Should science be protected from spending cuts?
Britain faces a brain drain warn the heads of six of the country's top universities. They say that cuts in the science budget will harm research and the country's economy. Should science be protected from spending cuts?
In a letter from the Lords Science and Technology Committee to the Science Minister David Willetts, the academics warn that specialists will leave the UK to move to countries where there is more investment in research and development.
The government says it is "committed to making the economic case for science and innovation". However, the Business Secretary Vince Cable recently stated that the scientific community could do "more for less".
Physicist Russell Stannard spoke to the Today programme on Thursday 23 September about the limits of scientific discovery.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Is cutting the country's science budget a false economy? Do you work in science research? What should be done to encourage more interest in science and innovation? Are we reaching the limits of scientific discovery?
This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~04~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Science is of vital importance. The idea that we can safely leave scientific research to other countries is wrong. Having research carried out in the UK gives us an advantage in developing commercial spin offs, or it would if the government would set up an effective organisation for exploiting academic research. Exploitation should not be left to private UK companies, which, with just a few exceptions, have a very poor record in this respect, or to academics who might have to mortgage their personal assets to fund development.
It is particularly important that the government gives support to "blue skies" research, because this is the area which often has produced very valuable results unexpectedly. Private companies, who must look for more sure profits, cannot be expected to back this work.
Complain about this comment
"Should science be protected from spending cuts?"
Only if there's a direct (and substantial) return to the taxpayer. I.E., no giving my money away to research stuff which is then going to be exploited by private industries who then throw meagre titbits back in my direction.
Complain about this comment
Science is not absolutely critical although it is highly desireable. Limiting funding to areas of great importance is how it should start if it must be done.
I will however state that religious breaks should be removed first before any attempt at cutting science. Science saves lives, improves health, generates wealth, provides solutions and is necessary on a global scale. Religions make a few believers feel good and everyone else persecuted.
Complain about this comment
"Should science be protected from spending cuts?"
only if education is, what is the point of funding (expensive!) science projects when the next generation can't write their own names?
Complain about this comment
Another day, another anti-cuts story.
I value science, and hope the government does, too.
Unfortunately, it is so clear that the public sector, certainly under Labour, was so wasteful, that it is obvious that spending can very easily be cut without affecting output or outcome.
I'm getting a bit sick of the BBC leading its news with anti-cuts propaganda. It's obviously working to yet another of its agendas. The problem is, people can see that there is waste in the public sector, so they are bound to question the credibility of the campaigners.
Complain about this comment
1. No.
2. No.
3. Spend more
Complain about this comment
We cannot afford for our top scientists to leave the country so yes, science should be protected from cuts.
Complain about this comment
Scientists say that cuts in the science budget will harm research and the country's economy.
Teachers say that Cuts in education will damage Britains future prosperity.
Police Chiefs say that cuts will leave them unable to fight crime.
The MOD says cuts will leave them unable to meet Britains current or future military commitments.
Doctors say that cuts will leave them unable to effectively treat a number of conditions.
To cut a long a story short-
We're all Doomed. Doomed I tell you. Doomed.
Complain about this comment
To put this into context I believe science is a far more deserving case for being protected than say overseas aid.
Can anyone please explain why we're giving money to the likes of China, India and Pakistan when they are investing millions if not billions into nuclear weapons!
Complain about this comment
2. At 11:56am on 23 Sep 2010, Wyn wrote:
"Should science be protected from spending cuts?"
Only if there's a direct (and substantial) return to the taxpayer. I.E., no giving my money away to research stuff which is then going to be exploited by private industries who then throw meagre titbits back in my direction.
Meagre titbits like penicillin? That was discovered by a single university lecturer but it took the full might (and bank accounts) of a major pharmaceutical company to actually make enough of it to become a useful product.
Universities are very, very good at making 'breakthroughs' but they don't have 1% of the money needed to actually turn ideas into products.
You might also wish to consider that companies like Glaxo-Smithkline are one of the few major industries in the UK that actually produce anything. As they make very good profits THEY PAY HUGE AMOUNTS OF TAX and your pension pot is probably highly dependent on their share price. Any drug developed in Britain and manufactured by a British pharma-company is one of the few exports we have the rest of the world wants.
As such cutting funding to science is insanity. Mind you this is a govt that decided that regulating bouncers and security guards is a waste of money so god knows if sanity comes into some of their decisions.
Complain about this comment
In times of national financial difficulty scientific research has always been one of the first things to get cut. The trouble is, the money never returns when the economy improves.
We are constantly being told that the UK is transforming into a knowledge-based economy. Science and scientific research should a prime driver in that transition and deserve to receive increased funding, not less.
I was doing my PhD at Sussex University in the 80s around the time that (now Sir) Harry Kroto was developing his ideas about a new form of carbon. The Conservative government of the time was pressing ahead with cuts to higher education and to research funding. Consequently Kroto had to move to America to get the funding to progress the work that ultimately resulted in a Nobel prize and the discovery of a whole new area of chemistry. That work has spawned whole new industries producing new materials, new technologies and new products. But thanks to short-sighted penny-pinching by government it is not UK companies that reaped the benefits.
It is a sad fact that, apart from a small number of world-class institutions, Britain's universities are being left behind by better funded institutions in other countries. In the UK we have seen whole academic departments in subjects like chemistry and physics close because they were deemed too expensive to run.
Sadly, those in government (of whatever political persuasion) simply don't "get" science. How many science graduates become MPs? Not many.
Complain about this comment
5. At 12:03pm on 23 Sep 2010, The Bloke wrote:
Another day, another anti-cuts story.
I value science, and hope the government does, too.
Unfortunately, it is so clear that the public sector, certainly under Labour, was so wasteful, that it is obvious that spending can very easily be cut without affecting output or outcome.
I'm getting a bit sick of the BBC leading its news with anti-cuts propaganda. It's obviously working to yet another of its agendas. The problem is, people can see that there is waste in the public sector, so they are bound to question the credibility of the campaigners.
or to be more accurate there is waste in SOME PARTS of the public sector. MOD procurement is very wasteful, the soldiers on the front line in Afghanistan are anything but wasteful. The majority of British universities give pretty good value for money. In addition not everything can be given a financial value... the accountants Thatcher tried using to run the NHS viewed patients as a financial liability as they cost the NHS money but didn't create any income for the hospitals. Be wary of that sort of mindset.
Complain about this comment
I don't think we need any more science for now. I mean, I've got a an iPod and a bagless vacuum cleaner, and medicine is generally pretty good, so I think we can take a break from the science for now and come back to it when we've thought of something else we need to invent.
Complain about this comment
There are truths on both sides.
Yes, the scientific community COULD do more for less, in some areas.
But, there are other areas where research needs to be properly funded to produce results.
As an example, a recent programme explained that the largest fusion reactor in the world is in UK, but it can't maintain the reaction, so a larger one is being built in France. They will benefit from the research we have done.
And not all of science is "good" science. There should be a rigorous process of ensuring that resources are diverted to scientific areas where we can become world leaders, and away from areas of more internal interest. Climate Change scientists have no real idea of their field, while renewable energy scientists can help protect our resources (and defeat the climate change scientists' fears at the same time) and create a better life for us all.
So, yes, protect science from spending cuts, but demand return for our money, and don't just give in to big business. We should be driving cars with fission/fusion micro-reactors that split H2O then recombine it, harvesting the energy release at each stage and making fossil fuels obsolete. Geothermal and solar energy should be the norm for our houses, with the latest break-thoughs coming from this country. The list goes on.
Complain about this comment
Of course we need to protect artists, scientists and engineers.
