particular are faring. If you have time to spare, you can find the summary results from our survey conducted in February (and interpretation) here. The headline figure of 63% of our members saying the affect of the recession was significant or very significant certainly bears out what chief execs are saying in the NCVO study. If nothing else, it underlines the point that charities are suffering in general.
I tend to agree withStuart Etherington from NCVO that, if the Government is really serious about charities being a full partner in the economy, then it better get its act together and develop a growth strategy with us, for us, and fast.
But forgive me if I necessarily concentrate on making a few, brief science-focused comments and observations based on our own survey:
The good news is that the forecasts for research expenditure by AMRC’s members are on a par with the last time we did this survey in 2009 – if not a little better. Then, 63% of member charities said their future funding would stay the same and 21% said they would be increasing funding. This year, 55% said they would be maintaining their funding at the same levels and 32.5% said they would be increasing it.
On the down side, a slighter higher number of members – 12.5% this year versus 8% last time – say they do not intend to fund new research this year or plan to reduce funding. The economy is perhaps amplifying the diversity in the sector – particularly the difference between the top and the tail of the AMRC family – just as corrections in any market are wont to do. The texture of the comments provided by charities is also interesting in showing how a) pressures elsewhere are rippling across to our members (a further point is made on this below) but also b) the the very significant strategic rethink some organisations are undertaking as opposed to a mere trimming of activity.
This year we deliberately asked our members for their first impressions of the impact of the spending review. Three themes emerge.
The first is anecdotal only but the squeeze on public finances and cuts to services elsewhere is forcing some medical research charities who also provide care services, to consider diverting funds from research to the latter. As I say in the survey report:
‘Interestingly, this year we are beginning to see a narrative emerge which reports that economic conditions are not just impacting income but the growth and room for manoeuvre for charities in fulfilling their objectives. As one respondent put it:
‘The impact is not limited to income, but more about how we will need to use our funds. As a charity that encompasses both care and research, we are beginning to see the impact of statutory retreat, with a significant rise in requests for support from patients and families. This is likely to require us to divert funds from research to care-based activities.’
How far and wide this trend extends only time will tell.
The second is a perception among members of shrinkage in the research infrastructure which – a bit like the proverbial air bubble in one’s recently covered text book which simply moves elsewhere when pressed – means extra pressure in other parts of the system.
Which leads me onto the third – as predicted by Dame Bridget Ogilvie in her guest blog here last autumn . Namely, that AMRC member charities are beginning to see an increase in the number of grant applications they are receiving. More than one Chief Executive has already expressed to me the difficulties of managing this, both in terms of administration but also in terms of ensuring they continue to derive the highest quality from the ideas being put forward.
Finally, today we have also updated our data to show the sector’s research expenditure for 2010-2011. During that period, AMRC’s member charities spent £1.137 billion on research (excluding capital expenditure) versus £1,078 billion last year. A slight increase therefore and a record to be proud of given the environment. But the salutory story looking back over the longer term, is that this is the smallest increase we have seen since 2005 and the first quantitative indication of what economists might call a ‘slow-down.’
Being an optimist by nature I comfort myself with the knowledge that medical research remains the No. 1 cause that the public gives to. But it would appear today that even this silver cloud has a somewhat dark lining.
The message to supporters and the public remains the same as it has over the past few years – your donations are vital to charities continuing to support medical research of patient benefit!
The news that Pfizer is to close its R&D facility in Sandwich in Kent has shaken us from our sleepy winter hollows.
I’ve been watching the reactions and comments come over the wires as I am sure you have. This is clearly a company going through considerable transition as it tries to change with the times – see the Reuters round-up of their results today for a good insight. And essentially its the sort of hard-headed business decision that US companies seem prone to take about their global operations when restructuring.
So, a comment on Pfizer’s view of the UK as a place to do science? No. As a place to do business? Possibly.
But perhaps we should treat it as though it were the former. For, ultimately, the impact is the same. The loss of a world-class R&D facility in the UK. As others have said today, it shows we need to up our game in how the Government and those across research work with industry.
Meanwhile…and no link between the stories is intended…I’ve been absorbing today’s report by the European Commission (see also BBC News) ‘ Innovation Union Scoreboard’ It looks at the research and innovation performance of the 27 member states of the European Union. The basic story is that the UK is rated an ‘Innovation Follower’ (just outside the ‘Innovation Leader’ category) and is playing catch-up with those ahead of it at a slower rate than its peers in the ‘Follower’ group.
