Over the past few weeks the Science Practice studio has been buzzing with talk of Brexit. As with much of the UK, and seemingly both sides of the campaign, we were taken by surprise by the decision of 17,410,742 people to leave the European Union. Probably unsurprisingly for a company with 5 nationalities represented in a workforce of 7 we were unanimously in favour of remaining within the EU. In fact we fit almost all stereotypes of a Remain voter - multi-national, under 35, based in London and working in the science sector. It is fair to say the mood in the office on the 24th of June was pretty grim…
Over the years Science Practice has worked with many scientists and organisations across the EU, including the Commission itself. We have directly benefited from the willingness to collaborate across borders that the EU holds as a core ideology. Our most obvious example is a project in which we helped design challenge prizes for the European commission, involving 68 interviews with EU experts, and a year long collaboration with the University Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna in Italy.
At the time of writing the date for the UK to begin the process of leaving the EU appears to be shifting ever further away. Still, with our new prime minister Theresa May stating that “Brexit means Brexit” we felt it was important to engage with the conversation on Brexit and science. What did the membership of the EU mean for science? What could we lose? And what we should fight for?
What we had.
The majority consensus is that UK science got a pretty good deal from the EU. As a sector it in fact had a net gain in terms of funding, receiving around £1.2 billion a year for research projects, a figure that makes up nearly a fifth of all UK funding from the EU. In the latest funding programme - Horizon 2020 - the UK has received 15.4% of funds allocated so far, second only to Germany. As a whole, the EU is the world leader in terms of scientific output. With 22% of all scientists in the world, the EU puts out over a third of the world’s scientific articles each year.
The UK has a lot of EU nationals working in its academic institutions. Freedom of movement, combined with the very high reputation of British universities made the UK very attractive for talented researchers across the EU. 15% of all researchers in UK institutions are EU nationals, with this number rising to closer to 20% in the top-ranking universities.
This pan-european collaboration is widely seen as positive amongst EU scientists. Just under a third of all EU academics have worked in a different EU country, with 80% of them saying that this experience has had a positive impact on their research skills.
Outside of the strictly quantifiable, the UK had a strong influence in the direction of EU science policy. Many advisory positions contain or contained UK scientists, such as the (admittedly short-lived) former Chief Scientific advisor to the Commission - Prof Anne Glover, and Prof Julia Slingo who is a member of the replacement science advisory mechanism.
One aspect of EU membership that is sometimes overlooked is the number of students that move to the UK to access higher education institutions. 47,000 EU students come to study in the UK each year, roughly a quarter of a total 192,000 students. It would be difficult for even the most anti-immigration campaigners to be against this yearly input of students. In 2012 they contributed £3.7 billion to the UK economy, and supported 34,000 jobs.
What now?
The overwhelming response amongst scientists and those involved in science policy is to begin making arguments to preserve as much of the current arrangements as possible. Assurances are being sought from UK science minister Jo Johnson (who has maintained his position after the cabinet reshuffle) that the UK will continue to have access to both people and money from the EU. A member of the remain campaign himself, Johnson’s initial responses have been reassuring in intent, although his ability to make a special case for science in the chaos of negotiations remains to be seen.
There are signs that the current environment of uncertainty is already causing problems for UK scientists. Reports have begun to emerge of EU research partners dropping out of proposals for Horizon 2020 projects. The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee have begun collecting stories from UK scientists to gather a picture of effects on the ground for researchers.
A particular sticking point for UK science is the seemingly strong support for a more restrictive immigration policy. Restrictions on immigration could be problematic for science based institutions in attracting and maintaining their workforces. Although it is likely that the majority of researchers and scientists would meet any new visa skills requirements, the added administrative burden, and perception of a hostile environment would most probably reduce numbers.
A less immediately obvious issue with restricting movement is access to EU funding. In 2014 Switzerland held a referendum on the freedom of movement of EU citizens. The result, which was to introduce stronger immigration controls, led to the almost immediate removal of Swiss institutions abilities to apply for Horizon 2020 funding. Since 2014 the EU’s position has softened a little, Swiss academics can now apply for around 30% of funds, but are treated as a ‘third country’ with respect to 70%. Switzerland was never an EU member state, but was treated very harshly by the EU for challenging one of its core tenets. The UK should be prepared for equally harsh treatment.
Although access to Horizon 2020 funding could be restricted, it may be possible for the UK to up spending on science through money previously allocated for EU membership. Although many sectors will be looking for this money to replace funding and subsidies that are lost, it was considered a possibility in responses to the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee’s investigation into EU Membership and UK Science. My personal feeling is that the UK is unlikely to match the levels of funding previously received from the EU. In times of austerity the idea that a conservative government will increase public spending on science by £1 billion a year seems far-fetched.
One area in which it is less obvious what may happen are in the regulations on science and scientific industries. For example the EU is strict on using genetic modification for food crops. Without the requirement to meet EU regulations, UK scientists and farmers may be permitted to grow GM crops more widely. There is significant support within the scientific community for greater usage of GM technologies for foods, however changing policy to be more permissive would be a controversial move.
Moving forwards
Much has been made of the attempts from supporters of Remain to push for Brexit negotiations to allow for the UK to have access to as much of the EU as possible. In reality it seems doubtful that the EU will allow this easily, early signs suggest that this would seen as encouragement of copycat ‘Brexits’ (Czech-out, Quitaly, Portugo……). For science though, it really makes sense to try and keep things as they were. Jo Johnson, Greg Clarke and Justine Greening (Secretary of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Education respectively) should make a strong case for access to the European funding, and talent. The example of Switzerland should be highlighted, with the need of increased funding from within the UK emphasised if strong restrictions on immigration seem inevitable.
As Science Practice we are unlikely to be directly affected by Brexit, no contracts have been lost and our offices won’t move to Dublin, Paris or Berlin. However our ability to work across borders and engage EU researchers and academics is at risk, although the full extent of this is yet to be seen.
UK scientists are often vocal about how they hope that their sector behaves and is structured, with strong campaigns for open access and increased participation in science from women and minorities, not to mention the case for remaining in the EU. Now another cause must be added - maintained openness and collaboration outside of the UK’s borders. EU membership is not the only thing that makes UK science great, however now more than ever science needs to show that it knows no borders.
