What’s in store for UK science? - November 24, 2009
At an event at Cambridge University last night, Paul Drayson, the science minister; Adam Afriyie, the shadow science minister (pictured right); and Evan Harris, science spokesman for the Liberal Democrats shared a platform for the first time to debate university and science policy. This could have been potentially interesting and to start with the atmosphere of the crowd, made up mainly of public and private researchers, was excitable and hopefully expectant. But in the end, everyone left a bit disappointed.
Both Drayson for Labour and Adam Afriyie for the Conservative Party, made a commitment that science would be in their respective party’s election manifestos. But it was only Harris who could elaborate in any detail what his party’s policies on science would look like in the future.
Predictably, Drayson attempted to dazzle the crowd with Labour’s past achievements on science, including a doubling of the budget to over £3 billion a year. “We should be judged on our track record,” he urged. “We get science.” It’s true; scientists have never had it as good as they have over the past 12 or so years. But times and the financial circumstances have changed and little will be gained from living in the past. The question is: what does the road ahead look like under Labour?
And, as Harris pointed out, doubling the science budget from the pitiful levels Labour inherited it at from the Conservatives in 1997 is not as difficult as upping the budgets for science from a respectable starting point. The UK is still “nowhere near” the levels of public and private R&D investment needed to compete in a highly skilled knowledge economy, Harris said. The Liberal Democrats would cut back on student debt and fees to encourage more people to take up science subjects at university. They would also increase funding for universities offering courses in hard science subjects so as to protect chemistry and physics departments around the country. Lamenting the firing of David Nutt, a government science advisor, after he publicly voiced his opinion on the system used to classify drugs, Harris said his party is also committed to a “wholesale” reform of the UK’s libel laws to ensure free speech in science, among other things. While some of these policies would not necessarily lead to the most effective use of science funds, at least we know where the Liberal Democrats stand.
Out of the trio, Afriyie was the most disappointing. Given the likelihood of his party leading the country by June next year, the crowd was hoping he might give them some clues as to what might be in store. But, Afriyie would only go as far as saying that the Conservatives are not planning any “reworking” of the research funding machinery. Afriyie looked a bit out of his depth up against Drayson and Evans – two seasoned science advocates in the political arena. So he kept to what he knows about best – high tech businesses. But Afriyie attempted to assure the crowd that the conservative party “would not turn the science budget into a short term industrial budget”.
Image: Afriyie
Comments
"Drayson & Evans"? The Lib Dem science spokesman is Evan Harris, not Harri Evans.
I came away thinking Drayson was downbeat with no sparkle, Evan Harris played pitched too low as if he was speaking to a student audience and Afriyie was confident, outgoing and won the debate on points. He forced Drayson to admit that Labour's spin about the 'ring fence' was meaningless because it avoids committing to how much will be inside the fence - and Labour have ducked the spending review because it would have told us, before the general election, what they plan to spend.
Posted by: F T P Topcliff | November 25, 2009 01:53 PM