If you look at the country profile for the UK on page 50 it says some complimentary things about the UK having an ‘open, attractive, research systems’ and the stats show we are above average in the number of non-EU doctorate students (relevant to the immigration debate surely) and public R&D expenditure. On most of the remaining indicators the story is not so good.
The European Commission, whose way with words is to be eternally admired, says the report is evidence of an ‘Innovation Emergency.’ I am not sure what to do in an ‘Innovation Emergency’ are you? Other than look for my patent box of course.
If you are looking for the detail of today’s announcement by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) on the science budget allocations for the spending review period then please look at the excellent summary by our policy and public affairs manager, Becky Purvis, here.
Further perspective from me in due course. But, given Breast Cancer Campaign’s letter on CRSF last week and our ongoing campaign on this issue, I am very pleased about the Government’s guideline to HEFCE that they allocate research funding to universities with the aim of protecting funding from external sources including that from medical research charities. We’ll know more in the New Year.
Those who visit this blog regularly will know that we’ve been following progress with the plans to build the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation in London ever since our first post. So, in what feels like an early Christmas present for science, it is good to be able to report that yesterday Camden Town Hall councillors gave their go-ahead to the project.
The Wellcome Trust has a straightforward press notice on it (they are one of four partners involved, the others being Cancer Research UK, UCL and the Medical Research Council) but I can highly recommend the UKCMRI website as well where you can get a better idea of what the centre will look like and what it will do. Let’s hope the new centre will be snowproof unlike the rest of London.
In other news this week..this hasn’t been picked-up very widely but the Prime Minister’s Office announced the membership of the re-constituted Council for Science and Technology which was set-up in the early nineties (and re-launched in 2007) to advise the PM on cross-cutting issues of strategic importance. The Council is also advertising for ten independent members.
Thw word is that Monday looks like the day when the Government will announce the science budget allocations…and I also hope that we can publish our independent report of the AMRC/INVOLVE patient workshop on research regulation.
A brief but important mention of the letter in today’s Times signed by over 100 cancer scientists and doctors. The letter cites Breast Cancer Campaign (an AMRC member) and highlights the importance of the Government-backed Charity Research Support Fund (CRSF) to the funding of research in universities by medical research charities.
If you want a succinct but well-articulated case for CRSF then you need look no further than this letter. And it’s significant in my opinion that the argument is being made directly by scientists themselves rather than charities. This is not special pleading. The fact is that the Fund is an important foundation for the partnership between Government, universities and charities in the name of research, and a vital mechanism for helping to leverage research funds from our sector.
You may also wish to look at the joint statement on CRSF that AMRC produced with BHF, Breast Cancer Campaign, Cancer Research UK, the Wellcome Trust, Universities UK and the Russell Group in July this year. The statement was submitted with our spending review submission.
All our discussions with Government thus far suggest the arguments for the Fund have been accepted just as those on ‘science = economic growth’ were taken on board by HM Treasury with its spending review announcement. But how this translates into actual money won’t be known for possibly a few weeks yet. So letters like today’s can play a useful role in keeping the issues to the fore.
UPDATE: You can find the Growth Review document published jointly by HM Treasury and the Department for Businesss here. A quick skim through its pages suggests a collection of ‘already known’ initiatives with a short section at the back announcing a sector-by-sector consultation on barriers to growth. From what is in the document, it is not clear how this consultation or discussion is going to be co-ordinated as yet.
Earlier today I said…
If you have been reading the newspapers today you’ll know that the on/off again growth white paper is now going to emerge this afternoon as a discussion paper.
Seems likely – given what Willetts and others have been saying over the last six months – that there will be a section on life sciences although I might be wrong. Judging by the press reports the Government is going to ask different sectors to design a blueprint for driving growth in their area. In terms of the life sciences I would have thought that this is a given-job for the Office for Life Sciences which er …..produced a blueprint about 18 months ago now. I am not sure what comes after a blueprint.
Will post more about the impending Picassoesque blueprint era of economic planning by the Coalition Government as we know it.
Former Government chief scientific adviser, David King, writes eloquently on the Nature blog today about his concerns over the cuts in science funding announced last week.
A change is as good as a rest they say. So I am delighted that our former Chair (as well as former Director of the Wellcome Trust), Dame Bridget Ogilvie, took up my invitation to give us her perspective on the spending review and its implications. Its closing sentiments about the development of young scientists will strike a chord with many I feel…..
