The impact of Brexit on the ScientificCommunity

Good evening. Tonight, I look forwarding to discussing with you the consequences of Brexit for the Scientific Community at large. But first, I would like to start by quoting the European Commissioner for Research and Innovation. In his speech on July 25^th this year, Carlos Moedas said : “If you were a European intellectual during the Enlightenment, the chances are you were a citizen of the Republic of Letters, a community of modern science scholars that transcended national borders, that experimented and debated across disciplines, and that pursued progress and societal advancement. Whilst in the 18th century the Republic of Letters was open-science-for-the-few, the 21st century will become the Republic of Letters for the many. Rather than being an elite activity, concentrated in a few countries in Europe, 21st century science will involve tens of thousands of scientists working collaboratively across the globe.” (Moedas, C. 2016).

I believe this is already the case. Indeed, people who work in the science community grow up with the concept that through collaboration great scientific insights happen (Smith, K.J.P., 2016). Some examples of this collaborative spirit are, of course, the creation of the CERN, the Conseil Europeen pour la Recherche Nucléaire. CERN was founded in 1954 and today is a joint venture involving 22 member states all working side by side for the advancement of science. Another, is the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium which was a publicly funded project that brought scientists together from 20 institutions in six countries: France, Germany, Japan, China, the UK and the USA. What I love about this story is that in parallel of this publicly funded initiative, Scientist Craig Venter had decided to sequence and patent the Human Genome. In order to prevent him from making money on the knowledge contained in every somatic cell our human body is composed of, scientists from around the world divided up the work to win the race and ensure that the knowledge would remain in the public domain. Collaboration is intrinsic to the scientific community and anything hindering it is therefore rejected and fought against.

Prior to the vote on Brexit, within the scientific community, the message was clear. In a poll of scientists conducted by the journal Nature, of the respondents who intended to vote in the referendum, 80% said that they would vote to remain in the EU, and 78% said that a Brexit would harm UK science (Tych, K., 2016). In addition, a group of 13 Nobel laureates had written an open letter to the Telegraph newspaper, stating their support for the Remain campaign. They had argued that “Science thrives on permeability of ideas and people, and flourishes in environments that pool intelligence, minimise barriers, and are open to free exchange and collaboration. The EU provides such an environment and scientists value it highly.” (Tych, K., 2016). But Brexit was the choice the UK citizens voted for. So what next? First I would like to establish what hasn’t changed, then I will explain the impact for the UK, for the EU and as an Edinburgh Alumna, for Scotland.

As long as the UK is a member of the European Union, EU law continues to apply and the UK retains all rights and obligations of a member state. The referendum as such doesn’t change anything regarding their eligibility for funding and the UK institutions still have access to the world’s biggest research and innovation funding programme known as Horizon 2020 (Moedas, C., 2016).

The UK has had disproportionate levels of success in securing EU research funding, relative to their contribution. Roughly 20% of UK science funding is from EU grants. Since 2009, national research funding has fallen due to inflation and yet during the same period, UK funding from EU sources increased by 68% (Glover, A, 2016). Prime Minister Theresa May said she is committed to “ensuring a positive outcome for UK science as we exit the European Union” (Maxton, J., 2016). The Royal Society has committed to work with the government to turn these words into actions, to see that the UK science community is heard in Brexit negotiations and to identify the best possible model of international collaboration to pursue within and beyond the EU (Maxton, J., 2016). According to former Chief Scientific Advisor to the President of the European Commission, Anne Glover, the UK could participate as an associated or third country like Turkey (Glover, A, 2016).  At present, sixteen countries from outside the EU have ‘associated country’ status, which means, in return for contributing to framework programme budgets, their researchers and organisations can apply for Horizon 2020 projects with the same status as those from EU member states (Kirkaldy, L., 2016). Associated country status is open namely to countries that are members of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and current EU candidate nations. However, the terms of their association differ by country, and they do not have a role in the negotiations that shape EU research funding (Kirkaldy, L., 2016). The UK would not be eligible for all Horizon 2020 activities and could not propose research grants but, if invited, UK institutions could become a partner whilst having to cover the costs of their participation. This is possible without agreeing to free movement of people (Kirkaldy, L., 2016). Non-EU countries such as Norway can participate in all of the EU’s Horizon 2020 programmes, through membership of the European Economic Area (EEA), but this brings an obligation to agree to the free movement of people in return. But they cannot influence the strategy in any way (Glover, A, 2016). It all depends upon the UK agreeing to free movement of people (not just scientists). There is a precedent here: when Switzerland voted to restrict immigration in 2014, they were disbarred from key parts of Horizon 2020 overnight (Glover, A, 2016). But Former Science Minister in the UK, Paul Drayson, is more pessimistic and believes that whilst Brexit won’t mean that there will be no collaborative research projects, the terms under which those research collaborations will be done, the percentage of the research that would come from the UK, and therefore the quality of the science based in the UK, will go down (Smith, K.J.P., 2016).  Whatever arrangement is reached for the UK’s future relationship with the EU, the mobility of talent needs to be retained for the higher education sector if Britain is not to become intellectually and culturally impoverished (Smith, K.J.P., 2016). Otherwise, the quality and impacts of UK science will decrease, and the best and brightest minds required for UK research to continue to be a world leader will start to head elsewhere (Smith, K.J.P., 2016). Of course, the value of engaging in EU research programmes cannot be measured by the number of grants alone. The value lies in building networks – in exchanging information and experience. And the UK’s research is strengthened by its relationships with the EU and the international community (Moedas, C. 2016). The UK will already have lost some of its welcoming appeal to international researchers as a result of the anti-EU and anti-immigrant rhetoric that has been filling many  headlines over the past months (Tych, K., 2016).

