If a week is a long time in politics – and the election campaign leading up to the UK general election on the first of this month has certainly proved that it is – then the past five years have been a time of unprecedented change for the organization of British science. The changes have included: a minister for science in the cabinet, a white paper on science and technology, a major shake-up of the research councils, the new doctrines of wealth creation and technology foresight, a dramatic fall in support for research and development at the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), an endless series of efficiency reviews at government research labs, and the transfer of the Office of Science and Technology to the DTI in 1995. Sadly for scientists the last of these changes – made for reasons of political expediency rather than scientific policy – reversed the first and relegated the minister for science and technology from the cabinet.
There was no indication in the Conservative party’s pre-election manifesto in 1992 that it planned such a radical overhaul of British science, so it is pointless to complain about the lack of detail on science and technology policy in any of the manifestos this time around. However, this lack of detail makes it difficult to distinguish between the three main parties. In any case, would the promise of a white paper and an exercise to identify emerging and long-term markets and technologies (i.e. technology foresight) have won many votes five years ago? I think not.
What we can be sure of with the Conservatives, however, is that we would get more of the same. The “science budget” might continue to hold its own, but other government spending on science will probably fall. The Eurosceptic policy that has seen the UK bicker over almost every pound spent on joint European ventures – in particle physics, space, neutrons and so on – will not go away. And the non-stop scrutiny of public research establishments with a view to privatization under the “prior options” process will continue too. The Labour and Liberal Democrat parties have promised to stop the process.
For the record, this is what the Conservative manifesto says about science: “British science enjoys a world-wide reputation for excellence and cost-effectiveness, which makes Britain an attractive base for many domestic and overseas companies. We will continue to invest in science and target funds at basic research, which would not otherwise be funded by industry. At the same time we will provide an enterprising environment which encourages firms to invest with confidence in applied science.”
At the time of writing the Labour party has a large lead in the opinion polls and the backing of several prominent scientists. Labour has promised that, if elected, it will limit public expenditure to the planning figures already announced by the Conservative government, so there is no prospect of more money for science in the short term at least. Labour would also continue Conservative initiatives such as foresight and increased collaboration between academic researchers and business, but with less emphasis on cost-effectiveness and the detailed top-down management of research priorities. New ideas include a University for Industry and a National Endowment for Science and the Arts to sponsor young talent.
The Liberal Democrats promise to increase government support for science by shifting funds from military to civil R&D. They also plan to encourage regional technology transfer centres and say they will force companies to publish information on their long-term plans for environmental performance, R&D and training.
The three parties agree on at least one point – they are all waiting for the outcome of the Dearing Review before committing themselves on higher education, although Labour and the Liberal Democrats have pledged to spend more on education. Indeed, the bottom line is that there is little to choose between the parties in terms of their stated science policies, and the Conservative government will stand or fall on its record over the past 18 years.