Dame Bridget Ogilvie
At last we know the worst now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken. It’s great news that he thinks that investment in scientific research is necessary for the future growth of the economy. So the good news is that the science budget will remain at its current level of £4.6b per annum over the next 4 years, although the research councils and universities will be required to deliver efficiencies worth £162 million a year by 2014-15.
In addition, the Government has confirmed that they will give £220m in capital funding from the Department of Health budget to UKCMRI, the consortium which includes the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, the Wellcome Trust and UCL. Also, the Government will maintain its commitment to fund developments at the MRC’s LMB, Pirbright and Diamond facilities.In the nation’s present financial predicament, all this is wonderful news and far better than most of us had anticipated.
But….as the cost of scientific research always outruns the general level of inflation, over this time period the value of these funds for science will fall. We must also remember the wider context of overall funding for universities falling from £7.1 billion to £4.2 billion. Although this settlement excludes research funding, its ultimate impact remains to be seen. However, I am sadly sure this will affect the research productivity of universities.
We know too that many research funding charities have already seen a reduction in their ability to fund. When money for research was reduced in the 1980’s and 90’s, the Wellcome Trust’s funds were increasing exponentially which ensured that the UK remained a real force for medical research internationally. What Wednesday’s announcement means for charities and other funders we don’t know yet, but many anticipate that it will increase the number of applications for a grant that they receive. So even with this relatively good news, the competition for funds, already severe, will get worse.
What to do?
We know that failure to support the young when times are hard has bad long term consequences. We are still feeling the effect of poor levels of research funding in the 1990’s because the age cohort beneath the present leaders is below strength which is a real worry. We also know there is an increasing tendency to give very large grants to existing leaders with consequent reduction in funds for the less established, and nowadays scientists often don’t get their independence before they are 40+. My generation became independent 10 or more years earlier.Many excellent people leave a research career when they feel they are unlikely to become independent until after the age of 40.
Funders rarely pay attention to the way scientific leaders lead and manage their group. There is evidence that once groups exceed 10-12 in number, productivity drops. Therefore, leaders and funders need to address this issue not only by making sure that developing scientists get a fair share of available resources. But also that they are properly managed and not unfairly used by their seniors to the advantage of the leaders but the disadvantage of the whole scientific community.
An extract from today’s speech by the Science Minister, David Willetts, at the HEFCE conference in London. Medical research charities will be pleased with the recognition of their role in delivering research that he mentions several times:
The other main news from the Chancellor yesterday concerned funding for science and research. It is good news for HEFCE’s QR funding and Higher Education Innovation Fund, and good news for the Research Councils and National Academies.
It is proof that this Government recognises the fundamental role of science and research in rebalancing the economy and restoring economic growth. Despite enormous pressure on public spending, the overall level of funding for science and research programmes has been protected in cash terms. And as we implement the efficiency savings identified by Bill Wakeham, we should be able to offset the effects of inflation – thus maintaining research funding in real terms.
There has also been a great deal of pressure to maintain flexibility in government spending. A stable investment climate for science and research – as we all know – allows universities and research institutes to plan strategically, and gives businesses, public services and charities the confidence to invest in the research base. I am delighted to confirm, therefore, that the ring-fence for science and research programmes has therefore been maintained.
Across the country, we have excellent departments with the critical mass to compete globally and the expertise to work closely with business, charities and public services. This £4.6 billion settlement for science and research should mean that we can continue to support them.
So understandably the debate goes on whether we should be drinking champagne or lucozade this morning after yesterday’s announcement. But I rather liked this sobre assessment by Jenny Rohn, originator of the Science is Vital campaign which has appeared in The Guardian.
The New Scientist has also published a detailed analysis penned by Imran Khan from the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE).
But Jenny Rohn’s piece in particular struck a chord with me. It reminded me of something someone once taught me as a young campaigner: that you should never underestimate the importance of the moment when those you are trying to influence begin to share the same language as you.
In the meantime I’m going to have a nice cup of tea as I recover from some sort of CSR inspired bug.
I can only think of turning the last few hours of trying to absorb today’s announcements and figures in the following way:
- Surely even the harshest critic would have to acknowledge that, comparatively speaking, science fared well in today’s spending review. It was certainly spared the savage cuts that we are seeing elsewhere and that were long muted.