I reckon we could create three types of people.
1. general workers / grafters (they do the bulk of the hard work that keeps the county ticking over and "puts food on the table") Tradesmen, drivers, farm workers, factor production line workers etc.
2. Then there are the profiteering business investor casino banker types who do the bulk of trying to find ways of transferring money form other peoples accounts into theirs by the most efficient means possible. We could lump unemployed work shy people in here too as they create no wealth either.
3. Finally there are the artists scientists and engineers professionals and PROPER bankers (a good branch manager or teller for example). These people are the innovators and thinkers, creators and the ones who use imagination in their work. They shape the future. They can do the maths and they usually have a conscience. I would lump proper entrepreneurs in here too like Branson. Often they know better than group 2 but group 2 mess things up a lot of the time for other people.
For example a group 3 person would be more likely to share some land with locals and help them build and design their houses. A group 2 person would try to sell the land for the biggest profit to the group 1 person who drives the tractor and puts food on the table of the group 2 profiteer.
For example an engineer would build a fabulous bridge to last 100 years but the accountant and manger get their finger in the pie and botch it all up and we end up having to build a new bridge in 30 years time.
The country need to put more power into the hands of group 1 and 3 and perhaps offer free one way airline tickets to group 2. Let them go. This place could be run a lot better without them. Would Vince Cable agree? I think that believing we need them is like believing we need pickpockets.
Complain about this comment
//9. At 12:11pm on 23 Sep 2010, Ian Jerram wrote:
To put this into context I believe science is a far more deserving case for being protected than say overseas aid.
Can anyone please explain why we're giving money to the likes of China, India and Pakistan when they are investing millions if not billions into nuclear weapons!//
I'm very sceptical about the constant doom-mongering about cuts. So much money is wasted in govenment, at local and national level. Our local council is typical - complaining about cuts, but still funding loony schemes which everyone knows aren't necessary.
But still, I'd sooner see overseas aid cut, and the entire race relations industry, legal aid to asylum seekers etc, just abolished, rather than cut science.
Complain about this comment
"9. At 12:11pm on 23 Sep 2010, Ian Jerram wrote:
To put this into context I believe science is a far more deserving case for being protected than say overseas aid.
Can anyone please explain why we're giving money to the likes of China, India and Pakistan when they are investing millions if not billions into nuclear weapons!"
__________________________________________
I'll field this one - politics and big business.
Big business wants work and contracts in these countries, who are still developing and require outside advice. Our leaders want to stay chummy with their leaders because we all see the probable power-shift that's coming. So we give them money and they give our business and political leaders what they want. We get nothing - never have and never will.
Complain about this comment
There are too many students undertaking useless courses which will never lead to getting a decent job. In a time of major money problems, the country can no longer afford this. Time to chop the number of non-productive courses and slim down overbloated university departments.
A tip to future students, if you are not doing medicine, science, engineering or accountancy, you are wasting your time and your money.
DO WE NEED SCIENCE ?? YES, EVEN MORE THAT EVER.
Complain about this comment
Absolutely not.
There is a lot of research that is not essential and has been done for political ends (usually to justify a daft policy by NuLiebour).
Money is limited at the moment so priority must be given to genuine scientific research that will directly help UK employment and UK health.
Complain about this comment
# 15 Are you a bank teller? A good bank teller should be the exact opposite of a "thinkers, creators and the ones who use imagination in their work". They should take my cheque and make sure it clears into my account ASAP. Any imagination in that process is very, very bad (unless they'd like to add a few digits to the end figure..... ) Bank Managers and tellers are very much category 1 by your definition: they keep the country ticking over by doing their job as well as they can.
While its hilariously easy to knock bankers its investors gambling their money that makes science possible. If people don't take a gamble & invest in the companies that are potentially delivering the products made with the science then nothing will ever be produced. Thats why capitalist countries have large pharmaceutical companies and why in its 70 year history the USSR made precisely zero new drugs.
Complain about this comment
3. At 12:25 pm on 23 Sep 2010, ELENAKL wrote:
2. At 11:56am on 23 Sep 2010, Wyn wrote:
"Should science be protected from spending cuts?"
Only if there's a direct (and substantial) return to the taxpayer. I.E., no giving my money away to research stuff which is then going to be exploited by private industries who then throw meagre titbits back in my direction.
---------
I have to agree with you, how many times have we seen breakthroughs from our scientists only to be exploited and taken over by private industries and other countries. Private industries should fund their own research. If taxpayers have paid towards research then we should benefit from it.
Complain about this comment
Do our scientists really have the opportunity to earn money for the UK? As soon as they create something, chances are an overseas corporation buys up the patent then produces and sells from overseas.
Same goes for engineers. They develop a new product but inevitably it gets made outside of the UK.
If we are to protect scientists, scenarios like this need to change as well.
Complain about this comment
Msg 10 Peter_Sym
I was thinking more on the lines of the funding body (that's us) acquiring a specific percentage share in the profits of any company who makes a lot of money from public funding. Paying tax is not enough, too nebulous and too many ways to minimise it - and we all, personal or corporate, do that anyway if we earn money/make a profit.
I'm all for public funding of the essentials, including science - I'm in a taxpayer funded post myself - but there must be some concrete return. I'm not against 'blue skies' research, but it's too risky for public funding in the present economic climate. Maybe when we've cleared the deficit?
Complain about this comment
Where is it written that good science has to be done exclusively at Universities using public monies?
Unis have overpaid institutionalised staff and unsustainable annual increases. When I worked in a Uni lab 10 years ago my salary went from UKP 17K to UKP 25K in less than 3 years - 2 annual increments; one for cost of living one for another automatic bump up the salary scale; each increase was a grand a time.
The en masse switch by universities 5 years ago to 'full economic costing' is what has killed science in the UK. The unis charge UKP 500 for a newly qualified postdoc and more than UKP 1000 per day for experienced research staff.
Complain about this comment
13. At 12:22pm on 23 Sep 2010, bob bobwell wrote:
I don't think we need any more science for now. I mean, I've got a an iPod and a bagless vacuum cleaner, and medicine is generally pretty good, so I think we can take a break from the science for now and come back to it when we've thought of something else we need to invent.
Is this guy serious?
If we are to escape from the downward spiral we need professional engineers and scientists NOT spivs and cheats (aka Bankers). Accountants and bankers have been allowed to ru(i)n this country for too long and we need to take it back into the hands of Groups 1 and 3 see comment 15.
Tax the bankers until they leave, then they can trash somewhere else.
Complain about this comment
18. At 12:29pm on 23 Sep 2010, l j s wrote:
There are too many students undertaking useless courses which will never lead to getting a decent job. In a time of major money problems, the country can no longer afford this. Time to chop the number of non-productive courses and slim down overbloated university departments.
A tip to future students, if you are not doing medicine, science, engineering or accountancy, you are wasting your time and your money.
DO WE NEED SCIENCE ?? YES, EVEN MORE THAT EVER.
-------------------------
Chopping such courses is a bit harsh but charging a lot more for them would be better. I would like to see more effort put into encouraging kids to find interesting jobs because it was depressing for me.
I found what I liked eventually and stuck with it but I know of a few other jobs I may have been more interested in and they dont all require a degree.
Complain about this comment
Research must be protected from cuts, although it may be reasonable to review allocations to ensure money is spent better. Please note, better may not depend upon financial return, that would be criminally short shighted.
Complain about this comment
15. At 12:24pm on 23 Sep 2010, jjs wrote:
The country need to put more power into the hands of group 1 and 3 and perhaps offer free one way airline tickets to group 2. Let them go. This place could be run a lot better without them.
