TABLE OF CONTENTS2010/10/20 BBC News: 'Vital' science spared deep cuts .................................................... 194 2010/10/20 Guardian Science Blog: What will the spending review mean for the science budget?.............................................................................................................................. 196 2010/10/20 Guardian Science Blog: Chances are, we'd all benefit from a statistics lesson 198 2010/10/20 Exquisite Life: Science safe from major cuts? ................................................. 200 2010/10/20 Guardian Science Blog Evan: Don't be spun on science funding - a checklist for the Spending Review ......................................................................................................... 201 2010/10/20 Exquisite Life: Three reasons not to kill the messenger .................................. 203 2010/10/20 RSC: Science budget frozen in spending review ............................................. 205 2010/10/20 Exquisite Life: More power to the state ......................................................... 206 2010/10/20 Physics World: UK science spared from budget cuts ...................................... 208 2010/10/20 Exquisite Life: Today I gave David Willetts flowers. Have I gone mad? ........... 209 2010/10/20 Daily Mail: Break out the Champagne - or at least the Cava. .......................... 212 2010/10/20 Guardian Science Blog: The government agrees: Science is vital .................... 213 2010/10/20 Science Insider: Just a Flesh Wound? U.K. Science Budget Spared Deep Cuts 215 2010/10/20 Nature: UK science saved from deepest cuts ................................................. 216 2010/10/20 Telegraph: Spending Review: Science budget escapes swingeing cuts ........... 217 2010/10/20 Guardian Science: Science community relieved as it escapes spending axe ... 219 2010/10/20 The Independent: Academics celebrate as science budget frozen ................. 220 2010/10/20 BBC Q&A: Science in the Spending Review ..................................................... 222 2010/10/20 BBC: Reaction to the science cuts................................................................... 225 2010/10/20 Royal Society: Spending Review: UK's science budget frozen in cash terms ... 229 2010/10/20 CASE: CaSE Response to the CSR .................................................................... 229 2010/10/20 Nature World View: Scientists vs engineers: this time it's financial ................ 230 2010/10/21 New Scientist S word: What does the UK spending review mean for science? ........................................................................................................................................... 233 2010/10/21 The Independent: Science: Willetts wins funding battle with warning of 'brain drain' ................................................................................................................................. 235 2010/10/21 BBC News: How science was saved from the axe ........................................... 236 2010/10/21 Times HE: Spending on pure science 'needs to be protected' ........................ 238 2010/10/21 Exquisite Life: Save the intellectuals ............................................................... 239 2010/10/22 The Great Beyond: Ruths Reviews: 'Life Ascending' scoops Royal Society prize ........................................................................................................................................... 241 2010/10/23 Alice Bell Blog: Engaging audiences: rethinking difference.......................... 242 2010/10/23 Exquisite Life: Why Cameron lacks credibility on growth ............................... 245 2010/10/23 JoBrodie: Beyond blogging - science engagement online #IASBB ................... 247 2010/10/25 FT blog: The 1.4bn cost of winding down the RDAs ...................................... 248 2010/10/25 dellabean: SCIENCE IS VITAL MY JOURNEY .................................................. 249 2010/10/25 Exquisite Life: Cameron's Hauser problem ..................................................... 261 2010/10/25 Exquisite Life: How to read David Willetts' speech to vice chancellors at the HEFCE conference .............................................................................................................. 262 2010/10/25 Guardian: David Cameron to unveil growth plan amid City jitters over economy ........................................................................................................................................... 272 2010/10/25 Guardian Science Blog Martin: Where are the women in the 'population control' debate?................................................................................................................. 274 2010/10/26 The Great Beyond: Despite decent showing in R&D spend, Europe warns of innovation emergency ..................................................................................................... 278 2010/10/26 Guardian Science Blog: Skeptics: It's time to stop preaching to the converted ........................................................................................................................................... 279192 | P a g e VOLUME 14

2010/10/27 Guardian Science News: NHS funding for homeopathy risks misleading patients, says chief scientist ............................................................................................................. 281 2010/10/27 Kieron Flanagan Blog: Is the UK bad at turning science into technology? ....... 282 2010/10/27 Exquisite Life: Three tech questions the regional growth white paper needs to answer ............................................................................................................................... 284 2010/10/27 Nature World View: Spending review leaves research in the lurch ................ 284 2010/10/27 Increased student fees are not the erosion of a welfare state ....................... 286 2010/10/27 Nature: UK scientists celebrate budget reprieve ............................................ 288 2010/10/28 IASGMOH: The arguments for young peoples involvement in decisions about science funding .................................................................................................................. 290 2010/10/28 Guardian Science Blog: Who's the geek? ........................................................ 292 2010/10/28 Times HE: The appliance of science lobbying ................................................. 293 2010/10/28 New Scientist S word: UK research spend: cuts could reach 17 per cent ........ 294 2010/10/28 Alice Bell Blog: Anti-quackery underpants ...................................................... 296 2010/10/28 CASE: Science minister issues statement on Haldane Principle ................... 297 2010/10/29 Guardian Science Blog Martin: The Mystery of the Disappearing Planet ........ 298 2010/10/29 New Scientist S word: The renaissance of Arabic science ............................... 301

193 | P a g e VOLUME 14

2010/10/20 BBC NEWS: 'VITAL' SCIENCESPARED DEEP CUTSBy Pallab Ghosh Science correspondent, BBC News

The news has received a cautious welcome, but observers say the cuts will still impact the economy The Chancellor George Osborne has announced that the UK's science budget will be frozen in cash terms a cut of less than 10% over four years. The news has been welcomed by those speaking for the research community who had feared deeper cuts. Mr Osborne said that the effective cut could be managed through efficiency savings. But there is still concern that the cuts will damage the country's economic competitiveness. Mr Osborne outlined the settlement in his Spending Review on Wednesday. "The Secretary of State (for business) and I have decided to protect the science budget. Britain is a world leader in scientific research and that is vital to our future economic success," said Mr Osborne. "That is why I am proposing that we do not cut the cash going to the science budget. It will be protected at 4.6bn per year." The news has generally been welcomed by the research community, who had feared deeper cuts. But there is concern over the community's budget for new buildings, equipment and involvement in international programmes, which was not announced today. This so-called "capital budget" accounts for 20% of the research budget and may be cut in cash terms. And some fear that that even these limited cuts will damage the country's economic competitiveness. Areas of concern 194 | P a g e VOLUME 14

Lord Rees, President of the UK's Royal Society, welcomed the settlement but added: "There remain areas of concern, especially with regard to capital spending, and the funding of universities." Imran Khan, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering (Case), said the cuts would still hurt the UK's competitiveness. "A 10% cut is a significant real-terms cut for UK science when nations like the US and Germany are having real-terms increases," he said. "The comparison (of how good the science settlement is) should not be with what is happening across Whitehall - but how UK science is going to fare internationally because we are in a really competitive global market." An initial assessment by Case reveals that there will be limited scope for any capital expenditure by research funding organisations. It also suggests there are going to be significant decreases in new research staff entering science and engineering. Mr Khan speculated that PhD places could fall by up to a tenth next year. The government's chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, said that he was "delighted by the government's decision to protect the science and research budget. Driving growth "This is a genuine signal that the government recognises that science and research are vital in driving growth and securing a strong economic recovery." There had been indications of much deeper cuts to the science budget. But the Business Secretary Vince Cable, the science minister David Willetts, the director-general of science and research, Professor Adrian Smith, along with Professor Beddington argued strongly within government that a stable science base was key to the UK's economic future.

UK scientists are involved with international astronomy programmes such as Gemini The next step will be to distribute the new budget among the UK's seven research councils. This will be determined over the next few weeks in a series of meetings between each research council head and Professor Smith. Professor Smith will follow a strategic guide issued by the Treasury which sets out in broad terms the government's priority areas for research spending. These are likely to include wealth creation and the delivery of a low carbon economy. The Treasury has already said in its spending review that the Medical Research Council's (MRC) funding will be maintained in real terms. 195 | P a g e VOLUME 14

One research council that is particularly vulnerable, however, is the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), which has the largest proportion of capital expenditure of all of them. Until the level of capital spending is agreed many of its international programmes - such as its participation in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) project or the European Southern Observatory (Eso) remain uncertain. Funding for the Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc) will fall by an average 5% a year. But the Chancellor has set aside up to 1bn in carbon, capture and storage, up to 1bn in a green investment bank and some 200m for offshore wind projects. He said that the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) would deliver resource savings of an average 8% a year. But he added: "We will fund a major improvement in our flood defences and coastal erosion management that will provide better protection for 145,000 homes."SPENDING REVIEW - SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT UK science budget frozen in cash terms - cut of less than 10% over four years From this budget of 4.6bn, efficiency savings of 324m will be found The energy and climate change department (Decc) will receive a cut of 5% per year Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make savings of an average 8% per year Up to 1bn to be set aside for a green investment bank Up to 1bn to be invested in carbon capture and storage technology Up to 200m set aside for offshore wind technology and manufacturing at port sites

2010/10/20 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG: WHATWILL THE SPENDING REVIEW MEAN FOR THE SCIENCE BUDGET?

