my #scipolicy news archive: october 2010 part b

8/8/2019 My #scipolicy News archive: October 2010 Part B

1/114

80 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

TABLE OF CONTENTS2010/10/12 CASE: A Mixed Prognosis for Medical Research................................................ 822010/10/12 Guardian Science Blog: A sleeping beast awakes on the Science is Vital rally ... 832010/10/12 Exquisite Life: What are chances of a "Progressive Browne" deal on studentfees being implemented? .................................................................................................... 85

2010/10/12 Exquisite Life: Why David Cameron may have to nuke the Lib Dems on studentfees ...................................................................................................................................... 862010/10/13 Exquisite Life: Vince Cable wobbles on unlimited tuition fees .......................... 882010/10/13 The Great Beyond: Scientists push nuke cuts ................................................... 882010/10/13 The Great Beyond: Student fees won't solve science teaching funding gap ..... 892010/10/13 In verba: Science and learning in parliament .................................................... 902010/10/13 RCUK: UK research is key to business productivity and economic growth ........ 912010/10/13 Exquisite Life: David Willetts straight talk on innovation................................. 912010/10/13 BBC Science News: Science cuts 'risk economic harm' ..................................... 932010/10/13 Exquisite Life: Beware political compromises on Browne ................................. 942010/10/13 Guardian CiF: Cut military R&D, not science funding ........................................ 95

2010/10/13 Guardian Science News: Military research should bear brunt of science cuts,say leading scientists ............................................................................................................ 982010/10/13 Exquisite Life: The papers on Browne ............................................................. 1002010/10/13 Guardian Science Blog: Scientists lobby parliament to halt cuts ..................... 1012010/10/14 The Great Beyond: No cap-and-trade? Focus on R&D... ................................. 1032010/10/14 The Great Beyond: Bonfire of the quangos singes science advice ................ 1042010/10/14 alice bell blog: Science blogs (Eureka) ............................................................ 1052010/10/14 Exquisite Life: Nick Clegg's terminal dilemma on student fees ....................... 1062010/10/15 CASE: Supporting research; not just for scientists and engineers ................... 1072010/10/15 BBC News: Spending Review: Universities 'to face 4.2bn cut' ...................... 1092010/10/15 Guardian Science Blog: TAM London: Geeks and comedians gather to celebratecritical thinking .................................................................................................................. 1112010/10/15 New York Times: Universities in Britain Brace for Cuts in Subsidies ............... 1122010/10/15 Martin McQuillan Blog: If you tolerate this Lord Browne and the Privatisationof the Humanities .............................................................................................................. 1142010/10/15 Guardian Science Blog Martin: The TAM London 2010 live blog .................... 1172010/10/15 Exquisite Life: Euroscience is here to help both science and society .............. 1452010/10/15 Exquisite Life: Nick Clegg announces 150m "student premium" for poorstudents ............................................................................................................................. 1462010/10/16 Guardian Science Letter: Cuts in defence research won't help science .......... 1472010/10/16 Guardian Science Blog Martin: The Nightingale Collaboration ....................... 1472010/10/17 GIMPYBLOG: TAM London and Champagne Skeptics - the haute bourgeoisie ofcritical thinking .................................................................................................................. 1512010/10/17 FT:Top science facility to expand .................................................................... 1672010/10/18 Science, Reason and Critical Thinking (Crispian Jago): TAM London 2010: ACritical Review ................................................................................................................... 1682010/10/18 BBC Viewpoint: Science 'critical for UK economic future' ............................... 1692010/10/18 BBC Viewpoint: Science cuts 'could lead to brain drain' ................................. 1712010/10/18 CASE: Reviewing the Browne Review ............................................................. 1742010/10/18 New Statesman: The age of scientific discovery is over .................................. 1772010/10/19 Exquisite Life: Beginner's Guide to the Browne Review of Student Fees ........ 1792010/10/19 FT: Osborne cuts to usher in sober decade .................................................. 180

2010/10/19 Guardian Science News: Spending review spares science budget from deep cuts........................................................................................................................................... 1822010/10/19 CASE: Looking ahead to tomorrows CSR........................................................ 183


2/114

81 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

2010/10/19 Nature: UK science funds in limbo.................................................................. 1852010/10/19 Exquisite Life: HEPIs devastating critique makes Browne look shallow ......... 1872010/10/19 Guardian CiF: Science funding: Back the boffins ............................................. 1922010/10/19 The Great Beyond: ERC awards 580 million to novice researchers ............... 193


3/114

82 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

2010/10/12CASE:AMIXED PROGNOSIS FORMEDICAL RESEARCH

ByGUEST BLOGGER

Dr Harriet Teare is Policy Researcher atCancer Research UK

The build-up to the Governments Spending Review on 20 October has generated huge speculation. Howwill the Government choose to distribute its funds? What will be protected? And who and what will take

the biggest hit?

For medical research, much remains to be seen.

NHS budgets will be protected. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)the NHSs research arm,which provides a vital link between researchers and patients is included within this and should thereforebe relatively safe.

But the science budget in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills still hangs in the balance.

In recent weeks weve seen unprecedented collaboration in the research community, across disciplinesand geographical boundaries, to fight to protect the science budget. The case made for medical research is

that its good for health, great for furthering scientific knowledge, and hugely valuable for the strength ofthe economy. Research leads to better ways to treat and prevent ill health and a healthy workforce is amore productive one. Discovering new drugs and treatments, improving existing techniques, and

encouraging investment from industry and charities, all drive growth in our economy.

In fact, every pound that the government spends on medical research generates much more than a pound

of additional private sector funding, and together they create increased wealth for the UK. Recentindications suggest that the message is getting through. Delegates at the Conservative party conference

heard several times of David Willetts support for science. Similarly, in his conference speech, theChancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, alluded to support for medical research to stimulate

economic recovery.

But with the Spending Review looming ever closer, there is still everything to play for.

Government funding for science

Funding for research is complex and the stability on which we rely is largely thanks to the delicate balance

of the relationships between Government and other funders across the UK. Public funding for science islargely supplied through two mechanisms.

Firstly, Research Councils give grants to individual researchers to carry out particular projects.

Secondly, funding supplied to universities through QR (quality related) grants from funding councils such as

the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), provide money for things like building costs,

permanent salaries, and teaching. HEFCE judge which universities are doing the highest quality research,

and fund them based on this track record.

Such funding provides a supportive environment for research. This money plants the seed for further

investment from charities and industry. It encourages these different partners to work together. And thesystem works well because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
http://blog.sciencecampaign.org.uk/?author=4http://blog.sciencecampaign.org.uk/?author=4http://blog.sciencecampaign.org.uk/?author=4http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/04/george-osborne-speech-conservative-conferencehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/04/george-osborne-speech-conservative-conferencehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/04/george-osborne-speech-conservative-conferencehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/04/george-osborne-speech-conservative-conferencehttp://www.cancerresearchuk.org/http://blog.sciencecampaign.org.uk/?author=4


4/114

83 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

University funding is a hot topic of conversation, especially in light of speculation about the

impendingBrowne Review. This is rumoured to be set to abolish the cap on tuition fees.

The inextricable link between research and teaching in universities suggests that funding decisions on one

would greatly affect the other. With two distinct avenues for change on the horizon, the next few months

for universities could be very tough indeed.

Cancer Research UK is funded entirely by donations from the general public. But we have a strong interest

in the strength of UK universities, in which we invested 168 million in 2008/09, in addition to the researchconducted in our own institutes.

Charitable giving and philanthropy lie at the heart of the Governments Big Society. Charity and industryfunding for research and the way this is supported by Government funding is a good example of how we

can work together to the benefit of the UK economy.

The importance of the ring-fence

One factor of public funding which has greatly assisted the strength of the research base is the science

budget ring-fence, which ensures that money set aside for science is not diverted to other areas within BIS.

The ring fence provides stability, predictability and security, which are all necessary to build a strongresearch base. A long-term funding strategy, protected from short-term political pressures, stabilises the

UK research environment and gives UK and international funding partners the confidence to invest.

It takes an average of 17 years for a newly-funded research project to start benefiting patients. This is why

it is so important that the current level of funding, coupled with the long term commitment to maintain it,

is protected as much as possible. The alternative is to see years of investment fall by the wayside and the

health and prosperity of the UK diminish. While on the surface, medical research may appear to weather

the impending storm, spending decisions on 20 October will affect the entire research base and

fundamentally influence our ability to carry out high quality medical research.