LOL have you read the Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy? That's exactly what they did with society's useless (e.g. the telephone sanitisers)
Complain about this comment
"Without funds for R/D The U.K will fall way behind in every field, This will increase unemployment, in the future and all the spin offs' in new industrys will go to other places' Then The U.K. will be a poor sad part of the E.U. with no hope for young people.
Complain about this comment
By the way, an earlier poster commented upon Fusion research, the JET reactor in the UK has achieved what it was designed to do, the next step is the new one in France, it is a multinational project (as was JET), and we all will benefit from the results. Again this reactor will not produce useable energy but hopefully will show how to do this in the near future.
Complain about this comment
Everyone wants protection from spending cuts and yet no one asked about where the money was comming from when Gordon and Labour dished it out.
No one should escape the cull including so called front line services and MP's. We need to live within our means.
Ideally anyone who voted labour back in should be taxed an extra £100. This happened in the 80's after the last Labour parliment.
Complain about this comment
Science? Nah; we can rely on the bankers and the financial sector to kep this great nation afloat. Can't we?
Complain about this comment
#18 "A tip to future students, if you are not doing medicine, science, engineering or accountancy, you are wasting your time and your money.
DO WE NEED SCIENCE ?? YES, EVEN MORE THAT EVER."
Actually one of the best courses for employment is golf course management. Really... people pay a fortune to play golf. Likewise designing computer games is a major British industry that brings in a lot of foreign money. The British entertainment industry is worth tens of billions. That actually generates incomes... accounts just count the money. They don't produce anything, much as we need someone to keep the books in order!
Complain about this comment
There has, and always will be a 'brain drain' from Britain? Post grads who need to further serious research they can't find funds for here, will go to other countries. That's the early stage. If that post grad is then offered work in that country - they invariably stay?
For those reasons alone, we should never undermine serious research in the UK and we must support those dedicated enough to stay, before they are 'bought and sold' by another country.
This problem is complex, and we do have great universities who are fortunate to have students with great minds ... that is the issue? Some great universities still believe THEY are doing the amazing student a favour to be there? They should look to themselves before complaining? Take Trinity - they have fabulous wine cellars worth more than than fees they take in 10yrs?
I digress. Too many universities do their students no favours by releasing pointless and annoying 'scientific' research that end up in the tabloids that denegrates serious and/or crucial/critical research that they don't publicise?
If Britain wants to maintain it's serious universities for effective purposes AND attract and retain talent from within and outside - then ALL universities themselves, need to take a long hard look at themselves before they whinge about cuts?
Complain about this comment
well i dont know, i think you should leave the sciences, maths, engineering, medical etc to the migrants and continue to teach our kids Anti-natal classes, sex ed, creationism! no wonder the brits are getting slaughtered in the workplace! absolutely ridiculous and if the country continues to treat our kids like morons there is no future! no wonder they give you one point for signing your name right in exams in this country because they are going to need it!
Complain about this comment
20. At 12:33pm on 23 Sep 2010, Peter_Sym wrote:
While its hilariously easy to knock bankers its investors gambling their money that makes science possible. If people don't take a gamble & invest in the companies that are potentially delivering the products made with the science then nothing will ever be produced. Thats why capitalist countries have large pharmaceutical companies and why in its 70 year history the USSR made precisely zero new drugs
This is the most ludicrous piece of fiction I have ever read!!
Have you thought of joining the Liebour Party??
Gambling their money!? You cannot be serious! It is our money!
Complain about this comment
#21 "I have to agree with you, how many times have we seen breakthroughs from our scientists only to be exploited and taken over by private industries and other countries. Private industries should fund their own research. If taxpayers have paid towards research then we should benefit from it."
Private industries don't 'take over' or 'exploit'. They 'buy' and 'pay licence fees'. I've worked in several university depts that have done very nicely through annual payments from old inventions. My former employer the University of Nottingham gets about £20M a year in licence fee's for Sir Peter Mansfield's invention (the MRI scanner), they get more money for inventing the brain cancer drug Temozolamide. A university doesn't have the facilities to make a drug so they licence it to those wh can.
Incidentally private R&D funding dwarfs state funding. Do you know how much money the govt pays towards developing new cancer drugs each year? Nothing at all. Not one penny in direct funding.
Complain about this comment
--13. At 12:22pm on 23 Sep 2010, bob bobwell wrote:
I don't think we need any more science for now. I mean, I've got a an iPod and a bagless vacuum cleaner, and medicine is generally pretty good, so I think we can take a break from the science for now and come back to it when we've thought of something else we need to invent.
I sincerely hope that this statement is in jest, if not it displays staggering ignorance. Do you think someone just sat down one day and thought, "hmm, we need a portable music device with a large memory capacity and home computer connectivity?" Your iPod and bagless vacuum cleaner are the sum of CENTURIES of pure science. Without the research of Heisenberg, Dirac, Planck et al into quantum physics there would be no ipods, no mobile phones, no x-ray machines or cochlear implants, no internet and no HYS. Without Einstein and his relativity there could be no sat nav. Without Frank Whittle's research into mechanical engineering there would be no weeks in tennerife.
The amazing world we live in is produced by science.
We can cut funding only if we want to stop the advancement of the human race.
Complain about this comment
8. At 12:10pm on 23 Sep 2010, Nok wrote:
Scientists say that cuts in the science budget will harm research and the country's economy.
Teachers say that Cuts in education will damage Britains future prosperity.
Police Chiefs say that cuts will leave them unable to fight crime.
The MOD says cuts will leave them unable to meet Britains current or future military commitments.
Doctors say that cuts will leave them unable to effectively treat a number of conditions.
To cut a long a story short-
We're all Doomed. Doomed I tell you. Doomed.
======================================
I am sure Mr Mainwaring would disagree with you, you silly boy!!!
Complain about this comment
On the face of it, you would say no of course Science shouldn't be cut. However, if there does have to be cuts (of which deep cuts now I am strongly against) then every public department has to take its share of the burden.
Every department serves a purpose. There isn't a set line of essential and non-essential, it's very grey. E.g. Most people will say Health is most important, then things like Education, Law and Order, Defense etc. Then people argue for things such as Science, Arts, Environment, some argue against them being crucial. Everybody can make good case for why their interest, department, employer etc etc shouldn't be cut.
The cuts aren't ideal in any departments so it's only fair that they're shared fairly equally. What ever is cut drastically is going to have a negative effect.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps a radical approach is required, Tax religions 50%. and have that fund scientific research that would be a noble means of religion helping to better man kind
Complain about this comment
No one has posted a "simples" answer to this one and I hope no-one attempts to.The government does need to get this right though.It has to listen and think carefully about this country's culture of failing to invest in pure research.History shows us that the great strides were made in modern science by men of private means following their personal obsessions.During the 20th Century, some British governments understood the need to support such esoteric research.In war time, investment without limit was made in giving scientists the things they needed to create military advantage.Since the early days of the industrial revolution, capital has invested in applying science to it's needs.The academics have got it right about investment going elsewhere if we don't make an effort.Once you start to lose a place at the top table of big science it is almost impossible to get it back.The infrastructure that supports the fruit begins to wither away and we sink into third world oblivion.The same is true of manufacturing,fimancial services and so on.
I don't believe we are doomed though.Things will probably get worse before they get better but it is true to say that the British fight back best when their backs are against the wall.We probably will let things slip and decline until its against the odds to fix them.Then by the miraculous action of necessity, being the mother of invention, some bloke in a garden shed will come up with a world beater and the money will flow back in!
Complain about this comment
in_the_uk (3) wrote:
Science is not absolutely critical...
