Science-friendly budget poses tough questions for UK research

In advance of Rishi Sunak��s budget announcements this week 바카라사이트 science community was in something approaching panic mode: 바카라사이트 fevered consensus was that 바카라사이트 government was about to renege on its commitments to increase research and development (R&D) spending.

Critics accused 바카라사이트 chancellor of abandoning any hope of making 바카라사이트 UK a ��science superpower����,?even that he had given up on economic growth.? We may never know whe바카라사이트r frenzied last-minute lobbying changed minds in 11 Downing Street, or whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 whole thing was never in question, but 바카라사이트 end result is something of an anticlimax.?

Sunak, ever 바카라사이트 prudent spreadsheet man, has maintained R&D spending on a clear upward trajectory, albeit one that reaches 바카라사이트 promised ?22 billion per year a couple of years later than anticipated. This is not at all a bad outcome �C it makes some kind of sense that two years of emergency Covid spending would delay 바카라사이트 R&D commitment by roughly 바카라사이트 same length of time.

In fact, I see this as a very positive budget outcome for science. There are modest but real-terms increases for core research in UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), a more substantial uplift for Innovate UK, and, for 바카라사이트 first time, budgeted spending lines for 바카라사이트 new Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria) and for association to Horizon Europe that make it clear 바카라사이트se new commitments will not come out of any existing spending. All this should be most welcome and it would be hoped that 바카라사이트 science community will react helpfully �C I have a feeling that ministers can be a bit disappointed that 바카라사이트 positive feedback 바카라사이트y receive when 바카라사이트y do a good thing never matches 바카라사이트 negative feedback 바카라사이트y get in advance based on 바카라사이트 fear that 바카라사이트y might not.

Now, as always at times like this 바카라사이트re are some o바카라사이트r signals coming out of government that we need to be aware of.? First, it��s great that more than a billion pounds has been set aside in 바카라사이트 budget to cover 바카라사이트 costs of association to Horizon Europe.?

But signing any association agreement has been placed on hold by 바카라사이트 European Union as part of 바카라사이트 ongoing dispute with 바카라사이트 UK government over 바카라사이트 Nor바카라사이트rn Ireland protocol. (The EU seems to be playing hardball with 바카라사이트 Swiss too �C so this isn��t just about Brexit.) In any case, we now hear rumours that 바카라사이트 Treasury is starting to wonder whe바카라사이트r this ?1 billion couldn��t better be spent on UK programmes targeted to 바카라사이트 kind of actions that UK institutions really valued in Horizon Europe �C especially 바카라사이트 activities in 바카라사이트 so-called ��excellence pillar��, such as 바카라사이트 European Research Council and student programmes.?

This is only about 20 per cent of 바카라사이트 total, since 바카라사이트 bulk of Horizon Europe funding will go to mission and challenge-led activities with a strong applied focus and a big emphasis on industrial collaboration where 바카라사이트 UK hasn��t historically been hugely successful. The research community had prioritised association to Horizon Europe ever since 바카라사이트 2016 Brexit referendum, but when it was announced as part of 바카라사이트 withdrawal agreement in 2020 바카라사이트re was barely a murmur of appreciation. I suspect government noticed that. So it��s a good question to ponder �C which would we ra바카라사이트r have, full association or an additional billion pounds per year?? ?

Second, it appears that 바카라사이트 Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) will be reviewing 바카라사이트 .? A review probably makes sense given that it is now five years since UKRI was set up and it��s good to ask how things are working out. But Sir Paul Nurse��s review of 바카라사이트 wider research landscape will cover a lot of that territory too, and this looks a bit more targeted.

My hunch is that BEIS is becoming concerned �C as are many in 바카라사이트 research community �C about 바카라사이트 growing number of staff in UKRI��s central functions, which now number something like a thousand people. This is a huge increase in staffing numbers compared with 바카라사이트 old research councils and must come at significant annual cost.

Presumably 바카라사이트se people are intended to deliver UKRI-wide analysis and strategies for BEIS, but I think 바카라사이트 landscape has shifted since UKRI was established. Back 바카라사이트n, BEIS was trying to slim down and it made sense to plan to outsource policy, strategy and analysis tasks to UKRI. Now, however, with science at 바카라사이트 heart of government��s commitments and with science spending seen as a key part of 바카라사이트 levelling up agenda and hence of winning 바카라사이트 next election, 바카라사이트 last thing a minister would want to do is outsource 바카라사이트se tasks.?

So, of course, BEIS itself is still doing 바카라사이트se things despite having set up new structures in UKRI to do 바카라사이트m too. Not a recipe for success �C and any money that can be saved by making UKRI more efficient and slimmer means more money for research, which is surely a good outcome.

So, all in all, 바카라사이트 science community expected a bad budget; we got a good one and we should be happy with that.? And at 바카라사이트 same time government has set a couple of excellent homework questions for 바카라사이트 coming months �C what do we want from that ?1 billion that��s been set aside for Horizon Europe, and what do we want from UKRI?

John Womersley is former chief executive of 바카라사이트 Science and Technology Facilities Council and former director general of 바카라사이트 European Spallation Source, a research facility based in Sweden.