Brexit will have far-reaching consequences not only for British science, but also for European science (Tych, K., 2016). The European Union is a very important centre of science worldwide, currently producing over one third of the world’s scientific output according to UNESCO data (Tych, K., 2016). This can be partly attributed to the fact that 8% of the EU budget goes directly into Horizon 2020, worth just under €80 billion from 2014 – 2020. This money is accessible to anyone within the EU, from students to established professors (Tych, K., 2016). Through Horizon 2020, individual researchers and groups in the UK can collaborate with researchers in over 170 countries worldwide, fuelling high-quality collaborative research (Tych, K., 2016). The UK is an essential and valued partner in the EU’s research collaboration (Tych, K., 2016). However, there are already signs that EU partners feel uneasy about including UK institutions on future proposals. Indeed what will happen with 4-year research projects starting in 2017 or 2018? To such an extent that Commissioner Moedas urged the European scientific community to continue to choose their project partners on the basis of excellence and insisted that Horizon 2020 projects will continue to be evaluated based on merit and not on nationality (Moedas, C., 2016).

At the start of the 19th century, Edinburgh had one of the best medical schools in the world, with students flocking to the city from across Europe to pack out theatres and watch famed surgeons at work (Kirkaldy, L., 2016). Today, Scotland still produces world-class research in life sciences. Indeed, the country leads the UK, with around 600 Scottish organisations either directly or indirectly linked to the sector, which employs more than 32,000 people. In monetary terms, life sciences alone generate more than £3bn a year (Kirkaldy, L., 2016). Hugh Pennington, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology at the University of Aberdeen and a member of the Advisory Council for the Campaign for Science and Engineering, says that when it comes to attracting research funding from the EU, it is clear Scotland “punches above its weight” (Kirkaldy, L., 2016). All Scottish research universities benefit from Horizon 2020 (Kirkaldy, L., 2016). Questions over the future of Scottish university research are focusing on the country’s ability to attract funding from research bodies and have reignited the debate on independence (Kirkaldy, L., 2016).

So the three key take home messages, I believe, are the following:

1. For the moment the UK remains eligible to EU funding even though in practice EU partners feel uneasy about including UK institutions on future proposals.

2. The UK may be able to benefit from EU funding as an associated country but much will depend on the negotiations carried out in the coming months.

3. It is crucial for the future of UK and European Science to maintain a high level of collaboration and limit brain drain.

As I started by quoting Commissioner Moedas, I would like to end with his words. Indeed, I agree with him when he says “Europe should not only be part of a Global Research Area that embraces open science, we should lead the way to this new Global Research Area. So let's create a new Republic of Letters: one that is inclusive, one that values its people as much as progress and one that restores trust and confidence in science” (Moedas, C. 2016). Thank you for your attention.

References:

Glover, A., 2016, Six leading scientists give perspectives on UK science after Brexit, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2016/jul/14/six-leading-scientists-give-perspectives-on-uk-science-after-brexit, accessed November 2016.

Kirkaldy, L., 2016, What does Brexit mean for the future of research in Scotland?, Holyrood, https://www.holyrood.com/articles/inside-politics/what-does-brexit-mean-future-research-scotland, accessed November 2016.

Maxton, J., 2016, European Union: Royal Society helps guide Brexit science, Nature, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7616/full/536274a.html?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews, accessed November 2016.

Moedas, C., 2016, Europe's voyage towards an open global research area, ESOF2016, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/moedas/announcements/europes-voyage-towards-open-global-research-area_en, accessed November 2016.

Smith, K.J.P., 2016, Why the Science Community Says No to Brexit, Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-science-community-says-no-to-brexit/ accessed November 2016.

Tych, K., 2016, Op-ed: What would the Brexit mean for Science and Research?, Lindau Nobel Laureates Meeting, http://www.lindau-nobel.org/op-ed-what-would-the-brexit-mean-for-science-and-research/ accessed November 2016.