There is little doubt that a hard Brexit will be bad for British and European science. And when this message was conveyed this week by 29 Nobel prizewinners and six Fields medallists in a letter to UK prime minister Theresa May and European Commission president Jean Claude Juncker, you can be certain it reached its intended audience.
Such was the concern inside the UK government that science minister Sam Gyimah took to the radio to reiterate his commitment to finding ways for scientists to be able to work in Europe; and to replace funds that might be lost.
This response didn鈥檛 satisfy some of the letter鈥檚 signatories, because it will always be second best to the research community鈥檚 desire to stay in the EU. But it was still an impressive display of science鈥檚 collective firepower, and scientists鈥� ability to persuade the government on a matter that is of vital importance to their interests.
Advertisement
The unfolding tragedy of Brexit 鈥� especially a hard Brexit 鈥� will damage science, but it will be far worse for other parts of society. A hard Brexit will be a disaster for those who are sick and need medication from Europe. It will be catastrophic for those teetering on the lowest incomes when prices of staple goods rise.
A hard Brexit also risks rocking the peace in Northern Ireland and rekindling the flames of independence in Scotland. Brexit more generally could well be unwelcome news for those communities that rely on anti-poverty funds from the European Union. By the government鈥檚 own estimates, crashing out of the EU poses a risk to public order and community cohesion.
Power to change
And yet, when representatives of these affected communities seek a hearing in Whitehall, you won鈥檛 find government ministers in a rush to respond. 聽There are no ministers taking to microphones promising to replace close to 鈧�11 billion that the UK鈥檚 poorest regions received between 2014 and 2020.
On balance, that is a more concerning problem than scientists losing access to EU projects. If scientific leaders are good at getting attention, they could be doing more to highlight issues like this.
Top scientists are among our society鈥檚 more privileged groups. They have key jobs at the heart of government. They have seats in the House of Lords, and can be found at the top of universities and businesses. They have close links to media institutions, especially the BBC. When they speak, policy-makers are compelled to listen, and to respond.
Thanks to these relationships, Britain鈥檚 science budget was relatively protected throughout the years of austerity. As welfare benefits were cut, as libraries were being taken over by volunteers and as children鈥檚 centres closed, scientists saw a succession of new institutions come on stream. And now both Conservatives and Labour are committed to yet further funding increases, taking the science budget from 1.7 per cent of GDP to at least 2.4 per cent inside a decade.
The value to society of all of this is not in doubt, but after a succession of good years, now is the time for the scientific elite to start taking a longer view. Elite scientists have both political power and intellectual heft. They should be using more of their access to argue on behalf of others whose lives could be destroyed by Brexit.
