With regard to the research environment in the United Kingdom there seems to be a growing consensus that the times have definitely been a changing for the better but there is certainly room to build on what has been accomplished so far.

According to Professor Richard Joyner, Chair of its Executive Committee, “Save British Science was formed in 1986 as a spontaneous protest by active scientists against savage cuts to university research... I am sure that you will want to ask, ‘Has British Science been Saved?’ There is no doubt that the situation has improved substantially over the last two Parliaments, and that the Government’s continuing commitment to research and innovation is very welcome. Be in no doubt, however, that serious problems remain.

Professor Joyner went on to refer to the under funding of teaching and the relatively low level of UK industry's investment in R&D, which he says must be improved if the economy is to thrive. He continued, "Another issue is that if we do not offer the salaries to attract the best people into our universities, there is a serious risk that recent investment in infrastructure, will be wasted. A fourth concern is the increasing concentration of science and engineering teaching in a small number of ‘research intensive’ universities, which CaSE believes will cut off careers in science and engineering to many."

Now Nature has chimed in with its May 12 editorial, following the results of Britain's May 5 election. "When the Labour party came to power in Britain in 1997, it inherited a decaying science base staffed by disillusioned scientists. The fact that the country's main science lobbying group has recently changed its name from Save British Science to the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) says much about what the government has achieved since then."

But the journal goes on to urge that "Scientists and their organizations need to put pressure on Tony Blair's administration as it enters a third term in office," to take the next steps while acknowledging, "Funding for science in universities and the research councils, the main source of UK grants, is up by more than 80% at £4.3 billion (A$10.5 billion) annually since 1997 and is set to go on rising."

Nature further extends its praise, "Wisely, the critical problem of the nation's crumbling science infrastructure was tackled first. Sainsbury [Lord David Sainsbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science and Innovation] has consistently proved himself to be an enthusiastic science minister with well-tuned instincts for policies that are both sound and deliverable.

"He has been greatly aided by the championship for science and associated wealth creation by the chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown."

But Nature also reports that among UK scientists there is concern that funding for basic research is being seriously neglected. For example CaSE claims that while "the proportion of science funds controlled by central government has risen from 2% to 20% since 1997 the funds available to the key funding agency for the great majority of physicists and chemists, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, have risen by only 6%."

In addition, although the Blair government has set the goal of 2.5% of GDP for R&D (up from the current 1.9%) by 2014, most of that increase should come British industry. According to Nature the private sector doesn't entirely agree.

But Nature reserves its strongest castigation for what it sees as the incompetence of the Blair government's lack of balanced planning in underpinning university science and not addressing the problem of the inadequate teaching of secondary school science coupled with the decreasing desire of students to go on to pursue science subjects at university.

Nature is brutally frank, "There has been a haphazard response to the combination of declining interest among the young in science as a career — not unique to Britain — and misguided university funding schemes. The rise in the grant-funding science budget has not been accompanied by appropriate infrastructural and teaching support from higher-education funding councils. The latter have been too selective in favour of top-rated departments and have exposed the high costs of science departments to increasingly market-driven management."

Will Australia's Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, be prepared to take note of the views of CaSE and Nature's editorialist and alter course, or is he in any position to do so as long as Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello continue in their narrow views of science, research in general, and the role of universities?