Science for growth

Last year, through the Chemistry: We Mean Business campaign, the Royal Society of Chemistry made a strong case for the UK government to put in place a long-term strategy for science and innovation.  We met with senior policymakers as well as MPs from across Parliament. And many of you took part too, emailing your local MP asking that they highlight our concerns with the UK Chancellor ahead of the Spending Review for 2015-16.

Working alongside other scientific organisations we found that government heard, and directly addressed many of our concerns. The most prominent results were a return of funding for equipment and facilities (capital items), protected in real terms until 2020-21, and the announcement that a UK Science and Innovation strategy will be published at the end of this year. It would be wrong to take these few points and call it a trend, but it seems that we’re on the right path, having been described by one senior policymaker as “very powerfully influential”.

Taking our campaigns forward

Following on from Chemistry: We Mean Business, we have been increasing our campaigning activity, and there is a way for you to get involved in parliamentary campaigning right now. We are currently running a campaign targeted towards the UK’s science and innovation system, including a call to raise government expenditure on R&D to the EU average of 0.7% – and we are encouraging everyone in the UK to ask their MP for support now. We are also planning on running several other campaigns on education, open science and public perceptions.

What’s the problem?

The UK Chancellor, George Osborne, has said a number of times that “science is a personal priority”, recognising that scientific research plays a central role in reshaping the UK into a modern knowledge economy. Already much of the UK’s economic growth relies on research performed in our world-leading universities and businesses. And we hold intellectual sway too; the UK can boast 78 Nobel Prize winners in the last century, with 12 since 2004.

Declining investment

Over the last three decades, however, our investment in R&D has been declining, while that of our global competitors has been increasing. In 1986 our gross investment in R&D as a function of GDP sat at the OECD (Organisation for Economic and Co-operation and Development) countries average, but our economy has grown significantly since then and our focus on science and innovation has dropped, putting us behind both OECD and EU averages.

Since 2000 the UK has managed to hold total investment (government and industry combined) in R&D fairly constant at around 1.7% of GDP (notably, in 2010 the coalition government froze the UK’s science resource (non-capital) budget against a background of cuts). But, whilst we’ve been standing still, the rest of the world has pressed ahead. In 2012, for the first time, China surpassed the UK by investing 1.9% of GDP in R&D, while the USA and Germany invest 2.8% and 2.9%, respectively, and other nations invest even more than that (such as Korea at 4.4%).

Reaching efficiency limits

Evidence suggests that our science base is at the limit of its efficiency. A recent government report investigating the levels of R&D spend stated: “This overall level is unlikely to allow the UK to maintain or develop its leadership in science and innovation”.

Along with several other bodies we recently commissioned an economic study from Jonathan Haskel and Alan Hughes, which, among other factors, made the case for public investment in R&D as a driver for private investment. With this connection in mind, we are calling for the government to increase their component of expenditure on R&D from less than 0.6% GDP to the EU average of 0.7% by 2020-21.

Where does the money go

How much money is available for research is one thing, but there are also constraints on what that money is available for. Whereas we welcomed the announcement last year of the return of funding for science capital, we remain concerned about the distribution of this money. There has been a tendency for reintroduced capital funding to be given to ‘announceable’ projects, rather than to upgrade current equipment or for researchers to openly apply for. This limits the types of science being performed in the UK, and risks damaging the breadth of our science base.

What are we doing about it?

We are engaged in a series of meetings with MPs and policymakers from across government, and all MPs have received a parliamentary briefing from us. In addition to building strong relationships with decision makers and helping brief them, we have also been promoting important issues around budget-related science decisions in the national media.

At the end of April we also held a parliamentary event with Professor Hal Sosabowski, with 32 MPs coming to see some spectacular chemistry and hear about its benefit to local economies. This event alone created a significant amount of positive media coverage, both for chemistry and for our campaign objectives, as well as being described by several MPs as the best parliamentary event they had ever been to.

What can you do about it?

As part of our new approach to parliamentary campaigning, we have improved the support we offer those of you who want to get involved. A guide on how to raise issues with your local MP is available on our website, and for this campaign we have a short briefing setting out the main points. You can find both of these documents at http://rsc.li/science-innovation

You can also email your own MP directly through our website in two easy steps to help us raise awareness and understanding of the importance of the issues we’re campaigning on. Entering your details on our website will enable you to use a template email for your local MP. You can edit that template as much or as little as you like and then send it straight to them – it really can take just two minutes and help to make a real difference to our work.