How wrong can you be? Science is absolutely crucial.
We can do without funding to push back the boundaries of what is accepted as art.
We can do without extra facilities to help someone run, swim or play bat-and-ball a fraction better than someone from France or China.
We can certainly do without more comfortable prisons. In fact this is an area where far too much is spent already.
But without science there is no progress or understanding. Science is by far the most important field of human endeavour. If we give up on science we give up our humanity.
Complain about this comment
Science like "Men dont notice if a woman wears high heels"! was one piece of research funded by the taxpayer.
It is this sort of waste the governments needs to cut regardless of the spending review.
Science needs to be scrutinised just like everyother service including front line staff like troops, nurses etc. The NHS is the largest em ployer in the world, doesnt that say it all!
Time to target the unions, Strike = immediate dismissal also.
Complain about this comment
I think the BBC is running this story because its afraid it will be next and wants to flame anti cuts spirit in advance.
Science needs cuts just like everyone else.
Complain about this comment
I think the answer rather speaks for itself. The OECD has stated that any nation wishing to have an internationally competive economy in the medium to long-term MUST invest in science, because technology will be the biggest growth area in the future. The USA, already the world leaders, has recognised this and is increasing spending. The EU have acknoweldged this an increased budgets too, as have Canada, Germany and Australia. Britain would rather weild the axe for short-term savings.
Do our politicians learn nothing? The recession was caused by short-termism in the banking sector and a 'borrow from the future for now' approach to government spending. Cutting research spending is simply stupid.
Complain about this comment
21. At 12:34pm on 23 Sep 2010, ELENAKL wrote:
3. At 12:25 pm on 23 Sep 2010, ELENAKL wrote:
2. At 11:56am on 23 Sep 2010, Wyn wrote:
"Should science be protected from spending cuts?"
Only if there's a direct (and substantial) return to the taxpayer. I.E., no giving my money away to research stuff which is then going to be exploited by private industries who then throw meagre titbits back in my direction.
---------
I have to agree with you, how many times have we seen breakthroughs from our scientists only to be exploited and taken over by private industries and other countries. Private industries should fund their own research. If taxpayers have paid towards research then we should benefit from it.
--------------------------------------------------------------
WRONG!!!
The theory of relativity - heavy maths, works on massive scales; a wonderful thought exercise. Is it saleable? Can we make a profit out of it? - definitely not. probably wouldn't get funding if Wyn had his way. Who would have thought that it plays such an important role in your Satnavs - an industry worth billions. Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by several microseconds.
This is why I think this view point is so very wrong. The trouble is with Science Research that you never know what it might lead to. if you say there has to be a big return for the tax payer then that would cut 90% of our science - we would loose good science which though no obvious big benefit - might in fact lead directly or indirectly to massive benefits.
Secondly, even if a peice or research does not lead to huge returns, along the way, the individual AND the institution is acquiring skills, experience and deep knowledge that establishes and builds its capability. Skills, experience and knowledge that it can pass on.
Finaly, even if taxpayer funder desearch is picked up by private industry and this leads to a product making megabucks, our HMRC will take its slice of corporation taxes, VAT on sales, PAYE on employees and so on. So its not that clear cut.
MORE MONEY FOR SCIENCE PLEASE
We need science for our economy, be it science that leads to things we can exploit now AND we need science for science sake because the latter helps the former. Without the latter we may never have many of the things we take for granted now - PCs, iPhones, iPods, mobile phones, satellite communications, etc.
Complain about this comment
How about taxing stupidity to pay for science - the physicists, chemists, biologists, planetary scientists etc. would be awash with money. Might encourage a few more people to pick up a book and learn something too.
Stupidity must be one of very few things our successive governments have not thought about taxing, so it can't be long now...
Complain about this comment
33. Peter_Sym wrote: Actually one of the best courses for employment is golf course management. Really... people pay a fortune to play golf. Likewise designing computer games is a major British industry that brings in a lot of foreign money. The British entertainment industry is worth tens of billions. That actually generates incomes... accounts just count the money. They don't produce anything, much as we need someone to keep the books in order!
True. isn't this another form of reverse darwinism - survival of the least fit. We make money from useless things to spend on yet more useless things meanwhile the our environment continues to crumble and die around us.
Complain about this comment
44. Slave to the System - I am not a number wrote: Science like "Men dont notice if a woman wears high heels"! was one piece of research funded by the taxpayer. It is this sort of waste the governments needs to cut regardless of the spending review.
There has been some odd research I grant you, but headline grabbing examples often are pointless because they are usually quoted out of context. You might think about looking under the surtface of the title to find out why such a piece of research had relevance and was deemed wort persuing. Behavioural science has wide application... its a very wild shot in the dark - but why do people observe certain things and not othersl; it might have design implications for safety signs, road signs , who knows. I'd need to see the funding application before I made a judgement.
Complain about this comment
17. At 12:29pm on 23 Sep 2010, teedoff wrote:
"9. At 12:11pm on 23 Sep 2010, Ian Jerram wrote:
To put this into context I believe science is a far more deserving case for being protected than say overseas aid.
Can anyone please explain why we're giving money to the likes of China, India and Pakistan when they are investing millions if not billions into nuclear weapons!"
__________________________________________
I'll field this one - politics and big business.
Big business wants work and contracts in these countries, who are still developing and require outside advice. Our leaders want to stay chummy with their leaders because we all see the probable power-shift that's coming. So we give them money and they give our business and political leaders what they want. We get nothing - never have and never will.
==============================================
The 100% REASON why Britain obtained its empire, to protect its commercial interests obtained by various companys. Now, to protect those interests and maintain access to resources, the palms of nations have to be greased, which was always the INITIAL and historical foundation of agreements, and is no different today, other than taxpayers fund the aid, while businesses and especially CEOs gain huge private wealth.
Aid is basically often used as palm grease. Thing is, we also NEED to grease palms to ensure we have the reasources which our nation relies upon to SURVIVE and basically which people take for granted.
If you think that just being nice and moral and ethical will give you advantage over many other nations who also seek the same resources, you basically need to give yourself a reality slap.
Hence science and research is ONE SERIOUS area of development of which if it declines in UK, we as a nation will be more and more reliant on greasing palms of nations, hence expenditure on UK science research and development actually improves our moral/ethical abilitys via NOT relying more and more upon other nations for what we need with a DECLINING pot of palm grease in which to obtain it.
If we are NOT at the forefront in research and development, then essentially we endemically slide down the scale of developed and developing nations.
There are reasons why previous historical GREAT and ADVANCED nations have declined, much of it has been due to religion and the blocks it put on thought, science, research/development, which is essentially why middle east/Arab nations stagnated and declined.
It is SAFER to cut some expenditure from NHS and ENSURE FUTURE prosperity by utilising the cut money for investment into wealth CREATION, education/training/science, research/development as otherwise the pot of money which currently sustains the NHS can very easily decline so that the NHS will enevitably be cut anyway, plus the ability to prosper will be damaged.
Such a gamble as is happening at present, JUST for political purposes is VERY DANGEROUS. People NEED to wake up to the fact that maintaining investment in wealth creation is FACTUALLY MORE IMPORTANT TO OUR ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY AND WEALTH PROGRESS THAN FULLY MAINTAINING THE NHS.
Complain about this comment
Next week I am in Brussels as part of a one billion euro bid for EU science funding led by Henry Markram. At Manchester we have a special version of our ARM chip -- the world's most common (the ARM, 20 billion in existence and counting) -- that is exactly what Henry needs to do extensive simulation of brains.
