Scientists are bracing for the prospect of major cuts to research funding in this week’s budget. Some senior officials have said they fear up to £1bn could be squeezed out of cash given to fund UK science projects.
Scientists’ concerns mainly focus on the extra £1 billion required for Britain to join Horizon Europe, the EU’s research and innovation programme, which it rejoined last year. This funding may have to come from savings elsewhere, with the £8bn annual budget of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), the UK’s main supporter of basic research, subject to additional funding from Mr Reeves. This will almost certainly result in a raid.
Cuts at this level could jeopardize the country’s position as a world leader in basic research and leave UKRI struggling to fund new projects, they say.
“The prospect of cuts of the level being touted this week (up to £1bn) and the fear that UKRI could wipe out all the grant funding it will provide next year is extremely concerning and is a major concern for our research and It will cause real damage to the innovation ecosystem,” Nobel Prize winner Professor Andre Geim and former University of Manchester Chancellor Professor Nancy Rothwell wrote in an article for Observer Online.
“Simply put, if governments move to cut off the flow of R&D funding now, they cannot turn the tap back on in a few years and expect to see the same results.” says physiologist Rothwell. And Geim won a Nobel Prize for his role as co-inventor of the ultra-strong material graphene.
Other senior scientists believe the cuts Mr Reeves is likely to impose will be less than £1bn, but remain concerned that funding could be slashed, with the UK’s most prominent More than 40 scientists may have signed a letter to the Times. last week. They warned that significant cuts to research and development spending in the UK would have a “significant negative impact” on the UK.
“Cutting jobs now will result in a loss of jobs, expertise and momentum at a time when the sector needs to make a vital contribution to economic growth and increased productivity,” the group said.
One of the signatories to the letter, Professor Ian Boyd from the University of St Andrews, told the Observer that there were real fears that the UK’s science budget would be cut, and that this would be particularly detrimental to emerging scientific fields. He said that there is a possibility of giving. the study.
“Research projects often take years to complete, which means funding for research projects has already been committed and contracts have been signed,” he said. “This means that the only way to impose new cuts is to cancel projects that have not yet begun and are still in the planning stages, which could prevent new research in many areas. So the impact can be very serious.”
Boyd added: “Furthermore, the cuts would slow down infrastructure upgrades and the training of young scientists, reducing our ability to use science to drive economic growth and emerge from our current situation.”
Skip past newsletter promotions
Our morning email breaks down the day’s big stories so you know what’s happening and why it matters.
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may include information about charities, online advertising, and content sponsored by external parties. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and are subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.
After newsletter promotion
Scientists point to recent major scientific successes in the UK, including the invention of coronavirus vaccines, new cancer drugs and materials such as graphene. “Science is the corn seed,” said Sir Paul Nurse, Nobel laureate and director of the Francis Crick Institute in London. “It’s an investment in the future. And the research that’s being done now to be the source of future new drugs and treatments is also essential for health. So if you cut science budgets, you’re investing in future industries and future citizens. It will be harmful to your health.”
John Arne Rottingen, chief executive of the UK’s independent science funder, the Wellcome Trust, highlighted the potential savings. “We are fully committed to investing in a research system that works well in the UK, so if we see a threat to our research budget we will speak out for the need for appropriate investment. ”
Mr Nurse, who was recently re-elected as president of the Royal Society, said the UK was near the bottom of the OECD’s ranking of basic research and development spending. This shows that government spending on science should be increased, not reduced, he argued. “Given all these fundamental points, it is hard to believe that this government would be foolish enough to make the cuts that are being talked about,” he added.
