TABLE OF CONTENTS

2010/09/07 FT: Britain cannot afford to save on science ................................................... 196

2010/09/07 universities UK: UUK reports highlight challenges for universities in light of
recession and funding cuts ................................................................................................ 197
2010/09/08 exquisite life: Vince Cable - Science, Research and Innovation Speech .......... 198
2010/09/08 wtht transcript: #scipolicy .............................................................................. 206
2010/09/08 wtht transcript: #scicuts ................................................................................. 213
2010/09/08 wtht transcript: #scienceisvital ....................................................................... 217
2010/09/08 Guardian CiF: Is Vince Cable about to end Britain's research empire? ........... 220
2010/09/08 guardian news: Vince Cable will tell scientists they must pay their way ......... 221
2010/09/08 guardian science blogs evan: Science spending cuts: how should we judge Vince
Cable? ................................................................................................................................ 223
2010/09/08 guardian science blogs butterworth: Conducting Cable ................................. 225
2010/09/08 guardian science news: Vince Cable's science cuts under fire News .............. 226
2010/09/08 guardian science blogs evan: What is Vince Cable really saying about how to
make science cutbacks? ..................................................................................................... 227
2010/09/08 In the dark: Unravelling Cable ........................................................................ 233
2010/09/08 Kieron Flanagan:Vince Cable on science cuts ................................................. 235
2010/09/08 Institute of Physics: Institute of Physics reasserts importance of science funding
for economic growth ......................................................................................................... 239
2010/09/08 dellybean: SCIENCE IS VITAL ........................................................................... 239
2010/09/08 Mind the gap: In which the great slumbering scientific beast awakens .......... 240
2010/09/08 tomfoolery: Vince Cable is Wrong On Science ................................................ 244
2010/09/08 times higher education: Cable’s rations: ‘mediocre’ research teams need not
apply .................................................................................................................................. 246
2010/09/08 New Scientist: Scientists: time to shout "in the right direction" ..................... 248
2010/09/08 science policy talking post: Vince Cable talks science ..................................... 250
2010/09/08 russell group: Russell Group comments on Vince Cable's science and innovation
speech ............................................................................................................................... 252
2010/09/08 anomalous distraction: “45% of grants were not of excellent standard” ....... 253
2010/09/08 bbc news: Vince Cable reveals a strategy to cut science funding ................... 255
2010/09/08 CASE: Vince Cable versus the World on science ............................................. 257
2010/09/08 cancer research uk: Improving the health of our economy ............................ 258
2010/09/08 telegraph: Tell Vince Cable: science cuts are a bad idea ................................. 261
2010/09/08 scidev.net: China to double science communicators by 2020 ........................ 262
2010/09/08 channel 4 news: Vince Cable warns of science funding cuts ........................... 263
2010/09/08 Royal Society Blog In Verba: The population agenda: a European perspective
........................................................................................................................................... 265
2010/09/08 Andrew Jaffe: Science: Commercially Useful or Theoretically Outstanding? .. 266
2010/09/09 Exquisite Life: In one day, Vince Cable has become an object of ridicule and
loathing.............................................................................................................................. 267
2010/09/09 Consider, Evaluate, Act .................................................................................. 271
Prateek Buch: The politics of science funding, in two parts: Part One - Spin (offs)............. 271
2010/09/09 Not Exactly Rocket Science: Of writers and activists – are science bloggers being
ambitious enough? ............................................................................................................ 272
2010/09/09 exquisite life: The Royal Academy of Engineering isn't the only one with some
explaining to do ................................................................................................................. 279
2010/09/09 exquisite life: Flip flopping at the IChemE ...................................................... 281
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serendipity#Examples_in_science_and_technology ........... 282
2010/09/09 Times Higher Education: No-brainer: top British scientists may flee funding
famine for feasts abroad .................................................................................................... 282
194 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/09 Markus ventures: Cutting Funding Undermines Long-term Economic Stability
........................................................................................................................................... 283
2010/09/09 CASE: Leveraging investment from industry and charities.............................. 285
2010/09/13 Excquisite Life: How to read David Willetts' speech to Universities UK .......... 286
2010/09/09 BBC News: Universities too focused on research, says Willetts ...................... 294
2010/09/09 R&D Society: Government must maintain support for all areas of UK R&D, from
academia to business ......................................................................................................... 296
2010/09/09 royal society: Invitation to Party Political Conference fringe events ............... 297
Science at the Liberal Democrat Party Political Conference ..................................................................... 298
Science at the Labour Party Political Conference ...................................................................................... 298
Science at the Conservative Party Political Conference ............................................................................ 299
2010/09/09 Royal Society Blog In Verba: ........................................................................... 299
Can we afford the cuts? ..................................................................................................... 299
2010/09/09 Royal Society Blog In Verba: Damned Statistics .............................................. 300
2010/09/09 Guardian News: OECD cautions over cuts as global slowdown continues ...... 301
2010/09/09 Telegraph: Vince Cable Science Snatcher: do his stats stand up? ................... 302
2010/09/09 Nature Editorial: Science scorned................................................................... 303
2010/09/09 New Scientist: Time to stop whining and act for the long term ...................... 310
2010/09/09 Universities UK: Professor Steve Smith's Speech ............................................ 312
2010/09/09 the Independent: Minister defends research funding squeeze ...................... 318
2010/09/09 Guardian Science Blog Festival: Where does the myth of a gene for things like
intelligence come from? .................................................................................................... 319
2010/09/09 Guardian Science Blog Festival: Thank God (and Richard Dawkins) I'm no longer
an 'angry atheist' ............................................................................................................... 322
2010/09/10 Guardian Science Blog Evan: Vince Cable's wrong connection ....................... 324
2010/09/10 US News: The Great Recession's Toll on Higher Education ............................. 326
2010/09/13 Guardian Science Blog: A physicist, a chemist and a zoologist walk into a bar …
........................................................................................................................................... 330
2010/09/13 Los Angeles Times: U.S. hard-pressed to stem domestic R&D losses.............. 337
2010/09/13 FT comment: Science can’t always be measured by commercial success ....... 347
2010/09/13 DC's Improbable Science: What Vince Cable got wrong about research, what he
got right, and what should be done ................................................................................... 348
2010/09/14 SUN by BRIAN COX: Science Cuts Warning for Government ........................... 352
2010/09/14 Anomalous Distraction: Science is Vital – a letter from my MP. ..................... 353
2010/09/14 The Economist: THE LIMITS OF SCIENCE ......................................................... 356
2010/09/15 Girl, Interrupting: On being a ‘foot soldier’ .................................................... 359

195 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/07 FT: BRITAIN CANNOT AFFORD TO
SAVE ON SCIENCE
By Martin Rees
In a speech in Cleveland, Ohio, Barack Obama is expected to announce a $100bn package to
expand research and development tax credits for companies that invest in innovative technologies.
This is the latest signal of intent from a president who last year pledged “the largest commitment to
scientific research and innovation in American history”. Others have followed the US lead: France,
Germany, Brazil and China are all prioritising science and research as vital to their strategies for
economic recovery and growth.

So it is depressing that, at a time when Britain‟s international competitors are investing more, the
debate in London is all about how far and fast budgets can be cut. A few hours before Mr Obama
speaks on Wednesday, Vince Cable, the UK secretary of state for business, will set out his own vision
for the future of science and innovation.

Shortly after the general election, Mr Cable announced a new mission for his ministry as the
“department for economic growth”. On Wednesday, he has an opportunity to spell out what this
means. Science, like all areas of public investment, is under threat, and the business secretary needs
to present a compelling case to the Treasury to ensure that the UK‟s prospects for recovery are not
jeopardised by short-term cuts, whose consequences could prove irreversible.

Science is a UK success story: we are world leaders by some measures, and second only to the US
by others. This success has been achieved in spite of a smaller investment – public and private – than
our competitors‟. Even after a period of sustained growth, we are still investing only 1.79 per cent of
gross domestic product on research and development. This is below Germany (2.54 per cent) and the
US (2.68 per cent) – not to mention fast-developing countries such as South Korea (3 per cent).

The financial crisis has not prevented the US from proposing a 7.2 per cent rise in its science budget.
Nor has it stopped Germany from investing an additional €18bn ($23bn) in the next five years or
France from investing a further €35bn. China continues to make 20 per cent year-on-year increases in
its research investment.

Britain is the only country outside the US with several universities in the premier league. High-
technology industries cluster around them. Cambridge, for instance, is the base for billion-pound
companies such as ARM, Autonomy and CSR, as well as hundreds of smaller start-ups.

It is crucial that short-term austerity should not undermine our science and innovation capability.
Global competition for the most talented individuals, the most innovative companies and leadership in
high-tech sectors is intensifying. Cuts would create the impression that UK science is in relative
decline and make the UK a less attractive location for mobile talent and investment. They would send
a message to the UK‟s young people – savvy about trends and anxious about their future – that the UK
is no longer at the cutting edge of science. Talent attracts talent, success breeds success.

I am fortunate to know many leading scientists of the older generation – Nobel prize winners or the
equivalent. Their work was unpredictable and required a supportive environment. Breakthroughs can
take many years and the lineage of a “spin-off” can be traced back to a surprisingly diverse range of
influences.

196 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
The best academic research should be supported across the board. Stringent prioritisation may result
in the UK losing out on nascent opportunities, which often occur serendipitously. But when it comes to
the development phase, “picking winners” is essential and the government has a role, as emphasised
in recent reports by Hermann Hauser and James Dyson, in improving a weaker link in our system –
the translation from research to commercial exploitation.

It is frequently emphasised in these pages that without confidence, there will be no willingness to
invest, and can be no recovery from recession. But it is not solely in the economic sphere that this is
so. Confidence and optimism drive creativity, innovation and risk-taking in science.

The US and our other international competitors have set the bar. Today we need Mr Cable to
demonstrate real leadership in spelling out a long-term strategy for UK science and innovation. It could
be the most important speech for a generation, or an admission of defeat.

The writer is president of the Royal Society

Comments
TheOligarch.Com | September 8 2:26pm |
Good article. And I bet Vince Cable fails to mention 4 generation nuclear power.
Know your place | September 8 9:09am
Vince's speech will be a tired, ill thought-out science and tech strategy from a tired old man bumbling
along trying to understand the world around him. He knows that ConDem voters either have inherited
wealth or well-paid jobs in finance, politics and the service sectors - what need can they see for
investment in science.
Unfortunately the decline in UK government investment and foresight around science and technology has
reached the point where it is probably irreversible. Each generation is told that research and development
is the way forward. People then go off and graduate as scientists only to see that there are no jobs in
science in the UK - they've been conned. Britains research capabilities will continue to wither on the vine,
with any necessary work either outsourced abroad or carried out here by foreign graduates.

2010/09/07 UNIVERSITIES UK: UUK REPORTS

HIGHLIGHT CHALLENGES FOR UNIVERSITIES IN
LIGHT OF RECESSION AND FUNDING CUTS
Universities UK has published today a range of reports looking at the consequences of the recession, and
subsequent cuts in public funding, for the higher education (HE) sector.

The reports are published on the opening day of Universities UK's annual members' conference, taking place
this year at Cranfield University (7-9 September).

The three reports - Adapting Business Models in a Changing Environment; Changes in Student Choice and
Graduate Employment; and The Global Picture - are accompanied by a commentary report by Professor
Geoffrey Crossick, the new Vice-Chancellor of the University of London. The commentary, part of a project
sponsored by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), reflects on the long-term
pressures now facing universities.

Points in the commentary report include:

 UK Universities are already being seriously affected by the impact of both economic recession and
the crisis in public finances

197 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
  Globally, the UK risks being overtaken as a number of our competitor countries are increasing
investment in universities and research, rather than making cuts.
 The number of higher education students worldwide will continue to grow at a remarkable rate and
the global market for international students will become even more competitive.
 UK Universities' diversification away from public funding has been going on for some time, and it will
have to speed up in light of current pressures. However, sustained public investment is critical to
lever in money from other sources.
 Growth in the number of private providers of higher education in the UK will present both challenges
and opportunities

Professor Geoffrey Crossick said: “Universities have come far in this period of improved and more stable
funding. If we wish the UK to remain a world leader in the quality of its university education, then the
problematic baseline that already existed must be recognised when targeting expenditure cuts.

“Some of our most important current and future competitor economies have been increasing investment in
higher education and research during the recession. We‟re encountering different responses to economic
recession, but we‟re also seeing a commitment to investment in the very areas that have already been
seriously cut in the UK and which are threatened with even more severe reductions in public spending. And
these are areas that have been of critical importance to the economy.”

Sir Alan Langlands, Chief Executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, said: “As we await
the outcome of the Browne review and the Government's spending review we must take steps to ensure
that the process of change is managed with care and professionalism. We must not compromise on the
quality of learning and teaching and the student experience, the excellence and international
competitiveness of research, or the ability of universities and colleges to contribute to economic recovery
and a just society. The wellbeing of students should be paramount as we face the difficult choices and
decisions ahead.”

All three reports are available on Universities UK's website.

2010/09/08 EXQUISITE LIFE: VINCE CABLE -

SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND INNOVATION SPEECH
HOW TO READ VINCE CABLE'S SPEECH ON SCIENCE AT QUEEN MARY'S
BY WILLIAM CULLERNE BOWN

Vince Cable gave a speech at Queen Mary's today in which he sketched out his approach to science.
What follows below is an annotated version of the speech, with my comments in red. There's also
some notes from the Q&A and press briefing at the end. I'll be digesting all this and summarising my
thoughts in the next issue of Research Fortnight.

It turns out that all the gloomy stuff in advance about not funding "mediocre" research probably only
adds up to £115m of cuts. If the research base gets away with that, scientists will be dancing in the
streets, though new universities will probably feel differently.

***

Vince Cable - Science, Research and Innovation Speech

08 September 2010 10:43

198 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (National)

Check against delivery

Over the next few weeks and months, major decisions will be made on Government spending priorities
as part of a wider move to stabilise the country‟s finances and rebalance the economy. They will help
to define what we value as a nation and the direction in which we want to head. Investing in science
and research is a critical part of that. I cannot prejudge the outcome but I know that my colleagues,
including at the Treasury, value the contribution of UK science.

I have been arguing for years my concern over the way the British economy was distorted. Money
borrowed for property speculation rather than productive investment and innovation. Too many top
performing graduates heading straight for high finance rather than science and engineering.

It was clear to me and my colleagues that the British economy was becoming increasingly unbalanced
in the short term, as the mountain of household debt built up. We were also unprepared for a long-
term future where we need to earn our living in the world through high-tech, high-skills and
innovation.

In the press briefing afterwards, Colin Macilwain, Clive Cookson and myself quizzed Cable
on rebalancing. On the one hand, he is convinced from his experience as special adviser
to John Smith at the DTI in the 1970s that strong intervention does not work. He then
reminded us that he and George Osborne are working on a “Growth Paper” that will be
published around the same time as the CSR. That's important because the question of
where economic growth’s going to come from in the coming years and what the
government’s role is in encouraging that is the big mystery at the heart of this government’s
economic philosophy.

I then asked Cable about the ambitious, sectoral rebalancing that he and Osborne were
talking about before the election. He reminded me that he still is talking about it (eg here in
the speech). When I pointed out that Osborne is not (he doesn’t mention sectoral
rebalancing once in the Budget documents), Cable said, “I’m surprised.” From what he
said, there will be a lot of talk about rebalancing in the Growth Paper, but it’s less clear
how much it will have to say about sectoral rebalancing.

There’s a lot of jibes at the Lib Dems from Labour that they are just a fig leaf making it easier
for the Tories to get on with their evil work. I don’t buy this in general. But here I worry that
Cable will go on talking about sectoral rebalancing without winning any of the arguments
with Osborne and the Treasury that are needed in order to make that happen. That’s the
story so far. If that is what we see in the Growth Paper, vague talk of sectoral rebalancing
but no strategy or action to back it up, then those Labour jibes will start to bite.

One of the unhappy by-products of the burst bubble, banking crisis and recession is a massive budget
deficit that we inherited. As a consequence, we face the tightest spending round since post-War
demobilisation.

My department is the largest department in Whitehall without a protected budget and science,
alongside Further Education and Higher Education, is one of its largest components.

This sort of statement always annoys me. The decision to leave the hi-tech budgets unprotected did
not come from above; it is a political one, taken by Cable and co. Take some responsibility!

We know that the Labour Government was planning deep cuts of 20%-25% in the budget of that
department. Economies on this scale are clearly a very major challenge.

There was something about how he said this in the flesh that made me think, oh, he‟s only saying that
because he‟s confident he‟s going to do a bit better than that. But that‟s just a fleeting impression.

199 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
There is a school of thought which says that Government commitment to science and technology is
measured by how much money we spend. Money is important both for the quality and quantity. But it
is an input, not an output, measure. The question I have to address is can we achieve more with less?

Fair question.

In deciding priorities, there is a limit to how much I can dictate the course of events. Nor do I wish to.
Research priorities and technical priorities are set at arms length from Government, and through peer
review. That is right. Yet the Government spends £6bn a year supporting science and research and it is
right that I should speak about strategic priorities.

Fair enough again. Now we sidetrack into anecdote for a while...

I feel I should start by registering a personal interest when it comes to science. I‟m one of few MPs to
have at least started a science degree – well, it began as natural science and ended up as economics.

My constituency, Twickenham, is one of the major centres of scientific enquiry. It contains the
National Physical Laboratory, a world-leading centre; the Laboratory of the Government Chemist; and
a wide variety of companies involved in science, research and innovation.

I recently discovered one accidentally as a result of a parking dispute with local residents: FT
Technologies which is one of two major companies in the world making wind monitoring and airflow
measurement applications, much of its production being exported to China.

And one of my constituents is inventor Trevor Bayliss, best known for inventing the wind-up radio. He
constantly reminds me of the parlous status and minimal support given to inventors whose ideas so
often fail to find commercial application in the UK but are used overseas.

I would add that my youngest son, Hugo, is a very theoretical quantum physicist – based in Singapore.

You could say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. But I am familiar with the language of
science and the sorts of difficulties faced by scientists, researchers and inventors.

It is apt that I am giving this speech at Queen Mary, University of London, one of the UK‟s leading
research-focused higher education institutions and home to 16,000 students.

The Mile End campus is historically the home of Queen Mary College, which began life in 1887 as the
People's Palace, a philanthropic endeavour to provide east Londoners with education and social
activities.

It was an innovation then, and continues to be innovative today.

I know that it collaborates with a Chinese university, plus it has a good record of producing spin-out
technology, most notably a company called ApaTech, which eventually sold for some $330m. Indeed,
Queen Mary was called “the biggest star” among research intensive institutions by Times Higher
Education.

And that leads me to set out a central question for the future of science and research in this country:
how far should policy be driven by economic impact?

OK. Fair enough again. That's Q3. But what happened to the answers to the other two
issues he raised before we flew off to Twickenham?

I fully accept that scientific enquiry, like the arts, has its own intrinsic merit. It is a public good. It
helps to define the quality of our civilisation, and embeds logical scientific thinking into the decision-
making of Government, businesses and households. Superstition and irrational prejudice about the
natural world are rarely far from the surface and scientists help inoculate society against them – a far
from risk-free task as Simon Singh and others have discovered.

The big scientific ideas that changed the world were often far removed from practical, let alone
commercial, applications. I suspect Newton and Darwin would have struggled to attract venture capital

200 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
investment, or justify an R&D tax credit, for their work in gravity and natural selection. Newton in
particular was hopeless with money and he lost a personal fortune investing in the South Sea Bubble.

More recently, Tim Berners-Lee did not develop the World Wide Web in an IT company but as a way to
share information about work on fundamental physics (at CERN). Indeed, Lord Sainsbury in his 2007
report described a high correlation between successful commercial spin-offs and high-quality
fundamental research.

So I regard the old debate about common room versus board room as tiresome and unproductive. We
need a wide spectrum of research activity.

Well we still don’t have an answer to the last question Vince raised, “How far should policy
be driven by economic impact?” What we’ve just had is a tour through three of the basic
problems in funding science, without any position being taken. Pointless. Now we move on
to something meatier, the subject that the Treasury has been quizzing supplicants on - the
“efficiency” of our research spending.

That said, it is reasonable to ask the question: how does Government spending in scientific research
contribute to the economy?

There is a lot of evidence of the connection between innovation and economic performance.

Innovation, the introduction of new or improved products, processes or methods – has been shown to
be the key driver of economic growth in advanced economies.

The 2010 OECD innovation report shows that investment in intangible assets helped account for
between two-thirds and three-quarters of labour productivity growth. It also suggested that innovation
is also a key source of future growth for emerging economies.

It concluded that “Governments must continue to invest in future sources of growth, such as
education, infrastructure and research. Cutting back public investment in support of innovation may
provide short-term fiscal relief, but will damage the foundations of long-term growth.”

Some countries are acting on that advice. The US is doubling basic science spend between 2006 and
2016. China has seen a 25% increase in central government funds to the science and technology
sector. In Sweden, central government funds for R&D will increase by over 10% between 2009 and
2012. And in 2009, Germany announced it was injecting €18 billion into research and higher education
during the coming decade.

The OECD adds, crucially, that “there is considerable scope to improve the efficiency of government
spending.”

But, even more crucially, the OECD does not say that there is considerable scope for the
UK to improve the efficiency of its research spending. There is masses of evidence that the
UK’s research spending is already extremely efficient. On indicators such as citations per
dollar spent we are outstanding. The RAE has been widely imitated around the world
precisely because it is seen as driving up standards without increasing spending. I don’t see
any case for arguing that the UK’s research spending is inefficient. Unaffordable maybe,
misdirected maybe, but inefficient - no.

Take that plank away, and all that’s left of Cable’s argument is that lots of other
comparable nations are currently upping their hi-tech spending. So, I ask, why aren’t we?

And do I need to say it - we still don’t have an answer to Cable’s last question, “How does
Government spending in scientific research contribute to the economy?” Never mind, on
to the next one.

We in the UK are severely financially constrained. I want to pose the question to you: how do we
economise without damaging science?

201 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
The lazy, traditional way to make spending cuts is to shave a bit of everything: salami slicing. This
produces less for less: a shrinkage of quantity and quality – I have no intention of going there.

Ho hum. I think he actually is going to go there by October. See below.

Another approach superficially more attractive would be to specialise, to say there are certain branches
of science and technology that we should do or not do. My response to this is two-fold.

First, we should not politicise choices of this kind. Treasury and BIS ministers and officials, working
under pressures of time as well as money, are not the people who should be making arbitrary, far-
reaching decisions such as whether Britain should or should not “do” nanotechnology or space
research.

Moreover, many of the suggested choices are not choices at all because disciplines interact. I recently
went to Professor Bhattacharya‟s outstanding centre at Warwick and the whole point about his centre
is innovation depends on lateral thinking between apparently different disciplines.

And my son tells me that some of the most interesting quantum work is closely linked to disciplines
such as neurosurgery and optics.

There is however a strong case for identifying broad problems. For example, the challenges thrown up
by an aging population - the increased prevalence of Alzheimer's for example - need people working
across biology, medicine, biochemistry and the social sciences in order to better address needs.

So too for environmental challenges, such as providing clean water or alternative energy sources,
pooling different disciplines to get a better understanding of low carbon.

There is also a case for identifying and building up the areas where the UK truly is a world leader.

This includes stem cells and regenerative medicine, plastic electronics, satellite communications, fuel
cells, advanced manufacturing, composite materials and many more.

All of this discussion about specialisation is I think spot on.

There is inevitably a process of selection and choice. So, how to prioritise?

My preference is to ration research funding by excellence and back research teams of international
quality - and screen out mediocrity – regardless of where they are and what they do.

Its is worth noting in the last RAE 54 per cent of submitted work was defined as world class and that is
the area where funding should be concentrated.

In the 2008 RAE in England, the percentage of staff allocated to the classes 4* 3* 2* 1* and
Unclassified was 18 37 32 11 1. The world class definition can be used to apply to the 4* and
3* categories, which add up to 55 per cent. If you throw in Scotland, Wales and NI, the 4*
and 3* percentage will fall a little. So I think this is the number Cable is referring to. And I
think what Cable means is that he does not want to allocate any funding on the basis of 2*
ratings in the 2008 RAE. It’s actually a stunningly precise bit of policy that he’s outlining here.

David Sweeney of HECE tells us that amounts to £115m this year, out of £1,600m, ie 7 per
cent of QR. Or about 4 per cent of the BIS-controlled spending on research. Or just 2 per
cent of the £6 billion total of government spending on research that Cable cited earlier.

A change of this magnitude, although significant to some of the institutions with a big
percentage of 2* funding is too small to be described as rationing. Considering the system
as whole, it’s a tweak, no more.

Well, if that is the scale of cuts that the research base gets away with, we’ll all be
delighted. More likely, the actual cuts will be bigger and Cable’s only able to clarify this bit
now because it’s an obvious first cut. But he’s giving us little direction as to how those other

202 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 cuts will be implemented. Based on the lack of courage so far, my guess is the thing he
ruled out earlier - salami slicing.

But there’s more. Cable has told us the whole purpose of doing this is to use scarce
research funds more efficiently. But the institutions losing money under this scheme will
overwhelmingly be post-1992 universities that argue, with some justification, that they use
the little research funding they get more efficiently than their research-intensive cousins. In
the new universities, staff are so keen to do research that they’ll squeeze it in on top of a
heavy teaching load, work in cheaper facilities etc etc. By contrast, big winners will include
Oxbridge, who don’t seem to need the money. So this move could actually make our
research expenditure less efficient.

Finally, let’s note that this actually is Whitehall taking a decision out of the hands of HEFCE,
an agency shaped by academics, and move on.

Even a rationing of this kind presents problems. How do we allow room for new, unknown but bright
people? How do we reduce, not increase, the time spent on applying for funding in a more competitive
market?

There is a separate but critically important question of how we maximise the contribution of
Government supported research to wealth creation.

I support, of course, top class “blue skies” research, but there is no justification for taxpayers money
being used to support research which is neither commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding.

This was one of a couple of choice phrases leaked to the BBC and Guardian last night. It
gave a very sombre impression of the speech to come. But as I pointed out this morning, it
amounts to almost nothing. (There's also a nice blog on this here).

As I said earlier, it would be wrong to measure this in monetary terms alone. There are wider
questions, regarding the UK‟s openness as a society and its attractiveness as a destination for the
brightest scientists, researchers and engineers from all over the world.

It is well known that the United States first leapt ahead of other scientific nations when it welcomed
the brightest thinkers from across Europe, both before and after the Second World War. Enrico Fermi,
Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, John Von Neumann and many others formed the foundation stone upon
which American scientific leadership was built.

Despite considerable pressures, the US continues to garner huge benefits from the talents of
immigrants. Over 25% of US high-tech start-ups in the last 10 years had at least one immigrant
founder. The list of great American companies started by entrepreneurial immigrants is long. Google is
the most famous recent example, but also DuPont, Intel, Proctor and Gamble, eBay and even US Steel,
started by that great Scotsman, Andrew Carnegie.

I am determined that we continue to benefit from our proud history of openness in this science.

Take the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Leeds. This is ranked 7th in the UK for the quality
of its research, and over 75% of its output is rated as internationally excellent. It produces work in
vital areas like civil engineering; computing and electronic and electrical engineering.

One third of its students are from outside the UK, representing over 90 nationalities. Many of those
students may even go on to work within the UK, lending vital skills to industries that desperately need
such talent if they are to grow and innovate – passing on immeasurable benefits to the whole
economy.

And openness has reciprocal benefits. UK researchers already have an excellent record of working
across borders. Almost half of more than 90,000 research articles published by UK researchers in 2008
had a co-author from another country. Co-authorship with non-UK collaborators tends to produce
significant impact gains: e.g. papers with USA, Germany and France have impact 50% higher than the
UK research base average.

203 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 Well that’s a strong case for putting a brake on the loonier bits of Conservative immigration
policy. Good.

What other reforms are needed to help us achieve more with less? One approach is to break down
barriers to collaboration. There is already a fair degree of international collaboration between UK and
overseas institutions and companies. International collaboration is an important way for us to stay at
the cutting edge of research whilst reducing the cost to the UK taxpayer.

Singapore, for example, a country with global ambition in terms of science, sends some 75% of its top
scientific scholars to UK universities for their undergraduate studies. Partly due to these strong links,
Imperial College announced its first overseas footprint on 29 August - a joint Medical School with
Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.

Brazil has established a laboratory in agricultural sciences in the UK (at the Rothamsted Institute) to
undertake research into sustainable agriculture.

When I was in Brazil last week there was great interest in collaborative research, building on networks
which have led to Britain becoming second only to the USA in science collaboration.

All sensible.

The key is to find ways of transforming research into innovation. The UK has a strong record but we
need to do more. This involves building stronger links between the UK‟s science and research base and
the business community; to create more spin-out companies; and to provide a magnet for attracting
overseas investors to the UK.

On the last point, the fact that the UK is home to some of the leading universities in the world, and has
such a strong research base, undoubtedly helps us attract overseas investors.

Examples include Tata near Warwick in the West Midlands, Boeing at Sheffield, Pfizer in Kent, IBM and
Microsoft at Cambridge, and Hewlett Packard at Bristol. Research Councils work directly with over 2900
companies.

UK universities have an improving track record in terms of commercialising knowledge derived from
science and research. Between 2003 and 2010, 37 university spin-outs were floated on the stock
exchange with an IPO value of £1.7 billion, while 24 university spin-out companies were acquired by
other business for a total value of £2.4bn.

Solexa, a Cambridge University spin-out, was sold to a US-based company in 2007 for $600 million.
And NovaCem Ltd, which produces “carbon negative cement” that could potential revolutionise the
construction industry, was spun out of Cambridge and Imperial College - and the R&D for this product
was supported by the Technology Strategy Board, which is one of the key government institutions in
this field.

The important point from a national economic perspective is that we continue to increase the level of
economic interactions between business and the research base, including spin-outs, licensing,
consultancy and commissioned research

There‟s nothing terribly bad about this. I just think that David Willetts‟ discussion of absorptive
capacity was better.

This leads us on to the wider question of intellectual property and how we deal with it. Universities
make only 5% of their externally earned income from patents and licensing. There are some striking
exceptions, notably Imperial, Cambridge and Manchester, who have developed a strong professional
capacity in the commercialisation of research, but more needs to be done.

Part of this revolves around intellectual property protection. UK business invests around £65 billion
annually in creating IP, which is about 30% of total business investment in tangible and intangible
assets.

204 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
ONS data indicates that knowledge-based services make a substantial positive contribution to the UK
balance of trade. And a recent CBI survey shows 60% of UK businesses believe that IP has gained
importance over the last five years, 70% believe it would continue to do so in the next five.

There are some tricky issues around IP. I have some understanding of the issues - I was responsible,
in 2002, for pushing through a private members bill to strengthen copyright. We do need to look in
more detail at how we strengthen IP arrangements in the UK.

Interesting. But I have no idea what the tricky IP issues are he’s alluding to. Can anyone
help via comments?

The final question is how to encourage academics to collaborate with industry to maximise the benefit
of their research.

The Hauser review suggested a sensible approach - establishing a network of Technology and
Innovation Centres, based on international models such as the Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany. Both
science minister David Willetts and I agree that it is a good way forward, and I am looking closely at
the recommendations in the review and the value of investing in these in the context of the Spending
Review.

But we should not simply be copying overseas models. The key point is that what works are business
driven high technology clusters with academic links. We already have several: such as the Research
Council campus at Harwell, and others such as Cambridge and potentially St Pancras – and we are
working at how to develop this model further.

Under the previous Government we invested in over 60 of these centres, but as highlighted by
Hermann Hauser, the funding was thinly spread resulting in activity that has largely failed to achieve a
national impact in areas of leading UK capability such as nanotechnology.

If we are to establish a national network of technology centres we should look to drive this number
down and establish well-funded centres with long-term vision, focussed on areas of clear technical
leadership and commercial promise. Opportunities identified by Hauser include high-value
manufacturing, composites, low carbon energy, plastic electronics, space, stem cells and regenerative
medicine.

All this I’m pleased by because supporting “business driven high technology clusters with
academic links” is really totally different to building the new centres proposed by Hauser.
It's like looking through a telescope the right way round instead of the wrong way. So it
seems reality is sinking in. We are going to get Hauser centres. It’s just that they won’t
actually be anything like what was proposed by Hauser. But more funding will be focused
in fewer places than in the past and the clusters will have more of a national or quasi-
national feel. That sounds very good. In the questions afterwards, Cable gave the TSB the
lead role in working out what and where these centres should be. Which also sounds very
good. BTW Isn't it fun the way Willetts namechecks Dyson but Cable doesn't.

Public sector procurement is another area where we can improve. Across many sectors, from health
and transport to education and defence, the public sector can play a vital role as a first customer for
innovative products and services.

Programmes such as the Small Business Research Initiative, managed by the Technology Strategy
Board, helps to drive innovation and ensure that this takes place in areas where there is real future
demand from the public sector. I am committed to making greater use of this programme to facilitate
economic growth and innovation.

I am so tired of hearing this from ministers. This has been going on for what, a decade
maybe? The departments and agencies doing the procuring always ignore the policy. I
see nothing here that’s going to change that. Cable doesn’t even mention a target of
procurement to be spent this way.

205 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
To summarize, I think I have made it clear that science, research and innovation are vital to this
country‟s future economic growth. But we have to operate in a financially constrained environment.

I want to lay down a challenge to the science and business communities today. That we come
together, work together and plan a future together that makes the most of this country‟s competitive
advantages in financially difficult circumstances for the benefit of us all.

Oops. What he actually got was a new Facebook group,Vince Cable is Wrong On Science.

***

The speech ended there, but there was quite a lot of important stuff in the Q&A at the end, much of
which was limited to journalists.

I pointed out that one effect of concentrating QR would be to benefit Oxbridge. Cable said essentially
that you had to get the formula right and then live with the consequences. And he stuck to that line
when Clive Cookson pressed him on the regional anomoly - pouring more money into the South and
East when it‟s the North the coalition says it wants to prioritise. I don‟t think this line can last.

On tax credits for R&D, he said the Treasury was not questioning the scheme and that small firms had
nothing to fear, and should even benefit from planned changes in corporation tax. The support R&D tax
credits give to big firms was, by contrast, described as dead weight. Heaven knows what Malcolm
Skingle, a row down from me and from GSK, made of that.

Finally, I pressed him a couple of times to say whether Lib Dem MPs would go through the Aye lobby to
back a rise in fees to £7,000. I got a lot of stuff about the need for reforms to be progressive, but
nothing clear.

So, to sum up, I think the key points are:

 Concentration to be achieved by cutting funding for 2* out of the QR formula - saves £115m
 Little interest in the regional consequences of such concentration
 Little guidance on how other cuts will be made
 No coherent answers to the important questions about the role of science and research in the
government's economic thinking
 (Flawed) Emphasis on efficiency
 Hauser centres bandwagon rolling in a sensible direction
 Reassurance on tax credits for R&D
 Declines to rule out Lib Dems voting for a rise in undergraduate fees to £7,000.

2010/09/08 WTHT TRANSCRIPT: #SCIPOLICY

#scipolicy wthashtag.com/scipolicy
September 7, 2010
7:10 am williamcb:Dear All, What do you think the questions are that Vince Cable needs to tackle in his speech
tomorrow? #scipolicy
10:01 am sciencecampaign:Europe falling behind in the competitive world of science research - Washington

Posthttp://bit.ly/dAhWYx #scipolicy #scivote

10:04 am sciencecampaign:Consultation by the Migration Advisory Committee on migration annual limit ends

todayhttp://bit.ly/92tUju #scivote #scipolicy

10:09 am sciencecampaign:RT @guardiansciblog: Labour leadership candidates leave scientists in dark
206 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 @imrantimehttp://bit.ly/bprKey @drevanharris #scivote #scipolicy
10:15 am sciencecampaign:New OECD education report, UK level of public investment in HE is 0.7% of GDP, below OECD
ave of 1% http://bit.ly/a4m5dw #scivote #scipolicy
10:16 am sciencecampaign:Willetts - "OECD report shows that our Higher Education faces some real
challenges"http://bit.ly/a4m5dw #scivote #scipolicy
10:58 am alicebell:@WilliamCB You mean fees may rise to £7000 piece that went live last
night? http://bit.ly/cxgdz1(£wall, appropriately enough) #scipolicy
11:04 am girlinterruptin:@WilliamCB - I would ask Vince cable how he is going to use increase in student fees to

subsidize research (all kinds) in unis - #scipolicy

11:43 am alicebell:Fees row hotting up --> RT @NewStatesman: Will this picture come back to haunt Nick

Clegg?http://bit.ly/a9ogCT #scipolicy
5:38 pm alicebell:Setting the scene for Cable's speech tomorrow - @WilliamCB on the
Guardian http://bit.ly/9ocTXhSee also http://bit.ly/9k07V2 #scipolicy
10:37 pm Paul_Crowther:RT @TimesScience: Harpal Kumar: Government must beware consequences of cutting science

funding http://bit.ly/c04Lbs (£) #scivote #scipolicy

10:46 pm AlexConnor:'Britain cannot afford to save on science' Martin Rees in the FT (reg
wall) http://bit.ly/aRIkqh #scipolicy
11:05 pm AlexConnor:Obama pushing for expanded R&D tax credit. I doubt Cable will even mention them

tomorrow.http://bit.ly/dpk4bt #scipolicy
11:06 pm AlexConnor:'Vince Cable will tell scientists they must pay their way' in the
Guardian http://bit.ly/au0oyI #scipolicy
11:44 pm intemple:RT @TimesScience: MRC could end cancer research funding if forced to make 20%

cutshttp://bit.ly/aWtTp6 (£) #scipolicy #ukpolitics

11:57 pm intemple:RT @mikebakeredhack: UK and USA share decline in international graduate league

tablehttp://bit.ly/aZ3Eyg #scipolicy #ukpolitics

September 8, 2010
5:52 am mohumb:Until someone invents a time machine it's going to be hard for Vince Cable to know which
research is going to turn a profit #scipolicy
6:25 am Paul_Crowther:RT @guardianscience: Vince Cable will tell scientists they must pay their
way http://bit.ly/bLK3vU#scipolicy #rcuk
6:27 am Paul_Crowther:RT @bbcscitech: Cable to signal 'cuts to science' http://bbc.in/cDQfoK #scipolicy #rcuk
6:34 am JonMButterworthWe in for myopic betrayal of one of few areas where a) UK is truly world leading & b) there
:
appeared to be some point in LibDems? #scipolicy
6:52 am flbhatti:S&T ctte take evidence from the UK Space Agency today at 9.30am #scipolicy
7:03 am honorharger:?We are going to set the bar somewhat higher? @vincecable on @r4today on the coming dark

age for UK science research #scipolicy #scivotes

7:14 am markgfh:Cable will say this morning that science must do "more with less". Not promising. At all.

#scivote#scipolicy
7:15 am xmalik:What does "theoretically outstanding" mean in practice? #scipolicy
7:20 am rebelandwolf:@xmalik in PP, NP and astro, peer review & existing funding pressure has left only the most

outstanding research #scipolicy

7:25 am Paul_Crowther:Vince Cable on the future of science funding: "We are going to set the bar somewhat higher" via

@r4today #scipolicy
7:28 am Paul_Crowther:But what about pure vs applied? RT @r4today Cable says purported 35% cuts to science budget

are "way in excess" of the real level #scipolicy

7:30 am Paul_Crowther:RT @rebelandwolf: @xmalik in PP, NP and astro, peer review & existing funding pressure has

left only the most outstanding research #scipolicy

7:30 am harryinashed:So now the question is, where should my wife and I drain our brains to? I don't want to spin out

a business... #scipolicy
7:36 am xtaldave:.@harryinashed Brain Drain? I've got dibs on Canada, ok? #scipolicy
7:39 am girlinterruptin:'blue skies' research really ' famous scientist doing what they already do' - Cable doesn't get

what is blue http://bit.ly/9Jc8rz #scipolicy

7:42 am xtaldave:CRYSTALLOGRAPHER FOR HIRE. I will crystallise and solve the structure of YOUR STUFF for £££,

($$$ or ???). #scipolicy #scivote #braindrain

207 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
7:45 am jim_wild:Strange day in science news. Cable about 2 wield science funding axe while science
heavyweights pick fights w/ religion+philosphy #scipolicy
7:45 am pssalgado:It already does! As opposed to banks that do less for more RT @markgfh Cable will say science

must do "more with less". #scivote #scipolicy

7:46 am joergheber:Security for Cable's speech almost non-existent. They might have to change that after the

speech. #scipolicy
7:52 am imascientist:Well, in light of announcements, my feed is full of scis discussing leaving the country. Gone well,

Cable?#scivote #scipolicy
7:52 am leilaluheshi:Vince Cable on R4 Today: http://bbc.in/abe6bx. Depressing #scipolicy #scivote
7:53 am timeshighered:So science freeloaders, your days of diving into a swimming pool full of money is over! /sarcasm

#scipolicy
7:58 am markh_:#scipolicy lib dems unable to stop Tory cut, cut, cut mantra being applied to science. No point

voting lib dem if they have no influence.

7:59 am timeshighered:Apologies science freeloaders, it appears we got you all confused with Scrooge McDuck.

Happens. #scipolicy
8:02 am kieronflanagan:@WilliamCB Raising bar only possible through increased selectivity. Cld set conditions on QR,

restrictions on RC applications, &c.#scipolicy

8:02 am leilaluheshi:Anyone know where I can follow Vince's speech? #scipolicy #scivote
8:09 am telescoper:Thinks we should all "set the bar somewhat higher" when deciding who to vote for next time

there's a General Election. #scipolicy

8:09 am beckyfh:Any danger that Cable's #scipolicy will give a +ve steer somewhere? Eg for certain, but long-

term, gains from renewable energy?

8:09 am kieronflanagan:@markgfh UK res system almost certainly much more 'efficient' than anywhere else. Already

doing more with less. Little slack? #scipolicy

8:10 am tuckleyc:RT @telescoper: Thinks we should all "set the bar somewhat higher" when deciding who to vote
for next time there's a General Election. #scipolicy
8:12 am mariawolters:Chez EPSRC, even some projects scoring 18/18 aren't funded, similar at ESRC

#scipolicy@jonmbutterworth
8:12 am xtaldave:Reply from the dean re @vincecable . The phrase "It's looking really grim" featured prominently.

(also wait 20th Oct) #scipolicy #braindrain

8:22 am imascientist:So, historically, arguments about value of science often motivated by funding worries. Likely to

get pretty busy now...#scivote #scipolicy

8:36 am kieronflanagan:Doubt whether Cable is softening up scientists for cuts but rather press & public. We shall see,

but language used in excerpts... #scipolicy

8:37 am intemple:RT @research_inform: Is Vince Cable about to end Britain's research
empire? http://ht.ly/2Atso#scipolicy #rcuk #stfc #ukpolitics
8:39 am Cthulhoo:Because greedy lecturers and oversized boni are the biggest problem in academia #scipolicy
8:40 am kieronflanagan:...may be intended to position any opposition as special pleading, a refusal to put noses to

grindstone & share the pain &c &c #scipolicy

8:40 am markh_:#scipolicy - @kieronflanagan - don't understand what you mean re: not softening us for cuts.
8:42 am intemple:RT @rebelandwolf Cable says science £s only for "commercial use or academically

outstanding"http://bbc.in/aUqJG3 #scipolicy #scivote

8:45 am intemple:Worry #RCUK #STFC already only funds "outstanding science" following previous cuts of last 2

yrs?http://bbc.in/aUqJG3 #scipolicy #scivote

8:49 am Paul_Crowther:Anyone know the origin of Cable: "45% of grants were not of excellent standard" on @r4today?
Bet it comes as news to grant panels #scipolicy
8:51 am armadillos:RT @Cthulhoo: Because greedy lecturers and oversized boni are the biggest problem in

academia #scipolicy
8:55 am intemple:Worry that while Cable indicated less than 35% cuts to UK science, strategic targetting may still

mean that for some #rcuk #stfc #scipolicy

8:55 am mjdh:#scipolicy There seems some horrible irony in Cambridge becoming world no. 1 on the same day

UK's research unis are gutted...

8:57 am stpkav:Have anti-science mandarins in BIS gotten to Cable et al? They made excellent start on previous

gov persuading cuts to STFC #scipolicy

8:57 am intemple:RT @victoriawilby: #vitae10 62% of UK R&D expenditure in 2008 was from private sector

208 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 #scipolicy#rcuk
8:59 am intemple:RT @classicbyte: EU invested total of 300M euro into Digital Heritage until 2010. CT Liina
Munari #ECDL2010 #rcuk #scipolicy #ukrds
8:59 am adamnieman:Massive investment in time machine research is required before @vincecable's #scipolicy makes

sense. #scicuts
9:01 am xmalik:RT @UKParliament: Head of review on university climate research appears before Commons

S&T Committee http://bit.ly/9TODEv #scipolicy

9:05 am openwest:Major cuts to science budget signalled. Follow the tweets with #scivote #scipolicy
9:20 am intemple:EU FP7 now similar -overload? RT @mariawolters chez EPSRC, some projects scoring 18/18

aren't funded, similar at ESRC #scipolicy #rcuk #stfc

9:20 am xmalik:Hashtags galore on Cable speech, we have #scicuts #scipolicy and #scivote !
9:24 am bnlawrence:RT @adamnieman: Massive investment in time machine research is required before

@vincecable's #scipolicy makes sense. #scicuts

9:24 am LisaFogarty:Oh dear, catching up on Cable on @r4today. It seems it's not good news :( #scipolicy
9:25 am sciencecampaign:RT @imrantime: Just heard profoundly depressing speech by Vince Cable at Qmul and now

stuck on tube in Whitechapel. Brilliant #scipolicy

9:30 am kieronflanagan:@gimpyblog As expected, dismisses opposition to sci cuts as special pleading. Expect much

more of this kind of thing. #scipolicy

9:32 am sciencecampaign:@DrEvanHarris UK already has some of the lowest science funding for the biggest return? Yet

'do more with less' #scivote #scipolicy

9:33 am drmattcliff:Are the only people who seem to care about Vince Cable's speech are scientists? worrying

#scipolicy.
9:36 am telescoper:Looks like it's going to be even worse than I thought: No Science Please, We're

Britishhttp://bit.ly/cr02vw #scipolicy
9:38 am millerdl:sounds like Cable needed an audio [citation needed] on @r4today this morning #scipolicy
9:38 am drmattcliff:Surely £4 bn investment for £550 bn product (45% of GDP) is an amazing return. #scipolicy (bit

doubtful of 45% figure tho)

9:49 am alicebell:Catching up on Cable's speech. Sounds like if I want a job, I should start pretending I know what

"excellence" means #scipolicy #scicuts

9:50 am joergheber:In addition to my tweets on Cable's speech,
@rogerhighfield @markgfh @williamcb @alokjha@imrantime were also there...
#scicuts #scipolicy
9:50 am adamnieman:Lots of 'boundary work' today (http://bit.ly/bPGfkL) @vincecable on what sci is for & Hawking

on philosophy: http://bbc.in/crSYPt #scipolicy

9:53 am stpkav:if scientists opposing sci cuts is special pleading surely non-scientists proposing cuts is also
special pleading? #scipolicy #scivote
9:54 am jjsanderson:@alicebell You mean you're currently aiming for mediocrity? >gasp!< #scipolicy
9:57 am Jobob_80:Actually, I suspect Cable's just read too much Dan Brown, and thinks there /is/ a freefall

simulator at CERN #scipolicy

10:05 am DrEvanHarris:My @GuardianSciBlog http://bit.ly/9SrEsO will have post up about Vince Cable and science

spending very shortly #scipolicy

10:06 am AlexConnor:Transcript of Cable's speech http://bit.ly/bF3o0Y #scipolicy
10:07 am gimpyblog:Remember this from Nick Clegg? http://bit.ly/dCzuZ4 #scipolicy
10:08 am joergheber:Wondering how RC implement "excellence". 45% of proposals marked world-class, far fewer get

funded. #scicuts #scipolicy

10:10 am jaminthemiddle:I can see commercially-orientated R&D working - but it relies on basic and applied science done

first. #scivote #scipolicy #scicuts

10:12 am AlexConnor:Speech is wide-ranging, but stumbles on reconciling the importance of science, with the desire

to cut it... http://bit.ly/bF3o0Y #scipolicy

10:17 am markgfh:Back from Cable speech. He said "We've underinvested in sci&tech in past". He meant "We will

underinvest more in future" #scivote #scipolicy

10:23 am ianhuston:Interesting that Cable explicitly mentions incr in sci funding in US,Germany,China. Telling us

where to go? http://bit.ly/bF3o0Y #scipolicy

10:26 am LouWoodley:Now live RT @DrEvanHarris My @GuardianSciBlog http://bit.ly/9SrEsO post about Vince Cable
and science spending up very shortly #scipolicy
209 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
10:27 am joergheber:@markgfh I am not sure BIS has idea on how to implement cuts. Will hang RC out to dry :(
#scicuts#scipolicy
10:34 am Dr_Whatson:Going through Cable transcript. God, I wish I hadn't voted Lib-dem now!
#scipolicy #scivote #ConDem
10:41 am sam_c:Apart frm all else,isn't immigrtn quota an elephant in room? RT @sciencecampaign:Full Cable

speechhttp://bit.ly/aDFf4Q #scivote #scipolicy

10:47 am beck_smith:Cable speech: 'There's a school of thought which says that Govt commitment to S&T is

measured by how much money we spend' #scipolicy

10:53 am harryinashed:We certainly won't get anywhere by just salami slapping. That's what Vince said wasn't it ?

#scipolicy
10:59 am sam_c:Shit. Was going to try and collect some thoughts about experiments and PDF beamlines today.

Also seems rather futile. #scipolicy

11:00 am sciencepond:Now trending on Science Pond: #scipolicy http://bit.ly/cwLvdm
11:05 am sciencecampaign:RT @Paulnuk2O1O: @kerryMP science post http://bit.ly/aFombl Someone needs to come out

and attack Vince re science cuts #scivote #scipolicy

11:06 am sciencecampaign:RT @julianhuppert: Hoping to ask a question about science and research - and Cambridge's

triumph! #scipolicy #scivote

11:15 am sam_c:Trying not to be totally paranoid & pessimistic, any PDRAs/non-permanent sci feel they have

long-term future in UK uni research? #scipolicy

11:18 am ecackett:The upshot of Cable's speech today - if you're a talented young scientist go abroad where

they've actually increased funding #scipolicy

11:28 am sciencecampaign:CaSE Comment - Cable yet to demonstrate ?either a vision or a plan? for UK science and

engineeringhttp://bit.ly/aZrjTe #scipolicy #scivote

11:30 am intemple:#RCUK #STFC success rates are online: http://bit.ly/co3Xag via
@rebelandwolf #scipolicy #scivote#scicuts #ukpolitics #scidebate
11:46 am markgfh:Bob May: Cable is "plain stupid" to say no cause to fund work that's not commercially useful /

theoretically outstanding #scivote #scipolicy

11:58 am DrEvanHarris:My latest @guardiansciblog: Science spending cuts: How should we judge Vince

Cable?http://bit.ly/a4GB1c #scipolicy
11:58 am sciencecampaign:CaSE Blog - World leaders, and Vince Cable, disagree on
science http://bit.ly/dpZhAi #scivote#scipolicy
12:03 pm RogerHighfield:S word. My take on the Vince Cable's science
speech http://bit.ly/azi9u9 #scicuts #scivote #scipolicy
12:04 pm jamespevans:@sciencecampaign It may be time for a name change for CaSE - how about Save British

Science!!! #scivote #scipolicy

12:07 pm SmallCasserole:The benefit of blogging is I can see my pre-election
#scivote #scipolicy thoughts: http://bit.ly/dfqpOj
12:07 pm LexieBristol:RT @markgfh: Back from Cable speech. He said "We've underinvested in sci&tech in past". He

meant "We will underinvest more in future" #scivote #scipolicy

12:08 pm imrantime:CaSE Blog - World leaders and Vince Cable on science http://bit.ly/dpZhAi #scivote #scipolicy
12:11 pm sam_c:.@smw77 Looks like I've 3yrs (assuming contract arrives) then scrapheap. Oh well, can rear kids

& live off state. Oh, hang on... #scipolicy

12:13 pm jaminthemiddle:enough of this #scipolicy I'm going for #science. Nanocarbon ...with applications in medical

devices, protecting against infection. Impact.

12:18 pm sciencecampaign:Vince Cable versus the World (on science) http://bit.ly/dpZhAi #scivote #scipolicy
12:20 pm Cthulhoo:20 mins of marking and I've lost faith in the next generation. Good luck with the budget cuts.

We're doomed. #scipolicy

12:31 pm EmmaJKing:RT @telescoper: Thinks we should all "set the bar somewhat higher" when deciding who to vote

for next time there's a General Election. #scipolicy

12:31 pm BL_Owens:How does Cable propose to stop funding the 45% of research he says is not excellent? Has he

got a better system than peer review? #scipolicy

12:41 pm AstroMeg:Utterly depressed by Vince Cable's speech. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11225197

#scipolicy
12:47 pm timeshighered:Cable?s rations: ?mediocre? research teams need not apply http://bit.ly/92r6Dn #scipolicy
1:07 pm markgfh:Excellent points here. RT @telescoper: Unravelling Cable: http://wp.me/pko9D-1R9

210 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 #scivote#scipolicy
1:13 pm CameronNeylon:.@drjonboyg @markgfh Scientists are complacent. Problem is concentration of resources
strengthens the hand of the most complacent #scipolicy
1:21 pm skepticmedic:Can someone please put Vince Cables science cuts in Pope visit units?
#science #scivote #scipolicy
1:22 pm girlinterruptin:when 'best' have £ no chance for a lobby
@CameronNeylon.@drjonboyg @markgfh concentrating sci resources strengthens
complacency #scipolicy
1:30 pm CameronNeylon:.@girlinterruptin Yes but more than that. No-one seems to appreciate the importance of

_diversity_ in the research community. #scipolicy

1:42 pm JDMoffatt:Was the Millennium Dome considered "theoretically outstanding"? I think we should be told.

#scivote#scipolicy
1:45 pm ifnobodyspeaks:#Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our environment & our quality of life

than ever before - Obama #scipolicy

1:53 pm jonzo1:@sciencecampaign Seems Cable thinks research is only valuable if it can be monetised.

#scivote#scipolicy #missingthepoint
1:58 pm girlinterruptin:Industrial CEOs HIDE the science community is coming after you, I sure they are all dying to

spend money on R&D #scicuts #scipolicy

2:02 pm KiyomiD:If we only fund what we know to be "excellent" science #scipolicy we'll miss a lot of really useful

discoveries in the long run.

