Email
The referendum on Scottish independence is one month away. One of the key issues for higher education is the impact independence would have on research. We invited two senior academics to debate whether a vote for independence will jeopardise research funding in Scotland.
Sir Adrian Bird, opposed to independence
Bird is a professor of genetics at the University of Edinburgh. He has worked at Edinburgh since 1975, and helped create the Wellcome Trust Centre for Cell Biology.
Bryan MacGregor, in favour of independence
MacGregor is a professor and vice-principal at the University of Aberdeen. He is head of the college of physical sciences and has been professor of land economy since 1990.
Both are writing in a personal capacity.
Adrian Bird: I have been an active biomedical researcher for 45 years and 40 of these have been spent in Scotland. In that time Scottish science has grown in stature, backed largely with funding from research councils and charities based in the UK. By any world metric the UK science community is outstanding and Scottish researchers figure large within it, regularly producing scientific discoveries of worldwide significance (eg Dolly the sheep; Higgs boson).
In fact, with only 8% of the population, Scotland commands more than 12% of the UK life sciences research budget. So we get – on merit – more from the UK research pot than expected from our size. Independence would disrupt this relationship, shrinking Scotland's research community and cutting the funding options available to our scientists. The two key requirements for world-class science are brilliant minds and the resources for them to flourish. These components are inextricably linked, and under independence both would be threatened.
Bryan MacGregor: One response to your points and then an important context: Scotland's share of life sciences research income should be judged against its share of that activity in the UK economy and not against its share of the UK population. Scotland has 8% of the UK's population but 11% of the UK's full-time university staff, 15% of medical schools and 14% of life science companies, so 12% of the UK life sciences research budget is not disproportionate.
The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) noted that the UK spent only 1.72% of GDP in 2012 on research and development and "the UK languishes towards the bottom of the G8 and well below the EU-28 average of 2.08%". A recent article in the International New York Times concluded that "if the British government sees science serving the national interest, it should spend more on it." And, in an analysis of international comparisons, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) identifies concerns that include "public sector support for innovation is low".
One commentator in England argues that, if the cuts continue, "there will be very little money available for Higher education funding council for England (Hefce) to allocate as a result of the 2014 Research Excellence Framework". And last month we heard that globally important conservation and science is under threat at Kew due to government cuts.
This is before the next phase of £25bn of public sector funding cuts.
Adrian Bird: I too would like to see more spent on research, but the fact remains that the UK, even within the current funding landscape, is near the top of the tree in world science. In fact, one could argue that the UK funding environment since the 2008 crisis has held up better than most. The large British biomedical research charities, for example, have significantly increased their science expenditure.
Meanwhile in many EU countries and the US, research grants have been severely cut and academic salaries too. The idea that Scottish science funding post-independence would buck the international trend seems optimistic in the extreme.
Bryan MacGregor: You seem not to be addressing the issue of substance. Research funding is falling in real terms, CaSE, independent UK commentators and US ones all agree. And it is not just the amount of funding that is a concern. The Telegraph reports that more than 30 leading scientists including four Nobel Laureates have written to them deploring the current system of granting funding for scientific research. They said that "sustained open-ended enquiries in controversial or unfashionable fields are virtually forbidden today and science is in serious danger of stagnating".
Let us turn to research councils. Scotland does well on funds awarded in open competition but not otherwise. On average, over the last eight years, Scotland's share of funding for grants, studentships and fellowships has been 12.3%. However, its share of independent research organisations and infrastructure has been 7.6%. Overall, Scotland has received 10.6% of research councils' expenditure. Seen against its 10.9% of academic staff, that is a small under allocation. After independence, Scotland will have different funding priorities and opportunities.
Adrian Bird: We are in the aftermath of a major economic crisis, so a dip in research funding is perhaps not surprising. You imply that in some respects Scotland has received less than its fair share of funding from UK sources. There are two possible reasons for this: one is that funding agencies are somehow biased against applications from Scotland, and the other is that the research proposed was not as strong as from elsewhere. Is the system perfect? Clearly not, but it has served Scotland's scientists well so far.
UK funding for research has fluctuated throughout my career and your dire prediction may or may not be right. My concern is that in the long term small economies view basic research of the kind that will probably underpin future health and wealth and at which Scotland excels, as a luxury. So the question is: would these problems go away following a vote for independence, within a smaller research community and with access to a much smaller funding pot? I think not.