2010/10/12GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG:ASLEEPING BEAST AWAKES ON THE SCIENCE IS

VITAL RALLY

Jenny Rohn, whose call to arms culminated in the Science is Vital rally outside the Treasury on Saturday,

describes how she watched in awe as scientists took to the streets

Science is Vital rally in Whitehall on Saturday. Video: The Newton ChannelLink to this video
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/02/universities-tuition-fees-students-brownehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/02/universities-tuition-fees-students-brownehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/02/universities-tuition-fees-students-brownehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2010/oct/12/science-vital-cuts-research-fundinghttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2010/oct/12/science-vital-cuts-research-fundinghttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2010/oct/12/science-vital-cuts-research-fundinghttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/bloghttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2010/oct/12/science-vital-cuts-research-fundinghttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/02/universities-tuition-fees-students-browne


5/114

84 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

Last Saturday, several thousand scientists and their supporters massed in front of the Treasury building in

Westminster to speak out against proposed funding cuts for scientific research. Standing on the stage for

my opening speech, I surveyed the sea of protestors in a state of awe.

It was past the starting time of 2pm, but people were still streaming into King Charles Street from both

ends of the road. I could see people of all descriptions: famous scientists, young students, families with

small children. Many people sported white coats and held up placards or colourful accessories: a foam

model of Jupiter; a buckyball on a stick; the international symbol for toxic irritants with a photo of Vince

Cable superimposed within the yellow triangle. The mood was well-behaved and upbeat, but the opening

cheer echoed with a mighty roar, driving home just how formidable people can be when many act as one.

It had been only a month sinceI wrote a blog postproposing that scientists take to the streets four shortweeks from a crazy idea to its culmination. Along the way I received a whirlwind education in politics and

grassroots organisation. My colleagues and I might be good at splicing genes or peering into the depths of

the universe, but how many scientists does it take to assemble 300 placards in four hours while being

faintly high on spray glue? (Answer: about a dozen.) These lessons and others occurred in a haze of

distracted days and late nights, and go some way toward explaining the complaint that morescientists

don't engage in policy activism: if they did, at least on this scale, research would grind to a halt.

The big day finally arrived. Over the next two hours, speakers entertained the crowd in a line-up aimed at

stimulating both hearts and minds. Colin Blakemore, Oxford neurobiologist and former head of the

Medical Research Council, and Imran Khan, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, made

the detailed case for the importance of research investment to maintain economic growth. Bad Science

columnist and medicBen Goldacrespoke about the perils of a cuts-fuelled brain drain, and Simon Denegri,

chief exec of the Association of Medical Research Charities, explained how public funding is crucial for

supporting its mission. Sex educator Petra Boynton described why cutting basic research would imperil

collaborations with social scientists working in the developing world. Paul Noon, general secretary of

Prospect, spoke on behalf research trade unions, while Michael Brooks explained why he set up a political

party devoted to science.

On a more personal note, cancer survivor Claire Daniels and former Alzheimer carer Vivienne Hill gave

moving personal takes on the importance of research.

But it wasn't all sober and serious. Materials scientist and broadcaster Mark Miodownik of King's College

London spoke about the more inspirational aspects of science as a cultural endeavour, and stand-up

science comics Timandra Harkness and Dean Burnett easily scored laughs. ButEvan Harris, former MP and

tireless champion for evidence-based policy, arguably stole the show with hissinging and chanting stintswhich are rapidly becoming YouTube classics. Crowd-sourced videos and images of all the speakers and

anticshave been flooding in.

Now that we on theScience is Vital teamhave just about managed to catch up on our sleep, it's a good

time for reflection. We achieved excellent media coverage, and our central message that cutting sciencefunding will harm, not help, the economy seems to have been driven home. We know that our work isnot yet finished: we have aparliamentary lobbytoday, and still need to urge people tosign our

petition (the deadline passes at 13.30 BST on Wednesday)andwrite to their MPs.

20 October will be the moment of truth, however. When thecomprehensive spending reviewis

announced, we will finally find out whether our efforts made a difference. But there is one thing, at least,

about which we can already be certain: scientists in the UK will no longer take things lying down. The

slumbering beast truly has awakened.
http://blogs.nature.com/ue19877e8/2010/09/08/in-which-the-great-slumbering-scientific-beast-awakenshttp://blogs.nature.com/ue19877e8/2010/09/08/in-which-the-great-slumbering-scientific-beast-awakenshttp://blogs.nature.com/ue19877e8/2010/09/08/in-which-the-great-slumbering-scientific-beast-awakenshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2010/oct/09/1http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2010/oct/09/1http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2010/oct/09/1http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2010/oct/09/1http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/series/badsciencehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/series/badsciencehttp://www.scienceparty.org.uk/http://www.scienceparty.org.uk/http://www.scienceparty.org.uk/http://www.scienceparty.org.uk/http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2010/oct/11/science-funding-crisis-science-policyhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2010/oct/11/science-funding-crisis-science-policyhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2010/oct/11/science-funding-crisis-science-policyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ln1gMvIL2whttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ln1gMvIL2whttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ln1gMvIL2whttp://scienceisvital.org.uk/2010/10/10/rally-report/http://scienceisvital.org.uk/2010/10/10/rally-report/http://scienceisvital.org.uk/2010/10/10/rally-report/http://scienceisvital.org.uk/aboutus/http://scienceisvital.org.uk/aboutus/http://scienceisvital.org.uk/aboutus/http://scienceisvital.org.uk/lobby-parliament/http://scienceisvital.org.uk/lobby-parliament/http://scienceisvital.org.uk/lobby-parliament/http://scienceisvital.org.uk/sign-the-petition/http://scienceisvital.org.uk/sign-the-petition/http://scienceisvital.org.uk/sign-the-petition/http://scienceisvital.org.uk/sign-the-petition/http://scienceisvital.org.uk/write-to-your-mp/http://scienceisvital.org.uk/write-to-your-mp/http://scienceisvital.org.uk/write-to-your-mp/http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/spending-reviewhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/spending-reviewhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/spending-reviewhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/spending-reviewhttp://scienceisvital.org.uk/write-to-your-mp/http://scienceisvital.org.uk/sign-the-petition/http://scienceisvital.org.uk/sign-the-petition/http://scienceisvital.org.uk/lobby-parliament/http://scienceisvital.org.uk/aboutus/http://scienceisvital.org.uk/2010/10/10/rally-report/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ln1gMvIL2whttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2010/oct/11/science-funding-crisis-science-policyhttp://www.scienceparty.org.uk/http://www.scienceparty.org.uk/http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/series/badsciencehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2010/oct/09/1http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2010/oct/09/1http://blogs.nature.com/ue19877e8/2010/09/08/in-which-the-great-slumbering-scientific-beast-awakens


6/114

85 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

2010/10/12EXQUISITE LIFE:WHAT ARECHANCES OF A "PROGRESSIVE BROWNE" DEAL ON

STUDENT FEES BEING IMPLEMENTED?Well, thanks to the Today programme this morning we see that even John Browne doesnt know what thegovernments response to his report will be.

Does that mean, asI argued at Conservative Homeon Sunday, that its a genuine crisis for thecoalition?Michael White todayin the Guardian is among those who think so.

Or does it mean, as Conservative Homes editorTim Montgomerie argued in a ripostelater in the day, thatthis is business as usual for the coalition, that tough choices will have to be made to reach a compromise?

Thats also what David Cameron told reporters yesterday.

You pays your money and you takes your choice. Whats clear from the whirl of confusion around therelease of the report is that it has become wrapped in high, intensely obscure backroom politics. Are any

big blocks of policy effectively in place or is it all still to play for? The sense that the field may still be more

open than ministers would like has been accentuated by two think tanks throwing their own un-Browne-

like proposals for reform into the ring yesterday. BothPolicy Exchangeand theSocial Market

Foundationplainly think there's still time and scope to capture the debate.

All eyes will be on Vince Cable this afternoon when he speaks to the House of Commons. He will want to

create a sense of inevitability to counteract the attempts of the National Union of Students to destabilise

the party leadership. But how far will he feel able to go?

A holding statement that the government will look at Browne with a view to making it more progressive

Suggestions of ways the government is interested in revising Browne, eg with higher interest rates for rich

graduates

A definitive commitment to vote for the 6k soft fees cap from the Lib Dems, thus becoming the moment

when Clegg repudiates his pre-election pledges on fees.