- The fact that the basic components of the funding regime remain intact means continuity and stability – qualities often overlooked or indeed deliberately attacked in politics but crucial to productivity.
- The ring-fencing of the science budget, not just because of the protection that it affords, but because it helps to ensure transparency and scrutiny of the science budget.
- The fact that the government has listened and an important argument about the role of science in the economy and society was won with HM Treasury – it by no means seemed that way just a few weeks ago.
- The commitment to the Medical Research Council (MRC) and maintaining its budget ‘in real terms’ and also to big ticket items like UKCMRI.
- The strong narrative in support of clinical research generally.
- The coalescence of many voices in science behind a common aim…as necessary in good times as well as bad
The not so good
- A 10 % cut in real terms will still be painful. Even with the sort of efficiency measures recommended by the Wakeham report some surgery is going to be required somewhere.
- What this means in terms of our international competitivenes.
..but, as said, it could have been far worse.
- The first is the pernennial worry for charities about the settlement for the Charity Research Support Fund (CRSF) under the QR settlement which has yet to be hammered out. It is a key lever for our involvement and underpins our partnership with universities. So, plenty of negotiations to be had yet.
- The second is that charities will undoubtedly come under pressure to fund more research at a time of less resource. Competition will be fierce. This will come with its own associated stresses as we tried to point out in our letter to The Times last week.
- With less news forthcoming about other research councils some have already intimated the need to ensure what happens here does not undermine interdisciplinary research and partnership.
- ….and the great unknown is the extent to which the Browne report recommendations re: tuition and teaching will have a knock-on impact on science and future generations of scientists.
What happens next?
I think the coalesced lobby needs to push on now. The near-term objective must be to make sure the forthcoming growth white paper translates today’s statement of intent by the Coalition Government into a cohesive plan.
In flying one is taught how to use the circle of uncertainty principle when lost: find a fixed landmark and circle until one can identify where one is by reference to your map.
The run-up to today has felt a little like that. We have had a fixed landmark in the CSR. Now, at least, we know how much fuel we have on board (even if it is not as much as we would like). And it looks likely there is a place to land. Doing so safely and in one piece is the next and perhaps hardest part to deliver.
The full spending review document can be seen here. Note the very explicit reference and commitment to the Medical Research Council (MRC) including expenditure growth in real terms (p52). We have just had a message through from NIHR which repeats the spending review document messages and is heavy on language about pulling through the benefits of science for patients and the economy. This result seems clearer for medical and health research than it does other areas of science.
Now seems a good idea to also unveil our excellent policy blog which gives you the low-down on the statements and people’s reactions.
Our immediate reaction to today’s spending review announcement on science:
‘Is this a slam-dunk for science? No, of course not. Is this a good result in the circumstances? Yes, probably. Today’s spending review announcement at least ensures continuity as well as stability in science funding for the foreseeable future. But I remain concerned about the added demands it will place on charity funding of research. As ever, the fine print will need careful reading.
What may turn out to be more important in the long-term is the fact that HM Treasury have been won over by the arguments about how science drives the nation’s wealth, health and wellbeing. We need to push on from here and work together to strengthen UK medical and health research so that patients can benefit from new thinking and treatments.’
Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC)
We’ll be doing more analysis later in the day.
Well, we won’t have too long to wait to know whether this is true but the Guardian is reporting this evening that science spending is to be frozen in tomorrow’s CSR for a review period, representing a 10% reduction in real terms over that time as inflation reduces the spending power of departments.
…and further perspective from the Financial Times running along the same lines as well as more on BBC News including some more specific remarks about the Medical Research Council. Plus The Times (paywall). Interesting narrative in the latter piece from Treasury sources which suggest the growth arguments of the science lobby have been effective.
We are packing up. No, no, no, not in that sense. It is just that we are moving office in a few weeks.
I am ashamed to say that I am the last of our team to begin the task of separating the recently aquired detritus from the must-keep documents that tell something of our history. But I am already unearthing a few gems.
Yesterday evening I stumbled across the annual ‘handbooks’ that we published in the eighties and nineties. These guides list our then member charities along with details of the grants and types of project each of them funded (details we now publish online). All contain a short foreword. Curiosity made me look at those from the early eighties:
1983 – ‘…there is no doubt that, generally speaking, university research is well-served by the charities. The funds available not only provide a significant contribution to the overall level of funding, but are very effective in the way they can provide relatively small amounts of funding when and where this is most needed.’