Britain's scientists and engineers will hear today how they have fared in the comprehensive spending review. We ask them for their reaction to the likely freezing of the science budget Please post your own reactions below

196 | P a g e VOLUME 14

Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury, reads a draft of the spending review. How will it affect the science budget? Photograph: Oli Scarff/Getty Images The day of reckoning has arrived. This afternoon, George Osborne will lay out where the axe will fall across government departments, and the picture is likely to be a grim one for many in the public sector. Sources in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills tell me that the 4.6bn spent each year on scientific research will be maintained and ringfenced for the next four years, a cut in real terms of around 10% in the science budget taking account of inflation. The capital expenditure budget - a further 1.4bn - is not protected, and could be halved. The full impact of this may not be clear for some time. In recent months and weeks, the science budget has been fiercely defended by researchers and supporters of science. Those in DBIS I spoke with said that science got its act together and put a strong case. I'm told that both the business secretary, Vince Cable, and the science minister, David Willetts, negotiated hard with the Treasury to limit the depth of cuts to science. The chancellor's speech is due to begin at 12.30pm, but my colleagueAndrew Sparrow has already begun live blogging the spending review and will push on through until the end of the day. Evan Harris, a former MP and Liberal Democrat science spokesman, has written a blog on how to judge the spending review here. He advises we avoid jumping for joy until the fat lady has sung. I will be gathering reactions to the announcement from researchers and campaign groups and posting them in the comments below, but do please join in with your own thoughts on what the cuts mean. We can only expect an overall figure for the science budget today. It could take months for Cable's team to work out how the money is allocated between the research councils, the national academies, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (which funds university research) and other bodies. Adrian Smith, the Business, Innovation and Skills director general for research, will be advising Cable on this. This is a crucial process, as it will shed light on the fields of research that the government wants to prioritise. The bottom line is that it could be some time before researchers in a particular field know how well - or not their area has fared.

197 | P a g e VOLUME 14

2010/10/20 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG: CHANCES ARE, WE'D ALL BENEFIT FROM ASTATISTICS LESSON

With large numbers of scientists about to become unemployed, the public is going to need some serious protection from statisticians who go bad, says Frank Swain

Vincent and Fast Eddie aka Tom Cruise and Paul Newman in The Color Of Money Photograph: Allstar/Touchstone/Sportsphoto Ltd./Allstar Today, in case you didn't know, is World Statistics Day, a UN-sponsored event celebrating the "many contributions and achievements of official statistics". I'm not sure why the UN felt the need to emphasise that only official statistics would be honoured, as if implying that unofficial statistics like your annual takehome salary or the number of women you've bedded are somehow less credible as contributions and achievements. Starting at the aesthetically pleasing time of 20:10 (on 20/10/2010), the Royal Statistical Society Centre for Statistical Education kicks off a 10-year statistical literacy campaign, getstats, aimed at helping Britons understand numbers about numbers, so that we can make better-informed choices and live better lives as a result. This is somewhat ironic, as the statistic weighing on the minds of most mathematicians (and of all British scientists) is the proposed 25% cuts to the UK science budget. If that happens, we shouldn't be surprised if itinerant scientists start popping up on street corners selling copper stripped from solenoids and offering to read your fortune with multi-dimensional Myers-Briggs matrices. The most dangerous among these Royal Society rascals will be the statisticians, precisely because they understand odds better than we can.

198 | P a g e VOLUME 14

One such tool of their trade might be a set of non-transitive dice. A curious little toy not well-known beyond geek circles, a typical set has three different dice, all with an unusual number of spots on each face. The game is to choose a die and roll against your opponent. Whoever rolls highest wins, and best of 10 takes the pot. But no matter which die you choose, the shady nerd will almost always win. If you decide to try a double-or-nothing round, using the trickster's preferred die, the geek will still win. How? Non-transitive dice are the mathematician's version of rock-paper-scissors. Each die is strong against one of the dice, and weak against the other. Trying to pick the "best" die is pointless so long as the huckster chooses their die second, he or she will always win on average. It's like trying to win at rock-paper-scissors where your opponent only ever casts after you. Pondering this, I wondered aloud whether the nation's favourite fact-based card game, Top Trumps, was just an example of a glorified set of non-transitive dice. Armed with a pack of limited edition 007 Best of Bond Top Trumps, I began to pick apart the secrets of the deck, with help from James Grime, a mathematical wunderkind whose many wonderful videos on YouTube explore the world of numbers. First question: was the highest-scoring card in the pack also the most likely to win a round? Answer: Not necessarily. Despite having twice as many points as Sean Connery in total, the sharply dressed henchman Oddjob ismarginally less likely to come out best in any particular draw. (The highest-scoring card, in case you're wondering, is the aptly-named Xenia Onatopp, played by Famke Janssen's thighs in Goldeneye). Here I'd used the total number of points for comparing cards, which is a bit of a lazy fudge, and Grime told me as much. Much better would be to ask what the average outcome for every single one of the 870 possible combinations of cards would be. And here it is, in a slightly awkward Excel chart:

By tracing a horizontal line against the character's name, you can see how well they fare against the others. Xenia Onatopp's path is mostly green, indicating that she wins on average. Poor old CIA agent Felix Leiter almost never wins. Top Trumps is a game of two halves, and if it's your opponent's turn, they're likely to pick their character's strongest suit. So the "best" card also has to be able to defend itself when attacked by another card's strongest suit. Here the set up of Top Trumps is more telling. The six James Bond cards always have more 199 | P a g e VOLUME 14

than 50% chance of surviving a challenge by any other card, no matter what suit the opponent chooses. (The only blip in this near-flawless performance is by George Lazenby, funnily enough.) Just look at the defensive strength of MI6's premier Scottish secret agent compared to pint-sized personal assistant Nick Nack:

So all-in-all, Top Trumps isn't a set of non-transitive dice, because there isn't an unbroken chain of cards that each have a >50% chance of beating the previous card. Some characters are destined to be bit players (sorry, Miss Moneypenny). Grime, however, had other ideas. In a flourish of genius he produced values for a perfectly balanced set of Top Trumps, where every character could beat the previous card more than 50% of the time, a Penrose Staircase fashioned from Top Trumps cards. I spoke to Ben Meakin, the product development manager at Winning Moves (the company responsible for Top Trumps) who has personally developed more than 70 different editions of Top Trumps. He confirmed that each card in a pack of Top Trumps could win a hand, even if some weren't as good as others. "Every card has a chance," he said. "But a couple will be Top Trumps literal top cards." The trick was to make the game exciting while still making it winnable for both players. To obscure the relative strengths and weakness of the cards, different scales were used for each suit: "In this way we can engage kids and get them to think about probabilities, which is an important educational part of Top Trumps." I tell Meakin about Grime's perfectly balanced set of non-transitive cards, and ask if a "Statistician's Top Trumps" using this formula is possible in the near future. "Well, we get a lot of requests," he says, "Everything from farm machinery to serial killers." I sense that's a no. Dreams of entrepreneurship dashed, there's nothing left for me and Grime now other than to begin trawling dive bars and pool joints like a nerdy reimagining of Fast Eddie and Vincent, suckering money out of unsuspecting punters with our curiously numbered dice and mathematically stacked decks of Top Trumps cards. Now more than ever, the British public needs a campaign for statistical literacy, lest we fall victim to the approaching wave of scientifically trained shysters.

2010/10/20 EXQUISITE LIFE: SCIENCE SAFEFROM MAJOR CUTS?The news broke yesterday evening that the UK's 4.6 billion science budget would be protected from cuts in today's comprehensive spending review. The Times, The Guardian, the BBC and the Financial Times all carried various versions of the story.