The two big political things that could knock the move towards Progressive Brown off course are Lib Dembloodletting or a right-wing backlash over the squeezed middle, like the one that caused Cameron's

wobble last week over child benefit. But both possibilities seem muted this morning.

The Lib Dem leadership has succeeded, at least temporarily, in shutting down open debate by serious

figures within the party on the subject.

And Cameron need not be too worried by the papers yesterday and today. The Telegraph has sent mixed

messages - voicing both a willingness to be reasonable and the demand that the middle not be squeezed

(which is the essence of Browne). The Mail today has buried the story, and even the cartoon is rueful

rather than cutting. Murdochs Sun and Times are not on the warpath. The Guardian can be ignored.

One thing is certain fromthe arithmetic in the Commons. If Clegg leads his party past the Aye tellers, it

doesnt matter if theres a backbench rebellion, the government will carry the day. If I was the Russell

Group, right now I'd be feeling pretty content.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2010/10/william-cullerne-bown-the-issue-of-student-fees-could-be-the-coalitions-first-real-crisis.htmlhttp://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2010/10/william-cullerne-bown-the-issue-of-student-fees-could-be-the-coalitions-first-real-crisis.htmlhttp://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2010/10/william-cullerne-bown-the-issue-of-student-fees-could-be-the-coalitions-first-real-crisis.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/11/michael-white-university-fees-review-rebellionhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/11/michael-white-university-fees-review-rebellionhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/11/michael-white-university-fees-review-rebellionhttp://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/10/a-new-deal-on-higher-education-funding-will-probably-see-compromises-from-conservatives-and-particul.htmlhttp://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/10/a-new-deal-on-higher-education-funding-will-probably-see-compromises-from-conservatives-and-particul.htmlhttp://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/10/a-new-deal-on-higher-education-funding-will-probably-see-compromises-from-conservatives-and-particul.htmlhttp://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/publication.cgi?id=207http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/publication.cgi?id=207http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/publication.cgi?id=207http://www.smf.co.uk/funding-undergraduates1.htmlhttp://www.smf.co.uk/funding-undergraduates1.htmlhttp://www.smf.co.uk/funding-undergraduates1.htmlhttp://www.smf.co.uk/funding-undergraduates1.htmlhttp://bit.ly/bW5YtIhttp://bit.ly/bW5YtIhttp://bit.ly/bW5YtIhttp://bit.ly/bW5YtIhttp://www.smf.co.uk/funding-undergraduates1.htmlhttp://www.smf.co.uk/funding-undergraduates1.htmlhttp://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/publication.cgi?id=207http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/10/a-new-deal-on-higher-education-funding-will-probably-see-compromises-from-conservatives-and-particul.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/11/michael-white-university-fees-review-rebellionhttp://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2010/10/william-cullerne-bown-the-issue-of-student-fees-could-be-the-coalitions-first-real-crisis.html


7/114

86 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

Mac's cartoon in the Daily Mail today

'Look, Simon. Mummy and Daddy have brought you a

hoodie - why not bunk off school and join a nice gang

of yobs?'

Posted by William Cullerne Bown

2010/10/12EXQUISITE LIFE:WHY DAVIDCAMERON MAY HAVE TO NUKE THE LIB DEMS ON

STUDENT FEESAt the Lib Dem conference last month, Simon Hughes told my colleague Brian Owens that Nick Clegg had

agreed to delay any response to Browne until the party had had a chance to assess and discuss the issues.

This appears to be what is indeed transpiring.

Doorstepped by the BBC this morning, Vince Cable outlined what he will tell the House of Commons later.

We will not be giving a definitive response," he said. "Ill just be giving a preliminary response fromgovernment.

Meanwhile, Hughes has issued astatementas deputy leader.

We all have a duty to read and consider fully Lord Brownes proposals and the Government's response,he writes. Today will not be the last word on policy for funding higher education in England. All MPsshould now engage constructively in questions, answers and debate in Parliament. We must also listen to

the considered responses of our constituents and the wider public before we come to take our final

personal and collective decisions on the best way forward.

So the situation seems to be that Clegg and Cable have got an outline of a potential deal with Cameron and

Willetts that they are now going to try and sell to the party.
http://exquisitelife.researchresearch.com/.a/6a00e54ee8dd9788330133f5000423970b-pihttp://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=University_funding_must_be_fair_and_progressive_%E2%80%93_Hughes&pPK=ca103a4f-0ee1-4691-a58b-3f9bc0497edbhttp://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=University_funding_must_be_fair_and_progressive_%E2%80%93_Hughes&pPK=ca103a4f-0ee1-4691-a58b-3f9bc0497edbhttp://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=University_funding_must_be_fair_and_progressive_%E2%80%93_Hughes&pPK=ca103a4f-0ee1-4691-a58b-3f9bc0497edbhttp://exquisitelife.researchresearch.com/.a/6a00e54ee8dd9788330133f5000423970b-pihttp://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=University_funding_must_be_fair_and_progressive_%E2%80%93_Hughes&pPK=ca103a4f-0ee1-4691-a58b-3f9bc0497edbhttp://exquisitelife.researchresearch.com/.a/6a00e54ee8dd9788330133f5000423970b-pi


8/114

87 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

Cable told the BBC, We think the report is broadly on the right lines. And asked about the parties electionpledges explained, Weve inherited an appalling financial situation... the kind of things wed like to do inan ideal world were just not able to do.

That is acceptable language for Conservatives.

But Hughes wrote, It is important that government policy on higher education funding moves this countryon from the present unfair tuition fee system. Parliament should only support a progressive system which

takes into account future earnings and makes sure that those who benefit most financially from auniversity education contribute the most.

That kind of language will make many Conservatives nervous, and the difference with Cable just reflects

the fact that much of the party disagrees with the position Clegg and Cable have taken.

So the Conservatives will now be waiting while the Lib Dems go through their internal discussions. The key

issue here is not whether theres a backbench rebellion in the end. There almost certainly will be arebellion against any policy acceptable to Conservatives. The key issue is whether Clegg leads his MPs in

voting Aye or in abstaining.

If Clegg leads them past the Aye tellers, then any rebellion will need to get up into the 40s to threaten thegovernment with defeat. Given that more than 20 of the Lib Dems 57 MPs are on the government payrolland would lose their position by voting against a three line whip, that seems unlikely. But if Clegg leads an

abstention, that number halves to a more realistic 20 or so MPs voting against the government.

The process by which the Lib Dems will come to this decision - and the time it will take - is obscure, but the

party structures are famously supposed to hold more control over the leadership than in the Conservative

and Labour parties. Hence the views of the youth wing (strongly anti) and other grassroots members are

likely to press home in a way that even Westminster experts are unfamiliar with. Clegg is plainly pushing

for an Aye position, but theres no guarantee hell get it.

If the decision is for abstention, then we enter the halls of brinkmanship. And if the Lib Dem rebelliongenuinely threatens the legislation, then David Cameron has a nuclear option. From a Conservative point of

view, a rebellion that defeats the government on this would be a grave violation of the Coalition

Agreement, which only gives Lib Dems the right to abstain. So in those circumstances, he can say the Lib

Dems have reneged on the deal, broken the Coalition and call an early election.

The threat of this is a terrifying scenario for Lib Dems, currently struggling in the polls. Would the turkeys

vote for Christmas? Just as mysterious is the question of whether it is really something Cameron would

want to do. Even if he calculated that he could win an outright majority for the Conservatives, would he

actually prefer that to the Coalition? Would he really prefer now to deal with the Conservative Right every

day or Clegg and co?

The opt out on fees given to the Lib Dems in the Coalition Agreement effectively deferred the brokering of

a deal on the topic. Now that brokering has to be done, and it may provide us with a searing examination

of the soul of the Coalition.

Meanwhile, the CSR next week will cut university teaching budgets for 2012 in a way that assumes a

certain level of fee income, even though there is as yet no agreement on the new fees regime. In the worst

case scenario for universities, the haggling stretches out from weeks into months forcing them to make

concrete decision on hiring or firing staff on the basis of guesses as to the level of future income from both

government and students.



9/114

88 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

CommentsPostscript 18 October 2010Having outlined the theory of a potential fault line within the Lib Dems, this article left open the question ofhow things stood on the ground. In particular, where the Lib Dem factions stood on the question of MPs beingwhipped to vote Aye or abstain.I made a mental note to phone some Lib Dems, but no need. Newsnight helpfully answered this question onThursday night. Michael Crick went and talked to the Cleggerons. And they got Simon Hughes into the studio,from whom Jeremy Paxman extracted a (different) position.

