UK’s proposed research cuts show government’s lack

UK’s proposed research cuts show government’s lack

of understanding

Economic recovery will come from investment in the

future, so the UK research community was dismayed

earlier this month when the government’s “vision” for

science and research was unveiled by the UK’s Business

Secretary Vince Cable, who asked researchers to do

“more for less”, abandon projects that are “neither

commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding”, and

“screen out mediocrity”. This vision has raised much

concern—in scientifi c sectors—because it is short on

detail of how such rationalisation is to be decided, and

by whom, and, worst of all, it is probably harmful, both

to today’s patient and future generations.

Of note, on the same day, US President Barack Obama

announced a US$100 billion package to expand research

and development tax credits for companies that invest in

innovation technologies. America is not alone in valuing

such research. France announced earlier this year a

€35 billion Grand Emprunt focused on scientifi c research

and universities, and Germany has an €18 billion plan—

all these countries see investing in scientifi c research as

vital for economic recovery and growth. So why does

the UK government see the situation diff erently?

Ironically, UK research is recognised internationally

as leading the way—by academics and fi nanciers alike.

Every UK pound spent on publically or charitably funded

research yields a 30% return per year—in perpetuity—

from direct or indirect gains to the UK’s gross domestic

product. During the past decade, patents granted to the

UK rose by 136%, and university bioscience departments

have spawned over 200 spin-off companies.

Unfortunately, the lack of support for research funding

shown by this government proposal will likely drive

away any future potential external investment.

Furthermore, although effi ciencies can be made in

any system, many would argue that research is currently

underfunded and that grant allocations could be

fairer with a larger, not smaller, pot of money. The UK

Government seems to have little understanding of the

research process, and, by their announcement, have

branded it as an ineffi cient, self-indulgent system. Their

proposal also provides scant detail on how the “winner” is

to be picked. Perhaps only sure bets will be funded, with

rarer diseases, basic science, or riskier, innovative projects

made uninvestable. Funding is already rationalised and

rigorously assessed by independent experts, and although

government has to set funding limits from the public

purse, they must do so with an understanding of the

needs of the research community.

So what about the proposed termination of research

that is ongoing? Researchers assess their work constantly

to determine whether to proceed further with a protocol,

experiment, or hypothesis—this is often a requirement

of any grant awarded—and, for some projects, time

is needed to produce results, be they intellectual or

commercial. If funding is stopped abruptly, resources that

were previously spent are wasted: a disservice to all and a

false economy. Furthermore, the loss of publicly funded

research not only shows distrust by government of the

experts—the scientists—to regulate their own work, but it

will also drive many researchers towards privately funded

research projects, which are by necessity, governed more

by market and company forces. The private purse is an

important source for good research and many of the new

targeted cancer agents were developed in phase 3 trials

by the big pharmaceutical companies. However, these

now extremely profi table drugs were initially developed

from preclinical data that was publically funded, and

this essential groundwork would probably not have

been done in a more commercially driven environment,

in which the monetary returns and market share were

uncertain in the early experiments. Many researchers will

likely become disillusioned under fi nancial constraints

that stifl e such innovation and a brain drain to

countries that are more supportive of groundbreaking,

independent research will result. The UK Government

simply fails to understand that research, as the name

suggests, is intrinsically unpredictable.

Cameron’s government seems to stand alone from

its political neighbours in failing to recognise that in

the present fi nancial austerity, tomorrow’s scientifi c

discovery could be essential for a country’s economic

and scientifi c growth. Nobel prize-winning biochemist

Albert Szent-Gyorgy once said: “Research is to see what

everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else

has thought”. Will this meet the UK government’s need

for certainty? It seems unlikely. ■ The Lancet Oncology