By joining Henry, we combine the strengths of Manchester in chip design, with Henry's expertise in Neuroscience. The overarching idea is that we will get a handle on the connections between the various diseases of the brain; if this leads to us getting a handle on one of the more commonly occurring of the 600 currently known brain problems, the economic impact will be immense. Consider the economic impact of a cure for major depression or schizophrenia; I've seen numbers such as 700 billion euro as the economic cost to the EU for major depression alone.
Mr Willetts is on record as asking why coming first in research is so important. One feature of the international agreement that would govern our interactions with Henry is that all Intellectual Property generated by the entire project is available to all of the partners. In other words, if this project generates an effective treatment for schizophrenia, any UK partners will share both the research results and the profits.
Now the fly in the ointment is that the collaboration agreement requires matching national funding for the money that the EU science budget puts up. And, as we are all aware, Germany is probably the only EU country that can easily fund that level of commitment. France and Spain will try to keep up with the German Joneses; after all, by piggy-backing EU funds onto their own science budget, they get a gearing effect, which effectively doubles their science funds.
But what is the UK view? I've tried asking EPSRC (UK funding body), but they're naturally prevaricating until after the Public Sector Review. One cannot escape the suspicion that the civil service may not even have alerted our minister to the existence of this mechanism to double our research funds.
So, now we have to ask: if I wish to complete this work, would I be better off joining Henry in Lausanne? Or, an alternative form of the same question: "Should the results -- a cure for major depression, say -- be handed to Swiss or UK big pharma, and the associated tax receipts and trade balance going to CH or UK?"
Don't get me wrong, our group has received extensive UK funding. But it's a concrete example of the sorts of questions Mr Willetts has to face; I don't envy him the tough choices he'll have to make.
Complain about this comment
43. Willo wrote: But without science there is no progress or understanding. Science is by far the most important field of human endeavour. If we give up on science we give up our humanity.
AGREED!!!
Wanting to understanding what is around us is what has made the human rase what it is. Without the will to question and to learn we would still be living in caves. We should not put unnecessary boundaries on exploration and learning - financial or otherwise.
The moon programme - a waste of money? No, we learned a lot, industry got new materials, new manufacturing processes and new technologies out of the funding and a lot of government (taxpayers) money made its way back into the world economy. Saying we should not explore space is no different to someone having said to to Cook or Columbus that they shouldn't waste their time.
Complain about this comment
Science (and more generally; Education/R+D) should be the very last places where we look to cut. If anything, this would be a perfect time to increase spending.
More people excelling in the sciences combined with a return to a strong manufacturing base would see our financial problems ease considerably overtime. We simply can't continue to push young people into service sector jobs and rely on the financial sector to provide all our (false) wealth.
As a recent engineering graduate, I feel that others in my peer group never had the same opportunity as me in developing in demand skills because our education system doesn't focus enough on Science and Maths. Too much time is wasted in teaching History, Geography and R.E lessons amongst others. I enjoyed these lessons but knowing what an Oxbow lake is is pointless, frankly.
Complain about this comment
This is just typical of government. All they are ever interested in is short term aims, goals and results. Spending on science and education is absolutely critical in terms of mid to long term aspirations of this country and it's people. The short term gain on saving money by not spending on science will be peanuts compared to the cumulative losses in 10 - 50 years of the future.
Can you imagine the payback to this country if we became world leaders in alternative energy resourcing technologies? it would be worth £100's of billions over the next 50 years to the country in terms of exports in technologies, skills and knowledge. energy could be just a small piece of the cake too, with investment in other fields of science, the prospects for the country in the mid to long term future would be awesome.
However, government, and the previous government too, see fit to skimp on spending and indeed make cuts to the value of a couple of £Billion. This makes the selling off of our gold at rock bottom prices by GB look like a fantastically prudent investment.
Education has exactly the same problems with government. Successive governments are more interested in closing schools that are not doing as well as other schools. The only positive that comes from this policy is that the schooling statistics look better. In reality closing schools does not improve education. What is required is solid investment, that is the only solution to improve standards.
Complain about this comment
So.....'science', Foreign Aid, the NHS, Policing, education....is it my imagination or do there seem to be endless areas that are or are campaigning to be exempt from the spending cuts? Doesn't leave many areas left for the axe to fall does it.
Complain about this comment
Of course science, like the rest of 'education' (taking the broad view of education, not merely stuffing kids into school between the ages of 5 and 16!) ought to be protected... it's part of what we, the citizens, fund the government to provide for us.
In determining where to cut back on spending there is only one consideration that the government may have: if we trim spending in this area, can we still meet our obligations and responsibilities to our employers, the people of Britain?
Complain about this comment
43. At 1:05pm on 23 Sep 2010, Willo wrote:
in_the_uk (3) wrote:
Science is not absolutely critical...
How wrong can you be? Science is absolutely crucial.
We can do without funding to push back the boundaries of what is accepted as art.
We can do without extra facilities to help someone run, swim or play bat-and-ball a fraction better than someone from France or China.
We can certainly do without more comfortable prisons. In fact this is an area where far too much is spent already.
But without science there is no progress or understanding. Science is by far the most important field of human endeavour. If we give up on science we give up our humanity.
-----------------------------
I dont disagree with any particular point you make.
People can live without science. History has shown the people become supersticious and promote evil religions and the whole society falls apart, but it can be done. When anyone considers cutting science I feel they need to be reminded of the scienceless history.
This is why I recommend cutting religious funding before slowing the search for knowledge
Complain about this comment
51. MrWonderfulReality wrote:
Ouch, painful - but its correct.
Without a strong base in science and technology - what are we? With no manufacturing base all we would be is - a country of accountants, IT consultants and a holiday destination. Its science and technology that is our hope.
In the 50s we were Europe's powerhouse for science, technology and engineering. However, our past governments have a very poor track record - mostly Labour. Patents for Jet technology sold to the USA for a song as part of war reparation, Labour canned our supersonic flight project (Miles M52) and gave vital data and discoveries to Bell in the US which gave them the lead; Labour canned the Blue Streak programme allowing France to become the dominant European player in satellite launches (not mank know that the UK actually launched a satellite in the 70s, then there was the TSR2... I won't go on, it is too depressing!
Complain about this comment
Let us be clear about one thing: there are two arguments commonly trawled out by science 'leaders' which are mutually incompatible:
1. british HEIs are amongst the best in the World.
2. Science research is critical to the UK's economy.
Now, as those reports on world class HEIs put not one German institution in the Top 20, it is clear that HEIs are NOT critical to the German economy.
So: if science in HEIs wants central funding for the next 20 years it had better show, in financial outputs not in rhetoric, that the UK's HEIs WILL BE critical to the UK economy.
Hadn't it????
Complain about this comment
Should science be protected from spending cuts? Yes.
If we can afford to keep chav families fags, booze and sky tv, then yes, science should not be cut.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Vince Cable is a prime example of the Peters Principle .
He might be a good politician BUT it finishes there.
In reality what does he know about science and research?
Like most politicians they are more that willing to collect the tax on successful research .Yet at the same time reluctant to fund it.
Have the politicians joined the something for nothing brigade?
Is it the case that the government find themselves underfunded and cuts in research come before cuts in Public sector bonuses and the like?
Complain about this comment
38. At 12:56pm on 23 Sep 2010, TheyCallMeTheWonderer wrote:
--13. At 12:22pm on 23 Sep 2010, bob bobwell wrote:
"I don't think we need any more science for now. I mean, I've got a an iPod and a bagless vacuum cleaner, and medicine is generally pretty good, so I think we can take a break from the science for now and come back to it when we've thought of something else we need to invent."
"I sincerely hope that this statement is in jest, if not it displays staggering ignorance. Do you think someone just sat down one ..."
