Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

Discontent about the Treasury’s rules on research funding has finally
reached those who run the government’s own research programmes, said the
chairman of the government’s Advisory Council on Science and Technology
this week. Because of the rules, scientists working in government departments
feel that they are being excluded from making key decisions on the future
of European science.

Presenting its review of Britain’s science strategy, ACOST’s chairman,
Robin Nicholson, said that departments had complained to him about rules
which penalise them when they win extra money from the European Community.

ACOST’s review calls for more research in collaboration with other countries,
particularly those in the Community. Nicholson reported complaints from
senior departmental scientists that the Treasury rules could stop them from
taking an active role in shaping the Community’s scientific programmes.
‘Some departments have said that to us . . . they do perceive it as a disincentive.’

The amount the Community spends on research has risen rapidly in the
past decade. But when a government department wins funds from the Community,
the Treasury deducts some of the funds from its domestic budget. As a result,
departments are unwilling to initiate new European programmes.

Within the Community, only Spain and Britain apply this system. Å®ÉúСÊÓƵs
in other institutions have long criticised the practice, but discontent
has now reached the top layer of government.

The government decided to commission three annual reviews of science
and technology from ACOST last year after criticism from the House of Lords.
This review is the first, and will test how far the government will take
advice from the council of independent scientists. But, the lobby group
Save British Science says it is disappointed by the lack of concrete proposals.
It said the review ‘reads like an exercise in academic fence sitting’.

ACOST is keen to see greater British involvement in Europe as part of
a move towards a global approach to research. The council believes that
research into important scientific problems, such as climate change, must
be increasingly global and that international research programmes offer
the opportunity of reducing costs.

The council’s main criticism of the way research is organised in Britain
is the lack of coherence between industry, universities and government.
‘We have found too much fragmentation,’ said Nicholson. ‘People have different
strategies without knowing what the others are doing. This decreases their
chances of success.’ ACOST wants to see much closer cooperation. Nicholson
said that Britain ought to adopt a similar approach to Japan or Germany
and that ‘the government may have the role of coordinator and leader’.