Scotland鈥檚 decision to remain a part of the UK has left many scientists relieved, following concerns that independence would put support for Scottish science in jeopardy.
鈥淚 am thrilled,鈥� says , director of science at the Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre. 鈥淭his ensures that biomedical and clinical research 鈥� and Scotland鈥檚 great achievements in delivering on this in the past 鈥� will continue unchecked.鈥�
Scottish residents rejected the proposal of independence, with voting in favour of remaining within the UK.
Advertisement
a molecular biologist at the University of Glasgow, describes himself as 鈥渕ighty relieved鈥�. He says the result means continued funding for science, less risk of colleagues leaving Scotland, and that it will be easier to recruit new staff.
But just as the general Scottish public have been divided on the issue, so too have scientists, and some are unhappy with the referendum鈥檚 result. 鈥淚 am disappointed,鈥� says , an engineer at the University of Edinburgh. 鈥淚 would have liked to work with others to put science and engineering at the heart of a reborn country.鈥� He suggests that an independent Scotland could have built on its strengths in education to carve out a global profile in high-quality scientific education and research collaborations.
However, voters were not convinced that independence would not compromise or endanger research. 鈥淎lthough the 鈥榶es鈥� camp offered to continue to maintain the international competitiveness and standing of Scottish research, whatever the outcome of the constitutional settlement, there was considerable anxiety and uncertainty in the minds of leading academics that this could be delivered,鈥� says , an electrical engineer at the University of Glasgow.
鈥淚f Scotland had become independent, access to Research Councils UK money would have dried up,鈥� says Hugh Pennington, a bacteriologist at the University of Aberdeen, who co-founded the 鈥淎cademics Together鈥� campaign group. He believes that negotiations to ensure that an independent Scotland could still access UK public research funding would have failed.
Frame agrees. 鈥淚t would have meant a great deal of uncertainty as regards research funding 鈥� which would have, in turn, made it difficult to recruit and retain highly skilled researchers.鈥� Nigel Brown, a microbiologist who was formerly at the University of Edinburgh, believes that independence would have prompted such brain drain. 鈥淢y impression is that many excellent Scottish scientists would be tempted to leave. There are not enough jobs in the rest of the UK to accommodate them, so they would have moved abroad to the detriment of Scottish and UK science.鈥�
In the run-up to Thursday鈥檚 vote, Westminster pledged that the Scottish parliament would be granted should the nation choose not to go. Such 鈥渄evo-max鈥� proposals are unlikely to have too much of an effect on Scottish science, suggests , a science policy expert at the University of Manchester. He says that Scotland鈥檚 willingness to remain eligible for UK research money suggests that there is not much desire to devolve power over science to Scotland, but that greater financial independence could possibly have some effect.
鈥淭he ability to raise taxes and more control over resources could make a difference, because they could add a lot of their own money to science, technology and innovation spending,鈥� Flanagan speculates.
But for now, many of Scotland鈥檚 scientists are keen to stop worrying and get on with their work. 鈥淚 and indeed most of my colleagues feel that a great weight has been lifted from us and that we can now return to concentrating on both research and teaching,鈥� says Richard Cogdell, a botanist at the University of Glasgow. 鈥淭eaching starts today, so thank goodness I can focus on that without worries of independence hanging over me,鈥� says Smith.