Sue Ferns wants to know

As the union representing public sector scientists, Prospect is calling for urgent action to stem the loss of key research facilities and staff.

It may not be immediately obvious why we are so concerned. After all, public sector science has a record to be proud of and the government is not anti-science – far from it. Their commitment to the role of science and innovation in underpinning and driving economic growth is set out in the 10-year Science and Innovation Investment Framework,(1) and, since 1997, we have seen significant increases in expenditure on the science base, which we unequivocally welcome. 

But good science doesn’t always have commercial application. Science in the public interest is under threat. 

Public science cuts

In the past couple of years, the government has closed world-leading institutes and programmes including research into breast cancer, chemicals in food, and animal diseases. Research on the impacts of climate change, pollution and biodiversity all face substantial cuts.

Staff remaining face uncertain futures, continual organisational reviews, and poor career prospects. No wonder then that morale is low, and many scientists vote with their feet even before the axe falls.

Furthermore, our own investigations show that, once public research facilities close, less than one in four of the staff find alternative employment in scientific research anywhere in the economy. This represents a major loss of investment in highly qualified and highly skilled staff.

It also sends a very particular and negative message to students or university leavers who may be thinking about a career in science. The UK needs decent science pay and careers, otherwise highly marketable graduates will take their talents elsewhere.

It is an indictment of the continuing cycle of cuts and closures that, since the spring, Prospect has published three different briefings highlighting the difficulties facing various parts of the public sector science base.(2)
 
Who’s looking after British science?, launched at a lobby of the Westminster Parliament in March, focuses on the research councils. Who’s looking after Scottish science? formed the basis of a lobby of the Scottish Parliament in June, and focuses primarily on the research facilities funded by the Scottish Executive. Who’s looking after Defra science?, published in September, highlights the valuable work of that department’s science-based agencies.

Climate research cut

The message is clear: there is a strategic failure across government to take on the key responsibility of care for the national science base. We know that devolved decision–making is the fashion, but it is not appropriate in every case. In this context, it allows departments and research institutes to cut or close facilities on the basis of business cases that may make sense in the context of their own narrow remits, but have no regard for the wider implications or potential losses to Britain’s core scientific capability.

One example is the decision of the Natural Environment Research Council in March to close four sites of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology despite widespread condemnation from across the scientific community. As a result, 40 per cent of the climate change research programme is being cut, and 20 per cent will cease altogether.

Add to this the effects of complex, competitively-based funding arrangements that leave many research institutes with a low level of core funding from their parent bodies. It only takes a change in research priorities by one funding body to destabilise the entire organisation.

Finally, the government simply does not know how many scientists it employs, let alone their areas of expertise. It therefore cannot make any credible assessment of its own capability to meet future needs.

Charter for action

The upshot is that, at present, nobody can honestly answer our question: Who’s looking after the nation’s science? This worries us, not just because it directly affects our members, but because we genuinely believe that the nation’s science base needs and deserves better care.

For these reasons, at the TUC in September, Prospect published a Charter for Public Science(2) setting out the actions the government needs to take to contain the mounting crisis in public science. The Charter calls for recognition of the crucial role played by science for the public good; decent pay and careers for staff, based on a better knowledge of existing capability; a halt to cost-driven lab closures and privatisation; and open decision-making. We also want a cabinet Minister with authority and accountability for public sector science and a similar Ministerial role in the devolved administrations.

We will be working over the coming months to build a broad base of support for our Charter and to get an answer to our question.

References

1.  See the 10-year Science and Innovation Investment Framework  
2.  All the briefings are published on Prospect’s website and are available in hard copy from Prospect HQ (Tel: 020 7902 6623).

Sue Ferns is Head of Research and Specialist Services at Prospect