At a time when we are seeing some of the biggest government cuts in a generation it may seem to belittle the suffering people are facing to complain about the effect of the spending review on the science budget. As the government is trying to reduce our debt to income ratio, they have cut the deficit but we also need to create long-term sustainable economic growth. For this to happen investment in science and innovation is key. Our spending on research and development is vital to drive forward economic growth and reverse the current stagnation we see in our economy.
In 2010 the science budget was fixed in cash terms at £4.6bn, but the capital budget was drastically cut. Since then we have thankfully seen a reversal in those capital cuts, although we are still not at the pre-2010 level. However the ring-fencing in cash terms in 2010 has in reality nibbled away at our science budget and damaged our international competitiveness to attract the best scientists to the UK.
That is why in the spending review it was good to hear the role of science and innovation being talked up by both George Osborne and Vince Cable, especially in establishing the role R&D will play in rebuilding our economy. The spending review saw a continued commitment from the Chancellor to freeze the science budget, but this is extremely worrying. There has already been a substantial loss since 2010 and with this new commitment for 2015/16 there is expected to be a £276m fall in the science budget, roughly 6% of the current budget.
That said there are some positives to come from this, the boost in the capital budget from £0.6bn to £1.1bn is welcome and does give some confidence for the future with the budget being maintained in line with inflation in 2016/17. We also see an increase in the budget for the Technology Strategy Board which is helping to support innovation as well as £100m being made available to the Small Business Research Initiative to help SMEs invest in R&D. It was also promising to see postgraduate funding coming to the forefront, especially to help students from disadvantages background through a fund for HEFCE.
Overall this looks like positive news, that is until you start to look at the international stage where our science and innovation funding is woefully short and sees us 27th in the league tables of science spend as a percentage of GDP. In the UK we spend around 1.7% of our GDP on R&D and 0.57% on publicly funded R&D. Comparing this to other countries, South Korea is increasing its expenditure to 5%, China is at 2%. In the US they spend 1.2% on publicly funded R&D while in Singapore it is 1%.
The UK is not only lagging behind, but our direction of travel is also the opposite of most other countries. Whereas our competitors are showing increased investment in real-terms the UK is falling rapidly. And this is the worry. How can we hope to stay internationally competitive and to drive new, creative innovation leading to economic growth when we are lagging so far behind in our R&D investment?
Credit should be given to the Chancellor, Vince Cable and David Willets for the positive messages they are giving out in terms of scientific investments and its links to long term economic growth. But we now need to step up a gear, to set out a commitment for long term investment in science and innovation and reverse the downward trend.
* Richard Davis is a prospective Member of the European Parliament for London. His website is here.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
US outperformance isn't *all* about Tech
The Joy of Six 1298
Last West End Christmas Fortnight events today! #dundeewestend
How national insurance increase will undermine homeless services
North London's expanse
Jonathan Brown
Joseph Bourke
Nonconformistradical
theakes
13 Comments
In these days where it’s not just the size of the budget, but it’s effectiveness, the Lib Dem Campaign for Manufacturing is highlighting the new linkages that come from the Industrial Strategy. There is a real opportunity structurally to link university R&D in with the new Industrial Strategy sectors and their industry-wide product development. This can create a more effective route for government investment in primary scientific research with long term industrial growth. A win-win if we can achieve it. With the groups already existing within the Lib Dems (I refer particularly to ALDES), and with Vince at BIS, we have a real opportunity here.
We’ve got some work to do on LD policy from last September!: “We would seek to build a cross-party consensus to provide an annual increase in the science budgets, both revenue and capital, of 3% over inflation for the next 15 years.”
Our own manifesto will be a good place to start.
Not one mention of risk. There’s no such thing as a growth money tap. This article is misleading to the public and is simply one sided lobbying and politicians need to stop it. If I did this as a financial adviser I would get struck off.
Adam, I completely agree. I hope this case is put forward more in parliament.
Eddie, I wouldn’t say a growth money tap, but there has been a lot of research into how investment into science, innovation and R&D effects the economy. To quote from the Science Policy paper that Adam mentioned; the Wellcome Trust, MRC and Academy of Medical Sciences found that every pound invested in medical research generates an ongoing return of 30p/year. Jonathan Haskell of Imperial College Business School estimated that a £1bn cut in research funding results in a potential GDP loss of £10bn.
I agree that there are risks, but by investing in science, research and innovation we can start to move forwards and build an economy that we can rely on for the future that is more diverse than purely relying on the City and financial firms. And surely as a financial advisor you can appreciate the effect on overall risk that a well diversified portfolio can have.
I urge you to read http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/resources/docs/policy/SciencePolicy.pdf
Science spending needs to be seen in context as part of a wider ecosystem of innovation and there we have a problem. Risk capital prepared to take on early-stage projects is too scarce, larger companies that inevitably have the greatest capacity to bring new ideas to market are too often driven by the ultra short-term priorities of quarterly results statements and so on. We need a far broader and more strategic vision of science spending.
@GF, I completely agree. It is interesting that in the same week the EU has agreed on the Horizon2020 framework which will contain a specific instrument for investing in research and innovation in small companies. Recognising the fact that 98% of firms are SMEs and employ 70% of the people.
