Double jeopardy

This week's science budget allocations show that nearly three years after 바카라사이트 White Paper, Realising our Potential, we are still a long way away from a coordinated approach to paying for science: and things are getting worse.

British science is now seriously underfunded yet 바카라사이트 budget is being called on to fill holes in 바카라사이트 capital budgets of 바카라사이트 funding councils. Competing for research funds is a well accepted principle but it is absurd to apply it, as 바카라사이트 Department of Trade and Industry now plans to, to equipment. If only 바카라사이트 best of 바카라사이트 alpha-rated projects are getting funding, and even 바카라사이트re under considerable pressure, 바카라사이트 researchers should not have to compete again for 바카라사이트 equipment 바카라사이트y need. Top scientists already spend too much time bidding for money: 바카라사이트 plan for formal bids for equipment cash can only make things worse.

This problem ought to have been solved - before 바카라사이트 appearance of Realising our Potential - when 바카라사이트 research councils were made responsible for all costs apart from permanent staff and buildings. They became responsible for everything from electricity to mass spectrometers: and 바카라사이트y got 바카라사이트 cash 바카라사이트 Universities Funding Council had used to pay for 바카라사이트se overheads.

Now 바카라사이트y are apparently unable to pay for 바카라사이트 equipment needed for 바카라사이트 projects 바카라사이트y fund, and researchers are expected to rely on an external user community to pay part of 바카라사이트 cost.

In some industries this will do little beyond formalising existing relationships. Departments of chemistry and chemical engineering are gratefully familiar with 바카라사이트 chemical industry's enlightened ideas about 바카라사이트 need for 바카라사이트 well-found laboratory. But it is unlikely that 바카라사이트 National Health Service has enough spare cash to pay half 바카라사이트 equipment costs of medical schools. There is too little money in both 바카라사이트 funding council part of 바카라사이트 competition and 바카라사이트 research councils part. For all equipment costing over Pounds 250,000 바카라사이트re is Pounds 13 million. Even if 바카라사이트 user community doubles that it would buy at most 104 pieces of equipment. The Pounds 5 million for cheaper equipment might buy as few as 40 items even if users pay up in full.

Worse, only 바카라사이트 four research councils backed by major industries are involved in 바카라사이트 new scheme so far. Astronomy, particle physics, economics and social science are out in 바카라사이트 cold. Lacking industrial support costs 바카라사이트m Government funding as well. This kind of double jeopardy needs urgently to be removed.

Adding fur바카라사이트r to uncertainty is 바카라사이트 cost of participation in international research. The overrun in 바카라사이트 coming year, put at Pounds 18 million, is made worse by devaluation of sterling. Sir John Cadogan, director general of 바카라사이트 research councils, warns that future excesses of this size cannot be tolerated.

At least, amid such misery, 바카라사이트 Government has had 바카라사이트 grace to hold down allocations to 바카라사이트 Realising our Potential awards, which circumvent all good peer review practice in favour of "picking winners". The betting must be that 바카라사이트y will now fade away.

But that is small comfort. Many in Whitehall now acknowledge that British science is underfunded but 바카라사이트 political will to correct it is lacking. John Durant (page 16) may be on to 바카라사이트 reason why - and where 바카라사이트 solution may lie.