UK Charities and Firms Tell Government They Won't Make Up Its Research Cuts. (October 8, 2010)

The Guardian reports that UK companies and charities have indicated to the UK's coalition government that they don't consider it their duty to fill the gaps in university funding that will be left if the government's proposed cuts to the science budget go ahead.

Mark Walport

The director of the biomedical charity the Wellcome Trust, Mark Walport says simply: "The private and charitable sector fund in the UK because we have a good partnership with government; we're not here in order to substitute for government, we can't do that. It sends the pharmaceutical community and the medical charity community an extremely bad signal if government cuts this area of funding. The government knows very well that the Wellcome Trust believes this is about synergy not substitution."

According to the Guardian's Alok Jha the private sector spends around £13bn (A$21bn) a year on R&D in the UK, and a significant portion is spent in partnership with universities to fund basic science or to turn ideas into commercial products. But all that investment is dependent on a strong, publicly funded university system, said company and charity chiefs.

In the 2008/09 financial year the UK government allocated £3.3bn (A$5.34bn) of research funding through the research councils and £2.2bn (A$3.56bn) through the higher education funding councils, most of which was for fundamental research.

Richard Barker, director general of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry notes: "The UK has been an attractive site for R&D because of the very strong basic science base. The vast majority of the UK research base is very competitive internationally and some of it is globally leading. Over a long-ish period of time [after spending cuts], companies would drift away. Any change you make to basic research, particularly basic life sciences research, the results will play out over 10-20 years."

In a non-too-subtle warning Mark Walport says: "We [the Wellcome Trust] have a clear strategy, which says we are a global funder and international help is an increasing part of our portfolio. I hope the UK will remain a powerful environment for conducting medical research," while in the view of the director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, Imran Kahn: "Industry leaders have consistently said their private sector investment depends on public support for science. If that support disappears, they will have no other choice but to look abroad for their raw materials: world class research and talented scientists and engineers. As a nation we don't have any choice but to gear up to having a high-tech, high-skills economy. With our international competitors increasing their investment in science and engineering, this would be the worst possible time to lower our own ambitions – it could take decades to rebuild our technological base to its world-class status."

David Cairncross, a senior policy adviser at the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) told the Guardian: "Publicly funded investment in both research and development has a multiplier effect, making the UK a more attractive location for businesses to invest. Any cuts which are made to university research funding should be skilfully managed to minimise the negative impact on business investment," and a report to be published next week by Research Councils UK states: "Continued public investment in scientific endeavour is essential for the success of UK business and industry – and, more broadly, for a productive economy, a healthy society and a sustainable world. Estimates of the impact of research council spending on the UK's national output suggest that a cut of £1bn in annual spending would lead to a fall in GDP of £10bn,"