2:05 pm girlinterruptin:2 older posts on funding the elite - by me http://bit.ly/akeeB8 and Austin Elliot on Nature

blogshttp://bit.ly/aaqF0E #scicuts #scipolicy

2:05 pm stucun:Wld Mandelson (if still BIS sec) hv said anything different to Cable? Well, except for the bit

about having a son called Hugo #scipolicy

2:06 pm stucun:There is probably a *political* consensus on #scipolicy which is quite different to the scientific
one
2:12 pm flbhatti:Cable's #scicuts analysis: NS http://bit.ly/azi9u9, THE http://bit.ly/a0pjrR,
FT http://bit.ly/9iKqpx, Gdnhttp://bit.ly/cFdHuM #scipolicy
2:12 pm Stephen_Curry:.@alokjha @markgfh @rogerhighfield Cable needs to be pressed on his numbers. RT

@telescoper:http://wp.me/pko9D-1R9 #scivote #scipolicy

2:13 pm xtaldave:[BLOGPIMP] "45% of grants were not of excellent standard": http://wp.me/pSvY2-6a

#scicuts#scipolicy #scivote
2:22 pm ResFortnight:Moon rocks held hostage and visits from the bailiffs - Rocky start for Shared Services

Centrehttp://ow.ly/2B813 #scipolicy
2:25 pm flbhatti:The story behind Cable's "45% of grants were not excellent"
comment http://bit.ly/csRbyu #scipolicy
2:36 pm markgfh:My analysis of Cable speech: we've under-invested in the past, and will now make matters

worsehttp://bit.ly/b8KtT0 (£) #scivote #scipolicy

2:53 pm Paul_Crowther:More on cuts: http://bit.ly/9eWDeB from @UniversitiesUK http://bit.ly/bBROXi from
@alokjhahttp://bit.ly/b8KtT0 (£) from @markgfh #scipolicy
4:03 pm RogerHighfield:My revised take on Cable's science speech http://bit.ly/azi9u9 CaSE http://bit.ly/d7I65m and

@markgfh http://bit.ly/b8KtT0 (£) #scipolicy

4:11 pm timeshighered:Vince Cable is wrong on science: The Facebook group! http://bit.ly/bwSObM #scipolicy
4:15 pm beck_smith:Inaugural blogpost - summary of cable speech and reaction: http://bit.ly/bFctdT #scipolicy
4:24 pm Paul_Crowther:Cable has urged scientists to ?do more with less?; they already are RT @RussellGroup Comment
on Cable speech http://bit.ly/9nKKPy #scipolicy
4:48 pm kieronflanagan:Reading Cable's speech properly now. Apart from the normal mood music, he says some

genuinely strange things... #scipolicy

4:49 pm kieronflanagan:?Bizarrely, he seems to be arguing that it was short-term thinking that increased investment

and that cutting=long-term thinking? #scipolicy

4:49 pm kieronflanagan:?he wants to do more with less but UK sci is probably most efficient in the world at turning a

small input into a large output? #scipolicy

4:49 pm kieronflanagan:?he wants to raise level of HE-business interactions, but the UK problem is not quantity but

*quality* of such interactions? #scipolicy

4:50 pm kieronflanagan:?he wants universities to exploit IP more intensively, but IP protection can/does inhibit wider

211 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 knowledge exchange with industry? #scipolicy
4:51 pm kieronflanagan:?he?s picked up the German-style tech centre idea from Hauser, but how could they work in a
university-led R&D system like ours? #scipolicy
4:51 pm kieronflanagan:Also, published speech makes no mention of extraordinary and potentially misleading 45%

claim that was widely quoted this AM... #scipolicy

4:53 pm kieronflanagan:I still suspect negative pre-speech spin was aimed more at media and wider public (& maybe the

Tories) than the science base... #scipolicy

4:55 pm kieronflanagan:So it's still too early to say whether ground is being prepared for big cuts or just making a little

austerity mood music... #scipolicy

4:56 pm kieronflanagan:@JonWTurney is right to say we?ve been here before. Cuts would not mean the death of UK

science. But they would mean the death... #scipolicy

4:56 pm kieronflanagan:?of UK science as we have known it these past ten years or so. That?s all. #scipolicy
5:00 pm imascientist:re Cable: It really is homeopathic sci policy! RT @kieronflanagan: ...he wants to do more with

less #scipolicy
5:04 pm helenatodd:RT @imascientist: re Cable: It really is homeopathic sci policy! RT @kieronflanagan: ...he wants

to do more with less #scipolicy

5:11 pm pigworker:Science cuts start with scientists who kvetch about science cuts on Twitter. #scipolicy After that,

cynics.
5:15 pm DrEvanHarris:My more detailed analysis of funding aspects of Cable speech posted
@Guardianscibloghttp://bit.ly/bRYLQt #scipolicy
5:35 pm joergheber:@DrEvanHarris nice blog post! do you think industry could also be recruited to lobby in favour

of science? #scipolicy #scicuts @pssalgado

5:40 pm jamespevans:VC wants to "back teams of international quality". Lowest funded (2*) from RAE is "Quality that

is recognised internationally" #scipolicy

6:19 pm TimesScience:Sir John Bell talks science cuts: an extended interview http://bit.ly/bipRWh (£)
#scivote #scipolicy
6:26 pm SciGrads:RT @RogerHighfield: My revised take on Cable's science
speech http://bit.ly/azi9u9 CaSEhttp://bit.ly/d7I65m and @markgfh http://bit.ly/b8KtT0 (£)
#scipolicy
6:33 pm SamHawkins:This morning, Business Secretary Vince Cable spoke of impending cuts to the UK science budget.

Transcript: http://is.gd/f16or #scipolicy

6:44 pm SamHawkins:Currently reading @DrEvanHarris' detailed analysis of the Cable
speech. http://is.gd/f1ezq #scipolicy
6:49 pm JonMButterworthAnother plug for a piece of #scicomm #scipolicy history, back when govt decided on UK
:
participation in #LHC (mid 90's). http://bit.ly/9u59qW
6:57 pm intemple:RT @DrEvanHarris: my analyses of what Cable did & didn't
say http://bit.ly/a4GB1c &http://bit.ly/bRYLQt #scipolicy #scicuts #stfc #rcuk
6:58 pm intemple:RT @NatureNews: Secretary general of Europe?s basic research agency resigns http://ff.im/-

qoURy #scipolicy
7:05 pm AlexConnor:In light or errant Cable speech, it will be interesting to hear what David Willetts says at UUK

tomorrow... http://bit.ly/9O1jUJ #scipolicy

7:18 pm AlexConnor:Re: entropy of research fields. AWE put a considerable amount of money into restarting the

(small) field of UK hydrodynamics . #scipolicy

7:23 pm sam_c:Let's hope there's still wiggle room. #scipolicy #scienceisvital
7:37 pm lorddrayson:It IS important the #scivote makes itself heard now. RT @RogerHighfield: re Cable's science
speechhttp://bit.ly/azi9u9 #scipolicy
7:37 pm kieronflanagan:Blimey, RCUK condemn Cable's 45% statement as misleading. http://bit.ly/9bDdXP /via

@AlexConnor @stevenhill #scipolicy #scivote #scicuts

7:44 pm stpkav:well done to #rcuk for putting this statement
out: http://tinyurl.com/3644ss5 #scipolicy #scivote
7:44 pm SamHawkins:'I'm sorry Mr Darwin but we cannot see any money-making potential in your proposed trip to

South America.' http://is.gd/f1j7w #scipolicy

7:51 pm dirkvl:RT @naturenews: RT @sciencecampaign: Vince Cable versus the World (on
science)http://bit.ly/dpZhAi #scivote #scipolicy
7:51 pm williamcb:RT @kieronflanagan: Blimey, RCUK condemn Cable's 45% statement as
212 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 misleading.http://bit.ly/9bDdXP /via @AlexConnor @stevenhill #scipolicy #scivote #scicuts
8:04 pm kieronflanagan:@WilliamCB I think he still has Chancellor-envy, he seemed happier commenting on
Diamond/Barclays than on science this A.M. #scipolicy
8:08 pm JonMButterworthIP and #scipolicy. If #CERN had patented the web we could buy as many colliders as we wanted.
:
Except no one would have adopted the web.
8:10 pm hywelowen:@jonmbutterworth The web has had no effect on my life or yours. As an old boss once said, 'the

Internet is just a fad.' #scipolicy

8:14 pm kieronflanagan:@jonmbutterworth BIS is packed full of clever ppl who know all this stuff inside-out. Possibly a

demand-side problem? #scipolicy

8:18 pm JonMButterworthFair comment. RT @kieronflanagan BIS [..] full of clever ppl who know all this stuff inside-out.
:
Possibly a demand-side problem? #scipolicy
8:19 pm stucun:If science has an obvious commercial use/return surely it would generally be done by industry -

or am I missing something #scipolicy

8:39 pm BIA_UK:PR: BIA challenges UK government to back world-class
innovation http://bit.ly/bXEuSh #scipolicy
9:52 pm derekshirlaw:Tough day for science in the UK. Visions of researchers leaving in droves to work in countries

that actually give a damn. #scipolicy

9:56 pm fionajl:RT @lorddrayson: RT @sciencecampaign: Vince Cable versus the World (on
science)http://bit.ly/dpZhAi #scivote #scipolicy
10:01 pm Paul_Crowther:More reports on Cable science cuts from FT http://bit.ly/a3GmVP (reg wall) & @TomChivers at

Telegraph blog http://bit.ly/aN8h6C #scipolicy

10:14 pm kieronflanagan:@joergheber I think Fraunhofer is brilliant! I just think, sadly, it'll be almost impossible to

replicate it in this country. #scipolicy

10:30 pm joergheber:@kieronflanagan this kind of forced cooperation with industry IMHO not possible in university

environment (well, let's see now) #scipolicy

2010/09/08 WTHT TRANSCRIPT: #SCICUTS

#scicuts wthashtag.com/scicuts

8:41 am maccalarena:Discussion on #scicuts shd incl creative, digital & IT says #TheFuse RT @bbceducation: Digital
subjects 'priority' call http://bbc.in/aEcx70
8:56 am adamnieman:@vincecable says: support only top-class 'blue skies' research. Trouble is you can only tell with

hindsight what's top-class. #scicuts

9:08 am joergheber:Had no mobile reception during Cable speech. But short on detail, only general observations. He

said still time for lobbying! #scicuts

9:09 am joergheber:He seems to acknowledge importance of science but in financial environment no way around

cuts. #scicuts
9:11 am joergheber:Cable: salami slicing funding doesn't help, nor prioritising research areas. Wants to focus on

excellence #scicuts
9:13 am joergheber:Cable also wants more technology transfer. @rogerhighfield pointed out this is all policy since

80s... #scicuts
9:13 am kieronflanagaRT @joergheber: Cable: salami slicing funding doesn't help, nor prioritising research areas. Wants
n:
to focus on excellence #scicuts
9:14 am drbillyo:@bobbybalmoral they only listen when it suits them. There'll be no public outcry to #scicuts so

it's an easy target. Very short-sighted.

9:15 am joergheber:Cable wants to attract world-class talent to UK. Others challenged him on immigration law, fact

213 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 other nations increasing sci budget #scicuts
9:16 am Simonleighuk:RT @joergheber: Cable wants to attract world-class talent to UK. Others challenged him on
immigration law, fact other nations increasing sci budget #scicuts
9:18 am joergheber:Seems he wants to push the funding cuts simply to RC, but also says (!!): important to have public

debate now! Still time to lobby #scicuts

9:19 am joergheber:Cable speech tried to hit positive tone, but implications remain depressing IMHO. The cuts will

come for sure. #scicuts

9:19 am Dr_Whatson:Only funding 'excellent' science. I thought we'd had already gone through that last year! #scicuts
9:19 am Simonleighuk:RT @joergheber: Seems he wants to push the funding cuts simply to RC, but also says (!!):

important to have public debate now! Still time to lobby #scicuts

9:22 am armadillos:RT @joergheber: Cable also wants more technology transfer. @rogerhighfield pointed out this is

all policy since 80s... #scicuts

9:22 am joergheber:..And there will be focus on "excellence". Not sure how to implement in way that is not arbitrary.

#scicuts
9:23 am Astronomer:If the UK will only fund 'excellent' science, then there will be no cut to the STFC budget at it is

currently all excellent science #scicuts

9:25 am joergheber:@pssalgado actually, Cable admitted that Oxbridge, Imperial et al could be the (relative) winners

of focus on excellence #scicuts

9:27 am joergheber:@imrantime important now will be the "screaming loudly in right direction" Cable suggested!

#scicuts
9:30 am joergheber:@pssalgado indeed. But implications for smaller universities could be far more severe. Agree will

be diffic to attract talent #scicuts

9:39 am joergheber:.@pssalgado @DrEvanHarris that's what Cable also suggested: "scream loudly in right direction"!!

Not too late yet! #scicuts

9:40 am telescoper:Not wishing to appear rude, it seems that Mr Cable doesn't know what he's talking about. I
wonder who wrote his speech for him? #scicuts
9:46 am tuckleyc:RT @telescoper: Not wishing to appear rude, it seems that Mr Cable doesn't know what he's

talking about. I wonder who wrote his speech for him? #scicuts
9:59 am alicebell:if I'd had 1day off in last 3weeks (+ many days in office till 10pm) I might've the energy to laugh at

all those "excellence" jokes #scicuts

10:10 am joergheber:Cable said he doesn't want researchers focussing all time on funding applicatns. I think they will

focus on their resumes instead. #scicuts

10:17 am AstroTek:Cutting UK sci budget wrong esp when other countries r incrsng budgets UK will loose out and

make it harder to climb out of rescesn #scicuts

10:19 am joergheber:BTW, I think proposed Fraunhofer-like institutes at interface of sci and industry good idea. But not
to replace existing research #scicuts
10:19 am AstroTek:UK sci budget should have been ringfenced and increased not cut - only worthwhile sector to

deliver growth!! #scicuts

10:19 am harryinashed:@joergheber Cable on R4: 45% of current grants r no good (!); BBSRC funds at 23%. Much more

time now needed for securing funding! #scicuts

10:23 am jaminthemiddlI'd like to rant about science funding, but the margin isn't big enough #scicuts
e:
10:26 am joergheber:@markgfh yes, when he started speech w/ underinvestment I thought it would turn out diff to
what he actually said. #scicuts
10:30 am alicebell:Galaxy Zoo FTW? Um... maybe not RT @mngreenall: Is govt hoping the Big Society will make up

for the shortfall in science research? #scicuts

10:30 am Mike_Banks:Vince Cable's son, Hugo Cable, is a quantum physicist based in... wait for it... Singapore #scicuts
10:45 am harryinashed:Spot the typo: "Greedy bonus-grabbing scientists need to pay for years of excess and playing fast

and loose with economy". #scicuts

10:54 am kejames:That, and getting the hell out of dodge. RT @joergheber ....I think they will focus on their resumes

instead. #scicuts
10:54 am franmagan:Given Vince Cable's science spending cuts, makes me wonder why I applied for ILR as we'll have

to move where science is valued. #scicuts

11:06 am kejames:This comparison of scientific legacy to empire is not only not very helpful but also in very poor

taste:http://j.mp/c95VK5 #scicuts

214 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
11:09 am mjdh:I haven't heard the @r4today piece (Grrr flash) but @drevanharris clears up some of the twitter
FUD about #scicuts http://bit.ly/9SrEsO
11:19 am leilasattary:RT @Mike_Banks: Vince Cable's son, Hugo Cable, is a quantum physicist based in... wait for it...

Singapore #scicuts
12:03 pm adamnieman:Ration blue-skies research by excellence - good idea! Also, why not let only 'excellent' toddlers

progress to primary school? #scicuts

12:32 pm Dr_Plinius:Yay for Lord May's answer to Vince's quite erroneous ideas on #scifunding #scicuts
12:49 pm Dr_Plinius:I always like Vince Cable's ideas on the economy & find his assessment usu frank & honest. But

he's way off the mark on #scicuts #scifunding

1:12 pm doug_burke:"Mr Cable may find he has a fight on his hands."
#damnwellhopeso #scicuts http://bbc.in/bh1L5z How will we get the next gen into science?
1:32 pm alokjha:One of the creators of #spoofjenks turns thoughts to
#spoofcable http://bit.ly/9P0h5J @jonmbutterworth@JennyRohn @Stephen_Curry #scicuts
1:44 pm Stephen_Curry@alokjha @jonmbutterworth @JennyRohn I wonder what Jenkins is making of this. Harvest of his
:
bad seeds? #spoofjenks #spoofcable #scicuts
1:44 pm girlinterruptin:it might just be sad @Stephen_Curry @jonmbutterworth #spoofcable less funny that

#spoofjenks IMHO :( @JennyRohn @alokjha #scicuts

1:45 pm sam_c:I'm feeling up to mediocre research this pm, so I'm calculating footprint of someone's nano-thing

using pen&paper. #moreforless #scicuts

1:48 pm xraymancouk:@sam_c #moreforless #scicuts See you understand how to cut costs. But really do you need a pen

and paper? I think you have blood? Stone? Ok!

1:53 pm JennyRohn:@SamAlsbury My old post 'Standing on the shoulders of midgets" is here! http://bit.ly/djIkZg And

definitely relevant to #scicuts

1:57 pm JennyRohn:@Stephen_Curry @alokjha @jonmbutterworth I suspect #scicuts is an inevitable experiment -

not looking forward to its results

1:57 pm sam_c:Damn it. Anyone know cosine of 109 deg? Otherwise I'll need calculator & I'm timesharing mine

w/ a theoretical chemist #moreforless #scicuts

1:58 pm BobOHara:@JennyRohn if the #scicuts are an experiment, they should be replicated. We can use Germany as

a control.
1:59 pm JennyRohn:Worth a revisit in light of #scicuts and Cable speech. Older post on how elite scientists need foot

soldiers http://bit.ly/djIkZg @alokjha

2:01 pm alokjha:@JennyRohn @jonmbutterworth Surely this is where scientists and science-fans unite to make

voices heard? To stop the worst of the #scicuts

2:09 pm JennyRohn:So who wants to march to protest #scicuts ? We can call ourselves #ScienceIsVital
2:12 pm randomcyclist:@edparsons A bit like uk #scicuts discussion sucking enthusiasm from uk science - except that
sucks in so many more ways
2:12 pm JennyRohn:Let's march! Can wear lab coats and threaten to revoke innovations like remote controls and

antibiotics. No to #scicuts #ScienceIsVital

2:13 pm dellybean:@JennyRohn count me in!! #scicuts #ScienceIsVital
2:14 pm joergheber:@alokjha @JennyRohn also, public support from industry might be very effective... #scicuts
2:15 pm silentypewriteRight on sista! RT @JennyRohn: Let's march! Can wear lab coats & threaten to revoke
r:
innovations. No to #scicuts #ScienceIsVital
2:22 pm imascientist:I vote we switch off gravity RT @JennyRohn: Let's march! Can wear lab coats and threaten to

revoke innovations... #scicuts #ScienceIsVital

2:26 pm JennyRohn:OK folks, I've set up a call-to-arms post here. http://bit.ly/bVwCGq Anyone want to march? Please
RT #ScienceIsVital No to #Scicuts
2:31 pm JennyRohn:@CameronNeylon Right, that's why my post suggests scientists *and their allies* march

togetherhttp://bit.ly/bVwCGq #ScienceIsVital #scicuts

2:42 pm OpheliaBottoIdeas/suggestions please, for things to be included in a short film "a world without british
m:
science"....please RT #scicuts #ScienceIsVital
2:43 pm kilburnmat:So @DrEvanHarris is using the 'Labour's cuts' line on the #scicuts rather than defending our

science economy. Hoped for better

3:09 pm JennyRohn:The story so far: #ScienceIsVital | a protest in London, date TBD, against UK #scicuts. Aggregation

here http://bit.ly/bVwCGq, FB coming

3:10 pm chem_showcaRT @JennyRohn: No to #Scicuts http://bit.ly/bVwCGq & http://bit.ly/bVwCGq March to show

215 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 se:your support for Science! #ScienceIsVital Please RT
3:15 pm londonscifest:Run for your life - the #scicuts are coming! http://tinyurl.com/3xozka3
3:17 pm adamnieman:"Rarely has a new arrival in the Whitehall jungle [@vincecable] gone native so quickly"

@telescoper:http://bit.ly/bxdOdb #scicuts
3:23 pm kejames:There's some really good British morbid humour coming through in the comments on @alokjha's

#scicuts piece: http://bit.ly/9Z3PFd

3:27 pm nfanget:RT @JennyRohn: OK folks, I've set up a call-to-arms post here. http://bit.ly/bVwCGq Anyone want

to march? Please RT #ScienceIsVital No to #Scicuts

3:28 pm heyarnold:RT @chem_showcase: RT @JennyRohn: No to
#Scicuts http://bit.ly/bVwCGq & http://bit.ly/bVwCGqMarch to show your support #ScienceIsVital
3:35 pm dh4gan:@STFC_Matters will you support the advocates of science and argue against dangerous financial

cuts? #scicuts #ScienceIsVital

4:03 pm londonscifest:The Lord has spoken... "Lord May calls some of Vince Cable's claims today "just plain stupid."" -

@ProfBrianCox #scicuts
4:07 pm mymacaroon:Am I alone in thinking #scicuts just about takes the #biscuit?
#foodforthought#dyslexicsoftheworlduntie!
4:11 pm nickmellish:Sad to see science join the arts and get screwed by the Government. Creativity and

Experimentation is beautiful, not wasteful. #art #scicuts

4:32 pm SkepticBarista:@ProfBrianCox Can this come from the same Govt who want #scicuts http://is.gd/f13l4
4:37 pm franknorman:Busy day: editing essays, weeding books and catching up with unravelling cables #scicuts
4:48 pm imascientist:RT @OpheliaBottom: Ideas/suggestions pls, things to be included in short film "a world without

british science"... #scicuts #ScienceIsVital

4:50 pm drpetra:RT @imascientist: RT @OpheliaBottom: Ideas/suggestions pls, things to be included in short film

"a world without british science"... #scicuts #ScienceIsVital

4:54 pm SamAlsbury:@DrEvanHarris @sciencecampaign you should read this "Standing on the shoulders of
midgets"http://bit.ly/djIkZg @JennyRohn #scicuts
5:09 pm grgirlinlondon:I created transcripts:
#scicuts http://wthashtag.com/Scicuts,#scivotehttp://wthashtag.com/Scivote,#scipolicy http://wt
hashtag.com/Scipolicy
5:32 pm akshatrathi:Someone show Vince Cable this: http://bit.ly/ddeaIk and ask him does he still need convincing?

#scivote #scicuts
5:33 pm sublimelatchuShould no longer be surprised by how backwards the UK elite is in it's priorities. #scicuts
p:
5:36 pm drbillyo:Calm down! Calm down! @DrEvanHarris does his best Scoucers impression to try and calm some
of the fears over #scicuts. http://bit.ly/bRYLQt
5:40 pm akshatrathi:Currently reading 'Public Spending by UK government department'
: http://scribd.com/doc/29479816#scivote #scicuts
5:43 pm dr_andy_russeRT @bnlawrence: In my experience NERC already can't fund all the excellent science appearing
ll:
after peer review. #scicuts #scivote Is environment important?
5:49 pm cathyby:@OpheliaBottom: "a world without british science"> the nazis win since no computers or radar?

#scicuts #ScienceIsVital
5:57 pm akshatrathi:In UK we worry abt sci funding. In China the govt is planning to double the no. of science comm

pplhttp://bit.ly/cuxyOg #scivote #scicuts

6:00 pm akshatrathi:In the UK, one in five published paper is never cited. http://bit.ly/bCtShf #scivote #scicuts
6:28 pm DrEvanHarris:@girlinterruptin Prob is Lab & Con decision to protect NHS. Once BIS cut raised from 14% to 25%

science cant be fully prot #scicuts #scivote

6:29 pm brook_88:This ---> "Once BIS cut raised from 14% to 25% science cant be fully prot #scicuts #scivote " (from

@DrEvanHarris)
6:30 pm brook_88:No-one has yet said how steep cuts are going to be, nor where. Still time to make difference on

this #scicuts #scivote

6:34 pm Simonleighuk:Yeah lets cut science funding but build a pointless rail link between Birmingham & London that

isn't needed, idiots! #coalitionfail #scicuts

6:37 pm Simonleighuk:I think thats enough ranting about #scicuts from me today, apologies to all non-sciencey followers

if I've ranted too much :os

6:40 pm flimsin:Excellent! RT @alokjha: One of the creators of #spoofjenks turns thoughts to

216 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 #spoofcablehttp://bit.ly/9P0h5J @jonmbutterworth #scicuts
6:50 pm cathyby:@OpheliaBottom: No British science: no Newton, no Darwin...wow. #scicuts #ScienceIsVital
6:50 pm kieronflanagaMy 2p-worth on *that* Cable speech translated into proper sentences (more or
n:
less):http://bit.ly/b5kzH9 #scipolicy #scivote #scicuts
6:50 pm kashfarooq:RT @xtaldave: [BLOGPIMP] "45% of grants were not of excellent standard": http://wp.me/pSvY2-

6a #scicuts #scipolicy #scivote

7:00 pm kejames:@davidheff Would you care to provide some examples of the "rubbish done at unis" please?

#scicuts
7:42 pm DrEvanHarris:Prize to 1st minister who, picking winners, also lists the proposed losers when funding cake

dividedhttp://bit.ly/b3eQY1 #scivote #scicuts

7:52 pm brook_88:Gd q. :D RT @gimpyblog @lorddrayson jst out of interest how would Labour have managed

budget cuts with respect to sci funding? #scicuts

8:21 pm m_windridge:#scicuts are rubbish! Looks like I won't get a research job after I finish IOP schools lectures as all

on recruitment freeze. Not just me...

8:42 pm armadillos:I'm such a geek...I really can hardly wait to see the shape of the science budget for the next few

years. #scicuts
8:42 pm armadillos:Not that I have a vested interest or anything... <cough> #scicuts
8:50 pm alicebell:Catching up with #scicuts analysis from @kieronflanagan http://bit.ly/bLnbqh,
@WilliamCBhttp://bit.ly/dgONeH & @cr_uk http://bit.ly/9yBm9S
8:56 pm alicebell:#scicuts people: remember @jackstilgoe's image of Cable's speech as 20 week scan (i.e. real

wailing & sleepless nights to come...)

9:02 pm defjaf:will watch "Mad Men" and ignore #scicuts for an hour.
9:17 pm pamblundell:disappointed not to have seen a rousing response from labour leadership candidates over

#scicuts@Ed_Miliband @edballsmp @DMiliband

9:19 pm pamblundell:@BevaniteEllie @wesstreeting @SallyBercow why no word from labour leadership candidates on
#scicuts?
9:20 pm Dr_Whatson:If CSR10 is as bad as feared, who's going to join me outside Downing street in a Guy Fawkes mask

and lab coat. #scicuts #scivote

9:22 pm Gelada:RT @akshatrathi: In UK we worry abt sci funding. In China the govt is planning to double the no.

of science comm ppl http://bit.ly/cuxyOg #scivote #scicuts

9:35 pm Gelada:Government forgets, social purpose of university is to keep smart, idealistic people from rocking

the boat. They have been warned. #scicuts

10:04 pm defjaf:... and no more than a mention of #scicuts on Newsnight.
10:50 pm alicebell:Screw you guys, I'm going to China http://bit.ly/cuxyOg (ht @silentypewriter) #scicuts

2010/09/08 WTHT TRANSCRIPT:

#SCIENCEISVITAL

#scienceisvital wthashtag.com/scienceisvital

2:37 pm mentalindigest:RT @JennyRohn: Call-to-arms post here. http://bit.ly/bVwCGq - Anyone know how to arrange a march?
Please RT #ScienceIsVital
2:49 pm OpheliaBottom:@mentalindigest #ScienceIsVital Organising a protest (by Liberty) http://bit.ly/8XQ5YJ
3:04 pm rpg7twit:@easternblot Of course, if people go around saying 'Oh it won't work', guess what? It won't.
#ScienceIsVital
3:04 pm JennyRohn:@CameronNeylon Great, I'd appreciate any and all suggestions of non-science
217 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 allieshttp://bit.ly/bVwCGq #scienceisvital
3:05 pm topperfalkon:@DrPetra May not be a scientist myself, but if I can make it, I'm in for it. #ScienceIsVital
3:22 pm rpg7twit:This. For #ScienceIsVital if nothing else. RT @martindave: Stop telling me that you care and start
showing me that you care.
3:23 pm DickMandrake:Right, for everyone concerned about cuts in science funding, the new hashtag is
#scienceisvital:http://bit.ly/bVwCGq
3:26 pm jessalyn:@ProfBrianCox I'd stand behind it. #ScienceIsVital
3:26 pm jfaulkner1:@ProfBrianCox i dont want to be an accountant! #ScienceIsVital
3:27 pm RichardWHBray:I am not a scientist, though I still firmly believe that #ScienceIsVital Even @aechase's science.
3:27 pm simnthrgd:#Scienceisvital
3:27 pm sitpcambridge:@ProfBrianCox Pls put all your weight behind a campaign like http://bit.ly/dD3CaA. It is the future of UK
science at stake! #ScienceIsVital
3:28 pm joshuaharrykaye:RT @ProfBrianCox If government do throw a hand grenade into UK science, we need to
organise.http://bit.ly/dD3CaA #ScienceIsVital
3:28 pm FlightLevel600:Vince Cable is a retard. Official. http://bit.ly/dD3CaA #ScienceIsVital
3:28 pm O_D_C:@ProfBrianCox I'm in. #ScienceIsVital
3:29 pm jessalyn:For all my physicist friends, comp sci friends, engineering friends, or if you're just pro-science. Help save
science! #ScienceIsVital
3:30 pm GoddardMark:The government needs to seriously readdress where it is making cuts! #scienceisvital
3:30 pm JudeNicho:It'd be a shame to go backwards at things we're good at. #ScienceisVital
3:30 pm dh4gan:Cutting science funding to protect the economy is like cutting off your genitals to fit into your favourite
jeans #ScienceIsVital
3:31 pm soolijoo:@ProfBrianCox I'm in. http://bit.ly/98Qh5L #ScienceIsVital
3:31 pm rac:@ProfBrianCox depressingly if you search scienceisvital on facebook you get thishttp://bit.ly/a9y92W
3:31 pm ritatojeiro:RT @dh4gan: Cutting science funding to protect the economy is like cutting off your genitals to fit into
your favourite jeans #ScienceIsVital
3:32 pm north5:We can't take the proposed UK science cuts lying down. @JennyRohn issues a call to
arms:http://bit.ly/bVwCGq #scienceisvital
3:32 pm KKOB:1% of worlds population. 8% of worlds scientific papers. 12% of worlds scientific citations. We already
do "more with less" #scienceisvital
3:33 pm wilko2205:never tweets, i know. but #ScienceIsVital, and vince cable is a bloody moron. how you doin' twitter?
3:34 pm DickMandrake:"Tell Vince Cable: science cuts are a bad idea" by @TomChivers http://bit.ly/aN8h6C #scienceisvital
3:34 pm CPT_Ed:#ScienceIsVital for our future and to conserve our bright prospects as a nation.
3:34 pm grant_hill:Does Vince Cable actually understand what he's saying? #ScienceIsVital
3:34 pm hesychast:I'm in for a march on London. #ScienceIsVital If only to see what a march of thousands of angry geeks
looks like. #et2Vince?
3:37 pm alex_m_jones:I'm really tempted to join the nerd revolution even though I'll be a maths student. I still believe
#scienceisvital
3:37 pm DickMandrake:HA HA YOU ALL DESERVE IT, you silly scientists! #spoofjenks #scienceisvital
3:37 pm Adamscholey:The government cannot seriously be thinking of slashing the science budget?!?! #ScienceIsVital
3:38 pm Chopper3:@ProfBrianCox Couldn't agree more #ScienceIsVital
3:39 pm Xarixian:I'm not a scientist, but believe it to be the backbone of our economy. How can we expect to progress
without all sciences? #ScienceIsVital
3:42 pm I_accusehistory:Fellow scientists, what are we to do about proposed gvmt cuts? http://bit.ly/dD3CaA #Scienceisvital
3:42 pm rac:Not if Vince Cable has anthing to do with it. Scientists close to
revolt.. http://bit.ly/dD3CaA#ScienceIsVital http://yfrog.com/5pdsbp
3:44 pm Crake88:"No more Doctor Nice Guy"http://blogs.nature.com/ue19877e8/2010/09/08/in-which-the-great-
slumbering-scientific-beast-awakens #scienceisvital
3:45 pm CPT_Ed:NHS should release new posters warning of sucking Tory cock #ScienceIsVital
3:45 pm hesychast:@JennyRohn Phd due Oct 8th & I've no experience of organising civil unrest but I am on board to help if
you need it #ScienceIsVital
3:46 pm BurntTurnip:The UK has 4 of the top ten universities in the world and our science underpins most of that. It's done
on 1.8% GDP funding. #ScienceisVital
3:47 pm JudeNicho:Cable's son is a scientist... in Singapore. Where the govt give science heaps of
money.http://bit.ly/azbkXR #ScienceisVital
3:49 pm custardonmynose:#scienceisvital let's take to the streets!
3:54 pm xraymancouk:#ScienceIsVital This is a new hastag for Uncle Vince Cable-tie to follow
3:55 pm jongailing:Science affects all of us. Do not cut science funding in the UK! #ScienceIsVital
3:55 pm memotypic:#scienceisvital I suppose this is the wrong time to ask what the point of Trident is?
3:59 pm xwatkins:@iwonarabbit @directoryofbunk @lollylisbeth In which the great slumbering scientific beast

218 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 awakenshttp://bit.ly/9RsLu0 #ScienceIsVital
4:00 pm joshpnaylor:cutting the science budget...bad call #idiotsincharge #Scienceisvital
4:06 pm JennyRohn:The aggregator blog is back online, I think we just stressed it temporarily due to high traffic.
March!http://bit.ly/bVwCGq #scienceisvital
4:07 pm polemikos:#ScienceIsVital That is all!
4:07 pm GreggSmith1:RT@PhysicsNews IoP reasserts importance of science funding for economic
growthhttp://goo.gl/fb/GevJm #physics #sci #scienceisvital
4:08 pm iwonarabbit:Seems to me cutting 25% science funding will have biggest impact on next gen of researchers looking to
set up on their own. #ScienceisVital
4:08 pm iwonarabbit:Funding will go to big established labs with many publications and those just setting out won't stand a
chance. #ScienceisVital
4:10 pm thomaswatling:A nice protest with mini nukes and amazing fireworks and explosions is just what the PM ordered
#ScienceIsVital visit: http://bit.ly/aC3xYR
4:13 pm gepasi:Countries that invest in science lead the world's economy. Those who do not are doomed to be
consumers/importers #scienceisvital
4:17 pm Mindset_Match:Oh I'm all over this, where and when? #ScienceIsVital
4:19 pm rebeckyburns:#ScienceIsVital
4:21 pm JennyRohn:If you can't leave comments on http://bit.ly/bVwCGq, just email me and I'll post them later when fixed
jenny[at]lablit.com #scienceisvital
4:24 pm irondanimal:So apparently the hashtag for @vincecable 's epic fail today is #scienceisvital
4:32 pm Jamessrsly:It seems the Government doesn't understand the importance of science to the economy!
#ScienceIsVital
4:34 pm wittyremarkhere:Hell yeah! I'll join a march in London. Even if, technically, I've already emigrated. RT
@JennyRohnhttp://bit.ly/dD3CaA #ScienceIsVital
5:01 pm Tomp1000:#scienceisvital 25% spending is benefits! Cut them and invest in the future of our economy!
5:16 pm WiseAndy:The superb IT expertise our country has will disapear unless computer science is funded properly. I'll
march, who's with me? #ScienceIsVital
5:26 pm brundrett:#ScienceIsVital
5:28 pm Whirlwindx:#ScienceIsVital Facebook group against Vince
Cable: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=136836469694780
5:42 pm angharadarahgna:You cannot say it more succinctly than #ScienceIsVital http://bit.ly/czaeyX
6:36 pm dellybean:Join us in the fight for science funding!! See my BLOGPOST for
details: http://bit.ly/cCBON6#ScienceIsVital
6:55 pm rpg7twit:Key: it is hard to measure the theoretical breakthroughs [let alone $] at the outset
@DrEvanHarrishttp://bit.ly/dcbkM5 #ScienceIsVital
6:57 pm rpg7twit:@DrEvanHarris do our elected representatives actually have any idea how *difficult* it already is to get
grant funding? #scienceisVital
7:05 pm rpg7twit:@brook_88 Sounds like he wouldn't be sympathetic to #ScienceIsVital though :/
7:18 pm pamblundell:@DrEvanHarris yr 2nd blog on cable's speech is good, thank u. wish u wld address dodgy claim that only
54% is excellent tho #scienceisvital
7:24 pm dellybean:Huh? RT @WilliamCB: gloom over VC's speech? Turns out he's only talking abt 2% cut in govt sci
spending.http://bit.ly/dgONeH #ScienceIsVital
7:29 pm KamounLab:#ScienceisVital Period.
7:31 pm JennyRohn:@imrantime Got it, thanks! looking forward to making some noise #ScienceIsVital
7:36 pm JennyRohn:Awesome! RT @dellybean: Ok people @JennyRohn has set up a call-to-arms to fight vs
#scicutsBLOGPOST http://bit.ly/cCBON6 #ScienceIsVital
7:42 pm jamie5on:Last 2 research grant applications I made have chances of success of 5% and 6%: I suggest that that is
selective enough. #ScienceIsVital
7:42 pm Bebejax:RT @lorddrayson: RT @KamounLab: #ScienceisVital Period. (Exactly. Couldnt put it better myself. Great
hashtag.)
7:46 pm evansde77:#scienceisvital
7:49 pm sarahkendrew:@JennyRohn you're officially an activist! would love to join if I'm in the country... #scienceisvital
7:54 pm 510cinema:We may not be in the field, but I think we can all agree #ScienceIsVital
7:56 pm GIRL_GEEKS:What is Vince Cable really saying about how to make science
cutbacks? http://gu.com/p/2jgqz/tw#ScienceIsVital #TechIsVital #UKBackOnTrack
8:09 pm luizcaztro:In which the great slumbering scientific beast awakens http://bit.ly/dD3CaA #ScienceIsVital
8:11 pm gepasi:RT @kieronflanagan Blimey, RCUK condemn Cable's 45% statement as
misleadinghttp://bit.ly/9bDdXP via @AlexConnor @stevenhill #ScienceIsVital
8:34 pm jonmoulton:@JennyRohn Well done! #ScienceIsVital http://bit.ly/dD3CaA
8:43 pm JennyRohn:@DrEvanHarris @imrantime @stephen_curry @dellybean FB page for London #ScienceIsVitalmarch

219 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 live, pls join, spread word http://bit.ly/98hbP8
8:46 pm BoraZ:In which the great slumbering scientific beast awakens - #ScienceIsVital http://bit.ly/9zGDrI
9:12 pm Long_Tailed_Tit:Passionate about science & nature as I am, I'm not really sure why people think they should be excluded
from cuts #scienceisvital
9:14 pm quantum_tunnel:RT @JennyRohn: Awesome! RT @dellybean: Ok people @JennyRohn has set up a call-to-arms to fight vs
#scicuts BLOGPOST http://bit.ly/cCBON6 #ScienceIsVital
9:17 pm DrEvanHarris:"Scientists must fight for funding" http://bit.ly/assqiM suggests march to Downing St so great to
seehttp://bit.ly/98hbP8 #scienceisvital
9:48 pm Whirlwindx:my take on Vince Cable's already infamous speech http://www.tomfooleryblog.com/2010/09/vince-
cable-is-wrong-on-science/ #scienceisvital
10:05 pm skepticmedic:@DrEvanHarris support your blog but do u get a sense tht non scientists realise how serious this is &
how it affects all #scienceisvital
10:06 pm skepticmedic:@DrEvanHarris ..surely someone should raise awareness that this is much more than scientists
protesting job cuts #scienceisvital
10:18 pm crispincooper:If you have problems with the direction of #scicuts then don't just tweet about
it,http://www.writetothem.com/ #scivote #ScienceIsVital
10:20 pm helenyvonne:I wish that it was as obvious to the government as it is to most of us that #scienceisvital
10:24 pm GozdeZorlu:I've joined. Have you? RT Join FB group & march to support UK science
funding http://bit.ly/98hbP8#ScienceIsVital (you go @JennyRohn!)
10:32 pm crispincooper:@vincecable is on twitter but his account has been inactive since May 5th so anyone wishing to tell him
#scienceisvital should email of post
10:49 pm carmenego:Dear Vince Cable, don't be a dick. Yours sincerely [your name here] x x x #Scienceisvital
10:51 pm PeteOnTheA419:Shame on Cable. Misleading figures in announcement. Research Councils answer back
herehttp://www.rcuk.ac.uk/news/100908 #ScienceIsVital

2010/09/08 GUARDIAN CIF: IS VINCE CABLE

ABOUT TO END BRITAIN'S RESEARCH EMPIRE?
The UK is matched only by the US in the comprehensiveness of its scholarly research capability. A historic
retreat looms

William Cullerne Bown

Vince Cable, the business secretary, is due to deliver a major

speech on research on Wednesday. Photograph: Antonio Lacerda/EPA

In 1960, Harold Macmillan announced the abandonment of Britain's colonial aspirations with his
famous "wind of change" speech. The empire had become too expensive, it was time to withdraw. This
Wednesday, Vince Cable is poised to signal an equally historic retreat, this time from the empire of
knowledge.

220 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Britain has an unusually comprehensive capability across all the disciplines of scholarly research. Only the
US can match our diversity of expertise. Everywhere else has concentrated on disciplines directly relevant
to their commercial ecosystem. Germany is famously strong in engineering, Japan spectacularly weak in
the social sciences.

Our expertise resides largely in our universities and has been irrigated for decades by increasing funding
for research under both Conservative and Labour governments. The water of funding has allowed
academics to spend time exploring the frontiers of knowledge, maintaining British outposts in many far-
flung realms. Now the Treasury is considering cuts of 35% in research funding, turning off the tap to many
fields. If that happens, expertise will rapidly wither, and our empire will fragment.

To understand the coming drought, consider just one of the government's two main channels of funding
for academic researchers, the quality-related (QR) fund provided by the Higher Education Funding Council
for England(Hefce). Hefce's QR budget is over £1.6bn a year. In recent years it has ringfenced the part of
QR given to science and engineering disciplines. So when funding has been squeezed, it has been the social
sciences and humanities that have borne all the cuts. If that policy is maintained in the face of cuts of 35%,
there will be virtually no money left for the humanities or social sciences. Huge swathes of scholarship will
lose half their irrigation. Many outposts will be abandoned. It will not be a case simply of trimming here
and there.

Fear of such devastation is why learned societies, usually the most cordial of allies, have started attacking
each other's turf. The Royal Academy of Engineering, for example, has recently advised ministers to
make cuts in physics.

So as Vince Cable comes to make his first major speech on research on Wednesday, the stakes are high. It
is of course inconceivable that the business secretary will say anything as frank as that he wants us to
abandon much of our empire of knowledge. But then, Macmillan was also diplomatic in his language.

In his speech, the strongest Macmillan came up with was: "The wind of change is blowing through this
continent, and whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must
all accept it as a fact, and our national policies must take account of it."

On Wednesday, it is quite possible that the heart of Cable's speech will be something similar – perhaps:
"The need to reduce the budget deficit is pressing, and whether we like it or not, the cuts required are a
political fact. We must all accept it as a fact, and our policies on science and research must take account of
it."

If so, then we will know the battles with the Treasury are over, deep cuts are coming, and that Britain has
finally given up trying to maintain expertise across the entire empire of knowledge. The chill wind of
history will have arrived. And the only question left will be which outposts to abandon first.

2010/09/08 GUARDIAN NEWS: VINCE CABLE

WILL TELL SCIENTISTS THEY MUST PAY THEIR WAY
Business secretary Vince Cable will say in a speech today that there's no justification for spending money
on research that is 'neither commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding'

Alok Jha

221 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 Vince Cable will promise to 'screen out mediocrity' in his first major
speech on science. Photograph: Antonio Lacerda/EPA

British scientists must improve their links with industry and earn more from the patenting and licensing of
their discoveries, business secretary Vince Cable will say in his first major speech on science and research
today.

Outlining the coalition government's vision for science and research, Cable will call for scientists to
abandon work that is "neither commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding" as part of the UK's
austerity drive.

The speech, Cable's first major address on science, comes at a critical time in the decision-making process
for the government's comprehensive spending review (CSR). All government departments have been asked
to prepare for deep cuts of 25% or more in their budgets.

Scientists have warned that if such cuts are made to the UK's science infrastructure they would have
devastating long-term effects, forcing the country out of the premier league in many fields of research.
They believe deep cuts would entail the loss of significant numbers of postgraduate and postdoctoral
researchers, leading to a lost generation of scientists and engineers and draining innovation from the
economy.

Cable's speech is seen as an indicator of what scientists can expect in the CSR.

"I support, of course, top class 'blue skies' research," Cable will say at the Queen Mary BioEnterprises
Innovation Centre in London. "The big scientific ideas that changed the world were often far removed from
practical, let alone commercial, applications ... but there is no justification for taxpayers' money being used
to support research which is neither commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding. My preference is to
ration research funding by excellence. We back researchers and research teams of international quality
regardless of where they are and what they do, and screen out mediocrity."

Part of Cable's plans includes the introduction of a network of technology and innovation centres, based on
the model of the Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany. "I am looking closely at how and how quickly we can
roll out such a programme. It is not a case of ditching scientific research that doesn't offer an immediate
economic benefit. But I do think we need to do more to ensure that we reap the benefits of research."

The government distributed £3.5bn to researchers through the science budget in 2007-08. Under a 25%
cut, that could drop to £2.6bn, with savings coming from fewer grants for researchers, a reduction in PhDs
and big cuts to infrastructure.

Imran Khan, director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, welcomed Cable's commitment to blue-
skies research, though he warned that ministers must realise they are not best-qualified to judge what
scientific work is most deserving of cash.

And he criticised the government's seeming lack of ambition for science. "We live in one of the most
exciting scientific eras humanity has seen. We want to hear Cable set out an inspirational vision that goes
beyond prioritisation and networks," he said.

222 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
"The science and business community is here to help plan for the future, but we need the government to
demonstrate intent. They must show that they are committed to inspiring the scientists and engineers of
tomorrow, to keeping the UK's reputation as a scientific pioneer, and to reshaping our economy into one
that rewards knowledge and creation."

Cable will also highlight the need to find new ways of turning research into innovation, arguing that
scientists have a strong record in this area but could do more to build links with the business community,
create more spin-out companies and attract overseas investors to the UK. "Universities make only 5% of
their externally earned income from patents and licensing. More needs to be done."

John Womersley, director of science programmes at the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC),
recently told the Guardian it would be impossible to achieve deep cuts in the funding for space, astronomy
and particle physics without mothballing a major facility such as the £383m Diamond Light Source, which
opened only three years ago, and the £145m Isis neutron source, both in Oxfordshire. The scale of
proposed cuts may also jeopardise Britain's involvement in Cern, the Geneva-based home of the Large
Hadron Collider high-energy particle physics project.

Diamond and Isis, which cost £28m and £35m a year to run respectively, contain machines that act as giant
microscopes to allow scientists to examine the inner structure and behaviour of proteins and atoms in real
time and three dimensions.

Cable will say today that he and colleagues in the Treasury value UK science and that investment in
research is a "critical part" of the country's future economic growth. "There is a school of thought which
says that government commitment to science and technology is measured by how much money it spends.
Money is important both for the quantity and quality. But it is an input, not an output, measure. We could
do more for less. It would be wrong to measure only how much money is invested in scientific research as
a mark of our commitment."

2010/09/08 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOGS EVAN:

SCIENCE SPENDING CUTS: HOW SHOULD WE JUDGE
VINCE CABLE?

Reductions in science spending may be inevitable, but business secretary Vince Cable must protect
research spending from the severest cuts to his department's budget

223 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 Vince Cable has denied that cuts in
science spending will be as much as 35%. Photograph: Daniel Deme/EPA

On the Today programme at 0750 this morning the business secretaryVince Cable was asked about
suggested spending cuts of 35% to science spending. In a rare – and perhaps unplanned – exception to the
rule of ministers not commenting on specific quanta of cuts ahead of October's spending review
announcement, Cable rejected that figure explicitly saying "No, that's not right, that is way in excess of
what we are talking about."

It is not clear where that 35% figure came from. William Cullerne Bown of the science periodical Research
Fortnight mentioned it in his Guardian comment piece yesterday, but the only reference he gives is to
an earlier personal blog of his which does not mention any figure let alone 35%. Such an approach to
figures would be condemned by Research Fortnight, so it may be that Mr Bown is being used by the
Government to lower expectations so that the final figures are not seen as too bad.

The figures that we do know (subject to assumptions such as an announced cut in welfare spending of
£11bn) are that to tackle the structural deficit in this parliament, there would need to be average cuts of
14% in government departments over five years. The protection of the NHS against any cuts means other
departments like the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) need to make savings of 25%.
This in itself will rile LibDems in government like Cable and Treasury chief secretary Danny Alexander, who
were opposed to ring-fencing the NHS in this way because of the gearing effect on other government
programmes.

Any relative protection given to defence and education (say, restricting cuts to 10%) would require cuts in
departments such as BIS of 33%.

The coalition government is not responsible for the need to make cuts, and a Labour government –
whatever the leadership candidates now say – would have had to deal with the deficit on a broadly similar
scale, perhaps with a 70/30% split between spending cuts and tax rises compared with the 77/23% split of
the coalition (itself different from the 80/20 pure Tory position). The cuts may also have been dragged out
over a longer period.

Lord Drayson, Labour's former science minister, broke a long Twitter silence on science matters this
morning to say that he was shocked by Vince Cable announcing major cuts to science budget on Radio
Four. This is curious because the one thing that Cable did not do this morning on the radio or in his speech
was announce major cuts. The mere acknowledgement that science spending will be hit in some way by
the fiscal crisis should not shock anyone. Disappoint? Yes. Depress? Yes. Surprise? No.

224 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
The government is however responsible for deciding where those cuts fall the hardest and the success of
the efforts of Cable and his deputy David Willetts should be judged on whether he is seen to seek to
present the best arguments to the Treasury for maintaining science investment, and – given the scale of
BIS cuts that follow – whether there is a relative protection for science within his department.

The next question is exactly how spending cuts will be implemented and what the government should, can
and will do to influence that, which Cable dealt with in his speech today and which will benefit from close
reading.

2010/09/08 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOGS

BUTTERWORTH: CONDUCTING CABLE

It is depressing is how soon after arriving in Whitehall ministers seem to pick up the traditional line on
science funding

Minister: Ok, so I'm a bit new to this stuff. Why do we fund science?
Usual suspect 1: Erm ... I always forget this bit.
Usual suspect 2: It's an investment. It makes more money for the economy than it
costs, by a huge factor. Plus the kids love it.
Minister: Oh, right. Well, we need to make more money, don't we? Maybe we
shouldn't cut it? In fact maybe we'll get out of this mess quicker if we spend a bit
more money here?
All: Fall about laughing.
US1: Very droll minister. It is traditional to criticise scientists for not being
entrepreneurs, then redirect research money into some innovation centres or
something to subsidise industry. We could call them "campuses" or something.
US2: I believe we used that already?
US1: Ah. Well, then. We often point out that some of the science we fund is below
the national average excellence.
Minister: Oh well, we clearly should only fund excellence. It is inexcusable surely
that we are funding anything that is below average?
US2: Quite right minister. We should only fund the top half I would say. We should
monitor it annually and if any of it is below the top half we should cut it.
US1: Also, some research comes up with negative results. We shouldn't fund that
stuff.
Minister: Excellent, excellent. Well, that's a start. But I don't want to salami slice.
US2: Indeed minister. We prefer to use this axe ...
(To be repeated once every five years or so until the lights go out.)
225 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 2010/09/08 GUARDIAN SCIENCE NEWS: VINCE
CABLE'S SCIENCE CUTS UNDER FIRE NEWS
Scientist line up to condemn government budgets cuts, thought to be as high as 25%

Alok Jha

A human embryo clone used in stem cell research at Newcastle. The UK is a

world leader in this field. Photograph: Nicola Mcintosh/Life Science Centre

Scientists lined up today to criticise the coalition government's proposals to cut public funds for research,
calling the ideas "sad" and "depressing".

In his first major speech on science and research, business secretaryVince Cable called for scientists
to build links with industry, commercialise more research and abandon work that was "neither
commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding" as part of the UK's austerity drive. The speech comes at
a critical time in the decision-making process for the government's comprehensive spending review (CSR)
and is being seen by many in the scientific community as foreshadowing major cuts of 25% or more in
some research areas.

"Science, research and innovation are vital to this country's future economic growth," Cable said. "But we
have to operate in a financially constrained environment."

He said the "lazy, traditional way to make spending cuts is to shave a bit of everything: salami slicing. This
produces less for less: a shrinkage of quantity and quality – I have no intention of going there".

Instead, he proposed identifying and building up areas where the UK was a world leader, including stem
cells and regenerative medicine, plastic electronics, satellite communications, fuel cells, advanced
manufacturing and composite materials. In the last Research Assessment Exercise, he said, 54% of work in
UK universities was defined as world-class and this was the area where funding should be concentrated in
future.

Cable also stressed the importance of international collaboration, though he recognised the potential
conflict with the government's wider proposal toplace a cap on immigration. "On the immigration cap, I've
already expressed concerns for activities like big international companies and also the scientific
community, where the movement of people is an essential part of the way they operate," he said. "I
understand that universities do need people to come and go. This is an international community and the
immigration system has got to reflect that, otherwise it'll cause a lot of damage."

Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, pointed out that science was an enterprise in which the UK
was strong. "Other nations, including the US, are raising their expenditure at the same time as our
government plans to cut ours. This will make the UK less attractive to mobile talent. And it risks sending a
signal to young people that the UK is no longer a country that aspires to scientific leadership. A cut by x%
would lead to a decline of much more than x% in top-grade scientific output. It is sad that this government
appears willing to risk one of the few areas where the UK has a genuine competitive economic advantage –
226 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
one which, when lost, could not be readily recovered. The question should not be can we afford the
investment – it should be can we afford the cuts."

Imran Khan, the director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, said: "It's depressing that in one of
the most exciting scientific eras humanity has ever seen, Vince Cable had nothing exciting or inspiring to
say about government policy in this area. Direct investment in science and engineering pays huge
dividends, and makes up less than 1% of total public spending. The government has yet to demonstrate
that they have either a vision or a plan for how to make the most of the extraordinary scientific legacy they
have inherited."

In his speech, Cable said he supported the idea of blue-skies research, but argued that was no justification
for taxpayers' money being used to support work which was "neither commercially useful nor theoretically
outstanding". Bob May, the former government chief scientific adviser and president of the Royal Society,
dismissed the claim to ration funding in this way as "just plain stupid".

Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, said that the scale of the UK's public investment in science and its
universities was what made Britain punch well above its technological, economic and political weight in
global affairs. "Any contraction in the UK's science and higher education budgets will signal a narrowing of
this country's vision for its role in the world, a withdrawal from its current international leadership role in
science. Our universities are second only to the US in terms of their contribution to knowledge creation
and innovation. A reduction in the government's investment in science will damage our ability to shape our
national and international futures. It would be a cut too far."

Khan added: "At a time when politicians should be looking to science and engineering to help rebalance
the economy, they are instead focusing on erecting barriers to scientific collaboration by capping
immigration, and damaging our reputation as a global research hub by cutting investment – just as our
competitors are increasing theirs."

There were also some words of welcome. Richard Barker, director general of the Association of the British
Pharmaceutical Industry, said he welcomed some key aspects of the speech, particularly the focus on
international collaborations and links with industry. "The life sciences represent one of Britain's best hopes
for turning excellent research into economic growth."

2010/09/08 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOGS EVAN:

WHAT IS VINCE CABLE REALLY SAYING ABOUT
HOW TO MAKE SCIENCE CUTBACKS?

Vince Cable's speech today requires close analysis to see how any science cuts might be administered

227 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 Vince Cable said today of science funding: 'The question I have to
address is can we achieve more with less?' Photograph: Nils Jorgensen /Rex Features

The blogosphere is abuzz with scientists complaining about the huge cuts that were said to be announced
today. But the science community needs to look closely at what was actually said and urgently respond to
ministers in those areas where the government appears to be getting it wrong.

SCALE OF SPENDING CUTS

Vince Cable's speech today said very little about the size of spending cuts but he did say:
"As a consequence [of the massive inherited budget deficit],we face the tightest spending round since post-
War demobilisation. My department is the largest department in Whitehall without a protected budget and
science, alongside further education and higher education, is one of its largest components. We know that
the Labour government was planning deep cuts of 20-25% in the budget of that department. Economies on
this scale are clearly a very major challenge."
My post this morning dealt with the possible scale of cuts in science spending that will emerge from the
spending review. No figures have been announced but Cable said on the Today programme that talk of
anything like 35% has been ruled out.

THE ECONOMIC CASE FOR SCIENCE INVESTMENT

The first three paragraphs of the speech stress the importance of science R&D for rebalancing the
economy:
"Over the next few weeks and months, major decisions will be made on government spending priorities as
part of a wider move to stabilise the country's finances and rebalance the economy. They will help to define
what we value as a nation and the direction in which we want to head. Investing in science and research is
a critical part of that. I cannot prejudge the outcome but I know that my colleagues, including at the
Treasury, value the contribution of UK science.

"I have been arguing for years my concern over the way the British economy was distorted. Money
borrowed for property speculation rather than productive investment and innovation. Too many top
performing graduates heading straight for high finance rather than science and engineering.

"It was clear to me and my colleagues that the British economy was becoming increasingly unbalanced in
the short term, as the mountain of household debt built up. We were also unprepared for a long-term future
where we need to earn our living in the world through high-tech, high-skills and innovation."

He goes on to say:

"There is a lot of evidence of the connection between innovation and economic performance. The 2010
OECD innovation report ... concluded that "governments must continue to invest in future sources of
growth, such as education, infrastructure and research. Cutting back public investment in support of
innovation may provide short-term fiscal relief, but will damage the foundations of long-term growth.