Sorry Wonderer, can I just stop you there? Yes, it was in jest, quite clearly. I don't have a bagless vacuum cleaner, but I *am* an engineer, 20 years in oil & gas, so I'm the kind of guy that some people on this thread are fighting to protect. To UK industry, I'm the equivalent of an endangered and protected species. Some of you probably have calendars and screensavers with my picture on - majestically poised in front of a de-ethanizer tower, or prowling around a sulphur recovery unit.
But alas, as often happens with conservationism, it is too late to save me. I left the UK many years ago because my natural habitat was turning into an environment in which I could no longer thrive (Wonderer, I know you're not good at picking up on subtleties, but that was an analogy for 'being heavily taxed').
I don't know what would attract me back. A bagless vacuum cleaner would be start.
Complain about this comment
Britain has suffered a Brain Drain alright.
Particularly in the House of Commons where there is not one decent brain between them.
Complain about this comment
Science is absolutely integral to all, and should not be subject to research cuts that endanger our ability to further our knowledge and understanding of the world around us.
However.
I do feel that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy stemming from this article. Professors Andrew Hamilton and Malcolm Grant have both expressed their concerns about spending cuts, however from 2008/09 they themselves earnt £287,000 and £376,190 respectively. If we look further at the salaries of these institutions, University College London employ 312 members of staff who all earn over £100,000 a year - total salary expenditure £44,511,494.00 - The University of Oxford employ 224 staff earning over £100,000 - total salary expenditure £29,503,000.00 (figures taken from the BBC Public Pay article earlier this week).
Clearly, there is a HUGE amount of money that is going into the pockets of a minority who are at the same time complaining about potential cuts to their research budgets.
Perhaps rather than complaining, they could offer to halve their salaries and allow that money to be used to shore up some of the holes created by said cuts...?!?
Just a thought.
Complain about this comment
Its depressing to read some of the HYS posters here.
Science and technology is vital for pretty much everything in our lives.
Well, you're using a computer/mobile phone/etc. to read this aren't you?
Should the government cut science and technology research funding. Well that really depends on what they want to achieve. If the government is only interested in cutting expenditure then go ahead.
But if they are interested in reducing the deficit, then its probably the worst decision they could make. Research doesn't just produce the inventions and scientific discoveries of the future. It also produces science and engineering post-docs. Not only do science post-docs tend to earn more, and hence pay more in taxes, they are vital for the success of large parts of the British economy, from biotechnology and the pharmaceutical industry, encryption and security through to hi-tech engineering and manufacture (e.g. F1 cars and aircraft design), and the telecoms industry, and even computer gaming and movie special affects. (They also tend to work in city, but lets not talk about that.)
Basically, all those bits of the British economy that still make things are reliant on a steady pool of science and technology post-docs. And reducing the number of post-docs British Uni's produce will slow down the speed of recovery and the speed at which we can reduce the deficit.
Complain about this comment
//12. At 12:18pm on 23 Sep 2010, Peter_Sym wrote:
5. At 12:03pm on 23 Sep 2010, The Bloke wrote:
//....or to be more accurate there is waste in SOME PARTS of the public sector. MOD procurement is very wasteful, the soldiers on the front line in Afghanistan are anything but wasteful. The majority of British universities give pretty good value for money. In addition not everything can be given a financial value... the accountants Thatcher tried using to run the NHS viewed patients as a financial liability as they cost the NHS money but didn't create any income for the hospitals. Be wary of that sort of mindset. //
I'd agree about the contrast between the MoD and frontline troops.
However, the overall picture, on balance, is that the public sector is incredibly wasteful. That being said, the idea of privatisation as the cure for all ills is wrong, too.
And the problem is, the BBC runs a 'cuts disaster' story every day. People see with their own eyes the waste in the public sector, so they know that cuts can be made quite easily.
The current discussion about the police, where they're quietly admitting what we've all known to be true for years, is quite revealing in this respect. Basically, Labour's record spending and increased police numbers has been squandered, leaving the public bemused, and the police very unpopular.
That's what makes me suspicious about science spending. BTW I'm not sure that our universities are a good advert....
Complain about this comment
58. in_the_uk wrote: People can live without science. History has shown the people become supersticious and promote evil religions and the whole society falls apart, but it can be done. When anyone considers cutting science I feel they need to be reminded of the scienceless history.
Yes, we can live wihout science... though even the earliest man was using basic science when he was creating flint tools and discovering fire but if you do reminded people of the scienceless history - high mortality especially in childbirth and as a result of smallpox, cholera, TB and what are now trivial injuries and ailments, the awful labour conditions doing what machines can do now, death through ignorance of risks from asbestos, phosporus and heavy metals; weeks to get a message from one country to another; huddling under the light of a candle flame or oil lamp,... and so on.
A few reminders of life without scientific discovery might even open the purse strings... actually, some of the above could easlil describe life without oil which is more evidence of the need for Scientific discovery.
Complain about this comment
I recall in the 1970s that there were concerns then about a Brain Drain and we were in the midst of a recession, just as we are today. Comedian, Dave Allen commented to the effect that all the best British brains were leaving the country and it was interesting that none of them were politicians (except for a certain Mr. Stonehouse who was brought back and put in gaol). But seriously, we should protect science in this country because in the end science may protect us through advances in the medical field and economically through new discoveries and inventions and I suppose there is the added bonus of good old fashioned national pride in being the "first" as we were with things like television, the Internet, radar, the jet engine, etc.
Complain about this comment
Balancing the budget is a very fine balance. What to cut, what not to cut? How much to increase taxes?
Take the latter, increase taxes too far and the very same brain drain will happen - and not just public sector scientists.
With health ring-fenced and the armed forces committed in Afghanisan, that leaves many very worthwhile public services facing cuts.
Everyone has their favourite service that they don't want to see go. Science, The arts, Sport, Education, Benefits, Pensions, Tax Credits, Transport, Overseas Aid ...
We have been living beyond our means for many years and the cuts will reduce everyone's standard of living. Scientists are not alone in this.
But Scientists could have helped themselves. Just something as simple as patents could have helped them. American Universities are all too ready to patent everything, but here in Blighty, that's just not cricket! How can others build on your research if you have a patent?
It is said that business is not prepared to pay for fundamental research, but hey are happy to make big profits out of the results of such work. The institutions (and EPSRC) should be clawing some of those profits back through licencing - that is wat they do in countries that can still afford to invest heavily in research.
Complain about this comment
If it's a grant to the scientists who come up with those findings that get announced on Radio 1 ("Scientists have discovered that if you stand in the middle of the M25 at rush hour you stand a good chance of getting run over") then yes, we should cut their funding.
Complain about this comment
60. At 1:54pm on 23 Sep 2010, rjaggar wrote: Let us be clear about one thing: there are two arguments commonly trawled out by science 'leaders' which are mutually incompatible:
1. british HEIs are amongst the best in the World.
2. Science research is critical to the UK's economy.
Now, as those reports on world class HEIs put not one German institution in the Top 20, it is clear that HEIs are NOT critical to the German economy.
--------------------------------------------
I see no contradiction - because you cannot compare our two economies that easily. Germany has a stronger manufacturing base.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
To be honest although it will have a negative knock-on effect, that is the price of the failure of the last government to regulate the banks and allow this crisis to occur.
Something has to give and that will be one casualty - however, that spending needs to be increased in the good years that we all hope will follow.
We need to make drastic reductions in welfare and other forms of spending that have already gone too far to minimise any cuts in science spending though since pure science is what drives our society forward and is likely to be the only way out of our population and climate problems.
