Protect basic research: UK scientists

Britain's scientific establishment is urging the government to safeguard the future of basic biomedical research, in the wake of budget cuts and a reorganization of the way medical science is funded.

In March last year, the government asked venture capital fund manager David Cooksey to suggest ways to combine medical research funding under a single organization, incorporating research done through the National Health Service and the Medical Research Council. His report in December suggested, among other things, that while funding for basic research should be maintained, "future increases in funding should be weighted towards translational and applied research."

On Thursday (March 15), the influential House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, which includes politicians from the major political parties, published a broadly positive response to the Cooksey report, but raised some important concerns.

"Our committee is adamant that the Cooksey review, which we support in broad principles, should not be used as an excuse for reneging on commitments that there would be no diversion of funds away from basic biomedical research," the committee's chair, Phil Willis, told The Scientist.

"We're looking for a clear statement from the Treasury and from the Research councils" that basic research budgets would not be cut, Willis added. "There is no applied or transitional research unless you have good basic research in the first place."

A spokesman for the Treasury told The Scientist the issue was now a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. A spokeswoman for DTI said in an Email that the UK needs to maintain a "balance" between different types of research. "The Cooksey Review clearly recognises the importance of basic research, and the UK's excellence in this area and that current levels of funding should be maintained while the level of funding for translational and applied research is the focus for any future increases in funding."

Other science figures added their voice to the politicians' call. Peter Cotgreave, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, told The Scientist that although Cooksey didn't say that funding for basic research should be cut, he did leave the door open for it to be neglected in favor of translational science.

"The worry is the way that the report is interpreted, because there is always such pressure in government to do something useful, but the only reason we have something useful is because we have such a strong history of fundamental research," he said.

Michael Rutter, vice-president of the Academy of Medical Sciences, also welcomed the Committee's call for support of basic as well as more applied research. "The Academy firmly believes that a successful biomedical agenda must be founded on the strong science base that we have in the UK," he said in a statement.

The president of the Academy, Oxford professor of medicine John Bell, is the head of the new Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research (OSCHR), created by Cooksey as a central coordinating body for health research.

The Royal Society, Britain's national academy of science, said it shared the concerns of the committee. "We hope that this [House of Commons committee] report, which reinforces the concerns voiced by a number of organisations, galvanises the newly established Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research, together with the Department of Health and Department of Trade and Industry to take action to address these issues," David Read, vice president of the Royal Society said in a statement.

This hasn't been a good month for relations between Britain's government and scientists. In late February the Department of Trade and Industry announced it was cutting ﾣ68 million from the budgets of the Research Councils, triggering outrage among researchers.

The government had told scientists that funding was specially set aside, or "ring-fenced" for research. "I think the cut to the research council budget was a major concern not just because of the amount, but because of what it says about the confidence the research and business communities can have in what the government says," said Cotgreave.

"We're very, very anxious given that we've seen ﾣ68 million of ring-fenced money taken away from the Research Councils," added Willis. "That's sent alarm bells ringing -- if the funds are not ring-fenced in the first place, it might be that much easier to justify taking it from one budget and moving it to another."

The Royal Society of Chemistry this week hung a mass of unused laboratory coats and mannequins on the South Bank in London opposite the Houses of Parliament to protest the 1,000 science jobs it said would be lost as a result of the cuts.

A spokesman for the society told The Scientist the figure of 1,000 jobs was based on an informal calculation of the costs of employing a scientist, which came out to roughly ﾣ60,000 per employee.

There is no question the cuts will be felt in the science community; less clear is whether they will directly result in people losing jobs. The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council has said it will cut the equivalent of 20 new grants and reduce its annual funding scheme for new equipment at sponsored institutes to cope with the cuts.

On Wednesday, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council said it would award roughly 52 fewer grants than it had planned, among other cost-cutting moves.

Stephen Pincock
mail@the-scientist.com

Links within this article

"Chancellor appoints Sir David Cooksey to lead health research review," HM Treasury, March 31, 2006
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/press/2006/press_24_06.cfm

S. Pincock, "Sparring over UK funding plan," The Scientist, August 2, 2006.
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/24225/

S. Pincock, "MRC head to step down," The Scientist, March 8, 2007.
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/52932/

"Cooksey proposes reform of medical research," HM Treasury, December 6, 2006
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/pre_budget_report/prebud_pbr06/press_notices/prebud_pbr06_presscooksey.cfm

Science and Technology - Third Report
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmsctech/204/20402.htm

Campaign for Science and Engineering
'http://www.savebritishscience.org.uk/about/diary/index.htm#0803