NewsBreakingOnline

Over 100 of world’s top scientists write to PM warning of impact to range of industries of proposed cuts in research funding More than 100 of the world’s most senior chemists, including seven Nobel laureates, have written to David Cameron to warn of the impact of proposed cuts in funding for scientific research essential to industries ranging from biotechnology to agriculture. In a letter sent to the prime minister on Monday, and seen by the Guardian, professors of chemistry from universities including Imperial College London, Oxford, Leeds, Glasgow, Bristol and Queen’s University Belfast, argue that the decision to reduce funding for synthetic organic chemistry would “injure” the UK economy and “irreparably damage” its global competitiveness, while forcing chemists to look overseas for jobs. It was accompanied by a statement backing synthetic organic chemistry – which produces key compounds for everything from plastics, drugs and food to petrochemicals and paints – signed by more than 100 senior scientists from companies such as Novartis, Bayer and BASF, as well as Nobel laureates including Sir Harry Kroto, Sir Peter Mansfield and Sir John Sulston and heads of departments at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Synthetic organic chemistry and the new molecules that synthetic chemists produce will in the 21st century come to influence vast tracts of human endeavour from molecular archaeology to molecular zoology,” it reads. “To even think of disadvantaging and disabling such important scientific innovation beggars belief.” Anthony Barrett, a professor of chemistry at Imperial, organised the letter after meetings last week with the government agency that distributes funds for chemistry in the UK, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), left him concerned that critical decisions affecting the future of the sector had been made without proper consultation with scientists. “As an academic and entrepreneur, I am seriously concerned by the damage which this EPSRC prioritisation will cause to many university departments of chemistry, vibrant industries and fragile new spin-out companies in the UK,” he told the Guardian. According to the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), chemistry-linked sectors contribute £258bn to the UK GDP, supporting directly and indirectly around 6 million jobs. The EPSRC announced a project this year called “Shaping Capability” aimed at prioritizing its annual budget of more than £760m of public funds to deal with expected budget cuts of up to 15% in real terms over the next few years. It plans to fund chosen research areas at the expense of others, based around the national importance of that field. One of the first announcements of areas earmarked for reductions was synthetic organic chemistry, which is currently funded with £44m through more than 200 grants. In their letter to the prime minister, the UK academics said they were “profoundly disturbed” by the EPSRC’s move. “Perhaps, most worryingly, this decision will significantly disadvantage biomedical research and innovation, resulting in fewer spinout companies and SMEs being created, such as the contract research organisations, which are a particularly successful sector of the economy.” The scientists called for MPs on the House of Commons science and technology committee to invite the EPSRC’s chief executive, David Delpy, to give evidence to them and defend his agency’s actions. A spokesman for the EPSRC said it had to take a strategic approach with its limited funding, if the UK was to maintain its global research standing. He said funding for synthetic organic chemistry was being rebalanced after a spike in 2008-09. “To provide renewed support to that degree will not be sustainable particularly when considering other priorities within the physical sciences portfolio therefore the EPSRC investment in this research area will be reduced relative to others in the portfolio.” David Phillips, president of the RSC said that UK chemists had been left in the dark about the EPSRC’s plans for future funding and that his organisation had not been consulted, by their definition, on the proposals. “If the EPSRC, as we are led to believe, has made this decision based on hard data provided by universities concerning money awarded and impact of research then it should engage with the chemistry community and present that to us.” An EPSRC spokesperson said the agency had “shared our developing plans with a wide range of stakeholders at various stages, discussed the approach and key sources of information and evidence being used, and invited them to highlight important information which should be taken into account, but we did not ask these bodies to make our decisions for us … This process could not have been done by holding a formal consultation process and we have been clear throughout that we did not do this.” Paul Clarke, a chemist at the University of York who sent a letter to science minister David Willetts last week in order to raise similar concerns from more than 100 UK chemists over the EPSRC’s plans, said that there was a risk that the agency’s ideas would undermine the scientific research base of the UK. “In five years time the skills for conducting fundamental science in the UK will not be here, because everyone will be chasing money to work on the widget the EPSRC thinks will solve societal problems. At the moment we’ve got a quango that appoints itself, is about to appoint the peer review people in line with its priorities. Who is it accountable to? Nobody is onboard with these policies. These policies will lead to nothing short of the destruction of fundamental scientific research in the UK.” Barrett said that it was understandable that chemists would get cuts to their public funding in present economic conditions. “I’ve no problem with downsizing, what we have an objection to is taking the downsizing and giving an additional burden to a sector of the economy that’s highly successful. We’re quite happy to take our punishment but we don’t see why we should take extra punishment because of a few people that are not qualified have made decisions that are wrong.” Chemistry Research funding Higher education Research Science funding crisis Science policy Alok Jha Ian Sample guardian.co.uk