With the fault line theory confirmed with evidence, I then extended my analysis [http://bit.ly/cjJch9].I can't say why Newsnight decided so helpfully to ask so thoroughly the questions I was so interested in. But Ican point out that this blog entry here was selected on the Thursday as the number one story in the BBC'sNewsnight Daily web newspaper [http://bit.ly/907Eu7]...What, I wonder, would Andrew Marr have to say about that?!Posted by:William Cullerne Bown

2010/10/13EXQUISITE LIFE:VINCE CABLEWOBBLES ON UNLIMITED TUITION FEES

Is the government going to lift the cap on tuition fees or not? Brownes recommendation is a clear yes. Butin his statement to the House of Commons yesterday, Vince Cable wobbled precariously close to the edge

of retaining a cap on fees.

The Business Secretarys language to MPs was quite mysterious. He said:

The question, then, is how much the graduate contributions for tuition should be. We are considering alevel of 7,000. Many universities and colleges may well decide to charge less than that, since there isclearly scope for greater efficiency and innovation in the way universities operate. Two year ordinary

degrees are one approach. Exceptionally, Lord Browne suggests there should be circumstances under

which universities can price their courses above this point. But, he suggests, this would be conditional ondemonstrating that funds would be invested in securing a good social mix with fair access for students with

less privileged backgrounds, and in raising the quality of teaching and learning. We will consider this

carefully.

What does "a level of 7,000" mean? It hints at a cap of 7,000 - much too low for the likes of the RussellGroup, but it doesnt commit to it. So its all up for grabs. We will all now have to wait while Simon Hughesorchestrates the Lib Dems internal debate.


2010/10/13THE GREAT BEYOND:SCIENTISTSPUSH NUKE CUTS

For the better part of the autumn, British scientists have been loudly protesting cuts that are expected

next week in the governments four-year budget. But while the research community has been eagertohold placards and sing songsin defence of science, few have been willing to say what should be cut

instead.

Until today.A lettersigned by 36 researchers, including Nobel-prize-winner Harry Kroto, and published

in the Guardian, calls for the money for science to come from defence research, which currently makes up
http://bit.ly/cjJch9%5d.http://bit.ly/cjJch9%5d.http://bit.ly/cjJch9%5d.http://bit.ly/907Eu7http://bit.ly/907Eu7http://bit.ly/907Eu7http://profile.typepad.com/williamcbhttp://profile.typepad.com/williamcbhttp://profile.typepad.com/williamcbhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFRkcsJhW_Ihttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFRkcsJhW_Ihttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFRkcsJhW_Ihttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/13/cut-military-research-spendinghttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/13/cut-military-research-spendinghttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/13/cut-military-research-spendinghttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/13/cut-military-research-spendinghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFRkcsJhW_Ihttp://profile.typepad.com/williamcbhttp://bit.ly/907Eu7http://bit.ly/cjJch9%5d.


10/114

89 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

about a quarter of the UK's 8 billion research budget. In particular, the letter calls for cuts to theAldermaston Weapons Establishment (AWE), the UK's sole nuclear weapons laboratory.

Its true that AWE has enjoyed some serious infrastructure investment in recent years, includinga brandnew 183-million laser facilitythat I visited this spring. But there are hints that even the scientists in chargeof the UKs nuclear deterrent arent being spared the budget axe. According to a recent storyinthe Financial Times, AWE is looking to collaborate with weapon's scientists in France in order to save

money.

Whether you agree with the letter or not, its impressive that Kroto and colleagues were bold enough tosuggest where the cuts to save science should actually come from.

Credit: MoD

2010/10/13THE GREAT BEYOND:STUDENTFEES WON'T SOLVE SCIENCE TEACHING FUNDINGGAP

An influential government-commissioned report yesterday recommended that UK universities be allowed

to charge students higher fees. (Guardian,Telegraph,BBC News)

The extra income will go some way to help cash strapped universities. But increased government spending

is still needed to plug a funding gap in the teaching of science and engineering courses, science

campaigners have warned.

John Browne, former chief executive of BP, recommended today that the current 3,290 cap on studentfees be removed allowing universities to charge what they like. The proposals come in Brownes longawaitedreviewof student finance.

The aim of increasing student fees is to generate more income for universities and allow them freedom to

manage their coffers, reducing their reliance on government funding.

Imran Khan, director of theCampaign for Science and Engineeringsays he is concerned about the possible

impact that increasing fees could have on science and technology subjects.

A reduction in funding for science teaching in 2004 lead to the closure of a number of chemistry and

physics departments, including Kings College London.

The key question is whether universities will actually get any more money to teach their currently under -funded science and engineering courses, Khan says in a statement.

Increased student fees must not just offset a reduced government subsidy we need funding for thesesubjects to actually rise, he says.

Were now in the vulnerable situation where a single department is responsible for funding universities aswell as overseeing the science and research budget. We cannot see money simply being transferred from

research into teaching to make up any shortfall it underlines why we need a ring-fence for the science

budget, he adds.

Many research intensive universities welcomed Brownes review.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100310/full/464156a.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/news/2010/100310/full/464156a.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/news/2010/100310/full/464156a.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/news/2010/100310/full/464156a.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/news/2010/100310/full/464156a.htmlhttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/89897902-d30d-11df-9ae9-00144feabdc0.htmlhttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/89897902-d30d-11df-9ae9-00144feabdc0.htmlhttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/89897902-d30d-11df-9ae9-00144feabdc0.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/12/browne-review-universities-set-feeshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/12/browne-review-universities-set-feeshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/12/browne-review-universities-set-feeshttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8052994/University-fees-to-soar-under-Browne-blueprint.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8052994/University-fees-to-soar-under-Browne-blueprint.htmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11519642http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11519642http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11519642http://hereview.independent.gov.uk/hereview/http://hereview.independent.gov.uk/hereview/http://hereview.independent.gov.uk/hereview/http://www.sciencecampaign.org.uk/http://www.sciencecampaign.org.uk/http://www.sciencecampaign.org.uk/http://www.sciencecampaign.org.uk/http://hereview.independent.gov.uk/hereview/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11519642http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8052994/University-fees-to-soar-under-Browne-blueprint.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/12/browne-review-universities-set-feeshttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/89897902-d30d-11df-9ae9-00144feabdc0.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/news/2010/100310/full/464156a.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/news/2010/100310/full/464156a.html


11/114

90 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group of universities, which includes the universities of

Cambridge, Oxford and Manchester,said, These recommendations could make or break our world-classuniversities. Thats because, bluntly, our leading institutions will not be able to compete with generously -funded universities in other countries if they are not able to secure extra funding.

Responding to the report, Vince Cable, the business secretary,saidthe government endorses the mainthrust of the report adding Brownes proposals are on the right lines.

Further details of the governments plans for university funding will be set out in next weekscomprehensive spending review, due on 20 October.

2010/10/13IN VERBA:SCIENCE ANDLEARNING IN PARLIAMENT

ByJessica Bland

FROM TESSA GARDNER IN THE SCIENCE POLICY CENTRE

Last Thursday evening I attended the re-launch of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Scientific Research

in Learning and Education. Standing in front of the garish mustard and khaki colours of the portcullis-

themed wallpaper in the Peers Dining Room and celebrating the resurrection of the Group, I was there toconsider how the growing body of scientific knowledge on learning and development could be effectively

incorporated into evidence-informed education policy.

Amongst the attendees were key figures James Arbuthnot MP and former director of inspection at Ofsted,

Sir Jim Rose. Sir Rose gave a short talk highlighting the need to bust numerous neuromyths a phrase heattributed to Usha Goswami, member of the Working Group for theRoyal Societys Brain WavesprojectonNeuroscience, Education, and Lifelong Learning. Also in attendance was Baroness Estelle

Morris, former Education Secretary and chair of last months Royal Society meeting on Education: whatsthe brain got to do with it?, a series of roundtable discussions with the dialogue logged live via Twitter.(For more information, please read ourNeuroscience twitter summary.)

The re-launch event was hosted by Baroness Susan Greenfield on behalf of theCentre for British Teachers

(CfBT) Education Trust. A Professor of Synaptic Pharmacology at Oxford University, Baroness Greenfield

has been awarded a CBE and theRoyal Societys Faraday Prize. Baroness Greenfield alluded to scientificresearch in learning and education as a 21st Century potential zeitgeist, equivalent in importance to

climate change. Before letting us discuss amongst ourselves the gravity of this possibility, she cited Barack

Obamas pertinent quote: Its about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when itsinconvenientespecially when its inconvenient.

