TOP scientists this week fought back against cuts in funding for
international environmental research. The publication of a UK National Strategy
for Global Environmental Research at the BA this week 鈥渋s part of a strategy to
stop the cuts鈥�, says Peter Liss of the University of East Anglia, a member of
the expert panel that wrote the report.
The strategy proposes a new national committee to mastermind Britain鈥檚
contribution to international research into key issues such as global warming,
the ozone layer and how the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans interact. It
calls for greater liaison between the many British bodies involved, including
the research councils, the Royal Society and the Meteorological Office. And it
stresses that Britain鈥檚 effort in global environmental research should 鈥渄erive
maximum added value鈥� for the nation.
鈥淲e no longer just have to show it is good science in order to get the
funding,鈥� says Liss. 鈥淲e have to show that it matters to UK Limited. Even though
we know intuitively this is true, it is a hard case to make鈥攕howing how
things like sea level rise will matter to the economy.鈥�
Advertisement
The crisis follows the
government鈥檚 withdrawal of funds from two major British research programmes. The
Natural Environment Research Council鈥檚 Terrestrial Initiative in Global
Environmental Research (TIGER), which investigated the likely impact of global
warming and other changes to the British landscape, is being shut down after
five years.
Also axed is the national contribution to the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study
(JGOFS), in which British marine researchers made important breakthroughs in
understanding the vital role of marine plankton in absorbing the prime
greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, so moderating global warming.
The report highlights vital areas of future research, including the impact of
global change on the spread of diseases, agriculture, water supplies and
fisheries. It points out that total British spending on global environmental
research is around 拢172 million a year. This 鈥渕ay seem high鈥�, says the
report, but it compares with 拢268 million in Germany, 拢439 million
in Japan and 拢1146 million in the US.
鈥淲hat happens next we don鈥檛 know,鈥� says Liss. 鈥淭he report goes to the
government鈥檚 Office of Science and Technology. After that, it is out of the
hands of scientists. The best we can probably hope for is that funding does not
fall further.鈥