Science Policy under Thatcher, by Jon Agar

On 13 January 1986, The Times published a half-page advert with over 1,500 signatories which drew attention to 바카라사이트 rapidly declining state of UK science. This cry of pain over 바카라사이트 effect of cuts by Margaret Thatcher¡¯s Conservative government led directly to 바카라사이트 setting up of 바카라사이트 campaigning organisation Save British Science (SBS). It also forms 바카라사이트 starting point for Jon Agar¡¯s exemplary book, which is based on meticulous research using thousands of contemporary documents.

Cutting public expenditure was a leitmotif throughout Thatcher¡¯s tenure at Downing Street. Surprisingly, however, 바카라사이트 ¡°science budget¡±, which provided support for specific university projects through 바카라사이트 research councils, was held constant in real terms. Yet Agar shows that 바카라사이트 SBS founders were not crying wolf. Drastic cuts to ¡°block grant¡± funding of universities were having a disproportionately large effect on science and engineering departments. In practice, 바카라사이트re were also cuts in research council project funding, since an increasingly weak pound meant that an ever larger share of 바카라사이트 budget was taken by international commitments, in particular to 바카라사이트 particle physics laboratory Cern. Exit from Cern was seriously considered, though eventually rejected.

This important monograph documents and analyses 바카라사이트 many changes in science policy of Mrs Thatcher¡¯s 12-year premiership, one of 바카라사이트 most revolutionary being in 바카라사이트 way that publicly funded researchers were allowed to treat intellectual property. She was appalled that ¡°monoclonal antibodies¡±, developed at Cambridge¡¯s world-renowned Laboratory of Molecular Biology, had not been patented by 바카라사이트 National Research Development Corporation, sacrificing many millions in potential royalties. Instituting a policy shift in 1984, she wrote to her education minister Keith Joseph, ¡°I see no reason why an individual researcher should be denied 바카라사이트 right to develop his [sic] own research.¡± Now, 35 years later, BBC Newsnight tells us that Cambridge is 바카라사이트 ¡°most unequal¡± city in 바카라사이트 UK, largely as a result of wealth generated in its science park.

For me, Agar¡¯s most important contribution is his identification of who was and who was not influential in shaping science policy. George Guise, previously a director of 바카라사이트 mining company, Consolidated Gold Fields, emerges as 바카라사이트 most important, although he was as unknown 바카라사이트n as he is unremembered now. Influential in many areas, he argued that ¡°바카라사이트 greatest economic rewards have always resulted from advances in fundamental knowledge, ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트 search for answers to applied problems¡±, and prompted a major move away from government funding of near-market, applied research. In contrast, Thatcher ¡°hardly spoke¡± to John Fairclough during much of his time as her chief scientific adviser.

Agar¡¯s answer to 바카라사이트 question, ¡°How important was Margaret Thatcher¡¯s previous experience as a practising scientist?¡±, is that it made her more than just a ¡°conviction politician¡±. Perhaps, but perhaps not much more.

Agar correctly argues that 바카라사이트 SBS had little influence on 바카라사이트 Thatcher government¡¯s policies. There was increased engagement after John Major took over, and subsequently Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were (and still are) both believers in 바카라사이트 economic importance of basic research. So 바카라사이트 underlying philosophy remained 바카라사이트 same, but 바카라사이트 funding picture improved dramatically from 1997, with David Sainsbury as a very enthusiastic and supportive science minister. In 2005, SBS felt it appropriate to change its name to 바카라사이트 Campaign for Science and Engineering.

Richard Joyner is emeritus professor of chemistry at Nottingham Trent University. He was chairman of SBS/CaSE from 1996 to 2007.

Science Policy under Thatcher
By Jon Agar
UCL Press, 304pp
?40.00 and ?22.99 (and free to download )
ISBN 9781787353435 and 3428
Published 3 June 2019