"Some countries are acting on that advice. The US is doubling basic science spend between 2006 and
2016. China has seen a 25% increase in central government funds to the science and technology sector. In
Sweden, central government funds for R&D will increase by over 10% between 2009 and 2012. And in
2009, Germany announced it was injecting €18 billion into research and higher education during the
coming decade."

This section of the speech endorses leading members of the science community who, having met with
David Willetts and Cable, seem confident that the evidence of the economic benefit of science investment
228 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
has been rammed down the throats of Treasury colleagues by ministers and officials at the Department for
Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). An assertive approach is necessary given the absence from the
Treasury, alone of government departments, of a chief scientific adviser. It remains to be seen whether the
Treasury accepts the corollary: that deep cuts to science spending are counterproductive, something it
does accept when it comes to so-called "punitive" taxation, which serves only to lower tax receipts as a
result of avoidance measures.
The Treasury may have retorted with the line in the speech, following those international comparisons,
where Cable says:

"We in the UK are severely financially constrained."

But so are some of those countries he mentioned, and while we may be more constrained, that might be an
argument for smaller increases in investment. It does not suggest that we must cut while some others are
investing more.

"OUTPUTS NOT INPUTS" ... "MORE FROM LESS"

"There is a school of thought which says that government commitment to science and technology is
measured by how much money we spend. Money is important both for the quality and quantity. But it is an
input, not an output, measure."

The "outputs not inputs" line is not new. Politicians tend to brag about inputs when increasing them (eg.
NHS spending) and urge consideration of outputs when cutting inputs.

"The question I have to address is can we achieve more with less?"

To believe it is possible to get more good science from less funding is the political equivalent of a
belief in cold fusion: an aspiration not supported by logic or reproducibility. Because of the way scientific
funds are already allocated, as I set out below, there is very little room to identify wastage. It is far more
likely that we would end up doing less for less. Even in an ideal world, if "useless" projects are identified,
predicted and defunded, all you can get is the same from less, not more.
The real question is one for the government to address. Is there any evidence from anywhere that can be
cited showing any changes to current funding allocations could reliably generate "more" from less? Even
then it is not clear what the "more" is.

IS THERE LIKELY TO BE UNDUE INTERFERENCE FROM GOVERNMENT IN SPENDING ALLOCATIONS?

"In deciding priorities, there is a limit to how much I can dictate the course of events. Nor do I wish to.
Research priorities and technical priorities are set at arm's length from government, and through peer
review. That is right. Yet the government spends £6bn a year supporting science and research and it is
right that I should speak about strategic priorities."

This is entirely reasonable - it is public money. Government and parliament have a right to decide where
broadly it is spent. This is not a breach of the Haldane Principle, although it is essential that any
government directions to research councils are explicit and public, which was not the case with the last
government in the STFC affair as the Science and Technology Select Committee has commented.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF ECONOMIC IMPACT?

Cable describes this as:

" ... a central question for the future of science and research in this country."

He goes on to defend "blue skies research" and reject a policy divide between pure and applied research:

"I fully accept that scientific enquiry, like the arts, has its own intrinsic merit. It is a public good. It helps to
define the quality of our civilisation, and embeds logical scientific thinking into the decision-making of
government, businesses and households. Superstition and irrational prejudice about the natural world are
rarely far from the surface and scientists help inoculate society against them.

229 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
"The big scientific ideas that changed the world were often far removed from practical, let alone
commercial, applications. Lord Sainsbury in his 2007 report described a high correlation between
successful commercial spin-offs and high-quality fundamental research.

"So I regard the old debate about common room versus board room as tiresome and unproductive. We
need a wide spectrum of research activity."

ACROSS-THE-BOARD CUTS - SALAMI-SLICING?

Rightly, he rejects this:

"The lazy, traditional way to make spending cuts is to shave a bit off everything: salami slicing. This
produces less for less: a shrinkage of quantity and quality – I have no intention of going there."

PICKING WINNERS?
He is attracted by this but says that it should not be done by politicans (he might have added civil servants):

"Another approach superficially more attractive would be to specialise, to say there are certain branches of
science and technology that we should do or not do. My response to this is two-fold.

"First, we should not politicise choices of this kind. Treasury and BIS ministers and officials, working under
pressures of time as well as money, are not the people who should be making arbitrary, far-reaching
decisions such as whether Britain should or should not 'do' nanotechnology or space research.

"Moreover, many of the suggested choices are not choices at all ... innovation depends on lateral thinking
between apparently different disciplines."

But he goes on to say:

"There is however a strong case for identifying broad problems. For example, the challenges thrown up by
an ageing population - the increased prevalence of Alzheimer's for example - need people working across
biology, medicine, biochemistry and the social sciences in order to better address needs. So too for
environmental challenges, such as providing clean water or alternative energy sources, pooling different
disciplines to get a better understanding of low carbon."

And also:

"There is also a case for identifying and building up the areas where the UK truly is a world leader. This
includes stem cells and regenerative medicine, plastic electronics, satellite communications, fuel cells,
advanced manufacturing, composite materials and many more."

This approach is fraught with dangers – not just picking badly, but being unwilling to disinvest in political
winners which look like being losers.
And I will award a prize to the first minister who – along with listing the winners – lists the proposed
losers in discussions about sharing out the cake.
In any event, without developing further the point about picking strong areas, he moves on to what appears
to be the most controversial section of the speech.

SCREENING OUT MEDIOCRITY ... ONLY FUNDING THE COMMERCIALLY USEFUL OR THEORETICALLY
OUTSTANDING
"My preference is to ration research funding by excellence and back research teams of international quality
– and screen out mediocrity – regardless of where they are and what they do.

"It is worth noting in the last RAE [Research Assessment Exercise] 54 per cent of submitted work was
defined as world class and that is the area where funding should be concentrated.
"There is a separate but critically important question of how we maximise the contribution of government-
supported research to wealth creation. I support, of course, top class 'blue skies' research, but there is no

230 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
justification for taxpayers' money being used to support research which is neither commercially useful nor
theoretically outstanding."

Dr Cable at least recognises that "rationing of this kind presents problems".

He asks:

"How do we allow room for new, unknown but bright people? How do we reduce, not increase, the time
spent on applying for funding in a more competitive market?"

Those are the least of it. It is simply not possible to apply a retrospective analysis of university activity, the
RAE – which is controversial enough in its metrics and allocation formula – to response mode funding of
research council allocations. In such applications, where low success rates mean that many excellent or
outstanding proposals are rejected anyway, what is most important is the proposed research rather than a
judgment about the historic departmental record.

So unhappy has been the experience of the RAE that it was switched to a new approach (the Research
Excellence Framework, REF) which was in turn delayed by the coalition government as a result of
concerns about how economic benefit is measured.
The sentence that there is "no justification for taxpayers' money being used to support research which is
neither commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding" is highly controversial and, ironically, hard to
justify.

This is because it is hard to measure the theoretical breakthroughs let alone the commercial utility at the
outset, and secondly because – as Cable says elsewhere in his speech – there is a false dichotomy
between the theoretical and the commercial. In any event, the peer review system for all its faults certainly
already does "screen out mediocrity".

WHAT NOW?
Whatever the scale of the cuts is to be – and scientists are very worriedabout this – government policy on
allocation needs to be more carefully thought out than currently appears to be the case. Otherwise salami-
slicing will start to look relatively appealing.
The skills sector, further education and universities are all facing cuts in their BIS funding and they are
doubtless at the door of the department on a daily basis. I have already urged the science community to
fight for its funding, and that means engaging in debate with ministers on the key issues. We have a good
argument to make.

Comments in chronological order (Total 10 comments)

Dave666
8 September 2010 6:48PM
Government needs to remember that science is at the edge and that breakthroughs are usually vehemently ignored or
decried by academia.
alexgmcm
8 September 2010 6:51PM
I get worried when it seems like entire areas are going to be cut. I mean, rather predictably, the Royal Academy of
Engineers proposed cuts in Physics as the pre-emptive battle over the crumbs commenced. But it is said in This
Guardian Article that the Diamond light source may be at risk.
Clearly closing Diamond would be a spectacular waste as it is truly a world-leading facility and has only recently been
opened. However, as with ISIS, although Diamond may appear to be a physics facility it aids research in fields as
diverse as molecular biology, archaeology and materials science. Cutting back on research and facilities in Physics
(surely one of the most fundamental of the sciences) will have effects on the entire research base in all subjects.
Unless we are extremely careful about what is cut and carefully weigh up all the consequences we could end up doing
far less for less. Furthermore, the cuts to research councils threaten to turn the sadly familiar brain drain into a
wholesale exodus - I only hope we do not lose another generation of UK scientists as we did under the Thatcher cuts.
Mbrook
8 September 2010 7:45PM
I think what Evan is trying to get at.. is MAKE an argument. Contact your MP and tell them it's a worry... if you work in
science in some form, get them to contact someone in government.
We should be making the arguments and contacting minsiters- explaining the flaws in the thought processes. Not just
sitting on the sidelines and waiting to hear how much money is being allocated to science.

231 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 AlokJha
8 September 2010 8:02PM
@Mbrook Well said. Sitting on the sidelines will never make a difference. Some folk are already trying to get a plan
together here:http://blogs.nature.com/ue19877e8/2010/09/08/in-which-the-great-slumbering-scientific-beast-awakens
kieronflanagan
8 September 2010 8:16PM
Dr Evan Harris is right to say that Dr Cable‟s speech merits close reading. And on close reading the speech says
some genuinely strange things. Dr Cable seems to be suggesting that it was short-term thinking that increased
investment in the UK science base over the past ten years and that, in contrast, cutting back on investment is
evidence of the Coalition government‟s long-term thinking. Dr Cable says he wants to do more with less but the UK
research base is arguably the most efficient in the world at turning inputs (principally money) into output (papers,
citations, spin-offs, world-class human capital etc.).
Dr Cable also says he wants to raise level of university-business interactions, but the overwhelming consensus is that
our problem in the UK is not one of quantity: the true problem is in the quality of such interactions. Dr Cable wants
universities to exploit IP more intensively. But companies say that aggressive IP strategies are a barrier to the kind of
longer-term and continuous interaction which is most likely to lead to significant knowledge exchange.

Dr Cable has also picked up the Fraunhofer institute–like applied „technology centre‟ idea from Hauser and
Mandelson. However, it is very unclear how Fraunhofer type institutions could work in a university-dominated research
system like ours, not to say a research culture in which curiosity-driven research is held to have such high status
relative to applied research. It should also be noted that many other European countries have extensive networks of
gleaming technology centres with very little evidence that they play any significant economic role.
The speech does not contain the widely-quoted and highly misleading comment from Cable‟s R4 Today programme
interview this morning that up to 45% of all research council grants are going to research that is not “excellent”. In
reality the UK system for allocating funding for „basic‟ research is already highly selective, with funding concentrated
on elite research groups (and therefore, overwhelmingly in elite institutions). There is some scope to tinker further with
this system – e.g. by restricting the present freedom universities have in how they spend any block research funding
they receive, and by introducing qualification criteria for research council applications – but it is disingenuous of Dr
Cable to suggest that significant cuts can be introduced with no active political prioritisation of research areas.
I suspect that the highly negative pre-speech spin was aimed much more at the media and wider public (and maybe
even the Conservative Party or its spin doctors) than it was at the science base. In short, it's still too early to say
whether ground is being prepared for big cuts or whether today‟s shenanigans should just be seen as more of the
same austerity mood music. On Twitter today @JonWTurney said that we‟ve been here before, with the Thatcher cuts
of the 1980s, and UK science survived. Even cuts of the size being discussed today would not mean the death of UK
science. But they would mean the death of UK science as we have known it these past ten years or so.
I've posted a longer version of these comments at:http://flanagan.tm.mbs.ac.uk/2010/09/08/vince_cable-on-science-
cut/
Loredan
8 September 2010 8:53PM
Why does it not clearly state that Dr Evan Harris was a Liberal Democrat MP until he was narrowly defeated by a
Conservative in May. Does this not count as a sufficient qualifier of his views to warrant mention, or are we expected
to recall this for ourselves.
AussieHedgehog
8 September 2010 9:04PM
The sentence that there is "no justification for taxpayers' money being used to support research which is neither
commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding" is highly controversial and, ironically, hard to justify.
It is more than that. It is quite simply stupid. Any assessment of the commercial usefulness of research can only be
simplistic and immediate. Research which is immediately commercially useful will be undertaken by commerce. It is
just research whose immediate commercial usefulness cannot be identified which should be funded using taxpayers'
money.
And the idea that all research must be theoretically outstanding is ridiculous. Scientific knowledge is built
incrementally. All big advances come as a result of small increments in research. The research must be well
conducted but given the number of proposals rejected for each grant given, this is pretty much a given. Poor
proposals simply do not get funded.
Any politician able to make such a stupid statement should not be in a ministerial position. Vince Cable is clearly not
up to the job.
AlokJha
8 September 2010 10:41PM
@Loredan
It says that Evan is a former Lib Dem MP very explicitly here:http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/evan-harris
You can get that info by clicking on his byline on any post he writes. The same info is available for any regular
Guardian contributor by clicking on their byline.
johnstuartmill
8 September 2010 11:30PM
I hope you're making the case against these cuts directly to him, Evan. You're one of the only sensible people who
might have his ear on this.

232 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
STFC has already experienced disasterous cuts to its funding due previous cock-ups. It's already been through the
"efficiency savings" which Cable himself has derided frequently in the past. And it is paying a fortune, in revenue and
lost productivity, due to the foisting of the Shared Services Centre upon it. There's no meat left on the bone.
I really wish the Lib Dems would have the balls to disagree with Tories when they do. They'll be dead as a political
party soon if they don't. Watching Clegg defend Coulson today was latest in a long line of unappealing incidents. My
Lib Dem membership is up for renewel and right now I'm 50:50.

2010/09/08 IN THE DARK:

UNRAVELLING CABLE
I woke up this morning with the Vince Cable Blues, owing to an item on the BBC News concerning a speech
by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills that clearly signals that the forthcoming
Comprehensive Spending Review will entail big cuts to the UK’s science budget.

It was a depressing way to start the day, but I for one wasn’t particularly surprised by the news. We all
know big cuts are coming, the only remaining questions are “how big?” and “where?”. However, when
the text of the speech was released, I was shocked by what it revealed about the Secretary of State’s grasp
of his brief. Read it for yourself and see if you agree with me.

Vince Cable: Out of his Depth

Of course there are the obligatory platitudes about the quality of the UK’s scientific research, a lot of
flannel about the importance of “blue skies” thinking, before he settles on the utilitarian line favoured by
the Treasury mandarins who no doubt wrote his speech for him: greater concentration of research funding
into areas that are “theoretically outstanding” (judged how?) or “commercially useful” (when?). In fact one
wonders what the point of this speech was, as it said very little that was specific except that the
government is going to cut science. We knew that already.

For what it’s worth I’ll repeat my own view that “commercially useful” research should not be funded by
the taxpayer through research grants. If it’s going to pay off in the short term it should be funded by
private investors or venture capitalists of some sort. Dragon’s Den, even. When the public purse is so
heavily constrained, it should only be asked to fund those things that can’t in practice be funded any other
way. That means long-term, speculative, curiosity driven research. You know, science.

So was Cable’s speech was feeble-minded, riddled with clichés, and totally lacking in depth or detail? Yes.
Was it surprising? No.

233 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
What was surprising, at least to me, is Cable’s deliberate use of spurious numbers to back up his argument.
For example,

Its is worth noting in the last RAE 54 per cent of submitted work was defined as world class and that is the
area where funding should be concentrated.

This appears to be what Cable was referring to when he stated on the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme that
“45% of research grants were not of excellent standard”.

For one thing, there’s a difference between a research grant and the money allocated by HEFCE through
the Research Assessment Exercise(RAE); more about that in a moment. Moreover, at least in England, RAE
funding is only allocated to grades 3* and 4* anyway, so the concentration he talks about is already
happening. The comment is made all the more meaningless, however, because the 54% was
actually imposed on the assessment panels anyway; they were told to match the outcome of their
deliberations to a target profile. The figure quoted is therefore hardly an objective measure of the quality
of scientific research in the UK.

When it comes to research grants – usually obtained from one of the Research Councils, such as
the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) scientists apply for funding and their proposals are
assessed by panels. In the case of STFC I can assure every one that the only proposals funded are those
graded excellent, and there isn’t anything like enough money to fund all the proposals graded that way.
Further cuts will simply mean that even more excellent research will have to be scrapped, and even more
excellent scientists will go abroad.

This basic misunderstanding convinces me that Vince Cable is completely out of his depth in this job. That’s
very unfortunate because it means he will probably be susceptible to manipulation by the dark side (i.e.
the anti-science lobby in Whitehall). Already someone – most likely a Civil Service mandarin with an axe to
grind – seems to have duped him into thinking that 45% of taxpayer’s money funds mediocre research.
What with him already singing so enthusiastically from the Treasury hymn sheet, I fear they have got him
exactly where they want him. Rarely has a new arrival in the Whitehall jungle gone native so quickly.

Another remark of his that was quoted today is that “the bar will have to be raised somewhat” in terms of
science funding. At the next General Election I hope the British people, especially those foolish enough to
opt for the Liberal Democrats last time, will “raise the bar” when it comes to deciding who is worthy of
their vote. I’m sure of one thing, though. The fraction of British politicians who are “mediocre” is an awful
lot higher than 45%.
8 Responses to ―Unravelling Cable‖
Statto Says:
September 8, 2010 at 2:12 pm
54% was actually imposed on the assessment panels anyway; they were told to match the outcome of their
deliberations to a target profile.
How exactly was this imposed on the panels? I assume it wasn‘t as simple as telling them to award 4* to 54%,
because that‘s a bizarre figure to impose… This seems to me to be a pretty key point, and I‘m afraid I‘m not an
RAE expert. Anyone know?
telescoper Says:
September 8, 2010 at 2:18 pm
In fact the 54% refers to 3* and 4* combined. The panels were told to produce a profile that ―broadly‖
matched one fixed by HEFCE. There was, however, some variation between disciplines.
If there‘s anyone reading this who was on the RAE panel I‘d be interest to hear their reaction.
David Sweeney Says:
September 8, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Contrary to what is stated above we currently do allocate some funds (£115m out of £1.6bn in total) based on
the amount of 2* work in a department‘s profile.

234 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
The panels were not asked to mark to a norm reference as suggested above – this point has already been made
in the comments. With the help of international members (and working within main panels) the sub-panels were
asked to allocate star gradings with reference to the criteria in the assessment system.
telescoper Says:
September 8, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Thanks for the clarification about 2*. I thought HEFCE had changed it‘s allocation formula to exclude 2* which,
incidentally, means ―Internationally Recognised‖. I‘m not so familiar with the HEFCE formula as, here in Wales,
HEFCW does it differently.
Your comment about ―norm referencing‖ confuses me and contradicts what I‘ve been told by a number of people
about the Physics sub-panel, namely that they were instructed to ensure their returns ―broadly matched‖ a
target profile.
Science Is Vital « dellybean diary Says:
September 8, 2010 at 7:21 pm
[...] for some great points about why Vince Cable is misunderstanding the fundamental concept, see this blog
and for how we should judge Vince Cable see this [...]
alexgmcm Says:
September 8, 2010 at 7:23 pm
The closing remark about ―those foolish enough to opt for the Liberal Democrats last time‖ seems rather harsh
as it would probably have been worse under a pure Conservative government that wanted even more cuts and
less taxes. (See the cuts/taxes proposals from each party mentioned
here http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2010/sep/08/science-spending-cuts-vince-cable) and
if it wasn‘t for the large support for the Conservatives then we might have had a Lib/Lab Coalition instead.
Furthermore, the crisis at the STFC was wholly ignored by New Labour which shows a worrying lack of respect
for British science and so I lack confidence that they wouldn‘t have exacted similar cuts in any case. The
problem is that we still haven‘t reversed the damage from Thatcher‘s cuts to science funding and yet in the
years since the low tax Reaganite policies seem to have been accepted as gospel by all the major parties.
When it came to the election, whoever won – science lost.
alexgmcm Says:
September 8, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Oops I broke the link, here it is –http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-science/2010/sep/08/science-
spending-cuts-vince-cable
Incidentally I am one of the foolish Lib Dem voters, but it isn‘t just guilt that made me post my comment. I
honestly believe the Lib Dems were the best choice at the last election and still are, although it is sad seeing
excellent Lib Dem ministers reduced to merely trying to soften the Conservative blows.

2010/09/08 KIERON FLANAGAN:VINCE CABLE

ON SCIENCE CUTS
Listeners to Radio 4’s Today programme this morning may have heard a short interview with the Business
Secretary, Dr Vince Cable, in advance of a speech he was to deliver today at Queen Mary University
London. The effect of the interview on the online community of scientists and science policy watchers was
incendiary, as Dr Evan Harris, himself a former LibDem member of Parliament, notes in his Guardian
Science blog on the speech this afternoon.

Dr Harris is right to say that Dr Cable’s speech merits close reading. I wasn’t at QMUL this morning, so have
turned to the speech as published by BIS today. And the speech says some genuinely strange things. Firstly,
Dr Cable starts by implying that it was short-term thinking that led to the increased investment in the UK
science base seen over the past ten years or so and that, in contrast, cutting back on that investment
should be seen as evidence of the Coalition government’s long-term thinking.

Even more bizarrely, Dr Cable says he wants to do more with less, and that we should not confuse inputs
with outputs. Of course the point about not focusing on inputs is a fair one, but it is important to
235 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
remember that the UK research base is already arguably the most efficient in the world at turning inputs
(principally money) into output (papers, citations, spin-offs, world-class human capital etc.). The bang-per-
buck is already considerable. Of course there may be a little more ‘efficiency’ to be squeezed out of the
system at the margins, but probably little that would not risk damaging the long-term ability of the
research system to function well as a system.

The whole argument for austerity is arguably rooted in a static and some would say unrealistic model of
economic thinking. But in this area, in particular, the thinking on science seems to be very static. Running
down research capabilities in the UK system today will undoubtedly create significant opportunity costs for
the future. The future costs of having to start from scratch in order to re-enter a field or rebuild a national
capability (make no mistake, this is what would be required) will far exceed the cost of maintaining that
capacity. Without maintaining a minimum capability in key disciplines or technology areas the UK will not
have the ability to absorb knowledge and technology in those areas from research and development done
abroad.

Dr Cable also says he wants to raise the level of university-business interactions, but the overwhelming
consensus is that our problem in the UK is not one of quantity: our universities outperform US universities
on most activity measures, though not on actual economic impact. The real problem is in the quality of
university-business interactions. On a related note, Dr Cable wants UK universities to exploit IP more
intensively. Again UK universities already spend significant sums of money patenting their inventions,
including many which would probably not be deemed worthy of the cost of IP protection in industry.
Companies say that aggressive IP strategies on the part of universities can be a serious barrier to the kind
of longer-term and continuous interaction which is most likely to lead to significant knowledge exchange.
And make of it what you will that the initial impetus for the now strong IP exploitation strategies which
characterise most UK universities was the Thatcher education cuts of the early 1980s.

Dr Cable has also picked up the Hauser review (PDF) proposal for a network of applied ‘technology centres’
along the lines of the German Fraunhofer Institutes. However, whilst it is arguably the case that the UK has
suffered from a lack of public investment in more applied research and technological development since
the Thatcher government withdrew most such support in the 1980s, it is very unclear how Fraunhofer type
institutions could work in a university-dominated research system like ours, not to say in a research culture
in which curiosity-driven research is widely held to have much higher status relative to applied research. It
should also be noted that many other European countries have extensive networks of gleaming and
expensive technology centres, often with little evidence that they play any significant economic role.

The speech does not contain the widely-quoted and highly misleading comment from Cable’s R4 Today
programme interview this morning that up to 45% of all research council grants are going to fund research
that is not “excellent”. In reality the UK system for allocating funding for ‘basic’ research is already highly
selective, with funding concentrated on elite research groups (and therefore, overwhelmingly in elite
institutions). Of course there is some scope to tinker further with this system – e.g. by restricting the
present freedom universities have in how they spend any block research funding they receive, or by
introducing qualification criteria for research council applications. But, contrary to what Dr Cable says, it is
hard to see how significant cuts can be introduced with no active political prioritisation of research areas.

The fact that this 45% claim is not in the speech itself leads me to suspect that the strongly negative pre-
speech publicity was aimed much more at the media and wider public (and perhaps even the Conservative
Party or its spin doctors) than it was at those working in the science base. The speech itself is much less
aggressive. It’s too early to say whether ground is truly being prepared for big science cuts or whether
today’s shenanigans should just be seen as more of the same austerity mood music. On Twitter
today @JonWTurney said that we’ve been here before, with the Thatcher cuts of the 1980s, yet UK science
survived. Even cuts of the size (25%-35%) being discussed today would not mean the death of UK science.
But they would certainly mean the death of UK science as we have known it these past ten years or so.
236 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Update (Sep 8, 2010 19:52)

A number of people have speculated where the 45% figure quoted by Cable on R4 this morning might have
come from. @xtaldave has an interesting blog post about how the figure might come from (a
misunderstanding of) the outcome (and workings) of the Research Assessment Excercise (RAE).

Update #2 (Sep 8, 2010 20:32)

Blimey. Research Councils UK have come out with a statement condemning Cable’s 45% statement as
misleading.

Research Councils UK: Excellence with Impact

Research Councils UK (RCUK) already invests in the highest quality research as judged by peer
review. Excellence with impact is central to the research that we fund and this is reflected in the
excellence of the UK research environment. Within the UK the quality of research output is top
internationally in many fields in terms of citations per paper and per pound invested. We also excel
in the degree of cross disciplinary and collaborative research being carried out, the infrastructure
available to researchers as well as the translation of research to the needs of society such as
evidence for policy-making.

Figures quoted this morning, by Business Secretary Vince Cable, on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme
misleadingly suggested that 45% of research in the UK was not of an excellent standard. The figure
quoted was derived from the recent Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) which found that 87% of
the research activity is of international quality with 54% being classified as either “world-leading” or
“internationally excellent”.

The Research Councils will continue to work together, as RCUK, to fund only the highest quality
research, as judged by peer review.

Examples of Research Council funded research that have brought benefits to the UK’s economy
and wellbeing can be found at www.rcuk.ac.uk/framework

- ends –

Update #3 (Sep 9, 2010 17:38)

Two key points in Dr Cable’s speech which I didn’t comment on were on inward migration/mobility of highly-skilled people and
on public procurement for innovation. On the migration issue, Mark Henderson in The Times points out (subscription required)
that Dr Cable is still clearly very uncomfortable with the proposed cap on non-EU immigration. On the procurement issue, as
William Cullerne Bown observeshere, politicians have been talking up the prospects of using public purchasing to drive
innovation for some time now without much evidence of concerted action, let alone any impact. My own work on this (with my
colleague Elvira Uyarra) suggests that this is a difficult, if not intractable, challenge.
Further developments: This morning science minister David Willetts and Prof Colin Blakemore, prominent neurobiologist and
former chief executive of the Medical Research Council, were interviewed on the Today programme about the comments made
by Dr Cable yesterday morning. Blakemore clearly hadn’t worked out where the 45% comment had come from and struggled to
respond but the real surprise was that the BBC had made no attempt in the intervening time to check this out. They had picked
up on the response from the science community but had not picked up on what was wrong with the 45% claim. The presenter
should have been confronting Willetts about this – instead he was confronting Blakemore about it. Willetts did indirectly discuss
the RAE results which are the basis of the 45% comment but he didn’t acknowledge Dr Cable’s mistake.
Further reading: Beck Smith’s science policy blog at the Biochemical Society has a good set of links to various responses to Dr
Cable’s remarks. William Cullerne Bown of Research Fortnight has written a good „aftermath‟ piece which itself contains a
number of links to other relevant pieces.

237 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
3 Responses to ―Vince Cable on science cuts‖

Good post. And agrees in may places with my own post http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/political-
science/2010/sep/08/science-spending-vince-cable.
A couple of points though.
I don‘t even see a glimmer of this implication in the speech.
―Firstly, Dr Cable starts by implying that it was short-term thinking that led to the increased investment in the
UK science base seen over the past ten years or so and that, in contrast, cutting back on that investment
should be seen as evidence of the Coalition government‘s long-term thinking.‖
Vince always backed science investment in CSRs 1997-2010 period.
The 45% figure was an error as @xtaldave points out based on an ill-judged misleading confusing 54% figure in
the speech.
The RC UK statement rightly clarifies but does not condemn.
I don‘t think that was part of a clever media campaign. The plan I guess was to try to make clear there would be
cuts coming.
Posted by Evan Harris, September 8, 2010 at 9:01 pm

Evan, thanks for reading. I completely accept your point about Dr Cable‘s previous position re science
investment. My comment about the wonky short-term/long-term logic is based on the opening section of the
speech, which implicitly critiques the ―short-term‖ thinking of the previous government.
In fact the previous government introduced longer-term planning into science spending, increased the
sustainability of research funding through FEC, boosted research infrastructure funding considerably, and
introduced major increases in research council budgets – albeit whilst also presiding over a significant decline in
research spending by other government departments.
In contrast, this long-term thinking Business Secretary appears to be preparing the ground for short-term cuts
that will have serious long-term consequences.
So I think I‘ll stand by my original remark.
Posted by Kieron Flanagan, September 8, 2010 at 9:28 pm

This is the section of the speech..

―I have been arguing for years my concern over the way the British economy was distorted. Money borrowed
for property speculation rather than productive investment and innovation. Too many top performing graduates
heading straight for high finance rather than science and engineering.
It was clear to me and my colleagues that the British economy was becoming increasingly unbalanced in the
short term, as the mountain of household debt built up. We were also unprepared for a long-term future where
we need to earn our living in the world through high-tech, high-skills and innovation.‖
One of the unhappy by-products of the burst bubble, banking crisis and recession is a massive budget deficit
that we inherited. As a consequence, we face the tightest spending round since post-War demobilisation.
The speech referred to short-term thinking of Lab Govt in eg housing bubble, personal debt etc. worsening
recession. All you have done is just declare that it refers to long-term investment decisions.
That is not justified in any way.
Posted by Evan Harris, September 8, 2010 at 9:54 pm

238 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/08 INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS: INSTITUTE
OF PHYSICS REASSERTS IMPORTANCE OF SCIENCE
FUNDING FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH
By Lena | Published: September 8, 2010

Dr Robert Kirby-Harris, Institute of Physics’ Chief Executive, said, “Investment in science and innovation
enables the UK to compete on a global stage.

“However, R&D is mobile and can choose to relocate. Reduced investment will cause long-term damage to
the UK’s ability to attract and retain high-technology companies as they see greater opportunities for
growth in other economies with a greater commitment to science.

“The strength and breadth of the research base and of science-based industries is the key to being able to
absorb cutting-edge ideas and research to the benefit of the UK economy. Missing out on the
opportunities for new developments and technologies today will mean missing out for a generation.

“Innovative science-based businesses will be the drivers of growth in a rebalanced economy. The strength
of the Government’s commitment to investing in the research base is an indicator of strength of
commitment to these high-technology industries.

“These industries rely on supply of science-trained workers for growth but a cut in investment in the
science base, particularly in areas that inspire, will have a significant effect on the number of people
graduating with science degrees.

“Our primary focus is of course on physics and it is important to remember that physics underpins
advances in science and innovation across the board.”

2010/09/08 DELLYBEAN: SCIENCE IS VITAL

Today, Vince Cable gave a speech that, pretty much, confirmed what all those involved in science and research,
were already expecting to hear. Science: expect some cuts!! Ok, but how much and where? Well, what we do
know is that the department for Business, Innovation and Skills needs to make at least a massive 25% cut. If this
was to happen in science funding, this would take our, already meager, allocated amount of £3.2 billion down to
£2.4 billion. Cable also explained, as quoted from this article in today’s Guardian:
….there is no justification for taxpayers’ money being used to support research which is neither
commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding. My preference is to ration research funding
by excellence. We back researchers and research teams of international quality regardless of
where they are and what they do, and screen out mediocrity.
Ok, so extra brownie points for dropping those “buzz-words” that target all those non-scientists among
us….”Tax-payers’ money”, yeah everyone can connect with that!! But, one crucial point here: who gets to decide
on which research falls into the categories of “commercially useful” and “theoretically outstanding”?

239 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 Another important point to address is that no other country, despite suffering from a shared financial crisis,
seems to consider cuts in science as an option. For a great account of the comparisons in opinions, see this
write-up, for some great points about why Vince Cable is misunderstanding the fundamental concept, see this
blogand for how we should judge Vince Cable see this article.
Science is at the forefront of bringing money into the economy, by cutting funding and pulling the UK out of
important projects such as Diamond Light Source, Isis and Cern this has detrimental effects both short and
long-term!! We could lose a whole generation of science researchers (which slashes my PhD dream) and
international interest in the UK would be drastically reduced, thus losing out on even more capital!!
Something needs to be done, as Dr Evan Harris points out in this article. We can’t just sit back and let this
happen without trying to revoke it.
This afternoon, Jenny Rohn set up a “call-to-arms” post here in an attempt to get our important message heard.
Are you with us? If so, here’s what you can do:
 please leave comments below or on Jenny’s post (linked to above)

 follow Jenny or myself on twitter for news about our protest

 email either of us (Jenny: jenny@lablit.com [or] Della: dellaesque@googlemail.com) if you have any advice,
useful contacts or you want to know how you can help to get this moving

 please retweet or forward the link to this blogpost (we’d really appreciate it)

 please join the Science is Vital Facebook group (here).

If you do have a twitter account and want to get involved, please use the hashtag #ScienceIsVital
Thank you!!
Come on people, let’s do this – get in touch!!

2010/09/08 MIND THE GAP: IN WHICH THE

GREAT SLUMBERING SCIENTIFIC BEAST AWAKENS
Posted by Jennifer Rohn

Scientists in the UK today are starting to respond to governmental noises suggesting that, in a time when
other countries are investing in science to rejuvenate the economy, funding for science and innovation
here will have to be slashed. Only the best will be funded, and the rest can leave the country or flip
burgers.

There has been a lot of hand-wringing on Twitter about what to do, but though we all feel we have to do
something, nobody quite knows what.

Sod it. Let's march on London! No more Doctor Nice Guy, no more hiding behind our work, no more just
taking things lying down like we take everything else in our profession -- poor job prospects, poor funding,
low pay, poor life-work balance. If they are going to bleed us dry, we might as well try to do something
before it's too late. I reckon there are thousands of practicing scientists and their allies in the vicinity -- let's
make some noise.

Who's in?

240 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
-----------------------------------

- Hashtag is #ScienceIsVital

- Sign up on the official Facebook group to show your support and to be kept abreast of news about the
protest and any ancillary activities (e.g. petitions). Even if you can't march, do sign up - numbers help.

- Essential background reading - please recommend more and I'll add the links:

Dellybean on the Vince Cable speech

Me, on why cutting funding for the foot-soldiers will hinder the elite scientists
50 COMMENTS
raises pitchfork
Posted by: Richard P. Grant Sep 8, 2010 3:28 PM
This is actually a serious post, by the way. I have no idea how to go about it - anyone out there ever done
anything like this? I guess one has to notify the police, etc. Sounds like something I can't do alone. Perhaps a
pub planning session is in order...if anyone out there knows anyone who's organized peaceful protests before,
I'd love to hear from them.
Posted by: Jennifer Rohn Sep 8, 2010 3:32 PM
I think we need a facebook page too. I'm sure we can find out about legal aspects. And I'd recommend a
weekend day, or an evening march.
Posted by: Richard P. Grant Sep 8, 2010 3:35 PM
We should definitely do this. A sign-up page would be good so people can see that a worthwhile number of
people are likely to turn up. Even if it is just a protest outside Parliament rather than a full-blown march we
have to show just how near-sighted and dysfunctional government has become before we eat all our seed corn.
Posted by: Chris Taylor Sep 8, 2010 3:38 PM
Builds an straw effigy of Cable...
Posted by: David Briggs Sep 8, 2010 3:38 PM
Raises pipette!
Will RT.
Posted by: Jim Caryl Sep 8, 2010 3:39 PM
As Richard Grant pointed out to me, Cable is just the messenger. I don't think it's fair to vilify particular
people.
Chris, I agree. We're in the progress of setting up a page for that. And you're right, even a smaller gathering
would probably get some press coverage. Do petitions do any good? Could consider that as well.
Posted by: Jennifer Rohn Sep 8, 2010 3:40 PM
But how to motivate science types from all around the country to come and march on the capital? I know!
Organise a conference for them ;)
I am happy to contribute some noise, and more if I can.
Posted by: Joe Dunckley Sep 8, 2010 3:41 PM
There is already a facebook group which may suffice...
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=136836469694780&ref=ts
Posted by: David Briggs Sep 8, 2010 3:41 PM
I do not really intend to build a straw effigy of Vince Cable
Posted by: David Briggs Sep 8, 2010 3:43 PM
I think we need our own specific page, for this event.
Posted by: Jennifer Rohn Sep 8, 2010 3:43 PM
heh - I know, David. But just thought it might be good to remind people that policy is a faceless enemy.
Posted by: Jennifer Rohn Sep 8, 2010 3:45 PM
mmm I don't think that facebook group is quite right. The march is not about Vince Cable, after all.
Posted by: Richard P. Grant Sep 8, 2010 3:49 PM
I've just got back from the peaceful & very civilised protest outside the Dept of Health, Whitehall (organised
by Sense About Science). Yes, you do have to give the police notice and you do have to be granted permission to
protest. Contact Julia Wilson at Sense About Science who can tell you exactly what you have to do.
We need to do something, absolutely. This is a great idea, count me in, will RT & get the word out wherever I
can.
241 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 Posted by: Della Thomas Sep 8, 2010 3:51 PM
I'd be happy to use CaSE's resources to help make this work. We've already been exploring getting a petition
going (publicise, get email addresses from it, use those for a march) so this would be great. How about a pub
chat next Thursday evening (16th sept) to brainstorm?
Posted by: Imran Khan Sep 8, 2010 3:51 PM
Thank you, Della and Imran, for the advice and offers of help.
Next Thursday would be great. I can be reached at jenny[at]lablit.com
Posted by: Jennifer Rohn Sep 8, 2010 3:55 PM
I read this I reckon there are thousands of practicing scientists and their allies in the vicinity
as I reckon there are thousands of prancing scientists and their allies in the vicinity
That too could get media attention? Science Flashmob?
Posted by: Ian Brooks Sep 8, 2010 4:27 PM
Actually - how about Monday? Might as well get a move on...
Posted by: Imran Khan Sep 8, 2010 4:27 PM
There seem to be comments missing from this post. 18 listed on the front page but only 10 here!?!
Anyway, yes, we need to make fact-based noises about the weaknesses of Cable's case and the generational
destruction that will ensue if deep cuts are made. I'm in.
Posted by: Stephen Curry Sep 8, 2010 4:34 PM
Ah, comments thing seems to be fixed now. Guess it was a transitional problem...
Posted by: Stephen Curry Sep 8, 2010 4:35 PM
So on the question of who else cares about (UK) science (i.e., to ensure we're not easy to dismiss as careerists
as we all stand there in [metaphorical] lab coats):
Companies that benefit from public sector innovation.
- Lots of these presumably? Hard to pin down but there are a number of technology parks near universities
for some reason... Pharma is becoming much more dependent on public sector research since their cuts;
computer tech also leans heavily on the public sector at times; clean fuel research; food advances;
communications.
Individuals that have benefited from medical advance (medicinal, surgical, psychological and other therapies,
better understanding of disease agents [action and evolution], genetic counselling, 'wellness' research).
People with problems yet to be solved? (disease, future energy, sight/hearing loss, future food, recyclables,
clean water for all).
Dare I add science-inspired artwork?
There are a tonne of websites out there pondering this impact issue. A good list of arguments compiled in one
place would be good.
Also I don't think that the idea of research for its own sake should be underplayed (that was the bit that made
the bile rise highest in me tbh); it makes good scientists who continue to do good science, cross-pollinates to
domains closer to application and of course you get the odd laser out of the blue.
This is a rubbish list but it'd be good to have a fab one by the time we storm the streets...
Posted by: Chris Taylor Sep 8, 2010 4:42 PM
Perhaps in this case, scientists marching away would be more appropriate...might soon be happening for real.
Posted by: Steve Pettitt Sep 8, 2010 4:49 PM
Onward nerds!!
BTW, as I've blogged over here, the evidence that one can predict which basic research will ultimately turn out
to have important spin-offs or implications is.... well, it isn't, because the evidence is that you can't.
This knowledge is not new, though it seems not to have penetrated ministers' and civil servants' heads over the
last three decades.
Posted by: Austin Elliott Sep 8, 2010 4:51 PM
If it were a weekend, then people could come up from places other than London to protest.
Posted by: Carol Roulson Sep 8, 2010 4:57 PM
Imran, monday is fine - I agree we need to strike while the iron is hot and was a bit worried about the
fortnight delay.
Posted by: Jennifer Rohn Sep 8, 2010 4:59 PM
We know, David :)
Posted by: Richard P. Grant Sep 8, 2010 5:00 PM
Great ideas, everyone - keep them coming.
I think we broke NN temporarily, because we've had 1700+ visits here, but I think comments are behaving now!
Posted by: Jennifer Rohn Sep 8, 2010 5:05 PM

242 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 Good ideas, Chris!
Posted by: Richard P. Grant Sep 8, 2010 5:21 PM
Let's do it.
I might make some sort of poster, stick it up at work, announce it at some meetings... see who can be bothered
to get off their arse and come along.
Considering the amount of people (justifiably) talking about how horrible grant-writing and getting money is, I
would expect a good turn-out, but we'll see.
Shall join FB group now.
Posted by: Marianne Baker Sep 8, 2010 5:23 PM
I vote for a few weeks? Just so more people will turn out
Posted by: Sylvia McLain Sep 8, 2010 5:30 PM
Maybe CaSE needs to change its name back to Save British Science...
Posted by: David Clements Sep 8, 2010 5:31 PM
Hmmmm - in a few weeks time all the UGs at London universities will be back, many of whom study science.
Might they be interested in making sure they have a future by turning up to a protest?
Posted by: David Clements Sep 8, 2010 5:32 PM
Don't join the fb group mentioned above! That's not the right one.
I will post the official link to FB Science Is Vital tonight, on the top of this blog post, and will tweet too.
Posted by: Jennifer Rohn Sep 8, 2010 5:33 PM
Presumably it needs to be before 20th Oct, and with enough time influence the final content of the
Comprehensive Spending review on that date.
Posted by: Frank Norman Sep 8, 2010 5:33 PM
Yes, it needs to be soon. I agree.
Posted by: Jennifer Rohn Sep 8, 2010 5:37 PM
I agree that direct action is a great idea. However, we need to control the message very carefully -- it will be
very easy for the media to treat this as comedy -- boffins in their white coats marching on parliament
is not the image we want to project, I don't think. It needs to be about the serious harm these cuts will do to
Britain (even or especially when considered as the hated "UK PLC") and not just as an amusing human-interest
story on the 10:25 London news.
Posted by: Andrew Jaffe Sep 8, 2010 5:56 PM
What about setting up a petition? There is currently one for Save NHS Direct. I think if a petition has over
100,000 signatures the government has promised Commons debate. This should easily be achievable.
Posted by: Paul Clarkson Sep 8, 2010 6:56 PM
How about not just a "page" or "petition" but a "science is good" page? then everyone could write a sentence or
brief paragraph about their research and why they love it.
Otherwise, scientists can come over to the general public as protecting of their interests, or just complaining. I
know it isn't like that, but to be able to state why the stuff everyone does is so creative, constructive, etc - or
what motiviates you - would be really persuasive and exciting?
Posted by: Maxine Clarke Sep 8, 2010 8:50 PM
Maxine - love the idea of a page. Think it's good not just to get scientists to sign it.. but everyone. Anyone who
likes/loves science can right something. Get teachers to sign it, people in industry, people in the street etc.
Posted by: Michelle Brook Sep 8, 2010 9:01 PM
And I was typing whilst watching something.. excuse the horrific misspelling.. "write something.."
bangs head on desk
Posted by: Michelle Brook Sep 8, 2010 9:02 PM
Earlier this year, I felt moved to do a couple of things for the first time ever: write to my MP, and attend a
protest march. Now, 8 months on, I can say that we achieved... nothing (tangible, so far), other than to make
our voices heard.
However, until the day of the protest, I had never truly appreciated the value of making my voice heard.
I'll be there in spirit. March on!
Posted by: Cath Ennis Sep 8, 2010 9:26 PM
Jenny's edited the post body, but in case you missed it: Please sign up on the officialFacebook page. Even if you
can't make it to London, please sign up and spread the word.
Posted by: Richard P. Grant Sep 8, 2010 9:38 PM
I have never been in a march or protest with fellow scientists (and supporters) about science. I do support
ancillary projects but I think this time, I really want to march as well. As Cath says, there is something
liberating about venting one's passion in a visible way. We hide so much in the lab, and now is the time to make

243 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
our voices heard. Andrew, completely agree about keeping it serious, and controlling the message - have a few
ideas along these lines already.
And I think that we can make this PRO science, not anti-something. It's all in the way we spin it.
Posted by: Jennifer Rohn Sep 8, 2010 9:47 PM
Agree it should be pro science - making the case.
I very much like Maxine's idea of having a site where people can register explicit reasons for supporting
science. Could garner public interest and also give scientists a platform on which to make the case for the value
of what we do.
Posted by: Stephen Curry Sep 8, 2010 10:20 PM
We could use the wall of the facebook page for that - or is that too diffuse?
Posted by: Jennifer Rohn Sep 8, 2010 10:36 PM
Saw a few comments regarding media attention... and that made me question intent of this planned action.
Although I agree that the unrest sweeping the science field needs to me made public and gov aware of how
strongly its planned cuts are opposed, IMHO, that should not be the main aim.
As Andrew and Stephen mentioned, facts is what we normally deal with and its what we should use. Just saying
(and showing in MSM) that we're not happy will probably have no effect at all with gov and might get negative
reaction from public.
Action, yes, but aimed at change, not just publicity (WOW, I sound like Evan Harris! his SOLO talk was more
effective than I thought!)
Count me in, anyway. As first step, good start. Thanks for getting the ball rolling, Jenny!
Posted by: Paula Salgado Sep 8, 2010 10:56 PM
@David Clements:
"Hmmmm - in a few weeks time all the UGs at London universities will be back, many of whom study science.
Might they be interested in making sure they have a future by turning up to a protest?"
Yes to this! I'll be there! (Assuming this protest isn't held before October...) Students love to protest. And
also, of course, those people who maybe are amateurs at science, but remain amateurs of it, and of the process,
should come along.
I think the FB page, the group, the petition, and the protest are all good ideas - we need to blanket them in
scientists getting rowdy, and people getting rowdy about the joys of science!
Posted by: Christopher Hyland Sep 8, 2010 10:58 PM
Paula, I think showing that scientists are passionate enough about what they do to leave their laboratories and
take to the streets in peaceful protest - along with sateliite activities including facts and figures about basic
research and a petition, etc., will be a good thing. People need to know we care, that we are human beings, that
we're willing to stand up for what we believe in. A protest is not good in isolation, but I strongly believe it can
send a powerful message - especially if we are focusing on the positive (supporting science funding) rather than
the negative (dissing politicians and the like).
Posted by: Jennifer Rohn Sep 8, 2010 11:02 PM
Jenny, if I didn't think it was a good idea, I wouldn't join in. ;-)
But having visibility in itself as a goal always worries me... and some comments seemed to hint at that, so was
just voicing my concerns.
Let me know if I can help.
Posted by: Paula Salgado Sep 8, 2010 11:14 PM
@Jenny - fb wall could be a good place to start. But maybe a dedicated site (bit like Alom's 'whyscience')
might be more public (help to garner more prominent support?). Maybe Sense about Science could host?
Posted by: Stephen Curry Sep 8, 2010 11:29 PM

2010/09/08 TOMFOOLERY: VINCE CABLE IS

WRONG ON SCIENCE
Today could signal the start of a very dark era for science in the UK. This morning Vince Cable gave a
speech to Queen Mary’s where he outlined his (and presumably the coalition government’s) approach to
science. The transcript can be read here. The general message is a lengthly one of admiration for science,

244 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
but it is clearly just trying to mask the taste of an extremely unpalatable pill: the UK science budget is to be
cut.

What I find very worrying is the fact that these cuts do not seem to be up for debate. Cable’s use of
language (“we face the tightest spending round since post-War demobilisation”) suggests that the decision
has already been taken, and he is looking for the best way to break the bad news. Unfortunately for Cable,
his judgment on science comes across as almost insulting, as he insinuates that “there is no justification for
taxpayers money being used to support research which is neither commercially useful nor theoretically
outstanding”.

Here, Cable shows a disdain for how science is done. Research, by definition, is a journey into the
unknown. Researchers chop down the trees of the forest of ignorance, and it is impossible to tell which of
the resultant clearings will be most profitable in future, and which will be the most useful. Also, science is
replete with fortunate discoveries. If Alexander Fleming wasn’t researching Staphylococcusbacteria, he
wouldn’t have discovered penicillin. If Percy Spencer wasn’t experimenting with a magnetron, we wouldn’t
have the microwave oven.

As for the “commercially useful” comment, industry and private equity cannot be relied upon for basic
scientific research. If investors can’t see a return on their investments, support will go straight away. Only
state funding can ensure the long term future and appreciation for scientists. It is this fundamental
research that opens up opportunities for commercial exploitation. Take it away, and you’ll save some
money in the short term, but industry and the economy will suffer when the leads dry up. In the
meantime, other countries that value science will leap ahead.

The government will have to learn that research is not a tap that can be turned off and on. When a high-
ranking minister such as Vince Cable shows contempt for science by cutting back on funding, both
potential and current researchers will be put off the UK, and look elsewhere to conduct their research.

Clearly, if the science budget is to be cut, the decision has been influenced by Cable’s superiors, the buck
stopping with the Chancellor George Osbourne. Needless to say, if the budget is to be cut by 20-25%, then
that is an appalling and short-sighted decision.

This may, and perhaps should, act as a call to arms for the UK scientific communities. Scientists have a
reputation for not upsetting the apple cart, diligently working behind their benches in order to further
human knowledge and to secure their next round of funding. But if that funding, and the principles of
scientific investigation, are under attack, then perhaps it is time for scientists and all supporters of science
to be heard. Protest on the streets, anyone?

Further resources:

The Facebook group, “Vince Cable is Wrong On Science”

An annotated transcript of the speech from the Exquisite Life blog

Analysis by Evan Harris

“Science Is Vital” demo planned for London Facebook Group

Cutting the science budget would be “tomfoolery” of the highest order.

245 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 2010/09/08 TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION:
CABLE‟S RATIONS: „MEDIOCRE‟ RESEARCH TEAMS
NEED NOT APPLY
By John Morgan
The government will ensure that research funding is “rationed” according to
excellence, end public support for “mediocrity” and emphasise commercialisation,
Vince Cable has announced.
In a major speech on science, research and innovation, the business secretary today warned that
the impending cuts in government spending – the deepest since postwar demobilisation in the
1940s – mean the academy must “achieve more with less”.
“My preference is to ration research funding by excellence: essentially, we back the research teams
that are of international quality,” Mr Cable said.
“The corollary of that is that we screen out mediocrity,” he added, “regardless” of where it is found
– though that “is the jobs of the research councils and funding councils, rather than mine”.
He told his audience at the Queen Mary Bioscience Innovation Centre in London that in the final
research assessment exercise in 2008, 54 per cent of submitted work was judged to be world class.
“That is clearly the area on which funding should be concentrated,” Mr Cable said.
He added: “I do support top-class blue-skies research as well as commercially relevant research.
But there is no justification for public money being used to support research that is neither
commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding.”
The approach should not be simplistic, Mr Cable said, noting the need to support “new, unknown,
bright people” and reduce the time researchers spend on applications.
On the commercialisation of research, he said, the UK had a strong record but needed to do more.
“This involves building stronger links between the UK’s science and research base and the business
community – to create more spin-out companies and to provide a magnet for attracting overseas
investors to the UK,” he explained.
Mr Cable said the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which administers higher
education and science, is the “largest department in Whitehall whose budget is not protected”.
The Labour government had planned for cuts of “20 to 25 per cent in the budget of that
department”, he said.
Mr Cable, a critic of the Conservative policy to cap immigration from non-European Union
countries, said he recognised the special interests of science and research in the movement of staff.
He told a questioner that he had “spoken up as strongly as I can on the issue of the non-EU
immigration cap as is consistent with Cabinet responsibility”.
john.morgan@tsleducation.com
Readers' comments

246 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Russell Group Red 8 September, 2010
An old line, but it seems apt:

"Will the last scientist out of the UK University system please remember to turn off the lights?"
amused 8 September, 2010
Hear hear. Now, if Mr Cable were to extent the hypothesis to undergraduate teaching, they we might finally be
getting somewhere!
mmmm 8 September, 2010
And if applied to everything we would be where exactly/?
down Cable Street 8 September, 2010
Cable too has fallen for the the pseudo-concept (variety: managerialist blatherskite) "EXCELLENCE"!
That's all we need to know.
Next so-called minister, please.
@mmmm 8 September, 2010
We might be rid of some of these dreadful post-92s.
mmmm 8 September, 2010
@ @mmmm

How exactly? They receive very little of this funding.

Maybe you should be more worried by places such as "Queen Mary Bioscience Innovation Centre in London that
in the final research assessment exercise in 2008, 54 per cent of submitted work was judged to be world class".
That means virtually half of the funding is wasted, or is that too simplistic a generalisation for you?

I was also posing the question in a larger context, such as abolishing mediocre tax systems, lawyers, doctors,
MP's, Hospital Services, transport systems, police forces etc. etc.

Or for that matter most private enterprises are not bastions of work class outputs.
Herbert 8 September, 2010
I'm pleased by the notion that mediocre research will not be supported. There's really quite a lot of it. Naturally,
this won't affect me in any way.
down Cable Street 8 September, 2010
mmmm - or abolishing mediocre politicians, ministers, political parties and ...? there's quite a lot of scope in that
direction. In fact, in what direction isn't there?
academic 8 September, 2010
Ok, what will this mean? Research councils to get hammered, support for partnership grants with industry, no
HEFCE research money for RAE 2* activity? Or no RAE HEFCE money for 3* as well? If the latter then you
might as well pack up and leave.
cut off 2*...? 8 September, 2010
If it really is just cutting off the 2* funding, that's a relatively small change. Only in very lowly rated departments
is the 2* funding a big chunk of the overall QR money. I'd also guess that the 2* percentage is the most constant
one across universities.
richtea 8 September, 2010
Does 'screening out mediocrity regardless of where it's found' mean that most of the biased poisonous cynics who
post on this website will have their internet connection cut?
But where will you go? 8 September, 2010
Cutting 2* will save a few percentage points. It will have to be a lot bigger than that. Currently, 4* gets 11 units of
resource (a unit is about 4.5K), and 3* gets 3 units (thats per QR weighted FTE). How about 4* getting 20 units
and 3* getting 1? All this to share out a pot worth 70% of current value. Thats probably what we are. talking
about.

The eventual logic of all this is that research will only take place in dedicated research centres in elite
institutions, carried out by dedicated 4* professors. Everyone else will teach. This includes the 94 group,
Leicesters, Keeles etc. Wake up and smell the coffee. We are all post 92s now.

Where exactly will you run to? The USA is as stuffed as we are. Anyone speak Chinese?
But where will you go 8 September, 2010
In fact my point in the previous post about centres is in the speech:

"If we are to establish a national network of technology centres we should look to drive this number down and
establish well-funded centres with long-term vision, focussed on areas of clear technical leadership and
commercial promise. Opportunities identified by Hauser include high-value manufacturing, composites, low
carbon energy, plastic electronics, space, stem cells and regenerative medicine."
Polycarpus 8 September, 2010
The unit of resource will probably revert upwards post-REF as institutions submit far fewer researchers. The first
manifestation of the process outlined by BWWYG will be within departments which haven't had to ponder the
division between 2* and 3* too much before. The trend away from scholarly outputs to other measures like
environment/impact (which favour the long-established and well-resourced) will mean the post-92s will have to

247 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
reconsider their mission regarding research. However, the risks are worst for some pre-92s, who may face a
perfect storm as they play a high stakes game of chasing a dwindling research pot whilst neglecting teaching
quality, thus looking a bad bet to students who will be making a much greater financial contribution than now. I
wouldn't be surprised if the middle isn't squeezed the most.
Confused 8 September, 2010
I thought that mediocre research was already being screened out. For example, with a current ESRC success rate
of 15% of grant applications a lot of 'world-class' research is not funded, let alone the mediocre stuff.
Jim 9 September, 2010
anyone cares to remember everything has to start somewhere (perhaps somewhere "mediocre") before it
becomes world leading. You don't just start a career in science and suddenly become world leading overnight.