The overwhelming message from the re-launch event was that science is relevant to such a vast range of

public issues that scientists should be taking on the responsibility of being at the heart of society. This

outlook echoes the sentiments felt by many across the neuroscience community, with theRoyal SocietysBrain Waves projectaiming to explore the implications of developments in neuroscience for a number of

areas of concern to society, including education, law, security, and health. Module 1 of the project, which

deals with a broad assessment of neuroscience and its relevance to areas of public policy, is due to be

launched in December 2010.
http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/russell-group-latest-news/121-2010/4544-russell-group-response-to-the-browne-review-of-university-funding/http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/russell-group-latest-news/121-2010/4544-russell-group-response-to-the-browne-review-of-university-funding/http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/russell-group-latest-news/121-2010/4544-russell-group-response-to-the-browne-review-of-university-funding/http://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=Higher_Education_and_Student_Finance_-_Vince_Cable_statement&pPK=6824d750-0e6a-4f78-ad21-741d2a9770e1http://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=Higher_Education_and_Student_Finance_-_Vince_Cable_statement&pPK=6824d750-0e6a-4f78-ad21-741d2a9770e1http://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=Higher_Education_and_Student_Finance_-_Vince_Cable_statement&pPK=6824d750-0e6a-4f78-ad21-741d2a9770e1http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2010/10/13/science-and-learning-in-parliament/http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2010/10/13/science-and-learning-in-parliament/http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2010/10/13/science-and-learning-in-parliament/http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/author/jessicabland/http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/author/jessicabland/http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/author/jessicabland/http://royalsociety.org/brainwaves/http://royalsociety.org/brainwaves/http://royalsociety.org/brainwaves/http://royalsociety.org/brainwaves/http://royalsociety.org/brainwaves-education/http://royalsociety.org/brainwaves-education/http://royalsociety.org/brainwaves-education/http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2010/09/14/education-what%e2%80%99s-the-brain-got-to-do-with-it/#more-118http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2010/09/14/education-what%e2%80%99s-the-brain-got-to-do-with-it/#more-118http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2010/09/14/education-what%e2%80%99s-the-brain-got-to-do-with-it/#more-118http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society/Blog/7_Sept_Twitter_Feed.pdfhttp://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society/Blog/7_Sept_Twitter_Feed.pdfhttp://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society/Blog/7_Sept_Twitter_Feed.pdfhttp://www.cfbt.com/http://www.cfbt.com/http://www.cfbt.com/http://www.cfbt.com/http://royalsociety.org/Michael-Faraday-Prize/http://royalsociety.org/Michael-Faraday-Prize/http://royalsociety.org/Michael-Faraday-Prize/http://royalsociety.org/brainwaves/http://royalsociety.org/brainwaves/http://royalsociety.org/brainwaves/http://royalsociety.org/brainwaves/http://royalsociety.org/brainwaves/http://royalsociety.org/brainwaves/http://royalsociety.org/Michael-Faraday-Prize/http://www.cfbt.com/http://www.cfbt.com/http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society/Blog/7_Sept_Twitter_Feed.pdfhttp://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2010/09/14/education-what%e2%80%99s-the-brain-got-to-do-with-it/#more-118http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2010/09/14/education-what%e2%80%99s-the-brain-got-to-do-with-it/#more-118http://royalsociety.org/brainwaves-education/http://royalsociety.org/brainwaves/http://royalsociety.org/brainwaves/http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/author/jessicabland/http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2010/10/13/science-and-learning-in-parliament/http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2010/10/13/science-and-learning-in-parliament/http://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=Higher_Education_and_Student_Finance_-_Vince_Cable_statement&pPK=6824d750-0e6a-4f78-ad21-741d2a9770e1http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/russell-group-latest-news/121-2010/4544-russell-group-response-to-the-browne-review-of-university-funding/


12/114

91 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

2010/10/13RCUK:UK RESEARCH IS KEY TOBUSINESS PRODUCTIVITY AND ECONOMIC GROWTHA new report released today (13 October) by Research Councils UK (RCUK) presents the case for public

funding of UK research and why it is so vital for our future prosperity. Research for our Future: UKbusiness success through public investment in research includes input from leading decision-makers frombusiness and industry in the UK and elsewhere, and examines why they choose to work in partnership with

British researchers.

The evidence is overwhelming in support of the view that the quality of the UK base attracts business and

industry to conduct R&D in partnership with researchers and that the knowledge and ideas generated by

this research are key drivers of business productivity and economic growth.

Author of the report Romesh Vaitilingam said: The UK research base is proven to be one of the best in theworld and this reputation for quality has had a direct impact on the economic prosperity and social

wellbeing of the UK. However, the UK cannot afford to be complacent as more and more countries see thebenefits and return on investment in research, seeking to stimulate their own economies and world

research standings.

Some of the key findings of the report include:

Continued public investment in research is essential for the success of UK business and industry.

The greatest long-term productivity advances come through breakthroughs in basic knowledge.

Publicly funded research raises the productivity of R&D in the private sector.

Research institutions produce highly trained graduates which are an essential resource for UK

companies and foreign companies investing in the UK.

The high quality of UK research makes the country attractive for inward investment by internationalbusiness and industry through collaborations.

RCUK Impact Champion, Professor Dave Delpy said: The UK has long been a nation that leads researchinnovation and this is the key competitive advantage we must preserve. It is vital that we continue to

produce the best in academic research that has an impact on us all and attracts the best business and

industry from around the world to the UK.

A full copy of the report is available from RCUKhere

A new film to accompany the report featuring interviews with Romesh Vaitilingam, Professor Dave Delpy

and leading UK researchers is now available to viewhere

2010/10/13EXQUISITE LIFE:DAVID WILLETTSSTRAIGHT TALK ON INNOVATION

Despite being highly pressed for time yesterday due to the release of theBrowne Review, David Willetts,

Minister of State for Universities and Science, addressed delegates ofInnovate 10on innovation and the

future role of the Technology Strategy Board, giving clear answers on key issues for universities.

Higher Education Innovation Fund
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/aboutrcuk/publications/corporate/future.htmhttp://www.rcuk.ac.uk/aboutrcuk/publications/corporate/future.htmhttp://www.rcuk.ac.uk/aboutrcuk/publications/corporate/future.htmhttp://www.youtube.com/researchcouncilsukhttp://www.youtube.com/researchcouncilsukhttp://www.youtube.com/researchcouncilsukhttp://www.researchresearch.com/index.php?option=com_news&template=rr_2col&view=article&articleId=1000840http://www.researchresearch.com/index.php?option=com_news&template=rr_2col&view=article&articleId=1000840http://www.researchresearch.com/index.php?option=com_news&template=rr_2col&view=article&articleId=1000840http://www.innovate10.co.uk/http://www.innovate10.co.uk/http://www.innovate10.co.uk/http://www.innovate10.co.uk/http://www.researchresearch.com/index.php?option=com_news&template=rr_2col&view=article&articleId=1000840http://www.youtube.com/researchcouncilsukhttp://www.rcuk.ac.uk/aboutrcuk/publications/corporate/future.htm


13/114

92 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

Although the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF), allocated by Hefce, is a relatively small pot of

money (total of 150m in 2010/11), many universities rely on it to provide business support, technologytransfer support and other innovation operations like science parks and entrepreneurship training for

students and academics. HEIF is one of the many funding streams under threat from impending funding

cuts and universities have voiced their concerns that cutting this money could have serious consequences

to the ability of universities to be innovative and limit their economic return.

When asked directly about the future of HEIF, Willetts responded positively saying he was a great fan ofHEIF. He suggested that, in some cases, HEIF could be used more strategically by universities, and theremay be a requirement in the future to pool resources for smaller organisations. Whether HEIF will remain

as a separate funding stream or be incorporated into larger Hefce allocations remains to be seen but

Willetts hopes, in some version, it can carry on. The outlook seems positive.

The Fraunhofer Model

It did not take long until theHauserandDysonreports were cited as ways forward on innovation. Both of

these reports suggest the creation of an elite network of technology centres, modelled on the German

Fraunhofer Centres, to help bridge the gap between research and development. However, Willetts noted

that it was not possible to just lift the German model and that the TSB have been tasked with developingthis concept into an action plan. Although funding for the centres has not yet been confirmed, Willetts

seems keen on making them a reality. One model currently being considered by the TSB is new regional

centres or hubs that reach out to other local centres of excellence.