Complain about this comment
56. At 1:50pm on 23 Sep 2010, Peter Nunn wrote:
So.....'science', Foreign Aid, the NHS, Policing, education....is it my imagination or do there seem to be endless areas that are or are campaigning to be exempt from the spending cuts? Doesn't leave many areas left for the axe to fall does it.
============================================
There is one area NOT even mentioned, and that is for the banking/financial sector to RECOMPENSE the UK for the DAMAGE inflicted BY THEM, which has FACTUALLY resulted in these cuts, lost jobs, lost national wealth.
If I mugged an old age pensioner, damaged their ability to work, took away their wealth, resulting in them losing their home and much worse, would I be liable to pay compensation!!!
Morally/ethically, you would think so, but in UK criminals get away with paying peanuts in compensation/recompense to victims, UNLESS of course it is is to a government entity, such as housing benefit, Taxes, Social Security benefits in which they are MADE to pay back EVERY LAST PENNY DUE, even if it take 40 YEARS.
Compare this to someone mugged or raped, their house smashed up, their bones broken, someone disabled due to a violent attack, or many more attrocitys, the result is, is that offenders are fined a minimal amount, they may have to pay a bit of court expense costs, but ESSENTIALLY, they are NOT made to recompense victims the FULL VALUE/COST of damage etc and in FACT, JUST AS WITH THE BANKS, UK TAXPAYERS PAY COMPENSATION VIA Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, whereas ALSO the economic damage inflicted upon UK is being FUNDED BY TAXPAYERS.
ESSENTIALLY, in UK it is SOCIETY WHICH PAYS FOR CRIMINAL AND NEGLIGENT BEHAVIOUR.
Society is thus FACTUALLY VICTIMISED by the system, which is a moral/ethical fundamental ATTROCITY, and in any respect, against the HUMAN rights of EVERY individual who is/are forced to pay compensation and other costs for the deeds/actions of criminals.
EVEN the husband and grown children of a raped woman, essentially and factually their tax will/may pay compensation to his/their own wife/mother, while the assailent.
The MAIN reason why the banks/financial sector gamblers and the credit rating agencys are NOT being made to pay back which is DUE,
IS BECAUSE JUSTICE DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST WITHIN THE UK.
The UK criminal justice system is a complete and utter moral/ethical failure as it protect criminals from paying FULL due compensation and costs and at the same time inflicts those costs upon INNOCENT PEOPLE, and it is GOING TO GET WORSE
ESPECIALLY AND FACTUALY DUE TO THE BANKING/FINANCIAL SECTOR & CREDIT RATING AGENCYS.
With impending cuts to police, can you really see the police spending vast amounts of money on investigating complicated banking/financial fraud.
Hence it is NOT just the muggers and rapists and car thieves etc who will gain from policing budget cuts, those who carry out complicated fraud are also FURTHER protected by insufficient funds to investigate them.
Hence dodgy bank/financial practices get a double double tripple tripple bonus out of all this.
1. Taxpayer pay the consequential bill
2. Bonuses are maintained and even increased
3. Dodgy and criminal behaviour/practices are LESS inclined to be investigated.
But hey, lets leave the banking/financial fraternity alone, cut public services, smash up UK economy more, damage universitys, schools, colleges, science & research development, bash up and damage/undermine our national security, bash up the NHS, bash up whatever and whoever, force taxpayers, their children and even unborn children to pay debt burdon as result of banks/financial sector etc.
But HEY banks etc.
Apparantly.
YOU'RE WORTH IT!!!!
Complain about this comment
Science is undoubtedly important, and a key component of a knowledge-based economy but "the Universities doth protest too much, methinks". There are some dubious vested interests here. Just yesterday, London business leaders were claimimg they did not want a curb on immigration as they could not recruit enough good UK people. Then we think of the NHS and how many non-British doctors there are (even though it is almost impossible for many AAA A2 level students to get on medical courses). Meanwhile about a third of graduates cannot get graduate level jobs. Then they talk of a brain drain. It does not add up.
I suspect this is yet another public sector vested interest group making their case pre-cuts and in their case also for massive tuition fee rises so they can give themselves another pay rise.. The BBC is giving all these groups a chance day after day. Today it's the Uni's's turn.
What other crucial areas are there which we should not cut? The NHS, education, defence spending on equipment for our fighting forces, Universities, various 'disadvantaged groups', etc etc. Only yesterday, some wimmin's spokesperson was going on about the disproportionate effect of the cuts on women. She didnt of course mention the disproportionate positive effect of the wasteful spending on women in the past.....funny that.
In fact why have any cuts at all and we can just spend spend spend other people's money until no-one will lend us any and then we can leave our kids generation to sort out the mess.
In reality the coalition is having to clear up the mess caused by Labour's profligacy and many, perhaps all of these vested interest groups will be unhappy. About time too. Then maybe I can have some of my own money back to spend as I wish, and not as Gordon Brown thinks is good for me.
Complain about this comment
Surely the big reward should be the Satisfaction in the Work itself?
Cut's in pay, need not stop science, the greedy attitude of some scientists might.
Complain about this comment
68. The Bloke wrote: The current discussion about the police, where they're quietly admitting what we've all known to be true for years, is quite revealing in this respect. Basically, Labour's record spending and increased police numbers has been squandered, leaving the public bemused, and the police very unpopular. That's what makes me suspicious about science spending. BTW I'm not sure that our universities are a good advert....
yes indeed - the public have been conned by Labour. Any critisism of Labour on health, education - you name it - and the answer was always that Labour had increased spending on XXXX by £yyy million and not what they had actually achieved with this. You can't measure your success by your inputs, not when we demand that outcomes must also dfeliver value for money.
Increases in spending are often soaked up by pay rises, consultancy, and inefficiency. Huge increases in education spending got us a massive increase in teaching assistants not the highly qualified / experienced teachers we need.
Complain about this comment
5. At 12:03pm on 23 Sep 2010, The Bloke wrote:
Another day, another anti-cuts story.
I value science, and hope the government does, too.
Unfortunately, it is so clear that the public sector, certainly under Labour, was so wasteful, that it is obvious that spending can very easily be cut without affecting output or outcome.
I'm getting a bit sick of the BBC leading its news with anti-cuts propaganda. It's obviously working to yet another of its agendas. The problem is, people can see that there is waste in the public sector, so they are bound to question the credibility of the campaigners.
____________________________________________________________________
This isn't propaganda, it's fact, the cuts will hit public services, there will be damage.
However, you're right, there is waste in the public sector, the problem is the cuts aren't going to largely deal with the waste, they're going to be lazy cuts based on short term targets.
This is the mirror image of putting money into the public sector and watching it being used for the wrong purposes, no thought, no planning.
The public sector needs an overhaul in terms of procedures, policies and management, it needs to modernise, however to do that would take thought and time, something the coalition are telling everyone we don't have, it would also probably require some investment, something the coalition aren't prepared to do, so we're back to cuts in the wrong places, on the wrong targets, for the wrong reasons.
Complain about this comment
if we neglect science,especially in the field of medicne a lot of people will die.cuts to trident and certian parts of the armed forces before science.to all the card bearing jingo louts,it needs to be done with intelligence,i too respect my countrys safety..
Complain about this comment
72. AndyC555 wrote: If it's a grant to the scientists who come up with those findings that get announced on Radio 1 ("Scientists have discovered that if you stand in the middle of the M25 at rush hour you stand a good chance of getting run over") then yes, we should cut their funding.
Ah, yes, Radio 1 - a station that is right up there with astrophysics Journal and The Lancet when it comes to publishing ground-breaking research. Can i also recommend the Sunday Sport for its excellent and in-depth science coverage.
