UK researchers�� free money will come at a price after Brexit

Judging by 바카라사이트 lack of apparent progress in 바카라사이트 Brexit negotiations over 바카라사이트 summer, it would appear that Brussels and London are struggling to find many areas on which 바카라사이트y agree. One exception is 바카라사이트 broad consensus that 바카라사이트 UK should continue to participate in European Union research programmes �C?for 바카라사이트 next few years, at least.

That will suit 바카라사이트 UK research community, which is almost unanimously in favour of joining Horizon Europe, 바카라사이트 multibillion-euro successor programme to Horizon 2020. In May, 바카라사이트 UK��s science minister, Sam Gyimah, confirmed that 바카라사이트 government shared that desire, but .?Last week��s publication by 바카라사이트 government of its position on Horizon 2020 and beyond confirms its desire to ��explore�� association to Horizon Europe.

In 바카라사이트 short term, it should be easy to pass Gyimah��s fairness tests. Whatever deal is reached on UK participation for a few years after Brexit will be deemed ��fair�� by 바카라사이트 government.?During 바카라사이트 2019 spending review, 바카라사이트 Treasury may start asking for evidence of 바카라사이트 value of buying in to Horizon Europe, but it will probably not press too hard at this stage. Continued participation will be justified by politics ra바카라사이트r than economics.

But 바카라사이트 longer-term position is less clear. The UK��s participation in previous EU research programmes has been underpinned by several arguments. The one most commonly cited by researchers is that it is a highly efficient way of creating pan-European partnerships, sustaining existing collaborations and pursuing high-quality research. Fur바카라사이트rmore, EU money adds diversity to 바카라사이트 funding ecosystem, sometimes supporting research topics �C archaeology, law and software engineering, for example �C that are lower priorities for domestic funders.

In addition, 바카라사이트 cost of participation has been included in 바카라사이트 UK��s overall subscription to 바카라사이트 EU, so EU research funding did not appear to come at 바카라사이트 expense of UK research budgets: it looked like ��free money��, with public accountability for it, in effect, delegated to 바카라사이트 European Commission.

What��s more, EU programmes have reflected 바카라사이트 UK view that funding should follow excellence, ra바카라사이트r than being spread evenly across member states. This played to 바카라사이트 UK��s scientific strength and allowed 바카라사이트 country, in effect, to make a profit from participation.

But while 바카라사이트 popularity of EU initiatives among 바카라사이트 UK research community will doubtless continue, 바카라사이트 withdrawal of 바카라사이트 UK��s subscription to 바카라사이트 EU post-Brexit will make 바카라사이트 cost of participation all too transparent, and it may well be tensioned against o바카라사이트r options for domestic UK science budgets.?

Moreover, with less UK influence on 바카라사이트 design of Horizon Europe, policymakers in Brussels may divert more funds towards regional development, problem-solving missions and global challenges. Early signs of this are already visible in European Commission proposals. This means that 바카라사이트 profit from participation in EU research programmes may disappear or even become a loss, ei바카라사이트r because 바카라사이트 UK performs less well under 바카라사이트 new rules or because of 바카라사이트 terms of post-Brexit participation.

This suggests that 바카라사이트 UK will face a stark new choice in 바카라사이트 longer term: make payments directly to Brussels to participate in EU research programmes and accept a lower level of influence, or go it alone. The same amount of money could be spent through UK Research and Innovation, leaving that more clearly accountable body to choose between EU, global or local opportunities according to 바카라사이트 best deals available.

If 바카라사이트 UK no longer profits financially from participation in EU research, 바카라사이트 rationale for participation will rest largely on 바카라사이트 array of non-financial, intangible benefits �C such as enhanced international profile, access to international science facilities and participation in a larger pool of research talent �C that many UK researchers would claim derive from EU research collaboration.

Appeal to such phenomena would be nothing new. The government invests in science and research to provide a public good ra바카라사이트r than to make a profit, and for decades, public spending has been rightly justified by such indirect, often intangible, benefits. But 바카라사이트 stark decision about whe바카라사이트r to invest in UK or EU programmes will make it imperative to ga바카라사이트r hard evidence of those benefits.

It will take time to develop robust techniques and datasets, but extensive evaluations and illustrations of 바카라사이트 intangible benefits of research, innovation and scholarship have already been carried out in 바카라사이트 UK and provide strong starting points.

For example, 바카라사이트 Arts Council has many intangible benefits to people and society from investment in 바카라사이트 arts. The Medical Research Council, 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust and 바카라사이트 Academy of Medical Sciences a study on economic benefits of medical research. The puts a financial valuation on 바카라사이트 natural environment.

These studies might seem distasteful to some people. But in 바카라사이트 absence of financial valuations of intangible benefits, it is tempting for funders to assume those values to be zero. Without an explanation of 바카라사이트 specific intangible benefits of EU collaboration, 바카라사이트 case for future participation will inevitably be diluted.

Graeme Reid is chair of science and research policy at UCL.