Vince Cable. Photo credit: Alex Folkes/Fishnik.com.

The UK’s business secretary has denied that spending on science will be cut by 35%. So how much will it be cut and how important is science to the UK anyway?

The UK’s business secretary Vince Cable, interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s “Today Programme”, denied that come October science spending will be cut by 35%. “No, that’s not right, that is way in excess of what we are talking about,” he said. Nevertheless, this statement was all that was needed to get people asking, how much will science funding suffer?

Dr Evan Harris, writing for the Political Science blog on the Guardian, realistically conceded that the governmental budget for scientific research will inevitably be cut to some degree. This “should not shock anyone. Disappoint? Yes. Depress? Yes. Surprise? No,” said Harris, in a plea for us to pull ourselves together. He went on to remind us that all government departments must cut spending by 14% each over the next five years. But if the ring-fence protecting the NHS from severe cuts is expanded so as to include defence and education, this “would require cuts in departments such as BIS (the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills) of 33%.” Nearly the figure that Cable denied.

Meanwhile the Financial Times took a different tack, warning of the implications that reduced funding could have on the UK’s economy and global competitiveness. “In a speech in Cleveland, Ohio, Barack Obama is expected to announce a $100bn package to expand research and development tax credits for companies that invest in innovative technologies,” said the FT. “France, Germany, Brazil and China are all prioritising science and research as vital to their strategies for economic recovery and growth.” Science is a “UK success story: we are world leaders by some measures, and second only to the US by others. This success has been achieved in spite of a smaller investment … than our competitors.” The paper argued that we cannot afford for that small figure to get any smaller, budget cuts or not.

The Campaign for Science and Engineering in the UK (CASE) used its blog to make a similar point to the FT by compiling a list of Cable quotes about science funding, and displaying them alongside those of other world leaders. For example, when Cable said: “How do we economise without damaging science? What reforms are needed to help us achieve more with less?” Angela Merkel said: “[T]he prosperity of a country such as Germany, with its scarce mineral resources, must be sought through investment in research, education and science, and this to a disproportionate degree.”

Cable received some praise for further comments he later made on the matter in a speech at the Queen Mary Bioscience Innovation Centre in London. That, “There is no justification for taxpayers’ money being used to support research which is neither commercially useful nor theoretically outstanding”, was received as reasonable.

“But hang on,” said Exquisite Life, “we already have mechanisms throughout our research system in this country to try and ensure this doesn’t happen.” Cable’s language suggested that money is being wasted but, said Exquisite Life, “That’s not the case. … The problem is, you have to hand out the funding before the research gets done. And there is no nice neat way of ensuring that all the money gets used well.”

Martin Ress, President of the Royal Society, warned: “Cuts would create the impression that UK science is in relative decline and make the UK a less attractive location for mobile talent and investment. They would send a message to the UK’s young people – savvy about trends and anxious about their future – that the UK is no longer at the cutting edge of science. Talent attracts talent, success breeds success.” We await the outcome of George Osborne’s spending review in October; will it disappoint, depress or surprise?