1984: ‘There is widespread concern that research institutions have been weakened considerably during the last few years. The charities have responded positively to help support and suatain the biomedical research base in the UK. It will be noted that over 30% of the member charities have disbursed monies in excess of their income during 1983. This is an exceptional response ata a difficult time.’
1985: ‘….there can now be little doubt that the dual support system of medical research in the UK is very shaky and there would seem to be a shift in government priorities from the public to the voluntary sector in maintaining the research base in our universities and teaching hospitals…Indeed, it would seem that the only growing contribution to medical research in real terms is that provided by the voluntary sector…’
and 1986: ‘ There can be no excuse for Government to give less; rather we would hope that the evident interest and concern of the British communitywould be reflected in a more generous allocation of public funds to the MRC…’
The hardening of their tone matches the parsimonious treatment of science during Margaret Thatcher’s first and second terms in office. But how easily they could fit into the discourse of the last few months.
Tomorrow sees the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) announcement. I suspect it will be a day largely about numbers big and small. But assessing what it means in practical terms will be more difficult. Don’t believe what the Government says about CSR being sorted, there’s a whole lot more wheeling and dealing to be done about how the Departments slice up the budgets. Tomorrow will feel a little like being served a rather burnt creme brulee. Every sense will tell us how unappetising it is as a dish but we won’t actually know until we have broken through the crust. And we will need something bigger than a teaspoon to do that.
After tomorrow, and sooner rather than later, we will need to look beyond the numbers and understand the driving philosophy behind them if we are to lead science properly in the coming years. A number of political commentators have already written that the deficit has been a gift to a Coalition Government intent on radically restructuring government and society. I suspect that science and technology will not be left out of this and we might get some better idea of the philosphy when the Government publishes its growth paper in the next few months.
Last night I stumbled across a paper by David Edgerton and Kirsty Hughes, and first published in 1989, entitled ‘ The poverty of science: A critical analysis of scientific and industrial policy under Mrs Thatcher.’ (1) They unpeel and help us understand that administration’s approach to science by making us see the relevance of the wider political contex, what they call a central policy agenda of ‘freeing private enterprise, of reducing intervention and of cuts in public expenditure’ – of re-shaping a slimmed down state to better serve industry. It is reminiscent of what we are seeing today as Aditya Chakrabortty wrote in The Guardian yesterday.
Their criticism of the science lobby at the time is that it failed to understand or challenge this. They conclude with the line: ‘Flexibility, variety and competition are needed in studies of science and technology policy, as well as in science itself.’
So, let’s crunch the numbers tomorrow but let us also be wary of painting by numbers in our challenge to government in the coming months and years.
(1) Public Administration Vol 67 Winter 419-433
A quick pass-by to alert you to the fact that we have a new briefing available on the impact on science of the proposed cap on non-EU migrants…and that we have published our response to the Ministry of Justice consultation on the current legislative framework for data protection.
On the former I believe that the House of Lords are due to debate the issue this Thursday 21st October.
Update at 4.30pm: Both The Guardian and The Times have been running reports this afternoon about an email from the head of Universities UK, Steve Smith, to the heads of higher eductaion institutions which has been leaked to the BBC. They are reporting that the email warns of a £3bn cut in university teaching budgets and a £1bn cut in the research budget.
This morning The Times has published a letter letter signed by almost 80 of AMRC’s member charities. Mark Henderson has also written an accompanying article (paywall) looking in more depth at the issues of concern for research charites. These include cuts in funding and the proposed cap on non-EU migrants. The text of the letter is as follows:
Sir, Our work benefits millions of patients across the UK. Last year alone the 124 members of the Association of Medical Research Charities funded more than £1 billion of medical and health research. As a proportion of public expenditure that is more than any other country. This contribution is driven by the combined efforts of volunteers, supporters, donors, clinicians, scientists and patients themselves. If ever there was an example of the “Big Society” in action this is it.
Ahead of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) we have asked the coalition Government to sustain science funding and ensure an environment that allows charities to fund research on behalf of patients. Failure to do so will lead to the UK losing its position as an international leader in science. Additional unacceptable strictures on research, such as the proposed cap on non-EU migrants, can only fuel concerns that our future scientists will be expected to work with one hand tied behind their backs.