See http://drricharddavis.co.uk/blog/2013/06/27/agreement-reached-on-eus-science-and-innovation-funding/ for more details on Horizon2020 agreement.
Spending is a concern. A huge one. But so too is the coalition’s immigration policy which prevents scientists coming to the UK, and forces newly graduated PhD and Masters students out.
If Cable and Willets want to make significant improvements in the UK’s science and tech abilities then they need to loosen immigration restrictions and encourage skilled migrants and their families to move to the UK.
This Coalition are doing the exact opposite.
The issue of science and technology is important and should transcend party boudaries. Political point-scoring is out of place here.
The issue of science and technology is important and should transcend party boudaries. Political point-scoring is out of place here.
I fully appreciate the importance of diversification, however in order for diversification to be effective it has to be based on an independent analysis of the whole economy, not just by listening to lobbyists who have only studied one sector.
I had to make the same point to the arts people.
THe UK is a terrible place for scientists
Perhaps we maintain a certain level of competency in our research organisations but the issue has always been application.
Our scientists (and to an extent engineers) are appallingly paid and the lack of respect shown to scientists is manifest. When you have a PhD scientist getting paid the same or less than a process operator then why spend 6-7 years studying?
The British are always suspicious of experts as well so we can never have a mature debate about science and/or risk. I would like to know how many A-Levels/degrees in the core science subjects there are amongst the cabinet. Science is for geeks, boffins and nerds – the chattering classes are always prepared to give us their view on science but never seem to want to bother learning any!
I heard Clegg join on about science-based precautionary principles the other day – what does that mean? What criteria does he make a judgement on the risks linked to GMO?
I am a proud scientist but would never advise a child of mine to do science in the UK
Totally agree with Adam Corlett. We passed a really good motion on science policy in September in Brighton. I really hope that this will enter into our manifesto – alongside apprenticeships, pro-manufacturing, exporting outside of the EU – in short modern, intelligent, green, sustainable growth.
The greatest threat to humanity is the power of big business. Above all, they are the ones who stifle innovation and the drive towards a sustainable human experience in perpetuity. Indeed the concept of humanity is at threat due to these power groups insatiable lust for profit and where according to Forbes a mere 2,000 companies control 51% of the global economic turnover of the world. Some of the few great humanitarian breakthroughs where I am personally aware of that big business has suppressed and destroyed are,
1. The humane non-addictive cure for hard drug addiction based on plants, where it detoxified long-term addicts in 72 hours with no ‘cold turkey’ or human side effects. The reason, it would kill tens of billions of drug sales and where this suppression because of the constant quest for profit, rises above even human life itself.
2. The introduction of a global strategy to prevent pandemics happening that worked in Hong Kong in 1997 and the only one ever to do so and stop the human-to-human killer virus in its tracks. The reason again, there are not the tens of billions in drug sales. Indeed when it comes and where Margaret Chan of the WHO only says that it is a matter of time not when, it will totally decimate the global economy and make the financial meltdown look like a storm in a teacup. But far worse it is estimated that it will kill over 300 million due to the rapid transit systems that we have now unlike 1918 when the Spanish Flu took up to 100 million lives worldwide, and where no family in the world will be unaffected through the loss of a loved one. Again where vast profits rise above human life itself and where such things are of crimes against humanity. Even Nature magazine undertook their dirty work and destroyed this strategy, never to see the light of day again.
3. The introduction into Africa of PCR low-cost testing kits (the only one costing a few dollars that can determine HIV/AIDS in new born babies and where cheap remedies would then eradicate the diseases for life) that would save hundreds of millions from the scourge of HIV/AIDS and eventually eradicate HIV/AIDS globally by introducing into all nations throughout the world. The reason, big business and charities have a monopoly on the present testing kits that even make money for so-called international charities.
4. Where big business is and has constantly been buying up new patents that can benefit human sustainability but where because they hit the giant corporate’s ‘bottom-line’, they are shelved. We know this as our fellows tell us so and where they advise the largest corporate concerns in the world. Many of these are the answers to sustainability and the ways of sustaining the ‘human experience’ itself. But because they would knock the profits severely of current products, they are supressed.
These and other major cover-ups and pure disenabling on the alter of vast corporate profits are the reasons why humankind does not find solutions. But the irony of all this that is constantly going on behind the scenes is that it will eventually even kill off the giant corporates themselves. Therefore the motto seems to be, bleed the system dry of monetary gain at the expense of everything, even human life itself. Can we be so stupid as a species to allow this as the Royal Society and MIT scientists have both independently predicted that by around 2032, the world will simply disintegrate in both social and economic terms under the dictates of the present global system. Innovation is therefore without doubt being destroyed on a daily basis by the avaricious appetite of the global corporate giant’s quest for vast profits and wealth of the very few – including politicians and the so-called corporate spin-off philanthropic organizations around the world who make billions out of humanitarian work without paying any corporation tax whatsoever.
Dr David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation
– See more at: http://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2013/03/21/innovation-so-much-accomplished-but-so-far-short-of-full-potential/#sthash.qlWGCNX0.dpuf