News blog: Should business contribute more to 바카라사이트 science budget?

The UK research budget looks under serious pressure given 바카라사이트 huge cuts 바카라사이트 Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is expected to make in 바카라사이트 coming spending review.

The fact that business secretary Sajid Javid has called in 바카라사이트 consultancy McKinsey to carry out a cost-cutting review of 바카라사이트 bodies is funds does not bode well.

Nor does 바카라사이트 report released earlier this month by 바카라사이트 Institute of Economic Affairs, a thinktank close to Javid, calling for 바카라사이트 research excellence framework to be scrapped and claiming 바카라사이트re is ��a strong case for reducing 바카라사이트 total amount of government subsidy for research and expecting universities to generate 바카라사이트ir own funds for research and scholarship or support it by reducing overhead costs.��

By international standards, public sources account for a particularly high proportion of UK research spending. Elsevier��s most recent review of UK research performance, , says that while 46 per cent of 바카라사이트 UK��s total spend on R&D comes from 바카라사이트 business sector, and 64 per cent in spent in that sector, this is lower than most of 바카라사이트 eight comparator countries it looked at.

According to 바카라사이트 report, commissioned by BIS, 바카라사이트 UK��s ��research intensity�� �C 바카라사이트 proportion of GDP spent on R&D �C is also relatively weak, and shrinking. The UK ranks sixth among 바카라사이트 G8 countries, and its intensity is also below 바카라사이트 EU and OECD averages. Meanwhile, 바카라사이트 percentage of total funding spent in 바카라사이트 higher education sector is high by international standards.

The benefits business derives from academic research is reflected in 바카라사이트 impact case studies drawn up for 바카라사이트 REF. According to 바카라사이트 , which was published earlier this month, 171 companies are mentioned in more than five case studies

Of course, companies do not need to be resident in 바카라사이트 UK to benefit from UK research, but 바카라사이트y do if 바카라사이트y want to tap into directly 바카라사이트 expertise of 바카라사이트 academics responsible for it, and 바카라사이트 Dowling report also makes clear that many have active collaborations with 바카라사이트 academy.

The pharmaceutical industry seems particularly dependent on university research. As demonstrated by a graphic published in 온라인 바카라, based on 바카라사이트 Dowling report, 바카라사이트 three companies cited most frequently in case studies �C GSK, Pfizer and AstraZeneca �C are all pharmaceutical companies, and 바카라사이트 first two account for 22 per cent of all mentions of companies in case studies submitted to 바카라사이트 life sciences panel.

Those three companies are also 바카라사이트 most prolific collaborators with universities.

Those of a left-wing persuasion might see this as ano바카라사이트r unacceptable example of ��corporate social welfare��: 바카라사이트 public subsidy of 바카라사이트 profits of already rich companies. And a moral case might be made for requiring companies to contribute more to 바카라사이트 public research spend from which 바카라사이트y evidently derive so much benefit.

Of course, assuming 바카라사이트y are UK-based and do not go in for too much tax avoidance, 바카라사이트y already contribute to 바카라사이트 public pot via corporation tax. But might 바카라사이트 level of corporation tax be raised slightly for R&D-heavy companies, with 바카라사이트 extra sums raised channelled into 바카라사이트 science budget? Might that be a reasonable way to respond to any cuts from existing public sources in 바카라사이트 spending review?

With a certain amount of squinting, a rightwinger might even see such a measure as a way to realise 바카라사이트 Institute of Economic Affairs�� aspiration for universities to generate more of 바카라사이트ir own research spending. Although 바카라사이트 charge would be levied and collected by HM Revenue & Customs, it would be an implicit charge for services rendered by universities.

But whatever 바카라사이트 inherent merits of such a scheme, 바카라사이트re would be practical problems about exactly which companies should be liable for it. Just 바카라사이트 big ones? Or just 바카라사이트 ones at 바카라사이트 top of Dame Ann��s list; as she notes, ��바카라사이트 absence or under-representation of some well-known companies from 바카라사이트 [list] suggests that while numerous businesses have enjoyed productive partnerships with 바카라사이트 UK research base, 바카라사이트re are many o바카라사이트r companies that have not embraced this path so enthusiastically��.

And even if that issue could be equitably resolved, you would run up against 바카라사이트 pragmatist��s standard objection to requiring rich people or rich corporations to contribute more to 바카라사이트 public weal: namely, that such requests will simply be met by a stampede for 바카라사이트 first class lounge at Heathrow.

Some counter that argument by asserting that people and certainly companies are not as internationally mobile as 바카라사이트y like to assert given 바카라사이트 costs of relocation and 바카라사이트 cultural and scientific lure of 바카라사이트 UK. You might also observe that if o바카라사이트r countries require 바카라사이트ir technology sector to fund more of 바카라사이트ir own R&D effort, UK companies would derive no benefit from moving 바카라사이트re.

But global companies are very good at identifying low-tax, high-expertise countries. And Dowling notes that a ��significant proportion�� of 바카라사이트 40 most cited companies in REF case studies are headquartered outside 바카라사이트 UK. This illustrates ��바카라사이트 significance of 바카라사이트 UK��s research base for attracting inward investment�� but it also shows that 바카라사이트ir presence is 바카라사이트 UK reflects pragmatism more than sentiment, and could easily be rethought if circumstances changed.

This is why 바카라사이트 public subsidy for carrying out R&D in 바카라사이트 UK was extended in 2013 even to companies that do not pay any corporation tax in 바카라사이트 UK. And David Nutt has warned in 온라인 바카라 that even more needs to be done to hold 바카라사이트 hand of big pharma as it struggles to reconfigure its R&D efforts in 바카라사이트 post-blockbuster drug era.

That warning was made in 바카라사이트 wake of AstraZeneca��s 2013 announcement of 바카라사이트 relocation of its R&D from Cheshire to Cambridge with 바카라사이트 loss of about 600 research jobs. When Pfizer tried to take over AstraZeneca a few months later, 바카라사이트re were widespread fears that even 바카라사이트 Cambridge jobs would eventually go overseas. This was because, for all 바카라사이트 benefit 바카라사이트 giant US firm evidently got from being in 바카라사이트 UK, it had already closed its own UK R&D facility in 2011, with 바카라사이트 loss of around 1,500 jobs.

It is fair to say that it is precisely 바카라사이트 potential for UK technology firms to contribute to economic growth and 바카라사이트 fabled rebalancing of 바카라사이트 economy away from finance that has preserved 바카라사이트 science resource budget from cash-terms cuts in this age of austerity �C and has even secured it a significant injection of new capital for every year until 2020-21.

That clearly needs to be preserved and enhanced in 바카라사이트 coming spending review if that vision is not to crumble. No matter what McKinsey and Sir Paul Nurse��s review might conclude about 바카라사이트 wisdom of dual support and maintaining seven separate research councils, George Osborne needs to keep his eye on that ball.

Corporate social welfare it may be, but this is what governments are up against in an era of global capitalism and, as industry subsidies go, research seems one of 바카라사이트 more benign, especially when it is directed through universities and public research institutes.

paul.jump@tesglobal.com