While this year’s National Science and Engineering week demonstrated that the UK has much to be proud of, behind the scenes a fragmented government policy and lack of strategic coherence are decimating research for the national good.

Prospect has drawn up a dossier of evidence showing the impact of the government’s recent kneejerk decisions over research funding which demonstrates the urgent need for a Cabinet minister with central oversight for the health of the nation’s science base.

The evidence looks at:

• changes to the criteria for eligibility for funding from the UK’s seven research councils
• the impacts of funding cuts in Public Sector Research Establishments in England, Scotland and Wales
• the accelerating trend of moving public sector research establishments into universities.

Sue Ferns, Prospect’s head of research said: "What is most extraordinary is that this is being done in the government’s own scientific back yard. No-one seems to notice the contradiction between ministers boasting about doing more for science and then hacking away at its most productive shoots in the public domain."

RCUK funding criteriaIn October 2006, the Department of Trade and Industry’s Office of Science and Innovation, through RCUK, announced changes to how it allocates funds. Laboratory agencies in the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and major research providers in Scotland will be particularly affected by RCUK’s change in policy.

Ferns said: "The best way to release the potential of the UK research base is to allow all ideas to come forward for consideration. To close the door on research council funding for some research organisations, but not others, contradicts the ethos of quality of science as the key driver for deciding research investment."

Funding cutsThis month, Prospect accused the government of breaking the ‘golden rule’ of UK science by making sharp cuts to public funds allocated to science to pay costs resulting from the collapse of the Rover car company and increase in support needed to cover British Energy’s nuclear liabilities.

In July 2006 Defra cut in the budgets of its agencies and other bodies including the Veterinary Laboratories Agency which had to find savings of £2.4m.

The majority of the cuts fell on VLA’s scientific surveillance work, but key areas of research were affected. For example, all of VLA’s research ‘concept’ proposals on antimicrobial resistance could not be taken forward and there is now very little activity in this area. Antimicrobial drugs are used to fight infections caused by bacteria, fungi and viruses.

A report from the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee described the cuts as unplanned, poorly explained and the result of financial mismanagement which, in turn, was highly disruptive to the budgets of agencies, public bodies and voluntary groups which rely on Defra funding.

Moving to universitiesPast experience at Horticulture Research International and the Natural Resources Institute demonstrates that once the government has transferred an organisation to a university it rapidly divests itself of responsibility for whole areas of research.

Prospect’s evidence is reproduced in three new briefing documents.

Briefing one explains the changes to the Research Council funding criteria and the impact they will have on Scotland’s major research providers

Briefing two looks at the impact of cuts in British science funding in 2006-07

Briefing three examines the consequences of the drive to transfer public sector scientists out of institutes and into universities

View a Prospect map plotting public sector science labs and sites with a legend denoting their status