2010/09/08 NEW SCIENTIST: SCIENTISTS: TIME

TO SHOUT "IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION"

Roger Highfield, magazine editor

Cuts in public funding for scientific research were signalled today by Vince Cable, Business Secretary of
the UK government, during his first big science speech, delivered at Queen Mary, University of London
What was puzzling, to me at least, was the timing of this speech, which seemed to have nothing new to
say, save that scientists are staring into the abyss.
He told us that over the next few weeks major decisions will be made on Government spending priorities as
part of a wider move to stabilise the country's finances and rebalance the economy. No change there.
He told us that his department is the largest in Whitehall without a protected budget, and that science,
alongside Further Education and Higher Education, is one of its largest components. No change there
either.
He told us that the Labour Government was planning deep cuts, of 20%-25%, in the budget of that
department. Ditto.
He asked how can we achieve more with less? How do we economise without damaging science? That is
the very same question put by every one of his predecessors.
"The Government spends £6bn a year supporting science and research and it is right that I should speak
about strategic priorities." Of course it is, minister.
Every minister I have listened to over the past three decades has banged on about precisely the things that
he did today: the need to fund excellent research and support science with an economic impact
I asked him about the timing of his speech, at a critical moment in the decision-making process for the
government's comprehensive spending review in which all government departments have been asked to
prepare for deep cuts of 25% or more.
Was he trying to tell scientists that cuts are inevitable and ask them where they would like to see the axe
fall? Or was he implying that there is still a chance to influence the debate in the Treasury about how deep
the cuts should be?
"I hope that science has high priority," he said, explaining he wanted to protect scientific excellence.
But why say all this now, I asked? "It is important to have a public debate about how you decide these
things, rather than everything decided behind closed doors."

248 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
So if scientists scream loudly enough they could change the outcome? "Loudly but in the right direction, is
the advice," he told me.
That seems to leave the door open for some last minute wrangling that could spare the science base some
of the misery. But it has to be said that I am not holding my breath.
Cable remarked at one point: "It is worth noting in the last Research Assessment Exercise 54 per cent of
submitted work was defined as world class and that is the area where funding should be concentrated."
I am not the only one who is gloomy.
The president of the Royal Society, Martin Rees, is worried about the message that cuts would send out to
young people who are interested in science as a career.
Imran Khan, Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, said: "The UK leads the world in
science and engineering and yet today Dr Cable had nothing exciting or inspiring to say about government
policy in this area.
"His government has yet to demonstrate that they have either the vision or plan for how to make the most
of this extraordinary scientific legacy they have inherited.
"At a time when politicians should be looking to science and engineering to help rebalance the economy,
they are instead focusing on erecting barriers to scientific collaboration, and damaging our reputation as a
global research hub by cutting investment - just as our competitors are increasing theirs."
Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet, added: "A reduction in the government's investment in science will
damage our ability to shape our national and international futures. It would be a cut too far."
The Academy of Medical Sciences President John Bell said, "A long term commitment to publicly funded
research is vital if we are to harness the competitive advantage previous investment has generated."
Paul Nurse, President Elect of the Royal Society has commented: "Cuts will send out a message that we
are not serious about science and as a result, talent and investment will simply move to other countries."
Finally, Robert May, former President of the Royal Society and Government chief scientist,remarked: " He
was clearly badly briefed, and it's a shame he didn't care to get all the facts beforehand. In particular, his
claim that public money should not be made available to research that 'is neither commercially useful nor
theoretically outstanding' is just plain stupid."

2 Comments
Paul on September 8, 2010 1:34 PM
This is depressing. These cuts and the whay Cable is proposing to implement them are bound to stifle
innovation, after all the only measure of quality that Cable quoted looks at the impact of research
after the fact. How are young scientists at the beginning of their careers, or even more established
scientists with novel ideas, going to prove that their work is of high enough quality.
The bean counters have won, the very same people who got us into this financial crisis in the first
place. The future is grim!

Paul Stevenson on September 8, 2010 1:59 PM

Not only are all his preliminary statements not news, funding according to RAE scores is already what
happens.
You certainly aren't the only one who is gloomy :-(

249 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 2010/09/08 SCIENCE POLICY TALKING POST:
VINCE CABLE TALKS SCIENCE
At Queen Mary, University of London this morning, Vince Cable made his most revealing speech yet about
the future of science in the UK.

While he begin his speech by stating that ‘my colleagues, including at the Treasury, value the contribution
of UK science’ what followed suggested that a valued contribution would not be sufficient to protect
science from significant spending cuts.

Setting the scene with ‘we face the tightest spending round since post-War demobilisation’ and ‘the
Labour Government was planning deep cuts of 20%-25% in the budget of that department’, the science
community looks set to assume the brace position.

Dr Cable believes the question he has to address is ‘can we achieve more with less?’ but also recognises
the distance between himself and the setting of current practice of setting research priorities through peer
review. While the Government may not be able to directly set research priorities, ‘the Government spends
£6bn a year supporting science and research and it is right that I should speak about strategic priorities.’

Dr Cable peppers his speech with questions, in addition to ‘can we achieve more with less?’, he also asks:

How far should policy be driven by economic impact?

How does Government spending in scientific research contribute to the economy?

How do we economise without damaging science?

How to prioritise?

… How we maximise the contribution of Government supported research to wealth creation?

How to encourage academics to collaborate with industry to maximise the benefit of their research?

Citing the OECD 2010 innovation report which ‘shows that investment in intangible assets helped account
for between two-thirds and three-quarters of labour productivity growth. It also suggested that innovation
is a key source of future growth for emerging economies’ the expectation of and focus on research
innovation to deliver is a key theme through the speech. Indeed, the OECD speech concluded that,
‘Cutting back public investment in support of innovation may provide short-term fiscal relief, but will
damage the foundations of long-term growth.’ Despite acknowledging the increase in science spends seen
in the US, China and Germany, it seems that the key message heard from the OECD report by Government
is that ‘there is considerable scope to improve the efficiency of government spending’.

On the mechanism of cuts, Dr Cable disfavours salami slicing and appears wary of specialisation for two
reasons:

Decisions on which areas should be specialised should be not politicised

Many of the ‘choices are not choices at all because disciplines interact’

Bearing these points in mind, Dr Cable appears to favour the identification of broad problems e.g.
challenges thrown up by an ageing population which require collaboration across a number of disciplines.
In addition to the identification of broad problems, Dr Cable suggests ‘there is a case for identifying and

250 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
building up the areas where the UK is truly a world leader’ e.g. stem cells and regenerative medicine,
plastic electronics and advanced manufacturing amongst others.

In answer to the question of ‘How to prioritise’, Dr Cable states a preference s to ‘ration research funding
by excellence and back research terms of international quality – and screen out mediocrity – regardless of
where they are and what they do.’ He goes on to say that ‘It is worth noting that in the RAE 54 per cent of
submitted work was defined as world class and that is the area where funding should be concentrated.’

This ’54 per cent’ has proven to be of the most discussed parts of Dr Cable’s speech, with many believing
this to be an arbitrary figure. Blogger Telescoper said in his post ‘Unravelling Cable’, ‘The comment is
made all the more meaningless, however, because the 54% was actually imposed on the assessment
panels anyway; they were told to match the outcome of their deliberations to a target profile. The figure
quoted is therefore hardly an objective measure of the quality of scientific research in the UK.’

Towards the end of his speech, Dr Cable turns his attention to the importance of international
collaboration (and the need to break down existing barriers to collaboration), the UK and ‘its attractiveness
as a destination for the brightest scientists, researchers and engineers from all over the world.’ He then
goes on to say, ‘UK researchers already have an excellent record of working across borders. Almost half of
more than 90,000 research articles published by UK researchers in 2008 had a co-author from another
country. Co-authorship with non-UK collaborators tends to produce significant impact gains e.g. papers
with USA, Germany, France have impact 50% higher than the UK research base average.

However, in recognising the investment other countries are making in science, it remains to be seen how
attractive the UK will be able to remain, as both a place in which to do science and as a potential
collaborator. A blogpost from the Campaign for Science and Engineering exemplifies the difference in
attitude between Dr Cable and other world leaders in their (financial) support for science.

Dr Cable’s speech ends with a return to an emphasis on innovation, ‘The key is to find ways of transforming
research into innovation. The UK has a strong record but we need to do more. This involves building
stronger links between the UK’s science and research base and the business community to create more
spin-out companies, and to provide a magnet for attracting overseas investors to the UK.’ He also
recognises the important role of the UK’s world-leading universities in attracting overseas investors.

In response to the speech, Professor Steve Smith of Universities UK said, ‘Universities understand the
constraints on public funding and the need to target scarce resources in the most effective way possible.
However, the coalition government is in danger of sending the message that the UK is not a serious player
in the field of science and innovation.’

Perhaps Mark Henderson the The Times in his analysis of Cable’s speech(subscription required) summed it
up best of all by saying, ‘While it would be nice to think we can achieve more by spending less, a far more
probable outcome is that we will end up achieving less with less.’

Update 17:32

Russell Group respond to speech saying: ‘Dr Cable has urged UK scientists to ‘do more with less’; they
already are. The UK’s leading universities currently punch well above their weight in the international
sphere – generally coming second only to the US – but are under-resourced in comparison with their global
competitors. Our current 1.3% of GDP investment in higher education is outpaced by the US, Germany,
South Korea, Australia, Canada and Japan. Against the odds, with one percent of the world’s population,
12% of scientific citations go to UK-based research.’

Response in full can be read from the link above.

251 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 2010/09/08 RUSSELL GROUP: RUSSELL GROUP
COMMENTS ON VINCE CABLE'S SCIENCE AND
INNOVATION SPEECH
Commenting on this morning’s speech on science and innovation by Business Secretary Dr Vince Cable MP,
Dr Wendy Piatt, Director General of the Russell Group of research-intensive universities, said:

“Dr Cable has urged UK scientists to ‘do more with less’; they already are. The UK’s leading universities
currently punch well above their weight in the international sphere – generally coming second only to the
US – but are under-resourced in comparison with their global competitors. Our current 1.3% of GDP
investment in higher education is outpaced by the US, Germany, South Korea, Australia, Canada and Japan.
Against the odds, with one percent of the world’s population, 12% of scientific citations go to UK-based
research.

“But the UK’s place in the research premier league is under threat. While our international rivals are
investing in their future skills and knowledge base, UK universities are threatened with further cuts which
will make it more difficult than ever to maintain their world-class status. Another wave of cuts in the CSR
would risk severely jeopardising the competitive advantage which has made our universities and especially
our success in research the envy of the world.

“The government’s commitment to research excellence and concentration is welcome; research of the
very highest quality must be prioritised. We also need to nurture the high concentrations of excellent
research and innovation and the clusters of high tech companies that flourish alongside our major
research-intensive universities and which are key to driving a knowledge-based economy.

“Dr Cable’s recognition of the fact that high-quality basic research often delivers more economic and social
benefits than so-called applied research is key. In fact there shouldn’t be a big distinction between the two
types of research. As Lord Porter, a former president of the Royal Society has remarked: ‘there are two
types of research – applied and not-yet-applied’.

“Dr Cable rightly highlights the importance of academic-industry links. However, it is important not to over-
estimate the revenue universities can get from IP and spin-outs. Many universities will spend more on
technology transfer than they make as income from it. The gains are predominantly to the economy not
the university. [1]

“The UK needs to develop its innovation system to play to its national strengths. The country’s large
research universities already represent significant centres of world-class innovation expertise, and they
have the potential to increase their innovation capacity further in the future. If a national network of
technology centres is to be established it is essential that that these bolster the existing excellent centres
of university-business collaboration at these institutions. "

1. For example, even MIT receives only 4 percent of its income from technology transfer.

252 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/08 ANOMALOUS DISTRACTION: “45%
OF GRANTS WERE NOT OF EXCELLENT STANDARD”

Image via Wikipedia

In which I get all huffy about Vince Cable‘s speech at QMUL this morning & his appearance on the
today program.

This morning the formerly well-respected UK Business Secretary, Vince Cable MP, spoke of impending
cuts to the UK science budget. In his interview of the radio 4 today program, he said

“45% of grants were not of excellent standard.”

In his speech at QMUL, he said:

“It is worth noting in the last RAE 54 per cent of submitted work was defined as world-class and that is
the area where funding should be concentrated.”

These numbers come from the Research Assessment exercise 2008.The RAE says that:

“The results demonstrate that 54% of the research conducted by 52,400 staff submitted by 159
universities and colleges is either „world-leading‟ (17 per cent in the highest grade) – or „internationally
excellent‟ (37 per cent in the second highest grade).”

Which is obviously where Mr Cable gets his “54%” figure from, and I am guessing, the “45%” figure (I
can‟t find anything else that matches).

What Mr Cable fails to do, is read the next line of the RAE:

“Taking the top three grades together (the third grade represents work of internationally recognised
quality), 87% of the research activity is of international quality“

In stating that 45% of research is not excellent, Cable is lumping together:

253 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 “Quality that is recognised internationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour (2*)”,

 “Quality that is recognised nationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour. (1*)”,

 the 2% of assessed work that “falls below the standard of nationally recognised work.”

Research that is “recognised internationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour”

is not excellent? Sounds pretty excellent to me.

Conflating said internationally recognised research with research that “falls below the standard of
nationally recognised work” hardly seems fair and scrupulous.

This is cherry-picking on a par with the homeopaths, and is no basis upon which to decide funding for
the already cash-strapped UK research sector.

I shall await the budget on October the 20th with one eye on the overseas science job market.

MASSIVE COI declared

EDIT – so it turns out I was pretty much right – http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/news/100908

9 Responses to ――45% of grants were not of excellent standard‖‖

Andy Russell says:

September 8, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Rather than relating to publications, does the 45% refer to the number of research council grants that
funded despite being assessed as less than excellent? In NERC terminology, this would be stuff that isn‟t
alpha 4 or 5. (I don‟t know if that grading system is applied by other RCs.)
Reply

xtaldave says:
September 8, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Bugger – I don‟t know – got a link for that?
Reply

draust says:
September 8, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Andy, I can‟t believe that the Councils were funding stuff not rated in the top two categories. Most people in
the rat-race, and indeed on the panels, tell me the problem is that tons of stuff rated up in Alpha four and
fivedoesn’t get funded.
Of course, that will be true of even more stuff if the cuts mean (as is surely inevitable) that funding rates
will fall even further.
Reply

noodlemaz says:
September 8, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Unbelievable.
This is why we need more scientists in government; it is fairly tough to understand the nature of research,
publication and so on, indeed also the economics of research centres/unis/hospitals…
But surely we should not be seeing these kinds of horrendous twisted stats coming out.
I guess they‟re going to be using whatever justifcations they can find for cutting the funding, but to attack
hard-working people unjustifiably – I can‟t really get my head around it.
Seems I can‟t even make a well-phrased point at the moment.
Reply

254 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 Helen says:
September 8, 2010 at 4:19 pm
And what is wrong with „good‟?
All very odd.
Reply

Andy Russell says:

September 8, 2010 at 5:17 pm
DrAust
I agree, I‟ve not heard of any a3s ever getting funded either. But NERC define a4 as excellent so I don‟t
know where this 45% figure comes from.
Reply

xtaldave says:
September 8, 2010 at 5:29 pm
I still think the most likely figure to be the source of the “45%” claim, is the 2*, 1* and unclassified research
as defined be RAE 2008.
That work is all grant funded – and is not in the “excellent” 3* and 4* – and given it‟s the only thing he‟s
directly made reference too….
Reply
Kieron Flanagan » Blog Archive » Vince Cable on science cuts says:
September 8, 2010 at 6:57 pm
[...] 45% figure quoted by Cable on R4 this morning might have come from. @xtaldave has an interesting
blog post about how the figure might come from (a misunderstanding of) the outcome (and workings) of the
[...]
Reply

xtaldave says:
September 8, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Little edit for those following this post – It turns out I was pretty much right – it was a play on the RAE 2008
–http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/news/100908
Woo yay!.

2010/09/08 BBC NEWS: VINCE CABLE REVEALS

A STRATEGY TO CUT SCIENCE FUNDING

Vince Cable called for closer ties between research and

business.

Business Secretary Vince Cable has unveiled plans for a squeeze on public funding for scientific research.

He urged universities to do "more for less" and said taxpayers should only back research that has a
commercial use or was academically outstanding.

Mr Cable said in a speech in London that the government "values" UK science and research and spends
£4.3bn a year.

255 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
However, Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society, said cutting science funding would be a false economy.

Mr Cable's speech came ahead of next month's Comprehensive Spending Review, which is likely to squeeze
resources.

The business secretary urged universities to find ways of earning money from their research, especially
from the business sector, in order to make up for limits on public spending.

He told an audience of academics at the University of London: "There is a school of thought which says that
government commitment to science and technology is measured by how much money it spends.

"Money is important both for the quantity and quality. But it is an input - not an output - measure. We
could do more for less."

Mr Cable added that he supported top-class "blue skies" research, but "there is no justification for
taxpayers' money being used to support research which is neither commercially useful nor theoretically
outstanding".

Analysis

Norman SmithChief political correspondent, BBC Radio 4

Vince Cable's message to the scientific community is a pretty blunt one - you need to be
less reliant on the state and taxpayers' money.

The problem is many would argue that only the state can provide scientists with the sort of
guaranteed, long term funding to make the great scientific breakthroughs.

There is also a suspicion that Mr Cable's pledge to "ration by excellence" amounts to a

scientific version of Labour's old and discredited "picking winners" industrial strategy.

And, scientists will no doubt point out that the great eureka moments do not happen to an
orderly time scale. Often they happen by accident and after years of seemingly futile
research.

Lastly, Labour will claim that cutting science budgets damages our prospects for future
economic growth.

Mr Cable may find he has a fight on his hands.

The Liberal Democrat minister said that "transforming research into innovation" by linking
research institutions to business is crucial.

"It is not a case of ditching scientific research that doesn't offer an immediate economic
benefit. But I do think we need to do more to ensure that we reap the benefits of research,"
he said.

Wrong message
But Royal Society president Lord Rees told theFinancial Times: "It is crucial that short-term austerity
should not undermine our science and innovation capacity.

"Global competition for the most talented individuals, the most innovative companies and leadership in
high-tech sectors is intensifying.

256 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
"Cuts would create the impression that UK science is in relative decline and make the UK a less attractive
location for mobile talent and investment."

Universities UK also warned that Mr Cable risked sending the wrong message.

Professor Steve Smith, president of the organisation, which represents all UK universities, said funding is
already "strongly weighted towards world leading research and internationally excellent research".

He added: "The coalition government is in danger of sending the message that the UK is not a serious
player in the field of science and innovation."

And Professor Les Ebdon, chair of Million+, which represents new universities, said: "The UK does not fund
mediocre research.

"It funds excellent research which is found in universities throughout the UK. Any proposal to cut the
quality related research funding stream would damage the UK's research base and the capacity for future
innovation vital to our economy."

2010/09/08 CASE: VINCE CABLE VERSUS THE

WORLD ON SCIENCE
By NICK HALL | Published: 08/09/2010

Earlier today the Business Secretary, Vince Cable, gave a speech on science funding, in
which he warned of considerable government spending cuts and urged the scientific
community to achieve “more with less”. CaSE has compiled a comparison of Cable’s
comments with those of current world leaders, below.

Dr Vince Cable, President of the UK Board of Trade and Secretary of State for
Business – September 2010
“How do we economise without damaging science? What reforms are needed to help us
achieve more with less?

Barack Obama, President of the United States – April 2009

“At such a difficult moment, there are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science,
that support for research is somehow a luxury at moments defined by necessities. I
fundamentally disagree. Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our
health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been before.”

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany – April 2010

“During my term as Federal Chancellor, the Federal Government has repeatedly declared
that the prosperity of a country such as Germany, with its scarce mineral resources, must

257 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
be sought through investment in research, education and science, and this to a
disproportionate degree.”

Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France – June 2010

“Science is, I am well aware, a fragile enterprise and scientists must be defended against
obscurantism, fanaticism, wilful ignorance and contempt for the truth. The economic
downturn should not prompt us to postpone investment in science, but rather to bring it
forward and consolidate it.”

Dr Manmohan Singh, President of India – January 2010

“If India has to emerge as a knowledge power in the 21st century, then it can only be
through a strong capability in science and technology”

2010/09/08 CANCER RESEARCH UK:

IMPROVING THE HEALTH OF OUR ECONOMY

Business Secretary Vince Cable has indicated a squeeze on public funding for scientific research

On 20th October the UK Government will announce how they‟re going to distribute public money in the
coming years. As a nation, we already know that we‟re in for a rough ride. The question is how rough,
and who and what are going to take the biggest hit.

While health has been given a welcome reprieve, with NHS budgets protected, science and research
remain in the firing line.

In a speech today, the coalition‟s Business Secretary Vince Cable has indicated a squeeze on public
funding for scientific research.

258 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
But the science community is warning that this could have serious consequences and, in a major
analysis piece in today‟s Times, our Chief Executive Harpal Kumar tackles the issues head on.

“Scientific research makes a vital contribution to the economy, and the Government‟s role in this
research is crucial. At Cancer Research UK, we understand that the Government has some incredibly
tough decisions to make and that cuts in the science budget next month are inevitable. However, we
must all consider the long-term harm that would follow,” he writes.

We want the Government to remember that while medical research is good for health, and great for
furthering scientific knowledge, it is also hugely valuable for the strength of the economy.

Quite aside from the fact that research leads to better ways to treat and prevent ill health – and a
healthy workforce is a more productive one – medical research can lead to serious economic benefit,
from discovering new drugs and treatments, encouraging investment from industry and charities, to
improving existing techniques to make them cheaper for the NHS.

In fact, every pound that the government spends on medical research generates much more than a
pound of additional private sector funding, and together they generate increased wealth for the UK.

The UK science base is one of the most productive amongst the world‟s leading economies. In a recent
letter, the Royal Society argue that significant cuts would lead to irreversible damage to the UK
economy.

How the Government funds research

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), is the NHS‟s research arm. It provides a vital link
between the researchers and the patients. We hope that this crucial organisation is included in the
Government‟s commitment to the NHS.

But aside from the NHS and NIHR, the Government funds medical research through two main routes.

Firstly, Research Councils UK gives grants to individual researchers to carry out particular projects.

Secondly, „funding councils‟ in the different UK nations support universities directly, giving them money
for things like building costs, permanent salaries, and teaching. (For example, the funding council in
England is the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). They also judge which
universities are doing the highest quality research, and fund them based on this track record.

Such funding provides a supportive environment for research. This money, often channelled to
universities through the funding councils, plants the seed for further investment from charities and
industry. It encourages these different partners to work together.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts

The two examples below show just how important partnerships are to medical research and to
improving the economy.
259 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
The Manchester Cancer Research Centre (MCRC), a multi-million pound project between Manchester
University, supported by Government funding, the Paterson Institute, the Christie Foundation Hospital,
and Cancer Research UK. As such, it‟s a great example of how a small amount of government funding
can attract extra cash from other organisations. And it‟s also attracted industry – AstraZeneca has
contributed £2.12m to this area. This private funding is incredibly important for a number of reasons,
not least because it enables large phase III clinical trials to take place in the UK, which are simply too
expensive for charities and universities to run.

In collaboration like this, each of the individual funders will have their own interests, motives and
priorities. But when these these combine, it to establishes a strong national research base.

Another exciting partnership is unfolding at the UK Centre for Medical Research and
Innovation (UKCMRI). This centres around a strong partnership between the Medical Research Council,
the Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK, and University College London. Each partner brings
significant expertise to the table that will ensure that the UKCMRI becomes a research centre of
international acclaim.

The UKCMRI will encourage partnerships across a range of different subjects, such as biology,
chemistry and medicine, allowing experts from these different backgrounds to work together closely.
This drives research forwards, producing innovative new solutions to scientific challenges.

It is therefore crucial that these different disciplines are supported to make sure that research
throughout the UK is of the highest quality, and to enable the UKCMRI project to reach its full
potential.

We have put together a number of different examples, including those mentioned above, to show the
Government just how much medical research can do for the economy.

The impact caused by cuts in the short term would last for a long time, and would take even longer to
repair. So the UK would be likely to lose out over a sustained period, even if science funding was
restored further down the line.

It takes an average of 17 years for a newly-funded research project to start benefiting patients, so
solid, long-term investment is crucial to future success. This is why it is so important that the current
level of funding needs to be protected as much as is possible.

The alternative is to see years of investment fall by the wayside and the health and prosperity of the
UK further diminished. And ultimately, this will affect those in the future who are unfortunate enough
to develop cancer.

260 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 2010/09/08 TELEGRAPH: TELL VINCE CABLE:
SCIENCE CUTS ARE A BAD IDEA
By Tom Chivers

I'm gonna cut you. I'm gonna cut you good. PIC: PA

This is bad news: Vince Cable, the business secretary, has admitted that the government is going to cut
science funding.

Certainly he dressed it up nicely – saying how the Coalition “values”science, and that there is more to
government commitment to science than mere money – but the point is that it is going to be cut.

It’s not unreasonable to say that this is a defining moment for the government. Britain is, you might be
surprised to hear, something of a world leader in scientific research. A stat that’s been doing the rounds
today is that it has around one per cent of the world’s population, but contributes eight per cent of its
scientific papers, and 12 per cent of journal citations (a standard criterion of scientific influence). Obviously
that’s not a hugely useful stat on its own – it is not surprising that we are more influential scientifically than
Iran, say, or the Democratic Republic of Congo. But it does suggest that we’re doing something right.

Cuts in funding – especially the swingeing cuts that are being darkly hinted at – could ruin that. Martin
Rees, the President of the Royal Society, says: “A cut by x percent would lead to a decline of much more
than x percent in top-grade scientific output.” As he points out, the USA and other nations are increasing
their spending – and can reasonably expect to poach top talent away from British universities, who can
afford neither the salaries nor the research materials to attract the best candidate.

Mr Cable claims that “there is no justification for taxpayers’ money being used to support research which is
neither commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding”. But how do you know, before the research is
done, whether it will be “theoretically outstanding”? You don’t, of course. Universities have to guess in
advance which applicants’ research topics will be worthwhile. Reducing funding will force universities to
pick fewer, which may mean a reduction in dud topics, but equally might mean we miss the next Francis
Crick, Ernest Rutherford or Paul Dirac.

261 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
From a purely pragmatic, financial point of view, it seems a bad move as well. Scientific research pays for
itself many times over in economic growth; last week hi-tech companies were warning the
government that cutting science and innovation budgets would be “disastrously short-sighted”.

But it’s more than that. Now is the best time ever to be a human, in the million-year history of our species.
Our life expectancy is double what it was a hundred years ago and is rising all over the world. The
population has doubled in the last 50 years, yet per capita food production has gone up. People are
healthier, safer and more productive than they have ever been; one of the Western world’s greatest health
problems is eating too much, for heaven’s sake. Imagine how people would have loved that problem a
century ago. We are true citizens of the world, able to communicate at a moment’s notice with people
anywhere on the planet, and to travel to meet them within a day or so.

All of these advances are the result of scientific progress, in medicine, in agriculture, in genetics and
biology, in public health, in physics and electronics. I’d like it if human progress continued because of the
British government, rather than in spite of it.

2010/09/08 SCIDEV.NET: CHINA TO DOUBLE

SCIENCE COMMUNICATORS BY 2020
Ding Jie

8 September 2010 | EN

Special attention will be given to agricultural communication

Flickr/Passetti

[BEIJING] China will double its number of science communicators to four million by 2020, according to the
Chinese Association for Science and Technology.

The association will train and support professional communicators to work in rural areas and museums. It
also hopes to boost the number of advanced professionals in science writing; research and development;
and science industry management, as outlined in the plan, '2010–2020 China's Popular Science Talent
Plan'.

According to the association's press release, China believes there is a shortage of science communicators
— or 'science popularisation professionals' — in the country, and especially in rural areas, where it plans to
have 1.7 million.

262 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
"The four million number," said Yin Hao, vice minister of the association's science popularisation
department, "will include 500,000 full-time and 3,500,000 part-time communicators, including 2,200,000
volunteers". But Yin gave no details about the overall funding and training channels for the increase.

The Chinese government officially announced the Medium and Long-term Talent Development Plan (2010-
2020) in early June. Zhan Zhengmao, director of the China Institute of Science Communication, said:
"Increasing the numbers of science popularisation professionals is one of the supporting measures of that
plan".

"There has been a knowledge gap between people in urban and rural areas for a long time and it won't
disappear quickly," Zhan said. "We will draw up a science popularisation talent project to serve the current
demand in rural areas."

According to the association, the central government will invest 300 million yuan (around US$44 million)
this year to reward excellent science communication groups and individuals in rural areas, and special
attention will be given to those facilitating low-carbon agriculture and modern agricultural knowledge.

"A key change desperately needed in rural areas is to enhance agricultural technologies, which is placed in
a prominent position by the Chinese government," Li Daguang, director of the Science Communication
Centre at the Graduate University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, toldSciDev.Net.

But science communicators should have a clear practical impact in China to be effective, said Li.

"If knowledge disseminated by science communication experts is too abstract or useless in actual
production, science communication will have no significant effect."

The plan was released in late July.

2010/09/08 CHANNEL 4 NEWS: VINCE CABLE

WARNS OF SCIENCE FUNDING CUTS
By Channel 4 News

Business Secretary Vince Cable drops heavy hints that taxpayers' money for scientific research will be cut
as part of the government's drive to reduce the deficit. Channel 4 News analyses the effect any cuts could
have on the British economy.

Mr Cable said the government spent £6bn a year supporting science and research in the UK. In a speech,
he did not give any indication of the size of the cuts ahead, but in an interview on the BBC Today
programme, he dismissed speculation of a 35 per cent reduction as "way in excess of what we are talking
about".

In his speech, Mr Cable said: "There is a school of thought which says that government commitment to
science and technology is measured by how much money it spends. Money is important both for the
quantity and quality. But it is an input, not an output, measure. The question I have to address is can we
achieve more with less."

The Liberal Democrat MP added that research should be rationed by excellence, with mediocrity "screened
out".

263 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
He talked about how other countries were investing in science - with the US doubling spending and the
Chinese government increasing by a quarter the amount it allocates to science and technology - and posed
the question: "How do we economise without damaging science?"

Research "crucial"

Mr Cable's speech coincided with a report in the Times newspaper, suggesting that ahead of next month's
comprehensive spending review, the Medical Research Council (MRC) is considering plans to withdraw the
£105m it spends every year on cancer. The MRC told Channel 4 News it was "too early to comment" on
proposed cuts.

Cancer Research UK (CRUK), which is funded by donors rather than public money, said it could not be
expected to fill the gap. The charity pointed to research suggesting that every pound of public money spent
on medical research led to even more being spent by the private and charitable sectors - boosting Britain's
national output.

This research was a one-year study, published in 2008 by the Health Economics Research Group and RAND
Europe and commissioned by the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Medical Research Council and the
Wellcome Trust.

Concentrating on two areas - cardio-vascular disease and mental health - it compared the benefits to the
UK from taxpayer and charity-funded medical research with the cost of that research.

The conclusion argued that every pound invested in research in these two areas gave returns of 39p and
37p a year respectively "in perpetuity".

Hilary Tovey, policy manager for CRUK, told Channel 4 News: "Medical research is crucial not only for the
health of the nation, but also for the future health of the economy. The relationship between public sector
funding and charitable funding creates an environment where you are attracting some of the best
scientists from around the world - a very healthy partnership when you're talking about economic
recovery.

"I think you have to be very careful about how you cut. The big concern is making cuts and feeling you can
later repair the damage. It can take an awful long time to do this."

Ms Tovey added: "Suggesting that you shouldn't fund research that doesn't have commercial capability
would be very worrying."

The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) said government spending in these areas made up less
than one per cent of its total budget and had proven benefits.

Imran Khan, director of CaSE, told Channel 4 News that his organisation had told the government that
cutting spending on research and development would not help to reduce the deficit because it would scare
off investors, who, "if they see favourable conditions abroad will be forced to look abroad".

Mr Khan added: "Private sector investment hinges on the public sector, but the government seems to be
putting up barriers. At the moment, the UK is seen as a global leader in research and the effect of this
could be to confine us in a lower league."

264 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 2010/09/08 ROYAL SOCIETY BLOG IN VERBA:
THE POPULATION AGENDA: A EUROPEAN
PERSPECTIVE
By Marie Rumsby on 8 September 2010

For the first time in human history, since the year 2000, the world has more people sixty years or older
than children aged zero to four (Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society: June 2010). And
according to James Vaupel from the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, a baby born today
can on average expect to live to around 100 years old. That means that the human race has been gaining
an extra 2 and a half years in longevity per decade – that is a statistic which I find just staggering!An ageing
population was one of the most talked about issues at the European Population Conference, which took
place in Vienna last week. I was one of the 800 people gathered in the city’s university to hear from
scientists and policymakers about issues as diverse as migration, maternal mortality, land use and sexual
and reproductive health.

One of the consequences of an ageing population is an increase in the demographic dependency ratio –
that is the ratio of those typically in the labour force to those typically out of the labour force. And
according to Eurostat’s projections, Europe’s labour force is set to decline in number after 2014. During
the policy sessions held at the conference, several potential solutions to this problem were discussed,
including migration, later retirement ages and part-time working. There was also an interesting discussion
about how we structure our lives. For example, if we can expect to live to 100 years old, does it make
sense to cram education, family and career into the first 65 years of life, and then spend the next 35 years
in retirement?

When considering an ageing population and a decline in Europe’s labour force, there is a need to look
afresh at some of our immigration policies. The member states of the European Union have agreed to
develop a common immigration policy. But it is important to remember that individual member states can
go way beyond the policies of the EU. Here in the UK, the Government recently announced a temporary
cap on the number of migrants coming to the UK from outside the EU, while the UK Border Agency and the
Migration Advisory Committee run consultations on what the permanent level of immigration should be.
The new limit will be imposed as of April 2011.

All of this offers interesting food for thought, especially in today’s economically competitive market, as
members of the European Union strive for sustainable and inclusive growth, as part of the Europe 2020
strategy . Migration and an ageing population are both population variables which we are considering
exploring as part of the ‘People and the planet’ study, which will look at the role of global population in
sustainable development. We are seeking the latest scientific evidence to inform our study, and so have
issues a call for evidence. For more information, or to view the call for evidence, please see our website.

265 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 2010/09/08 ANDREW JAFFE: SCIENCE:
COMMERCIALLY USEFUL OR THEORETICALLY
OUTSTANDING?
Today was the next drip in the ongoing water torture that is the upshot of the government’s funding cuts
on UK science: BIS Minister Vince Cable gave the coalition government’s first major speech on science.
Rumors have been flying around of cuts of 20-30%, and we have been searching for any hints of the
Government’s science strategy in advance of the comprehensive spending review next month. The two
biggest questions have been the overall magnitude of the coming cuts, and how the remaining money
would be allocated. Would “economic impact” trump scientific excellence, favoring subjects (irrespective
of quality) that can be monetized in the short term over so-called blue-skies research?

Cable indeed highlighted the importance of impact, and eventually boiled down the government’s strategy
to funding research that is either “commercially useful” or “theoretically outstanding”. In so doing,
he mentioned that 54% of UK science researchers were rated “world class” in the last RAE, and, by
implication, that the remaining 46% is in danger. Hearing this, any scientist who has ever evaluated grants
for funding councils like STFC would be puzzled: over the last few years we can’t even afford to fund all of
the excellent proposals, much less any that aren’t obviously world-class. Indeed: even leaving aside the
clear discrepancies between fields in the ratings, what isn’t mentioned in the speech is that this 46%
receives less than 10% of all research funding (from 2% to 7% depending on what gets counted as
“research funding”). William Cullerne Bown speculatesthat Cable therefore meant we are in for a 2%-7%
cut, which would be seen in the current climate as a huge victory for science (although may only be a
precursor to further cuts, in any event). I am not so sure; if he is looking to make large savings in the BIS
portfolio this is a good sound-bite to excuse swingeing science cuts. But I, along with almost everyone else,
wait and hope.

Jenny Rohn suggests we do more than wait: that we march on Parliament. She has set up a Facebook page
to organize the campaign, “Science is Vital”, putting into practice the ideas espoused by Evan Harris at last
week’s Science Online 2010 conference and in the aftermath of today’s speech. As long as we can control
the message, this can be effective — but we can’t be seen as merely defending our own turf or, what could
be worse, as white-coated boffins waving our test tubes at MPs. This isn’t funny, and science needs to be
seen, correctly, as vital to the health of the nation.

(For more information and viewpoints on the speech, see posts by Kieron Flanagan,dellybean, Roger
Highfield, Evan Harris, The Times Higher, and Peter Coles.)

266 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 2010/09/09 EXQUISITE LIFE: IN ONE DAY,
VINCE CABLE HAS BECOME AN OBJECT OF
RIDICULE AND LOATHING
It was a momentary slip. Something, Lib Dems will say, that could happen to anyone. But one thing is for
sure, Vince Cable's confusion on yesterday’s Today programme over percentages, the Research
Assessment Exercise and research council grants has cost him dearly with scientists. He started the day as a
reasonably new, reasonably popular cabinet minister for science. By the end of it, he was for many an
object of ridicule and loathing.

To anyone who isn’t a researcher, it’s probably hard to see what the fuss is about. The key passage from
Cable’s BBC interview is this:

“There was some estimate on the basis of surveys done recently that something in the order of 45 per cent
of the research grants that were going through was to research that was not of excellent standard. So the
bar will have to be raised.”

That 45 per cent is the sort of mind-numbing statistic that politicians hurl around every day. But to
researchers who strain every intellectual sinew to win one of those coveted research council grants, it
sounded like a slap in the face. Almost half our research, the Business Secretary seemed to be saying, is
rubbish. In one moment, Cable had trashed the reputation of British science, and of everyone who works in
it.

The reaction was swift and furious. It started on Twitter, before Cable had even left the BBC. Initially the
tone was of disappointment and bewilderment.

DrPetra: I changed my vote from Labour to LibDem at last election based primarily on promises to
prioritise science. I feel so let down.

Cable then had a chance to put things right when he made a set-piece speech on science. He didn’t make
any more serious slips. But he was vague enough about some obvious things, such as the name of the
Research Assessment Exercise, to suggest that he had not properly mastered his brief. And, presumably
unaware of the storm swelling on the internet, he did not correct his earlier mistake.

By lunchtime, John Butterworth, one of the country’s leading physicists, was scornfully indulging in
imagined Whitehall repartee, including this:

Minister: Oh well, we clearly should only fund excellence. It is inexcusable surely that we are funding
anything that is below average?

Civil servant: Quite right minister. We should only fund the top half I would say. We should monitor it
annually and if any of it is below the top half we should cut it.

(Don’t worry if you don’t get the joke. Scientists do.)

By the early afternoon, Jennifer Rohn, a post-doctoral cell biologist at University College London had issued
a call to arms. She wanted a march through London. Soon there was a page where you could register for
the march. And two Facebook groups,Science is Vital and Vince Cable is Wrong On Science (combined
membership on Day 1, 324).

267 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
By 4 o’clock, tweeters xtaldave (a protein crystallographer) andTelescoper (a professor of theoretical
astrophysics) had both posted blogs disentangling Cable’s confusions. These demonstrated that Cable’s
slap in the face had all the credibility of homeopathic computer. As Telescoper put it, “This basic
misunderstanding convinces me that Vince Cable is completely out of his depth in this job.” The floodgates
opened as scientists took aim at the suggestion of cuts of 25 per cent. First came the one-liners on Twitter,
including these from lecanardnoir andRichardWiseman:

Vince Cable will be cutting the value of Pi by 25%. All scientists must now use 2.356194490192345

Vince Cable to reduce number of planets in solar system to 6. Neptune and Mercury were not proving to
be "commercially useful".

Vince Cable to remove uneconomic elements from periodic table

In line with Vince Cable's science and mathematics cut backs, squares should now only have three sides.

You may laugh. But ridicule is, for politicians, more poisonous than the harshest criticism.

Then came more blogs. There are speeches by Cable that I have, as far as I can tell, been the only person in
the entire world to care about. But now bloggers and journalists were jumping into the fray. And, having
lost respect for Cable, commentators felt free to ridicule what was in many ways an unremarkable speech.
Many ministerial speeches are old hat, weakly argued and short on evidence. Usually they are just ignored.
Not this one.

The Times Science Editor wrote, “While it would be nice to think we can achieve more by spending less, a
far more probable outcome is that we will end up achieving less with less.”

“Dr Cable has urged UK scientists to ‘do more with less’,” commented the Russell Group of leading
universities with haughty scorn. “They already are.”

The weary editor of the New Scientist said, “Every minister I have listened to over the past three decades
has banged on about precisely the things that he did today.”

The Campaign for Science and Engineering mocked Cable, contrasting his arguments for cutting science
spending with quotes from Barack Obama and other leaders around the world who are spending more on
science despite the recession.

During the day, Cable’s science-friendly Lib Dem colleague Evan Harris posted not one but two blogs trying
to explain Cable’s position. And Research Councils UK issued a statement clarifying what Cable had meant
to say. But it was to no avail.

At the intellectual level, Cable’s ideas were criticised as “strange” and “bizarre” by Kieron Flanagan, a
Manchester academic who specialises in science policy.

Bob May, who was Tony Blair’s chief scientific adviser, joined in,calling some of Cable's claims in his speech
"just plain stupid".

And on it went. The Guardian’s science correspondent Alok Jha called the frenzy a “meltdown”.

Looking back, we can see the ground had been prepared by Cable’s own spin doctors, who the night before
had trailed in the BBC and Guardian some particularly gloomy extracts from the speech the Business
Secretary was due to deliver that morning. Lines such as "There is no justification for taxpayers' money
[supporting] research which is neither commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding" had already
succeeded in both annoying and worrying scientists.

268 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
But it was Cable’s own stumbling performance on the Today programme that lit the touch paper. And now,
in the space of just a day, it has become open season on the Business Secretary.

“Oh Vince,” blogged Paul Dobson, a bioinformatics postdoc in Sheffield, at the end of the day. “What have
you done? You seemed like such a nice, sensible chap.”

Other responses

Universities UK - the coalition government is in danger of sending the message that the UK is not a serious
player in the field of science and innovation.

TUC - Cutting science budget is 'exactly the wrong thing to do'

Tomfoolery - Unfortunately for Cable, his judgment on science comes across as almost insulting

Nature’s Great Beyond blog - Generally the feeling seems to be that Cable doesn’t really understand
science

Austin Elliot - If the idea that you could tell in advance just what science was going to be important later
was a bunch of bulllshit then, then it's just as much of a bunch of bullshit now.

Benjamin Brooks - There isn’t such a thing as “Mediocre research”

The Daily Telegraph blog - Tell Vince Cable: science cuts are a bad idea

Guardian report - Scientist line up to condemn government budgets cuts, thought to be as high as 25%

dellybean diary - no other country, despite suffering from a shared financial crisis, seems to consider cuts
in science as an option

Gimpyblog - Is Cable saying scientists are inherently more rational and less prejudiced than other members
of society?

My own analysis of Cable's speech - It turns out that all the gloomy stuff in advance about not funding
"mediocre" research probably only adds up to £115m of cuts.

And a special thanks to Beck Smith at the Biochemical Society for various links I'd missed - what followed
suggested that a valued contribution would not be sufficient to protect science from significant spending
cuts.
Posted by William Cullerne Bown

Comments

"(Don‘t worry if you don‘t get the joke. Scientists do.)"

Is that enough?
I thought Kieron's point about expectation management on the Times was a reasonable one - that although the
speech was delivered in a university, maybe we should think of the target audience as outside that little box -
the media, the wider public and the Conservative Party.
Maybe the science fuss is the focus, and even if it isn't will make enough noise to be seen as such later. I really
don't.
I suspect they will need to make their case to these other audiences though, and not *just* build a complain of
complaint amongst themselves. I don't think the campaign will work if it is built entirely on Save British Science
style standing up for the right to be heard as scientists, it will have to be a matter of showing people why this
is important. Science will have to go about explaining its jokes.
Posted by: alice | September 09, 2010 at 08:03 AM
269 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Sorry finger-slip - "will make enough noise to be seen as such later. I really don't" should end "I really don't
know".
I'll be interested to see how the protest idea works out.
Am quite seriously keeping an open mind on this.
Posted by: alice | September 09, 2010 at 08:06 AM

A joke you have to explain was never any good in the first place, Alice.
I'm open minded about the "protest" too. Lot's of people are going to be protesting in the next months and
years about lots of things.
To me the key is the economic argument (first part of my "joke" piece William quotes from). If you accept it,
you don't cut science. They say they accept it (good), but still plan to cut science (inconsistent at best).
Protests may help force that issue?
Posted by: Jon Butterworth | September 09, 2010 at 08:17 AM

Jon, Alice,
Protest or not, someone needs to get out there and explain the 45% error. Listening to the (usually-wonderful)
Colin Blakemore on Today prog this morning was horrible - he couldn't explain the error and was unconvincing on
why you can't predict the value of research beforehand.
Also, why did he not say that 45% is from RAE rankings and that RC funding is focused (more than 90%) on the
54% of departments. Research is already concentrated. Cable is a disaster. Blakemore didn't help though.
Posted by: Alok Jha | September 09, 2010 at 08:28 AM

Jon - hey some of the best jokes are ones only small groups get! I think you are right about forcing
inconsistency of economic point too.
I suspect Alok's right to focus on 43% though - correcting that will be part of sci com'ty taking more control
of the "expectation management" business.
Posted by: alice | September 09, 2010 at 08:40 AM

I don't think Roger Highfield will be the last to call for the return of SBS. CaSE probably needs to think about
how to play this card. Probably are actually.
Posted by: William Cullerne Bown | September 09, 2010 at 09:15 AM

I think Alok Jha is right to focus on the 45% claim. It is very probably just a slip by a busy and sleep-deprived
minister not fully in command of his brief. But it is also a powerful way of preparing the ground by undermining
arguments for maintaining funding at the current levels.
Having said that I would (again) make a plea for the follow-up debate not to be just focused on threats to
'basic' research funding. What we are talking about is the impact of cuts or changes on the UK's system for
doing, and for taking advantage of, research. It's the health of the system that is important. For instance even
small cuts of the kind William Bown talks about in relation to withdrawing QR from lower-rated units could have
massive long-term negative impacts by reducing diversity in the system.
Posted by: Kieronflanagan | September 09, 2010 at 09:43 AM

270 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 2010/09/09 CONSIDER, EVALUATE, ACT
PRATEEK BUCH: THE POLITICS OF SCIENCE
FUNDING, IN TWO PARTS: PART ONE - SPIN
(OFFS)
On Wednesday September 8th 2010 the Business Secretary Dr. Vince Cable laid out his plans for the future
of science and technology funding in the UK in a speech as Queen Mary, University of London. I'd like to
contribute to the debate the speech has sparked, in two parts - Part One looks at two concepts likely to be
at the heart of the Coalition Government's approach to science funding; the Spin-Off, and commercially
useful research. Part Two will focus on the science community's reaction to Dr. Cable's speech, and the
implications for the relationship between science, government and the economy.

Spin – where science, business and government interact.

This summer has been full of spin, from Graeme Swann flooring Pakistan’s batting order, to the political
type relating more to budget deficits, and free schools – perhaps more prominent than ever in our brave
new world of coalition government. But it seems one type of spin – or rather, spin-off – may be in retreat;
moreover, opinion is divided over the merits its apparent decline.

Spin-off companies, start-up business ventures (usually) originating in academic institutions, are a means
to commercialise the fruits of research; patenting molecules, materials and more to cash in on the often
lucrative intellectual property that scientific research can give rise to.

Not unnatural, one might think; having invested millions in highly specialised research, institutions look to
profit from the sale of resultant technology – many say that’s as it should be. However, some see the
attraction of IP-driven commercialisation as putting the profit motive before research aims, making science
subservient to commercial interests – often to the detriment of scientific and medical progress. It’s this
subversion of the scientific process which drives critics of the spin-off model as it’s currently applied, who
rightly worry about academic independence.

So why the interest in spin-offs and the links between academic research and business? The rise and fall of
the spin-off has largely mirrored the availability of easy credit in recent years, with new companies far
thinner on the ground since the financial crash. This matter all the more given the financial pressures
research institutions are likely to face in the near future: fans of the spin-off will advocate greater, more
lucrative commercialisation of research, arguing that institutions can offset government spending cuts,
whilst critics will fear even greater dependence on market forces and a greater focus on what makes
money rather than what we as a society deem of importance.

The Business Secretary Vince Cable, under whose auspices university and science funding falls, argues that
as central government funding for science is cut, institutions should take three mitigating actions: one,
concentrate on research that is rated as internationally excellent, two, focus on commercially useful
research. and three, increase the rate at which they spin-off their research into commercial entities and
products. Two broad problems arise.

271 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Firstly, internationally excellent and commercially useful research is made possible by the unglamorous
work of so-called lesser labs, on whose shoulders the giants of world-beating science stand; take away the
work that is, in Dr. Cable’s words, ‘neither commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding,’ and you risk
the whole enterprise of scientific endeavour from collapsing (and this is to say nothing of who or what
decides on what is of either commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding). Of course, the way to judge
Dr. Cable’s position on the level of funding is to see what comes out of the Comprehensive Spending
Review (CSR); but as Dr. Evan Harris wrote in analysing Dr. Cable's speech,

it is hard to measure the theoretical breakthroughs let alone the commercial utility at the outset, and
secondly because – as Cable says elsewhere in his speech – there is a false dichotomy between the
theoretical and the commercial

which makes it all the more important that the CSR doesn't impose an arbitrary standard of commercial
utility on publicly funded science.

Secondly, tying research to commercial interests risks recreating the private-sector’s profit-driven
approach in the public sphere; society would in fact benefit if publicly-funded research focussed precisely
on those areas which corporate chiefs deem commercially unviable, such as mental health, technology to
mitigate climate change and eradication of infectious diseases in the Third World.

Which is not to say that links between commerce and research are to be avoided – there are many
successful examples of such links, particularly in the Research Triangle in North Carolina and Palo Alto’s
faculty-business links. But it’s crucial that spin-offs remain just that – side-effects if you will, not the goal
itself. Because a world without knowledge that cannot be patented would be a poorer place, perhaps not
in the narrow economic sense that scientists now fear their work will be judged upon, but in a way that
makes it that much harder for the Newtons and Darwins of tomorrow to expand the horizons of human
understanding – something that’s hard to put a price on.

2010/09/09 NOT EXACTLY ROCKET SCIENCE:

OF WRITERS AND ACTIVISTS – ARE SCIENCE
BLOGGERS BEING AMBITIOUS ENOUGH?

At the moment, the question that I most often get asked is, “Do you ever sleep?” Until recently, “Why
aren’t you doing more?” has always been fairly low on the list, but I seem to be hearing this sentiment
more frequently, or perhaps a slight variant of it: “Why aren’t you doing things differently?”

272 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Over the last week, several people have independently raised the idea that writers should also be activists,
and that bloggers are not being ambitious enough in not canvassing for social change. When Sheril
Kirshenbaum started a thread to discuss the “science writing renaissance”, Roger Harris quickly shifted the
topic to talk of “support for science funding among politicians”, “higher enrollment in science *university
courses+”. He went on to say “My point is that science communicators have insularized themselves,
creating a community that while vibrant and expressive, rarely advocates for societal change. A shame,
IMO, when such smart, articulate and well-informed people should abdicate their higher purpose to
society as a whole.”

This isn’t new. A few months back, following an evening debate among UK science bloggers, Shane
McCracken wrote, “I felt that despite the eloquence of the community, their wit, their intellect, they were
not being very ambitious with what could be achieved with the medium.” McCracken, whose “background
is with govt and civil society bloggers”, called for people to use the web and blogs “to make things better.”

These certainly are questions worth asking. Stephen Curry said that while “advocacy *is+ not for everyone”,
there is “some introversion in *the+ blogosphere, so *it’s+ good for people to be challenged”. I’d agree, but
there is something about these provocative challenges that leaves me uneasy: they feel patronising.
Hidden among these words, there seems to be an implication that we should all be activists and perhaps
even that compared to advocacy, the practice of ‘pure’ writing sits on a lower rung on the ladder of worth.
As Harris says, these are “the questions science writers should be addressing if they are to aspire to be
more than mere hacks”.

In a comment on an earlier post, Darlene Cavalier (Science Cheerleader) wondered if “there’s a real
opportunity here for bloggers to move beyond theoretical chit-chat (though there is a place for that) over
to the world of the “doers.” Or, move from being problem identifiers to problem solvers.” Cavalier clarified
that she’s not referring to all bloggers and I think that there is validity in her challenge.

But as I said in response, we have to be very careful about mapping our priorities onto those of others. Put
it another way: if it looks as if people aren’t solving problems, is that because they genuinely aren’t, or
because we have not considered which problems they had set out to solve?

The ever-eloquent Alice Bell wrote (in less than 140 characters, no less), “Sci blogging isn’t a benign social
entity. Bloggers should be aware of this. Most are. It doesn’t mean social change is their job.” Indeed so.
There are already many bloggers and science communicators who tackle big issues of advocacy and social
change – the aforementioned Sheril Kirshenbaum, Andrew Maynard, Evan Harris, Martin Robbins,
everyone behind the SciVote movement, most members of the skeptic community, and so on.

My goals are different – they are not to change the way research gets done or they way policies are set. I
lack the experience, background, energy and time. I can only hope to do what I do best – talk about science
in a way that encourages people to listen. My goals are to inspire people about science by providing good
writing (well, communication, but primarily writing), and to improve the quality of science journalism by
providing an example and by engaging with the science writing community, at conferences and on social
media.

Is blogging the most productive way I could be doing this? Sarah Kendrew asked me this question at
Science Online London 2010 (15:00 in the third video), and I thought it a fair one. I can only answer: it is for
me (leaving aside the fact that I also try to be active on social media, speak at events, and so on). It’s the
best way I can make use of my abilities. If people had infinite time, skills and opportunities, I’d probably tell
them to be science teachers; Alom Shaha makes an able casefor why our need for science educators
surpasses our need for science communicators. But I am not a teacher; I’m a writer and I’m a journalist.

273 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
As a journalist, being an advocate can be detrimental to my job. Dan Vergano from USA Today says,
“Science reporting ain’t advocacy. That takes the field in the wrong direction, back to the 1950’s.” Nobody
would benefit from journalists who cheerlead for science without holding it to account when necessary.

As a writer, (as Frank Swain said in a recent talk), “the most powerful thing I can do is change someone’s
mind.” I absolutely agree, so do many others. Whether changing minds involves converting someone from
creationism to less wrong ways of thinking, or simply convincing someone that science is interesting, there
is power in inspiring people (who, after all, include students, teachers, politicians and voters among their
ranks). To some, this might look like an understated ambition, but it reflects the ways that I and many
others came into science in the first place: through the words and voices of people like David
Attenborough and Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins.

There’s also the issue of time. Blogging is something I do outside of a full-time job, and any time I devote to
it is time when I’m not sleeping, getting to unwind, or enjoying the company of friends and family. There
are now hundreds or thousands of people contributing their passion in this way, not in big sweeping
gestures, but in small bursts of minutes or hours. The great strength of new media lies in allowing those
small bursts to count for something. It allows people to seize those few precious minutes of free time, to
make use of the cognitive surplus that Clay Shirky so elegantly describes. It gives them more opportunities
to change minds.

Indeed, new media makes passion the foremost criterion for success, as opposed to experience or
qualifications or any of the other factors that matter more in the mainstream. Those who do well for
themselves tend to be those who persevere, who make the most effort, who speak most engagingly to
readers. And who better to showcase the wonder of science to a broad audience?

So to return to the question of solving problems versus identifying them, I feel that I am trying to solve
problems. If people feel that I need to solve a different problem, then I am amenable to this. To be clear, I
am not casting aspersions on the motivations of Harris, McCracken, Cavalier or any of the other people
who have raised this issue and I’m aware that I may be reading too much into what they’ve said. I’m
probably being too defensive about all of this. It is right that we should talk about these things and it is
right that I have felt challenged enough to write this post.