200 | P a g e VOLUME 14

A flat cash settlementthat is, no changes to the science budgetfor the next four years is probably about the best outcome the science community could hope for, but it still amounts to a 10 per cent cut over the four years once inflation is taken into account. Given that researchers were bracing themselves for cuts of up to 25 per cent, and had taken to the streets in protest, this will be seen as a victory. But there are still questions left unanswered. Piecing together the various reports, it seems that the "protected" money includes the budget for the seven research councils, the Higher Education Funding Council for England's quality-related research funding, the Technology Strategy Board and R&D tax credits. Major capital expenditure will be cut by 50 per cent, but a few projects have already been singled out as safe, including theUK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation and the Diamond Light Source synchrotron. This leaves the fate of other big facilities in limbo. The Science and Technology Facilities Council has previously said that big cuts in capital funding could mean a big facility may have to be mothballed. With Diamond protected, is the ISIS neutron courcein danger? And though the research councils' budget as a whole is safe from cuts, the allocations for the individual councils are still to be decided. The government is likely to exert some pressure on the councils to align their research programmes with the government's strategic priorities, and to maximise the return on investment. This could leave some councils with less obvious economic benefitssuch as, perhaps, the Arts and Humanities Research Councilfacing bigger cuts. Finally, the higher education budget has not been protected. It is almost certain to face huge cuts the Browne review of university finance indicated cuts of around 80 per cent. What the effect of this will be on the UK's universities remains unknown. Posted by Brian Owens

2010/10/20 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG EVAN: DON'T BE SPUN ON SCIENCE FUNDING - ACHECKLIST FOR THE SPENDING

REVIEW

Evan Harris, a veteran of spending announcements, warns the science community to be cautious before claiming salvation

201 | P a g e VOLUME 14

A freeze in science funding equates to a real terms cut of 8.9% over three years. Photograph: Corbis Remember the trick played by Labour in 1999 when it announced a three-year boost for the NHS of 21 billion which turned out to be an increase of 3.5bn each year for three years? By adding 3.5 + 7 + 10.5, the government was - for the first time ever - giving a cumulative figure. The true increase in spending was 10.5bn but through a sneaky double/triple count it was spun as twice the size. One major NHS player said that a 21bn increase was "beyond his wildest dreams" - which was true since it really was a fantasy. For the next three years the Secretary of State for Health read back this comment to him and opposition spokesmen like me who exposed the true figures and complained about the over-hype. So when we read this morning that the government has let it be known that science and research have escaped significant cuts, we need to be cautious and avoid hostages to fortune. I set out in this post back in September the basis upon which the spending review should be considered. This is my six-point guide for considering the science R&D settlement 1) Consider only real terms figures These are inflation-proof. They reflect more closely the real world (hence the adjective). A cash "freeze" for science is predicted for the CSR, which is a real terms cut of 8.9% over three years. A cut is not a freeze. 2) Will a 10% cut in real terms be managed without pain? The Royal Society has forecast that a 10% cut in real terms "would be painful but manageable, and could only be delivered through substantial efficiency savings, and some rebalancing of investment priorities." Even that, however, does not take account of some other factors and it requires substantial reinvestment after the four-year term to reverse the damage done. Furthermore, UK science is already efficient and only work judged excellent is funded, so there is not much scope for efficiency savings from cutting grants. 3) How does it compare with what our competitors are doing? Scientific research is a global undertaking with a relatively mobile skilled workforce and the fact is that our major rivals are increasing investment in R&D even as they battle their own deficits. In relative terms, therefore, a 10% real terms cut is worse. 4) We don't know the plans for capital spending Some current expenditure (including part of what we pay for major projects like CERN, which hosts the Large Hadron Collider) is funded out of capital. The outgoing Labour government proposed 50% cuts in 202 | P a g e VOLUME 14

planned capital expenditure, which the coalition has said it will not cut further overall. But what that means for science is not clear. Capital is important in science of course both in terms of new facilities that are state of the art but also to renew existing equipment. The one part of Labour's mixed record on science R&D that cannot be quibbled with is the significant capital investment it oversaw, which is a fitting legacy to former science ministers Lords Sainsbury and Drayson. 5) We do not yet know if the 2.1bn of R&D funded by other government departments is at risk Although this spending is not formally part of the science budget or even the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) science spend (which also includes university research funding allocated by the Higher Education Funding Council for England) the jobs it pays for are just as real, the scientific programmes it supports are just as high quality as those funded through BIS. If these are cut in cash terms then the reduction in science R&D is greater than 10% and the scope for terrible cuts is considerable given the pressure on other government departments. Those figures - buried within departmental budgets - will not be available for at least a few days. 6) There may be greater cuts in some research councils when the cake is divided up The division may not be pro-rata as government will want it to match its research priority areas. There is nothing wrong with government specifying broad areas (as long as it does so transparently because it is accountable for taxpayers' money), but this could mean deep cuts in some areas. If theScience and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), which mostly funds physics and funds much of the subject, is hit then there will be damage. This is because the STFC has already faced cuts under Labour and has less scope for savings because much of its budget is pre-spent on large facilities and international subscriptions. In fact if anyone doubts the impact of a flat cash settlement they need only look at what STFC went through in 2008-9 and is still going through. Overall, I would agree with those who believe the science community may have had an escape from the prospect of terrible cuts. We should also judge that David Willetts, Vince Cable and Adrian Smith (the director general for science and research at BIS) have done a fine job. I also applaud the scientific "great and the good" like the Royal Society and other learned societies for their lobbying. And we should pay special tribute to my colleagues in the "down and dirty" Science is Vital campaign with their 35,000 signatories approving their direct pressure onWestminster and Whitehall, which shows that political action by scientists can produce results. But it is best to reserve final judgment for when the figures have become clear. That may not be the case even by this afternoon. Many scientists also get paid to teach or work alongside those who teach in universities, and it would be polite to see what is planned for them before popping the champagne corks.

2010/10/20 EXQUISITE LIFE: THREE REASONSNOT TO KILL THE MESSENGERPress officers in research councils, arms-length bodies and universities are rushed off their feet today ensuring that the voices of their vice chancellors, scientists and CEOs are heard above the din around the CSR. We now hear the great news that the government has spared research from the worst of the axe, but will those who have valiantly spoken on behalf of the whole of science be so lucky? 203 | P a g e VOLUME 14

The alarm bells rang for me when one government-funded research body suggested some months ago they may have to cancel a press briefing at the Science Media Centre. This was after emails sent by BIS appeared to impose wide-ranging restrictions on promotional and marketing activities until after the CSR. As with pre-election purdah, the rules were possibly over-interpreted by cautious managers. But separately, one press officer told me: Our staff and communications budgets have been frozen at exactly the time when it was important for us to be more visible. To those eyeing up the budgets of the media relations departments I would say the following: First, it has taken decades for the scientific community to embrace the fact that being funded by the public purse makes them accountable to the public for what they do in their labs. Such has been the impact of that engagement that in David Willetts first speech as science minister he claimed that the scientific way of thinking is fast becoming the language that binds us together in an otherwise diverse society. One need only look at the long-term impacts of disastrous debates over GM crops and MMR to see the high price that academics and clinicians pay when they fail to engage effectively with public concerns. Cuts to the PR departments of universities and research councils may be welcomed by some who would like nothing better than to retreat to their ivory towers, but such a move would be a major setback to the publics support for and understanding of science. My second point was made better by Laura Gallagher, Research Media Relations Manager at Imperial College London: University researchers are helping us to understand the world in which we live and their work improves our quality of life, whether thats through creating a better treatment for a disease, developing a technological innovation, or finding a way of generating cleaner energy. We need professional communicators to tell the story of this work in an accurate and accessible way, generating excitement about what researchers are achieving, inspiring the next generation of scientists and contributing to a scientifically literate society. And third, in the kind of hard-headed argument we know the Treasury likes, there is evidence that publicity for cutting edge science pays dividends. University press officers who have assessed the impact of their work can demonstrate that media coverage has led to private sector investment from global companies, as well as opportunities to create new spin-out ventures. It also attracts new students, results in new collaborations with national and international researchers and leads to invitations to give keynote addresses at scientific meetings. Does anyone really think that the UK would continue to attract the kind of researchers of the calibre of the Russia-born physicists who allowed us to claim credit for this years physics Nobel if the UKs universities did not publicise their academic achievements around the world? And has anyone ever thought through how the MRC and universities recruit people to take part in their cutting edge clinical trials? Posted by Fiona FoxComments You say "Does anyone really think that the UK would continue to attract the kind of researchers of the calibre of the Russia-born physicists who allowed us to claim credit for this years physics Nobel if the UKs universities did not publicise their academic achievements around the world?" Well yes, I do. I believe that good physicists are likely to be attracted by good physics, not by hyped up PR stories Posted by: David Colquhoun

204 | P a g e VOLUME 14

2010/10/20 RSC: SCIENCE BUDGET FROZEN INSPENDING REVIEWThe UK's science budget will suffer a 10 per cent cut in real terms over the next four years and higher education has been hit hard in the government's public spending review announced today. After recent fears that the science budget could be cut by up to 25 per cent, a tide of cautious relief has spread through the UK's scientific community as chancellor George Osborne announced this afternoon that science spending will be frozen at 4.6 billion a year through to 2014/15. In practice, this will mean will mean real terms cuts of around 10 per cent, a better outcome than most had feared. Further efficiency savings of 324 million will be made within the science budget, although details of how were not given.

