Morning Call: pick of the comment

The ten must-read pieces from this morning's papers.

1. The Tories will get burnt fighting fire with fire (Times)

Daniel Finkelstein says that negative campaigning could damage David Cameron's image with the voters. The media focus on the Tories is an opportunity, not a threat.

2. Can anyone explain what the Conservative Party stands for? (Daily Telegraph)

Simon Heffer is not impressed with the way Cameron has moved power of decision-making in the party to the centre. In the absence of the old, core right-wing policies, the Tories lack clarity and direction, and are haemorrhaging support to fringe parties.

3. Bashing the rich won't work for Obama. But other rallying cries might (Guardian)

Obama is shrewd not to inveigh against the bankers, says Michael Tomasky. It would be better to make his cause by reminding America of the good things that the government does, and who higher taxes will help.

4. Passport to the truth in Dubai remains secret (Independent)

Whoever killed the Hamas official in Dubai is still playing an old, dirty war, says Robert Fisk. Now we must look beneath the propaganda for the truth.

5. How to walk the fiscal tightrope that lies before us (Financial Times)

Martin Wolf warns that huge fiscal tightening could tip much of the world back into recession. We must make it one of our priorities to let the private sector heal.

6. Power to the people -- and trust them too (Times)

James Purnell and Jim Murphy renew calls for a radical Labour manifesto. The party has lost faith in its communal roots, they say, but the public can be trusted to make the right decisions.

7. Why is our anti-war outrage muted at this Afghan folly? (Guardian)

Even doubters seem to be giving the military intervention one last chance, says John Kampfner, but there is little confidence it will succeed.

8. The year China showed its claws (Financial Times)

David Shambaugh looks at what lies behind Beijing's new assertiveness. Is it a case of true colours showing, a display of nationalism in the run-up to a change of leadership, or a sign of confidence gained from the vindication of the Chinese development model?

9. The Bank of England is right to hold its nerve (Independent)

Inflation is proving sticky, but it is premature to tighten monetary policy, says the main leader.

10. Hostage to hot air (Guardian)

Isabel Hilton says that the climate debate in the United States is mired in political weakness and infighting, setting the tone for unconstructive global negotiations.

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images
Show Hide image

How will British science survive Brexit?

What the future of science and tech looks like in the UK, without the European Union.

Science and tech are two industries most likely to be affected by Brexit. British science and tech companies were overwhelmingly in favour of remaining. A Brexit survey run in March by Nature found that of the 907 UK researchers who were polled, around 83 per cent believed the UK should remain in the EU.

UK scientists receive close to £1bn annually for research from the EU – a testament to the quality and influence of the work done on British soil. Between 2007 and 2013, the UK sector supported EU projects by spending €5.4bn, and was rewarded in return with funds of around €8.8bn; it’s a give and take relationship that has seen growth for both.

The combined science and tech sector has laid down the framework and investment for some of the most important research projects in the world. To date, the brightest minds in the UK and Europe have combined to work on highly influential projects: the Large Hadron Collider headed by CERN discovered the Higgs Boson particle, the Human Brain Project set itself the gargantuan goal of unravelling the mysteries of the human brain, and the European Space Agency has helped expand space exploration as European and British astronauts have headed into the ether.

In May 2016, chairman of the Science and Technology Facilities Council Sir Michael Sterling announced that UK scientist Professor John Womersley will lead Europe's next major science project – the European Spallation Source  which is a "multi-disciplinary research centre based on the world's most powerful neutron source." It's the type of project that creates openings and opportunities for researchers, in all fields of science, to really materialise their most ingenious ideas.

The organisation techUK, which according to their website represents more than 900 companies, said in a statement that the result has created many uncertainties but has attempted to appease concerns by declaring that the UK tech sector “will play its part in helping the UK to prepare, adapt and thrive in a future outside the European Union.”

BCS, the Chartered Institute for IT, has reinforced techUK’s concerns surrounding uncertainty, highlighting areas which need to be addressed as soon as possible. The institute believes that discussions with the EU should focus on ensuring access to digital markets, freedom to innovate and growth of “our academic research base and industrial collaborations in computing . . . to shore up and build on a major driver of UK economic success and international influence in the digital sphere”.

Confusion over the UK’s position in the EU single market has prompted questions about the freedom of movement of labour, raising concerns among researchers from Europe about their future role in UK-based projects. The naturally collaborative nature of STEM research, the cross-breeding of ideas which foster scientific and technological advancement, could be severely hampered if limitations are imposed as a result the UK’s separation from the single market.

Speaking to the BBC, Sir Paul Nurse, Nobel Prize winner and director of The Francis Crick Institute said: “Being in the EU gives us access to ideas, people and to investment in science." The Royal Society reports that researchers at UK universities house more than 31,000 researchers of EU origin. The danger of losing much of that support is now imminent.

Many other leading voices in the community chimed in too. Paul Drayson, former Minister of Science in the Department for Business, told Scientific American: “The very idea that a country would voluntarily withdraw from Europe seems anathema to scientists.” Remain advocate Jo Johnson, the Minister of State for universities and science (and brother to the leave campaign’s front man, Boris Johnson), stated his concerns to a House of Lords committee of there being very little means to make up for severed EU finances. The referendum result means that a solution to replace that money from a different source must now be sought. He also tweeted:

Despite the science and tech sector favouring a Remain vote, there were some who were leaning towards Brexit pre-referendum. Scientists for Britain, a group of UK scientists who, according to their website were “concerned that pro-EU campaigners are misusing science for political gain”, issued a statement after the referendum. They thanked leave voters for sharing their vision of the UK “outside the political structures of the European Union.”

Though there are many new policies which will need to be drawn up, it is evident that the UK’s requirement to prop itself up once outside the EU will only serve to hinder science and tech growth. The industries best served through European and global outreach are now at risk of being marginalised.

Currently in place is “Horizon 2020” – an enterprise touted as “the biggest EU Research and Innovation programme ever” as almost €80 million is available to researchers seeking to take their ideas “from the lab to the market”. Once Article 50 is invoked, it is crucial that any negotiations that take place ensure the UK’s spot within the programme is maintained.

There are options to maintain some European integration; gaining an “associated country” status like Switzerland could continue to strengthen the STEM sector, for example. But prioritisation of science and tech seems bleaker by the day. As a new landscape takes shape post-Brexit, we must work tirelessly to prevent our most progressive and forward-thinking frontiers caving in.