The party has recently been trailing hints of the content and priorities of the new manifesto. One released last week was an announcement touting a ringfence of the science budget. They write:
The manifesto plans include ringfencing the science research budget and introducing a green innovation arm to the British Business Bank.
It’s great that the manifesto team have chosen to flag investment in science and innovation as a reason to vote Liberal Democrat in the 2015 general election, but what a meagre and unambitious announcement this was. One worrying sign is the wording mentioning only the ‘research budget’, which raises the concern that this ringfence might be a fig leaf hiding underspending in capital investment for science, as we saw in the early years of the current coalition government – though the 2014 budget went some way towards plugging the gap in capital spending in the sector.
The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) have already published an article highlighting their concerns of the gradual erosion of our research base after five years of flat-cash allocations. They also highlight the UK’s slipping position in the global rankings of investment in R&D, falling behind the EU average and spending only three-quarters as much as the OECD average (as a percentage of GDP) on research and development.
The United Kingdom consistently performs well in being able to ‘do more with less’ in research output, but much of this will be momentum gained in earlier periods of investment, with well-supported researchers choosing to settle and build teams in British institutions, not to mention the global dominance of the English language in science publishing and practice. Today, early-career researchers are too often given a better deal abroad, while strict migration controls discourage many talented scientists from joining British labs.
Naomi Weir, CaSE’s assistant director concludes:
If we’re serious about science, and want to reap the benefits of a healthy science and engineering sector we need to invest.
CaSE wants to see Parties committing to setting out a ten year framework for investment in science and engineering on an upward trajectory that AT LEAST matches growth
The Liberal Democrat party made that commitment in September 2012 by unanimously backing the party’s science policy paper ‘Developing a future: Policies for science and research’, which proposes a 3% increase, year on year, of both the research and capital science budget for the next 15 years. The paper also proposes removing international students from migration statistics as well as exempting individuals with a doctorate or chartered scientist status from settlement restrictions.
The Lib Dem manifesto team have clearly identified that distinguishing the party on science and research is a worthwhile message. If that is the case, they should highlight the distinctive policies backed by conference in 2012 rather than merely trailing more of the same.
* Ed Long is the chair of the Association of Lib Dem Engineers and Scientists and a local member of Tower Hamlets Lib Dems
10 Comments
‘The paper also proposes removing international students from migration statistics as well as exempting individuals with a doctorate or chartered scientist status from settlement restrictions.’
Students (as distinct from graduates) I’d be inclined to agree with. However surely the rest should be conditioned by an actual shortage of skillsets? Otherwise isn’t this just open borders by the back door? If there is no shortage then there shouldn’t be an exemption. And for that matter any exemption should be time-limited. There is a much more nuanced story here.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/does-the-uk-really-need-more-engineers/2011723.article
No, the proposal isn’t open borders at all, but streamlining visa processes and making the process of living and working in the UK less offputting for highly qualified experts.
Ed – With respect,
Paragraph 53 of that paper you link to appears to talk about exemptions, not streamlining. In fact I can’t see mention of a visa at all.
I note that paragraph 51 blurs the distinction between student and graduate. Presumably you do not see a new graduate as a, ‘highly qualified expert?’
Do you think that there is no problem with UK STEM unemployment?
@Little Jackie Piper – it’s not trivial to obtain a doctorate so it’s hardly “open borders”.
Moreover science is international by its nature (a good lab may often have applicants from around the world), progression within it is attained largely through mobility (moving to where the best jobs are, regardless of state) and often requires hyperspecialised skills (not just a degree!). There’s a constant brain drain to and between the most successful countries (ones with good funding basically), none of which have a shortage of skills in general, which ultimately enriches the careers of those moving and of the labs that receive them.
It’s a case study in the benefits of immigration and I’d support a sectorial loosening of the rules wholeheartedly. As a scientist myself.
Ed, could you be more specific as to where this government money goes? As a manufacturer I see government money going into the Industrial Strategy sectors for specific R&D, and you have alluded to that in referring to a green investment arm of the British Business Bank, but I don’t know from the article whether you are including this money in your figures, or whether your article talks about the money for university research rather than collaborative research with industry?
“proposes a 3% increase, year on year, of both the research and capital science budget for the next 15 years.”
I’ll support yours if you support mine:
I propose a 1% increase, year on year, of both the defence capital and expenditure budgets for the next 15 years.
Jackie – the policy paper proposes exempting holders of doctorates or chartered status from settlement restrictions. This would be after they had secured a visa and a paid position in the UK. It’s not exempting the above from any entry restriction, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
I think we have a problem with matching supply to demand in the STEM workforce in the UK, though it’s much more than a numbers game as so few people (even worldwide) are qualified to fill certain specialist roles in research. I think the problem is exacerbated by poor careers advice at school and university; later retirement ages and an expectation among firms that universities will provide ‘job-ready’ candidates.
Above all, I think a long term commitment to increased funding of R&D will help to lower sectoral unemployment – which is really the main point made in the article.
@William – I believe (though am happy to be corrected) that the current coalition spending ringfence includes BIS spending on the research councils, HEFCE and the academies, excluding capital spend. Julian’s policy paper proposes including capital inside the ringfence and increasing 3% year on year.
The Business Bank part is from the party’s recent announcement on the website (http://www.libdems.org.uk/ringfencing_the_science_research_budget) and I don’t know the precise budget implications. I would guess this would be treated separately from the science budget and more as an innovation investment.
Thanks Ed,
I take from your response that, while pure and applied R&D do join up sometimes, the science budget is about university research and not about applied R&D, often in partnership with commercial companies – which is the purpose of the Industrial Strategy.
The well known problem in the UK is taking academic breakthroughs into the UK commercial world. If scientific research is government funded, then I’d be trying to improve our UK retention of these breakthroughs, and that’s where I’d be putting money. So research funding is not an end in itself, but the first part of a chain for long term employment outside universities.
Ed, whilst I lack the time to have an indepth discussion on funding (where we can do better, but I feel you may be over-egging your cake to prove your point), but I do think that one of the key things you touch upon is the fact that our education system is failing to gear our youth towards the Sciences.
We simply never make lessons such as Maths and the Sciences seem like they could lead to viable career options.