The UK government has announced deep cuts in its spending review 'A flat cash settlement is the best one could have hoped for, but it is a real terms cut from a starting level of spending that's already not high by international standards,' says Richard Jones, pro-vice chancellor for research and innovation at Sheffield University, UK. 'But that ring fence is really important because it means you can plan for the future.' Science funding is covered by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), whose budget will be cut by an average of 7.1 per cent each year through to 2014/15. With the science budget protected, higher education funding (also covered by BIS) is taking a significant hit - a 40 per cent reduction from 7.1 billion to 4.2 billion by 2014/15. Higher and further education funding combined will be reformed to deliver around 65 per cent of resource savings in the department as a whole. Osborne today said that universities were 'the jewel in our economic crown' but that funding mechanisms needed to be overhauled. Significant increases to university tuition fees were proposed last week in the Browne review and an official response to the recommendations is due in the coming weeks, but the cuts to teaching budgets announced today mean departments will be heavily reliant on attracting students willing to pay higher rates for the courses they offer. 'One would hope that quality of teaching and the student experience will have a positive impact and the students will still come and will pay the higher fees,' says Geoff Cloke of the University of Sussex's chemistry department. 'But the cuts are likely to have a serious impact on recruitment and retention of post-graduate students who are the engine for the generation of new science and technology. Universities might be "the jewel in our economic crown" - but it seems like the students are going to be expected to pay for the diamonds.'

205 | P a g e VOLUME 14

Jones emphasises that although the science budget is ring fenced, university research is carried out in science departments that have a 'mixed economy', relying on funds from teaching and science budgets. 'The very large cuts in teaching budgets that we're anticipating are going to be very destabilising, and we don't know how that's going to affect science departments,' he says. 'There's a big question about how many universities with chemistry departments believe they can recruit students at the sort of level that they would need to charge fees that would replace the loss of public funding,' says Paul Cottrell, national head of public policy at the Universities and College Union. 'Some departments or institutions are just not going to be able to survive in that market place.' He adds: 'We didn't think that the government would essentially go for wholesale privatisation of higher education which is essentially the plan. We're very worried about the whole picture that being presented as the future of higher education.' Further details on departmental savings are expected in the coming weeks. Anna Lewcock

2010/10/20 EXQUISITE LIFE: MORE POWER TOTHE STATEThe impact of Browne is less independence for universities Lord Browne's report must worry every reader of Research Fortnight. The part that explains why students must now contribute significantly to the costs of their education is unexceptional and was indeed widely anticipated.

That part of the report has embraced many excellent principles. Government-backed money should follow the student rather than be distributed to universities as block grants; state-funded universities may, within certain upper limits, charge the fees the market will bear; and no student should have to pay fees upfront but will be required to repay loans made on realistic but nonetheless modest interest rates. Certain large London-based universities might not survive a freer market in fees, but that is the whole point about markets: they weed out the weaker offerings. But Browne has made another, more worrisome recommendation that is probably justified but which nonetheless needs challenging: he has suggested extending the government fee-loan scheme to cover part-time undergraduate students. Currently these students -- like many masters' students -- operate within a largely free market, with their fees not being underpinned by government support. Is this really the time to widen public programmes? Part-time students, generally adults in work, are one of the current triumphs of higher education, accounting for nearly 40 per cent of students and proving, on graduation, to earn on average more than full-time undergraduates. So if part-time undergraduate education ain't broke, and if it is succeeding so well without taxpayer support, why is Browne fixing it? Browne says that some people might be disincentivised by the current market in part-time fees, but the evidence he proffers is slim, and since Browne has in his report already slain one sacred cow (he shows how the 2003 predictions that top-up fees would reduce undergraduate admissions were absurdly wrong) 206 | P a g e VOLUME 14

it must worry us to see him create a new one. If Browne really believes that this extension of government support might increase social justice, where is his cost-benefit analysis? Yet the real anxiety over Browne comes towards the end of his report where he suggests a comprehensive restructuring of the agencies of higher education. There are currently six government agencies on which Browne has designs: UCAS, the Student Loans Company, HEFCE, the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), the Office of Independent Adjudication (OIA) and the Office of Fair Access (OFFA). Browne suggests subordinating the SLC to UCAS, which would then act as a one-stop-shop to coordinate both the admissions of students to universities and to process their loan applications. The justification Browne gives for using UCAS and the SLC into a new body he calls Student Finance is that, currently, each of the existing bodies forces students to fill in separate forms. Well, really. If, as Browne claims, students are thus deterred, why not just not ask the two bodies to design a joint form? Browne further proposes fusing the other four bodies, HEFCE, QAA, OIA and OFFA into one new body, to be called the Higher Education Council. But Browne offers no rationale for this huge merger. Because Browne has removed from HEFCE one of its two raisons d'etre, he hints that in its new incarnation it would be too small to be viable. Yet the REF budget will still be considerable, so why since, as Browne admitted in his report, he has made no study of research - can he advise on the dispensation of a research agency, which is what the residual HEFCE will be? Browne gives no reasons for wanting to merge the QAA, either, into his new body. The QAA attracts its share of criticism, so he presumably feels that it needs to be taken over by someone. Yet the QAA is improving, and no-one has shown that its acquisition would increase its rate of improvement. As for the OIA, HEFCE already stretches every rule of corporate governance by having been designated, under the 2006 Charities Act, the sector's regulator as well as its funder, yet Browne perversely wants to further diminish independent regulation by folding the OIA into a new larger body too. He does not say why. From his remarks Browne clearly doesn't rate OFFA's effectiveness, so he wants to subsume that too in his new body. Again, he doesn't say why. British HE is a vast industry with a turnover of 24 billion annually, which is larger than the advertising, pharmaceutical or aerospace industries. Although the Government is pressing for a reduction in the numbers of quangos in Britain, a 24 billion industry merits a proper portfolio of independent quangos, if only to help them monitor each other. The lessons of 1688 and 1776 should not be lost: we need a separation - not a concentration - of government powers in higher education. To conclude: Browne has not wasted a crisis, and he has used the bankruptcy of the Government to propose a huge reduction in the universities' financial dependence on the state. That is a good thing, both empirically and morally. Empirically it is a good thing because the international picture confirms that the more financially independent are a nation's universities (the USA is the obvious example) the better are those universities. But it is also a good thing morally, because the prime beneficiary of a university education is the graduate, so he or she should bear their share of the costs. Unfortunately Browne has also tried to use the universities' residual financial dependence on the state to increase the government's power over them in ways that flout the principle of university independence. Happily, though, the very residual nature of the universities' remaining financial dependence on the state also adumbrates their escape mechanism. Posted by Terence Kealey 207 | P a g e VOLUME 14