My unease does not stem from a feeling that everything’s already perfect, or that bloggers have no role in
advocacy; it stems from some of the language that’s being bandied around in challenges. When people
blog or do anything out of passion, it is a bit galling to be told that they “could be doing more” without any
accompanying suggestions of how to achieve that. That approach risks alienating people while
simultaneously calling for them to be less insular! This was exactly the problem behind the Framing Wars
of a few years back, and I’m keen to see that history doesn’t repeat itself.

This is why of all the comments I’ve read on this issue over the last two days, one actually made me
smile: a post by Shane’s excellent colleague Sophia Collins announcing a “Beyond Blogging” workshop. The
goal is to “bring together people from the worlds of science, science communication and engagement, with
some of the hackers and doers involved in civil society online engagement, to see what interesting ideas
and projects could be sparked off by it.” Their motivation: “We decided that instead of just whinging, we
should put our money where our mouth is, and do something to help!”

Bravo! This approach is more than welcome. If you believe that bloggers are being too insular, that they
aren’t making the full use of their cognitive surplus to achieve something truly society-changing, that they
aren’t having an impact, then please feel free to make suggestions as to how this could be improved. In the
meantime, I’m going to continue doing my best at what I do best: analysing, telling stories, writing.

25 Responses to ―Of writers and activists – are science bloggers being ambitious enough?‖

274 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
1. Vaughan Says:
September 8th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
I think part of the problem is the perception that writing online isn‘t ‗doing anything‘ whereas holding a protest
or running a petition is. A popular science blog will pull in at least 100,000 active readers a month. Most ‗actually
doing something‘ campaigners would chain themselves to railings for that level of interest. The difference is
that a blog is more like a maintaining a family home than throwing a garden party, so it needs time and effort to
grow from a very small beginning.
2. Razib Khan Says:
September 8th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
& bravo to you sir! i agree with pretty much 100% of what you‘re saying in the generalities (in the specifics my
own aims & methods differ in minor details). two points i‘d like to reiterate
1) this is a diverse ecology. why the need to demand conformity to some specific template? let a thousand
flowers bloom!
2) in this distributed social media universe a lot of the change is going to happen implicitly, from below, and
without coordination. jaw-jawing from on high will only get you so far.
on a personal note, i take umbrage at people who tell me what i have to do (excepting amos zeeberg of course!).
like ed i have a marginal number of labor hours, and i devote it to topics i‘ve got a lot of passion for. to be
implicitly chided that i need to redirect my passion elsewhere for the ―greater good‖ when i‘m a normal human
with a lot of other things going on would have peeved me off too (i get this crap from readers fairly often. or
should i say, ex-readers). it‘s not my labor for anyone to expropriate!
3. "Shecky R." Says:
September 8th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
―analysing, telling stories, writing‖ and you left out educating/informing… all very valuable contributions that
you perform well… different talents/motives/goals for different people…(diff strokes for diff. folks.)
Other bloggers can certainly engage in more advocacy, social change, passion, but need to realize that, rightly
or wrongly, their writing will then be perceived as less objective and more agenda-driven (that‘s the trade-off).
4. alice Says:
September 8th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
It‘s past 2:30am and I‘m awake. Blogging. I was about to switch of the computer and go to sleep but I‘ll
comment.
The post I‘ve been writing is the the Guardian. It‘s a bit campaign-y, and it‘s about campaigners. But then I‘m
doing two for the Guardian and the other is more along the lines of a this is awesome* style of writing. I have
no particular agenda to push in that piece. Yeah, it reflects my own prejudices and social position, it says things
about society (its a history of sci piece, it‘s about people), but it‘s not aiming to change your mind about much
other than, as Frank says, that you could be interested by this new thing.
Both are valid forms of science communication.
Science can be a material from which we making fun. In fact Jon Turney wrote a great paper once about how
popular science is all about aesthetics (and that‘s not to trivialize it in the slightest). Science can be part of our
entertainment. Some people add a normative dimension to this sort of science communication too by saying its
Very Important to MAKE THE PUBLIC REALISE that science can be FUN.
Huh, maybe it is.
(though I doubt people will listen to you if you keep going on about how good it is for them).
Personally, I think science communication has way more hang ups about doing good works than is entirely
healthy. Not that doing good works is a bad thing, I would stress. I got into this sci com lark via a campaigning
organisation afterall. Or that it shouldn‘t be aware of it‘s potential impacts. It‘s just that it doesn‘t have to be
constrained by the former. Just like I can be ethical in my choice of what type of clothes I wear (e.g. recycled
and/or fair trade) without always having to wear a Save the Wale t-shirt.
* Incidentally, have an idea for a blog essay (i.e. 2000 words ish) on the history of awesome I think I‘ll do next
month. Maybe it‘ll help unpick some of the background to this hang up. Might not, might just be about
mountains. Haven‘t decided yet.
5. Mike McRae Says:
September 8th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Blogging certainly has its place, as all communication does. It is a source of information for the random seeker,
as well as the core of tiny internet community bubbles which effervesce through the online universe. Both are
good things, and can inspire, inform and educate. But it has its limits and suffers – as others have said – from
the threat of introversion. Big waves in one bubble have close to zero impact on others, let alone the so-called
‗real world‘. Hence there is a magnification effect, where key messages and epiphanies in the realm of online
communities feel significant on the inside yet are barely noticed when it comes to other forms of media.

275 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
There are notable exceptions and frequent cross-overs that make this a poor generalisation, yet they are
notable because they aren‘t common. Some people claim to focus so much energy on blogging because they feel
that is all they can really contribute to. I find that to be rather unfortunate, especially given I‘ve been involved
with all manner of other social outreach activities and forms of communication that threaten to disappear for
want of passionate volunteers. Sure, an afternoon with kids at a science camp or helping to promoting local
talks, or even volunteering for the library or running a science club at a local school…none of those things feel
as important given they don‘t have the illusion of success provided by big numbers of website hits. But the
impact could be far greater.
I became a science writer because I enjoy it, so I understand the attraction. Yet I do fear we place too much
focus on shouting loud in a blog, rather than speaking smart in the community.
6. Michelle Dawson Says:
September 8th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Scientists who use blogs to exchange information & argue with each other also educate the public (who of
course can join in) about how science works. This is neither activism nor advocacy, it‘s scientists being
scientists out in public, it might even risk being productive.
Or, there are more ways to change things than being an advocate/activist. Some might be as good, or better, or
whatever. Different people have different skills.
Re ―the most powerful thing I can do is change someone‘s mind‖… I don‘t know about ―powerful‖ but the best
thing I can do is get really, really good criticism. I have no problem getting this from (non-blogging) colleagues
who helpfully rip apart my (non-blogging) work all the time. Wish I could get nearly that quality of criticism re
the science-based contents of my blog (…and there should be a *lot* more scientists in the area of autism who
blog/tweet). My question isn‘t ―how can I change someone‘s mind‖ it‘s ―how can I get better criticism?‖
7. Scicurious Says:
September 8th, 2010 at 10:41 pm
I <3 this post.
8. Dale Sheldon-Hess Says:
September 8th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
By just doing the great work that you do, I think you‘re a better advocate for, for instance, the superiority of
evolutionary biology over intelligent design, than any blog that explicitly advocates for and against those ideas.
Reporting on the awesome, unexpected, exciting, and controversial results of the scientific process is a better
argument for its power than any advocacy.
9. mcshanahan Says:
September 9th, 2010 at 12:01 am
You mentioned Darlene Cavalier‘s comments that bloggers need to move beyond chit-chat and get out and do,
suggesting visiting classrooms and volunteering for example. I would never argue with the value of that kind of
action (because it is a wonderful thing) but I want to advocate for the other side a bit. Visiting a classroom, for
example, can give around 30 students a great experience for the day, maybe something they‘ll talk about for a
couple of classes later. But what about the value of creating spaces for science teachers to deepen their
passions in science, to follow the newest research in their areas of interest or provide accessible ways to
develop their understanding of contemporary issues in areas where their background isn‘t as strong. What
about the possibility to engage (through twitter, blog comments, etc.) with online science communicators?
I see it fitting the old ‗give a man a fish vs. teaching him to fish‘ cliche. Blogs can ideally be another resource
for helping science teachers do what they do, supporting them in continually expanding and deepening their
understanding of science – potentially influencing hundreds of students a year. Written science communication
is action.
10. Glendon Mellow Says:
September 9th, 2010 at 12:25 am
Ed, this is one of my favourite posts you‘ve ever written.
I‘m not a journalist, I‘m an artist/illustrator and it‘s the same: cramming painting and blogging into the wee
hours between my (wonderful) family life and full-time job. Sometimes the paintings are about an issue worth
fighting for, and sometimes they are just made for a community who loves science the way I do.
It‘s impossible for any of us to take it all on, yet I feel guilty when an important issue arises and a sketch I‘ve
made languishes into irrelevance because painting and blogging don‘t fit into my week. I suspect others feel the
same. It‘s why when someone says something well (as you so often do) it gets forwarded and shared and
tweeted.
―I can only hope to do what I do best‖ + taking chances = Razib‘s excellent comment.
11. mcshanahan Says:
September 9th, 2010 at 12:43 am

276 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Ed – Might I add that I meant my comment to stand in agreement with what you were saying (in case that didn‘t
really come across…). I really appreciate your thoughtful reasoning on this.
12. DrugMonkey Says:
September 9th, 2010 at 1:03 am
Well put, Ed. Advocacy is not merely a skill but practically a vocation. You can‘t shame people into it, and you
sure as heck can‘t expect them to jump on *your* bandwagon. These criticisms are off base.
13. Darlene Says:
September 9th, 2010 at 1:17 am
Thanks, Ed. All valid points. I weighed in on a post related to some of the challenges of engaging the public in
science. Some suggested ideas, made by bloggers, were in fact initiatives well under way. My original point was,
and is, that there seems to be a disconnect between the bloggers writing about public engagement, and the
producers of programs and initiatives created specifically to engage the public. Some folks were pontificating
and writing while others were getting their hands dirty, working on solutions.
Certainly not mandating that you or any of the other bloggers change your M.O. however, for those interested
in engaging a much broader audience, opportunities await. May need to move beyond comfort zones/traditional
networks to find or create such opportunities. I listed some suggestions on sheril‘s blog. If you want more, say
the word.
Again, this message is for folks who want to become more involved in this work. It‘s not for everyone. And it‘s
not something one does in addition to blogging..it becomes part of your writing. (Incidentally, becoming an
advocate certainly shouldn‘t make one a less credible writer. I doubt anyone fluffs off Revkin because he‘s a
strong advocate for the environment. Discover doesn‘t diss me as a writer either.)
Lastly, again, before we criticize scientists for not doing more to engage the public (and plenty of bloggers,
including myself, have done so) we should continue to have these types of conversations to better understand
our own dynamics, motivations, and goals.
14. Benoit Bruneau Says:
September 9th, 2010 at 1:42 am
Nice. I think you guys are doing the best service to science than could be done by anyone in the science
profession. Your post on one of our thingamabobs (aka discoveries) was spot on, and just what an educated
public would need to read. BUT (there‘s always that buggered but…Henry Gee, please don‘t pitch in here), as
Stephen Curry points out, the blogosphere is very introverted, and as far as I can tell from the outside,
especially on Twitter, all the bloggers are just talking to each other, which is really neat to keep a bunch of
buddies, but not so cool if you want to spread the word to the outside dimension. Now some of you have buckets
of followers, but that‘s the exception. You guys have a tremendous opportunity to influence the world beyond,
and somehow the science blogs need to explode out more to the mainstream. Will the Guardian blogs do that?
Meh. Plus, that‘s just on your little island. Come on science bloggers, rise up and take over the corporate media!
Be the next frikkin Dr. frikkin Oz! And please be much better….
15. Jason Goldman Says:
September 9th, 2010 at 2:20 am
Awesome post, well said. We do what we do because we love it, and to be told that we should be doing
something else is more than a little bit off-putting. There is no one way to affect social change, and (as you‘ve
said) we should be working together synergistically with advocacy-types such that everyone can bring their own
unique skills to the table, instead of urging everyone into *becoming* advocacy-types.
16. Jason Goldman Says:
September 9th, 2010 at 2:25 am
Also given the comments here and on Sheril‘s post, it seems as if a session at SciO11 on developing new metrics
for success and getting beyond google analytics might be in order.
17. alice Says:
September 9th, 2010 at 2:37 am
I wonder if this is a good topic for Science Online? I for one would love to hear how views on this differ
between UK and US views.
18. Razib Khan Says:
September 9th, 2010 at 2:48 am
There is no one way to affect social change,
tell that to mao and stalin j/k
19. Walter S. Andriuzzi Says:
September 9th, 2010 at 3:27 am
When I read the title of this article, I thought ―Geez, not another piece on blogging and the like. Let‘s talk real
science!‖. But after reading it I can only say: well said!

277 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
20. Sarah Kendrew Says:
September 9th, 2010 at 3:29 am
Ed – I totally agree with you, and I meant for my question to be thrown into the crowd rather than addressed
directly at you. Maybe we should stop referring to ourselves as ―bloggers‖ – a term that really only defines the
medium rather than the goal – and say: ―I‘m a science writer‖, ―I‘m an activist‖, ―I keep an online research
notebook‖, ―I teach kids about science‖ etc.
21. Stephen Curry Says:
September 9th, 2010 at 3:41 am
To amplify my tweet, I am very much of the view that there should be a mixed economy on this. No, not every
science blogger should be an advocate for science, though most are implicitly since by writing enthusiastically
about science, they celebrate it as a valuable part of our culture. I see calls for advocacy simply as a appeal for
some (some!) to reflect further and see if there are additional ways in which they might do this.
And even advocacy covers a spectrum. As a working scientist I have a direct, vested interest in continued
government support for scientific research, something that is currently under serious threat in the UK and
elsewhere. I would certainly like to see more scientists and science bloggers standing up for this cause (very
much in line with what Dr Evan Harris was saying at #solo10). Too many scientists just want to be left alone to
get on with lab-work — I‘ve been guilty of this too — and not all are suited for a more public role; but some are
and I feel more of us should be shouting about it. But that is *not* — emphatically not — to say that everyone
should do the same or that other forms of online writing aren‘t extremely valuable.
I have heard one or two voices dissing those who, in their view, just write about science but I would recommend
not being over-sensitive to such views. It is the blogosphere after all and people are going to be opinionated!
But, as I said, a little provocation is sometimes good for the blood-flow to the brain.
One last thing on the impact of going into schools to talk about science. This is an extremely valuable activity
and, more importantly, it impacts you just as much as the kids. As someone who participated in I‘m a Scientist,
Get me out of here (an event I can‘t praise highly enough), this was the real lesson for me. It was inspirational
to feed of the energy and enthusiasm that the kids had for science; and it made me think anew both about my
science and my role in society as a scientist.
22. Ed Yong Says:
September 9th, 2010 at 5:57 am
Thanks for the great comments so far folks.
On a diversity of approaches, as raised by, well, most of you: I want to explicitly clarify that the intention of
this post is not to start a writers vs advocates debate. That would be just as tedious as bloggers vs journalists.
Kittens would probably die. I wrote this to outline the merits of the former approach, in the fact of what I
perceive to be a (unconscious?) tendency to devalue it on the part of some commentators. I have no issue with
the fact that challenges are being put forward and I see them as a productive thing. If anything, this is a
gentle nudge about the tone of those challenges, and a call for provocateurs to understand the mindset of
those they‘re provoking. It‘s about the difference between saying ―Here is another bandwagon and you‘re
welcome to jump aboard if you‘re interested,‖ and, ―Your car is shit.‖
On ―getting your hands dirty‖, as raised by Darlene (#13) and Vaughan (#1): I fiercely challenge the idea that
writing is separate to ―getting [your] hands dirty‖ or ―engaging a… broader audience‖. I certainly agree that
there is little use in complaining about a lack of public engagement and that some people should essentially put
up or shut up, but I would count writing a blog that reaches hundreds and thousands of people as putting up! As
Vaughan notes, some people appear to be operating under the perception that ―actions‖ are things that happen
on a physical face-to-face scale, and that‘s a very narrow definition. Online writing counts as getting your hands
dirty (literally – my keyboard is *filthy*) and has benefits including scalability (I‘m making slightly more effort
than I was a few years back and reaching a disproportionately higher number of people) and long-term value (as
in Vaughan‘s family home analogy; the Attenboroughs and Sagans of this world built their reputations by small
increments until they had enough clout to really start influencing minds).
On the introverted nature of blogs, as raised by Darlene (#13) Benoit (#14) and others: I‘d agree that we can
do more to foster links between bloggers and people working on public engagement initiatives. I‘m not sure what
the situation is in the States but those links seem (to me at least) to be already quite strong in the UK. I
perceive very strong ties – online and in the flesh – between those two groups.
On the insularity of Twitter, as raised by Benoit (#14): I don‘t really think of Twitter as a principal route for
public engagement. It‘s many things: it‘s a journalistic tool, it‘s a personal newswire, it‘s a way for me to chat to
my chums. It‘s not a way of directly engaging with my audience. It *is* perhaps a way of indirectly doing so, as
tweets cascade outwards. But I would be cautious about judging the insularity of a community by looking at
Twitter. It‘s a very different medium to blogs and people use it for different reasons.

278 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
On ―speaking smart in the community‖ and interacting with kids in a classroom, as raised by Mike (#5),
McShanahan (#9), Darlene (#13) and Stephen (#21): I‘d agree that there is great value in interacting with your
audience face-to-face. I love the fact that people do this and I have gone on record many times in describing
I‘m a Scientist Get Me Out of Here as one of the most inspiring and innovative science outreach programmes I
have ever seen. It‘s also worth mentioning, as Mcshanahan does that there are other ways of affecting what
goes on in a classroom beyond being in one. My readers include students too, as well as teachers who go onto use
the posts in their classes.
On ScienceOnline 2011, as raised by Alice (#17), Jason (#16) and Bora (on Twitter, natch): This should
definitely be a topic. I‘ve already suggested just such a session! See this page, and search for ―Anyone?
Bueller? Bueller‖. Maybe we could do a panel with some US and UK reps to compare and contrast.
On the term ―bloggers‖, as raised by Sarah (#20): ―Maybe we should stop referring to ourselves as ―bloggers‖ –
a term that really only defines the medium rather than the goal.‖ I love this, and you‘re absolutely right. It
does have a tendency to lead to unproductive debates. I prefer to call myself as science writer, anyway. Or a
science never-sleeper.
23. Arikia Says:
September 9th, 2010 at 6:16 am
Well-spoken, Ed. It‘s always been my opinion that science blogging in itself is a form of activism — that it
contributes to the betterment of society by educating the previously uninformed. Please keep doing what you‘re
doing!
24. alice Says:
September 9th, 2010 at 6:16 am
Oh goodness me yes THINK OF THE KITTENS.
It‘s all about broad ecology people.
I sometimes worry about individual sci comm projects being too ambitious. This was something I wasn‘t sure
about Shane‘s post. Not that he was wrong, it just jarred a bit with the oversimplification of audiences (and
range of agendas in sci com) that can come with ―right, let‘s sort it out now‖.
Ed, I thought you‘d suggested a SciOnline 11 session on how to make/ measure impact not whether that‘s a
problem! (worth combing, or different issues?).
25. Captain Skellett Says:
September 9th, 2010 at 6:16 am
Funny to read this post after reading an article about HIV research in Africahttp://gu.com/p/x388j/tw
The article discussed an ethical issue (and plenty of science) – prostitutes who are immune to HIV have been
used for HIV research. While millions of dollars is poured into research and scientists become famous, the
people involved in these studies are still sex workers twenty years later.
It was a great science communication piece, and I think it could have used the story to point people to a
donation or charity where they could give money or training to the prostitutes. Maybe that would have turned
the story into an ad though. Hard call.

2010/09/09 EXQUISITE LIFE: THE ROYAL

ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING ISN'T THE ONLY ONE
WITH SOME EXPLAINING TO DO
Before the summer break, just as the country's professional societies seemed united in their determination
to protect basic science against government cutbacks, the RAEng told the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills (BIS) that the only science worth protecting was that which would benefit the
economy in the near or immediate future. Particle physics—particularly the work going on at CERN's Large
Hadron Collider—should be chopped in its favour.

You can argue till the cows come home about this, and the RAEng's proposition has some support among,
for example, the mechanical engineeers. But when even right-wing, market-obsessed politicians like Peter

279 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Mandelson and Nicolas Sarkozy are speaking up for the central role of basic science in advanced
economies, you have to take a second look.

More to the point, what exactly is the RAEng's authority for taking the line it did? After all, David Brown,
chief executive of the Institution of Chemical Engineers, and Robert Kirby-Harris, chief executive of the
Institute of Physics, urged the government to continue backing basic research in a joint letter to Research
Fortnight, which first reported the RAEng stance: " The UK’s future will not be helped by a ‘battle’ for funds
between basic research and engineering application," they write: "they need each other."

The background to all this is the government's comprehensive spending review, which will set out spending
plans for the years 2011-12 to 2014-15. Every government department has been asked to submit to the
Treasury its plans for budget cuts respectively of 10, 25 and 40 per cent. The grim results will be published
on 20 October.

As part of its review Andrew Smith of BIS, the department responsible for science funding, asked six
organisations—the Royal Society, the RAEng, the British Academy, the Council for Science and Technology,
the government's scientific advisers and the CBI—to contribute their views on four specific questions
before BIS made its submission to the Treasury on July 16.

RAEng's submission to BIS was accompanied by a letter from RAEng president and former BP boss John
Browne which said: "We believe that research should be concentrated on activities from which a
contribution to the economy, within the short to medium term, is foreseeable."

Browne is a hugely influential figure. He is an advisor to axe-mad Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude,
who is on record as saying that the coalition government should be far tougher on public spending even
than the Thatcher administration of blessed memory. So one big question is whether, in adopting this
rabid anti-particle-physics posture, Browne is dancing to Maude's tune. If so, that would be a deeply
serious matter.

Equally unclear is whether Browne has any support from elsewhere in the RAEng. An earlier version of this
article–which appeared on the website of the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) before, for
unknown reasons, it was hastily withdrawn—asked whether the fellows of the academy or its 30-member
council were consulted. After all, the academy's website says its efforts to "guide informed thinking,
influence public policy making, provide a forum for the mutual exchange of ideas, and pursue effective
engagement with society on matters within our competence" are made "using the leadership and
expertise of our fellowship."

The banal reality, the RAEng now tells us, is that its council established an advisory group from among its
own number "to develop a rapid response" to BIS's four questions: "As the Council is elected by the
membership as a whole," says the RAEng's email to us, "it was acting in accordance with its delegated
powers."

Perhaps so, but adopting as RAEng policy the views of an unknown "advisory group" hardly matches the
grand claims the academy makes for the purity of its decision making.

The RAEng website says the academy bases its policy suggestions "on impartial advice and quality
foundations." And one of its 'strategic priorities' is "to lead debate by guiding informed thinking and
influencing public policy." We can't judge how closely the RAEng stuck to these principles until we know
exactly how it arrived at its conclusion that basic science wasn't worth protecting from the likes of Francis
Maude. For now, the academy's behaviour appears consistent with neither the words 'lead' nor 'debate'.

Although the RAEng eventually put its submission up on its website, it issued no press release, and the
Institute of Physics, which expected as a courtesy to be kept informed, said in a letter leaked from

280 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
elsewhere that the RAEng's stance came as a surprise. Nor does the RAEng appear to have consulted the
learned institutions which, with the Royal Society, nominate its fellows. The chemical engineers and, by all
accounts, the mechanicals were kept in the dark, though the mechanicals now appear to have sided with
the academy. Just who did it consult?

Further, who does the RAEng think it represents on an issue of such transcendant importance as the future
of UK physics? Does it really believe that view was derived from 'impartial' advice from its fellows and that
its dissemination of that view was a proper use of its influence?

There is more than room for doubt. Meanwhile, however, the IET and others have their own questions to
answer, not least about their willingness to collude with the academy's determination not to engage in a
public debate about an issue of such transcendent importance for UK science. Are these bodies genuinely
interested in open discussion of the future funding of UK science? The IET's publishing arm, for one,
appears not to be. Or are they pusillanimous, self-absorbed gentlemen's clubs who would rather kowtow
to the government mania for public spending cuts than engage in a debate that might generate some
distasteful but vital disagreement?

Posted by John Dwyer

2010/09/09 EXQUISITE LIFE: FLIP FLOPPING AT

THE ICHEME
The Institute of Chemical Engineering appears to have had a curious change of heart in the wake of
yesterday’s gloomy speech from Vince Cable.

The organisation has responded to the news that the science budget faces cuts by saying that the search
for the Higgs Boson should be put on ice.

In a statement released yesterday, Andy Furlong, head of policy at the IChemE said the following:

"Innovative process engineering is central to the quest for solutions and it's important that spending
should be directed towards these areas. The UK is well placed to secure a competitive advantage in
emerging fields with attractive revenue generating potential, such as industrial biotechnology. Curiosity
driven scientific research remains important and pure science has enjoyed a real boost over the last
decade. But the financial crisis has changed the game and a shift of focus is needed. As ever, the devil is in
the detail and we look forward to assisting government with the development of its plans. But for now at
least the search for the Higgs Boson may have to wait.”

It’s not so long ago that the IChemE wrote a joint letter with the Institute of Physics to Research
Fortnight saying pretty much the opposite. The two were responding to the Royal Academy of
Engineering’s suggestion that money should be pulled from particle physics to support near-market
research:

“We recognise that in the current economic background there needs to be a strong focus on value for
money in all government expenditure, but this must recognise the synergy between basic science and the
translation or innovation capability. There does need to be an emphasis on application (which emphatically
does not necessarily mean just short-term application) as a reflection of economic need, but not at the
expenses of undermining the science base.”

281 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
So what has prompted this u-turn? The IChemE say that they don’t want to see an “ugly scrap” over
funding. But you might say that this is exactly how you start one.

Posted by Laura Hood

HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/SERENDIPITY#E
XAMPLES_IN_SCIENCE_AND_TECHNOLOGY

2010/09/09 TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION: NO-

BRAINER: TOP BRITISH SCIENTISTS MAY FLEE
FUNDING FAMINE FOR FEASTS ABROAD
By Simon Baker

A leading British neuroscientist tempted to leave the UK by superior investment in science overseas
believes it is "inevitable" that others will follow suit if public funding for research in the UK is savaged.

Adrian Owen, who was lured from the University of Cambridge by a multimillion-dollar Canadian
programme to attract the world's top researchers, said there was a real danger of a brain drain if science
takes a sizeable hit in the government's Comprehensive Spending Review next month.

His warning was echoed by vice-chancellors, who said there was clear evidence that overseas countries are
taking advantage of funding uncertainty in the UK to swoop for British talent.

Dr Owen, assistant director at the Medical Research Council's Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit in
Cambridge, was attracted by the pull of healthy investment in Canada - he has been awarded C$10 million
(£6.1 million) by its government to conduct his research at the University of Western Ontario - and the
country's superior science infrastructure.

"My decision was not driven by a desire to leave here - I was very much pulled by Canada rather than
pushed by the UK - but the situation where I am going is very different to the one I am leaving," he said.

"People are not going to just sit around in the UK because they like the UK. In a situation like this, where
there are countries increasing their funding while not a lot is being invested in science in the UK, it is
dangerous because people will move."

The scientist, who will officially take up his post in January 2011, will be joined by seven members of his
Cambridge team.

Dr Owen said he had already witnessed a "really refreshing" attitude during his initial visits to Canada.

282 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
He will take up one of up to 20 Canada Excellence Research Chairs that have been created by the federal
government in an overt attempt to persuade star academics from around the world to move to the
country.

At least three other British academics have also been appointed to the roles.

Dr Owen, who has carried out groundbreaking research into brain activity among vegetative-state patients,
said he was told during a recent visit to Canada that the chairs were created to help replenish an academic
base that was badly eroded by public-sector cuts in the 1990s.

Steve Smith, president of Universities UK and vice-chancellor of the University of Exeter, said: "It is too
early to say whether there is a pattern of academics leaving the UK due to overall funding pressures here.

"However, I am getting the impression that British universities are fighting more advances than usual from
countries such as Canada, the US, Australia and Singapore, which are making attractive offers."

Another vice-chancellor, who declined to be named, called for greater research concentration if the
forthcoming cuts are as severe as feared to avoid a brain drain damaging Britain's scientific standing in the
world.

Wendy Piatt, director general of the Russell Group of research-intensive universities, said the
consequences of the UK failing to compete with other countries would be "devastating".

simon.baker@tsleducation.com.
Readers' comments
David 9 September, 2010
Good. The bankers have been pleading "you can't do that - we'll go abroad!" for years in order to get political
favours and high salaries, as have the corporate directors and the vice-chancellors.
Meh 9 September, 2010
Ironically, I've seen a growing number of Canadian academics take posts in British universities...

2010/09/09 MARKUS VENTURES: CUTTING

FUNDING UNDERMINES LONG-TERM ECONOMIC
STABILITY
Lord Browne’s recommendation that the UK government focus its funding on science research with short-
term benefits for industry has sparked a vital conversation. As the chair of the Mobius Life Sciences Fund, an
early-stage life sciences investment fund, I agree that investment in areas such as pharmaceuticals is vital.
However, I also must stress that even in these areas, funding blue skies research remains essential.

The first point in defence of blue skies research is that even the kind of industry-based research that
generates short-term benefits requires blue skies research thinking as it is often, if not always directly
derived from what was at some point very basic research without any immediate prospect of wealth
generation.

A second, and closely related point is that it is often the serendipity and lucky accident of blue skies
research that brings about the most important and impactful results. Research into foundational problems
may require time and investment, but it is in its very nature to generate a multiplicity of results and
outcomes beyond the answers to the fundamental questions it asks. Industry-driven research is focused on
283 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
a specific problem and more likely to find an answer to that problem—a singular answer, however, albeit
one with immediate commercial value.

Third, while blue skies research does not have the certainty (if there ever is such a thing) of immediate
commercialisation of its results, it has significant and long-term potential in this respect. Because it also
underpins the kind of industry research driven by more short-term considerations, not investing in blue
skies research runs the risk of destroying the very foundations on which research for short-term benefits
relies. Without blue skies research, there is no long-term future for research at all. Industry-driven research
then is at the danger of becoming nothing but problem solving and with an ever decreasing capability to do
so.

So we must ask ourselves: if we know that blue skies research is the way to our future as individuals,
nations, people, and a planet, then how are we going to fund it?

It is the role of private commercial entities to act as gate keepers of commercialisation. They are driven by
a profit motivation to invest only in what will make direct returns. But they too must rely on prior work
that has to be carried out before things reach the stage at which commercialisation is viable. It is the
integrity of that work that must be maintained, and that cannot be maintained but with continued
investment in blue skies research.

We must not abdicate our future to those profit motivations, as not all scientific discovery can be
immediately quantified in its commercial value. The heated debate generated by Lord Browne’s proposals
would seem to indicate that it is either government-funded or not funded at all. But this is a false
dichotomy. In the past, blue skies research was funded from a range of different sources—large
corporates, governments, charitable trusts, all three in partnership with universities and dedicated
research centres, VCs and angel investors. All of these now face serious constraints on their budgets
individually, and there is a clear temptation to point the finger at each other when it comes to living up to
what is a collective responsibility (and ethical obligation to future generations) for supporting blue skies
research.

Part of what makes investment into blue skies research less attractive is that even where it yields results
that have short-term potential for commercialisation, an environment in which scientists and
entrepreneurs can translate such results into commercially viable propositions is often missing.

Identifying and nurturing scientific talent and helping them to commercialise their findings requires
recognising the opportunities that are generated by results of basic research and creating an environment
in which these opportunities can come to fruition and make a lasting impact that is commercially viable.
This is possible with comparatively little financial resources, and offers an opportunity for early-stage
investment funds: they pick up where blue skies research leaves off but well before the commercial value
of a discovery has been verified. They thus need to bring together experts who understand the science
behind the idea and can judge its potential and venture capitalists who have the business acumen to vet
business plans, fund them, and guide their implementation. By taking a lasting and active interest in the
success of the entrepreneurs such early-stage investment funds support, they also provide them with the
credibility needed for later-stage investments by larger venture funds, thus performing the vital function of
a feeder fund and contributing to the long-term success of their initial investments.

Early-stage investment funds do not in themselves resolve the problem of who invests in blue skies
research, but they can make it a more promising and less daunting venture by helping to contribute to a
faster and more reliable idea-to-market process.

Lucy P. Marcus is the non-executive chair of the Mobius Life Sciences Fund, non-executive director and chair
of the board audit committee ofBioCity Nottingham, CEO of Marcus Venture Consulting, and a Fellow
at University of Cambridge’s Judge Business School.
284 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 2010/09/09 CASE: LEVERAGING INVESTMENT
FROM INDUSTRY AND CHARITIES
Professor Ronald Laskey FRS FMedSci is Vice-President of the Academy of Medical
Sciences and Professor of Embryology at the University of Cambridge.

We heard from Vince Cable yesterday morning that science and research are vital to the UK’s economic
future but that we are operating in a financially constrained environment. It is therefore timely that the
Academy of Medical Sciences has published its advice on the science budget as one of the seven
organisations invited by Government to provide comment in the run up to the spending review. Alongside
we have also published a briefing on the relationship between public investment in medical research and
economic growth that was prepared at the request of the Science Minister. A key message of these
documents is that public investment in medical research leverages rather than displaces investment by
industry and charities. Without continued public funding there is a serious danger that increasingly mobile
companies, charities and researchers will undertake valuable medical research abroad.

The positive relationship between world-class medical science and national gains in health and wealth is
well established. Every £1.00 invested in public or charitable research into cardiovascular disease in the UK
between 1975 and 1992, for example, produced a stream of health and economic benefits equivalent to
earning £0.39 per year in perpetuity. The UK’s superior medical research base that is second only in the
world to the US, our co-coordinated landscape of private, public and charity funders, and the research
potential of the NHS give us an unparalleled global competitive advantage. Retaining and harnessing this
competitive advantage is reliant on Government’s continued commitment to the publicly funded science
base.

While medical science is of vital importance to the future prosperity of the UK, many of the immediate
challenges facing society, such as ageing or obesity, require the full range of expertise from across the
medical, biological, physical, chemical, mathematical, engineering, humanities and social sciences. Support
is therefore required across the research base to safeguard the valuable advances that benefit patients and
society. Given the interdisciplinary nature of much cutting edge research we commend the Campaign for
Science and Engineering for taking a leadership role in bringing different disciplines together to present a
united case for the importance of science to Government during the spending review process.

To ensure science remains a pillar of the UK’s rebalanced knowledge economy we believe that
Government should publish a new long-term strategy that outlines its commitment to the UK’s science
base. At a time of uncertainty, this will help to reassure increasingly mobile researchers and industries
about the future of the UK science base in the face of strong long-term investment from our overseas
competitors over and above short-term stimulus packages. The strategy should focus on excellence and
should protect the autonomy of both universities and Research Councils.

The current balance between the two strands of the dual support system for research has allowed the UK
to develop world class, research-intensive universities. We see no reason to change this balance. These
universities must be protected, as should the sites of excellence that exist outside these universities.
University departments and institutes with the highest Research Assessment Exercise score should
continue to be priorities for investment. Very broadly, we consider that the priorities for Research Council
investment should be people, followed by programmes, followed by capital.

285 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Partnerships between academia, industry and the charity sector ensure that the outcomes of publicly
funded medical research are translated into outcomes that benefit the UK population and economy. It is
therefore vital that the business and charity support elements of higher education funding are protected
from cuts.

Given the complexity of the UK science base, it is difficult to predict the net impact of different levels of
cuts in public funding. As far as possible the total value of cuts should be transparent at the outset. This
avoids the danger of ‘salami slicing’ and allows universities and Research Councils to plan robustly, without
the uncertainty of more unknown cuts to come. Ideally cuts should be implemented gradually to allow
researchers and funders to adapt their projects accordingly.

2010/09/13 EXCQUISITE LIFE: HOW TO READ

DAVID WILLETTS' SPEECH TO UNIVERSITIES UK
David Willets gave a speech to the Universities UK
policy and promising a new white paper on higher
version of the speech, with my comments in red. I'm
Vince Cable, which are indexed here. I'll be digesting
issue of Research Fortnight.
conference last week giving an overview of HE
education. What follows below is an annotated
doing this with all the speeches from Willetts and
all this and summarising my thoughts in the next

It's a compelling speech from someone who has - unlike Vince Cable last week - mastered his brief.
But for me it ignores the central issue of the role of universities in economic growth. BIS and the
Treasury have a growth paper coming out at the same time as the CSR and I‟m very disappointed
we‟re not hearing more about that. George Osborne‟s most recent speeches on this subject have also
completely neglected the knowledge triangle, starting to revert to the simplistic line from Margaret
Thatcher‟s time that growth is all up to businesses. Willetts wants us all to accept that cuts in research
spending are inevitable given the pressure on the public purse. But the US, Germany, France all see it
differently, for good reason. Like Science is Vital, I think the coalition still hasn't explained why it
makes sense for the UK to cut research spending.

***

Universities UK Annual Conference

David Willetts

By David Willetts

Minister of State for Universities and Science (attending Cabinet)

9 Sep 2010, Cranfield University

[check against delivery]

We've just heard an eloquent case for universities. Steve, as always, you marshalled your evidence
effectively and spoke on behalf of the whole sector. All of us who care about higher education owe a
debt to you and Nicola Dandridge and the whole team at UUK for the excellent work you do.

You are absolutely right about the crucial role of universities in our economy. And their contribution
extends far beyond economic growth. Universities transform lives for the better, especially of young
people. They are a force for good. They help people appreciate what Matthew Arnold called “the best
that has been thought and said in the world”. For many young people, going to university is their route
to adulthood and a different, better life. One of the great privileges of my job is visiting universities –

286 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
those notice boards with posters for visiting lecturers, sports competitions, new bands or chamber
concerts are a kind of vision of the ideal community.

I like him already.

I was of course visiting universities for years as part of my role in the Shadow Cabinet. And I have
addressed this conference before as the Opposition spokesman. But this time it is different. There are
new and heavier responsibilities on my shoulders. And they are all the more serious because of the
challenges facing the sector. I want to describe them frankly to you, though you will understand that I
cannot today set out the final decisions the Coalition Government will reach. We have to wait for Lord
Browne‟s review and for the conclusion of the Comprehensive Spending Review – rather a lot to wait
for. But I can today share with you the thinking of Vince and myself as we approach these difficult
decisions together.

I can also assure you that at every meeting and discussion on these difficult issues I try to draw on the
wisdom of the many people I have met or corresponded with in higher education. There is much to
learn from points that have been made to me in student unions or in vice chancellors‟ offices as well as
from the different mission groups who each have their distinctive expertise.

Many parts of HE work well. We do not wish to disrupt them. It will not be change just for the sake of
change, or just to be different from the previous government. Look at some of the institutions that
already serve the sector as a whole.

First UCAS. It has faced unprecedented challenges this year, with another big increase in the number
of applications. Individual applicants have had all the stresses and strains of desperately competing for
a university place but at least these have not been exacerbated by the failure of UCAS as a system. It
belongs to all the universities and you can be proud of the service it delivers. Here are the latest
figures: 463,000 have accepted a place, 11,000 more than at this stage last year. 38,000 students
found a place through clearing. Although going to university is a competitive process, we will have
more students at university this year than ever before.

But there are new challenges for UCAS in the future. At the moment part-time students are not part of
this system. Can we do more to incorporate them? Can we do more with the data UCAS has on student
choices – especially if we could link it with school data records? Then we would be able to track the
routes that people take through the education system and identify, for example, the young people who
are not going on to the type of universities they could be aiming for and give them better advice. I am
particularly keen to do everything possible to identify and encourage the so-called "missing" 3,000
teenagers who get good qualifications, often from poorly performing schools, but do not go on to our
most competitive universities. Encouraging them would be a great way to boost social mobility – and
by using school and UCAS data we might be able to.

The Student Loans Company is another institution serving the sector as a whole. Its performance last
year was unacceptable. Many thousands of students started university a year ago in real distress
because of the appalling service they received. Coming in as a new minister and consulting with
stakeholders, I concluded that a change in leadership at the top was necessary. This year, the Loans
Company‟s performance has been much better. There are still problems, but the management has
turned things around. Figures out today show that 682,000 applications (75% of the total submitted)
have been prepared for payment. 191,000 applications (21% of the total submitted) are still waiting
for students or their parents to send in further evidence, or return their signed acceptance form. So
there is still more to do, but they are on track.

Nor should we forget other institutions that play their part, notably HEFCE under the experienced and
skilful leadership of Alan Langlands.

Not quite the ringing endorsement of the other institutions. But it should terminate sniping
about whether HEFCE should survive.

Steve‟s speech set out the economic case for universities. The mantle of Beaverbrook fell on his
shoulders as he argued that cutting universities would be like cutting spitfires during the Blitz. But you

287 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
know that the backdrop we face today is not a military crisis but a fiscal one. And it has to be fought
with vigour.

Whichever party had won the last Election there would have been cuts. Indeed the last Government
left us with £600 million of cuts in universities and research, with precious little detail on how to deliver
them. So yes cuts are coming. And – yes – sadly there will be some pain. But if we are smart and
courageous and work together we can emerge with a stronger and better sector.

Let me take you through the thought process Vince and I have gone through over the past few
months. There are three main options which form an iron triangle that is the framework for our funding
decisions: either cut the unit of resource per student, or reduce the number of students going to
university, or expect graduates to pay a greater contribution to their education once they are earning.
Let's examine each in turn.

So none of this long three-part section deals with research directly. Will he consider the
indirect impacts? For example, much of the rise in income due to the original rise in fees
went to support research in universities.

Efficiency savings
The first option is to reduce the unit of public spending per student. My party is associated with big
reductions in resource per student as student numbers expanded in the early 1990s. It is still
remembered as a time when investment in the resources needed to educate students properly was cut
back too much. No one wishes to go through that again. But we must look at using public money that
goes to universities with the greatest possible efficiency.

For example, it really has taken too long to get to grips with the cost of pensions. It is a classic
example of a problem swept under the carpet in the years of plenty which we now have to tackle. In
the past, you may have felt isolated as you tried to get the finances of university pensions on an even
keel. But now the challenge is being grasped right across the public and private sectors. University
staff do need to make a fair contribution to the cost of the pensions they are promised. Neither
taxpayers nor students and their families should be expected to pay for the cost of pensions far more
generous than most of them will enjoy themselves.

Another example is increased sharing of back-office services. Too many universities try to do too much
in-house. Again I recognise that this is not all the fault of universities themselves. There is a real
problem with the VAT regime which imposes extra costs on the sharing of services. It would be great
to resolve this, but we cannot bank on it. So, meanwhile, we are going to have to be smart at finding
ways around the problem and that is beginning to happen. The shared services pilot should increase
sharing of services and contracting out of work despite the VAT problem.

Very welcome recognition of the VAT problem, which is that universities don’t pay VAT on
services they provide to themselves but do to companies providing shared services. I also
see the language suggesting that it won’t get fixed this year. Let’s hope for next year.

UPP have explained to me how universities might outsource provision of non-core services without
creating a new VAT liability. They have proposed the establishment of joint ventures between
universities and private service providers. The universities would have a majority stake and the joint
venture would therefore be in the same VAT group – another idea worth exploring.

One service in particular lends itself to savings by sharing – procurement. Collectively, universities
spend around £9 billion annually on non-pay costs, including procuring goods and services. They can
save on that by acting in concert. I welcome HEFCE's recent proposals here, and urge universities to
consider entering e-market places like Zanzibar or – for more specific services – Science Warehouse.
The potential savings are very large indeed.

Yes indeed. Why not?

288 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
There are other ways of cutting overhead costs. In 2009 the number of senior university managers
rose by 6% to 14,250, while the number of university professors fell by 4% to 15,530. On that trend
the number of senior managers could have overtaken the number of professors this year.

Yes, this is an important trend.

I recognise that universities now are big, complex institutions with revenues from many sources which
need to be professionally managed. But we owe it to the taxpayer and the student to hold down these
costs – we are now in a different and much more austere world. Again, we are not going to shirk our
share of responsibility for tackling this. We will to do away with unnecessary burdens upon you that
require the recruitment of more administrators. Do tell me – and HEFCE, of course – of any information
requirement or regulation which you believe comes at a disproportionate cost. They have to go: we
cannot afford them.

You have to sympathise with the sentiment of protecting front line services (academic
staff). But this seems like wishful thinking to me. In the past, academia was a self-managing
entity. The “establishment” was in control. Now it is in transit to a fully managed system, and
everything we’re hearing at the moment suggests those trends are going to accelerate.
For example, the CST and others are calling for more collaboration on research. Every
collaboration has to be managed.

So this is the moment to be thinking even more creatively about cost cutting. I congratulate you on
your initiative in inviting Ian Diamond to chair a UUK group on efficiency savings. You are right to get
to grips with this. We can work with you on this agenda without getting sucked in to micromanaging
our universities. No returning to a time – a century ago, actually – when one vice chancellor reacted to
a Board of Education demand for figures on staff teaching hours by complaining that "Nothing so
ungentlemanly has been done by the Government since they actually insisted on knowing what time
Foreign Office clerks arrive at Whitehall."

Again, you can’t deliver increased “efficiency” without measuring, analysing, planning,
implementing - ie managing, which will require more managers. More generally, this
section seems to confirm what everyone expects - continued pressure from the centre to
cut costs.

One good point here - he didn't repeat Vince Cable's strange argument that the
government can make the UK's research more efficient.

Student numbers
The second option is to cut student numbers. But we must not forget the many thousands of young
people who aspire to go but cannot find a place.

Arbitrary participation targets have been a distraction from what matters, which is making sure that
applicants can get to the institution that's best suited for them, irrespective of their background. But it
is also clear from OECD evidence, that there is a strong international trend for more people to go to
university. Average OECD net entry rates increased from 40% in 2000 to 57% in 2008, with the UK‟s
rates increasing from 48% to 57% in the same period. So every country that has submitted data
between 1995 (when this data was first collected) and 2008 has increased their net entry rates over
this period. We‟ve clearly got a strong international trend here of more young people going to
university.

What matters is that – as well as the choice to attend university – people have other choices too. On
A-level results day at UCAS, I listened to young people who had phoned in, fearful that their life
chances had been wrecked because they hadn‟t got a place at university. But they need to be confident
that there are other options as well. We cannot have a society where university is the only route to a
well-paid job and a career. That is bad for social mobility. We are committed to ensuring young people
have a wider range of options to choose from: apprenticeships; places at FE college; part-time study;
online learning; an ordinary degree first, and then honours – and not necessarily at 18 either. The
bottom line is more options and better advice.

289 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 Well this actually is what we’ve already seen. One of the new government’s first decisions
was to cut student numbers by 10,000 and increase the number of apprenticeships. When
you look at the politics of the three options, this seems a very part of any plan for the
coalition. If our participation rate fell from 57 per cent to 50 per cent, would anyone care
other than those directly affected? Especially if there were good other things for that 7 per
cent to do? I’d like to see the postcode and voting intention of the parents of that 7 per
cent, but my guess is that few of them are sending their children to private schools.

I am committed to improving the information available to prospective students and their parents.
Recently published research, commissioned by HEFCE, has identified information that students say
they want, and a consultation – in the Autumn – will figure out how best to make that information
available. It is in everyone's interest that students make well-informed decisions about what and where
to study. Most young people say they do not regret their decision to go to university. Over a quarter of
them say they do wish they had chosen a different course. This tells me that, once again, we need to
do better on careers advice and information.

Graduates paying more

One argument for cutting student numbers is that the graduate premium has fallen and that this is
evidence of a big increase in the number of students relative to demand. But Aditya Chakrabortty was
wrong in the Guardian the other day when he claimed that the premium has fallen from £400,000 to
£100,000.

The graduate premium is an indication of how much more someone with a degree earns over their
lifetime, on average, compared with someone who finishes their education with two or more A-levels
(i.e. with university entrance qualifications).

The latest estimates are based on an improved methodology that takes account of tax, future earnings
growth, and other factors. The premium is only an average and not a perfect measure, but it is a good
measure. There was an early calculation of the lifetime earnings benefit to having a degree (about ten
years ago, within the then DfEE) which produced an estimate of around £400,000, and this figure did
gain some coverage at the time. However, this was not using the methodology I have outlined. The
£400,000 to £100,000 claim is therefore factually wrong, as it is not comparing like with like.

In fact, both government-commissioned and external studies have consistently found that, over his or
her working life, the average graduate will earn comfortably over £100,000 more in today's valuation,
net of tax, than a similar individual who achieved university entrance qualifications but did not go into
HE. And they have shown that the premium has held up in spite of the recession.

Well, £100,000 is quite a big deal, still, I reckon.

It is not just an economic premium. Graduates, are – on average – more healthy, more active in the
community and more likely to be engaged in the education of their children. The graduate premium
evidence further suggests that it is not unreasonable to expect graduates to make more of a
contribution themselves – opening up the third option on my list.

Once again, I'm not going to pre-empt Browne. You all know that he is looking at a range of
possibilities in terms of graduate contributions. But I do believe that it is better for the younger
generation to have the chance of going to university and then pay for out of the higher earnings they
achieve later on – rather than experiencing poorer-quality HE or being deprived of the opportunity
altogether. This has to make sense for young people.

12 October may be the day Browne publishes his review, we're hearing.

What would not make sense would be to fail to increase the contribution from graduates, with the
result that then we jeopardised the student experience or ended up having to make big cuts in student
numbers. That would be to let our young people down.

Getting through the process

290 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
So we start to see the road ahead. We do need efficiency savings – doing more for less. We do need to
provide alternatives to university for those young people who aren't cut out for that route. And we can
expect graduates to contribute more.

So all three parts of the iron triangle will play their part.

The challenge is to deliver all this. Steve fears what he has called a "valley of death", inviting us
perhaps to imagine vice chancellors as the heroic cavalry in Tennyson's "Charge of the Light Brigade":
Cuts to the left of them, cuts to the right of them – into the valley of death charge the senior common
room!

I understand why he warns of risks. But Vince and I are not going to abandon the careful and
deliberative approach of the past few months.

Let me share with you my thinking on how the process might work. John Browne has already said that
he will report before the Spending Review, which falls on October 20th. That will announce decisions
about departmental budgets, which will have funding implications for higher education, and we will
probably have to move promptly on these. But funding is not the only issue to be resolved. The
framework created by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 will need re-examining: on the
position of non-publicly funded HE providers; the demarcation lines between FE and HE; on the role
and powers of HEFCE, and other issues where the world looks very different from how it did 15 years
ago.

These big questions will require thorough debate and consultation, with detailed government proposals
to which experts from the sector can react – as it has done via the Browne process. We intend
therefore to publish an HE White Paper, leading – we hope – to a Higher Education Bill in Autumn
2011.

Blimey. Well that may explain the hat-tip to HEFCE earlier - suggesting he wants to talk
about HEFCE’s powers, not whether it should be abolished. Just a reminder - on fees the
coalition don’t need legislation to push the cap up, eg to £7000. They just need a majority
on simple vote in the House of Commons. They can probably also revise the fees regime
enough to make a stab at calling the new regime “progressive” without legislation. So, in
line with the general approach across all departments, I would expect the Conservatives to
want to push through a rise in fees as rapidly as possible while they have the political wind
with them. Whether Nick Clegg will feel the same is the big question in terms of timing. See
my earlier analysis.

Subject to parliamentary time, we will legislate to allow the implementation of reforms from the start
of the academic year 2012/13. Implementation of reforms should start in the 2012/13 academic year.
So be assured that we will not drive through hastily-conceived policies or tear down effective existing
structures where they work well.

Stronger universities
I expressed my belief earlier that we can end up with a better sector and with stronger universities. It
is always hard to look beyond immediate funding issues but I do believe we can achieve this –
together. What might that better model look like?

Fundamental to our vision is a renewed emphasis on teaching. Nothing matters more than passing on
knowledge and sceptical understanding from one generation to the next. The Higher Education
Academy has produced one of the most shocking reports I have come across recently. It is a survey of
what gets you promoted as a university lecturer. Most of the academics felt that teaching is not
rewarded in promotions as much as it should be. Fewer than one in ten senior promotions in the
Russell Group and the 1994 Group were significantly influenced by teaching. Another recent survey
showed that academics perceived research as most important for promotion – while teaching was
barely on a par with administrative diligence.

Universities that relegate the importance of teaching are in danger of losing sight of their original
mission. Let‟s go back to John Henry Newman; after all, he‟s expected to be beatified very soon. We'd

291 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
do well to recall his Idea of a University. In the very first paragraph he declares that a university "is a
place of teaching universal knowledge. This implies that its object is "the diffusion and extension of
knowledge, rather than the advancement. If its object were scientific and philosophical discovery, I do
not see why a University should have students". Now, Newman's is clearly not the last word on the role
of universities, but it is a useful reminder of how far ideas have moved on.

The balance between teaching and research has gone wrong. This is not because universities have
suddenly made some terrible mistake. Theirs is a rational response to incentives created by successive
governments. We have strengthened the incentives for everyone to carry out research with no change
in the regime for teaching. It should be a source of pride for an institution to be an excellent teaching
university. That is what most students rightly see as the backbone of their university experience.

I know this is something that people do care about, and that good work is going on. For example,
Janet Beer and Aaron Porter are jointly chairing a group who are developing guidance for university
and higher education college charters. I have asked HEFCE to give the group all available support.

But it remains hard to shift the impression that what really counts in higher education is research. This
needs to change.

OK. I’m with you. Now tell me something that makes me believe this is not all just blah-blah
to soften the blow of higher fees for students...

If course, there is nothing to stop universities from granting professorships on the strength of excellent
teaching; some already do. Nor is there any obstacle to institutions rewarding good teaching in their
pay and career progression frameworks. We‟ve just got to do it. You can think as well about more
widespread online publication of students‟ evaluations of teaching.

Oh dear. That sounds like blah-blah.

Another way of empowering students and transforming the incentives to focus on teaching is by new
institutions entering the sector which are devoted to teaching. There is nothing intrinsically better – or
worse – about being a so-called private HEI. Indeed, every institution represented in this room is, in
one sense, private. The UK has no “public universities” of the sort that exist in many countries,
particularly in continental Europe. The government does not own any universities; it does not set pay,
specify subjects to be taught, or appoint staff.

Nevertheless, as a country, we have historically been nervous about HE institutions operating for
profit. Decisions taken decades ago, by both government and universities, have meant that the higher
education scene in the UK is dominated by institutions that get a significant part of their income from
government grants, via funding councils. In exchange, they sign up to various conditions, mainly
relating to checks on quality, financial assurance and the like. It is, in the traditional British way, an
informal regulatory framework resting on the power over grants. Much of it you would struggle to find
set down in the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act.

But, as we all know, the world is changing. Internationally, for-profit higher education providers are
becoming more significant. They are a natural response to the global hunger for higher education and
better qualifications. Unencumbered by the weight of history, these providers can grow quickly and
change fast. They offer a salutary challenge and new approaches to delivering higher education
efficiently – and, in turn, cheaply for students. They may have ideas to contribute on student-centred
teaching that everyone can learn from. That is, of course, one reason why some institutions are
already in partnership with such providers for particular ventures – especially those aimed at specialist
professionals, such as business schools. I hope UUK will consider whether your own membership
should be extended to cover private providers as well.

Well, at a guess, new private universities if they attack the market aggressively might get to
5 per cent in 10-15 years. It might be a good thing for Britain to do. But the impact on
students and other universities is a long way off, and slight even then.

The acid test for HE providers is whether they offer excellent teaching and a high-quality experience
for students. If they can do that, at a fair price, then it doesn't matter whether they are old universities

292 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
or new ones; for profit or not for profit. They have something to contribute and should have the chance
to do so. That is the case for a more open market.

One way to open up the market – as I've argued previously – is for teaching institutions to set up and
offer degrees set externally by the likes of the University of London. This supposedly radical model is
actually how all English universities were created for a century from the 1850s to the 1950s. There are
vice chancellors in this room whose universities received their own degree awarding powers within
living memory. I am not trying to take them away, but I do believe that the alternative model of
teaching to an externally-set degree deserves another chance. I have asked the QAA to look at any
barriers or implicit assumptions within the quality regime that tie Higher Education to a model that
requires institutions to award their own degrees. Any such assumption should go.

Very large numbers of students will want the traditional university model what it offers. Fortunately, in
a world where demand for higher education is growing, there is room for different models.

Sorry, I really do think it’s all blah-blah. Willetts has said nothing here that suggests any
student will get an improved experience in the next two decades, or that any academic
should change their attitude to teaching and research if they want to get on.

