IN HIS Divine Comedy, Dante . The virtuous pagans stuck there can do nothing to improve their lot but await divine intervention. Today, UK scientists find themselves in a limbo of their own over their relationship with the other 27 countries of the European Union.
The cause is the UK referendum vote to leave the EU – though admittedly, the intervention they await is not divine. First, the prime minister Theresa May must decide what she wants from the divorce settlement with the EU, including the nature of the post-exit relationship and future access to the single market. Then she must negotiate with EU officials, who will want what’s best for their members.
Advertisement
Science has not been slow to urge action on a broad set of priorities issued by the last month.
“Theresa May wants to cut immigration, which will put her on a collision course with science and Brussels“
Academies want the government to commit to filling any gap in research funding created by Brexit. That’s no small matter, given that the UK gets more out of the EU’s main science fund than it puts into it – about £1.40 for every £1 it pays in.
Academies also want the UK to adopt regulations that match the EU’s in areas such as clinical trials and data protection. Without this “harmonisation”, the country could face barriers to research and trade with its nearest neighbours.
On top of this, academies want EU and UK researchers to remain free to cross borders to do science in other countries, and to collaborate as freely as they do now. This is where the spaghetti is likely to hit the fan. , which will put her on a collision course not only with science, but also with Brussels. Free movement of people is a founding principle of the EU, so rejecting it will almost certainly toss the UK out of the single market, and could also cost it dear in terms of access to the EU’s flagship funding programme for research, Horizon 2020.
World-beating research requires collaboration and free movement. Scientists have always travelled to learn from the best and to discover new ideas and skills. In the process they build networks and can pave the way for new markets. The UK’s openness – especially as part of the EU – is one reason for its scientific success.
In April, the House of Lords select committee on science and technology . “Unnecessary barriers to this mobility will weaken science and be to the cost of all nations,” says a .
The League of European Research Universities supports this principle too. Its secretary-general, Kurt Deketelaere, told 91av: “Cooperation in the past has been beneficial in both directions, for the UK and for continental Europe.”
Swiss miss
The science case is not about narrow self-interest, says Anne Glover at the University of Aberdeen and former chief scientific adviser to the president of the European Commission. It’s about new treatments for cancer and next-generation phone networks – and, indeed, “the interests of everyone in the UK and our future sustainable economy”, she says.
What are those close to the political world thinking? “It wouldn’t shock me if the UK came out of the single market in order to take control of its borders,” says , professor of science and research policy at University College London and a former Whitehall science mandarin.
In that case, the best hope is to try to become an “” – which would, for a hefty fee, give the UK access to Horizon 2020. Nations including Israel and Turkey have become associates without agreeing to free movement of people.
But there is a potential fly in the ointment. Switzerland was an associate and had agreed to free movement. Then, in February 2014, the country voted to tighten immigration controls and the EU revoked its status. Switzerland has , but must renegotiate its membership this year – and that is not a done deal. The UK will probably be watching those negotiations closely.
It is hard to know if the government will opt for associate membership, though: the silence from Whitehall is deafening. The European Commission is also saying nothing. This reticence reached a climax on 25 July, when UK science minister Jo Johnson and the European commissioner for science Carlos Moedas shared a platform at the in Manchester. After addressing a hall packed with worried scientists, they declined to take questions and left.
It seems the best the UK government and European Commission can do for now is to issue reassurances over uncertainties caused by the vote and their own indecision. Last month, May sent a letter to the Royal Society and its former president Paul Nurse, who wants science to have a place at the Brexit negotiating table. “I would like to reassure you about the government’s commitment to ensuring a positive outcome for UK science as we exit the European Union,” she wrote.
London and Brussels have also restated that the UK is still part of the EU and legally nothing has changed. Moedas reinforced this, saying there was no need for researchers on the continent to sideline UK scientists in new collaborations.
“After the referendum, dozens of UK researchers reported prejudice against UK bids for EU funds“
Still more reassurance is aimed at the , and to UK academics working in the EU. The eligibility of many to remain where they are has yet to be clarified. In her letter, May says: “Our research base is enriched by the best minds from Europe and around the world – providing reassurance to these individuals and to UK researchers working in Europe will be a priority for the government.” But these people seem to have become bargaining chips in the forthcoming negotiations.
Beyond the uncertainty, has there been any direct impact yet? Mike Galsworthy of the pressure group has been . In the month after the vote, 378 researchers from around the UK reported back. Of these, 33 noted prejudice against UK bids for Horizon 2020 funds and 25 described cases in which foreigners had turned down a UK job or cancelled an application because of Brexit. Another 86 said they or someone they knew planned to leave as a result of the referendum, and 35 cited rising xenophobia, including personal attacks.
“The overall message is that UK science has been hit overnight because it is suddenly less attractive to talent staying here and as a place for partnerships,” says Galsworthy. Switzerland saw this after its vote on immigration. “We had an image problem,” says Martin Vetterli, president of the country’s National Research Council. Being a relatively small country, Switzerland needs foreign researchers, and it struggled on the world stage.
What now? The Royal Society is monitoring overseas applications to its to see if the UK’s appeal is waning. It is also exploring the best paths and outcomes for negotiations with Brussels. Elsewhere, the science committees of both houses of parliament have launched inquiries into the consequences of Brexit, Galsworthy is planning more creative ways to spread the value of science to the public, and the Campaign for Science and Engineering is .
Will UK science escape limbo soon? That’s doubtful, given talk of years of negotiations ahead. But by keeping up the pressure, it raises the chance of eventually ending up in a better place.
This article appeared in print under the headline “The hell of uncertainty”