Role of the Technology Strategy Board and regional funding

It was clear from Willetts speech that he places the TSB at the centre of future developments ininnovation, both for universities and business. He said that the technology, business and research

responsibilities of the RDAs will transfer to the TSB from next year. The TSB will also be at the centre ofinnovation strategy in the UK and be core to the coalitions new innovation strategy due in Spring 2011.

The next priority area: Stratified Medicine

In his speech, Willetts also announced the TSBs next long term programme in the area of stratifiedmedicinea move towards developing more medicines targeted at particular diseases and personalisedmedicine. Picking winners is not often a popular strategy but Willetts said he was not embarrassed aboutpicking particular sectors to prioritise.

The TSB will be launching three calls in this area in January 2011. With a budget of 11m, the newStratified Medicine programme will be funding the areas of tumour profiling, biomarkers and new

biomedical business models. The TSB have a number of collaborators on this programme including the

Research Councils, Cancer Research UK and a number of industry partners.

-

In his speech at Innovation 10, Willetts was remarkably straight up about the future of innovation in the

UK. It seems that innovation, and the funding streams attached to it, may come off relatively unscathed

during these times of budget cuts. However, there is a lot of pressure on the TSB, a fairly new organisation,

to deliver.
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/innovation/docs/10-843-role-of-technology-innovation-centres-hauser-review.pdfhttp://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/innovation/docs/10-843-role-of-technology-innovation-centres-hauser-review.pdfhttp://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/innovation/docs/10-843-role-of-technology-innovation-centres-hauser-review.pdfhttp://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/03/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/Ingenious%20Britain.ashx?dl=truehttp://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/03/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/Ingenious%20Britain.ashx?dl=truehttp://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/03/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/Ingenious%20Britain.ashx?dl=truehttp://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/03/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/Ingenious%20Britain.ashx?dl=truehttp://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/innovation/docs/10-843-role-of-technology-innovation-centres-hauser-review.pdf


14/114

93 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

2010/10/13BBCSCIENCE NEWS:SCIENCECUTS 'RISK ECONOMIC HARM'

Science advocates went on to the streets of London at the

weekend to protest at probable cuts

Cuts in UK government spending on research and development (R&D) are likely to do immense damage to

the UK economy, a new report claims.

The documenthas been produced for Research Councils UK (RCUK), the body that manages public research

funds.

It warns that a cut of 1bn in the amount of money it distributes for scientific research would lead to a fallin GDP of 10bn.

The government says it recognises the importance of science to the economy.

All the evidence suggests that public expenditure on research actually encourages the

private sector to spend more and increases the productivity of private sector spending Romesh VaitilingamRCUK report author

However, it has consistently stated that research - just as with every other area of expenditure - has to

stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

The coalition will announce the details of its Comprehensive Spending Review next week.

All government departments, including Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), which controls most of the

nation's research budget, have been told to prepare for cuts of 25%, and perhaps more, as the coalition

tries to get to grips with the nation's finances.

The RCUK report argues that the quality of the UK science base has been instrumental in attracting

business and industry to conduct R&D in partnership with public sector researchers, and the fruits of that

union are important drivers of business productivity and economic growth.

It warns that large cuts in public funding now would damage this success story.

In addition, the report says that a reduction in governmental R&D would actually have a double-whammy

effect by also depressing private R&D activity.

"All the evidence suggests that public expenditure on research actually encourages the private sector to

spend more and increases the productivity of private sector spending," said Romesh Vaitilingam, the

report's author.
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/aboutrcuk/publications/corporate/researchforourfuture.htmhttp://www.rcuk.ac.uk/aboutrcuk/publications/corporate/researchforourfuture.htmhttp://www.rcuk.ac.uk/aboutrcuk/publications/corporate/researchforourfuture.htm


15/114

94 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

"This is not just special pleading; there are some long-term issues here. This is about the benefits which

accrue to the whole of society, not just the research sector," he told BBC News.

The matter of science funding has become a hot topic in recent days, and the debate was amplified by the

announcement last week that the excellence of UK research had been honoured with two Nobel Prizes.

At the weekend, hundreds of scientists gathered outside the Treasury in central London to protest against

the expected cuts.

2010/10/13EXQUISITE LIFE:BEWAREPOLITICAL COMPROMISES ON BROWNE

John Brownes panel has come up with an insightful and shrewd report. It builds on the political settlementthat introduced graduate-payment tuition fees in 2006. It was to be expected that Browne would

recommend that those fees should rise, and he has come up with some well crafted safeguards against

higher fees being a deterrent to students from less well off backgrounds, and to protect against

universities over-charging.

In a different political and economic climate, this approach could have paved the way to a wholly new

approach to the funding of the UKs universities, sweeping aside the existing tight government control overstudent numbers and fees and setting universities free at last to compete globally.

But in the present climate, the report fulfils a different function. Its entire approach is based on what

Browne believes will emerge from next weeks comprehensive spending review announcement. We cansee already that BIS has failed to convince the Treasury of the economic value of a thriving higher

education sector warranting tax-borne investment. Indeed, it looks likely that BIS will suffer deeper cuts

than other departments, coming on top of the 1 billion that has already been taken out of highereducation. The impact on university teaching budgets will be dramatic. Browne assumes no doubt onTreasury advice that all Government teaching grant is to be withdrawn, except for some exceptional highcost and high priority courses. Out of a current annual budget of 3.7 billion, only 700 million will remain.In a politically sane world, this CSR announcement would have come first. As it is, Browne has been forced

to abandon any prospect of an orderly implementation plan. His review has been turned by the CSR into an

emergency funding measure.

The Browne model is one in which private investment is substituted for public. But the 3 billion is not animmediate savings to the Treasury. Browne would transform the present Government grant to universities

into a voucher system under student control. Universities are to be free to take as many students as they

wish, with student-consumer sovereignty determining the universities to which the resources will go.Hence the level of public investment actually remains undiminished for the next several years, but it

changes character from grant to loan. That allows for different accounting treatment, and hence a declared

savings, notwithstanding the proposed 30 year repayment period.

Although Browne offers a market solution, the freedoms that might be expected to flow from this are

highly compromised. The headline message is that the cap on fees is to be lifted. The reality is that this is

will not significantly advantage leading universities, because any fee over 6,000 which is less than whatuniversities receive under the present combination of fee and grant is to be subject to a tax rate for each1,000 above 6,000, starting at 40% for a 7,000 fee and rising to 75% at a 12,000 fee. The purpose is to

cover the assumed higher risks of loan default, but it is also clearly intended to moderate fees ambitionsoverall, and ensure that all opportunities are taken to drive through efficiencies. But it also acts as a


16/114

95 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

disincentive to invest in the improvements to facilities and staffing support for an excellent student

experience that globally competitive universities simply must make. It may even operate as a perverse

incentive for some universities to concentrate on increasing international student numbers at the expense

of places for UK undergraduates. Moreover, universities choosing to charge higher fees are to be subjected

to a more intrusive inspection regime, which suggests limited confidence in market forces as the driver of

excellence.

There is recognition of the need for additional tax-borne support for science and clinical subjects, but this

is to be on a discretionary basis through a new Higher Education Council. In the absence of any assurances

as to quantum, teaching in STEM subjects is seriously at risk. Ministers freely anticipate the closure of

universities under the new regime; they must also be contemplating the closure of scientific departments

within otherwise successful universities.

Most ominously, there has been no Browne review to help the Government and universities cope with the

consequences of the anticipated cuts next week in the science budget. It is from this quarter that the

greatest threat comes to the financial sustainability, not only of the big research intensive universities but

also those in the middle range which expect also to be under greatest pressure for teaching.

We are not exactly in an era of cool political analysis and consensus. Labour and Conservatives arecurrently adopting an approach set at 180 degrees from what they espoused in the debates in 2004. The

Liberal Democrats find themselves in an impossible position. Their MPs are pledged on the one hand to

vote against an increase in tuition fees; and committed on the other hand they are after all inGovernment to voting in the funding cuts that generate the need for fees. Nobody can now seriouslybelieve that a graduate tax offers any solution and certainly not Alan Johnson, new Shadow Chancellorand in an earlier life the architect of the present tuition fee model.

