Do more with less? Really?

Just a month after Vince Cable gave his ‘do more with less’ speech about science budget cuts, the Nobel Prize for medicine went to British scientist, Robert Edwards, for his pioneering work on IVF treatment. Also,the Nobel Prize for physics has been awarded to a researchers from the University of Manchester, Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov who were reported to have used a block of carbon and some sticky tape to create sheets of carbon, a single atom thick, called graphene. This material has extraordinary strength as well as other unique properties.(Science, 2004, 306, 666-669)
Would this research have been approved had Vince Cable been in charge of the science budget then? Well maybe, it sound pretty cheap but aside from this, this ‘basic research’ has yielded results that will have an economic return for Britain as well as providing the basis for a lot of interesting science.
Some would say that it was despite of and not because of our research funding system, that Britain has fared well in the honours. Whilst 30 % of UK GDP comes from science and technology intensive areas, only 0.55 % of GDP is invested back into research.

Whilst other countries such as India, China and the USA are investing in science to improve the economy, Vince Cable has said that tax payers should only back research that will have an economic return or is academically exceptional. I have tried to find out what the criteria for this is but I am not entirely sure. Dr Cable alludes to investing in intellectual property, regenerative medicine, plastic electronics, fuel cells and composite materials. He also highlights the importance of immigration. I don’t really understand how exactly we will attract world class scientists, if we can only give them pocket money to work with.

And what are the choices for scientists already in the UK:

• Leave?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/30/science-research-spending-cuts

• Do nothing?

• Make diamonds out of tequila? (Darn it)
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0806/0806.1485.pdf

I understand that it is difficult for those that require support from the government e.g. cutting winter fuel allowance for the elderly that investment in science may not give a return before the snow sets in but we invest so little just now anyway, does it have to be a case of one or the other? Pulling funding from science will ruin the momentum that has already been invested in current research. It is encouraging to see on the ‘Science Is Vital’ petition that has been launched to try and protect science funding so many people signed up that are not scientists and that non-scientists appreciate the impact that research has on all our lives. And with that I urge you to go to the ‘Science is Vital’ website and add your name to the list.
http://scienceisvital.org.uk/