As the election approaches there are some recurrent themes: the NHS, immigration, tax and the economy. Science and technology don’t get much of a mention, yet they underpin a substantial part of our economy and directly or indirectly affect just about every part of our lives. A healthy research base in these subjects, the consequent impact of this on innovation, plus a strong pipeline of talented and well-trained workers with relevant skills is crucially important in keeping the UK economically strong. In some senses, it is clear the major parties understand this. When pressed, they will admit the huge value science (broadly defined) confers, but it is not a subject any of the leaders seem keen to push up the political agenda.
It might be argued that science doesn’t need to be mentioned because all the parties buy into its importance. Remarks from the leaders of the two main parties made in response to requests for information from the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) might suggest this. David Cameron remarked that he was proud “that the UK is a world leader in science and engineering and by investing in infrastructure and research… the Conservative party will ensure the UK’s science and engineering industry remains one of the world’s best”. Likewise, Ed Miliband paid tribute to the excellence of UK science, noting that it was “one of our greatest assets as a nation, with an unparalleled record of invention and innovation driven by world-leading firms and universities”.
Encouraging words for those active in the field? Maybe, but fine words butter no parsnips. Without explicit commitment to secure and sustainable funding the community can hardly be reassured. Only the Lib Dems have committed to maintaining the ringfence around science funding, ensuring that the “flat cash” settlement that was triumphantly achieved in the last comprehensive spending review will at the very least be maintained in line with inflation; others are silent on how the UK’s excellence will be maintained. A joint statement put out by the UK’s national academies spelled out key actions needed to facilitate world-class research, development and innovation (other disciplines found in our universities, not just science, are also fundamentally important in this arena). CaSE is quite clear about what is needed, calling on the government to “increase investment in research, support STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) education from primary school through to university, and set immigration policies that help retain and attract top talent”.
Immigration policy matters. At the moment, the knock-on effect of Theresa May’s policy of including students in the immigration cap deters many of the world’s brightest from coming to study in the UK. Increasingly, students from China and India are opting to apply to US universities at the expense of the UK’s. In the past, many of these students chose to stay in the UK after graduation (also increasingly difficult for these fresh graduates to do due to visa rules) either in research teams in universities or by joining industry. The loss of these reduces our talent pool and hence our ability to innovate. The CBI and other organisations repeatedly comment on the lack of skilled job applicants with the science background employers need and, as made clear in last year’s O’Neill report, universities are key players in driving innovation.
Innovation is key to the country’s economic health, yet current government policies have not facilitated increased spending in either startups or established companies. The UK spend on research and innovation as a percentage of GDP stands at 1.72%, well below the G8 average and falling ever further behind as the government’s own numbers show. Industrial research funding is heavily concentrated in a few sectors, notably pharmaceuticals, and areas that might have been expected to see substantial investment, such as energy, have actually seen a steady decline over decades as government laboratories are closed and industry has not thought it profitable enough to step into the breach to invest substantially in the research base.
Why do primary schools appear in CaSE’s urgent call above? Young children are naturally curious; that curiosity about the world around them needs to be stimulated and nurtured. Too easily it can be turned off by poor facilities or teachers who lack confidence in teaching scientific concepts. Far too many schools lack a teacher qualified in Stem. Even for those who possess such a qualification it can be hard for them to keep up to date through continuous professional development (CPD): schools cannot always afford to budget for this. The Royal Society recently called for mandatory subject-specific CPD to overcome this.
Children who lose interest in science early on are not likely to regain it later. Furthermore, ideas about careers are set around the time children move on to secondary school. For many of them, science – and engineering – will be seen as “not for them”. Minorities, girls and disadvantaged children are more likely to feel like this, meaning the scientific workforce will continue to be far less diverse than the population as a whole. Investment in science teachers, in facilities to enable well-resourced experimental science to be accessible to all children at primary and secondary schools, and in provision of high-quality careers advice from those who understand the relevance of Stem skills at tertiary level would be fairly modest investments that could pay huge dividends in job creation and increased productivity for the country.
These topics don’t feature in political debates. Perhaps that isn’t so surprising given the lack of MPs educated in the sciences to graduate level. There are a few medics but the only MP who has practised as a research scientist is Julian Huppert, MP for my constituency of Cambridge. A more representative House of Commons would contain fewer lawyers and PPE graduates and more possessing a Stem background. Lack of diversity matters when it comes to good decision-making.
Science does not seem to be regarded as a vote winner nor considered important enough to be discussed in candidates’ speeches. Yet future economic growth depends crucially on its successful exploitation. Many of the problems that do exercise the electorate are intimately linked to a thriving science base: a healthy ageing population, energy and food security and a growing economy based on tangible goods and not just the service sector. Science deserves more from its elected representatives.
Athene Donald is professor of experimental physics and master of Churchill College, Cambridge.