Research
Having stressed the importance of teaching, we must not overlook research. A strong research base is
vital for our future in a global knowledge economy – as Vince set out yesterday: strong in both
fundamental, curiosity-driven research and research applied to the challenges facing businesses and
public services. Science and research are the life blood of many sectors essential to growth and a
rebalanced economy.

We are fortunate that the UK remains first or second in the world at research in many disciplines,
despite growing international competition.

The primary objective of public funding must be research excellence and international competitiveness.
We will back outstanding individuals, but we also appreciate – and will take into account – the benefits
of critical mass and multi-disciplinary capacity.

Public funding for university research will continue to be delivered through independent arms-length
bodies – including the national academies which support outstanding individual scholars – and
distributed on the basis of excellence determined by expert peer review and assessment. Both sides of
the dual support system are already highly selective on the basis of research excellence, and non-
government funders of research – such as global businesses and charities – are just as sensitive to
quality. These policies create the environment for a high-performing research base.

In a more constrained funding environment with international competition (and collaboration) growing,
it is clear that we will need to focus on sustaining the national capability for the very best research.
Such research not only pushes back the frontiers of knowledge but supports growth in the economy by
boosting the performance of business, producing highly skilled people, improving public services and
policy making, and by attracting R&D investment from global business.

This may well mean higher concentration of public funding for research than we have had to date,
albeit confirming the direction of travel over recent years. Greater selectivity means that not every
academic, department or institution can necessarily continue to expect public funding for research.

OK. Well that could be called one of the great betrayals of modern times. The new
universities were promised by an earlier Conservative government access to research funds
in return for breaking the old universities’ cartel on undergraduate teaching. The post-1992
institutions agreed to take lots more students at low cost and that is what enabled the
expansion of undergraduate numbers from 1992 onwards. Since then the new entrants
have steadily built up their research activity. Now the rug is to be pulled from under them.

Having said that, everyone running the system from Howard Newby onwards has been calling for
greater diversity of mission...

293 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
HEIs, as autonomous institutions, should establish what is their core mission and the areas where they
can make the most difference. But I am well aware that the research ecosystem is complex and that
the devil will be in the detail. BIS will work closely with HEFCE on this and, together, we will be
intelligent about how to go about achieving it.

Well that’s a bit of a relief. After Vince Cable’s blundering the day before I was starting to
worry about crude, simplistic solutions.

I also recognise the diversity of ways in which HEIs contribute to growth and wellbeing through
knowledge transfer and exchange: improving the performance of existing companies and creating new
ones; improving public services and inspiring the public. This contribution is far broader than research
and must not be lost.

This is wanting to have your cake and eat it. Up above it’s all about concentration on the
very best research. Now it’s about links with business. These can go together, but often they
don’t. So which do you want to cut, Minister?

How to square this circle? Maybe with a new funding stream cut out of a more
concentrated QR to support work with businesses - provided HEFCE can figure out a
sensible way to allocate it.

Posted by William Cullerne Bown on September 13, 2010 inComprehensive Spending

Review, David Willetts, Vince Cable |Permalink

2010/09/09 BBC NEWS: UNIVERSITIES TOO

FOCUSED ON RESEARCH, SAYS WILLETTS
Scientists have strongly opposed cuts to research

Science Minister David Willetts has said the research-teaching balance has "gone wrong" in universities,
after defending cuts to science research.

Addressing vice chancellors, he said he was shocked by how little teaching was valued in lecturers'
promotions.

Universities that relegated the importance of teaching risked "losing sight" of their mission, he said.

Earlier, he defended plans unveiled on Wednesday to "raise the bar" on science research funded by the
taxpayer.

On Thursday, during a speech on the future of higher education, Mr Willetts said: "It remains hard to shift
the impression that what really counts in higher education is research. This needs to change."

He told the Universities UK annual conference he had found a report "shocking" that suggested only one in
10 senior promotions in top universities was influenced by teaching.

Mr Willetts said the focus in research was due to the incentives created by successive governments'
policies.

"We have strengthened the incentives for everyone to carry out research with no change in the regime for
teaching," he said.

Science cuts row

294 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
His comments come a day after Business Secretary Vince Cable said research funding should "screen out
mediocrity" in the projects backed by the taxpayer.

Universities and scientists reacted angrily to his assertion that only research that was commercially useful
or academically outstanding should be funded.

In defence of the policy, Mr Willetts told the BBC's Today programme public spending was "running way
ahead of what we can afford" and taxpayers should only fund the highest quality research.

Universities are expecting budget cuts in the Comprehensive Spending Review scheduled for October.

But scientific and academic leaders say funding less research would threaten the UK's status as a world
leader in science.

Former chief executive of the British Medical Research Council Professor Colin Blakemore questioned how
research quality would be defined.

"Some of it doesn't produce the results that were expected. That is the nature of research. Sometimes it
doesn't work," he told the BBC.

Mr Willetts said one way the government could focus spending would be to concentrate on research that
scored the highest ratings in assessments by the UK funding councils.

Prof Blakemore said scientific research was crucial to the future of the UK's economy.

"Britain is a small country with declining resources - where do we survive from? Our only hope is
innovation and to produce innovation we have to produce the basis of innovation, in research."

The government spends £4.3bn a year on scientific research.

Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society, said on Wednesday that cutting science funding would be a false
economy.

"The question should not be can we afford the investment - it should be can we afford the cuts."

Analysis

Tom Feilden, BBC Science Correspondent

It's actually quite hard to calculate the financial return on individual research grants - how
do you decide what proportion of the global market in, say, mobile phones is down to a
specific study on transistors at UCL in 1973?

Having said that, a recent report on the value of medical research compiled by the MRC,
the Wellcome Trust, and the Academy of Medical Sciences, concluded that every pound
spent on public or charitably funded research yielded a return of 30p per year - in
perpetuity - from direct or indirect gains to GDP.

According to the Higher Education Funding Council the number of patents granted to UK
universities between 2000 and 2008 rose by 136%, and consultancy income over the same
period rose by 222%.

University bioscience departments have spawned over 200 spin-out companies over the
past decade, and in 2007 alone these spin-outs employed nearly 14,000 people and had a
combined turnover of £1.1 bn.

There does seem to be a compelling argument that investment in scientific research can
generate wealth and boost economic activity.
295 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 2010/09/09 R&D SOCIETY: GOVERNMENT
MUST MAINTAIN SUPPORT FOR ALL AREAS OF UK
R&D, FROM ACADEMIA TO BUSINESS
In response to Vince Cable’s Science, Research and Innovation speech of 8 September 2010, Sir Richard
Sykes, President of the R&D Society comments:

The Government must maintain the support of UK R&D - from academia to businesses large and small - if
we are to prosper financially and socially in future. This includes maintaining investment in our world-class
science base to attract investment and people from all over the world, and finding ways of encouraging
businesses and academia to work together effectively.

Vince Cable asks how to encourage academics to collaborate with industry to maximise the benefit of their
research. Universities cannot simply increase the commercial viability of their research by turning on a tap.
They need encouragement and support to do so – but they also need businesses who are willing, able and
capable of working with them. For academic-business links to succeed, businesses need encouragement
too, especially now, when many are having to focus on short-term survival in place of longer-term, R&D-
based investment. The commercial R&D sector has been under severe pressure in this recession, and we
have seen several commercial R&D labs close or scale back in the UK over the past year.

Though Vince Cable did mention support for the Small Business Research Initiative, he omits to discuss
how business might be encouraged to work with academia – for example R&D tax credits, networking
support, skills transfer schemes. Businesses want to get on with their job in hand, so Government must be
a supporting catalyst, not prescriptive – a midwife, not a nanny. This should not happen at the expense of
support for business-business knowledge transfer - the Cinderella largely ignored by successive
Governments, but one that powers much of UK innovation, especially around smaller enterprises.

The UK is an attractive place to do R&D, and Vince Cable is rightly proud that many multinational
companies locate their R&D operations in the UK. But they will only do so whilst it is in their best interests
to. Businesses have told the R&D Society aboutmany different reasons why they choose the UK, and one of
the most important is the high quality of UK universities. This provides local access to world-class research,
and a regular supply of skilled graduates. We are very worried at the cuts to UK science hinted at in Vince
Cable’s speech will have the double whammy of reducing the research and teaching capacity of UK
universities and discouraging students from studying research-relevant subjects – resulting in more top
performing graduates "heading straight for high finance rather than science and engineering", as Mr
Cable laments. In order to maintain the flow of ideas to wealth in the long term, a broad portfolio of high-
class 'basic' research must be maintained as the fruits of the future.

296 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 2010/09/09 ROYAL SOCIETY: INVITATION TO
PARTY POLITICAL CONFERENCE FRINGE EVENTS
The scientific century: can research secure our future prosperity?
We would like to invite you to our Party Political Conference fringe events, on the theme of 'The
scientific century: can research secure our future prosperity?'.
The events will build on recent discussions around the Spending Review and the suite of reports
published earlier this year, making the case for investment in research. Each event will also raise some
key questions for the research community to consider (see below).
Details are as follows:
Liberal DemocratLiberal Democrat Party Conference: Monday 20 September, Hilton Liverpool, Grace Suite, 20:00 – 21:15
Party Conference:Confirmed speakers:
Monday 20Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable MP, Secretary of State, Business, Innovation and Skills
September, Sir Martin Taylor FRS, The Royal Society
20:00 – 21:15 Professor Cary Cooper, Chair, Academy of Social Sciences
Aileen Allsop, Vice President for Science Policy, Research and Development, AstraZeneca
Labour Party Labour Party conference: Monday 27 September, Manchester (in partnership with the 1994 Group),
Conference: Radission Hotel, Beecham / Richter room, 17:30-19:30
Monday 27 Confirmed speakers:
September (in Rt Hon David Lammy MP, Shadow Minister for Business, Innovation and Skills
partnership with Paul Marshall, Executive Director, 1994 Group
the 1994 Group), Professor Richard Jones FRS, The Royal Society
17:30-19:30 Professor Nigel Vincent, Vice-President, The British Academy
Will Hutton, Executive Vice Chair, The Work Foundation
Conservative Party Conservative Party Conference: Tuesday 5 October, Birmingham (in partnership with the 1994 Group),
Conference: The ICC, Hall 8B, 19:30-21:00
Tuesday 5 October Confirmed speakers:
(in partnership Rt Hon David Willetts MP, Minister for Universities and Science, Department for Business, Innovation
with the 1994 and Skills
Group), Sir Martin Taylor FRS, The Royal Society
19:30-21:00 Professor Paul Wellings, Chair of the 1994 Group and Vice-Chancellor, Lancaster University
Richard Lambert, Director General, CBI
Professor Tim Besley FBA, Kuwait Professor of Economics and Political Science at the London School of
Economics
Professor Brian Cox, Royal Society University Research Fellow, Chair in Particle Physics, University of
Manchester
Each event will cover topics such as:
Can research drive economic growth and innovative new industries?
What role will universities play in the new economy?
How can we increase the value of research?
How can research add value to business?
What more can be done to support university-business partnerships?
We hope to see as many of you there as possible. If you have any queries please contact Marie Rumsby
atmarie.rumsby@royalsociety.org or on +44 (0)20 7451 2525.

297 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Science at the Liberal Democrat Party Political Conference
Liberal Democrat Party conference 18 – 22 September, Liverpool
Event One:
Organised by the Liberal Democrats for Engineering and Science (ALDES) – Sunday 19 September
Venue and time: ACC, Hall 1C 13:00 – 14:00
Theme: Inventing the Future Economy
Speakers: Trevor Baylis OBE, Rt Hon Vince Cable MP (invited) and others
Further event information.
Event Two:
Organised by the Engineering the Future alliance – Monday 20 September
Venue and time: Jurys Inn 18:30
Theme: An industrial Policy for the 21st Century: Engineering growth in Britain
Chair: Iain Mulheim (SMF)
Confirmed speakers: Rt Hon Vince Cable (Secretary of State, Business, Innovation and Skills), Kate Bellingham, David
Kestor (Design Council)
Further event information.
Event three:
Organised by the Royal Society and the 1994 Group – Monday 20 September
venue and time: Hilton Liverpool, Grace Suite 20:00 – 21:15
Confirmed speakers: Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable (Secretary of State, Business, Innovation and Skills), Sir Martin Taylor FRS
(The Royal Society), Professor Cary Cooper (Academy of Social Sciences) and Aileen Allsop (Vice President for Science
Policy, Research and Development, AstraZeneca)
Further event information.

Science at the Labour Party Political Conference

Labour Party Political Conference 26 – 30 September, Manchester
Event one:
Organised by the Engineering the Future Alliance – Monday 27 September
Venue and time: Manchester Central (secure) 17:30
Theme: An Industrial Policy for the 21st Century: Engineering growth in Britain
Chair: Iain Mulheim (SMF)
Confirmed speakers: Rt Hon Pat McFadden MP (Shadown Business Secretary), Kate Bellingham and DavidKestor
(Design Council)
Further event information.
Event two:
Organised by the Royal Society and the 1994 Group – Monday 27 September
Venue and time: Radisson Hotel, Beccham/Richter Room 17:30 – 19:30
Theme: The scientific century: can research secure our future prosperity?
Speakers: Rt Hon David Lammy MP (Shadow Minister for Business, Innovation and Skills), Paul Marshall (Executive
Director, 1994 Group), Professor Richard Jones FRS (The Royal Society), Professor Nigel Vincent (Vice-President, The
British Academy) and Will Hutton (Executive Vice Chair, The Work Foundation)
Further event information.
Event three:
Organised by the ESRC Genomics Network – Tuesday 28 September
Venue and time: Charter A, Marquee 2, Manchester Central Convention Complex 19:00 – 20:00
Theme: A secure society? Technological solutions to social challenges?
Speakers: Dr Steve Sturdy (ESRC Genomics Forum, University of Edinburgh), Professor Adam Hedgecoe (Cesagen,
Cardiff University) and Dr Paul McCarthy (Lancaster University)
Further event information.

298 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Science at the Conservative Party Political Conference
Conservative Party Political Conference 3 – 6 October, Birmingham

Event one:
Organised by the Engineering the Future Alliance – Monday 4 October
Venue and time: Hyatt Regency (secure) 17:45
Theme: An Industrial Policy for the 21st Century: Engineering growth in Britain
Chair: David Furness (SMF)
Speakers: Mark Prisk MP (Smaller Business Minister TBC) or John Hayes MP (Skills Minister TBC), Kate Bellingham
and Alan Cook (Atkins)
Further event information.
Event two:
Organised by the ESRC Genomics Network – Tuesday 5 October
Venue and time: Scherzo Room, Hyatt Regency, 2 Bridge Street 17:45 – 19:00
Theme: Why science needs social science: the case of genetics
Chair: Professor John Dupre (Egenis Director)
Speakers: Professor Joyce Tait (Innogen Scientific Advisor), Professor Barry Barnes (Egenis Co-Director) and Mr
George Freeman MP
Further event information.
Event three
Organised by The Royal Society and the 1994 Group – Tuesday 5 October
Venue and time: The ICC, Hall 8B 19:30 – 21:00
Theme: The scientific century: can research secure our future prosperity?
Speakers: Rt Hon David Willetts MP (Minister for Universities and Science, Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills), Sir Martin Taylor GRS (The Royal Society), Professor Paul Wellings (Chair of the 1994 Group and Vice-
Chancellor, Lancaster University), Richard Lambert (Director General, CBI), Professor Tim Besley FBA (Kuwait
Professor of Economics and Political Science at the London School of Economics) and Professor Brian Cox (Royal
Society University Research Fellow, Chair in Particle Physics, University of Manchester).
Further event information.

2010/09/09 ROYAL SOCIETY BLOG IN VERBA:

CAN WE AFFORD THE CUTS?
By Jack Stilgoe

Vince Cable, secretary of state of business and innovation, gave his first major speech on scienceyesterday.
Given the stage of the spending review we are currently in, science policy watchers eagerly awaited his
words. They were looking for a sense of direction, or any reassurances about levels of investment, and
were largely disappointed. Here’s what our President, Lord Rees, wrote about the speech in this morning’s
Financial Times (registration required, I’m afraid).Lord Rees also issued this statement:

299 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
“Science is an international enterprise where the UK is strong. Other nations, including the US, are raising
their expenditure at the same time as our government plans to cut ours. This will make the UK less
attractive to mobile talent. And it risks sending a signal to young people that the UK is no longer a country
that aspires to scientific leadership. A cut by ‘X percent’ would lead to a decline of much more than ‘X
percent’ in top-grade scientific output. It is sad that this government appears willing to risk one of the few
areas where the UK has a genuine competitive economic advantage — one which, when lost, could not be
readily recovered. The question should not be can we afford the investment – it should be can we afford
the cuts.”

Here’s some more coverage of the speech:

 Times Higher
 The Guardian
 Cable’s former colleague Evan Harris, also the Guardian
 The Telegraph
 The New Scientist’s ‘S word’ blog
 … and the BBC

2010/09/09 ROYAL SOCIETY BLOG IN VERBA:

DAMNED STATISTICS
By James Wilsdon

Vince Cable made much of his scientific credentials yesterday: “I’m one of few MPs to have at least started
a science degree,” he told the audience for his speech at Queen Mary. He also of course went on to
complete a PhD in economics. This should mean that he treads carefully around statistics. Alas, no.

On the Today programme yesterday, the Business Secretary claimed that, “something in the order of 45%
of the research grants that were going through were going to research that was not of excellent standard.”
This quickly became a story about the taxpayer funding “mediocre” research, and is being spun as a
justification for budget cuts.

Here’s an explanation of why the story is wrong…In the last Research Assessment Exercise, 54 per cent of
the work that was submitted for assessment was classed as 3* or 4*, which means it is, by definition, world
class. This research receives £980m from Hefce. Research that is 2* (which Hefce still regards as
‘internationally recognised’) gets £115 million and 1* research gets nothing. So Hefce allocates the vast
majority – nearly 90% – of its funding to world class research.

Of course, Hefce is only one part of the funding system. The Research Councils spend more than Hefce on
research. The success rates for applications to the Research Councils are pretty low, meaning that they
already turn away many proposals that are considered world class.

So, on any reading of the Government’s own numbers, it’s not true that lots of money is wasted on
mediocre research. Cable’s claim is so far off the mark, it is laughable. It is hard to say whether this is an
honest mistake or an effort to soften up the scientific community for the blows that will fall in next
month’s spending round.

300 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
As Professor Steve Smith, President of Universities UK, said in a speech this morning: “It is a matter of
regret to me that the Secretary of State made these comments for two reasons; first that he made these
fundamental errors, secondly that this is potentially damaging for the reputation of UK research.”

2010/09/09 GUARDIAN NEWS: OECD

CAUTIONS OVER CUTS AS GLOBAL SLOWDOWN
CONTINUES
• Thinktank suggests UK coalition rethinks austerity measures

• OECD advises G7 nations against raising interest rates

Larry Elliott and Julia Kollewe

The Bank of England left the cost of borrowing unchanged at 0.5% today, in line with OECD advice to G7
economies.

The west's leading economics thinktank told George Osborne today that he may need to delay plans to cut
Britain's record peacetime budget deficit as it warned that the pace of recovery was slowing in developed
nations.

In a marked change of view from its support in the spring for immediate fiscal belt-tightening, the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development advised its rich-country members that they
should consider postponing retrenchment if the recent weakness in activity persisted.

The OECD's caution came as the UK registered its worst-ever trade deficit in goods and services of £13.2bn
and ratings agency Standard & Poor's said the coalition's austerity programme could trigger a wave of
home repossessions.

The chancellor seized on OECD recommendations earlier this year as backing for his austerity programme –
an initial £6bn of cuts announced in May to be followed by a spending review next month that will cut
spending by Whitehall departments by an average of 25% during the course of this parliament.

However, the U-turn by the Paris-based thinktank has left its stance closer to that of the outgoing Labour
government, which argued that action to tackle the deficit ought to wait until economic recovery was
assured.

The OECD said it was too early to say whether recent evidence of the loss of momentum in the recovery
was temporary or permanent, but said the G7 group of industrialised nations – the US, Britain, Japan,
Germany, France, Italy and Canada – were now likely to grow by 1.5% at an annual rate during the second
half of 2010 compared with the 1.75% predicted in May.

In its latest forecast, the thinktank said it expected a gradual deceleration in growth from the peak in the
second quarter of 2010. The OECD has pencilled in G7 expansion at an annualised 1.4% in the third quarter
and 1% in the fourth, down from 3.2% in the first quarter and 2.5% in the second.

The US is expected to grow at an annualised rate of 2% in the third quarter, slowing to 1.2% in the fourth,
after 1.6% in the second quarter and 3.7% in the first three months of the year. In Japan, GDP growth is

301 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
forecast at 0.7% in the fourth quarter after 0.6% in the third. The UK is set to grow at an annualised rate of
2.7% in the third quarter, slowing to 1.5% in the final three months of the year.

"Recent high-frequency indicators point to a slowdown in the pace of recovery of the world economy that
is somewhat more pronounced than previously anticipated," the OECD said.

"It is not yet clear whether the loss of momentum in the recovery is temporary … or whether it signals
greater underlying weaknesses in private spending at a time when public support is being removed."

A spokesman for the Treasury said that the UK growth figures showed that the economy was recovering.

"The OECD's latest forecasts have the UK growing faster than any country in the G7 this quarter and
second fastest next quarter, at rates broadly in line with the OBR's [Office for Budget Responsibility's]
budget forecast," he said.

The OECD said that if the slowdown were to prove temporary, the right response would be for central
banks to put back plans to raise interest rates "for a few months".

Borrowing costs in the UK were left unchanged at 0.5% by the Bank of England today, with some analysts
speculating that the Bank might restart its quantitative easing programme to boost the economy within
the next few months. The Bank has already pumped £200bn of electronic money into the banking system
through the purchase of gilts, but the monetary policy committee decided to maintain the policy at that
level for now.

The OECD added, however, that stronger action would be required if the slowdown reflected "longer-
lasting forces bearing down on activity". In those circumstances, it said that central banks might need to
carry out more quantitative easing and commit to rock-bottom rates for a longer period: "Where public
finances permit, planned fiscal consolidation could be delayed."

The Treasury said it would press ahead with cuts in public spending and rejected claims that the plans
could force the economy back into recession.

The spokesman said: "The UK has the largest deficit in the G7 and it is critical for growth in the longer term
that government deals with the deficit."

Several experts said the slowing world economy would hurt UK exports and depress growth below the
OECD forecasts, pushing the central bank to spend another £50bn in quantitative easing to boost the
economy before the end of the year.

2010/09/09 TELEGRAPH: VINCE CABLE

SCIENCE SNATCHER: DO HIS STATS STAND UP?
By Tom Chivers

302 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Vince Cable, ENEMY of SCIENCE, in a way, sort of. Pic: Bloomberg

I just wanted to return to the Vince Cable Science Snatcher (hmm. Needs work) story quickly. Colin
Blakemore was interviewed about it on the Today show this morning, and was asked about the “45 per
cent of research not excellent” claim, and – not unreasonably – couldn’t really respond because he didn’t
know where the stat was from.

Dr Cable seems to be suggesting that all research, or at least more than 55 per cent, should be “excellent”,
which is problematic all on its own. Jon Butterworth over on the Guardian parodied that position well:

Minister: Clearly should only fund excellence. It is inexcusable surely that we are funding anything that is
below average?

Civil Servant: Quite right minister. We should only fund the top half, I would say. We should monitor it
annually and if any of it is below the top half we should cut it.

But, even giving Dr Cable the benefit of the doubt on that point, the stat he is using is not as clear-cut as he
seems to think.

The statistic is from Research Councils UK, who do periodic Research Assessment Exercises. I understand
that it’s not completely uncontroversial among scientists, but since Dr Cable is using it as a knife to dissect
science funding with, it’s worth a look.

It found that 54 per cent of all British academic research is “world leading” or “internationally excellent” in
terms of “originality, significance and rigour”, which seems to be the source of Dr Cable’s “45 per cent”
stat. However, it found that no less than 87 per cent was of international quality, and only two per cent fell
below “national standard”. (I have no idea how these bands are defined.) It’s not as if 54 per cent was
excellent and the rest was unqualified dross. If anything, I would say “international quality” could be called
“excellent”.

And, of course, we should remember that it is decided after the research is completed whether or not it
was any good, not beforehand. Sometimes, universities will pick a dud. But, as this paper from researchers
at the Imperial College Business School and the Treasury suggests, “for maximum market sector
productivity, impact government innovation policy should focus on direct spending on research councils” –
or, in non-executive-speak, keep funding the science, because it pays for itself.

2010/09/09 NATURE EDITORIAL: SCIENCE

SCORNED
The anti-science strain pervading the right wing in the United States is the last thing the country needs in a
time of economic challenge.

303 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 “The four corners of deceit: government, academia, science and media. Those institutions are now corrupt
and exist by virtue of deceit. That's how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.” It is tempting
to laugh off this and other rhetoric broadcast by Rush Limbaugh, a conservative US radio host, but
Limbaugh and similar voices are no laughing matter.

There is a growing anti-science streak on the American right that could have tangible societal and political
impacts on many fronts — including regulation of environmental and other issues and stem-cell research.
Take the surprise ousting last week of Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent Republican senator for Alaska, by
political unknown Joe Miller in the Republican primary for the 2 November midterm congressional
elections. Miller, who is backed by the conservative 'Tea Party movement', called his opponent's
acknowledgement of the reality of global warming “exhibit 'A' for why she needs to go”.

“The country's future crucially depends on education, science and technology.”

The right-wing populism that is flourishing in the current climate of economic insecurity echoes many
traditional conservative themes, such as opposition to taxes, regulation and immigration. But the Tea Party
and its cheerleaders, who include Limbaugh, Fox News television host Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who
famously decried fruitfly research as a waste of public money), are also tapping an age-old US political
impulse — a suspicion of elites and expertise.

Denialism over global warming has become a scientific cause célèbre within the movement. Limbaugh, for
instance, who has told his listeners that “science has become a home for displaced socialists and
communists”, has called climate-change science “the biggest scam in the history of the world”. The Tea
Party's leanings encompass religious opposition to Darwinian evolution and to stem-cell and embryo
research — which Beck has equated with eugenics. The movement is also averse to science-based
regulation, which it sees as an excuse for intrusive government. Under the administration of George W.
Bush, science in policy had already taken knocks from both neglect and ideology. Yet President Barack
Obama's promise to “restore science to its rightful place” seems to have linked science to liberal politics,
making it even more of a target of the right.

US citizens face economic problems that are all too real, and the country's future crucially depends on
education, science and technology as it faces increasing competition from China and other emerging
science powers. Last month's recall of hundreds of millions of US eggs because of the risk of salmonella
poisoning, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, are timely reminders of why the US government needs to
serve the people better by developing and enforcing improved science-based regulations. Yet the public
often buys into anti-science, anti-regulation agendas that are orchestrated by business interests and their
sponsored think tanks and front groups.

In the current poisoned political atmosphere, the defenders of science have few easy remedies.
Reassuringly, polls continue to show that the overwhelming majority of the US public sees science as a
force for good, and the anti-science rumblings may be ephemeral. As educators, scientists should redouble
their efforts to promote rationalism, scholarship and critical thought among the young, and engage with
both the media and politicians to help illuminate the pressing science-based issues of our time.
Comments
2010-09-08 01:28 AM
Report this comment #13445
Anurag Chaurasia said:
Scientists should educate the society regarding various scientific issues to make it top political agenda of any
country.
Anurag chaurasia,ICAR,India,anurag@nbaim.org,anurag_vns1@yahoo.co.in,+919452196686(M)
2010-09-08 02:12 AM
Report this comment #13448
Johan F. Prins said:
304 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
It is a pathetic comment on the American right. Believe me, I am not on their side but their criticism of science
is spot on. Even Limbaugh looks like a superliberal when he is compared to the physics community; and the way in
which this community safeguards mainstream scientific dogma. It is hilarious that NATURE has the arrogance
to criticise Limbaugh while this publication drives one to believe that the BIBLE was better "peer-reviewed"
than the trash that is regularly published in NATURE! My, my, how much more of taxpayers' money must be
wasted on the delusion into which physics has moved after Bohr, Heisenberg and Born, went against Einstein's
impeccable physical insights. Science stinks at the moment because it is controlled by bigots against who
Limbaugh just cannot compete in any way. Science can only blame itself NOT the American right!
2010-09-08 02:59 AM
Report this comment #13450
Ross Barton said:
Mr. Prins: I absolutely agree with you comments. Nature should be ashamed at the totally biased stance they've
taken on the issue of climate change. Time and science will ultimately reveal the truth and Nature will not have
made a good showing.
2010-09-08 03:53 AM
Report this comment #13451
Jonathan Cole said:
So according to Mr. Prins, not only climate change, but quantum mechanics too is a "delusion"? Aside from the
irony that his comments are posted using technology made possible by the "delusional" science he decries, Mr.
Prins makes the editorial's point most effectively. Once we start down the path of rejecting or banning any
science that happens to conflict with our personal philosophy, politics or prejudices (and the evidence be
damned), there's no end to it--or to the damage we do ourselves.
2010-09-08 03:56 AM
Report this comment #13452
Robert Gertz said:
It would be easier, Mr. Prins, to debate your point if you would make one. You've made serious but vague
charges without describing what you're talking about. What the devil does "the delusion into which physics has
moved after Bohr, Heisenberg and Born, went against Einstein's impeccable physical insights." mean, sir? Are
you making some claim based on a principle or a specific paper or set of papers or is this just bizarre hot-air?
As for Mr. Barton, you agree with what? That modern physics should be dismissed? Mr. Prins didn't even get to
the usual rant about climate change. What papers on climate change are you criticizing Mr. Barton? What
science in them is flawed and do you have anything to back that up?
Americans have always been nervous about elitism and elites and some scientists do lend themselves to
criticism at times for using 'jargon' to create a line between them and the public. But that is pseudo-science
and pseudo-intellectualism. In the end facts and observations are the solid basis of science-if these people
can't provide that, then they have no argument and they should be challenged on this.
2010-09-08 03:58 AM
Report this comment #13453
Anthony Kerwin said:
I agree with Anurag Chaurasia. We live in a scientifically illiterate society as evidenced by Libaugh's and Beck's
contentions — dangerous though they are, they are not in it for the good of society. Scientists, if not great
communicators themselves, should work with those who are to reach as broad an audience as possible. Keep in
mind that our political "leaders" will not lead unless we show them the way. If they are shown that science is
important to us, it will become important to them.
2010-09-08 04:02 AM
Report this comment #13454
Johan F. Prins said:
Thanks Ross Barton: I do agree that we should have open minds about all issues. Nature has NOT!! That is easy
to prove! My ideas about climate change has not yet been formulated because the arguments from both sides
have been to a certain extent emotional. The decision to be made is on which side we must err. This is a
difficult decision after you realise that you cannot trust the integrity of scientistst anymore: For example, the
physics community is far more dogmatic than any religious grouping can ever be accused of bing: And I am
stating this as fact after my career as a physicist. If the branch of science which claims to be objective and
claims that they only base their arguments on logic, is so bigoted that they spend billions of dollars looking for
"a particle" called the Higgs boson (which cannot exist since "particles" do not exist), then it has become
impossible to believe any scientist in the world. Yes, the time has come that the majority of citizens with
common sense confront these charlatans.
2010-09-08 04:11 AM

305 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Report this comment #13455
Johan F. Prins said:
I have only now seen Jonathan Cole's post: "Once we start down the path of rejecting or banning any science
that happens to conflict with our personal philosophy, politics or prejudices (and the evidence be damned),
there's no end to it--or to the damage we do ourselves." Very well said Mr. Cole.: you have just now described
Nature's philosophy accurately. This Journal will NEVER publish anything that conflicts with its own bigoted
philosophy and prjudices: I have enough facts on this that I can prove this easily in an open court. This is
exactly where our problem lies: Science has become corrupt and the ordinary lay person with common sense has
become tired of assuming that the bigots in control of science know better.
2010-09-08 04:18 AM
Report this comment #13456
Wesley Button said:
It seems as if as society has moved away from religion and community, a certain group of people has placed a
whole lot of faith in the rise of science and technology and it?s ongoing evolution. Whether it?s people who look
forward to cyber-warfare or dream of an interconnected world, the common factor seems to be a belief that
such developments will benefit humanity or possibly usher in a new utopia.
Is this a realistic worldview? With billions of people mired in poverty, the biggest new breakthroughs seem to
come in the form of weaponry or consumer gadgetry, hardly the most noble of fields. Forgive me my cynicism,
but I don?t think that science has been quite the panacea that many people in the first half of the 2th century
thought it was. Fundamental realities of poverty, economics and ecological destruction seem to persist while
new UAV?s and ipads are rushed off the line.
2010-09-08 04:25 AM
Report this comment #13457
Johan F. Prins said:
Robert Gertz posted: "It would be easier, Mr. Prins, to debate your point if you would make one. You've made
serious but vague charges without describing what you're talking about. What the devil does "the delusion into
which physics has moved after Bohr, Heisenberg and Born, went against Einstein's impeccable physical
insights." mean, sir? Are you making some claim based on a principle or a specific paper or set of papers or is
this just bizarre hot-air?"
The delusion is so obvious that it is hilarious. I have now tried for nearly 10 years to raise these issues but has
been blocked by Journals like Nature to publish it. I know you will now immediately conclude that I am a crank.
This is the most powerful weapon used by scientists against people who are not specialists in science but ask
uncomfortable questions. Now, I am a qualified scientist who got my doctorate from Thomas Jefferon's
University in 1966-1967, and I have had a good carerer in diamond physics. My credentials are above suspicion.
It should be easy to confirm this on the internet. Whether, I agree with global warming or not is not at issue,
but I do agree with any concerned citizen in the world that science has become rotten and scientists should not
be trusted. The time has come to really place science under the loop. I can vouch that theoretical physicists
have been barking up the wrong tree for nearly 100 years now!
2010-09-08 04:34 AM
Report this comment #13458
David Cook said:
Both sides have their points to make. The attacks on stem cell research remind me of the 18th century French
church's attack on inoculation because it interferred with God's providence. On the other hand, while quantum
physics accounts for 1/3 of our economy, natural selection has, as WHAT DARWIN GOT WRONG suggests,
been better for creating post hoc explanations than earth shattering predictions. If we pushed more
Schroedinger and less Darwin in highschool and used Bohr's "it-works-whatever-the- ultimate-Truth-of-the-
situation" approach, perhaps we wouldn't create the political backlash we are creating.
2010-09-08 04:44 AM
Report this comment #13460
Mark Fletcher said:
Abuse of science for political purposes is in no way restricted to the right; there are many examples from both
parties: Obama suppressed EPA research that did not support restricting carbon emissions, Bush did not like
stem cell research, Reagan did not like research into acid rain and Carter did not like economic research
showing that gasoline shortages were caused by his price controls, not by a true scarcity of oil.
The subtitle of this article refers to economics in particular. Economic science tells us that the current
recession was caused by loose monetary policy at the Federal Reserve and by decades of federal government
intervention in mortgage lending, supported by politicians of both parties. Note that the recent financial
legislation did not address either of these issues, treating the relevant science with scorn in favor of populist

306 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
soundbites about Wall Street greed. Economic science also tells us that recovery will not be aided by naive
Keynesian redistribution of spending, whatever Bush and Obama have claimed.
If you are looking for a serious discussion of policy based on scientific knowledge, it appears that you will not
find it in Nature. But who cares! Altogether now: Blue team good! Red team bad! Baa! Baa!
2010-09-08 04:55 AM
Report this comment #13461
Jean-François Foncin said:
"acknowledgement of the reality of global warming" is not the problem : global warming has been a fact for
three centuries after the "little ice age". The problems are 1) the extrapolation of global warming to the
current and next centuries; 2) the basis of such an extrapolation, which should rest on the probability of its
cause. Valid scientific discussion of the latter should in consequence be an evaluation of probabilities. The a
priori probability for it to be anthropogenic is 1/7, since seven galcial episodes followed by global warming
occured since the Pliocene in the absence of human influence. The conditional probability for it to be due to
anthropogenic emissions, notably of carbon dioxyde, is evaluated through the approximate (finite differences)
numeric resolution of systems of higher order partial differential equations, which are unstable (chaotic)
relative to intial (border) conditions; a probability cannot be evaluated for the resulting solutions. Perhaps the
"right wing" people are good Bayesian mathematicians after all.
2010-09-08 05:53 AM
Report this comment #13463
Radoslav Bozov said:
"which cannot exist since "particles" do not exist), then it has become impossible to believe any scientist in the
world. Yes, the time has come that the majority of citizens with common sense confront these charlatans"
Dr. Prins, studying diamond physics obviously have made you see only the beauty of it, that may have made you
"blind". Particles do exist although their dynamics definition is not as easy as watching diamonds. Common sense
is not a scientific tool for driving invention of good technologies. Good theories are.
Dr. Fonkin, the problem is that human activity accelerates global warming by taking carbon in -4 oxidation and
then converting it to +4, relying on plants to fix it. However, much -4 carbon has been released, and much more
will be once the polar cap is gone. Once we have so much potential energy that we shifted from within
encapsulated space of earth through drilling into the atmosphere, something has to compensate it. Well guess
what, here is where water comes into place. Einstein was right, God do not play dices.
2010-09-08 06:41 AM
Report this comment #13466
Russell Seitz said:
While the Republican War on Science was in large measure a Democratic invention , its escalation into a War on
Republican Scientists should give pause to think tank denizens on both sides of K-Street.
2010-09-08 06:59 AM
Report this comment #13469
Wesley Button said:
Scientists have given us pollution, an 80 hour work week, a victimized third world, and nuclear weapons. How
dare someone question them!
2010-09-08 07:11 AM
Report this comment #13473
Chris Mesenburg said:
Beck and Palin both have 'special' needs children. Those needs could have been met before birth with a bit of
stem cell genetic modification or engineering, in order to enlighten them as to the Truth of our monkey
heritage and the Darwinian world we live in. Have any of the tea party Neanderthals been sequenced? You
betcha not!.
Oh what a happy and productive homo species we would be if we spent the better part of our time as living
organisms praying and sleeping and sloughing off, forever looking forward to the time of our permanent being
up with the stars with a million virgins waiting for the men, and a global shopping bazaar for the women.
The skeptics and laggards of our planet will forever retard scientific progress that could lead us to a happier
civilization until their gene pools die off, like they already are in our technoscientific world culture.
Pray, which way have you thrown your lives? Following a thousands of years old mythological story book written
by schizophrenics anonymous members that would be institutionalized in today's world.
2010-09-08 09:38 AM
Report this comment #13479
vallie hodges said:

307 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Theory: Right wingers in government, academia, science and media, stupid and bad. Left wingers in government,
academia, science and media, smart and good.
Following, "Nature Journal of Science" = left = smart and good.
Abject politicalization. Disgustiing.
2010-09-08 11:59 AM
Report this comment #13485
Björn Brembs said:
Indeed, some comments here prove the editorial true: medieval, anti-science dogmatism is rising sharply in the
US. This appears, presumably, to be the backlash of more than two generations of botched educational policies
and, consequently an educational system on par with developing countries. Anybody not convinced just needs to
read some of the comments above.
If memory serves me well, analogous editorials in the past have never failed to trigger responses verifying the
editorial.
2010-09-09 02:09 AM
Report this comment #13490
Garnier Alexandre said:
Ridiculous article, which finishes off the already broken credibility of Nature.
The funny part of the story is that the right-wing has always been more pro-science than the Left.
During the French leftist Revolution, many scientists have been put to death with the following statement: "La
République n'a pas besoin de savants, uniquement d'équité"
"The Republic doesn't need savants, only equality".
When will the ridiculous politicians at Nature (I don't call them scientists) realize that they were wrong on
global warming, the biggest lie ever created?
When the truth will break out, I'll be at the funeral of this journal.
2010-09-09 03:06 AM
Report this comment #13491
Steve Black said:
Johan F. Prins posted: "The delusion is so obvious that it is hilarious. I have now tried for nearly 10 years to
raise these issues but has been blocked by Journals like Nature to publish it. I know you will now immediately
conclude that I am a crank. This is the most powerful weapon used by scientists against people who are not
specialists in science but ask uncomfortable questions."
Sir, a quick internet search of your name revealed what appears to be your issues with Journals such as Nature.
After careful reading of the website http://www.cathodixx.com/home.html and excerpts of the book called
"The Physics Delusion", may I suggest the following course of action. Set up your experiment where you
achieve/demonstrate room temperature superconduction on doped diamond substrate without Cooper Pairs and
invite the media to record the event. With the ensuing media frenzy, I am sure that other physicists around
the world will try to reproduce your results.
The result of this endevour will make you either the next Nobel Prise winner in Physics or ridiculed in the
scientific community like Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann and Cold Fusion
2010-09-09 03:24 AM
Report this comment #13494
Anthony Carter said:
Nature does itself a great disservice by lumping together a broad swathe of opinion makers. If Nature is seen
as partisan its voice will not be heard on important issues like climate change. The blanket criticism of Fox
News Channel is especially pernicious given the broad range of opinions that are expressed on many of its talk
shows.
2010-09-09 05:20 AM
Report this comment #13503
Johan F. Prins said:
David Cook wrote: "If we pushed more Schroedinger and less Darwin in highschool and used Bohr's "it-works-
whatever-the- ultimate-Truth-of-the-situation" approach, perhaps we wouldn't create the political backlash we
are creating.". I agree on Schroedinger but not on Bohr who has been responsible for leading physics into
Alice's Wonderland. This already started with his model of the atom. Two reasons suffice (there are many
more). Firstly an "electron" around the nucleus cannot have momentum since its total energy is less than its rest
mass energy; Secondly an electron circling a proton cannot generate a magnetic moment. A magnetic moment is
only generated when opposite charges move relative to each other on a circular path around an axis. Only then
does Ampere's law applies. In the case of Bohr's hydrogen atom, both the negative charge and the positive
charge moves IN THE SAME DIRECTION around the centre-of-mass. The total circular current is thus

308 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
exactly zero. It is Bohr's, Heisenberg's and Born's insistence that momentum playse a role when an electron is
bound at a nucleus, which led to non-sensical physics
2010-09-09 05:38 AM
Report this comment #13504
Johan F. Prins said:
Radoslav Bizov wrote: "Particles do exist although their dynamics definition is not as easy as watching diamonds.
Common sense is not a scientific tool for driving invention of good technologies. Good theories are.". Well give
me a definition of a "particle". Like someone in the audience asked J J Thomson: Excuse me Sir-How can you
discover "a particle" which nobody has ever seen?" The only thing proved by ALL experiments on electrons is
that an electron has a centre-of-mass: That hardly makes it a particle, or else the Sun should also be a particle.
The actual "common sense" deduction should be that an electron has mass-energy with a centre-of-mass. Then
the immediate further "common sense" deduction is that an electron is a harmonic wave which like all harmonic
waves EVER has an intensity equal to its energy. Thus the intensity of an electron wave IS NOT a probability-
distribution but its mass-energy. Once you accept this straightforward "common sense" conclusion, the "virtual
physics" which had been done by Heisenberg, Dirac, Feynman, Glashow, etc. falls away and we are back to
reality: This is the only path to a good theory..
2010-09-09 05:57 AM
Report this comment #13505
Johan F. Prins said:
Steve Black posted: "Set up your experiment where you achieve/demonstrate room temperature
superconduction on doped diamond substrate without Cooper Pairs and invite the media to record the event.
With the ensuing media frenzy, I am sure that other physicists around the world will try to reproduce your
results."
I am sorry to wake you up to reality: Ever since I published my original results, the physicists working on
superconduction have seen to it that by gossip I am discredited. Not a single one of them ever wrote a paper to
show why my physics must be wrong. Why? Because my result shows without a doubt that the presently
accepted dogma (BCS etc.) is wrong. When you approach the press to demonstrate anything they phone trhe
"experts" on superconduction who advises them that I am a crank (hangover from Pons and Fleischman). In this
they are of course very ably assisted by Journals like Nature which sorts out the grain and publishes the chaff.
Since 2003 I could not get anything past an editor or referee. The worst is the assinine reasons they give to
reject my manuscripts. I will have better success to convince the fundamental Christian's that Christ was not
the Messiah, than to get correct physics published in Nature!
2010-09-09 10:56 AM
Report this comment #13513
Dhruba Naug said:
Mr. Cook,
Your statement that natural selection is not predictive is overly broad and therefore incorrect and useless.
Numerous examples spanning the entire range of taxonomic groups are available to show the predictive power
of natural selection. Even a cursory examination of basic biology textbooks would provide you with these
examples. Natural selection has undergone 150 years of rigourous scientific scrutiny and its basic idea has been
upheld time and again. Don't you think it's a little presumptuous for a single book (which has been around for
only a few months now) to disprove all that?
2010-09-09 12:56 PM
Report this comment #13515
Gary Gaulin said:
I have years of experience with this very real problem that boils down to the scientific community not paying
attention to the real scientific issues and as a result lost its credibility with relatively well educated people.
The US is now in a growing "culture war" because of this complacency with those in the "middle" expected to
prevail as will the emerging Theory of Intelligent Design.
In case anyone wants to study the real problem here's a link to many examples (before and after this page) of
what is most causing this to happen:
http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=1084505#post1084505
2010-09-09 01:18 AM
Report this comment #13516
John Durham said:
To Mr. Prins-
"My ideas about climate change has not yet been formulated" Nor, it seems, have your ideas about correct
grammar.

309 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010-09-09 01:55 AM
Report this comment #13518
Johan F. Prins said:
Are you English or American? It does not matter really since both these nations have raped English grammer
for years; even though their citizens are usually unilingual. English has not been my mother tongue (in which we
do not waste valuable time with adding on or removing s's); but even so I can argue science with people like you
who allow idiots to run physics departments at your universities like Cambridge, Oxford, Princeton, Harvard,
CalTech, MIT etc. etc. Their grammer might, according to you, to be more perfect than mine, but their
knowledge of elemenrtary physics is abyssmal! No wonder ordinary people with common sense are becoming
more and more disgusted with science.

2010/09/09 NEW SCIENTIST: TIME TO STOP

WHINING AND ACT FOR THE LONG TERM

Michael Brooks, consultant

Late-night call from younger son, Hugo, in Louisiana. He's worried about his future as a theoretical
physicist. I suggest returning to London to make a fortune as a mathematical 'quant' in the City.

That's how much Vince Cable, the UK government's business secretary, values science. Rather than
encouraging his son to make the best of a difficult but honourable and valuable career in science, in 2008
the Minister for Business suggested Hugo give it all up, and use his scientific training to open up a lucrative
career as a City finance whiz. No matter that the Northern Rock crisis was in full swing; there was still a
fortune to be made.

You certainly can't say the same of science. Yesterday morning Cable was on BBC Radio 4's Today
programme telling scientists that mediocre research will no longer be funded: now only the best (whatever
that is) will get government money. Scientists need to do more with less, he said. And they need to do
things that make money. This morning David Willetts, the science minister, backed Cable's position.

At least Cable can't be accused of double standards: it's not a U-turn, or a betrayal. The signs of what Cable
would do have been writ large on the Guardian website for two years now. If only we had noticed.

Hugo's response to his father was straightforward: "Not that desperate, Dad." And he still isn't. While UK
scientists face a funding crisis, Hugo is doing OK. He now works in the well-fundedCentre for Quantum
Technologies in Singapore.

This Centre is one of five "centres of research excellence" sharing £360 million in funding from the
Singapore government. The same government also offers talented postdocs from anywhere in the world
the money to set up their own labs and bypass the painful wilderness years of working for someone else.
How does 2 million US dollars over five years (plus your salary) sound?

It's enough to reduce UK scientists to tears. Why doesn't it happen over here? Well, it helps that, when
these schemes were set up, the prime minister of Singapore had a first class honours degree in
mathematics from Trinity College, Cambridge. The deputy prime minister, Tony Tan, had a PhD in physics
and had worked in physics and mathematics departments for many years.

I visited Singapore in the summer, and researchers there told me that, when Tan visited research labs, he
talked "like he's one of us." He knew the value of what scientists do, and what they need to get it done.
310 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Until the UK has more trained scientists in government, research funding at Singaporean levels will remain
a distant dream.

The various organisations supporting science - the Royal Society, for example - have had little success in
protecting funding. It seems they are largely impotent when it comes to influencing government spending.

If Martin Rees really is worried that our children and grandchildren won't want to go into science when it is
so poorly funded, there is only one thing to do. It's time to switch tactics: the Royal Society should now
plan for the long term and begin to offer support - financial and logistical - to scientists wanting to get into
politics.
5 Comments
Pip Willcox on September 9, 2010 12:40 PM
I agree with the thrust of this: very worrying talk of science cuts, and more experts in the field getting into
politics is a sensible medium and long term solution.
But, though I'm not an apologist for Vince Cable, I don't think you've represented him fairly.
He was writing in the context of a "My Week" piece that included other jokey comments:
"Where are the Polish plumbers when you need them?" - in response to a leaking washing machine;
"Fantasise about how Stalin would have dealt with the situation." - when a Party Organizer needs help delivering
food and raffle prizes.
His 'advice' to his son was in the context of this, from the previous paragraph:
"Dinner is, however, interrupted by Sky camera crew and Five Live radio car wanting instant response to story
about overpaid, undertaxed fat cats. Bad thing."
A career in comedy may not beckon Cable, but presenting this quotation as serious careers advice for his son is
hardly fair or helpful in promoting debate on an important issue.
Pip Willcox on September 9, 2010 12:54 PM
I agree with the thrust of this: very worrying talk of science cuts, and more experts in the field getting into
politics is a sensible medium and long term solution.
But, though I'm not an apologist for Vince Cable, I don't think you've represented him fairly.
He was writing in the context of a "My Week" piece that included other jokey comments:
"Where are the Polish plumbers when you need them?" - in response to a leaking washing machine;
"Fantasise about how Stalin would have dealt with the situation." - when a Party Organizer needs help delivering
food and raffle prizes.
His 'advice' to his son was in the context of this, from the previous paragraph:
"Dinner is, however, interrupted by Sky camera crew and Five Live radio car wanting instant response to story
about overpaid, undertaxed fat cats. Bad thing."
A career in comedy may not beckon Cable, but presenting this quotation as serious careers advice for his son is
hardly fair or helpful in promoting debate on an important issue.
Pip Willcox on September 9, 2010 12:57 PM
I agree with the thrust of this: very worrying talk of science cuts, and more experts in the field getting into
politics is a sensible medium and long term solution.
But, though I'm not an apologist for Vince Cable, I don't think you've represented him fairly.
He was writing in the context of a "My Week" piece that included other jokey comments:
"Where are the Polish plumbers when you need them?" - in response to a leaking washing machine;
"Fantasise about how Stalin would have dealt with the situation." - when a Party Organizer needs help delivering
food and raffle prizes.
His 'advice' to his son was in the context of this, from the previous paragraph:
"Dinner is, however, interrupted by Sky camera crew and Five Live radio car wanting instant response to story
about overpaid, undertaxed fat cats. Bad thing."
A career in comedy may not beckon Cable, but presenting this quotation as serious careers advice for his son is
hardly fair or helpful in promoting debate on an important issue.
Pip Willcox on September 9, 2010 1:04 PM
(Sorry for multiple postings: my browser evidently had a problem with the website - I wasn't trying to be
emphatic.)
Chris Taylor on September 9, 2010 4:45 PM
I'd be a big fan of a RoySoc scheme to back science MPs. They'd perhaps be like the union/coop-sponsored
Labour MPs? In fact, I'd absolutely go for it myself.

311 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 2010/09/09 UNIVERSITIES UK: PROFESSOR
STEVE SMITH'S SPEECH
Title: Professor Steve Smith's keynote speech to Members’ Annual Conference

Speaker: Professor Steve Smith, President, Universities UK

Location: Cranfield University

This is a difficult speech to give because we are gathering here at a time when we all know that we are on
the cusp of massive change in the UK university system; we don’t know exactly what is coming, but now,
more than for several generations, the past may not be a good predictor of the future. All of this makes it
difficult to get the tone of this speech right.

Let me start by welcoming the Minister here today. Obviously, we’re talking to you primarily as Minster for
HE in England. But clearly many of the issues directly affect the devolved administrations.

I would like to make three comments directly to you.

First, please understand that all the members of UUK realise the financial context. We do not deny the
severity of the difficulties facing the government in dealing with the public finances. We know reductions
in public financing are on the way.

Second, can I state unequivocally that we appreciate how much time you have spent making sure that you
know about the entire sector. We applaud that, and I know that you see universities and students as
absolutely central to the future of our country. Equally, I know that you do not take a purely instrumental
view of university education, well understand the wider virtues of a university education, and are
personally committed to increasing, deepening and widening participation. I also note with pleasure the
government’s clear commitment to social mobility, and to the Deputy Prime Minister’s statements about
the role of higher education in furthering that shared aim.

Third, I am particularly aware that any Minister appearing before any audience will hear calls for protecting
certain areas of public spending. Therefore the obvious reaction to anything that the President of a body
such as UUK might say is ‘well they would say that wouldn’t they’. But, my argument is not about what is
best for the UK’s universities, but about what is best for the future of the UK.

Before turning to the focus of today’s address, I want to say a few words about two other issues. First,
Damien Green’s speech on Monday night. UUK is pleased to hear his unequivocal commitment that the
great international success story that is the UK university system must not be damaged by any changes to
international student visa regulations. But, the details really do matter here. Thus, while understanding
the problems with individuals entering the UK to study at bogus colleges, we must stress that many UK
universities rely significantly on feeder programmes taught in affiliated colleges for their recruitment. The
university sector must be protected in any change to the visa system, yet, if our experience to date with
the new working visa arrangements is anything to go by, there may well be significant differences between
what is said and what is implemented. Specifically, if reducing the number of international students is a
policy objective, can I ask which sector of the UK economy is going to expand to replace the lost income to
UK plc. Universities, really could face a triple whammy of Spending Review (SR) reductions, a funding
valley of death and restrictions on international recruitment.

312 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Secondly, can I simply state, so that there is no doubt at all, that higher education is transformative, both
for individuals as well as for economies. I am going to say much more about the economic dimension
shortly, but for individuals like me, going to universities literally changed not only my life chances, but the
person I became. That goes regardless of which institution is attended, and whatever the mode of study.
These are lives and life chances we are dealing with here.

But I want to focus on two sets of issues: firstly, the future of the UK economy and, secondly, the potential
pitfalls of the decisions that are shortly to be made by the government over the SR and Lord Browne’s
report.

Let me start with the future of the UK economy. Unlike the second part of my address, my focus here is not
on universities in themselves. My logic is to ask what choices do we have over the kind of economy the UK
will be in the future, and then ask what this implies for the research base of the UK (in which universities
obviously have a major role). Most of the issues to do with the economy involve research, but clearly
higher level skills are part of the story. And of course similar arguments can be made about the role of
universities in social mobility, social justice and social inclusion, but in the case of the research base I think
there is literally no substitute for the role that universities have to play if we are to have a successful
economy in the future. This then is a narrative that does not start with the universities and what might be
good for them, but instead starts with the economy, and specifically with the best strategy to ensure
future economic growth.

Put bluntly, my worry is that we may be about to make decisions that fundamentally undermine our future
capacity to be a globally competitive knowledge economy. I don’t have children, but if I did then I would be
worried about what kind of jobs they might have in the future if we make short-term spending decisions on
the research base that reduce the UK to a second rate knowledge economy. The decisions the government
is going to make in the SR about the research and skills base are unlike those it will make in other sectors.
They will fundamentally determine the levels of growth this county might enjoy, the type of economy we
become¸ and thus the kinds of jobs our children might have. Other sectors can make the case but I
honestly believe that no sector can argue that it plays as determining a role in the nature of the future
economy as the research base.

Recent analysis, in June 2010, by NESTA about the future of the UK economy makes the point with crystal
clarity. They note that innovation accounted for two thirds of productivity growth between 2001 and
2007. Looking at four scenarios for future economic growth (business-as-usual; manufacturing
renaissance; high tech flourishing; innovation across the economy), they conclude that the best chances
for future economic growth come from the last two scenarios, and in each case they highlight ‘the
important role that …the...knowledge economy… *has+ in driving growth over the next decade’.

Of course we have been here before: the previous government commissioned reports that looked at the
skills needed for such an economy (the Leitch Report) and at government’s science and innovation policies
(the Sainsbury Report). These painted a detailed, evidence-based and compelling account of what kind of
skills and research bases the UK needed to compete in the future. The central conclusion of Leitch (that the
proportion of jobs requiring skills of level 4 or above will increase from 29% to 40% by 2020) has recently
been reinforced by reports by both the CBI and the UKCES Skills Audit; both argue for a substantial increase
in the participation rate in HE in order for the UK to remain competitive as a knowledge economy.

