.png)
Email
UK science is getting a shiny new £200m polar research ship. This is interesting for many reasons, not least that it was announced by the chancellor George Osborne, alongside the launch of a consultation on science capital spending.
At the same time, further details of the cuts at Kew were published in the Guardian today; as managers say the £5m hole in the budget cannot be filled without losing a sixth of the institution's staff, mostly in scientific areas.
The juxtaposition of these two very different news stories on science funding has not gone unnoticed. As Doug Parr put it: “WTF UK science policy? Osborne's v expensive new polar ship but Kew Gardens being decimated.”
I want to be clear that I think this new ship is a good thing. The two polar research ships the UK currently operates are showing their age and polar research is very important, for all sorts of political, environmental, scientific and economic reasons. This is a major – and exciting – boost to research. Also, when it comes to the bad news story of Kew, it’s worth stressing that its problems are down to more than just cuts.
Still, there are political reasons why the good thing of the polar research ship is supported when other good things, like Kew, are struggling, and we should remember them. Here are two.
- Geopolitics. As the Telegraph report on the ship pointed out, although primarily for research, the government said it would also allow Britain to “maintain our presence” around the British territories in the South Atlantic. Blogging on the topic earlier today, Professor Klaus Dodds adds: “As before with previous debates about the future of BAS and the contemporary geopolitics of British Antarctic Territory, the planned ship is caught up in a geopolitics-sovereignty-science nexus.”
- Oil. It’s not in the government press release, but the BBC’s David Shukman is correct to underline that the research context to this new vessel includes the possibility of new oilfields in the polar regions. It’s important to remember that such research may well be about understanding the risks to oil exaction in these areas, not simply a matter of “de-risking” the Arctic. Still, considering Nerc’s recent Memo of Understanding with Shell, and that the Arctic is mentioned in Nerc’s Innovation Programme in Oil and Gas within references to exploitation in challenging environments, it’s understandable that environmentalists would be concerned.
Overall, it’s both a good and bad news day for British science funding. What this latest news from Kew and the polar ship story share is how strongly an economic frame is being ever-more printed on the patterns of UK science. As Kew’s director Richard Deverell told us "There will be a bias towards protecting those areas of science that have the greatest potential to generate income.” Similarly, Osborne's speech today in Cambridge stressed his aims to put the "long-term plan for science right at the heart of our long-term economic plan."
There's a fair amount to agree with in what the Chancellor had to say, but as I'm sure he'd agree, we are limiting science's scope if making money is the only reason we do such work. We are also putting the health of our planet at risk too. This is why Deverell's admission of "bias" is so worrying, and perhaps acts as a warning to UK science at large.
;