Thanks in no small part to its close links to our neighbours in the EU and a longstanding reputation as a welcoming destination overseas scientists, Britain has consolidated its position as one of the most productive centres for research in the world – a necessary foundation on which to build a thriving knowledge economy.
But “Brexit means Brexit”, which means that those links and that reputation are now under threat.
Although one of Theresa May’s first acts as Prime Minister was to assure the research community that the government remained committed to “ensuring a positive outcome for UK science”, since then there have been few encouraging signs. The trail of Theresa May’s speech today indicates that taking back control over immigration is more important to her than retaining membership of the Single Market or Customs Union, a move that will cut UK research out of EU funding mechanisms. The chancellor, Philip Hammond, has hinted darkly about turning Britain into a corporate tax haven to fight off European competition. And in the past week police have recorded the anti-immigration rhetoric of home secretary Amber Rudd’s Conservative Party conference speech last October as a “hate incident”.
Closing ourselves off from the uniquely sophisticated ecosystem of multilateral collaboration and scientific exchange that has been built over decades by the EU – with Britain at the forefront of that process – will exact a high price. Even the pro-leave Scientists for Britain campaigned on the basis that the UK would retain unfettered access to EU research structures. This claim may have been based on a disastrous – and possibly disingenuous – reading of how the EU works, but it is a testament to the fact that all points of the political spectrum recognise the high value of its research network.
Perhaps the government’s hardening stance is just a negotiating position, but the confusion emanating from May’s wayward Brexit ministers and her repeated insistence on not providing a running commentary means that uncertainty abounds. And into that uncertainty, whatever our preferences for the endpoint of the Brexit negotiations, we have all poured our hopes and fears.
As the triggering of Article 50 approaches, one thing that has been hard to find is proper dialogue about the shape of the outcome. Here, scientists have a vital role to play, and not just in informing key aspects of the debate from their ground-level perspectives of the likely impact on UK research. As generators and users of evidence and, yes, unashamedly as experts in the domains of knowledge and technology, we can be exemplars of the required standard of discourse.
There was huge dismay in the research community at the outcome of the referendum vote – and for many the well of bitter frustration still overflows – but the fissures revealed across British society also prompted much soul-searching. Why was the support for the EU among researchers and universities seen merely as the self-interest of an insulated elite?
The reasons behind many leave voters’ sense of disconnection from political and economic currents are many and complex, but the research community has a part to play in building bridges to a brighter future – for all of us. That’s a long-term project. For now, in the public discussions that need to take place around Brexit, we have to make plain the risks to our national research base and, crucially, make the case that it is in everyone’s interest for them to be mitigated. As Colin Macilwain observed in Nature last week, voicing the concerns of many in the scientific community: ‘Make no mistake, the end of free movement and a bumpy exit from EU research programmes will blow holes in the culture of British academic science that devalued pound notes cannot fill.’
But it’s not just about money – even if replacement funds are found, they will not automatically replace the intricate networks of collaboration and exchange. Macilwain continued: ‘the mood in science departments is universally grim. It isn’t just EU-born students, postdocs and staff who are unsettled: countless spouses and offspring feel dejected and unwanted in the United Kingdom, too.’ I have seen this myself. So many of the EU nationals among my university colleagues have been saddened by the change in atmosphere in the UK before and after the referendum. We cannot afford to lose their talent or their friendship – they hugely enrich our research endeavours and our society. But a survey published just last week revealed that many will vote with their feet and leave our shores. Over a third of British scientists say are now more likely to do likewise.
Seven months after the referendum, no-one has clear sight of the hardness or hue of the Brexit that will emerge from the forthcoming negotiations. There is no road map, though the eight-point plan detailed by Scientists for EU last week is a constructive starting point on a number of key issues including funding, immigration, collaboration, regulation and business investment.
The best we can do for now is to talk and the time for doing that is already overdue. If you are a scientist or a supporter of science, you can get involved too. Whatever happens in the coming months and years, it is important that we maintain close and productive research links with the EU. Science is Vital is campaigning to ensure that people can make their voices heard and help shape that future. Write to your MP and share your experience of UK science and your hopes for its future. Stand up robustly for science by being informed, but also respectful of perspectives that have led people to vote leave. Better yet, invite your MP to the lobby of parliament in two weeks’ time – on Tuesday 31st January – and tell them in person. But prepare for that meeting to be a two-way conversation.
@Stephen_Curry is a professor of structural biology at Imperial College. He is a member of the boards of Science is Vital and the Campaign for Science and Engineering.