The State of Science in the UK after the Dust of the Election Has Settled

The UK election results could mean a gloomy future for research in the UK. Photo by Moyan Brenn

On May 7, 2015, voters in the United Kingdom (UK) went to the polls for the 2015 General Election. The following morning the world woke up to the shocking news that the Conservative Party, which previously had formed part of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government of 2010-2015, had won an outright majority. Much debate has followed as to how the polls—right up until the exit poll—got the predictions so wrong (although one poll did get it right and was buried as a supposed anomaly). Here I will focus on discussions about the effects on science both prior to and after the election.

Pre-election

Nature carried out a poll of scientists, with 321 replies, prior to the election (information about the poll can be found here and the survey results here). The “science vote” does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the UK as a whole, but it is interesting to see opinions on who was thought to provide the best hope for improving science entering the election among members of the scientific community. One of the most interesting parts of the Nature article was the infographic that showed how voters planned to switch their vote (you can mouse over the individual parties to see who is switching to whom). It is interesting to see the massive loss of votes for the Liberal Democrats, and indeed the switch of votes from many parties to “other/don’t know”. Three-quarters of those polled indicated that a candidate’s views on science would affect their vote.

In a sign of the changing political climate in the UK, what originated as a two-party system is now a mixed bag of various parties with large voting bases. In addition, there is also a discussion of the emerging parties—the Greens, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), and the Scottish National Party (SNP). The Greens are pro-environment, but against animal research. As a result, they have had a mixed response from the scientific community; there are fears that their plans to restrict all animal research will drive biomedical research abroad, and their views against building nuclear power stations are supported by many but conflict with plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. UKIP, with their anti-Europe stance, symbolized emerging fears about the loss of European Union (EU) science funding caused by an UK exit from the EU. Furthermore, with their anti-immigration stance there are also concerns about the possibility of talented researchers being unable to enter the UK. They are also climate-change sceptics; however, they have proposed free university tuition in STEM subjects and are keen for a return to “research for research’s sake”. Finally, the SNP represents interests in Scotland, which has a dwindling population and so is very pro-immigration. Scotland also abolished university tuition fees for all its students and has an anti-nuclear, pro-renewables energy policy. The priorities held for science by these parties, and their increasing support among the public, may actually diversify discussions on science in future political arenas, as there has been little to differentiate the Conservative and Labour parties on science policy.

Nature also carried out a survey of attitudes from the parties themselves in an article that included responses from the Green Party, Labour, Plaid Cymru, the SNP, and the UKIP. The parties in the Coalition Government (Liberal Democrat and Conservative) had not replied in time.

Post-election

The surprise win by the Conservatives has led to much speculation on the future of science in the next parliament. The high turnover and loss of many old Members of Parliament (MPs), and in particular a key advocate for science, the Liberal Democrat MP for Cambridge Dr. Julian Huppert, has resulted in a parliament favoring austerity measures and with a diminished intrinsic voice for science. A cut in science funding in future budgets—if not an actual cut, a cut in practical terms with no increase that scales with inflation rates—has been one of the predicted outcomes of the election. The demotion of the role of the science minister has already supported some in their views on the importance of science in the next parliament.

Of greatest concern is the certainty of a referendum on the UK’s exit from the EU, which has the potential to disrupt future science funding by removing the UK from the EU’s funding pot. The EU recently abolished its science advisor but has now announced the establishment of an independent science advisory panel. Almost immediately after the election results, a group called “Scientists for EU” emerged and is already campaigning for the voice of science to remain within the EU (see their letter in The Times). The greatest challenge regarding the state of science the next parliament will face will be preparing for the referendum and dealing with its results.