麻豆传媒

THE day is Wednesday 20 October, 2010. Scientists and campaigners from all corners of the UK hold their breath, awaiting the government鈥檚 Comprehensive Spending Review. They are bracing themselves for their research budgets to be slashed, with cuts as high as 25 per cent rumoured before the government lays out its plan to shrink the nation鈥檚 debt.

A sigh of relief. The result is surprisingly kind to science, with the budget frozen for the next four years. In the days that followed, former president of the Royal Society, astronomer Martin Rees, said the review was 鈥渧ery welcome news鈥�. The chief executive of the Medical Research Council (MRC), John Savill, said it meant the UK would 鈥渞etain a strong and vibrant research base鈥�.

So time to pop open the champagne? Not quite. The 拢4.6 billion allocated every year for the next four years does not mean that science is getting off scot-free. The responses of Savill and Rees should be taken as a collective sigh of relief rather than a celebration, says director of the , Imran Khan. Although the cuts were not the 鈥済ame over鈥� scenario many feared, the US, France and Germany are increasing their spending in science and higher education (see 鈥楽cience budget swings鈥� diagram).

In the UK, when you consider inflation, the funding freeze effectively means that we are going to be spending 9 per cent less in four years鈥� time, says Khan. The science community 鈥渋s still in for a tough four years鈥�.

One relief is that the funding will be safely ring-fenced, so it cannot be pinched to plug gaps in other departments. But for every up there is a down: the fence does not include the 拢750 million estimated to be needed for 鈥渃apital spending鈥�. This money, used by research councils to build and maintain facilities and pay international subscriptions, will be cut by 52 per cent (accounting for inflation). Universities are also feeling the pain. From 2012 they will get 40 per cent less for teaching, a loss of 拢2.9 billion.

In the field

鈥淭here is still good news around,鈥� says Janet Metcalfe, head of the researcher development organisation . Levels of investment and infrastructure building over the past 10 years have been good, she says. 鈥淭hat base is still going to be there. We鈥檙e just going to have to find ways to be more cost effective, to build stronger networks and collaborate more.鈥�

However, research councils other than the MRC聽鈥� the only one to have its budget kept in line with inflation聽鈥� may see their budgets reduced as their fixed funding pot effectively shrinks thanks to inflation (see 鈥楽hrinking feeling鈥� graph). Grants are unlikely to be drastically reduced or rescinded, but who receives them might change, says Luke Georghiou, professor of science and technology policy at the University of Manchester. 鈥淢any research councils have sets of core institutions they already have closer relations with and I expect there will be more focus [on these institutions],鈥� says Georghiou. Tony Bell, national secretary of the union Prospect, suggests that government priority areas, including health, environment, food security and animal health research, may feel most of the benefit.

Meanwhile, the effects of universities losing a big chunk of their teaching budget are going to be hard to predict, says Rob McCready from the University and College Union. 鈥淭here鈥檚 a symbiotic relationship between teaching and research within departments,鈥� he says. 鈥淚f departments are going to receive basically no or much reduced public funding and have to get the money in through students, that will create an instability that will have knock-on effects for research.鈥�

Some universities and research institutions are already facing a two-year staff pay freeze and redundancies following relatively small cuts, announced in June 2010. 鈥淧eople will leave and won鈥檛 be replaced; as a result workloads go up,鈥� McCready says. Top-end universities that can attract higher prices will fare better, says Bell, but smaller universities could close.

Beyond the public sector

So while the public sector tightens its belt, could working in industry be a better option? The government is keen to see a return on its investment in science through growth in industrial sectors. Commitments such as the 拢1 billion for the Green Investment Bank, set up to aid the transition to a low-carbon economy, 拢220 million for the development of renewable technologies, and the introduction of academic-industrial collaborations called Technology and Innovation Centres, will add options for those with entrepreneurial ambitions.

Could charities plug some of the gaps? Don鈥檛 count on it, says Cancer Research UK鈥檚 head of , Simon Vincent. 鈥淲e run schemes specifically aimed at getting careers kicked off and next year we鈥檙e hopefully going to fund more than we have done before鈥� but the charity sector is pretty static at the moment.鈥� People pay charities to do research, not prop up universities, says Vincent. In any case, he adds: 鈥淭here鈥檚 little point in having a grant if you don鈥檛 have the university resources on which to [work].鈥�

What should you do?

Given that it looks like this government, like its predecessor, seems to back science, the best advice is to hang in there, says Steve Miller, head of science and technology studies at University College London. Looking at the last time science was badly hit, in the 1980s, it was those who were most flexible and willing to hop from one short-term contract to another who survived, he adds.

It is also important to make yourself visible, says Janet Metcalfe of Vitae. 鈥淧eople need to look at how they can maximise the opportunities for themselves.鈥� That includes making sure you are well known, publishing papers, and creating networks.

Stay in touch with unions and professional bodies, adds Rob McCready from the University and College Union. Campaigning prevented the of Sussex University鈥檚 chemistry department in 2006. 鈥淒on鈥檛 have a defeatist attitude about this,鈥� he advises. 鈥淲e worked with local MPs, councillors and students to highlight how important the subject was to the local community聽鈥� and it worked.鈥�

Another option is to go abroad. Many countries have seized science and engineering as a way to drive themselves out of recession and have boosted their funding, says Hilary Leevers, also at the CaSE. The US is not just preserving its health research spending, it鈥檚 doubling it. Such a move can also be good for your career: 鈥淪cientists will take their UK network, integrate them into wherever they are abroad and we hope they will at some point return to the UK with a broader perspective,鈥� she says.

Finally, there are opportunities if you are willing to look beyond research, says Stephen McAuliffe from the . 鈥淏eing a good quality researcher might also mean being a good manager or motivator. There may be some very sensible stop-offs,鈥� he says. Careers in science communication, policy and teaching leave the door open to return to research, says Leevers. 鈥淎nd many would say parliament could do with more people informed about science and engineering.鈥