This suggests that various political compromises may yet have to be offered to steer legislation through Vince Cable has already hinted that a fees cap may be re-imposed which are likely to undermine thepackage offered by Browne and lead to a seriously adverse outcome for all those with a genuine stake in

the future of our universities.

Posted by Malcolm Grant

2010/10/13GUARDIAN CIF:CUT MILITARYR&D, NOT SCIENCE FUNDING

Science spending cuts should come mainly from the MoD's R&D budget, not research into health and

environmental problems

Michael Atiyahand others
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/michael-atiyahhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/michael-atiyahhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/michael-atiyah


17/114

96 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

The government continues to fund

research at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston. Photograph: Martin Godwin

As senior scientists and engineers, we are deeply concerned that while the government is threatening

tocut public funding for research and development as a whole, it appears to be committed to maintaininghigh levels of military-related R&D. Of particular concern is the fact that world-class research into health

and global environmental problems is under threat, while the government continues to fund the

multibillion pound research programme at theAtomic Weapons Establishment(AWE) at Aldermaston.

Official statistics indicate that the total public spending on R&D is currently about 8bn. Of this, theMinistry of Defence spends over 2bn, more than 25% of the total. Much of this funding is used to supportdefence industry projects at a time when the industry is reaping bumper profits thanks to a massive

increase in global military expenditure over the last decade. Our view is that current MoD R&D funding is

not only disproportionate, it also includes expenditure on programmes that are of minimal benefit or

counterproductive to the UK's security. For example, funds for the redevelopment of the AWE's research

facilities "to ensure that the existing warhead can be maintained for as long as necessary, and to enablethe development of a successor warhead should one be required" (quoting from the AWE's mission

statement) will, we firmly believe, undermine progress towards multilateral nuclear disarmament.

Our view is that the UK's nuclear warheads should be taken off deployment and placed in secure land-

based storage, and that the successor to theTrident systemshould be scrapped. The facilities at the AWE

should be directed solely to monitoring and verification of arms control and disarmament agreements.

Overall, therefore, we believe that any cuts to public science spending should predominantly come from

cuts to the MoD's R&D.

However, there are some areas of security-related R&D that should be expanded, including those whichsupport monitoring of arms control agreements, non-violent conflict resolution, and tackling the roots of

conflict and insecurity.

The overarching threats to international security arise from rising fuel and resource costs, the impacts of

climate change and other environmental problems, and the widening gap between rich and poor. Nuclear

weapons are of no help in dealing with these problems indeed, they are likely to make matters far worse.On the other hand, a major shift of military R&D to civilian programmes of work will if targeted carefully

help to tackle these international problems, improving the UK's security and also leading to greater jobcreation and a faster emergence from the current recession. As an example of the current imbalance in

resources, we note that the current MoD R&D budget is more than 20 times larger than public funding for

R&D on renewable energy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/01/science-funding-uk-cutshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/01/science-funding-uk-cutshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/01/science-funding-uk-cutshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Weapons_Establishmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Weapons_Establishmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Weapons_Establishmenthttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/20/trident-submarine-coalition-government-scraphttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/20/trident-submarine-coalition-government-scraphttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/20/trident-submarine-coalition-government-scraphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_Weapons_Establishmenthttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/01/science-funding-uk-cuts


18/114

97 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

We therefore urge ministers to shift their priorities so that science and technology can contribute to

tackling the real threats to the UK's present and future security.

Signed:

Sir Michael Atiyah, Professor (Honorary) of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh

Keith Barnham, Professor (Emeritus) of Physics, Imperial College London

Roy Butterfield, Professor (Emeritus) of Civil Engineering, University of Southampton

David Caplin, Professor (Emeritus) of Physics, Imperial College London

Roland Clift, Professor (Emeritus) of Environmental Technology, University of Surrey

Anne-Christine Davis, Professor of Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge

David Elliott, Professor (Emeritus) of Technology Policy, The Open University

Christopher French, Professor of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London

Leon Freris, Professor (Visiting) of Renewable Energy Systems, Loughborough University

Jonathan Harwood, Professor (Emeritus) of History of Science & Technology, University of Manchester

Alastair Hay, Professor of Environmental Toxicology, University of Leeds

Robert Hinde, Professor (Emeritus) of Zoology, University of Cambridge

David Infield, Professor of Renewable Energy Technologies, University of Strathclyde

Tim Jackson, Professor of Sustainable Development, University of Surrey

Tom Kibble, Professor (Emeritus) of Physics, Imperial College London

Sir Harold Kroto, Professor (Emeritus) of Chemistry, University of Sussex; Professor of Chemistry, Florida

State University; Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (1996)

Matthew Leach, Professor of Energy and Environmental Systems

Amyan Macfadyen, Professor (Emeritus) of Ecology and Environmental Science, University of Ulster

Aubrey Manning, Professor (Emeritus) of Natural History, University of Edinburgh

Stephen Morse, Professor of Systems Analysis for Sustainability

Eike Nagel, Professor of Clinical Cardiovascular Imaging, King's College London

Jenny Nelson, Professor of Physics, Imperial College London

John F Nye, Professor (Emeritus) of Physics, University of Bristol

Lawrence Paulson, Professor of Computational Logic, University of Cambridge

Malcolm Povey, Professor of Food Physics, University of Leeds

William Powrie, Professor of Geotechnical Engineering

Norman Sheppard, Professor (Emeritus) of Chemistry, University of East Anglia


19/114

98 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

John Sloboda, Professor (Emeritus) of Psychology, Keele University

Peter F Smith, Professor of Sustainable Energy, University of Nottingham

Tim Valentine, Professor of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London

F J Vine, Professor (Emeritus) of Environmental Science, University of East Anglia

Alex Warleigh-Lack, Professor of Politics and International Relations, Brunel University

David Webb, Professor of Engineering, Leeds Metropolitan University

John Whitelegg, Professor (Visiting) of Sustainable Transport, Liverpool John Moores University; Professor

(Visiting) of Sustainable Transport, York University

Tom Woolley, Professor of Architecture, Queens University Belfast (retired)

Peter Young, Professor (Emeritus) of Environmental Systems, Lancaster University

2010/10/13GUARDIAN SCIENCE NEWS:MILITARY RESEARCH SHOULD BEAR BRUNT OFSCIENCE CUTS, SAY LEADING SCIENTISTS

Senior academics say science cuts should focus on military research projects, including finding a

replacement for Trident

Ian Sample, science correspondent

Missile tubes on a Trident nuclear submarine. The scientists want all

Britain's nuclear weapons placed in secure storage. Photograph: Murdo Macleod/Guardian

Militaryresearch projects, including plans to replace theTridentnuclear weaponssystem, must bear the

brunt of science funding cuts if Britain is to stay at the forefront of scientific research, academics have told

the prime minister.

Thirty-six scientists and engineers, including seven Royal Society fellows and one Nobel laureate, have

today written toDavid Cameronraising concerns over the future of British science if civilian research is cut

while defence research is spared.

The government spends 8bn on scientific research, of which more than 2bn is earmarked for Ministry ofDefence projects at facilities such as theAtomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston. The nuclear

weapons lab will play a central role in developing a successor to Trident if ministers decide to go aheadwith a replacement.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/iansamplehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/iansamplehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/militaryhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/militaryhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/tridenthttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/tridenthttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/nuclear-weaponshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/nuclear-weaponshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/nuclear-weaponshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davidcameronhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davidcameronhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davidcameronhttp://www.awe.co.uk/http://www.awe.co.uk/http://www.awe.co.uk/http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davidcameronhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/nuclear-weaponshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/tridenthttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/militaryhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/iansample


20/114

99 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

"Of particular concern is the fact that world class research into health and global environmental problems

is under threat, while the government continues to fund the multi-billion pound research programme at

the Atomic Weapons Establishment," the authors write in the letter,which is published today in the

Guardian.

"Our view is that current MoD funding is not only disproportionate, it also includes expenditure on

programmes which are of minimal benefit or counterproductive to the UK's security," the letter adds. The

authors call for Britain's nuclear warheads to be placed in secure storage and the successor to Trident

scrapped to free up funds for civilian science research.

The letter, signed byProfessor Alastair Hay, an expert in chemical and biological weapons at Leeds

University,Sir Harry Kroto, who won the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1996, and the mathematicianSir

Michael Atiyah, continues: "We believe that any cuts to public science spending should predominantly

come from cuts to the Ministry of Defence's research and development."

