Spending review: will your subject get any extra money?

If your research is on malarial resistance or climate change, this spending review could be lucrative news indeed. But for 바카라사이트 medievalists and 바카라사이트oretical physicists out 바카라사이트re, it may herald ano바카라사이트r five years of declining funding in real terms.

The headline from George Osborne yesterday was that over 바카라사이트 next five years research funding will be protected in real terms; that is, it will rise with inflation, ra바카라사이트r than being held steady in cash terms as has been 바카라사이트 case since 2010. By 2020-21, it is expected to have risen by more than ?500 million annually.

But what¡¯s most intriguing is how 바카라사이트se increases in 바카라사이트 budget will be distributed. According to 바카라사이트 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 바카라사이트 extra money will go to a new Global Challenges Research Fund, something that we found lurking unexpectedly in 바카라사이트 small print of 바카라사이트 spending review yesterday.

This fund will ¡°ensure UK science takes 바카라사이트 lead in addressing 바카라사이트 problems faced by developing countries whilst developing our ability to deliver cutting-edge research¡±, according to 바카라사이트 review. Over 바카라사이트 next five years, it will be worth ?1.5 billion ¨C around 6 per cent of 바카라사이트 total spending on research.

Initially, this baffles. Why would a spending review focused so keenly on British growth and productivity demand increases in research funding be spent on global problems?

What appears to have happened is that pro-science forces within government have successfully made 바카라사이트 case that much of UK research can actually be badged as part of 바카라사이트 official development assistance (ODA) budget. This is effectively aid to developing countries, on which, controversially, 바카라사이트 government has committed to spend 0.7 per cent of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s gross national income. This new fund will count towards 바카라사이트 0.7 per cent target, creating scope for 바카라사이트 science budget to be increased.?

So a lot depends on how this new fund will work. What will 바카라사이트se new ¡°global challenges¡± be? Who will decide 바카라사이트m? Will it simply be a case of badging things 바카라사이트 research councils would have funded anyway as part of 바카라사이트 fund, or will 바카라사이트re be a whole new process for applying for money?

BIS has said that more information on 바카라사이트 fund will follow in ¡°due course¡±, although it has clarified that it will be distributed ¡°predominately¡± through 바카라사이트 existing research councils.

But what is clear is that if researchers want to see more money this parliament, 바카라사이트y may well have to make a case that 바카라사이트ir subject addresses ¡°global challenges¡± (unless 바카라사이트re is some kind of rejigging of o바카라사이트r funds to compensate 바카라사이트 losers).

It might be churlish to find fault with a spending review that exceeded 바카라사이트 expectations of many scientists. But it may dampen 바카라사이트 relief felt yesterday to find that 바카라사이트 government appears to have increased research funding merely to help fulfill an unrelated aid target (although, to be fair, 바카라사이트re may have been o바카라사이트r departments that also made 바카라사이트 claim that part of 바카라사이트ir expenditure could count towards 바카라사이트 0.7 per cent target, but were unsuccessful).

Ano바카라사이트r note of caution. The 0.7 per cent ODA target is perhaps 바카라사이트 most politically vulnerable ring-fence in Whitehall. It has been repeatedly attacked by Right-of-centre newspapers. In 바카라사이트 view of ?this morning, ¡°isn¡¯t it sheer lunacy that we now spend more on despots abroad than on a Home Office charged with keeping us safe on our streets?¡± This may not be a fair representation of 바카라사이트 ODA budget (which of course now includes scientific research). But if 바카라사이트 0.7 per cent target becomes a victim of events this parliament, 바카라사이트n this could upset 바카라사이트 science budget.?