Following yesterday’s letter from the House of Lords science and technology committee to Science Minister David Willetts urging a rethink of science cuts, Lord Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, and five heads of prominent universities held a press conference at the Royal Institution today to send the same message.

Lord Rees says the UK is currently in a strong position, second only to the US in terms of the quality of research and university teaching, but he thinks the country’s ability to punch above its weight, and its international standing, would be compromised if the cuts are made. Glynis Breakwell, vice-chancellor of the University of Bath, says that if funding is cut now with a view to increasing it again when the public purse is in a better state, the catch-up required “could prove impossible”.

According to the panel, cuts would cause many top-flight researchers who currently work in the UK to leave, attracted by increased science funding abroad, while overseas researchers would no longer be attracted to work in UK institutions. The quality of university teaching would suffer, and children would be put off pursuing careers in science. “What kind of signal does it send if they see other countries increasing their expenditure while there are cuts here?” asks Lord Rees.

The assembled academics gave several examples of research carried out at their institutions which has been both practically useful and economically profitable, and drew attention to the more than 200 companies that have been successfully spun-out from university bioscience departments over the past decade.

Malcolm Grant, president and provost at University College London, says the country risks “squandering” the investment made in research over the past ten years. “We are about to lose a national asset of great importance,” he warns.

In a submission to the treasury, the Royal Society outlined three scenarios: ‘Constant cash’ – a reduction in real terms – “could be accomodated”, a ten per cent cut termed ‘slash and burn’ would have “serious consequences”, and a 20 per cent cut which they say would mean “game over” for British science.

However, Lord Rees would not be drawn on which departments should have to soak up the proposed cuts were science to be spared. “The amount we’re talking about in science is less than £1bn, which makes the difference between the acceptable and disastrous scenarios…Much larger sums are going to be involved in other departments,” he says.

Image: Lord Martin Rees. Credit: Robminchin under Creative Commons