Source: Alamy

Half empty? Funding could rise by 50 per cent to match rivals such as the US

The UK¡¯s current level of research spending is ¡°strikingly below¡± rivals such as the US and Germany and could be increased by up to 50?per cent, according to a former government head of research funding.

Graeme Reid made the comments in his recent inaugural lecture as professor of science and research policy at University College London, a job he took up in April after leaving the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Professor Reid is widely seen as having played a major role in protecting the science budget at a time when almost all government departments suffered deep cuts as a result of the coalition government¡¯s austerity programme.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

The UK ¡°has the highest citations per pound [of investment] in the G8¡±, Professor Reid said in the lecture, entitled ¡°Why Should the Taxpayer Fund Science and Research?¡±

Professor Reid pointed to a highly skilled and scientifically informed labour force as ¡°probably the largest benefit of all¡± from public spending on science and research. Although he acknowledged that 53?per cent of PhDs would go on to careers outside science, he added that ¡°some call it ¡®leakage¡¯ or ¡®failure¡¯, but I call it ¡®impact¡¯¡±.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

He went on to consider the role of research in improving public policy and public services, something he said is ¡°sometimes underplayed compared to business¡±. A strong research base also helps to ¡°attract R&D development from global business¡±, which looks for ¡°talented people¡±, ¡°high-quality science¡± and the ¡°ease of working with universities¡± when deciding where to locate research facilities.

There is good evidence of public support for ¡°blue-skies¡± as well as applied research, said Professor Reid, citing an Ipsos Mori poll indicating that 35?per cent of the public strongly agreed (and 43?per cent more tended to agree) that ¡°even if it brings no immediate benefits, scientific research which advances knowledge should be funded by the government¡±.

Only 3?per cent, in contrast, strongly agreed that ¡°government funding for science should be cut because the money can be better spent elsewhere¡±.

Professor Reid observed that although public money given to science and research now amounts to ¡°?3 a week for each person in the UK¡±, international comparisons suggest that this is ¡°basically an unremarkable level of expenditure¡± and ¡°strikingly below some of the countries we like to emulate¡±.

É«ºÐÖ±²¥

He concluded his talk by asking whether it was ¡°time to reappraise the level of scientific funding in the UK¡±, perhaps boosting it by one-third or even half to match our American and German competitors.

When asked by a member of the audience about the potential impact of any significant future cuts in science funding, Professor Reid responded that ¡°we would need to think if we could continue to be excellent in everything ¨C because we can¡¯t afford to be average in everything¡±.

matthew.reisz@tsleducation.com