The letter comes a week after the prime minister told the Conservative party conference in Birmingham

that he would take "no risks with British security" and stressed his commitment to renewing the Trident

nuclear missile system. In the letter, the scientists urge ministers to "shift their priorities so that science

and technology can contribute to tackling the real threats to the UK's present and future security."

The scientists concede a need for extra funding on some defence-related issues, including research into

ways of monitoring arms control agreements, non-violent conflict resolution and strategies for "tackling

the roots of conflict and insecurity".

Sir Michael, a former president of the Royal Society, said: "This isn't scientists being self-interested and

telling the government not to give money to someone else because they want it for themselves. We

strongly believe that current use of government money, that is strongly backing military research, is

misguided. This is not the right way to spend government money regardless of the economic situation."

On Saturday,2,000 scientists and their supporters demonstrated outside the Treasuryagainst funding cuts

that are expected to reach 1bn.

Professor Hay said funding for military projects has benefited from the powerful defence lobby in Britain,

but called on ministers to reconsider how public funds are spent on science.

"We're not calling for a slash in defence funding, but we do need to get the proportions right. There's been

a disproportionate emphasis on military research and development and it is clear why with Britain's

armaments industry," Hay told the Guardian. "I seriously question the need for Trident and the need for a

nuclear deterrent generally. The question really is whether the country can afford it when a lot of people

are going to be out of work."

He added: "It takes a long time to train researchers and I fear that the cuts that are being mooted will so

wreck our science base that it will take such a long time to recover. In Germany and the US they are

investing hugely in science. They see research as the seed corn for future prosperity in every sense,

whether it's combating global warming or developing new medicines."

Stuart Parkinson atScientists for Global Responsibility, a group that promotes ethical science, design and

technology that was involved in organising the letter, said: "There are far better ways in which both the

money and science skills can be used to reduce threats in terms of improving our energy and food security

and tackling global issues such as poverty and environmental problems, which can drive instability and

conflict."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/13/cut-military-research-not-science-fundinghttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/13/cut-military-research-not-science-fundinghttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/13/cut-military-research-not-science-fundinghttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/13/cut-military-research-not-science-fundinghttp://www.leeds.ac.uk/light/staff/hay_a.htmlhttp://www.leeds.ac.uk/light/staff/hay_a.htmlhttp://www.leeds.ac.uk/light/staff/hay_a.htmlhttp://www.kroto.info/http://www.kroto.info/http://www.kroto.info/http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~ndg/fom/atiyah.htmlhttp://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~ndg/fom/atiyah.htmlhttp://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~ndg/fom/atiyah.htmlhttp://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~ndg/fom/atiyah.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/oct/12/science-is-vital-rallyhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/oct/12/science-is-vital-rallyhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/oct/12/science-is-vital-rallyhttp://www.sgr.org.uk/http://www.sgr.org.uk/http://www.sgr.org.uk/http://www.sgr.org.uk/http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/oct/12/science-is-vital-rallyhttp://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~ndg/fom/atiyah.htmlhttp://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~ndg/fom/atiyah.htmlhttp://www.kroto.info/http://www.leeds.ac.uk/light/staff/hay_a.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/13/cut-military-research-not-science-fundinghttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/13/cut-military-research-not-science-funding


21/114

100 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

2010/10/13EXQUISITE LIFE:THE PAPERS ONBROWNE

All of the major newspapers have responded to the Browne review of university finance on their editorial

pages today. Most were generally in favour of Brownes planswith the notable exception of The DailyMail. Heres a round-up of what they said:

The Guardian

The lefty paper accepts the necessity of higher fees, and appreciates Brownes attempt to protect poorerstudents.

The Liberal Democrats, who were in denial about higher education's financial problems at the election,have been forced to make a rapid U-turn to an uncomfortable reality.

The great virtue of Lord Browne's report is that it recognises the realities while attempting to uphold a

core set of policy principles that should be broadly supported.

But still wants definite upper limit on fees, and wants the repayment system to squeeze higher earners

more.

Not everything about the report is right, and significant parts of it should not be accepted the case for amore realistic but still effective cap on fees remains a strong one, for example, and the student loan

repayment terms of the proposed system still have dangerously regressive aspects which Mr Cable seems

to accept must be sorted.

The Times

Also broadly in favour, with some caveats over the possibility that well-qualified applicants may be scared

off by the prospect of higher fees. But the paper offers no suggestions on how the proposals could be

improved, and suggests the government should accept Brownes plans wholesale.

Although the proposals may not be popular and they may not be perfect, there is no better option onoffer.

The Daily Telegraph

They love it, no qualifications.

The Independent

Like The Guardian, the Indy accepts that higher fees are necessary, and says Browne offers the leastunfair option.

"The Coalition Government, in accepting the proposals of the Browne Review on university funding

yesterday, is moving in the direction of the least unfair reform on offer.

But again, the possibility that higher fees will deter the less well-off.

Yet this overhaul needs to be accompanied by some safeguards. We cannot be certain how talentedstudents from less-advantaged backgrounds will respond to the inevitable hike in fees charged by the most

famous academic institutions. The present level of fees has not been a disincentive, but a doubling of thisrate could well be. And the improved financial grants suggested by the Browne Review might prove
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/13/lib-dems-university-fees-cablehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/13/lib-dems-university-fees-cablehttp://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article2764352.ecehttp://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article2764352.ecehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8060677/A-fair-response-to-the-crisis-in-our-universities.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8060677/A-fair-response-to-the-crisis-in-our-universities.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-the-least-unfair-way-forward-2104805.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-the-least-unfair-way-forward-2104805.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-the-least-unfair-way-forward-2104805.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8060677/A-fair-response-to-the-crisis-in-our-universities.htmlhttp://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article2764352.ecehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/13/lib-dems-university-fees-cable


22/114

101 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

inadequate to counteract this. The intake of all higher education institutions will need to be closely

monitored to ensure that our most prestigious universities do not once again become enclaves of the

privileged.

The Daily Mail

The only major paper to express serious doubts about Brownes proposals, the Mail acknowledges thatuniversity finance is a mess, but savages Browne under the telling headline: Yet again, the middle classes

will suffer.

"While we fully accept there are no easy answers, we have the deepest reservations about the proposals

outlined by former BP boss Lord Browne, which would saddle graduates with debts of around 40,000before they start work.

Any funding scheme should fulfil two purposes: to keep Britain at the cutting edge of teaching andresearch and to enable the brightest to realise their full potential. Lord Brownes proposals risk failing onboth counts.

The Sun

The red top has no trouble with the idea of higher fees.

Higher university tuition fees are inevitable because money is so tight.

But oddly, it rejects one of the central arguments in favour of feesthat graduates earn more over theirlifetimes.

Once, a degree guaranteed better pay. No longer.

And it is unconcerned that some talented students might decide not to go to university, since university is

not for everyone. And besides, Simon Cowell and Alan Sugar have done just fine without degrees.

2010/10/13GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG:SCIENTISTS LOBBY PARLIAMENT TO HALT CUTS

Researchers fear science has been branded an expense instead of an investment in the future, says Dr

Hilary Leevers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1320069/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Yet-middle-classes-suffer.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1320069/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Yet-middle-classes-suffer.htmlhttp://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/sun_says/244723/The-Sun-Says.htmlhttp://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/sun_says/244723/The-Sun-Says.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/bloghttp://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/sun_says/244723/The-Sun-Says.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1320069/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Yet-middle-classes-suffer.html


23/114

102 | P a g e

VOLUME 13

Scientists add pressure to the coalition government over cuts to science

research. Photograph: Linda Nylind

It's rare to see the largest committee room at the House of Commons packed with constituents demanding

to meet their MPs. It's rarer still for those constituents to be mild-mannered scientists and engineers.

But that's exactly what we had yesterday when well over 100 constituents came to parliament to lobby

their MPs about the importance of science funding.

Many of them had never been to parliament before, and some had come from as far afield as Norwich and

Pembrokeshire, to do so.

One slight hiccup was that Vince Cable couldn't make it he was in the chamber of the Commons making astatement on the Browne review and student finance. But more than 20 MPs came to listen to their

constituents concerns, and yet more sent along their staff.

The lobby was organised by theCampaign for Science and Engineering(CaSE) as part of theScience is

Vitalcampaign to show the political price that would be paid for cuts to the UK's research funding, and todrive homecore messagesabout what such cuts would mean.

Blunt

my #scipolicy news archive: october 2010 part b

Documents