In particular I would recommend anyone to re-read Lord Sainsbury’s Report, Race to the Top, which is the
most intellectually convincing report on the topic that I have ever read. It is a report that is referred to by
research and government leaders in our competitor knowledge-economies. It is the alpha and omega of
analysis on how science and research policy relate to economic growth, presenting a joined up analysis, a
clear vision, and providing a long-term strategy for maximising innovation and economic growth. Its core
claim is that the UK cannot win a race to the bottom on low wage rates for low added-value jobs, and thus
313 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
has to win the race to the top by creating high value-added jobs. To do this requires investing in the
innovation eco-system. It concludes ‘We can be one of the winners in “the race to the top”, but only if we
run fast.’

Given that conclusion, the UKTI’s July 2010 report on inward investment, with a preface by William Hague
and Vince Cable, makes interesting reading, arguing that currently the UK has the strongest research base
in Europe. It continued: ‘For international companies, the benefits of locating in the UK to access the world
class R&D base remain clear- for example, overseas entities own 37% of patents in the UK, compared with
just 11.2% in the USA and just 4.4% in Japan.’ But it warned that ’the international competitive
environment to win high value R&D investment is intense’ with 80% of the £400 bn annually invested by
the 1000 largest companies concentrated in just 5 countries (the UK, Germany, France, Japan and the
USA).

So, how are these competitors investing in their R&D base. Here the UK’s compares poorly. Using the latest
OECD figures, the percentages of GDP spent on R&D are:

 Sweden 3.73%
 Finland 3.45%
 Japan 3.39%
 Korea 3.23%
 Switzerland 2.90%
 USA 2.62%
 Germany 2.53%
 France 2.11%
 Canada 1.94%
 UK 1.78%

But what of future investment levels: As President Sarkozy put it on 26 July: ‘In the current economic
downturn, many countries have chosen to curtail their research budgets. As you know we chose not to cut
ours. Instead we increased it. With western economies going through a difficult time…governments are
obviously tempted to postpone needed investments in science...we in France took the opposite task,
considering that higher education and research are the solution to the recession. The economic downturn
should not prompt us to postpone investment in science, but rather to bring it forward...new knowledge
will be…the best weapon in fighting the recession’.

The most recent data presents a depressing picture in terms of the comparison between UK investment
decisions over science and research and those of our major competitors. The headlines are:

 USA: Doubling science spend to 2016; 6% spend in 2011; $21bn increase in science and research
over next 2 years
 Canada: $6bn increase in R&D,
 Germany: Additional 18bn Euros for science and R&D from 2010-2015
 France: additional 8bn Euro for research, plus an additional 11bn Euro for HE
 China: additional $860m research support fund
 Australia: additional $580m into research in universities on top of an increase of 25% in science and
innovation spend between 2008/9 and 2009/10

There are countries reducing their research funding: notably Spain, Czech Republic and Ecuador.

In the decisions to be made in the CSR, there is one fundamental difference between those on the funding
of university teaching and student support and those on the research base: there is no obvious substitute
for lost governmental funding of the research base. All the international and UK evidence points to one
314 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
inescapable conclusion: in R&D, it is governmental spending that leverages out private sector spending and
is a magnet for private investment and, for inward investment. Reducing governmental R&D spending thus
starts a vicious circle, leading not to replacement private R&D spending but to reductions in private spend.
This leads to a downward spiral as charities and businesses react by moving their investment to our
competitors.

Business leaders have made their position clear; in letters to the Times and to the Daily Telegraph in June
2101, a group of CEOs wrote that: ‘We need a credible plan for restoring fiscal balance but urge the
government to be cautious over those elements of public spending that are vital to the future growth and
prosperity of our economy – science, innovation and knowledge’. These sentiments have been echoed by
Richard Lambert this week.

It is also critically important that in forthcoming decisions on the research base we do not cause
irreparable damage taking us out of being a serious scientific nation. The policies that will do that also stop
us being able to exploit the 90% of world research that is undertaken in our competitors: a challenge you
issued us earlier in the summer. In this sense, whatever is done on the research base is unlike other
choices facing the government, where decisions made this year can be reversed when the public finances
improve. Whereas reducing, say, the number of plumbers trained in Grimsby for a year can be reversed the
next year, this is not the same in big ticket science and research commitments.

We are either in CERN or not, and there is not the easy option of reducing our subscriptions by a few
percent. Similarly, pulling out of Research Council institutes or large scale facilities could also dismantle the
scientific infrastructure surrounding them. In this centrally important sense, it is the quality of the UK
research base at the very top end of international competition that defines the quality of the UK R&D
brand.

Our competitor knowledge economies are without exception investing heavily in their research and
science base, and I know personally they cannot understand our logic of reducing investment in what they
see as the number one route towards future economic growth. Indeed as one very senior individual in
Singapore put it to me a month ago: at a time of economic problems the very last thing you do is reduce
research and science investment; in fact you do precisely the opposite, otherwise you get into a growth
death spiral. In that light I was heartened to hear George Osborne’s recent insistence that cuts must not
damage economic growth. I agree with that: indeed to use an analogy, cutting back on the UK’s R&D base
now would the equivalent of the government cutting back on the production of Spitfires in the early
summer of 1940.

On the government’s major decisions on the Browne report and the SR, I want to speak specifically about
the major potential pitfalls that worry us here at UUK. Before I do so let me repeat, for the record, UUK’s
view that whatever the outcome of Lord Browne’s report, access to higher education has to be free at the
point of delivery; access to students from low socio-economic backgrounds has to be enhanced by a
system of institutional bursaries and government grants; there has to be a system of student financing that
deals with the distinct problems of part-time students; and the outcome has to preserve the essential link
between student and the institution they attend.

However, assuming those concerns are dealt with, the following 8 pitfalls remain.

1. The first is an argument I’ve trailed extensively over the last few months. My biggest single worry is
that the SR will be carried out confident in the knowledge that Lord Browne will introduce replacement
funding. There are two points here: on the one hand, this could lead to greater reductions being made
315 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 in university funding than might otherwise be the case. Browne’s figure of steady-state net increased
graduate contributions could be used to increase the reductions that universities might face; but what
if the process of getting Parliamentary assent to the proposals altered the amount of funding to come
to universities?

On the other hand, and more significantly, there is the possibility of Lord Browne’s recommendations
being a technical solution that is un-acceptable to Parliament. I do not need to remind you of the
parliamentary arithmetic; former Prime Minister Blair only got his HE bill through by 5 votes, when he
had a 168 majority. And he did not have 55 of the 57 Lib Dem MPs having signed the NUS pledge to
vote against any fee increase. This could potentially lead to two problems: either that the Browne
proposals get delayed, and thus the ‘Valley of Death’ gets wider or that alternative or partial
recommendations, such as the widely discussed notions of a graduate tax, get put to Parliament, thus
deepening the Valley.

2. The second worry concerns timing, namely getting the Browne and SR changes into synchronisation.
Thus it is not just how much the SR reduces the public funding of HE, but also how Treasury sculpts
these changes and how they relate to any increase in graduate contributions emerging out of Browne.
The damage is done if cuts are imposed before the compensating income is delivered. The key point is
that the Treasury deadline for reductions in public spending is 2014/15; this requires that replacement
funding has to be delivered in its entirety by then. This shows the fragility of the relationship between
the SR and Browne. There are also significant Barnett consequentials of the SR and Browne outcomes,
which could have significant effects on Scotland and Wales. Though the block grant is un-hypothecated,
some combinations of SR reductions and increasing private contributions could lead to a real double
whammy for the devolved administrations.
3. Third, focussing on teaching funding, there is the danger of ignoring the fact that even if Browne
replaces lost HEFCE funding that worked for the university sector as a whole, there could be significant
differences at institutional level. Some institutions could be destabilised if they were subjected to a
reduction in public funds, and yet were unable to make that up with replacement funding in the post-
Browne fees environment: and this could well be institutions playing an essential local and regional role
in educating students, in widening participation, and in supporting regional businesses and the
regional economy.
4. Fourth, since it looks likely that we are facing considerable change, it is imperative that the details of
the changes are thought through carefully. Thus, however tempting it might be to expand the role of
either HE in FE, or private providers, please listen to UUK’s concerns about quality, about the student
experience, and about the international ramifications of these changes. Equally, please do not under-
estimate the potentially de-stabilising effects of introducing too suddenly fundamental challenges to
how institutions price their courses. In all of this the role of HEFCE becomes literally pivotal.
5. Turning to research funding, can I stress the importance of keeping the balance between the two sides
of dual support: currently the research budget stands at about £6bn for the UK, split into £2bn of QR
and £4bn of the science budget, the latter comprising roughly £2bn of spend on large scale
international subscriptions, large scale facilities and Research Council institutes, and roughly £2bn
going to universities to fund postgraduates and responsive mode research grants. In response to Adrian
Smith’s request for comments on the balance of these sums, the consensus was that the balance was
about right. Altering that balance, say by reducing QR more than Research Council and science spend,
will unsettle this balance and also adversely affect the Humanities and Social Sciences because of their
much greater reliance on QR and on Research Council income. Therefore, any headline reduction in the
research base has to be interpreted in the light of the inherent problems in reducing international
subscriptions and large scale facilities; any headline reduction is thus likely to fall disproportionately on
institutions.
6. Sixth, whilst it is tempting to think that significant savings in QR can be made from removing funding
from those units that are either small, or are found in institutions with little research, the reality is that
316 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 significant cuts in QR will have to affect all institutions. About 85% of both QR and Research Council
funding to institutions goes to 40 institutions. So, there is no easy way of reducing research funding
much above 10% in real terms over four years without cutting into the work of the research intensives.
Nor of course can we accept the argument that research funding should simply be removed from a
group of institutions with research strength in specific subjects. And if I may refer to yesterday’s speech
by Vince Cable, can I just make two comments: first, the Secretary of State said that we should
concentrate research resource on 3* and 4* work identified in the RAE, of which there was 54%. Well,
90% of QR goes to that work. I think this represents concentration. Secondly it really doesn’t help when
the Secretary of State talks about mediocrity in UK research. In the last RAE 87% was identified as work
of international standing. It is a matter of regret to me that the Secretary of State made these
comments for two reasons; first that he made these fundamental errors, secondly that this is
potentially damaging for the reputation of UK research.
7. Penultimately, given all the above, can I stress how important it is that HEFCE has the ability to act to
smooth these significant transitions. If it’s funding faces major reductions, there will come a point
where it will not have the resources to do things that the government wants it to do. UUK stands firmly
behind HEFCE as an absolutely necessary body to oil the wheels and smooth transitions as institutions
face major changes. In doing so, HEFCE’s primary interest must be to protect students, but it has to
have the resources to do so. This is exacerbated if government also wants HEFCE to be the purchaser of
science and medicine, promote widening participation and student retention, push carbon reduction
plans, oversee business engagement, fund sector-wide agencies etc etc. Although a matter for the
devolved administrations, the same logic applies to the roles of the SFC and HEFCW.
8. Finally, in addition to the effects of forthcoming decisions on students, staff and institutions in the UK,
we must be aware of the international repercussions. It would be playing into the hands of our
competitors if the headlines following the SR were ‘UK disinvests in HE’. That damages every institution
in the country as well as the very part of our economy that the Prime Minister was at pains to promote
in New York and Delhi recently as what the UK brought to the table in the 21st Century. I do not want
the announcements on 20 October to be accompanied by the sound of hands rubbing with glee in the
UK’s HE competitors.

None of what I have said should be taken for a second as implying that there is no scope for reform within
the system as it exists. We have a responsibility to shape our own future. There has been important work
on efficiencies undertaken already. But we have to go further. We are about to launch a new programme
under the leadership of Professor Ian Diamond looking at options for efficiencies across the university
sector.

The allocation of funding through the University modernisation fund shows that the sector is willing to
engage with this issue. Fifty seven institutions secured funding to develop ‘invest to save’ measures. UUK
will do all it can to lead this agenda and identify where there are savings to be made. Similarly, we will
work to examine and promote alternative ways of increasing participation, including different relationships
between FE and HE and increasing links with private providers. We accept that we must be flexible and not
become obstacles to change.

So, in conclusion, Minister, UUK looks to the government to get its spending decisions right and to work in
a joined up way to unlock our potential to remain one of the leading knowledge economies in the world.
My fundamental question is if we do not try to win the race to the top, what future lies in store for the UK?

But the logic of Race to the Top and Leitch may not be the view of this government, though the report by
Sir James Dyson and recent CBI statements on the topic indicate clear support for this logic. Therefore can
I end with a simple intellectual challenge to you, Minister: is it not time for your government to re-visit
Race to the Top and Leitch and tell us if you accept their logic. If you do not, can you tell us how we will
317 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
achieve future economic prosperity, and what the link is between the economy and research and higher
level skills base? It is time that Race to the Top was either re-stated or replaced. We surely need that long-
term vision, strategy and commitment to enhancing the science and innovation base and promoting future
economic growth.

Standing as we do on the cusp of significant change, it is absolutely imperative for the future of this
country that the UK remains a first-rank knowledge economy, not for the sake of universities, not even for
the sake of current and future staff and students; no, the UK has to remain a leading knowledge economy
because there literally is no other choice if we want to bequeath economic prosperity to our children. This
week’s OECD data shows that we are falling comparatively both in terms of the amount spent on HE
compared to the OECD average (1.3% compared to 1.5%, with the US increasing its percentage spent from
2.9% to 3.1%) and in terms of the percentage of young people graduating. As he put it, in what I have to
say seem very prophetc words to me Andreas Schleicher said this week about the UK: "The current
flattening out in higher education participation means that in the long term (economic) growth potential is
more limited." Next week we will see the publication of the new THE World rankings, which are expected
to show a decline in the UK’s comparative performance, with our competitors quickly catching up. I think
the future is looking us in the face, and we could be about to seal our fate as a first rank knowledge
economy.

Minister, if this logic is wrong, self-serving or outdated, let us have the debate; but if it is correct, please do
not make decisions that prevent us from taking part in the race to the top, let alone win it. And, if we
cannot take part in that race, what exactly is the future for the UK economy, and thus for our society?
Please do not do long term and irreversible damage for the sake of short term financial considerations. Our
successors will never forgive us if let this happen, and nor should they.

2010/09/09 THE INDEPENDENT: MINISTER

DEFENDS RESEARCH FUNDING SQUEEZE
By Jon Smith, Press Association

Science Minister David Willetts defended the Government's planned squeeze on research funding today,
saying a stronger link between academics and business could result.

He was speaking after Business Secretary Vince Cable yesterday announced that ministers planned to strip
"mediocrity" out of science and research projects, which currently attract £6 billion a year of Government
backing.

"We do want to see out of this a stronger and better link between theoretical research and business," Mr
Willetts told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

"What we want to achieve at the end of this is a system where excellent research then makes the
transition through into application.

"We are not going to stop funding all the research that goes on at the moment. We face the problem that
we have public spending running way ahead of what we can afford, so there do have to be some
reductions."

He added: "We need to be better at applying our research to practical, commercial purposes. That's not
always a matter of spending money."

318 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Former chief executive of the British Medical Research Council Professor Colin Blakemore questioned how
the Government could filter out mediocre research.

"Some of it doesn't produce the results that were expected. That is the nature of research. Sometimes it
doesn't work," he told the programme.

2010/09/09 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG

FESTIVAL: WHERE DOES THE MYTH OF A GENE FOR
THINGS LIKE INTELLIGENCE COME FROM?

There's a widespread belief that individual genes determine traits such as intelligence, optimism, obesity
and dyslexia. But genetics rarely works that way

Dorothy Bishop is a professor of developmental neuropsychology at the University of Oxford and blogs
atBishopBlog

Comparisons of identical and fraternal twins suggest sensation-

seeking is inherited, but there is no 'gene for sensation-seeking'. Photograph: Daniel Graves/Rex

I recently received an email from a company called MyGeneProfile: "By discovering your child's inborn
talents & personality traits, it can surely provide a great head start to groom your child in the right way ...
our Inborn Talent Genetic Test has 99.8% accuracy." I'd registered to receive information from the
company having heard it was offering a genetic test for such diverse traits as optimism, composure,
intelligence and dancing.

Despite all the efforts of the Human Genome Project, I was not aware of any genetic test that could
reliably predict a child's personality or ability. I was not therefore surprised when my emails asking for

319 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
evidence went unanswered, though I continue to receive messages that oscillate between carrots (free
gifts! discounts!!) and sticks (without this test "your child will have MISERABLE life [sic])".

The company relies on a widespread assumption that people's mental and physical attributes are
predictable from their genes. So where does this belief come from, and is it wrong?

People's understanding of genetic effects is heavily influenced by the waygenetics is taught in schools.
Mendel and his wrinkly and smooth peas make a nice introduction to genetic transmission, but the
downside is that we go away with the idea that genes have an all-or-nothing effect on a binary trait. Some
characteristics are inherited this way (more or less), and they tend to be the ones that textbooks focus on:
for example eye colour, colour-blindness, Huntington's disease. But most genetic effects are far more
subtle and complex than this. Take height, for instance. Genes are important in determining how tall you
are, but this is not down to one gene: instead, there is a host of genes, each of which nudges height up or
down by a small amount.

Furthermore, genetic influences may interact in complicated ways. For instance, coat colour in mice is
affected by combinations of genes, so that one cannot predict whether a mouse is black, white or agouti
(mouse coloured!) just by knowing the status of one gene. The expression of a gene may also depend
crucially on the environment; for instance, obesity relates both to calorie intake and genetic
predisposition, but the effects are not just additive: some people can eat a great deal without gaining
weight, whereas in others, body mass depends substantially on food intake. And a genetic predisposition
to obesity can be counteracted by exercise.

This means that we get a very different impression of the strength of genetic influences on a trait if we
look at the impact of a person's whole genome, compared with looking at individual genes in isolation.

The twin study was the traditional method for estimating genetic influences before we had the technology
to study genes directly, and it compares how far people's similarity on a trait depends on their genetic
relationship. Researchers measure a trait, such as sensation-seeking, in identical and fraternal twin pairs
growing up in the same environment, and consider whether the two twin types are equally similar.

If both sets of twins resemble each other equally strongly, this indicates that the environment, rather than
genes, is critical. And if twins don't resemble one another at all, this could mean either that the trait is
influenced by experiences not shared by the co-twin, or that our measure of sensation-seeking is
unreliable.

If identical twins are more similar than fraternal twins, this means genes affect the trait, ie it is heritable.
There are several niggly criticisms of the twin method; for instance, it can give misleading estimates if
identical twins are treated more similarly than fraternal twins (in other words they have more closely
matched environmental influences), or if twinning itself influences the trait in question. For most traits,
however, these don't seem sufficient to explain away the substantial heritability estimates that are found
for traits such as height, reading ability and sensation-seeking.

But these estimates don't tell us about the individual genes that influence a trait – they rather indicate how
important genes are relative to non-genetic influences.

Interactive effects, either between multiple genes or between genes and environment, will not be
detected in a twin study. If a gene is expressed only in a particular environment, twins who have the same
version of the gene will usually also have the same environment, and so the expression of the gene will be
the same for both. And for an effect that depends on having a particular combination of genes, identical
twins will have the same constellation of genetic variants, whereas the likelihood of fraternal twins having
an identical gene profile decreases with the number of genes involved. Heritability estimates depend on

320 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
comparing the similarity of a trait for identical versus fraternal twins, and will be increased if gene-gene
interactions are involved.

In contrast, genome-wide association studies are designed to find individual genes that influence specific
traits. They look for associations between DNA variants (alleles) and the trait, either by categorising
people, eg as dyslexic or not, and comparing the proportions with different alleles, or by seeing whether
people who have zero, one or two copies of an allele differ in their average score on the trait. When these
studies started out, many people assumed we would find gene variants that exerted a big effect, and so
might reasonably be termed "the gene for" dyslexia, optimism, and so on.However, this has not been the
case.

This account may surprise readers who have read of recent discoveries ofgenes for conditions such as
dyslexia. The reason is that when very large samples are used, it is possible to detect even weak effects. In
reports of molecular genetic studies, the statistic that is most often emphasised is the p-value, ie how
probable it is that a result could have arisen by chance. A low p-value indicates that a result is reliable, but
it does not mean the effect is large.

Consider one of the more reliable associations between genes and behaviour: a gene known
as KIAA0319 which has been found to relate to reading ability in several different samples. In one study, an
overall association was reported with a p value of 0.0001, indicating that the likelihood of the association
being a fluke is 1 in 10,000. However, this reflected the fact that one gene variant was found in 39% of
normal readers and only 25% of dyslexics, with a different variant being seen in 30% of controls and 35% of
dyslexics.

Some commentators have argued that such small effects are uninteresting. I disagree: findings like this can
pave the way for studies into theneurobiological effects of the gene on brain development, and for studies
of gene-gene and gene-environment interactions. But it does mean that talk of a "gene for dyslexia", or
genetic screening for personality or ability, is seriously misguided.

What are the implications of all this for the stories we hear in the media about new genetic discoveries?
The main message is that we need to be aware of the small effect of most individual genes on human
traits. The idea that we can test for a single gene that causes musical talent, optimism or intelligence is just
plain wrong. Even where reliable associations are found, they don't correspond to the kind of major
influences that we learned about in school biology. And we need to realise that twin studies, which
consider the total effect of a person's genetic makeup on a trait, often give very different results from
molecular studies of individual genes.

Dorothy Bishop is a professor in developmental neuropsychology at the University of Oxford and blogs
at BishopBlog

Background reading

Bishop, DVM (2009) Genes, cognition and communication: insights from neurodevelopmental disorders.
The Year in Cognitive Neuroscience: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156, 1-18

Maher, B (2008). Personal genomes: The case of the missing heritability. Nature, 456, 18-21

Plomin, R, DeFries, JC, McClearn, GE and McGuffin, P (2008). Behavioral Genetics. (5th Edition). New York:
Worth Publishers

Rutter, M (2006). Genes and Behavior: Nature-Nurture Interplay Explained. Oxford: Blackwell

321 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 2010/09/09 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG
FESTIVAL: THANK GOD (AND RICHARD DAWKINS)
I'M NO LONGER AN 'ANGRY ATHEIST'

It's all too easy for atheists to imply that people who believe in God are stupid. That's a shame, because
fanatical atheism can be as ugly as religious fanaticism

Atheists would do well to

remember that we are all capable of holding irrational beliefs. Photograph: Sarah Lee/Guardian

The front page of guardian.co.uk recently featured a picture of Richard Dawkins with the headline "The
Dick Delusion". It saddened me that anyone at the Guardian would think it was appropriate to ridicule
Dawkins in this manner and I was further disappointed by the accompanying article by Jonathan
Jones which was a weakly argued personal attack on Dawkins,using poorly researched material to deliver
the pathetic notion that Dawkins "just wants to be the cleverest kid in the class". The irony of the piece
was that it smacked of having been written by someone desperate to prove his own cleverness.

As much as I hated Jones' article, I can understand what might have prompted it. I have in the
past criticised Dawkins' approach myself and I'd like to think I'm not part of the "angry atheist" brigade. It
can be all too easy to fall into the trap of being perceived as a "dick" when challenging people's beliefs.
Many atheists and "skeptics" seem to have a habit of implying, if not directly stating, that people who
believe in god/homeopathy/psychics are stupid. They seem to think that tackling such beliefs is a question
of dispelling ignorance, of educating people in the "right" way of thinking.

322 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Sadly, it's not that simple. Such atheists and skeptics would do well to remember that we are all capable of
holding irrational beliefs and that there are myriad social, economic, cultural and educational factors that
determine what and how people think. Heck, I'll go out on a limb and suggest there might even be genetic
factors involved in determining the extent to which people may or may not be susceptible to holding
religious beliefs.

Atheists and skeptics can feel incredibly frustrated by the beliefs of others and feel that they have to
"correct" them, and in doing so they can come across as condescending, patronising and aggressive. It's
not always accidental. Several prominent atheists and skeptics have been accused of deliberately behaving
like "dicks"; let's face it, calling believers "deluded", as Dawkins famously does, is not exactly diplomatic.
The backlash against this kind of behaviour is not just coming from believers but also from within the
atheist and skeptic communities – there are various corners of the internet where atheists and skeptics are
engaged in heated discussions about whether or not to be a "dick". I have to confess to finding it
somewhat amusing that much of this debate seems to have descended into the kind of argument you
might hear in a school playground: "You're a dick", "No, you're a dick for calling me a dick".

On a serious note, I have been guilty of being a "dick atheist" myself, albeit unwittingly. I'm hoping this is a
thing of the past, and for this I owe thanks to a good friend of mine who confronted me over my attitude
by saying "you think I'm stupid because I believe in God". She was incredibly upset at some of the things I
had been saying as part of what I thought was just casual banter over a cup of tea. She pointed out that,
from her perspective, the views I had been expressing about religion were offensive to people like her. Of
course, I don't think this friend of mine is remotely stupid but I had to concede that the things I had been
saying might have suggested otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy to offend people when the circumstances demand it, but I've
got no desire to go around upsetting people I like for no good reason. Seeing my friend upset really made
me stop and think about how I was coming across to other religious friends and I have since made much
more of a conscious effort to consider where other people might be coming from before spouting off
about my atheism. Fanatical atheism can be as ugly as religious fanaticism.

I'm not suggesting that atheists don't talk about religion or that they don't continue to argue with
believers. I think there are all sorts of things that would be better if religion were not such a powerful force
in so many people's lives. I'm often asked "why do you care what other people believe?" My answer is that
I care because I care about the things that make our world tick. I care because our beliefs are defining
qualities that play a huge part in our relationships with other people and the world at large. I care because
what people believe determines how people act.

So I'll carry on talking about my beliefs and challenging people about theirs and I'll look forward to the
continued work of Dawkins and others like him. However, I would encourage "campaigning" atheists and
skeptics to think about the tone they use to deliver their messages. It should be obvious that how we say
things is often as important, if not more so, than what we say.

323 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 2010/09/10 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG EVAN:
VINCE CABLE'S WRONG CONNECTION

After what is being labelled "45%-gate", Stephen Curry andEvan Harris figure out how excellent British
science is – or isn't

How much value for money is there

in British research? Photograph: George Disario/Corbis

On Wednesday morning on the Today Programme business secretaryVince Cable said: "Something like 45%
of the research grants that were going through were to research that was not of excellent standard so we
are going to have to set the bar higher."

Some listeners might have been left with the impression that almost half of the money that the UK
taxpayer spends on grants to support scientific research fails to provide value for money or is wasted on
work that is below par. It this were correct, listeners would be right to feel outraged at such profligacy.

But that is a false impression.

The business secretary was extrapolating from his speech where he misused an arbitrary reading of the
results of the most recent Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), which measures the quality of the research
done in UK universities, as pointed out by Peter Coles and David Briggs(both worth reading in detail).

The RAE for 2008 concluded that 54% of the research activity is composed of: 17% at 4* ("world-leading")
and 37% at 3* ("internationally excellent"). The 45% that Mr Cable referred to is the rest.

But crucially, the RAE in 2008 went on to say that a further 33% of research submitted was rated at 2*,
which is "of a quality that is recognised internationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour".

324 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Mr Cable has seemingly plucked out the top two grades and has dismissed work that is still of an
international standard. To complete the picture, a further 11% of the work submitted at RAE 2008 was
rated 1*, which means it was "recognised nationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour".

The 2008 RAE assessments are publicly available (the results for Imperial College can be found here). These
figures are impressive and come as no surprise to any working scientist familiar with the intensely
competitive process of winning grant funding from research councils in the UK. It is gruelling and difficult:
success rates for applicants in the life sciences are in the region of 19% (Medical Research Council) to 23%
(Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council).

At the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) one grant awarder Alex Murphy has explained in a
blog comment that his grants committee received 16 applications, 14 of which were ranked as excellent by
rival scientists (in an imperfect-but-better-than-any-other- way-of-doing-it system called peer review) but
that they only had the resources to fund a solitary one. That heavy filtering ensures that only the best
applications are selected and goes some way to explaining the high impact of UK scientists, who punch well
above their weight on the international stage and are a cadre of workers of which this country can be
justifiably proud.

There is no question as to the quality of the outputs, but Mr Cable is now asking researchers to do "more
with less". A fair question in these straitened times would be to ask scientists to do the same with less, but
even then the system is already creaking. The application process is a huge drain on scientists' time, both
in preparing and judging applications. Currently three-quarters of that time is wasted on applications that
will not be funded. In fact in his speech the business secretary recognised the inefficiency of a grant
allocation process with such low success rates. Now he needs to explain how making scientists chase even
harder for a diminished pot is going to lead to any productivity improvements.

Universities also get money from the higher education funding councils for research and this is portioned
out based on the results of the RAE, with highest-rated departments getting the most cash. According
to James Wilsdon of the Royal Society:

In the last Research Assessment Exercise, 54% of the work that was submitted for assessment was classed
as 3* or 4*, which means it is, by definition, world class. This research receives £980m from Hefce.
Research that is 2* (which Hefce still regards as 'internationally recognised') gets £115 million and 1*
research gets nothing. So Hefce allocates the vast majority – nearly 90% – of its funding to world class
research."

In other words, while 54% of work in universities is assessed as 3* or 4*, much more than 54% of the
funding is already directed to the departments that host that work. So it is not the case that 46% (or 45%!)
of that funding can be re-allocated to 3* or 4* projects, which was the implication of Mr Cable's exemplar.

Lest that figure of 45% should stick in the mind of the public, as it is presently stuck in the craw of the
scientific community, what's needed first is a proper acknowledgement from the business secretary of the
true assessment of the quality of British science. It is important for Mr Cable to put the record straight.

Co-author Stephen Curry is a professor of structural biology at Imperial College and writes a regular blog
at Reciprocal Space
Comments in chronological order (Total 5 comments)
riggas
10 September 2010 8:50AM
Lest that figure of 45% should stick in the mind of the public, as it is presently stuck in the craw of the
scientific community, what's needed first is a proper acknowledgement from the business secretary of the true

325 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
assessment of the quality of British science. It is important for Mr Cable to put the record
straight./blockquote>
QFT.
Excellent article.
riggas
10 September 2010 8:50AM
Gah, blockquote fail.
Lest that figure of 45% should stick in the mind of the public, as it is presently stuck in the craw of the
scientific community, what's needed first is a proper acknowledgement from the business secretary of the true
assessment of the quality of British science. It is important for Mr Cable to put the record straight.
QFT.
Excellent article.
davehodg
10 September 2010 9:40AM
Vince Cable lost any respect I might have had for him when he said "bankers should get paid for effort, not
results" live on radio 4. That would be an interesting world.
SmallCasserole
10 September 2010 9:42AM
@DrEvanHarris @stephen_curry the 45% is a stupid claim, but I don't see the obsession with it as getting us
anywhere. It is pretty reminiscent of the regular drubbings @lorddrayson got in the past, where as far as I can
tell the academic scientific community shouted abuse at him and he rather stoically got on and sorted
something out as best he could. I'm wondering whether this is the approach used by people who successfully
change government policy.
Pragmatically, I'd have thought what is practical to achieve is a relatively smaller cut to the budget than the
25% which would be par *and* the autonomy to decide where that "25%" comes from within the science budget
(or at least control of the mechanism). On the first point this means, rather depressingly, that we might have
to be celebrating things like Osborne's rather "out of right-field" announcement of further cuts to benefits
since this would drop the par cut. Alternatively you could argue for higher taxes. At the moment I'm sure
almost every department will be arguing as to why they should get below par cuts.
On the second point the message seemed to be that the research councils will be in control of the process. I
assume Vince Cable will have some control over how much goes to each research council but out of a fixed pot.
I'm touched by your belief that the panel managed to select the best of 16 proposals for funding, I suggest
that they selected, by lottery, 1 of 14!
marmot99
10 September 2010 9:47AM
One solution would be to remove the full economic costing model for grant funding. A few years ago, if I wanted
to employ a research assistant I applied for the funds to pay their salary for two or three years; under the
current system I have also to add in MY salary for that period and a huge chunk of money to pay for my
university's overheads. Heck, I'm even claiming money that goes to the gardeners who landscape the campus!
All grant applications are - on paper - several times higher than they used to be to get the same work done.
Perhaps rolling back to the old system could give the government a face-saving paper cut in research funding
without actually harming our ability to do excellent science.
Oh, and getting rid of the RAE and its successors would also help free up money and time for great research
and wouldn't actually reduce the quality of what we do one jot.

2010/09/10 US NEWS: THE GREAT

RECESSION'S TOLL ON HIGHER EDUCATION
The tight economy has forced many students to fight for an affordable, quality education.

By Kim Clark

326 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio have run out of scholarship money and are turning down thousands of
qualified applicants. Public universities in Georgia, Virginia, and Washington have all raised their tuition by
about $1,000 for the fall semester. Public colleges in Florida, Louisiana, and Nevada are canceling hundreds
of classes for lack of state funding. California has simply shut the door on hundreds of thousands of its high
school graduates and workers hoping for new skills.

University of Oregon's Nate Gartrell transferred away from budget cuts.

College officials in troubled states such as Louisiana are girding for further cuts that will be "difficult,
painful, and destructive," John Lombardi, president of the Louisiana State University System, warned
recently. Students have no choice but to pack into the crowded courses that remain, where overloaded
instructors are replacing essay assignments with easier-to-grade (but less educationally rigorous) multiple-
choice tests.

The Great Recession has had a devastating effect on higher education, forcing many students across the
country to pay more for colleges that offer less. Yet the downturn has also penalized individuals who don't
spend the time and money to get a college degree. Even in today's weak job market, the unemployment
rate for college graduates is less than 5 percent, about half the rate for those with only a high school
diploma. "It's a grim situation," says Lindsay McCluskey, vice president of the United States Student
Association. "But what choice do young people have?"

[Learn how budget cuts have affected high school counselors.]

Because of the dramatic budget cuts and tuition increases, she says, today's college students have to work
harder to earn degrees than did their older brothers or sisters. Many students are succeeding, but only by
borrowing more, finding cheaper or better courses elsewhere, and using their social networking skills to
raise money. Perhaps most significantly, they are "being part of the fight" to keep college affordable,
McCluskey says, lobbying for change or to block further budget cuts. College students in this more difficult
era will find the going tough. "It is not going to be easy," McCluskey says. "But there are ways to make it
happen."

A growing number of students are voting with their feet. Enrollment at the nation's lowest-cost
institutions, public community colleges, jumped an average 16 percent last year and is expected to rise by
double digits again in the 2010-11 academic year. One reason: "reverse transfers." Students at expensive
four-year universities are switching to lower-cost two-year schools to get their basics completed
inexpensively. Many other students are signing up for summer or night community college courses to pack
in cheap credits and graduate sooner.

These swamped classrooms have spurred community colleges to become more creative in their course
offerings, from promoting online classes to scheduling classes at nontraditional times. A 20 percent jump in
enrollment at Bunker Hill Community College in Boston last year, for example, prompted the school to
start offering classes in the middle of the night. The 11:45 p.m. to 2:45 a.m. classes were such a success
that the school has increased its midnight offerings from two courses to five in 2010.

327 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Other students are bidding goodbye to crowded classes and overburdened professors. The University of
Oregon, for example, has seen the number of applicants from budget-crunched California jump from 4,600
to 7,000. Typical of the new Oregonians is Nate Gartrell, who lost his enthusiasm for studying journalism
at San Francisco State University last year when he got shut out of his first-choice courses. He says he
sometimes had to sit on the steps in second- and third-choice classes. "The state budget cuts were getting
ridiculous," he says. One final straw: "I wrote something hastily 45 minutes before class. I knew it was
terrible and was full of typos. I was expecting a D and still got an A minus" from a professor he says was too
busy to thoughtfully critique his work.

So Gartrell persuaded his parents to pony up the extra money needed to switch to the University of
Oregon. Now, though he is grateful for what he feels are better classes and advisers, he admits to suffering
from survivor's guilt. "A lot of people don't have the opportunity to go out of state" because they don't
have the grades or the ability to scrape together an extra $15,000 a year for tuition, he says.

[How to find no interest student loans.]

Given the higher tuitions and dwindling scholarship coffers, students and parents have little choice but to
take out more loans. In the first semester of the 2009-10 academic year, college students took out $35
billion in federal Stafford student loans, up nearly $6 billion from the fall 2008 semester. And the amount
borrowed by parents through the federal PLUS loan program jumped 50 percent to $3.6 billion. Financial
aid officers say they expect the federal student loan binge to continue. The upshot: While today's
graduates with loans typically join the workforce owing about $20,000, students who are currently maxing
out their federal student loans will graduate owing more than $27,000.

Luckily for borrowers, the federal government has continued to lend even as banks collapsed or reined in
lending during the credit crunch. And in the last year, the government has launched a far-reaching reform
of the student loan system that greatly reduces college debt burdens. Once borrowers leave school, they
can consolidate all their federal loans into a single obligation and apply for "income-based repayment,"
which caps their monthly bills at 15 percent of disposable income. Those who work at public service jobs
(such as teachers, social workers, or police officers) and make 10 years' worth of those affordable IBR
payments can have the remaining balance of their federal student loans forgiven

Students are also finding creative ways to raise money for their education, and social networking plays a
big part. Using new websites such as sponsormy degree.com, tuitionu.com, and scholar
match.org,students can post pleas for donations. These electronic appeals are winning financial support
from relatives, friends of friends, and a surprising number of strangers.

[Should you get an online degree?]

Dorrian Lewis, a senior at Mission High School in San Francisco, remembers spending months in the fall of
2009 writing essays for scholarship contests. But she won only a few hundred dollars, nowhere near the
$3,800 she'd need to cover tuition, books, and transportation to nearby City College of San Francisco. "I
panicked for a little bit," she says. So she filled out a profile on ScholarMatch, a website for San Francisco
Bay Area students started by Dave Eggers, author of A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. Within a
few weeks, anonymous donors had contributed enough to cover her costs. Managers of the site say that
many of the donors don't appear to be connected to the students but simply contribute $20 or $50 to help
those who sound deserving. "We are under no impression that this is a silver bullet," says Eggers, who
notes that only 11 of about 100 ScholarMatch students have received the full amount requested. "But this
is one tool" that can help fill in financial aid holes caused by the recession, he says.

Meanwhile, many students are taking on activist roles to try to ensure that they and their peers get a
stellar education. In the last two years, students across the country have taken over buildings, joined
rallies, or marched to government offices chanting "Education is under attack, what do we do? Stand up,
328 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
fight back!" to alert voters and political leaders to the dangers of tuition hikes and the watering down of
educational quality.

Stuart Luther, a senior at Arizona State University who has had to borrow more each year as his school
raised tuition, decided he had to do something when he heard the state was threatening to cut his school's
budget yet again last year. He switched his voter registration from his home state of Arkansas to Arizona
and joined a student-led voter education campaign to inform fellow Sun Devils about a referendum that
would raise the state sales tax by a penny to stave off the proposed budget cuts. The referendum won
overwhelming support in the conservative state.

Most hopeful of all may be the structural reforms instituted by college leaders who believe the current
funding crisis is not a result of the economic cycle, but a permanent reality. Cuts that reduce educational
access or quality "threaten our viability in the competitive global economy," says William Kirwan,
chancellor of the University System of Maryland. But reducing the cost of higher education doesn't have to
reduce its quality, he says. "Can higher ed become more effective and efficient? Absolutely," he argues.

Maryland's public universities are coping with a $48 million state budget cut this year by spending down
cash reserves, requiring staff to take unpaid furlough days, squeezing athletics budgets, and leaving lots of
unfilled jobs vacant. But while the public flagship universities in California, for example, have filled some of
their budget holes with $2,500 tuition increases, Maryland is trying to rein in tuition inflation. The
flagship University of Maryland –College Park has raised tuition only about $400, or about 5 percent, since
2006.

In addition, Kirwan is pushing Maryland colleges to invest in promising innovations, such as Frostburg State
University's recent transformation of its Introduction to Psychology class. Students now have one
demonstration-heavy lecture once a week, then attend a tutor-filled computer lab where teaching
software helps them study and drill. Students are learning the material far better, test results show, and
the reduced demand for instructors has cut the university's cost per student for the popular course from
$89 to just $26. The students save money, too; instead of a $120 textbook, they buy access to a computer
program for $50.

Kirwan, who is also at the forefront of a drive to stop colleges from subsidizing athletics departments with
tuition dollars, says economic conditions have convinced him and a handful of other college leaders that it
is time to shift focus from empire-building to money-saving reforms. Even during the boom years, most
states were reducing the per-student subsidies for public colleges. Now that state tax revenues are
diminished, universities often bear a disproportionate share of budget cuts as other spending programs—
elementary schools, prisons, and federally required health programs—become more pressing.

[See a map of public college budget cuts.]

Students in many states should prepare for more cuts. Massachusetts, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee,
and several others have delayed severe layoffs by patching budget holes with federal stimulus funds. That
money runs out next year. If the economy doesn't improve significantly by then, today's grim situation at
public universities could get a lot grimmer.

329 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 2010/09/13 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG: A
PHYSICIST, A CHEMIST AND A ZOOLOGIST WALK
INTO A BAR …

Alice Bell looks at humour in science and finds it can sometimes be a bad thing. But mostly a good thing

Alice is a lecturer in science communication and blogs atThrough the looking glass

Is there anything in it? Students stage a 'homeopathy mass overdose' outside a branch of Boots Link to this
video

Hey, we just hired a molecular biologist! Man, is he small.

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.

Somewhere along the line, science got funny. PhD comics are pinned to noticeboards and Facebook has
groups dedicated to those who spend too long in the lab. Or, at least, it found some funny friends. Robin
Ince co-presents a humorous Radio 4 show with Brian Cox, Josie Long's set includes gags about A-level
maths and, as the Wellcome Trust blog points out, science had a noticeable presence at the Edinburgh
Fringe this year.

And, no, science isn't simply the butt of the jokes. Rather, it increasingly provides the material with which
comedy is made. Perhaps you've heard how there's "nothing in" homeopathy, or read Hadley Freeman
asking for someone to "pass the Evian".

Philosophers, sociologists and psychologists of humour will tell you that jokes often stem from a sense of
the ridiculous. We laugh when we see something that transgresses our idea of what is real or rational.
Science defines what is real and rational for many people, so it is no surprise that comedians draw on
science to build their jokes, or scientists find humour in ideas that contravene their careful construction of
the world. Humour is also a way of expressing cleverness – again, no surprise it draws on science.

Did you hear the one about the statistician? Probably.

But wipe that grin off your face, because here's the serious bit. Humour isn't all smiles and shared giggles.
It's also all about sniggers, laughs behind your back, sneers, showing off, one-upmanship, retorts and
attacks. To "poke fun" might be fun, but it's still a bit of a poke. Comedy can be a powerful rhetorical
weapon, and that means it can hurt too.

330 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
There's been some debate recently among science fans over the relative worth of "being a dick" (see also
some humorous advice on how to avoid being one); whether laughing at those you disagree with will do
your casemore harm than good. Defenders of this strategy argue that their humour-based campaigns are
not actually targeted at those who end up as the butt of jokes, but third parties attracted by the joker's
wit. I take this point. I really do. But don't they risk looking bad to their intended audience too?

There was a protest last week outside the Department of Health awarding diplomas to practise "old wives'
traditional medicine" to members of the public who could answer questions on traditional cures. Academic
and agony aunt Petra Boynton, for one, didn't take the joke. She argued that to laugh at the medical advice
of "old wives" was ahistorical, and the tones of ageism and sexism could easily put people's backs up. She
was keen to emphasise that she was largely in support of their cause, but worried that they would come
across as pompous and authoritarian. For what it's worth, I felt the same unease about this campaign, for
the same reasons. Still, the event ran as planned and, I should note, without much further fuss.

A few weeks ago Channel 4 news journalist Samira Ahmed tweeted a request for some maths help.

Ben Goldacre, smelt bullshit and suggested his twitter followers "pre-mock" the story. They did. Then they
realised it wasn't quite as smelly as it seemed (nb: Goldacre speedily apologised). Reading Ahmed's write
up, it was worrying to hear that people "daren't risk" speaking publicly. There's been a lot of talk recently
about the problem of "libel chill" on British science writing, that people self-censor for fear they'd be sued
(as Simon Singh was by British Chiropractic Association). What about "mockery chill"?

The sociologist of humour Giselinde Kuipers draws our attention to the ways in which jokes reflect
communities of shared understanding. Just think how uncomfortable it feels when someone fails to get a
joke, or worse, the silence when no one laughs. Making, sharing and laughing at jokes can be a way of
bonding but, as with any form of community, you may inadvertently exclude.

The trick is to be aware of the politics at play. To think about what your joke means (or doesn't mean) to
the range of people who might hear it. To ask yourself: is looking clever worth making someone else look
dim? The trick is not to be crass.

Here's an oldie but a goodie to finish with (for chemists at least): If you're not part of the solution, you're
part of the precipitate.

Bada-boom.

I have to admit to some affection for geeky humour. When I don't understand the premise of a joke, it can
be a spur to learn more about the world. In that vein, do feel free to share some of your cleverness in
humour below. (As a heads-up, I'm especially rubbish when it comes to biology. You see, my physics-
trained science teacher loved to joke about how biology wasn't a real science …)

Alice Bell is a lecturer in science communication and blogs at Through the looking glass

Posted byAlice Bell Monday 13 September 201012.21 BSTguardian.co.uk

Comments in chronological order (Total 36 comments)

dianthusmed
A sodium atom walks into a bar.
After sitting at the bar for a while enjoying his pint, he suddenly starts frantically looking through his pockets.
331 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
"What's the matter", says the barman, "have you lost something?"
"Yes", says the sodium atom "I've lost an electron".
"Are you sure?" replies the barman
"Yes, I'm positive."
JenniferRohn
13 September 2010 12:49PM
I guess my one worry with the stance of "thinking about what your joke means (or doesn't mean) to the range
of people who might hear it" is that it might be nigh unto impossible to please everyone (or displease nobody).
Humor can stimulate and mobilize - but sanitizing a message to displease nobody risks making your cause
colorless, bland and (possibly) less effective. I'm not saying being funny and damn the consequences is the right
answer - but is there a point at which you can go too far not to tread on all possible toes? What if you end up
deciding to say nothing, for fear that you can't say it perfectly to every possible audience?
alexdavenport
13 September 2010 12:50PM
Still my favourite science(ish) joke:
(I had to go find it on the internet but I have heard it before, found it here:
http://www.basicjokes.com/djoke.php?id=5410)
In May a few years ago, the "Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer " exam paper contained the question:
"Is Hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with proof."
Most students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law or similar. One student, however, wrote the
following:
First, we must postulate that if souls exist, they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls also
must have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think we can
safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it does not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.
As for souls entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some religions say
that if you
are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than
one of these religions, and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all
souls go to
Hell. With the birth and death rates what they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase
exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change in the volume of Hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the
temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of the souls and volume needs to stay
constant.
[Answer 1] So, if Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the
temperature in Hell willincrease until all Hell breaks loose.
[Answer 2] Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase in souls in Hell, then the
temperature and pressure
will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it? If we accept the postulate (given to me by Teresa Banyan during freshman year) that "it'll be a
cold day in Hell before I sleep with you", and taking into account that I still have not succeeded in having sexual
relations with her, then [Answer 2] cannot be correct;
...... thus, Hell is exothermic.
The student got the only A.
alicerosebell
13 September 2010 12:54PM
@dianthusmed that was my favourite science joke to! Guardian cut it because it's too long :) (also, you tell it
better than I did)
@JenniferRohn well put - for me a joke is an expression of opinion. Not everyone agrees and sometimes it's
justified annoying people with your views! It's just being aware of that.
alicerosebell
13 September 2010 12:57PM
It's worth linking to this nice blogpost about the Old Wives campaign. Very thoughtful defence/ reflection
from a participant.
dianthusmed
13 September 2010 1:05PM
Thanks Alice!
Here's another one:
Heisenberg is stopped by a traffic policeman.

332 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
"Excuse me sir, do you know how fast you were driving?"
"No, but I know exactly where I am."
Phlarge
13 September 2010 1:18PM
"Barman, a pint of adenosine triphosphate please"
"Certainly sir. That'll be 80p"
(needs to be said out loud)
Sipech
13 September 2010 1:18PM
One for the mathematicians:
Take epsilon <0...
Sipech
13 September 2010 1:22PM
Professor: You are not normal
Student: But I am normal. I'm at right angles to everyone else.
galdhgflagf
13 September 2010 1:45PM
"Barman, a pint of adenosine triphosphate please"
"Certainly sir. That'll be 80p"
er???????????????
Take epsilon <0.
???????????????????????????????
A physicist, a chemist and a zoologist walk in to a bar..
and what? I suppose all the other guests went to another bar. But that's not funny.
AilbheG
13 September 2010 1:45PM
Did you hear about the molecular biologist who swallowed a beaker full of restriction endonucleases?
He came to a sticky end...
alicerosebell
13 September 2010 1:53PM
Ok, I'm laughing at the ones I get and confused at some of them too... I think people are going to need to
include some explanation too.
What's restriction endonuclease? I'm a historian. Share cleverness...
Also, a few extra notes here - a couple of links, etc (including one to lovely paper on the folklore of maths
jokes)
Sophiacollins
13 September 2010 1:58PM
We ask all the scientists who take part in the event I run to tell us a joke, and they usually go for a science one.
So we've got a whole page of them for you...
dianthusmed
13 September 2010 2:08PM
3 statisticians and 3 epidemiologists were on a train together on their way to a conference. One of the
statisticians asked the epidemiologists if they had bought their train tickets. ―Of course‖, replied the
epidemiologists, as they proudly showed off their 3 tickets. ―That‘s interesting‖, replied the statistician, ―I see
you have one each. We have only one between the three of us.‖ ―But won‘t you be in trouble when the ticket
inspector comes?‖ said one of the epidemiologists. ―Watch and learn‖ was the statistician‘s response. When the
ticket inspector was seen coming along the train, the statisticians all piled into the toilet together. The ticket
inspector knocked on the door, shouted ―Tickets please!‖, and a statistician passed the ticket under the door.
Satisfied, the ticket inspector stamped the ticket, passed it back under the door, and moved on.
On the way back from the conference, one of the statisticians again asked after the epidemiologists‘ tickets,
and this time the epidemiologists showed just the one ticket between the 3 of them. ―That‘s interesting‖,
replied the statistician, ―I see you have one ticket. On this journey, we have no ticket at all.‖ The
epidemiologists looked puzzled: ―Surely you need at least one ticket, don‘t you?‖ ―Wait and see‖, was the
statistician‘s cryptic reply. When the ticket inspector was sighted in the distance, all the epidemiologists
rushed into the toilet and locked the door. Before long, there was a knock at the door, accompanied by the
sound of ―Tickets please!‖. An epidemiologist passed the ticket under the door, and the statistician who had
just knocked on the door took it away.
The moral of this story: don‘t ever use a statistical technique unless you are completely familiar with it.

333 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
garwboy
13 September 2010 2:09PM
I managed to kick off a science-jokes trend on twitter recently, which demonstrated that combining science
and jokes is like combining 2 different species; the product is sterile and unnatural. Here's a list of the ones I
managed to come up with.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Although unaware of the concept of roads, probably to satisfy some
biological imperative
Knock knock! Who's there? It's either me or it isn't me, technically I exist in a superstate until you observe me
directly
A Horse walks into a bar, the barman says "why the long face?" "Evolutionary selection pressures" replies the
horse.
2 scientists walk into a bar. The first one says 'ouch'. So did the second, who repeated the process to confirm
the results
How does an elephant get down from a tree? Traditionally, via gravity, at an acceleration of 9.81 metres per
second (squared)
A bear walks into a bar. Barman says 'everyone keep back, this isn't his normal habitat, he's probably confused
and irritable'
What do you call a man with a spade in his head? A victim of severe cranial trauma, most likely deceased
Two Jews walk into a bar. Their beliefs have no detectable effect on their beverage choice, but they avoid the
Pork scratchings
What do you call a deer with no eyes? Ill equipped to survive long term in a hostile environment, unlikely to
produce offspring
What's a ghosts favourite food? If they exist, its unlikely a deceased noncorporeal entity would require
standard sustenance
What do you call a fish with no eyes? Extensively adapted to very low light environments
What should you do if you see a spaceman? Approach him carefully, man, microgravity causes brittle bones via
calcium leakage
Einstein goes into a bar, but at walking speed, so any relativistic time dilation that results from his movement is
negligible
How many scientists does it take to change a light bulb? This is dependant on the physical properties of the
situation
What's black and white and red all over? A poorly written psychology essay (after I've marked it)
How do you make a horemone? Depends on type e.g. splice the relevant genome into a bacterium, polymerase
chain reaction etc
2 cows in a field. 1 says 'Moo'. The other says 'moo' too. Theres no way to discern any meaning from this
discourse at present
What's brown and sticky? An extensive variety of natural and synthetic substances
Which detective resists the law but is only effective in his work if it doesn't resist him too much? Sherlock
Ohm's
Pavlov walks into a bar. The barman rings the bell for last orders. Pavlov immediately demands food
What do you get if you cross a sheep with a kangaroo? A sterile chimera of questionable ethical origin
Two fish in a tank. They don't survive long, as military vehicles of this sort aren't designed to contain water
indefinitely
"Knock knock". "Who's there?" "A paradox". "I'll be with you 2 minutes ago"
A synaesthesic walks into a bar and orders a pint of yellow and a packet of A-sharp
A global warming denialist walks into a bar and orders a pint. The barmen says "Sorry mate, not happening" as
he couldn't be bothered to be inconvenienced.
Doctor Dolittle started out as an organic chemist. Back then though, he could only talk to the aminals
6 x 10 to the power 23 Chemists walk into a bar. They were were in their element
A scientist & a philosopher walk into a bar. Scientist asks 'what do you want?' & gets 6 rounds in while waiting
for an answer
"Knock knock". "Who's there?" "A disembodied Kidney". "You taking the piss?" "Not any more, no"
It's sad when binary stellar objects splits up. No matter how far apart they are, there's still a (gravitational)
attraction
"Knock knock" "Who's there?" "An uncollapsed wave function" "I'll believe that when I see it"
Quantum Entangled Employee:"I if you don't like it I'll see your superior". Q. E. Boss:"You can't, you're only
ansible to me!"
garwboy

334 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
13 September 2010 2:11PM
Also, attempted to write the worlds longest science joke. It's not funny, but it is long
http://sciencedigestive.blogspot.com/2010/09/worlds-longest-science-joke.html
Gareth100
13 September 2010 2:14PM
It's more likely to be "a physicist, a chemist and a zoologist walk into a Job Centre" given Vince and Wlletts
latest plans.
JonButterworth
13 September 2010 2:19PM
Q How many astro-particle physicists does it take to change a light bulb?
A None. They just ask "What's the dark matter?"
sorry...
tomtom2
13 September 2010 2:29PM
"Do you know how does a computer scientist count cows in a field?
He counts the legs and divide by 4."
Sorry too
dianthusmed
13 September 2010 2:31PM
How many statisticians does it take to change a light bulb?
On average, 5, although as the number needed to change any given light bulb follows a Poisson distribution, it
could really be anything, but larger numbers are less likely: for example, it will only need 12 or more
statisticians less than 5% of the time.
AilbheG
13 September 2010 2:32PM
A restriction endonuclease is a type of enzyme that cuts DNA. When DNA is cut it can result in blunt ends
(where the sequence ends with a base pair) or sticky ends (when the sequence ends with an overhang that can
link up with other cut pieces of DNA)
For the purposes of the joke, the molecular biologist drinks a beaker of restriction endonucleases which cuts up
his DNA resulting in many sticky ends, but also makes him meet a 'sticky end' by dissolving him into goo (I've
got a very cartoony picture of this in my head)
Sorry, I know jokes aren't as funny when you explain them in this much detail!

Here are some short 'bar' jokes:

A virus walks into a bar.
the bartender says "We don't serve viruses in this bar."
The virus replaces the bartender and says "Now we do."
A infectious disease walks into bar.
The bartender says "We don't serve infectious disease in this bar."
The infectious disease says "Well, you're not a very good host."
Two bacteria walk into a bar.
The bartender says "We don't serve bacteria in this bar."
The bacteria says "But we work here! We're staph."
A room temperature superconductor walks into a bar.
The bartender says "We don't serve any superconductors in this bar.
The room temperature superconductor leaves without putting up any resistance.
An infrared photon walks into a bar and says "Is it hot in here, or is it just me?"
A neutrino walks into a bar.
The bartender says "We don't serve neutrinos in this bar."
The neutrino says "Hey, I was just passing through."
Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar.
And didn't.
The Higgs boson walks into church.
The Priest says "We don't allow Higgs bosons in here"
The Higgs boson says "But without me, how can you have mass?
A statistician walks into just your average bar.
The bartender says "We don't serve statisticians in this bar."
The statistician says "Well, you're just mean."

