Last night we heard Adam Afriyie, Lord Drayson, and Evan Harris debate how their parties would approach funding and getting benefits from Science. It was the first time they had all appeared on the same platform, and apparently the first cross-party debate in the run-up to next year's election, so we were privileged to get them all together. RAND, who sponsored the event, also joined the panel drawing on their experience of advising organizations across Europe on Science Policy. We also had a strong Press presence - the FT, Nature, New Scientist and Times Higher Education give a much more detailed account of the debate.
All of them said they would ringfence budgets for long term research, follow the Haldane principle that scientist themselves should judge where best to spend research funds, and respect the independence of scientific advisors. But the amount of money available within the ringfence beyond the current budgeting period of 2011 seems unlikely to increase, with levels of national debt from the banking crisis. When someone from the audience said that wasn't the fault of UK science, a panelist joked that the rocket scientists who had been recruited into the City clearly had something to do with it.
There were plenty of jokes, mainly about other politicians, citing the outcomes of particular votes or recent dismissals of scientific advisors. Cross-questioning from the audience was vociferous, particularly around the requirement for academics to submit grant proposals which predict the societal impact of their research or show the past track record of their unit. However all of the parties thought this is reasonable in a democracy where public funds are being laid out.
These three political parties think Cambridge is important to the impact science can have for our society, and it was good of them to open up for questions here.
Do you acknowledge that this is high time to get the personal loans, which can make your dreams come true.
Posted by: TiaGoodwin | June 30, 2011 at 03:14 PM