2010/10/20 PHYSICS WORLD: UK SCIENCESPARED FROM BUDGET CUTS

Jewel in the crown Physicists in the UK have today breathed a sigh of relief over the settlement for the country's science budget. It had been feared that cuts of up to 25% could have been made to the science budget in today's Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) but that figure will now be frozen at 4.6bn for the next four years. However, physicists are still cautious of how this money will filter down into the individual research councils that fund physics projects and give grants to physicists. The long-awaited CSR details departmental spending for the four years from 2011 to 2015. Speaking in the House of Commons, Chancellor George Osborne announced that the 21bn budget for the Department of Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) which is responsible for funding science and research will be cut by around 7.1% a year for the next four years. However, the science budget in BIS will not see any cuts and will be kept constant at 4.6bn over the next four years. This will still mean a reduction of around 10% once inflation is taken into account, which currently stands at 3.1%. The announcement also comes with a guarantee that the science budget will the "ring-fenced" meaning that the money allocated for the science budget cannot be spent elsewhere. "Britain is a world leader in scientific research and this is vital to our future economic success," Osborne said in his budget statement. "I am confident that our [scientific] output can increase over the next few years." Osborne also singled out the Diamond Light Source synchrotron in Oxfordshire as a facility that has economic benefit for Britain and announced 69m of funding that will enable it to construct more experimental beamlines. Challenging years ahead "It is good news for UK science." says Marshall Stoneham, president of the Institute of Physics, which publishes physicsworld.com. "I am confident that we will have the skill and determination to weather the next few years, and to contribute to the re-growth of our economy. In the longer term, I hope we will see a return to a steady increase in the level of funding for research, both by the public and the private sectors." "[But] make no mistake," he adds. "Even with a flat cash settlement, the next few years will be challenging ones." Stoneham warns that the science community will need to work "very hard" to retain the best young 208 | P a g e VOLUME 14

researchers and avoid any damage to the UK's international reputation given that other countries are increasing their investment in research. It is now expected that Research Councils UK (RCUK) an umbrella organization of the UK's seven research councils which distributes the science budget, will start negotiating with the individual councils about how the 4.6bn is divided between them over the next four years. That process is expected to take until mid-December. "At this time we cannot speculate about the allocation that will be made to individual councils or the impact on specific disciplines," says an RCUK statement. Some physicists fear that even though the science budget will be kept constant, some councils, including the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), which supports key science facilities as well as astronomy, particle physics, nuclear physics and space research, may still see its annual 490m budget cut. Indeed, BIS will allow the 525m annual budget for the Medical Research Council to rise with inflation over the CSR period, which will put some pressure on the budgets of the other six research councils. "This means that some research councils will see a cut of around 13% in real terms," says physicist Philip Moriarty from the University of Nottingham. The STFC's budget has been hammered over the last few years due to a 80m hole in its finances, which was discovered in late 2007. Any further cuts to the squeezed STFC budget would likely do further harm to grants for UK physicists because the bulk of the STFC's budget goes on subscriptions to multinational labs such as CERN, which are difficult to reduce or pull-out from entirely. "We have seen before with the STFC that a flat-cash settlement can result in grant reductions of 2540%," says particle physicist Mark Lancaster from University College London. Some fear that RCUK's Large Facilitates Capital Fund, which typically has a budget of 100m per year to go on the construction of new facilities or on upgrading existing facilities, could be cut by as much as 50%. Indeed, a statement from RCUK released today says that the cut in capital funding will present "significant challenges to research". As some of the budget for the ISIS neutron scattering centre in Oxfordshire and part of the CERN subscription comes from the capital fund, any money to pay for those facilities would likely have to be found elsewhere. "It is likely that any shortfall will end up coming out of grants for researchers," says Lancaster. Michael Banks is news editor of Physics World

2010/10/20 EXQUISITE LIFE: TODAY I GAVE DAVID WILLETTS FLOWERS. HAVE I GONE MAD?Before the CSR announcement, Evan Harris warned us not to be deceived by the spin. Other journalists at the press conference looked at me with bemusement. But there I was, handing over a bunch of liliies and roses. Even I thought I maybe was going a bit loopy. Like everyone else, Im relieved the settlement wasnt worse. But even so, it would still be perfectly possible to argue this is not a day for flowers. Day-by-day spending on science will be flat for the next four years, a real terms cut of 9 per cent - more if inflation is higher than the government is promising (not unlikely given the beneficial effects of higher inflation on debt and growth). Capital spending will suffer deep cuts, a particular threat to the STFCs range of capital projects. Defence spending is down. Apart from health and green stuff, spending across the other 209 | P a g e VOLUME 14

government departments on science will almost certainly be seriously down. Even if the Technology Strategy Board does OK, its dancing partner in regional hi-tech spending is almost certainly going to be down a lot. We dont know what will happen to R&D tax credits. And looming over it all is the Browne Report, which could if implemented badly leave many universities seriously short of cash. But despite everything, there is reason in the floral madness. The country simply is a lot poorer than it was, or thought it was. Science has to accept some of the pain of adjusting to that reality. Looking at this settlement, theres no reason for thinking its worse than things would have been under Labour. And the consequences dont look too awful. Big capital projects are by their very nature things that take years to plan, years to implement and should generate benefits for years. So the capital cuts we are looking at effectively mean deferring some important things, and possibly in due course deciding to do something else instead. Annoying, but not unreasonable. The flat cash settlement for day-to-day spending is also not obviously badly damaging, especially as it is ring-fenced. One way for universities to respond would be with a pay freeze. With unemployment rising, why not? In other words, flat cash doesnt necessarily mean less science, it could just mean less in the pay packets of scientists. Yes, Browne is a big, big uncertainty but there is still time for the Coalition to make it work. Meanwhile, underneath the surface something very important has happened. Since the election there has been a question mark where the Coalitions strategy for growth should be. George Osborne managed to get through his emergency budget without explaining where growth would come from. Meanwhile, it was far from clear that the Department for Business Innovation and Skills was in fact the Department for Growth that it is now being touted as. Back in the summer, Willetts and Vince Cable could not even bring themselves to utter the sounds TSB. None of that was a surprise. The last time we had a Conservative prime minister, there was no TSB, or anything like it. Growth was supposed to come from a private sector loosened from the ties of red tape and taxes. Public spending on near market research was banned. There simply was no role for the state in developing a hi-tech economy. Even when this approach softened rhetorically and intellectually under Michael Heseltine in the later years, the money was never there to actually make a difference. In the months after the election, we found ourselves in no mans land. On the one hand, Osborne resisted the temptation to revert to 1980s-style rhetoric on growth. Even when announcing the cuts in Corporation Tax, the justification was in terms of international tax competition and winning inward investment, not a more general claim that low taxes would lead the private sector to grow more rapidly. On the other hand, There was no explanation of where growth would come from, nor any explanation of what the states role was in trying to stimulate that growth. Pre-election talk of a rebalancing the economy towards hi-tech industrial sectors evaporated. Well, now were past that. As of today, the Coalition does have a view on the place of science and innovation in generating growth. Its there in Osbornes speech and the CSR book. The two themes of today were fairness and growth. And wherever growth was, science was not far behind. Science has come into the centre of the Coalitions thinking about growth. 210 | P a g e VOLUME 14

Im a great fan of the TSB, Willetts said today. What a change that is from three months ago. Near market research? Yes, Conservative ministers will be spending hundreds of millions a year on that. In my view, this is smart politics for the Coalition. It doesnt matter that the Coalitions approach is increasingly similar to Labours in this area. Come the election, it will be Labour that has to differentiate itself from the governments position. More importantly, the greatest hazard the Coalition faces in getting re-elected is a lack of growth. The country is about to go through a painful time. Bad as it may be, it will edge towards the intolerable if the economy does not pick up. With growth - new jobs, rising wages, a sense that things are getting better. Without growth - intensifying bitterness. Despite all the promises, the Coalition can have no confidence in achieving the sunny scenario. It depends too much on the global economy and other things out of their control. Geoffrey Howe, who never cut as deep as Osborne, was rescued by a global boom. But no ones expecting another one of those in the coming years. No wonder Mervyn King is talking about a sobre decade - the governor of the Bank of England thinks weve got no choice. So the Coalition has to plan for the gloomy, no-or-feeble-growth scenario. In that case, a strategy for growth will become not just an economic but also a political necessity. Even if the growth hasnt arrived yet, voters will need to be convinced that the Coalition is doing the right things to deliver growth eventually. Now the Coalition is beginning to develop an answer to that challenge - and one that is quite different to Margaret Thatchers. Science, technology, innovation - from today on the Coalition will argue that these are an important part of our engine of growth, and areas that the government has to support, and that it is indeed investing in them. But although this is good politics for the coalition, it is not an altogether confortable place for Willetts to go. There are too many Conservatives who distrust this kind of talk. Asked today about the change from the 1980s, he said, Im here to look forward, not back. One thing that has changed is the level of empirical evidence. Our research base clearly is the most productive in the advanced Western world. And evidence is now coming in of economic returns to science. The empirical research has been very helpful. That is exactly what he will need to say to recidivist Conservatives such as the Adam Smith Institute. Look at the evidence. The world has moved on. So it was no act of madness. This is what the flowers were for. For getting us out of no mans land. For leading Conservative economic thinking into the 21st century. For matching new rhetoric with real action in terms of limited cuts in science. And all in the space of a few short months. Thank you, David Willetts, for making my day. Posted by William Cullerne Bown