Complain about this comment
48. At 1:19pm on 23 Sep 2010, pb wrote:
How about taxing stupidity to pay for science - the physicists, chemists, biologists, planetary scientists etc. would be awash with money. Might encourage a few more people to pick up a book and learn something too.
Stupidity must be one of very few things our successive governments have not thought about taxing, so it can't be long now...
============================
Well, they already tax the national lottery and smoking. One is a stupidity tax based on ignorance of statistics, while the other is a stupidity tax based on bad health. I do agree though, we need more of these optional taxes. Part of the reason i'm in favour of legalisation and taxation of drugs....
But anyway, yes we need to keep science budgets high, otherwise we'll just end up losing all the top talent abroad. Ironically enough, it's the same reason bankers expect to be paid a fortune. But i'm not convinced that those bankers provide as much benefit as modern since, somehow! Tax the banks, keep the science.
Complain about this comment
If we are getting a good return on our investment then of course we should keep investing. But are we?
Complain about this comment
No special protection for science. Let this bunch of Thatcher's brats take everything down with them. And when we reach the bottom, and the private sector goes abroad where the scientists will have gone, then the loony fundamentalists can have what is left.
Complain about this comment
78. wvpTV wrote: Surely the big reward should be the Satisfaction in the Work itself? Cut's in pay, need not stop science, the greedy attitude of some scientists might.
My first paid job after education was in acedemia - I left due to the poor pay. I increased my salary almost 250% when I went from working for a University science department to a commercial company.
Academics still have homes and families to support!
Complain about this comment
Cuts in the inflated salaries of scientists and the and reduction in the number of hangers on and ineffective won't have any effect on science will it ? If cash is the driving factor for scientists, then they are in the wrong business.
Complain about this comment
81. At 2:45pm on 23 Sep 2010, citizen42 wrote:
if we neglect science,especially in the field of medicne a lot of people will die.cuts to trident and certian parts of the armed forces before science.to all the card bearing jingo louts,it needs to be done with intelligence,i too respect my countrys safety..
----------------------------
Cuts to the armed forces! I hope your kidding. Not to forget how we export a lot of expensive and high quality military kit which is driven by the need of an armed forces.
Trident is the only way of certainly delivering nukes in a way that cannot be stopped or tracked.
Science shouldnt be cut although if there is waste that can be trimmed that would be good.
Sorry guys but still religion is the only worthey cutting off point. No more tax breaks or public money for religious purposes. Let god look after them
Complain about this comment
No!
Complain about this comment
Science funding doesn't all go to the salaries of scientists - it's more about equipment, research and development etc. Scientists on the whole aren't well paid in terms of the skills needed for the job - especially those in Universities/Academia who are passing on their knowledge. To criticise them for being greedy is naive (you're looking at the wrong sector there I'm afraid) certainly taking a voluntary 50% pay cut as some suggested is just bonkers.
------------------------------------
88. At 3:04pm on 23 Sep 2010, in_the_uk wrote:
Cuts to the armed forces! I hope your kidding. Trident is the only way of certainly delivering nukes in a way that cannot be stopped or tracked.
--------
Your point? Nuclear weapons won't prevent M.A.D if a rouge state or terrorist organisation decides to fire at us. Trident is a total waste of money.
Complain about this comment
No! Chemists create new drugs which NICE deem to be too expensive...er sorry....not cost effective. Physicists develop nuclear weapons....like Trident...which we can ill afford and might not buy. Biologists are studying species.....which are dying out....so why bother because soon they will not exist. Astronomers are studying other planets....where we cannot go, and if we could what gives us the right to exploit another planet resources because we have messed up on Earth. Blair and Brown saw little future in science, or were they wrong....sorry....no politicians are ever wrong...silly me!!!
Complain about this comment
Science can be scrutinised for areas where there can be savings, but those savings should be carefully made. It is an important area.
We have NICE (ok health, but in that respect science-related) refusing treatments for cancer because it isn't "cost-effective", but they think it is ok to pay for antenatal clinics in schools, and we have the National Childbirth Trust who want full-pay for Mums on maternity leave.
Just thinking about it - how much money could be spent on drugs if NICE was disbanded? Could anyone else on here honestly decide who could live and who could not on the basis of being cost-effective? Not a job I could do.
Topsy-turvy world.
Complain about this comment
#87. At 2:59pm on 23 Sep 2010, kaybraes wrote:
"Cuts in the inflated salaries of scientists and the and reduction in the number of hangers on and ineffective won't have any effect on science will it ?"
On what planet are the salaries of academic scientists inflated?
Complain about this comment
8. At 12:10pm on 23 Sep 2010, Nok wrote:
Scientists say that cuts in the science budget will harm research and the country's economy.
Teachers say that Cuts in education will damage Britains future prosperity.
Police Chiefs say that cuts will leave them unable to fight crime.
The MOD says cuts will leave them unable to meet Britains current or future military commitments.
Doctors say that cuts will leave them unable to effectively treat a number of conditions.
To cut a long a story short-
We're all Doomed. Doomed I tell you. Doomed.
======================================================================
Insightful and funny, well done that Nok. (Tongue in cheek)
Some science is a bit pony, but in general, we all benefit from the work scientists carry out so, of course it should be protected, but like everything, with proper checks and balances.
The research and development carried out by [private and charity] organisations runs into hundreds of billions, the public purse should play its part.
Complain about this comment
Yes
Without science, many of us would still be dying young of diseases like measles.
99% of the population will be just surviving, for most there would be no mod cons, no luxuries.
It is science that has made this nation prosperous throught the 19th and 20th centuries and it is science that will secure our prosperity in the 21st century.
Complain about this comment
No, science research cannot be immune from a reduction in government spending. Every body in receipt of funds from government, central and local, are screaming that they are a special case and must be protected from cuts. In many cases "cuts" just means a reduction in their proposed budget which is far greater than their current budget. If the likes of the Police are not willing to get a grip on their pension costs then they will just lose jobs. The taxpayer is sick of endless increases in taxes to fund unwanted government interference in our lives and funding salaries and pensions we cannot afford for ourselves let alone fund for others in "public service".
Complain about this comment
90. At 3:21pm on 23 Sep 2010, LoonyLiberal wrote:
Your point? Nuclear weapons won't prevent M.A.D if a rouge state or terrorist organisation decides to fire at us. Trident is a total waste of money.
----------------------------
Why? if they send a cruise missile, or many, our air force can shoot them down. If they want to launch an ICBM they need launch time, and while they are almost unstoppable they take time to launch which our intelligence services look out for.
Trident is a mobile (and untrackable) ICBM launcher which can take out any silo thinking of launching before they do. Sounds good to me.
Complain about this comment
Everything should bear its share of cuts, including science. Anyone who has followed the so called 'scientific research' findings over the years will realise that too many are trying to do the same thing and too many are researching subject areas that indulge their curiosity rather than improve the world. Bit like university courses - but that's another debate.
Complain about this comment
Yes, of course it should. Look what happened during the Thatcher years when funding was cut.
Complain about this comment
7. kaybraes wrote: Cuts in the inflated salaries of scientists
Not sure what planet you are on - not the same one as me. As a non-scientist I now earn quite a significant bit more than a friend who is a biochemist and see also my comment #86.
Yes, there are some good salaries - but over inflated? Hardly! There is a job in New Scientist at the moment for a Research Physicist, salary: Circa £25,000. hardly over inflated when the preferred candidate will have a PhD and six to seven years study and reasarch behind them. I'd say that was pretty poor - the same as a secretary in london or a PA outside London.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS