Scientists don’t agree on much. From string theory to stem cells, or who to vote for, being contrary is in our nature (or is it nurture?). But as we awoke last Friday morning, there seems to have been unanimity about one thing: that the possibility we’ll vote to leave the EU would be a disaster for British science.
A social media frenzy led to a new campaign, born on Friday lunchtime, and led by academics who want to show just how much value UK scientists get from our EU membership.
I love the polyglot melting pot in my lab (although we few Brits are put to shame by the language skills of everyone else): our team meetings often spend almost as much time comparing idioms as discussing science. And the cosmopolitan range of food brought to parties is great.
But there is also much that anyone contemplating supporting a Brexit should consider seriously.
Some of the most prestigious and valuable research grants in Europe are awarded by the European Research Council, an EU initiative. Not only do these launch the best British scientists onto the world stage, but British scientists have earned more back in grants than the UK has contributed in every year of the scheme’s existence.
Then there are the EU Marie Slodowska-Curie mobility fellowships, which support EU scientists to come to Britain as postdoctoral fellows – the main drivers and heroes of bench science in many disciplines. British labs were awarded over €1bn between 2007 and 2014. Again, we receive more than we put in, as we received almost double the amount of money than the next best funded country, Germany.
And by sheer numbers, the biggest impact is probably the Erasmus exchange studentships, which fund tens of thousands of undergraduate and diploma students to move in each direction every year. Many end up doing research in British labs, and those that go abroad bring back training and skills.
The pattern is clear. The EU directly pays for much UK research and innovation; and because Britain is scientifically outstanding, there is a net financial as well as scientific gain. Given our public sector funding difficulties, and the understandably low priority research has in the political arena, we simply cannot afford to lose out on such a successful and empowering pot of EU money.
But even that is not the most important argument. Science works without borders. Hot results are exchanged not only formally by publication but also more directly by individuals in international networks. More than in most other fields, success in science absolutely depends on movement of people. On a personal note, we would have achieved much less if my lab had been less international.
I, like all my colleagues, am deeply worried about the damage already being done by an absurdly restrictive visa regime. This limits excellent non-EU scientists from contributing to British success. The idea that this could extend to the even greater number of visiting EU researchers is really frightening.
There is one bit of good news. I am old enough to remember arguing with ministers in the Thatcher government about whether they should have any role in supporting science at all. One famously compared the case to supporting opera: a cultural luxury that should only be funded if there was spare money. I make no point about opera, but since then party politics has largely evaporated from the principle of support for science. The fundamental case that the 21st century economy depends on innovation founded on discovery has become axiomatic.
Of course the EU has its flaws. Its bureaucracy is legendary, frustrating, and often ridiculous. Its parochial politics can be counter-productive. And, as in the case of Anne Glover, the chief scientist who was eased out, the motivations for some of its decisions can be questionable. But its science programmes are largely politics-free and their bureaucracy is irritating at worst. And financially, the UK wins the EU science lottery.
Just one example of an EU initiative illustrates its huge potential. Andre Geim and Kostya Novoselov, Manchester’s Nobel laureates and graphene pioneers, were awarded €1bn over 10 years by the EU’s Future and Emerging Technologies scheme to work with academic and commercial partners. Their goal: to transform their chance discovery into a whole new family of technologies and industries.
We don’t all win Nobels, and most EU funding is not so generous. But scientists love evidence, and the evidence is clear. Bluntly, if the UK were to leave the EU, we would massively and irreversibly damage an enterprise on which our future depends.
Join the higher education network for more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered.