Tag Archives: Science is Vital

Impact that latest elections could have on US science hotspots and brief comment of UK bugdet

There’s some interesting commentary on the US mid-term elections and its potential impact on various types of science by Dan Gilmour in his Nov. 3, 2010 posting (on his Salon blog) notes,

The Democrats weren’t the only big loser in yesterday’s election. Science got clobbered, too.

Fueled by disdain for government interference with business and tanker loads of cash from the energy industry and its allies, the Republican party has been moving steadily into the denial camp on global climate change, or at least deep skepticism. And it’s practically an article of faith among the tea-party activist crowd. A recent survey from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed a yawning gap between Democrats and Republicans over the issue, with just 38 percent of Republicans believing that the earth is getting warmer — a belief that drops to 23 percent among tea party Republicans.

By every account, the Republican takeover of the House is likely to derail any possibility of serious action on climate change during at least the next two years, longer if President Obama is defeated for reelection in 2012.

Gilmour goes on at more length about the ‘attack’ on science. The British journalist Andy Coughlan offers a more measured but still pessimistic view in his Nov. 3, 2010 article for The New Scientist,

President Barack Obama suffered a serious setback in the US midterm elections, with the Democrats losing control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans but hanging onto the Senate by a whisker.

Alongside the anger directed at the president, the elections were battlegrounds for ideological disputes over how to tackle climate change, abortion rights, and whether American children should be taught about biblical creationism alongside evolution.

Coughlan goes on to break it down by state and by science, for example, California and a proposition about greenhouse gas emissions,

One of the most significant results was the defeat in California of Proposition 23, a proposal bankrolled by the Texan oil giants to suspend the state’s pioneering law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

California’s famously green conscience shone through in the vote, defeating the proposition by a resounding 58 to 42 per cent, according to the latest results available. The Los Angeles Times was in no doubt that the “oily club” from Texas was sent packing through being outspent and out-organised, campaign-wise by wealthy philanthropists and celebrity backers.

Chief architect of the original global warming law in 2006, and outgoing Californian governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, was jubilant at the result, according to The Bay Citizen, and took the opportunity to criticise the administration for failing to follow the example set by California.

Presumably the elections in the US will result is some not just to legislation that affects science but also science funding. I find it interesting to contrast the situation as it currently exists in the US with the situation in the UK where scientists achieved 0% reduction in a federal budget that featured serious cutbacks in every other domain as the UK continues to grapple with its economic woes. It does seem that the Science is Vital campaign, (mentioned in my Oct. 19, 2010 posting) was effective. From the Oct. 27, 2010 news item on the Nature website,

An unexpected bouquet of white lilies and roses greeted David Willetts, Britain’s minister for science, when he arrived at a press conference on 20 October to announce the government’s plans for research spending over the next four years.

In better times, he might have been met with a barrage of rotten fruit. The research base will continue to be funded at its current level, £4.6 billion (US$7.2 billion), for the four-year review period — which amounts to an effective cut of 10% if inflation projections are factored in. In addition, an essential funding stream for large projects will probably be substantially cut, along with research in many government departments.

I’m not sure what to make of it all but it does give me food for thought as I wait for Canada’s next federal budget and/or election.

UK’s ‘Science is Vital’ rally attracts crowd of scientists

The results for the UK’s  ‘Science is Vital’ rally (first mentioned in my Oct. 6, 2010 posting) are in. A BBC News article declares that the rally which took place Sat., Oct. 9, 2010 saw this,

Hundreds of scientists have gathered outside the Treasury to protest against expected cuts to science funding.

The rally was organised by the Science is Vital campaign, whose petition calling for no cuts to funding has been signed by more than 20,000 people.

Speaking at the protest, the former head of the Medical Research Council, Professor Colin Blakemore, said cuts would be “disastrous”.

The government says science spending must stand up to “economic scrutiny”.

Meanwhile, Jenny Rohn, the scientist who accidentally started the campaign with one of her blog postings, had this to say about the rally on the Guardian’s Science Desk blog in her Oct. 12, 2010 posting,

Last Saturday, several thousand scientists and their supporters massed in front of the Treasury building in Westminster to speak out against proposed funding cuts for scientific research. Standing on the stage for my opening speech, I surveyed the sea of protestors in a state of awe.

It was past the starting time of 2pm, but people were still streaming into King Charles Street from both ends of the road. I could see people of all descriptions: famous scientists, young students, families with small children. Many people sported white coats and held up placards or colourful accessories: a foam model of Jupiter; a buckyball on a stick; the international symbol for toxic irritants with a photo of Vince Cable superimposed within the yellow triangle. The mood was well-behaved and upbeat, but the opening cheer echoed with a mighty roar, driving home just how formidable people can be when many act as one.

It had been only a month since I wrote a blog post proposing that scientists take to the streets – four short weeks from a crazy idea to its culmination. Along the way I received a whirlwind education in politics and grassroots organisation. My colleagues and I might be good at splicing genes or peering into the depths of the universe, but how many scientists does it take to assemble 300 placards in four hours while being faintly high on spray glue? (Answer: about a dozen.) These lessons and others occurred in a haze of distracted days and late nights, and go some way toward explaining the complaint that more scientists don’t engage in policy activism: if they did, at least on this scale, research would grind to a halt.

After having been in more than one rally, I can say that officials almost always underestimate while organizers overestimate attendance.

Rohn’s project developed some synergistic energy (she got some help and they got a boost in media interest) from the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CASE) in the UK. This resulted in what both groups must have rejoiced over, a meeting in the House of Commons. From the Guardian’s Science Desk blog October 13, 2010 posting,

It’s rare to see the largest committee room at the House of Commons packed with constituents demanding to meet their MPs. It’s rarer still for those constituents to be mild-mannered scientists and engineers.

But that’s exactly what we had yesterday when well over 100 constituents came to parliament to lobby their MPs about the importance of science funding.

Many of them had never been to parliament before, and some had come from as far afield as Norwich and Pembrokeshire, to do so.

… more than 20 MPs came to listen to their constituents concerns, and yet more sent along their staff.

The lobby was organised by the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) as part of the Science is Vital campaign – to show the political price that would be paid for cuts to the UK’s research funding, and to drive home core messages about what such cuts would mean.

I wish the scientists good luck with the UK budget due on Wednesday, October 20, 2010.

Grassroots science organizing in the UK

There’s a lot of concern about impending cuts for funding science in the UK as signaled by Vince Cable’s (UK Secretary of State – Department for Business Innovation & Skills Sept, 8, 2010 speech), excerpted from Cable’s speech Science, Research and Innovation on the Dept. for Business Innovation & Skills webpage,

Over the next few weeks and months, major decisions will be made on Government spending priorities as part of a wider move to stabilise the country’s finances and rebalance the economy. They will help to define what we value as a nation and the direction in which we want to head. Investing in science and research is a critical part of that. I cannot prejudge the outcome but I know that my colleagues, including at the Treasury, value the contribution of UK science.

I have been arguing for years my concern over the way the British economy was distorted. Money borrowed for property speculation rather than productive investment and innovation. Too many top performing graduates heading straight for high finance rather than science and engineering.

It was clear to me and my colleagues that the British economy was becoming increasingly unbalanced in the short term, as the mountain of household debt built up. We were also unprepared for a long-term future where we need to earn our living in the world through high-tech, high-skills and innovation.

There is a school of thought which says that Government commitment to science and technology is measured by how much money we spend. Money is important both for the quality and quantity. But it is an input, not an output, measure. The question I have to address is can we achieve more with less?

In deciding priorities, there is a limit to how much I can dictate the course of events. Nor do I wish to. Research priorities and technical priorities are set at arms length from Government, and through peer review. That is right. Yet the Government spends £6bn a year supporting science and research and it is right that I should speak about strategic priorities.

I feel I should start by registering a personal interest when it comes to science. I’m one of few MPs to have at least started a science degree – well, it began as natural science and ended up as economics.

My constituency, Twickenham, is one of the major centres of scientific enquiry. It contains the National Physical Laboratory, a world-leading centre; the Laboratory of the Government Chemist; and a wide variety of companies involved in science, research and innovation.

I recently discovered one accidentally as a result of a parking dispute with local residents: FT Technologies which is one of two major companies in the world making wind monitoring and airflow measurement applications, much of its production being exported to China.

And one of my constituents is inventor Trevor Bayliss, best known for inventing the wind-up radio. He constantly reminds me of the parlous status and minimal support given to inventors whose ideas so often fail to find commercial application in the UK but are used overseas.

I would add that my youngest son, Hugo, is a very theoretical quantum physicist – based in Singapore.

You could say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. But I am familiar with the language of science and the sorts of difficulties faced by scientists, researchers and inventors.

My preference is to ration research funding by excellence and back research teams of international quality – and screen out mediocrity – regardless of where they are and what they do.

Its is worth noting in the last RAE 54 per cent of submitted work was defined as world class and that is the area where funding should be concentrated.

Even a rationing of this kind presents problems. How do we allow room for new, unknown but bright people? How do we reduce, not increase, the time spent on applying for funding in a more competitive market?

There is a separate but critically important question of how we maximise the contribution of Government supported research to wealth creation.

I support, of course, top class “blue skies” research, but there is no justification for taxpayers money being used to support research which is neither commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding. [emphasis mine]

As I said earlier, it would be wrong to measure this in monetary terms alone. [emphasis mine] There are wider questions, regarding the UK’s openness as a society and its attractiveness as a destination for the brightest scientists, researchers and engineers from all over the world.

….

The Hauser review suggested a sensible approach – establishing a network of Technology and Innovation Centres, based on international models such as the Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany. Both science minister David Willetts and I agree that it is a good way forward, and I am looking closely at the recommendations in the review and the value of investing in these in the context of the Spending Review.

But we should not simply be copying overseas models. The key point is that what works are business driven high technology clusters with academic links. [emphasis mine] We already have several: such as the Research Council campus at Harwell, and others such as Cambridge and potentially St Pancras – and we are working at how to develop this model further.

Despite Cable’s protests  to the contrary and his attempts to ally himself with the scientific community, the focus here is on the bottom line and how science should be made to contribute.  The reference to ‘blue skies research’ is notable as a way of diminishing it while simultaneously claiming its importance. Plus, it’s not just any ‘blue skies’ research, it must be ‘top class’. Unfortunately history, including science history, is littered with stories about theoretical work that was so far ahead of its time that it was dismissed by contemporaries.

I do understand that the UK’s economy is seriously troubled at this time, hard decisions will have to be made, and that scientists will not be happy with any cuts so I can appreciate why Cable has tried to present himself as ‘almost’ a scientist and mention his ‘support’ of blue skies research. He had to know that no matter how he phrased things there’d be some sort of response from the UK’s scientific community, From Jennifer Rohn’s guest post for The Lay Scientist (Guardian Blog),

When you deal with science on a daily basis, it is difficult to take its fruits for granted. Science gives most people the luxury to forget, at least for a while, that the world can be a brutal and dangerous place. On a planet fraught with dwindling resources, burgeoning population, emerging disease and uncertain climate, we abandon science at our peril.

It is with this backdrop that a new chapter in my life began: Science Is Vital, a grassroots campaign to support UK research. I’d like to tell you that I thought long and hard about it, but the truth is that it was an almost instantaneous reaction: I read Vince Cable’s now infamous speech signalling crippling cuts to science funding, dashed off an angry blog post, and proposed marching in the streets on Twitter all in the space of about 15 minutes.

Science is vital. And it’s not just scientists who think so: our petition, which has more than ten thousand contributors and rising, has been signed by a wonderfully diverse array of people, from artists, social workers and builders to ministers, legal secretaries, and fire fighters, even a self-professed “house hubby”. Our campaign, in partnership with the Campaign for Science and Engineering, has been endorsed by groups such as the British Heart Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK and many scientific societies.

If you agree, please sign our petition, write to your MP , consider joining us on our Parliamentary Lobby on Tuesday 12 October, and above all, come to our rally this Saturday 9 October in central London – we’re expecting thousands.

Think of it: scientists and their supporters, massing in the streets! We’d like as many people as possible visibly displaying their pride in science, whether it is by wearing their white coat, T-shirts with their favorite scientific image or wielding scientific objects and placards.

As a Canadian, I’m fascinated that the scientific community in the UK is organizing a public rally. When Canada’s Conservative government effectively cut scientific funding in a budget a few years ago, the Canadian science community responded  months later with a letter carrying 2000 signatures. A blog evolved from that letter, Don’t leave Canada behind which is now run by Rob Annan. I believe that was the sum total of the public grassroots organizing in the face of a perceived crisis.

I realize that Canadian geography and population density do not lend themselves to centrally located or even regionally located public rallies. Distance and population numbers are always a problem.Although, I have to admit that I sometimes think that we use these problems as excuses for doing very little at all.

I hope that the folks in the UK are able to find a means of meaningful dialogue in the face of some very difficult circumstances. As for the Canadian scientific community, I imagine they are watching and waiting as they ponder future moves by the Canadian government (after all, there is a 2011 budget to look forward to).