I originally intended this to be a politics free blog for once. But such is life.
Today we put in our submission on the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) which you can find on our website. I see there was some coverage of the Royal Society’s own submission in this morning’s papers.
Many of the messages in our submission will be familiar to those of you who have followed the debate about science funding over the last six months. But I also hope it goes some way to describing from a charity perspective, the foundations on which future Government science policy should be built.
I think our submission is also distinctive for three reasons: the way in which it conveys the overwhelming public commitment and support for medical and health research; in setting out very precisely why charities invest in research in the UK rather than elsewhere and; in highlighting the importance of specific levers such as the Charity Research Support Fund (CRSF) in underpinning the public’s commitment to research and making science happen. That is also amplified in the joint statement with universities that we have recently put together and which is included in the submission appendix.
One of the people who speaks very eloquently on this subject is Pamela Goldberg from Breast Cancer Campaign who has mentioned their concerns about CRSF on several occasions on her excellent blog over the past few months.
We have also included a number of vignettes about how charity research funding is making a difference to people’s lives. These perhaps take on greater poignancy given the Government’s preoccupation with evidence and impact. And we could have just as well added the following from this week’s news:
Stem cell method put to the test in Parkinson’s study
I am looking forward to putting all these points to MPs and Peers who are attending the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Medical Research summer reception on Monday.
Simon Denegri's Lay Review 