Bryan MacGregor: As a matter of fact, the most successful economies in Europe are the small independent nations.
The research councils are shared assets of the union and the Scottish government's preferred option is a shared research councils' budget. This has been supported by those who understand the benefits to both countries.
Professor Paul Boyle of Research Councils UK (RCUK) told MSPs in March that he hoped the cross-border network would continue and that RCUK "strongly supported" this. And there are precedents for a shared system. There is, of course, the European Research Council (ERC) but there are examples within the British Isles. Several bilateral arrangements exist between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Why would an independent Scotland be treated differently?
There also remains the option of setting up of a separate Scottish research council. In such an event, it is more than likely that there would be increasing numbers of shared initiatives (as currently with RCUK and other states' research councils, such as Switzerland, so that shared RCUK policy and practice is a likely outcome even if shared budgets are refused, which makes it unlikely that they will be.
Research collaboration rarely knows international borders – my most important collaborators over 30 years have been in the US and Switzerland.
Adrian Bird: Regarding research funding mechanisms, one option would indeed be to create mini-research councils north of the border, but without economies of scale available to a larger research community these would be expensive. Review panels, which are vital for the allocation of grants exclusively on merit, would be less representative unless one could persuade outsiders, not themselves eligible for awards, to participate.
The second option is a common research area that retains the current arrangements by mutual agreement. It is a proposal to keep the UK just for science. But where is the self-interest that would persuade the remainder of the UK to systematically fund foreign research?
Concerning collaboration, I agree that science transcends national borders and scientists collaborate and share or compete regardless. The important component is that both sides contribute to the cost of research proportionately, which may be a problem. The question really is whether in a hypothetical post-independence Scotland will maintain a critical mass of science.
Many of the people currently responsible for Scottish science were neither born nor educated in the UK, let alone Scotland itself. These individuals – but, equally, home-grown scientists - are acutely sensitive to the funding climate on which their work depends and the best of them would have no trouble in finding positions elsewhere in the world. The market for talent is global.
Byan MacGregor: The UK would not systemically fund "foreign research" – it would be a common pot with appropriate contributions, just like the ERC. But, as I wrote, there are options, including the Scandinavian approach.
Your point about the birthplaces of current UK and Scottish scientists rather supports my point that science knows few boundaries and if there is funding, scientists will come to do research. But UK immigration policy, for staff and students, is a serious threat to this – unlike the proposals of the Scottish government.
Adrian Bird: Research funding will follow excellence, if that funding is accessible. We are discussing a scenario whereby Scotland's scientists would be disqualified from many of the funding options they currently enjoy.
Science is arguably the most convincing illustration of what humans can achieve when their endeavours transcend national identities and knowledge is shared across the globe. At a time when communications technology is bringing people together as never before, creation of a new political boundary across the British landmass seems like a backward step. Add to that the logistical and financial sacrifices that the transition to a smaller economy would inevitably bring for science and one is left with a strong case for continuing to benefit from a union to which we currently contribute hugely and from which we so obviously benefit.
Since the Scottish enlightenment – soon after the Act of Union – Scotland's intellectuals have consistently addressed the big questions about human beings and the world they inhabit. This hard-won vibrancy, which persists in present day Scottish academic life, is too important to jeopardise. Scottish science is already seen as remarkably successful – I hope it stays that way.
Bryan MacGregor: It is the No side that is proposing new boundaries in research council support. And let me repeat – the most successful European economies, able to fund research, are the small nations. But why do you privilege the UK as a political entity if the "endeavours transcend national identities and knowledge is shared across the globe"?
On the one hand, we have the UK and England contexts of cuts in research and science funding, high student fees with unsustainable loan funding, an immigration policy that is deterring international student recruitment and the possibility of the loss of EU research funding. And, on the other, we have a Scottish government committed to funding research, to free access to higher education for residents and to attracting international students.
Even supporters of Academics Together acknowledge the Scottish government's support for universities and research. Sir David Carter, in a radio broadcast in May, said: "I think the Scottish government has done well in safeguarding the funding stream going to universities…and (the) Scottish government fully understand that medicine and life sciences is really a cornerstone of the Scottish economy…I think all parts of the UK are going to find it difficult over the next few years."
On the evidence available, the conclusion must be that continued union, rather than independence, is the threat to the funding of Scottish universities.
Join the higher education network for more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered.
;