211 | P a g e VOLUME 14

2010/10/20 DAILY MAIL: BREAK OUT THE CHAMPAGNE - OR AT LEAST THE CAVA.So the nightmare did not, in the end, come to pass. A few weeks ago it was looking bad. Cuts of 15, 20 even 25% in the science budget were being mooted in the spending review. I argued, as did just about everyone else, that anything over 10% would have been dire, and 20%+ would have amounted to gameover, triggering not so much a brain drain as a cerebral flood. Instead, the science budget has been frozen. Not a perfect result but far, far better than it could have been. Britains contribution to CERN and the LHC seems safe. Diamond (pictured) will not be closed. We wont pull out of ESO. The closure of university departments will not happen. Britain keeps its seat at the scientific top table. As recently as the beginning of this week it was still looking grim. Rumours swung this way and that, but by Tuesday morning they seemed to have stabilised on a pretty firm prediction that the science budget would be slashed by 10-15%. Not doomsday perhaps, but bad enough. Then came the good-news bombshell. Interestingly, after a flurry of last-minute cancellations the one press briefing that still went ahead this afternoon, after the Chancellors statement, was given by the science minister David Willetts. Clever and rather waspish, Mr Willetts creates a good impression. There are plenty of clever minsters of course, but few speak human as well as this chap. I was impressed how, under a barrage of rather involved questions involving the arcane details of how exactly the 4.6bn science budget was going to be allocated, capital expenditure-vs-annual budgets and so forth, he made no attempt to hide behind his officials and instead referred to his paperwork and made a good stab at giving numerate, clear and lucid answers. He is on top of his brief, which is a good thing. The flat cash settlement means that the science budget will be frozen for the four years of the SR period. Of course freezing spending does, in real terms, amount to a cut; thanks to both economic growth and inflation by 2014-2015 the science budget will have shrunk by 10%. A real-terms 10% cut will, according to the Royal Society, be painful but manageable; we shall see.

The devil is in the detail. We still do not know what is happening to capital spending big one-off dollops of cash used to fund individual projects. And we dont yet know how the money that we do know about is going to be divided up. Then there is the fact that the 4.6bn figure accounts only for the science funded by Department of Business, Innovation and Skills via the Research Councils and QR (Quality-Related research), a centrally-allocated chunk of cash 212 | P a g e VOLUME 14

given to researchers. A fair bit of science funding actually comes via other departments, such as the Home Office or Department of Health. Some science funding (about 2.2bn) comes from the Department of Health, some from Defence. The latter may face cuts (Mr Willetts hinted it would) the former probably not (he said medical research in general would be ring-fenced, in real- as opposed to flat-cash terms). So, maybe we can expect the MRC to do rather better than, say, the STFC which handles the big physics and astronomy projects. Two things struck me. First, just how insanely complicated the whole structure of science funding in the UK is. A whole zoo of acronyms and councils, some operating UK-wide, others just in the various bits of the country. There are the seven research councils, the various bodies overseeing university funding, the UKCMRI, the various departments and parts of departments outside BIS that fund science, NESTA, the Royal Society, and so on. There are more, and I certainly dont pretend to know exactly what they all do or exactly how they all work. What I do know is that all these bodies consist of cosy bureaucratic empires, with legions of well-paid chief executives, deputy chief execs, press offices, IT departments, secretaries and assistants. Mr Willets talks (probably optimistically) of making up the 8-10% gap caused by inflation by finding efficiencies. Perhaps a bonfire of the funding-bodies would be a way to go. Yes, a bit of diversity a healthy ecosystem as Mr Willetts puts it is probably a good thing. But the situation we have now is absurdly complex. Secondly, and more happily, we see a stark contrast between the attitude of this government and that of the last Tory administration, which at times was almost rabidly anti-science. There has been a concerted campaign in the last few weeks, including demos and behind-the-scenes briefings, to persuade ministers that cutting R&D would be madness. Science has made its case, made it well and can, fairly be said to have won. No wonder there were flowers - a huge bunch for Mr Willetts this afternoon.

2010/10/20 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG: THEGOVERNMENT AGREES: SCIENCE IS VITAL

The doomsayers predicted we'd fail, but with very little time and a massive effort we scientists have shown that united we really can get results, says Jenny Rohn

213 | P a g e VOLUME 14

Protesters on the Science is Vital rally outside the Treasury in London, Saturday 9 October 2010. Photograph: Prateek Buch Last week, I helped deliver the Science Is Vital petition to Downing Street, attended a lobby of parliament, and was part of a delegation invited to speak with David Willetts about the importance of science funding for the economy. During the intervening period, in the calm before the spending review storm, I have been living in quiet fear of today's announcement. And last night I was genuinely astonished at the news leaked from the Treasury: that cuts to the scientific research budget were to be much less severe than initially indicated. Astonished and, yes, happy. Twitter was alive with jubilation. This morning I woke to a backlash: we wanted investments, not cuts, people were saying, even though what we lost was far less than the 15% that Julian Huppert MP told us last week would constitute a victory. We should be wary, not pleased. Although I do not dispute the wisdom of these sentiments, I think the tide of public opinion will inevitably continue to shift and resettle today as we struggle to know whether we should be toasting our efforts or sobbing into our pints. The answer, I suspect, lies somewhere in the middle. I speak now not as the founder or official spokesperson of Science is Vital, but as someone at the coal face of scientific research, as one of these young, not quite "excellent" scientists whose career is threatened by the tightening belt of funding. It is no surprise that our emotions are rollercoastering to such an extent: the campaign has been a long, exhausting trip. We packed into four weeks a number of great achievements that most campaign groups would have been happy to notch up after half a year's efforts. When I kicked this entire thing off a month ago, I truly was not sure we would have any effect on the government whatsoever. Within hours of tweeting my initial call to arms, someone replied that things like this never work, that it would probably just be a sad cluster of a dozen scientists demonstrating in the rain. Even just before the rally, when we had more than 2,000 people signed up to attend, another person helpfully pointed out that if no one showed up, we'd look ridiculous. And yes, that lonely, rainy scenario kept me awake for more than a few nights in the runup. To make some sort of difference, though, hefty inertia needs to be overcome. I think it is human nature to despair at turning oil tankers, and to think that ordinary people can't make a difference. It is far easier to criticise than to get off one's seat and at least try to do something. Fortunately, these sorts of inertial types were in the minority, and the vast majority of people who heard our call responded in an overwhelmingly positive way: 33,000 signatures; 2,000 demonstrators, 110 MPs signing our early day motion, hundreds of pieces of news coverage, a packed lobby in parliament. Somewhere in the thick of these successes, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a sly piece in the New Yorker saying that Twitter couldn't start a revolution. I think that most would agree that the Science Is Vital campaign proved him wrong. 214 | P a g e VOLUME 14

For me, the most important thing to remember today is this: by all indications, our message was indeed heard, and heeded far more than we had any reason to expect or hope. Yes, there is no controlled experiment where Science is Vital did not exist, but a number of credible sources have credited the science community's voice for the fact that the announced cuts are less than the 25-40% predicted. The government's own language suggests that our message became absorbed. David Cameron used the adjective "vital" when talking about science in prime minister's questions last week, and in today's announcement, Osborne said: "Britain is a world leader in scientific research and that is vital to our future economic success." For this achievement and make no mistake that it is one we scientists must allow ourselves a moment of quiet celebration: not that our research funding has not been cut in real terms, or that UK science is still not being funded optimally, but that we were able to come together and make some sort of tangible difference to the outcome. And perhaps more importantly, we now know, in the face of future threats to science funding, exactly how powerful we can be when we pull together to make our voices heard. In this respect, scientists will never be the same again: we've done the experiment.