335 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Some helium gas just drifts into a bar.
The bartender says "We don't serve noble gases in this bar."
The helium didn't react.
rojh
13 September 2010 3:07PM
I liked the one by @garwboy about the philosopher and scientist who go into the bar it reminded me of an
apparantly true story about Dirac.
Heisenberg and Dirac sailing on a cruise ship to a conference in Japan in August 1929. Heisenberg was a ladies'
man who constantly flirted and danced. 'Why do you dance?' Dirac asked his companion. 'When there are nice
girls, it is a pleasure,' Heisenberg replied. Dirac pondered this notion for a while, then blurted out: 'But,
Heisenberg, how do you know beforehand that the girls are nice?'"
dianthusmed
13 September 2010 3:08PM
There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Sipech
13 September 2010 3:09PM
Mathematicians should be integrated into society, but it would mean giving them more powers.
JohnWilson
13 September 2010 3:16PM
Johnny was a Chemist's son
But Jonny is no more
What Jonny thought was H2O
Was H2SO4
galdhgflagf
13 September 2010 4:35PM
Al + Cu --> Au + Cl
Synchronium
13 September 2010 5:54PM
A load of scientists are playing hide & seek in heaven. Einstein‘s on and has nearly finished counting. 98. 99. 100.
He opens his eyes and sees Newton standing there in plain view. Einstein immediately tags Newton – ―Got you,
you sociopathic alchemical bastard!‖
―Not quite!‖ exclaims Newton. A smug grin starts to emerge. ―You see, I‘ve drawn a box around me on the floor
who‘s sides are of length one metre‖.
―You‘ve actually got one Newton per meter squared, so Pascal‘s on!‖
From an old post somewhere on my blog Synchronium.net
The blog also ran a small science joke competition a while ago thanks to an influx of bullshit pseudoscientific
comments: http://www.synchronium.net/2010/05/23/science-joke-winners/
galdhgflagf
13 September 2010 6:00PM
No joke:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05797.x/full
Drait
13 September 2010 6:43PM
has anyone told Robin Ince to get his arse over here pronto; there's years worth of material for him!
Synchronium
13 September 2010 7:16PM
A bloke walks into a shop and asks for some energy. The bloke behind the counter grabs some, whacks it down
into the counter and says "that'll be 80p"

...
*cough* ATP. Works better when said aloud.
galdhgflagf
13 September 2010 8:35PM
eighty pence????????????????
Synchronium
13 September 2010 8:47PM
Eighty Pee

336 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
2010/09/13 LOS ANGELES TIMES: U.S. HARD-
PRESSED TO STEM DOMESTIC R&D LOSSES
By Don Lee

Reporting from Washington-- President Obama's proposal to boost the research tax credit for businesses is
widely seen as Examples include A123 Systems Inc. in Massachusetts. With government support, the
company is building plants in Michigan to produce its breakthrough lithium-ion batteries for electric cars,
but as a start-up it had little choice but to rely on the technical and manufacturing capabilities of China to
crank out products quickly to show potential customers.

Even then, despite its MIT-born technology, A123 lost out to a South Korean company to supply batteries
for General Motors Co.'s Chevy Volt.

Similarly, the technology behind silicon-based solar panels was originally developed in America. But even
as the solar panel industry took off in countries such as Germany, where it was backed by strong
government policies, the industry in the U.S. declined, partly because electronics manufacturing and other
production capabilities had dried up years earlier.

"If you just do breakthrough R&D and in the end don't make the stuff, that's a losing argument," said Ralph
Gomory, a research professor at New York University and former head of research at IBM. He called it "the
innovation delusion: We can design things; others will build them."

Apple Inc. has perfected the trend, making a fortune selling snazzy products that are designed by legions of
creative people in the U.S. but manufactured almost entirely in China. Analysts note that Apple captures
the bulk of the profit while the U.S. economy loses little in giving up low value-added assembly operations
to the Chinese.

But Apple's case is rare. A lot of companies design things and try to hold on to the technology but
eventually lose control over it in the process of using overseas manufacturers — or are beaten out by rivals
who produce similar goods at cheaper prices.

So the decline of U.S. manufacturing has increasingly become an economic Achilles' heel.

"When products are designed and manufactured side by side in America, businesses can discover new
efficiencies and develop second-, third- and fourth-generation upgrades that simply would never occur in a
cloistered research lab," U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said in a speech early this year.

"When they are not, we allow other countries to develop new businesses and new jobs," he added.

At least a handful of efforts are underway to create such self-reinforcing systems in the U.S., including tech
areas in New York's Hudson River Valley and in San Diego.

337 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Forming similar clusters may be one way to compete against manufacturing powerhouses such as
Germany and Japan, where government plays a much stronger role in driving research and pressing
business leaders to focus on making and selling goods at home.

The question is whether these or other possible answers to the problem can be developed in the United
States within the present ideological and policy framework, or whether more fundamental change would
be required.

don.lee@latimes.com

Examples include A123 Systems Inc. in Massachusetts. With government support, the company is building
plants in Michigan to produce its breakthrough lithium-ion batteries for electric cars, but as a start-up it
had little choice but to rely on the technical and manufacturing capabilities of China to crank out products
quickly to show potential customers.

Even then, despite its MIT-born technology, A123 lost out to a South Korean company to supply batteries
for General Motors Co.'s Chevy Volt.

Similarly, the technology behind silicon-based solar panels was originally developed in America. But even
as the solar panel industry took off in countries such as Germany, where it was backed by strong
government policies, the industry in the U.S. declined, partly because electronics manufacturing and other
production capabilities had dried up years earlier.

"If you just do breakthrough R&D and in the end don't make the stuff, that's a losing argument," said Ralph
Gomory, a research professor at New York University and former head of research at IBM. He called it "the
innovation delusion: We can design things; others will build them."

Apple Inc. has perfected the trend, making a fortune selling snazzy products that are designed by legions of
creative people in the U.S. but manufactured almost entirely in China. Analysts note that Apple captures
the bulk of the profit while the U.S. economy loses little in giving up low value-added assembly operations
to the Chinese.

But Apple's case is rare. A lot of companies design things and try to hold on to the technology but
eventually lose control over it in the process of using overseas manufacturers — or are beaten out by rivals
who produce similar goods at cheaper prices.

So the decline of U.S. manufacturing has increasingly become an economic Achilles' heel.

"When products are designed and manufactured side by side in America, businesses can discover new
efficiencies and develop second-, third- and fourth-generation upgrades that simply would never occur in a
cloistered research lab," U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said in a speech early this year.

"When they are not, we allow other countries to develop new businesses and new jobs," he added.

At least a handful of efforts are underway to create such self-reinforcing systems in the U.S., including tech
areas in New York's Hudson River Valley and in San Diego.

Forming similar clusters may be one way to compete against manufacturing powerhouses such as
Germany and Japan, where government plays a much stronger role in driving research and pressing
business leaders to focus on making and selling goods at home.

The question is whether these or other possible answers to the problem can be developed in the United
States within the present ideological and policy framework, or whether more fundamental change would
be required.

338 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
don.lee@latimes.com

Examples include A123 Systems Inc. in Massachusetts. With government support, the company is building
plants in Michigan to produce its breakthrough lithium-ion batteries for electric cars, but as a start-up it
had little choice but to rely on the technical and manufacturing capabilities of China to crank out products
quickly to show potential customers.

Even then, despite its MIT-born technology, A123 lost out to a South Korean company to supply batteries
for General Motors Co.'s Chevy Volt.

Similarly, the technology behind silicon-based solar panels was originally developed in America. But even
as the solar panel industry took off in countries such as Germany, where it was backed by strong
government policies, the industry in the U.S. declined, partly because electronics manufacturing and other
production capabilities had dried up years earlier.

"If you just do breakthrough R&D and in the end don't make the stuff, that's a losing argument," said Ralph
Gomory, a research professor at New York University and former head of research at IBM. He called it "the
innovation delusion: We can design things; others will build them."

Apple Inc. has perfected the trend, making a fortune selling snazzy products that are designed by legions of
creative people in the U.S. but manufactured almost entirely in China. Analysts note that Apple captures
the bulk of the profit while the U.S. economy loses little in giving up low value-added assembly operations
to the Chinese.

But Apple's case is rare. A lot of companies design things and try to hold on to the technology but
eventually lose control over it in the process of using overseas manufacturers — or are beaten out by rivals
who produce similar goods at cheaper prices.

So the decline of U.S. manufacturing has increasingly become an economic Achilles' heel.

"When products are designed and manufactured side by side in America, businesses can discover new
efficiencies and develop second-, third- and fourth-generation upgrades that simply would never occur in a
cloistered research lab," U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said in a speech early this year.

"When they are not, we allow other countries to develop new businesses and new jobs," he added.

At least a handful of efforts are underway to create such self-reinforcing systems in the U.S., including tech
areas in New York's Hudson River Valley and in San Diego.

Forming similar clusters may be one way to compete against manufacturing powerhouses such as
Germany and Japan, where government plays a much stronger role in driving research and pressing
business leaders to focus on making and selling goods at home.

The question is whether these or other possible answers to the problem can be developed in the United
States within the present ideological and policy framework, or whether more fundamental change would
be required.

don.lee@latimes.com

Examples include A123 Systems Inc. in Massachusetts. With government support, the company is building
plants in Michigan to produce its breakthrough lithium-ion batteries for electric cars, but as a start-up it
had little choice but to rely on the technical and manufacturing capabilities of China to crank out products
quickly to show potential customers.

339 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Even then, despite its MIT-born technology, A123 lost out to a South Korean company to supply batteries
for General Motors Co.'s Chevy Volt.

Similarly, the technology behind silicon-based solar panels was originally developed in America. But even
as the solar panel industry took off in countries such as Germany, where it was backed by strong
government policies, the industry in the U.S. declined, partly because electronics manufacturing and other
production capabilities had dried up years earlier.

"If you just do breakthrough R&D and in the end don't make the stuff, that's a losing argument," said Ralph
Gomory, a research professor at New York University and former head of research at IBM. He called it "the
innovation delusion: We can design things; others will build them."

Apple Inc. has perfected the trend, making a fortune selling snazzy products that are designed by legions of
creative people in the U.S. but manufactured almost entirely in China. Analysts note that Apple captures
the bulk of the profit while the U.S. economy loses little in giving up low value-added assembly operations
to the Chinese.

But Apple's case is rare. A lot of companies design things and try to hold on to the technology but
eventually lose control over it in the process of using overseas manufacturers — or are beaten out by rivals
who produce similar goods at cheaper prices.

So the decline of U.S. manufacturing has increasingly become an economic Achilles' heel.

"When products are designed and manufactured side by side in America, businesses can discover new
efficiencies and develop second-, third- and fourth-generation upgrades that simply would never occur in a
cloistered research lab," U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said in a speech early this year.

"When they are not, we allow other countries to develop new businesses and new jobs," he added.

At least a handful of efforts are underway to create such self-reinforcing systems in the U.S., including tech
areas in New York's Hudson River Valley and in San Diego.

Forming similar clusters may be one way to compete against manufacturing powerhouses such as
Germany and Japan, where government plays a much stronger role in driving research and pressing
business leaders to focus on making and selling goods at home.

The question is whether these or other possible answers to the problem can be developed in the United
States within the present ideological and policy framework, or whether more fundamental change would
be required.

don.lee@latimes.com

Examples include A123 Systems Inc. in Massachusetts. With government support, the company is building
plants in Michigan to produce its breakthrough lithium-ion batteries for electric cars, but as a start-up it
had little choice but to rely on the technical and manufacturing capabilities of China to crank out products
quickly to show potential customers.

Even then, despite its MIT-born technology, A123 lost out to a South Korean company to supply batteries
for General Motors Co.'s Chevy Volt.

Similarly, the technology behind silicon-based solar panels was originally developed in America. But even
as the solar panel industry took off in countries such as Germany, where it was backed by strong
government policies, the industry in the U.S. declined, partly because electronics manufacturing and other
production capabilities had dried up years earlier.

340 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
"If you just do breakthrough R&D and in the end don't make the stuff, that's a losing argument," said Ralph
Gomory, a research professor at New York University and former head of research at IBM. He called it "the
innovation delusion: We can design things; others will build them."

Apple Inc. has perfected the trend, making a fortune selling snazzy products that are designed by legions of
creative people in the U.S. but manufactured almost entirely in China. Analysts note that Apple captures
the bulk of the profit while the U.S. economy loses little in giving up low value-added assembly operations
to the Chinese.

But Apple's case is rare. A lot of companies design things and try to hold on to the technology but
eventually lose control over it in the process of using overseas manufacturers — or are beaten out by rivals
who produce similar goods at cheaper prices.

So the decline of U.S. manufacturing has increasingly become an economic Achilles' heel.

"When products are designed and manufactured side by side in America, businesses can discover new
efficiencies and develop second-, third- and fourth-generation upgrades that simply would never occur in a
cloistered research lab," U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said in a speech early this year.

"When they are not, we allow other countries to develop new businesses and new jobs," he added.

At least a handful of efforts are underway to create such self-reinforcing systems in the U.S., including tech
areas in New York's Hudson River Valley and in San Diego.

Forming similar clusters may be one way to compete against manufacturing powerhouses such as
Germany and Japan, where government plays a much stronger role in driving research and pressing
business leaders to focus on making and selling goods at home.

The question is whether these or other possible answers to the problem can be developed in the United
States within the present ideological and policy framework, or whether more fundamental change would
be required.

don.lee@latimes.com

2010/09/13 Guardian Science Blogs Martin: Is God scraping the barrel for miracles?

The Vatican's latest 'miracle' is further evidence of a worrying long-term decline in God's powers

341 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 The God of the Old Testament could part seas and flood planets.
Photograph: Reuters

If you read the BBC's coverage of Deacon Jack Sullivan this morning, you might be tempted to believe that
something amazing had happened to him. Certainly the carefully crafted words of reporter Michael Hirst
tell a compelling story, a story so convincing that after eight years of investigation the Vatican's experts
have declared it a miracle, no less.

"Jack Sullivan was in agony. Bedridden after complicated surgery on his spine, the pain was so intense he
was unable to sleep and had trouble breathing."

Back in 2000, Sullivan, then in his early sixties, began suffering from a pain in his back. Told by doctors that
he might have to quit his religious studies in order to receive an operation, he was dejected and unsure
what to do when a documentary about Cardinal John Newman appeared on the telly.

Sullivan prayed to him, and the next morning felt well enough to continue his studies, making it to the end
of the academic year before he relapsed, and was sent for "complicated" surgery on his spine. Immediately
afterwards he was apparently in all sorts of agony, as you'd expect, but just two days later, in defiance of
doctors who told him he would take months to recover, he was able to walk again. Nine years later and the
71-year-old is able to stroll around pain-free like a young man (but with more wrinkles and whiter hair).

Incredible stuff I'm sure you'll agree, but could there possibly be a reasonable explanation for this miracle?
Well yes, but incredibly you won't find it until the 24th paragraph of the BBC's credulous article:

"Michael Powell, a consultant neurosurgeon at London's University College Hospital, said a typical
laminectomy took'about 40 minutes, and most patients ... walk out happy at two days'".

And so the story becomes thus: Deacon Jack Sullivan had a pain in his back. After a year it got bad enough
that he consented to a fairly routine surgery from which most patients are able to return home in a couple
of days. He had the surgery, he got better, and 10 years later he can still walk. Miraculous? Not really.

The problem with these stories is that really it comes down to your word against a lot of wishful thinking. I
suspect Deacon Sullivan is an honest man. My guess would be that he got the back pain, desperately
wanted to get through his studies, and so pushed himself along until the summer break when surgery
would be less disruptive. He might say God enabled him to achieve that; I'd say the old man had a lot of
heart. No doubt he recovered well after surgery, but then so do lots of people.

Even if this were a miracle, it would only reinforce a disturbing long-term trend. God used to be able to
part seas and flood planets. By the end of the Old Testament he was turning people into pillars of salt and
Aaron's rod into a snake. At the time of Jesus, God our omnipotent deity was basically down to party tricks,
and now, what, easing an old man's backache for a few months? It's hardly the swaggering, all-conquering
God of the glory days.

So what's happened? Are we not devout enough? Is God getting old? Has he lost interest? Are his powers
subject to some form of spiritual entropy, leaving him hot and spent in heaven? Perhaps this worrying

342 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
decline in God's powers is what the Vatican's crack team of miracle investigators should really be
researching.

Posted byMartin Robbins

Comments in chronological order (Total 54 comments)
chunkylimey
13 September 2010 4:15PM
I've always thought it was odd that when religious people in the Old Testament needed persuading of the One
True God Elijah could call down fire from heaven.
Now in the face of science and all the evidence against there being a God; the only miracle this Christian god
can perform is a bit of chiropractic magic (apologies to Simon Singh)?
It's time the debate shifted. The Qu'ran, The Torah and the Christian Bible are utter nonsense and should be
left behind. You don't have to leave behind your conviction in there being a God but it's time to stop believing
the silly fantasies of some Bronze Age nomads.
I'm not going to dispute the existence of God because that is a valid question that can still be tackled fairly
and politely.
However I'm tired of tolerating the idiocy of these 3 dangerous faiths that damage our world so much. If you
want to debate that then feel free but you're going to look even more foolish than ever.
AilbheG
13 September 2010 4:28PM
There are many other examples of miracles I've read about that would rate as poorly as the one you've cited. A
woman was having a difficult labour, and the midwives prayed to some local martyr - and the mother and baby
both survived! (that's never happened before apparently, so it must be a miracle) Another one cured a woman's
varicose veins, which is undoubtedly helpful but I'd hardly compare it to a spontaneously combusting bush. The
Catholic church, however, considers it to be a miracle.
To be declared as a saint, at least two miracles must be attributed to the person. I do not know the exact
number of saints recognised by the Catholic church, but it must number in the thousands. That is a lot of
miracles. Really, 'miracles' must be reasonably commonplace.
FrederickKeble
13 September 2010 4:36PM
I'd be perfectly happy to witness regeneration of an amputated limb. Has that ever been done?
OirishMartin
13 September 2010 4:40PM
To be fair, these "miracles" at least beat the Argument-from-Incomplete-Devastation-type "miracles", which
are just sickening.
MartinRobbins
13 September 2010 4:49PM
@OirishMartin "Argument from incomplete devastation" - brilliant phrase!
MarkDJ
13 September 2010 4:56PM
I had an arthroscopy on my knee, used crutches for a couple of hours, went to bed, woke up and found that I
didn't need the crutches any more?
A miracle or just the fact that I had been making sure my leg muscles remained strong whilst I waited a year
for the operation?
OirishMartin
13 September 2010 5:11PM
@MartinRobbins
Not my joke, unfortunately! Came from these guys:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
(argument #36)
The proof of God's existence via the argument from incomplete devastation goes as follows:
"(1) A plane crashed killing 143 passengers and crew.
(2) But one child survived with only third-degree burns.
(3) Therefore, God exists."
kendrew
343 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
13 September 2010 5:13PM
Well its been pointed out that by the time Jesus was a bit more than a lad God was resorting to smoke and
mirrors.
Its a fair bet that with the advent of television and latterly the internet, and home entertainment wizardry
perhaps God feels a little out of date, not cool, not 3D enough.
Parting seas and plliars of salt might have cut it when Noah was a boy but it takes a bit more these days to
impress the great unwashed.
Perhaps God should team up with Speilberg or Lucas or that Titanic chap, James Cameron. God could learn a few
new tricks and with his basic skills the special effect chappies could have a field day.
maxdrum
13 September 2010 5:15PM
I found the name of Allah in an aubergine i was cutting up, so I made a nice curry with it. Followed by the face
of jesus in my toast which I added some marmalade to. I'm hoping for the outline of the buddha in a pizza so
I've got the full set.
I tend to find proper medical care is usually a better bet than prayer. Its funny how science is the enemy of
religion apart from when you need a hip relacement. I liked the bit in the VS Naipaul book about the mullah who
excoriated the decadent west and all of its trappings until he flew to Boston for a heart valve operation.
Its frankly amazing how much proof and evidence the intelligent designers overlook when criticising evolution,
simply due to a willed ignorance of scientific method. The mere hint of a 'miracle' no matter how tenuous is
brandished as proof of godly existence though. Seems like proofs only work one way for these irrationalists.
xyzzy
13 September 2010 5:24PM
Not as miraculous as Martin's beard disappearing.
Sipech
13 September 2010 5:28PM
I was reading an interesting book on prayer recently, called God on Mute. Near the beginning it does lay out a
warning against so called "glory stories" that are quickly spread via chinese whispers - all the more so these
days with modern technology. There is also the speed with which something might be declared a miracle.
One of the anecdotes given was for a guy who claimed his back was healed. It was only later that he then said
(and I paraphrase slightly here): "Now if only God would cure me of my symptoms too."
In a more high profile scam the so-called Lakeland revivals when claims were made about healings (and even
resurrections) that were never verified.
JuanFivesix
13 September 2010 5:28PM
There's a Geman chap in a frock who says he has an invisible friend and he's blagged £12.5m from the
government to spend a couple of luxuary days holiday over here...now, that's a miracle!
Heresiarch
13 September 2010 5:32PM
I've just (unknowingly) written a variation of the very same piece. Great minds and all that. So I thought I'd
just share with you my final thought: Is Newman being lined up as the patron saint of chiropractors? After the
year they've had, they certainly need one.
BenCaute
13 September 2010 5:56PM
I saw an image of the Virgin Mary in a painting once.
Mysterious ways, mysterious ways.
OirishMartin
13 September 2010 6:09PM
I saw a magic tractor once.
It went down the road and turned into a field.
ChopAlley
13 September 2010 6:25PM
I like the capation under the photograph. Was this photo really taken during the time of Ye Olde Testament?
That's a miracle.
linksgreen
13 September 2010 6:28PM
More a sign of The Guardian scraping the barrel for anti-Vatican stories.
justoffpeak
13 September 2010 6:36PM

344 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Don't Knock them (geddit?) - there's lots of money to be made from the gullible.
Who'd heard of Lourdes before some canny shopkeeper helped spread a little girl's delusions.
scubadoc
13 September 2010 6:39PM
Curiously, back pain doesn't usually respond to laminectomy, a treatment for nerve entrapment which typically
causes pain in the legs. Back pain is profoundly influenced by psychological and social factors: a fertile ground
for "miracles"?
Born2bBald
13 September 2010 6:41PM
More a sign of The Guardian scraping the barrel for anti-Vatican stories.
Are you joking?
Can anyone, anywhere, find a pro-vatican story?
Aside from the illegal cover-ups of millions of cases of child abuse..
The entire vatican should be shut down, imprisioned & have all their stolen money frozen and distributed to help
aids victims in africa (and the abused kids worldwide)
The catholic church is a disgrace.
The beautiful irony of it all is, by their own beliefs... Pretty much all of the hierarchy of the Catholic church
are going to burn in hell
chargehand
13 September 2010 6:41PM
He's not giving a certain right-wing salute in that picture is he?
owaingr
13 September 2010 6:42PM
Someone with mobility problems is seized in an ecstatic moment to totter a few faltering steps. It's a miracle.
Only they're back in the wheelchair once the ecstasy has subsided and their poor old pins really can't carry
them.
Born2bBald
13 September 2010 6:43PM
The beautiful irony of it all is, by their own beliefs... Pretty much all of the hierarchy of the Catholic church
are going to burn in hell
Sorry, Hell doesn't exist, but if it did, it would be full of catholic priests.
stevebateman
13 September 2010 6:46PM
It is surely about what 'lens' you look through. If you think that this piece is the limit of God's powers then my
guess is whatever faith perspective you will always see or not see God.
There might be more recorded miracles taking place around the world than ever. Because we don't hear about
them or don't know where to look or even want to look.

http://healingherald.org/ is a good example of videos and recorded healings.

/http://healingonthestreets.wordpress.com/ I will be recording everyday healing and miracles.
LynnD
13 September 2010 6:54PM
Sounds like it...this man who was "cured" had the same problem (spinal stenosis), the same surgery (widening of
the spinal canal) and the same result (the pain went away) as my Dad did. Never heard Dad claiming that God
cured him... he mentioned some surgeon that did it.
salparadyse
13 September 2010 6:57PM
I've read book after book detailing amazing healings. Heard account after account of amazing healings and
every person I've ever met who is disabled or sick is told that their suffering is from God's hand and that they
are not meant to be healed.
Lakshme
13 September 2010 7:06PM
I would have thought miraculous was 'beyond reason'... but reason would dictate that a being of omnipotent
power existing in a dimension beyond space and time can pretty much do what the fuck he/it/she likes... surely
then it is us blobs of fat calcium and water who are surprised by them, to god they are ordinary, if you believe
in god you cannot be surprising about what he/it/she gets up to either... so then what constitutes a miracle
anyway...

345 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
That made my head hurt... oh, now it's stopped, that'll be the asprin then... or is it...? If I'm surpried it stopped
does that make it a miracle, if it just stopped for no given reason, what's that called...
I'm going for a lie down... now, don't anyone come putting a sheet over me for god's sake...
TheClave
13 September 2010 7:15PM
The problem is the gullibility threshold keeps rising in the UK. If someone says Barking are the best football
team in the UK then people say "Prove it". The same attitude is creeping over into the interactions with invisible
friends.
Its becoming more difficult to con us.
TheClave
13 September 2010 7:16PM
What an unfortunate picture. Is the Pope supposed to look like his earlier years in the Bavarian Hitler Youth?
ManchePaul
13 September 2010 7:16PM
Let me see. God causes a huge amount of pain to one of his own. Some time later, after a standard operation for
that pain, the pain goes away.
This apparently is a miracle.
I am an atheist. I do not have back pain. Irrefutable evidence that god does not exist, eh folks?
sickboy47
13 September 2010 7:17PM
A less well known Lourdes phenomenon is the death of Tomás Séamus Ó Fiaich (3 November 1923 – 8 May 1990)
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh and the Primate of All Ireland from 1978 .....whilst on pilgrimage at
Lourdes.
Cruel people suggested that as well as the collection of crutches and all that at Lourdes they should have
display of unused return tickets........
sickboy47
13 September 2010 7:23PM
I'm sure this is isn't relevent, of course, but the medic treating Father Jack Sullivan is a Catholic: from the
BBC website
Dr Banco, a Catholic, has testified the recovery was "unbelievable, 100%, totally remarkable... I have never seen
a healing process occur so quickly and completely."
sickboy47
13 September 2010 7:24PM
I've just realised.... Father Jack Sullivan! It's Father Jack! Feck! Arse!
doesnotexist
13 September 2010 7:30PM
FrederickKeble
I'd be perfectly happy to witness regeneration of an amputated limb. Has that ever been done?
Thomas Becket was certainly credited with restoring "privy members" - he also gave miraculous guidance to a
child who had mislaid a cheese. But that was 800 years ago.
seapiglet
13 September 2010 7:33PM
How about the miracle of me ever voting LibDem again?
sickboy47
13 September 2010 7:33PM
@doesnotexist
Thomas Becket was certainly credited with restoring "privy members" - he also gave miraculous guidance to a
child who had mislaid a cheese. But that was 800 years ago.
Was it a nice cheese?
altwebid
13 September 2010 7:48PM
@FrederickKeble
Amputees are game,set and match as far as I'm concerned.
You can study theology (or one book English Lit. as it's known in our house) all your life and not have a decent
come back from the amputee argument.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Rollocks
13 September 2010 8:00PM

346 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Blessed are the cheesemakers
sickboy47
13 September 2010 8:03PM
@Rollocks
Blessed are the cheesemakers
Indeed. I believe St. Ivel is the patron saint of cheese slices.
selondon
13 September 2010 8:08PM
Noticed this terrible story this morning. The BBC always pays ridiculous deference to religion and misuses the
word "miracle" in lots of stories.
Of course, no miracle here, just routine medical treatement. If he'd had real faith he would have eschewed the
surgery and kept praying.
The remaining credulous religious idiots do look increasingly stupid now that they have to try so much harder.

2010/09/13 FT COMMENT: SCIENCE CAN‟T

ALWAYS BE MEASURED BY COMMERCIAL SUCCESS
From Ms Lucy P. Marcus.

Sir, The recommendation from Vince Cable that science research should abandon work that is “neither
commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding” (News digest, September 8) as part of the UK’s austerity
drive has sparked a vital conversation. I believe investment in blue skies research remains essential. It
cannot be consigned to the scrapheap to meet short-term cost-cutting measure. We must not abdicate our
future simply because not all scientific discovery can be immediately quantified in its commercial value.

In the past, blue skies research was funded from a range of different sources, all of which now face serious
constraints on their budgets, and there is a temptation to point the finger at each other when it comes to
living up to what is a collective responsibility (and ethical obligation to future generations) for supporting
blue skies research.

Part of what makes this investment less attractive is that even where it yields results that have short-term
potential for commercialisation, an environment in which scientists and entrepreneurs can translate such
results into commercially viable propositions is often missing.

Identifying and nurturing talented scientists and helping them to commercialise their findings requires
recognising the opportunities that are generated by results of basic research and creating an environment
in which these opportunities can come to fruition.

Early-stage investment funds do not in themselves resolve the problem of who invests in blue skies
research, but they can make it a more promising and less daunting venture by helping to contribute to a
faster and more reliable idea-to-market process.

Lucy P. Marcus,

Non-executive chair of the Mobius Life Sciences Fund and CEO of Marcus Venture Consulting,

Nottingham, UK

347 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 2010/09/13 DC'S IMPROBABLE SCIENCE:
WHAT VINCE CABLE GOT WRONG ABOUT
RESEARCH, WHAT HE GOT RIGHT, AND WHAT
SHOULD BE DONE
Vince Cable, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, said on the Radio 4 Today
programme on September 8th 2010

“There was some estimate on the basis of surveys done recently that something in the order of 45 per cent
of the research grants that were going through was to research that was not of excellent standard. So the
bar will have to be raised.”

The suggestion that 45 percent of research is mediocre provoked a storm, first on Twitter, than in blogs.
One of the earlier blogs was In one day, Vince Cable has become an object of ridicule and loathing Those
that followed were scarcely more flattering. The number he quoted was simply wrong.

Unravelling Cable says "when the text of the speech was released, I was shocked by what it revealed about
the Secretary of State’s grasp of his brief.".

A legion of people have tried to decode what he meant. The purpose of this post is to go a bit further, to
investigate the problem of mediocre research and to suggest a change of policy that might help.

This appears to be what Cable should have said.

(1) His comments don’t refer to the main source of money for research at all. They refer to "quality-
related" (QR) money given to universities by the Higher Education Finding Council. It is intended to support
the infrastructure for support, but it vanishes into the ever-expanding administration and most researchers
don’t see a penny of it.

(2) QR money is not given to individual researchers to do research, it is given to the university
retrospectively, on the basis of the score in a vast, time-consuming, assessment known as the Research
Assessment exercise. This grades departments on the basis of the amount of grade 1 2 3 or 4 research they
do.

(3) Cable’s comment . on the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme that “45% of research grants were not of
excellent standard", caused uproar, and rightly so, because it shows a total lack of grasp of how science is
funded, The "45%" doesn’t refer to grants at all, but it is the percentage of work that was judged in the RAE
to be grade 1 or 2 (less good) rather than 3 or 4 (very good).

(4) Work that is graded 2 gets little QR money, and 1 gets none at all. David Sweeney, a HEFCE bureaucrat
not generally noted for his understanding of research, points out that the 45 percent of 1 and 2 work gets
only 7 percent of the funds. Using Cable’s criterion his number should have been 7% not 45%.

(5) In physics at least, the RAE panel claims it was told to use norm-referencing. This means that they are
told roughly what fractions 3 and 4 grades to produce. HEFCE deny this is the case, but it is quite usual for
big organisations to lie about this sort of thing. Insofar as norm-referencing was imposed, the fraction of
research that is labelled mediocre is pre-determined, and is quite independent of quality. It means no
348 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
more than saying that half the people are below average. It is just a statistical inevitability (if the
distribution is symmetrical). It tells you absolutely nothing about the quality of research,

(6) A figure far more important than any of these is that only 10 – 20% of research grant applications get
funded. It takes a long time to write a research grant application, something like two months. That is a
major time-consuming activity for scientists, who should be thinking about science and doing experiments.
Around 85% of that effort is fruitless. The cost in salaries and lost output of writing grants that fail is
enormous. Being high alpha rated is certainly no guarantee of getting funds. That is the number that Cable
should have produced, but didn’t.

SO WHAT DID CABLE GET RIGHT, AND WHY?

This is the bit that hasn’t been discussed much in the comments so far.

If it so hard to get a grant, why is there a widespread perception that quite a lot of published work is, if not
wrong, at least trivial?

(1) Most work has always been trivial. Great breakthroughs are very rare events. But let’s accept, for the
sake of argument, that the widespread view that it is worse now that in used to be, or at least that quality
hasn’t improved.

(2) There is now enormouly more research than before. That means more top-rate work, but, perhaps,
even more bad or trivial work

(3) The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) is on of the main reasons why the fraction of good papers is
perceived to have decreased. It has probably done more harm to research standards than any other single
change in my lifetime.

(4) Although it is tempting to blame politicians for the harm done by the RAE, the greatest harm is actually
done by senior academics and other ex-researchers, and their numerous administrative hangers-on, who
apply intolerable pressure on their juniors to publish large numbers of papers, preferably in one of three
‘top’ journals. This inevitably leads to large numbers of trivial papers being produced, because people think
they won’t be promoted if the don’t go along with the senior bullies,

(5) The fate of young researchers is made even worse by HR’s attempts at "well-being" (major post coming
up on that topic), the money wasted on ‘Roberts agenda’ skills training and the utterly vacuous Concordat

(6) A consequence of this sort of pressure is that anyone who wants to think deeply, or to understand
properly, the basis of what they are doing, is quite likely to be fired for lack of "productivity" before they
produce their best work (I speak here of biomedical sciences. I presume that physicists can’t get way so
easily with poor understnading of principles of their subject).

(7) The result is a system that is not just over-competitive, but positively cruel to young scientists. The
miracle to me is that anyone wants to work in science at all in the present state of universities. It is a sign, I
guess, of just how wonderful it is to find something new, that people still put up with a system that seems,
at times, not much different from slavery. See, for example, The Mismeasurement of Scienceby Peter A.
Lawrence

(8) Not all the slavery is, of course, quite was bad as the famous chemist at Caltech who berated his
slaves for not working (for his glory) seven days a week (though things not far short of this are quite
common). And not all universities are quite so stupid as the University of Arizona, which is reported to be
thinking of hiring on the basis of the amount of grant income you bring in, although Imperial College
London as got alarmingly close to this sort of insanity. I guess I shouldn’t feel bad about other universities

349 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
behaving in a way that makes anyone who is any good not want to work for them, but the the matter is too
important for one to worry about inter-university rivalry.

(9) The over-competitiveness and encouragement of trivial science, quantity rather than quality, has been
going on for long enough now, that people who have risen on that basis now have power, and are to be
found even on review panels of grant-giving bodies.

(10) Organisations like the Medical Research Council used to have permanent staff who developed a high
level of expertise in the subjects they dealt with, and a great deal of experise in the critical duties of
knowing which referees to select, and how to judge what they wrote. More recently, the turnover of MRC
staff has been too great for that sort of expertise to be well-developed, I have no axe to grind myself. My
last program grant as PI (1999 – 2004) was funded, as was its successor (2004 – 2009, in which I was co-
applicant). But recently I have seen feedback on failed grant applications (not mine) that suggest that the
review panel either hadn’t read or hadn’t understood them.

(11) There is an enormous shortage of money for ‘response-mode’ grants. That means grants submitted by
individuals to fund projects that the individual thinks will work. One reason for that is the research councils
and charities have, increasingly, ring-fenced funds for work in a particular area, which some committee has
decided ie important. Often this results in money being given to projects that don’t work very well (as I
have seen at first hand when on the panel for the BBSCR Neuron initiative). These "initiatives" may sound
good on paper to politicians, but they result in mis-spending of taxpayers’ money.

(12) One thing that Cable is dead right about ir that the ‘graduate tax’ is by far the fairest way to fund
degrees. Sadly vic-chancellors line up to condemn it (you can’t get the staff these days).

SO WHAT CAN BE DONE?

I’ve listed a lot of criticisms, but what can be done about it?

I can see a couple of things that could be done. The main thing is to reduce the intense sompetitiveness
that leads to low quality. The competitiveness arises in part because of the large increase in the number of
universities that took place in 1992, when the then Conservative government converted at a stroke
polytecnics and technical colleges into universities, This was done largely to increase the number of
undergraduate students, something of which I advocate strongly. I also feel strongly that teaching at an
advanced level should be done by people who are doing research in the area they are teaching about. This
is what governments have tried to do since 1992, but the numbers just don’t add up. There are simply not
enough good researchers to teach half the population, yet the promotion of everyone has been made to
depend largely on research,

One way would be to make the post-1992 universities into teaching only institutions. That would be
retrogade in my view. It would result in a lot of teaching being done by people barely able to cope with
advanced stuff

My proposal.

(1) The conservatism of some senior academics has meant that they have failed to recognise that the
traditional honours degree is quite unsuitable for a mass education system in which 50% of people do a
degree.

(2) We should abandon altogether the honours degree system, which attempts in 3 years to take people
from high school level to research level in 3 years (even with smaller numbers of people it often failed to
do that anyway).

350 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
(3) We should start with much wider general degrees where teaching could be at a lower level and be done
in universities that did little research. Such degrees would still aim at critical thinking rather than being
purely vocational.

(4) After this general first degree, students would either do vocational training, or if they wished to
continue along the academic line, they would go to graduate school.

(5) By graduate school, I mean teaching in the advanced aspects of their chosen subject, as is done in the
USA. Most UK universities now have something called a graduate school, but they are largely charades
which teach advanced powerpoint presentaton but nothing intellectual. Our own summer school was
originally taught as part of the UCL graduate school, but was dropped by them on the grounds that it was
education not training. Protests that a knowledge of mathematics was the ultimate transferable skill in
science, fell on deaf ears.

(6) The graduate schools would be the place where the advanced teaching was done, and also where most
research was done. To make this feasible for the staff, they would have little undergraduate teaching.
They’d be more like ‘institutes of advanced studies’.

(7) This proposed system is, of course, much more like the system in the USA than the present UK system.
It’s worked rather well there. We should try it.
5 RESPONSES SO FAR
stephenemoss // Sep 13, 2010 at 18:04
Your comments are spot on, and on the subject of most scientific work being trivial, I am reminded of Gandhi‘s
words that ―Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.‖ Contrast this with
Cable‘s plans to cut the science budget, which are significant, and which it is important should not be done.
RossAnderson // Sep 13, 2010 at 20:24
Remember Sturgeon‘s (second) law:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law.
By all means let‘s cut the standard undergraduate degree to two years: we lose money on them anyway. But
please don‘t let‘s think that will solve the problem of mediocre research! In fact, the more people have
undergraduate degrees, the less this will function as a signal of ability, and so the more people will stay on to do
graduate degrees.
Paddington // Sep 14, 2010 at 02:12
I like your last sentence of proposal (5) in particular. We have the same problem here, where all of the
mathematically-illiterate administrators and politicians fail to understand that:
a) Trying to increase the number of science and engineering graduates requires more resources for
mathematics, and
b) Learning mathematics appears to be an innate ability
ellieban // Sep 14, 2010 at 09:51
I agree with everything you say here.
At first I was unsure about your support for putting large numbers of people through university as I am very
against the previous Labour Government‘s arbitrary target of getting 50% of the population a degree. However,
run the way you describe it here, I can really see the value.
Certainly the population as a whole needs far better training in critical thinking!
David Colquhoun // Sep 14, 2010 at 18:43
@stephenemoss
That Gandhi quotation must be in the head of every blogger, every activist in any area.
I should have distinguished between trivial research and poor research. It is the latter that we need to worry
about. There plenty of hyped up papers that don‘t show what the authors claim they show. The proliferation of
these is encouraged by the need to publish when you have nothing to say, in order for get promotion or to get a
grant. Of course if the promotion committees, and the funding agencies did their jobs properly, they would spot
this sort of behaviour, but only too often they don‘t.
Trivial papers are quite a different matter, I have always resisted the temptation to say, when refereeing a
paper, to say that it it should be rejected because it is boring. Experience has shown that what might appear
boring at the time may, ten years later, turn out to provide a crucial clue. I suppose that more often the boring
results are still boring ten years on, and they get forgotten. But nobody can say at the time which will turn out
to be important later, so work that seems trivial, but well-conducted is an essential part of the system. Its

351 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
existence is merely a reflection of the self-evident truth that research, by its nature, can never be 100
percent efficient. It is littered with false starts and blind alleys.

2010/09/14 SUN BY BRIAN COX: SCIENCE

CUTS WARNING FOR GOVERNMENT
SCIENCE funding is set to take a clobbering. Business Secretary Vince Cable wants to "ration" it, potentially
wiping out almost 50 per cent of UK research.

But here Sun Professor Brian Cox explains why such custs would hammer our economy.

AMID the doom and gloom about the economy, Vince Cable probably thought he would get away with a
speech proposing draconian cuts in scientific research.

Cuts ... Vince Cable

Some voices would be raised in protest in the leftie Press but ordinary people would have more pressing
concerns.

He surely cannot have been prepared for the avalanche of rhetorical manure poured on his proposals.

Lord May, ex-president of the Royal Society, the world's oldest and most respected scientific body, called
one of his claims "just plain stupid".

And Professor Steve Smith, president of Universities UK, described Mr Cable's plans as "the equivalent of
the Government cutting back on the production of Spitfires in the early summer of 1940".

But why care if the UK loses its place at the forefront of international science?

First, let's get the money into perspective. The science budget is less than one per cent of what our
Government spends. It pays for everything - medical research, physics and astronomy, engineering,
chemistry, geology, the lot.

The largest fraction goes to to universities, to train our future scientists and engineers.

Nobel winner ... Sir Paul

And money invested is very different to money spent, as Nobel Prize cancer researcher Sir Paul Nurse
pointed out to Mr Cable.

352 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Physics-based industries alone generate more than six per cent of our national wealth every year - that's
around £100billion. And about half our economy rests on the foundations that science and our universities
provide. So we invest a bit to generate a lot.

Surely there is room for a bit of fat-trimming in these hard times, you may say. But 90 per cent of the funds
go to research that is classified as "world-leading" and the rest - which contains 40 per cent of our heart
disease research and almost 30 per cent of cancer research - is "internationally or nationally recognised".
Anything below this level gets nothing.

The US, Germany, France, Sweden and China are increasing science budgets to grow their economies
because they recognise it's the only way to compete with cheap labour in the developing world.

We cannot be cheaper so we have to be smarter.

A UK government report in 2007 called this strategy the Race To The Top. To race to the bottom - trying to
pay UK workers less to compete with India or Brazil, is not an option. Britain is currently at the top.

We are the most efficient scientific nation in the world, generating research at a level second only to the
US while investing less than most other developed nations.

We have 30 of the best 200 universities in the world, including Cambridge at No1. Germany has only 12.

Is it any wonder half our national wealth rests on this great British success story?

I want my children to grow up in a Britain at the top of the science league. I want more of our kids to be
inspired to become scientists and engineers so our country can prosper in an increasingly competitive
world.

Don't you want this too, Mr Cable?

2010/09/14 ANOMALOUS DISTRACTION:

SCIENCE IS VITAL – A LETTER FROM MY MP.
A letter from my MP, concerning potentially worrying cuts to the science budget

He actually uses the phrase “Science is Vital” – which can’t be bad.

353 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
 354 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
On the whole – I think this looks quite promising – however, a few alarm bells ring at:

“the government will continue to fund the most excellent science and research”

- this depends upon what the government’s definition of “excellent” is – is it Vince Cable’s 54% for
example? In which case – much of UK research is for the high jump. He does make the point that science is
an “important driver of economic growth” – which is good – and that a supply of technically skilled staff
from UK universities is required to support STEM based industries. However – if the big cuts are made to
the UK science and higher education budgets, that supply of technically skilled graduates will dry up.

On the whole, quite encouraging – but I’ll still be watching closely on October 20th with one eye on the
overseas jobs market.
355 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
4 Responses to ―Science is Vital – a letter from my MP.‖

dellybean says:
September 14, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Hey, thanks for posting this up, great idea. I‘ll be writing my letter soon so it‘ll be interesting to compare the
responses. You were right to point out the part about govt continuing to fund the most excellent science &
research – it‘s that dastardly blurry grey area again!!
Imran Khan made a great point last nite at the Science Is Vital meeting; if enough people write to their MPs
about their concerns over sci cuts and Cable is put under (amicable) pressure, it becomes an issue that has to
be re-assessed (hopefully, in our favour). If we just sit back and let the decisions to be made, without a fuss,
the govt has no call for a re-think & proposals will go ahead(or words to that effect).
So, everyone wondering whether or not to write to your MP, do it – you could make the difference. Also, if
you‘re not sure on what/how to write your letter, there is some advice on the ―Science Is Vital‖ facebook page
AND a template will soon be available for everyone to use via the Science Is Vital-CaSE coalition (link not
available yet – will post it on this comments page when it‘s up and running)!!
Don‘t give up people, we can do this!!
Reply

xtaldave says:
September 14, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Cheers – although I hope that we don‘t all end up with party pre-formed letters that we got when we wrote to
MPs about the Libel laws.
Reply

Sinead says:
September 14, 2010 at 12:31 pm
I agree it sounds encouraging, but it reads a bit like he is giving you the answer he knows you want then having
any push either way.
But that could just be me being sceptical of politicians doing any good.
Reply

Neuroskeptic says:
September 14, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Like Sinead I‘m inherently skeptical of politicians and to me, this letter reads like a typical brush-off (―Of
course you‘re absolutely right. And that‘s why the Government is going to do exactly what we decided to do
before you wrote the letter.‖)
& the ―most excellent‖ bit is most extremely worrying in the wake of Excellentgate.

2010/09/14 THE ECONOMIST: THE LIMITS

OF SCIENCE

356 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Plenty of today’s scientific theories will one day be discredited. So should we be sceptical of science itself?
Anthony Gottlieb explains ...

From INTELLIGENT LIFE Magazine, Autumn 2010

Good sense is the most fairly distributed commodity in the world, Descartes once quipped, because
nobody thinks he needs any more of it than he already has. A neat illustration of the fact that gullibility
seems to be a disease of other people was provided by Martin Gardner, a great American debunker of
pseudoscience, who died this year. In the second edition of his “Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science”
(1957), Gardner reported that most of the irate letters he received in response to the first edition criticised
only one of its 26 chapters and found the rest to be fine. Needless to say, readers disagreed about which
chapter was the faulty one. Homeopaths objected to the treatment meted out to themselves, but thought
that the exposé of chiropractors was spot on, and vice versa.

No group of believers has more reason to be sure of its own good sense than today’s professional
scientists. There is, or should be, no mystery about why it is always more rational to believe in science than
in anything else, because this is true merely by definition. What makes a method of enquiry count as
scientific is not that it employs microscopes, rats, computers or people in stained white coats, but that it
seeks to test itself at every turn. If a method is as rigorous and cautious as it can be, it counts as good
science; if it isn’t, it doesn’t. Yet this fact sets a puzzle. If science is careful scepticism writ large, shouldn’t a
scientific cast of mind require one to be sceptical of science itself?

There is no full-blown logical paradox here. If a claim is ambitious, people should indeed tread warily
around it, even if it comes from scientists; it does not follow that they should be sceptical of the scientific
method itself. But there is an awkward public-relations challenge for any champion of hard-nosed science.
When scientists confront the deniers of evolution, or the devotees of homeopathic medicine, or people
who believe that childhood vaccinations cause autism—all of whom are as demonstrably mistaken as
anyone can be—they understandably fight shy of revealing just how riddled with error and misleading
information the everyday business of science actually is. When you paint yourself as a defender of the
truth, it helps to keep quiet about how often you are wrong.

That fact partly explains why some influential climate scientists today, and the UN’s Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, are having a hard time. Wary of yielding any ground to those who think that
global warming is some sort of hoax, they have sometimes been mightily unwilling to be open about
exaggerations, mistakes and confusions in influential reports about climate change—such as the flawed
“Hockey Stick” paper, published in Nature in 1998, which estimated global temperatures over the past 600
years, and has become one of the most cited publications on the topic. This defensiveness has backfired,
and the credibility of climatologists has suffered.

At the end of her book “Science: A Four Thousand Year History” (2009), Patricia Fara of Cambridge
University wrote that “there can be no cast-iron guarantee that the cutting-edge science of today will not
represent the discredited alchemy of tomorrow”. This is surely an understatement. If the past is any
guide—and what else could be?—plenty of today’s science will be discredited in future. There is no reason
to think that today’s practitioners are uniquely immune to the misconceptions, hasty generalisations, fads
and hubris that marked most of their predecessors. Although the best ideas of Copernicus, Galileo,
Newton, Boyle, Darwin, Einstein and others have stood the test of time and taken their place in the
permanent corpus of knowledge, error remains inherent in the enterprise of science. This is because
interesting theories always go beyond the data that they seek to explain, and because science is made by
people. Examples from recent decades of scientific consensus that turned out to be wrong range from the
local to the largest possible scale: acid rain was not destroying forests in Germany in the 1980s, as it was
said to have been, and the expansion of the universe has not been slowing down, as cosmologists used to
think it was.
357 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
Physicists, in particular, have long believed themselves to be on the verge of explaining almost everything.
In 1894 Albert Michelson, the first American to get a Nobel prize in science, said that all the main laws and
facts of physics had already been discovered. In 1928 Max Born, another Nobel prize-winner, said that
physics would be completed in about six months’ time. In 1988, in his bestselling “A Brief History of Time”,
the cosmologist Stephen Hawking wrote that “we may now be near the end of the search for the ultimate
laws of nature.” Now, in the newly published “The Grand Design”, Hawking paints a picture of the universe
that is “different…from the picture we might have painted just a decade or two ago”. In the long run,
physicists are, no doubt, getting closer and closer to the truth. But you can never be sure when the long
run has arrived. And in the short run—to adapt Keynes’s proverb—we are often all wrong.

Most laymen probably assume that the 350-year-old institution of “peer review”, which acts as a
gatekeeper to publication in scientific journals, involves some attempt to check the articles that see the
light of day. In fact they are rarely checked for accuracy, and, as a study for the Fraser Institute, a Canadian
think-tank, reported last year, “the data and computational methods are so seldom disclosed that post-
publication verification is equally rare.” Journals will usually consider only articles that present positive and
striking results, and scientists need constantly to publish in order to keep their careers alive. So it is that,
like the late comedian Danny Kaye, professional scientists sometimes get their exercise by jumping to
conclusions. Historians of science call this bias the “file-drawer problem”: if a set of experiments produces
a result contrary to what the team needs to find, it ends up filed away, and the world never finds out about
it.

In a recent book, “Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us—And How to Know When Not to Trust Them”,
David Freedman, an American business and science journalist, does a sobering job of reviewing dozens of
studies of ignorance, bias, error and outright fraud in recent academic science. He notes that discredited
research is regularly cited in support of other research, even after it has been discredited. Trials of the
safety and efficacy of drugs, which are often paid for by pharmaceutical companies, seem to be especially
liable to errors of various sorts. That helps to explain why medicines that can do unexpected harm—such
as Thalidomide, the sedative which was withdrawn in 1961 after causing deformities in babies, and Vioxx, a
painkiller that had been used by 84m people before it was pulled in 2004—make it to the market.

It is perhaps the biases of science reporting in the popular press that produce the most misinformation,
especially in medicine. The faintest whiff of a breakthrough treatment for a common disease is news, yet
the fact that yesterday’s breakthrough didn’t pan out—which ought to be equally interesting to a seeker
after truth—rarely is. When a drug is tested on animals and seems promising, it makes headlines, even
though the majority of drugs that pass animal trials never become usable for people. And barely a day goes
by without the media exploiting an almost universal misunderstanding of statistics and reporting
something that has no relevance to anything. When researchers are said to have found that an effect
occurs to a statistically significant degree, this means that it probably isn’t caused by a fluke, not that it is
large or definite enough to be useful.

A school of ancient philosophers, the followers of Pyrrho of Elis (who died C270BC), came up with a
consistent but impractical response to the problem of whom to believe when expert sources disagree or
are found to be unreliable. Believe nobody, they said: suspend judgment on everything. Scholars have
debated whether anyone could have lived a life according to this principle, and the consensus is no, they
could not. Suspending judgment may keep you free from erroneous beliefs, but it also makes it impossible
to decide rationally on what to do about anything.

Happily, there is another way out of the impasse between fallible science and even-more-fallible non-
science. The contest is not a zero-sum game: the shortcomings of science do not make it rational to believe
cranks instead. It’s a fair bet that many of today’s scientific beliefs are wrong, but only your grandchildren
will know which ones, and in the meantime, science is the only game in town. Or, as Hilaire Belloc put it, in
a rather different context:
358 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
...always keep a-hold of Nurse

For fear of finding something worse.

(Anthony Gottlieb is a former executive editor of The Economist and author of "The Dream of Reason". His
last piece for Intelligent Life was on nothingness.)

2010/09/15 GIRL, INTERRUPTING: ON BEING A

„FOOT SOLDIER‟
Or cannon fodder speaking out.

In case you haven’t heard, science funding in the UK is under threat.

From Paul Nurse, who said we need to fund only ‘excellent’ science to Vince Cable who thinks 45% of
research in the UK is not-excellent and we should be only funding either ‘excellent’ theoretical work or
things that will make money (eg technological advances) its not looking good for science research in the
UK.

Of course scientists and science aficionados are dismayed, angry and trying to fight for what they know
science to be, and why it needs funding, all kinds of funding.

One of the arguments for funding says science needs ‘foot soldiers’ – where the argument goes a la
Newton – that excellent science needs other science which is ‘boring’ to stand on. eg foot soldier scientists.

BUT I think this term should be used with caution, or maybe even not at all.

Foot soldier implies to me ‘cannon fodder’ and this is a bad image for several reasons:

1 – This implies that science is a pyramidal process with those on the bottom being weed-like and just
doing the background work for those on the top. Science is not linear, nor that predictable. It grows and
recedes in fits and starts and it not just simply marching forward toward a common goal or puzzle to solve.
Technology works like this, but not science! Science looks for answers to questions, one paper, research
project at at time. You often don’t know what the answer will be and the answers often open up a whole
load of other questions and importantly – you NEVER KNOW where a breakthrough will come from over
the long term. Lots of important discoveries were actually by accident – when someone was working on
something completely different.

2- this term implies that the ‘excellent’ science is at the top and the ‘dull’ science is at the bottom. which
calls into question what do you mean by ‘dull’ and ‘excellent’ ? Do you base it on citations? Do you base it
on the quality of the Journal it is in? Most scientists have observed that some of the best papers aren’t in
Nature, and are actually in more low-impact journals. And if you base this on citations, sometimes bad or
wrong science is more highly-cited – because everyone is saying it is wrong. And different scientific fields
have different citation levels, just due to the sheer number of people working in a given subject area.
Simply put – quantity does not always equal quality.

An important test of scientific research is its longevity – something might be highly cited and highly
‘important’ in one generation of scientists – but then just a blip in the overall body of scientific research

359 | P a g e
VOLUME 10
over time. What about the Luminiferous aether? And no one has a crystal ball that tells us the most
important research in the future. Moreover, sometimes old ‘boring’ research gets revived when new
discoveries are made in different areas – Lie Algebra is a good example of this.

As a side note, Cable said we should support theoretically excellent ideas, which I would agree with, but
ONLY along with everything else. Theory is an important part of science, but its hard to say what is
excellent until the theories are proved or disproved – and this again takes time.

This pyramidal model is exactly the idea that advocates of science are trying to argue against – that science
is marching towards some big common goal, with the great people on top – it is but only in the sense that
science answers questions and that is a pretty broad goal.

Maybe a better statement is ‘it takes all kinds’, though not as evocative, it actually is perhaps closer to the
reality.

The research I do I am not doing so that someone more excellent than me can show up in the future and
stand on it and thereby make it excellent. I would bet many other scientists feel this way as well. My
research is striving towards its own excellence, whatever that means and maybe only in my mind, because
I have some specific scientific questions I want to answer, and you never know, this may be a big
breakthrough or it may be a blip in the aether.

360 | P a g e
VOLUME 10