by Henry Lovett, Policy & Public Affairs Officer
Nothing about Brexit has been decided yet. This was made plain at the recent Labour and Conservative party conferences, which The Physiological Society policy team attended. Many of the fringe meetings at both events were either explicitly about Brexit, or had their discussion influenced by the shadow of Brexit hanging over them. The twin questions of “what will it look like?” and “how will we handle it?” do not yet have even proto-answers, let alone settled consensus. I worry that a sense of complacency exists around some aspects of the transition from EU member to a situation unspecified beyond not an EU member. Many of the facets of EU membership which are of great significance to science fall within this category.
The UK has done well from European programmes for funding scientific research, with Horizon 2020 (H2020) being the current iteration of this scheme, winning more funding than it has contributed to the programme. There are other advantages beyond money, too, including access to facilities overseas, and an easy route to setting up collaborations. We are happy with this participation, and Europe is happy to have us. The government has suggested, without giving details, that it is willing to continue to buy access to useful activities such as this. But, examining the fine print, it may not be as easy as that. A number of non-EU countries have “associated country” status to H2020, individually negotiated to allow them to participate. One of these, Switzerland, had access severely restricted in 2014 after a referendum meant the Swiss government would not ratify Croatia’s inclusion in EU freedom of movement. Access was only restored in 2016 after a government compromise. One of the UK government’s stated aims from Brexit is to “control immigration”, i.e. restrict free movement from Europe. There is no reason to assume this will not also result in being disallowed from being awarded H2020 funds, should we wish to participate or not. It will take delicate negotiation, not a blithe assumption, for us to continue to enjoy the benefits of association to the programme.
The Treasury has said it will underwrite Horizon 2020 grants applied-for before our leaving date of March 2019, and signalled it may be willing to extend this. However, this short-term reassurance could also be seen as a long-term worry. The successor to Horizon 2020, Framework Programme 9, has not been mentioned. Underwriting grants is not the same as participation in the programme, and if the intention was to retain full participation in EU research programmes, underwriting would not be necessary.
Scientists working on the continent, foreseeing these future difficulties in working with UK collaborators, are in some cases acting pre-emptively. British researchers have been asked to remove themselves from H2020 funding applications, or at least to switch from leading bids to being junior partners. About a fortnight after the Conservative conference, Science Minister Jo Johnson told the Science & Technology Select Committee, in response to fears of further exclusion of UK scientists from Horizon 2020 bids, “We have terrific scientists in this country; why wouldn’t you want them to play central roles in your consortia, wherever you’re from in the world?” Unfortunately that doesn’t acknowledge the reputational damage we know is already being done to UK science. We know from research we have carried out that European researchers could reply with any number of reasons, including fears of a lower chance of bid success, being unable to travel to the UK or facing much higher costs, fears of the UK collaborator being forced to drop out before the project’s conclusion, potentially facing incompatible regulatory regimes, or just an overall air of foreigners’ presence not being particularly welcome in the UK.
The vastly-enhanced global mobility of the last decades has also been good to science. Ideas can be proposed and critiqued in person rather than by correspondence, and people can bring their knowledge and experience to bear at the forefront of their discipline, wherever that research happens to be conducted. However, the rights of EU citizens post-Brexit, to either remain in the UK or migrate here in future, are still very uncertain. None of the statements issued by the Prime Minister or the government have given full clarity, despite repeated insistences that EU citizens will not be part of the Brexit bargaining. Scientists are demonstrating their opinion of this with their feet, leaving the country or declining offers of employment that would bring them here. Other countries are taking full advantage of this disincentive to the UK, aggressively marketing their science facilities and available grants (including EU funding). Ireland in particular is painting itself as attractive to UK scientists, especially those currently in Northern Ireland, for whom a move over the border would retain their EU status while being geographically close.
The government will not have a lot of “easy wins” during the negotiations with the EU, so in some ways it is understandable that they would concentrate on the trickier aspects. However, the certainty displayed that science will pass through the negotiations unscathed seems unwarranted, especially given that science and innovation are identified priorities in the Industrial Strategy; keystones of the future UK economy. The government would do well to pay rather closer attention.