2010/10/20 SCIENCE INSIDER: JUST A FLESH WOUND? U.K. SCIENCE BUDGET SPARED DEEP CUTSby Daniel Clery, John Travis Today, many U.K. scientists will likely see the glass as half-full. The U.K. government's longawaitedComprehensive Spending Review (CSR) was released today, and it calls for a flat science budget over the next 4 years. While inflationary costs mean that the budget will likely see a cut of about 10% in real terms over that period, this scenario is far less dramatic than rumored cuts of 20% to 30% in real cash. In fact, the flat budget scenario was the best of three options recently considered by the Royal Society in an analysis given to the government as it was producing the CSR. In that analysis, the society labeled its flat budget proposal scenario as "Weathering the Storm"versus "Slash and Burn" and "Game Over" for scenarios representing cash cuts of 10% and 20% respectivelyand concluded: "A flat cash settlement would be painful but manageable, and could only be delivered through substantial efficiency savings, and some rebalancing of investment priorities." The society's analysis, however, was done before the coalition government indicated significant cuts to the block grants given to universities, some of which goes to cover research costs. U.K. science bodies and prominent researchers have already issued a wide range of reactions to the CSR, many expressing relief but others continued concern. Colin Blakemore, former head of the Medical Research Council, saw the budget as a victory for the vigorous lobbying done recently by scientists: "It is wonderful to learn that Government has listened to the scientific community. Collectively we have made the case that funding science is not a cost but a way to invest in creating a stronger economy, which is the best way to guarantee the recovery that will benefit everyone. It will now be important to maintain the dialogue with government as it reviews budgetary commitments for the future." Others are less satisfied. "A 10% cut over four years is a significant blow to the UK's competitiveness. The Government has failed to recognise what all Charities know, an economic downturn is the time to invest in 215 | P a g e VOLUME 14

fundraising to ensure future prosperity. It is Research and Development, coupled with skilled people that will deliver growth. Our international competitors have recognised that: the coalition Government has yet to fully accept that reality," Mark Downs, CEO of the Society of Biology, said in a statement. David Willetts, the U.K. science minister, will be holding a briefing later today, and ScienceInsider and Sciencemagazine will provide further reaction and analysis.

2010/10/20 NATURE: UK SCIENCE SAVEDFROM DEEPEST CUTSResearch councils are spared but other government funding is under threat. Geoff Brumfiel

George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, did not cut science as deeply as some other areas.David Wimsett /Photoshot Core science funding has largely been spared budget cuts in the UK government's spending review. But capital funding, local agencies and some government departments have been left unprotected. In total, 4.6 billion (US$7.3 billion) has been promised protection, leaving science advocates in a celebratory mood. At a briefing at London's Science Media Centre, science minister David Willetts was greeted with bouquet of white roses sent by William Cullerne Bown, founder of the science policy newsletter Research Fortnight. "I'm genuinely relieved," Bown says, in explanation of the gift. The spending review seeks to slash government spending and the United Kingdom's deficit, which stands at 109 billion. In putting the plan into action, the government predicts that it will cut nearly half a million public-sector jobs and slash funding for many government departments. The budget will "confront the bills from a decade of debt", George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer, told parliament in a speech today. Many departmental budgets are being slashed by 19% or more, but the 4.6-billion core science budget will remain flat over the period covered by the spending review. Moreover, the budget will be ring-fenced, meaning that it cannot be raided for other government needs. The core funding includes some 2.75 billion for the research councils and another 1.6 billion in "quality related" research from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). "We have a fantastic deal for the scientific community," said Willetts at the media centre press briefing. Once projected inflation is factored in, the promise of flat funding for science over the four-year budget period is equivalent to around a 10% cut. All the same, the settlement is seen as a victory for scientists, who feared that deeper cuts would leave research councils unable to issue new calls for grants. Missing billions 216 | P a g e VOLUME 14

But the new spending document does leave more than 2 billion in research funding unprotected. That includes roughly 450 million in capital expenditures at the research councils money that typically goes towards facilities, and subscriptions to organizations such as the European Space Agency. Willetts says that the capital budget will face constraints but added that it was too early to provide details. Some government departments will also face cuts under the plan. Money at the Department of Health will be protected, but the roughly 650 million spent per year by the Ministry of Defence on basic research will probably face a "modest" reduction, according to Willetts. Smaller sums spent by departments including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Department for Transport are also vulnerable. Finally, the fate of over 400 million spent each year on science by Regional Development Agencies, local groups that have often backed research parks near universities, has been left up in the air. The development agencies will be dissolved after the spending review, and their research efforts will be transferred to the Technology Strategy Board, a national body that is intended to foster innovation. But in a hearing at the House of Lords last week, Willetts warned that "there will be a reduction in public funding" when the cash is moved. Despite the uncertainties, even sceptical science advocates seemed momentarily disarmed by the budget's positive outcome. "I'm trying to be a grumpy pants," says Imran Khan, director of the advocacy group Campaign for Science & Engineering in the UK. However, he admits, the budget is "a very positive step".

2010/10/20 TELEGRAPH: SPENDING REVIEW: SCIENCE BUDGET ESCAPES SWINGEING CUTSA freeze in the research funding was welcomed by scientists who had feared swingeing cuts. By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent

The Large Hadron Collider. British science has avoided the worst of the cuts under the Spending Review. Photo: AFP/GETTY Months of campaigning by academics appeared to have paid off when the 4.6 billion science budget was ring-fenced for the next four years. 217 | P a g e VOLUME 14

Taking inflation into account, this still amounts to a real-term reduction of around 10 per cent but the government believes this could be almost all offset with a planned 324 million efficiency drive. The research community, which had been expecting a "catastrophic" 20 per cent cut in grants, said the move was a huge "vote of confidence" for British science. They breathed a collective sigh of relief but acknowledged that Britain still lagged behind its major competitors when it came to science funding. Professor Colin Blakemore, the leading neurobiologist at Oxford University and former head of the Medical Research Council, said: "It is wonderful to learn that Government has listened to the scientific community. "Collectively we have made the case that funding science is not a cost but a way to invest in creating a stronger economy which is the best way to guarantee the recovery that will benefit everyone." In his speech, George Osborne said: "Britain is a world leader in scientific research, and that is vital to our economic success." He also signalled continuing support for a number of capital projects including the new 600 million Centre for Medical Research and Innovation at St Pancras, London, and the Diamond Synchotron in Oxfordshire. The decision was warmly welcomed by leading members of the scientific community. Professor Peter Weissberg, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: "Immediate reaction? Relief that science has been spared the deepest of cuts. "Followed swiftly by the realisation that even at about 10 per cent down, we'll be playing catch-up in an international field which could see UK science left behind." He pointed out that charities were likely to come under greater pressure to fund more medical research. Tough decisions remain to be taken on how the available funds will be allocated. The Government distributes science money among the seven research councils, which in turn hand out grants to deserving scientists and institutions. It is likely the share-out will favour areas expected to deliver wealth creation and promote a low carbon economy. British science in general also benefits from grants from the NHS, defence and charities. Sir Mark Walport, Director the Wellcome Trust said: "I am delighted that the Government has recognised the huge importance of science to the future prosperity and health of the UK economy and people. "The Government has listened to the voices of the science community who argued that continued investment in science was vital to the UK's future success. It is now up to the science community to ensure it delivers on this crucial vote of confidence."

218 | P a g e VOLUME 14

2010/10/20 GUARDIAN SCIENCE: SCIENCECOMMUNITY RELIEVED AS IT ESCAPES SPENDING AXESettlement freezes science research spending at 4.6bn equating to a 10% cut after inflation Ian Sample, science correspondent

Universities will be urged to make up the shortfall in science funding through efficiency savings. Photograph: Alamy Scientists expressed cautious relief today as fears of severe cuts to the science budget failed to materialise in the government's spending review. The 4.6bn spent each year on scientific research by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Bis) will be ringfenced in a "flat cash" agreement that corresponds to a 10% cut, after allowing for inflation. Universities will be urged to make up the shortfall through efficiency savings drawn up by Sir Bill Wakeham, the former vice-chancellor of Southampton University, in a report earlier this year. "The flat cash settlement for science is much better news than was feared and suggests that the arguments for the fundamental economic importance of scientific research have been heard and at least partly understood," said Professor Simon Gaskell, principal of Queen Mary, University of London. The settlement is a victory for the business secretary, Vince Cable, and the science minister, David Willetts, who argued that science and innovation were critical to Britain's future economic recovery. In his budget speech, George Osborne said: "Britain is a world leader in scientific research, and that is vital to our economic success." Fears of severe cuts prompted leading scientists to demonstrate outside the Treasury and warn of a brain drain of key researchers to other countries, such as the US, Germany, France and Singapore, which are investing in science to spur their financial growth.

