BRITISH scientists have felt distinctly unloved for the past couple of decades. Gone are the days when avuncular boffins occupied a warm place in the popular imagination and were left to get on with their work 鈥� however mysterious.
The 1970s brought a chilly draught of Thatcherite materialism. 杏吧原创s soon began to feel that the government saw them merely as impractical truth seekers who contributed nothing to national wealth. They were urged to become entrepreneurs, and strike up deals with business. Younger scientists saw any prospect of job security, or a structured career, vanish. By the 1990s, many of the most talented students were vigorously avoiding scientific careers.
A couple of years ago, it looked as though the pendulum might be swinging back. The first White Paper in science for years seemed to recognise science鈥檚 worth. The hope was short-lived. British scientists are back on the downward spiral. First, the Office of Science and Technology was absorbed into the Department of Trade and Industry without consultation. Now, three months later, we hear that the budget for science is being lumped in with the trade and industry budget (see This Week). There is little to stop money for research vanishing down another alley.
Advertisement
Ian Lang, the minister who heads the department, no doubt means well. He places great emphasis on 鈥渇orging closer links between the science base, industry and government鈥�. To a professional bureaucrat, blurring departmental and budget boundaries might seem like a means to that end. But all it does is to create the illusion of action.
Lang should be listening far more carefully to the scientists who protest that vital projects are being rejected in favour of mediocre research hidden behind the requisite link to industry. He should understand that by making changes without asking anyone, he only makes scientists feel more insecure. How can they work well when they are always searching for the next short-term contract? Lang might even listen to US President Bill Clinton who earlier this month opposed budget cuts for science, saying, 鈥淲e may have a balanced budget to show for it tomorrow, but a decade or a generation from now our nation will be much poorer.鈥