CaSE Debate: G8 Funding Comparison

Spending a relatively meagre 1.7% (May 2013) of GDP on science research places the UK as the second lowest investor into science in the G8. As this is the case how do we remain competitive? This was discussed at the CaSE debate a couple of weeks ago, along with justification that our spending is worthwhile. 

An ideal figure of 3% is often thrown around when discussing GDP spend on science. UK science ministers at the event explained that the UK meeting this number is highly unlikely at current time. The key to making our 1.7% count, they explained, is to create incentives to keep large R&D companies interested in us and not just the emerging economies. This can be achieved by creating long term contracts with the companies which entices them with security that perhaps smaller economies cannot offer.

Another promising point is how the UK are spending broadly and with a fairly stable cash figure. This is allowing continual funding into many different aspects of science and technology. Compare this with Germany, who at first glance put a formidable percentage of GDP into science, but in actual fact are investing a massive chunk of this into energy. Their shift away from nuclear is draining their science budget, allowing other areas of research to perhaps slip through the net. If Aesop is to be believed, the UK with our slow and steady approach may be doing just fine.

CaSE Debate: Women in Science

I learnt a shocking fact about women in UK science at the CaSE debate. Half of state schools send not a single female student to A-level physics. Perhaps this may not be so shocking to some – physics is still thought of as a predominantly male discipline. However, after coming from an all girls grammar school I forgot these stereotypes are still so engrained in society. In my school year roughly a quarter of girls took A-level physics.

Along with physics, both biology and chemistry were well received at school – I myself took A-level biology. In this respect I represent the far greater proportion of girls in the UK. Biology is seen as the ‘girls’ science, with dreams of one day become a doctor being at the root of this. However, unlike other degrees the number of places for medicine are set by the government each year as advised by the NHS. Therefore when leaving physics and chemistry behind if girls do not make the cut for medicine they may find it hard to find roles in other science and engineering sectors, leading to our female deficit.

How can we inspire females to follow predominantly male-based areas of science? On this all parties agreed. Ambition needs to be fostered in school and from an early age. Female role models are required – for example Roma Agrawel, a female structural engineer who worked on The Shard. And stereotypes need breaking down. I myself am guilty of replying “thank you” when someone tells me “you don’t look like a geologist”. We should be dismissing that a geologist or physicist has a certain look. Not just in gender but in age and ethnicity as well. Diversity can only help science. The more minds and viewpoints that are shared and contrasted, the more likely scientific discoveries are likely to occur.

CaSE Debate 2013

CaSE (Campaign for Science and Engineering) are a self described 'plucky' independent group resolved to increasing the political profile of science in the UK. On 30th October 2013 the Royal Society hosted a CaSE debate for which the science ministers for the three main UK political parties were invited to share their views on science funding. Strangely for UK politics science does not induce the normal cross-party knock about and subsequently views on funding were fairly uniform. The event therefore gave a fairly clear glimpse into the way science will be financed and promoted in the UK in the near future.

With a 'Question Time' style set up and excellent chairing from BBC's Pallab Ghosh the debate was informative, at times humorous and, most importantly, it made sense to me - a scientist sitting in the audience.

L-R David Willetts, Liam Payne, Dr Julian Huppert and Pallab Ghosh

As I enjoyed the event so much and feel a lot of wisdom was communicated to the audience, I am going to do a short series of posts highlighting some of the key topics discussed. They will be broken down as follows:

• the STEM skills gap
• where funding should go within science and engineering 
• how UK science funding compares to that of other nations
• women in science

Check back soon for the first round up.