Ministers are mistaken if they believe that charities are a substitute for Government expenditure. One of the great strengths of UK science is the synergy that exists between public, charitable and industry sources of funding. Only last week we saw evidence of what this collaboration can mean with the bowel-screening announcement heralded at the Conservative Party conference. It is such progress and the opportunity to improve health and wellbeing that has enabled us to build public support for research, support that leverages funding from other sources for the common good.
We recognise the very difficult decisions facing George Osborne. But in these final days before the CSR announcement he may wish to reflect on the comment by the American health activist Mary Lasker: “If you think research is expensive, try disease.”
You know, I can always tell the strength of feeling among our members by the speed with which they respond to my emails. Given that they only had 36 hours to respond to my request that they sign our letter, the fact that so many did is indicative of their growing apprehension. And more asked to do so after the deadline was passed.
As I reflect on matters at this late (or early) hour it is quite simple. Either the Government wants the UK to play for the first team of international science. Or it is content for it to be a substitute, playing for ten minutes or so with the occasional moment of glory. The problem is the unused substitute can soon lose form and confidence. Before we know it, they find themselves playing in the reserves or even moving down through the leagues to find a game. But whether that happens or not is in the manager’s hands.
Research Councils UK have published a report this morning written by the economist Romesh Vatilingam which looks at the economic impact of research in the UK. It states that a £1 billion cut in science funding will costs the UK £10 billion.
The British Heart Foundation have put out a news release in response.
The evidence builds up, the voices multiply….The Science is Vital petition is handed in to 10 Downing Street today with almost 35,000 signatures. An incredible number so thanks for signing.
RAND Europe and the Office of Health Economics (OHE) last week published this rather fascinating occasional paper from a seminar in May. It examines the spillovers (wider benefits) from biomedical and health research and seems highly salient given what is going on. I thought some of the diagrams were helpful in visualising the multilying effect of investment and collaboration across the research funding community and helping us to define what the spillovers are. As the paper concludes these must be targets for further research.
It also gives me an opportunity to flag-up that we will be publishing our ‘Ways and Means’ report looking at research charity collaborations and the wider benefits, at our AGM and Annual Conference on 24th November 2010.
If you are looking for coverage of the Browne review of university funding here’s as good a starting place as any: Daily Telegraph.
Language is everything in politics. We hang of every word of our politicians for any hint of a change in tone or content that might indicate whether a batlle is lost or won. The same is true of those campaigning for change. Just read my blogs from all three party conferences.
It feels in this eleventh hour before the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) that the language is hardening on both sides, that the courting is over and that hard truths are being spoken. I was pleased, for instance, to see such a stout defence of the charity position by the Wellcome Trust (our largest member) in today’s Guardian which reflects the position we articulated in our letter to The Times some weeks ago.
I think that I speak for my member charities when I say that there is a perennial frustration over the sense that the government talks about the contribution of medical research charities as a ‘nice to have’ bonus rather than recognising the essential and integral part it plays in making science happen in the UK. It used to talk about the charity sector’s delivery of care services in the same way until it realised it couldn’t deliver a welfare state without.
Similarly, in research, the UK would be ‘poorer’ without the contribution of charities in every sense of that word.
You only have to look at the latest figures on health research spend in the US which have been put out by the influential lobby group, Research!America to see what I mean. Now, few can compete with the sheer scale of funding in the States but I decided to do some number crunching myself (always a dangerous thing I know) to compare the contribution of the charity sector in the US to that in the UK.
Research spending is spliced differently there but if you add up what seem the most comparable aspects of ‘government’ funding in terms of NIH, state government funding etc and then add up the contributions of the voluntary health associations, philanthropic associations and independent institutes you get a total spend equivalent to £42.7 billion.
Its a rought cut I know. But if you now articulate the ‘charity’ contribution in the US as a proportion of all public expenditure there you get a figure of just under 8%. Even then, I think that is slightly inflated because of the nature of some of the organisations classed as NGOs.
What’s the proportion of public expenditure contributed by charities in the UK? Approximately one third.
But as Mark Walport so rightly put it in The Guardian this morning, it is less about the money than the synergy between the charity sector here with its other partners, the fact the sector is pushing in the same direction rather than entertaining private concerns as some of the American NGOs are wont to do.
If our government really does believe charities are a potential substitute for their forthcoming plans then they have seriously misunderstood the nature of the sector in the UK. Indeed, it is the sort of thinking upon which best laid plans will quickly unravel. I am even tempted to say something about ‘gift horses’ but is the end of a long week and that may be a little over the top.
What do you think?