219 | P a g e VOLUME 14

"The flat cash settlement for the core science budget is welcome news in the context of this very tough spending review," said Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society. "The support of science is crucial not only to the strength of our education system, but to economic recovery and the solution of global problems." The deal guarantees 2.75bn for the UK's seven research councils, 1.6bn for university research through the Higher Education Funding Council for England, 150,000 for the Higher Education Innovation Fund and 100,000 for national acadamies. Sir Mark Walport, director of the Wellcome Trust, said the settlement should allay fears of a brain drain, but called on scientists to make good on their promises. "This should help to head off concerns of a brain drain, but it is up to scientists now to sell the subject to young people," Walport said. "Scientists have argued that research is good for health, wealth and society and the government has trusted them on that. Now they have to deliver." Dr Evan Harris, the former Liberal Democrat science spokesman, said: "Hopefully this will convince any scientists thinking of leaving the country that all is not lost. Morale will be boosted by this because, on the face of it, it is a good settlement." Others were less impressed with the deal and warned that Britain would struggle to be competitive. "Even at about 10% down, we'll be playing catch-up in an international field which could see UK science left behind," said Professor Peter Weissberg, medical director of the British Heart Foundation. Question marks remain over the 1.4bn capital expenditure budget for science, which is used for major facilities and administration. The allocation for science has yet to be decided, but the total capital budget at Bis has been cut by 44%. More than 2bn is spent on scientific research by other departments, with the majority going to support health and defence projects. Medical research will be maintained across government in real terms, but defence research faced a "moderate cut", Willetts said. The science research budget will be allocated to funding councils in the coming weeks and months.

2010/10/20 THE INDEPENDENT: ACADEMICSCELEBRATE AS SCIENCE BUDGET FROZENScientists were today celebrating a "vote of confidence" after learning they had been spared swingeing cuts. Months of campaigning by academics appeared to have paid off when it was revealed that the science budget would be frozen over the next four years. Taking inflation into account, this amounts to a real-term reduction of less than 10%. The research community had been bracing itself for cuts of up to 20% or more in Chancellor George Osborne's Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). Leading scientists warned that the results of such action would be catastrophic for British science and the UK economy.

220 | P a g e VOLUME 14

Today they breathed a collective sigh of relief, while acknowledging that Britain still lagged behind its major competitors when it came to science funding. In his speech, Mr Osborne announced that science cash funding would be protected at 4.6 billion. He said: "Britain is a world leader in scientific research, and that is vital to our economic success." The decision was warmly welcomed by leading members of the scientific community. Leading neurobiologist Professor Colin Blakemore, from Oxford University, former head of the Medical Research Council, said: "It is wonderful to learn that Government has listened to the scientific community. "Collectively we have made the case that funding science is not a cost but a way to invest in creating a stronger economy which is the best way to guarantee the recovery that will benefit everyone. It will now be important to maintain the dialogue with Government as it reviews budgetary commitments for the future." Gail Cardew, head of programmes at the Royal Institution, said: "It is encouraging that the science budget will be maintained, given the critical role that research and innovation will play in the UK's economic recovery over the next decade. While it is still a cut in real terms, this decision is a significant vote of confidence in the UK's scientific community and the contribution it makes." Professor Peter Weissberg, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, said: "Immediate reaction? Relief that science has been spared the deepest of cuts. Followed swiftly by the realisation that even at about 10% down, we'll be playing catch-up in an international field which could see UK science left behind." He pointed out that charities were likely to come under greater pressure to fund more medical research. Tough decisions remain to be taken on how the available funds will be allocated. The Government distributes science money among the seven research councils, which in turn hand out grants to deserving scientists and institutions. It is likely the share-out will favour areas expected to deliver wealth creation and promote a low carbon economy. One casualty could be "Big Science", overseen by the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC). The STFC funds large facilities such as the Diamond Light Source synchrotron facility in Oxfordshire, astronomy programmes, and Britain's involvement in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

221 | P a g e VOLUME 14

2010/10/20 BBC Q&A: SCIENCE IN THE SPENDING REVIEW

Some observers say that PhD places could be reduced next year The budget for UK science was announced on Wednesday as part of the Spending Review. Q: What has happened to the science budget? The nominal budget for science has been ring-fenced, to be held fixed for the next four years at a value of just over 4.6bn. Q: If the science budget is frozen over the next four years, why is this being regarded as a cut? Because inflation devalues the pound each year, the cost of the research will increase. But since the money to pay for it will remain the same, it is functionally a reduction in the budget. The Treasury estimates that this amounts to a real terms cut of just under 10% over the four years. Q: So there will be less money for science, overall. How will the shortfall be overcome? This remains unclear, though "efficiency savings" has been mentioned a number of times. "Building on the Wakeham Review of science spending, we have found that within the science budget significant savings of 324m can be found through efficiency," the Chancellor said. In a briefing following the announcement, Science Minister David Willetts said that administration of the research councils would be a particular target. Continue reading the main story Start Quote Even at about 10% down, we'll be playing catch-up in an international field which could see UK science left behind Professor Peter WeissbergBritish Heart Foundation 222 | P a g e VOLUME 14

"A pound spent on overhead, on back office functions that should be spent in scientific research is a pound wasted, so we're going to be ruthless on the back office," he said. Q: Yet the science budget has done relatively well relative to other departments, which have been cut much more. Why? In the chancellor's words, "when money is short we should ruthlessly prioritise those areas of public spending which are most likely to support economic growth, including investments in our transport and green energy infrastructure, our science base and the skills and education of citizens". Normally, science spending does not have such a high profile when the chancellor sets out the Government's plans. This year, however, it is high on the political radar because strong representations have been made by the scientific community about what they have described as "long-term and irreversible" damage to the UK economy if there are deep cuts to research funding. Q: How is the scientific community reacting? Many scientists reacting to the cuts have been positive that they were not nearly as severe as they were rumoured to be; some had speculated on cuts as high as 25%. But there is concern that the UK is cutting its science spending when competitor nations are increasing theirs. "Even at about 10% down, we'll be playing catch-up in an international field which could see UK science left behind," said Professor Peter Weissberg, medical director of the British Heart Foundation. Further, as Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science points out, it remains unclear how the "efficiency savings" of 324m will be achieved. "Nor is it clear how the spending of the higher education funding councils on research will be affected by cuts in support for universities. Until these issues are clarified, we cannot be sure that the UK's world class research base will be safe," he said. Q: What does the science budget consist of? Science Minister David Willetts stressed that the exact breakdown had not yet been decided but said that the rough numbers would include: 2.75bn for research councils 1.6bn in "QR" funding that is to go directly to universities based on the quality of their research 100m for national academies such as the Royal Academy of Engineering Q: How exactly will that money be distributed among universities, research councils, international projects, and so on? Much of this is yet to be determined, beyond broad brushstroke statements about what issues are considered by the Government to be important. How funds will be divided among the research councils, for example, remains undecided, as does the future of UK collaboration in international projects such as the Large Hadron Collider.

223 | P a g e VOLUME 14

Two projects will definitely carry on: the Diamond Light Source synchrotron in Oxford and the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (the latter secured with the benefit of a committed 200m from the Department of Health). Q: How many jobs will be lost? It is too soon to tell, but an initial assessment by the Campaign for Science and Engineering (Case) suggests there will be significant decreases in new research staff entering science and engineering. Case says that PhD places could fall by up to a tenth next year. Q: What happens next? Distributing the new budget among the UK's seven research councils over the next few weeks in a series of meetings between each research council head and the director-general for science and research, Adrian Smith. This will almost certainly involve vigorous arguments about the proportion of the cuts each research council should bear. Professor Smith will follow a strategic guide issued by the Treasury which sets out in broad terms the government's priority areas for research spending. These are likely to include wealth creation and the delivery of a low carbon economy. Q: So there will be winners and losers among the research councils? Yes. The Chancellor has already said that the Medical Research Council will have its funding maintained in real terms - this inevitably means that there will be less to go round the other research councils. One research council that is particularly vulnerable, however, is the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), which funds large test facilities and pays for the UK's involvement in international collaborations such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), astronomy programmes like the European Southern Observatory, and so on. Until the level of capital funding is determined and the allocations are decided there's a risk that STFC may have to withdraw from a major programme. Alternatively, it would have to cutback or close one of its research institutes.

224 | P a g e VOLUME 14

2010/10/20 BBC: REACTION TO THE SCIENCECUTS

Many fear the cuts could still be a blow to the UK scientific research The UK's science budget is to be frozen in cash terms, which equates to a cut of less than 10% over the next four years