Science is vital

[Alan H]

Goes without saying, really, but this view doesn't seem to be shared by the current Government.

For the future of science and for the future of the economy, I urge you to support this worthy cause:

Science is Vital

[Dave B]

Petition duly signed and I will email my MP (but so far he talks the straight party line so I hold little hope for him.)

[jaywhat]

Done

[Alan C.]

Signed, although I've yet to see an on-line petition achieve anything.

[Alan C.]

Anybody going? Some great speakers lined up, I wish I could be there.
The Rally is Go! Tomorrow,

[Dave B]

Wish I could go as well - I miss not living half an hour from "town" for this sort of thing.

[Alan H]

Anybody going? Some great speakers lined up, I wish I could be there.
The Rally is Go! Tomorrow,

Possibly. I may be on a training course (resuscitation support and monitoring, since you asked!), but I won't find out till tomorrow morning if there is a place for me. If there isn't, I'll be at the rally. Have you seen Evan Harris' piece in the Guardian?

Open letter to George Osborne: Why it's vital to protect science funding

And Ben Golacre's blog post:

Nerds, rise up! Science cuts protest tomorrow

[Alan H]

Also:

Science: It beats living in caves by Dr Jennifer Rohn.

[Lorikeet]

I've signed and e-mailed my MP. Been struggling to understand the more paper-y things Evan mentions. I managed to put my arguments mostly in economic terms - might as well speak their language I suppose. Wish I'd seen this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/ ... -charities

I'm busy travelling around all next week and am not giving up my weekend to even more travelling, so won't be around tomorrow. But I'll be at the Parliament lobby on Tuesday. Anyone else?

[Nick]

Today, the Chancellor announced that:

Overall, average annual savings of 7.1% will be found from the Department for Business budget – the minimum it was asked to find.

Within those savings, however, the Secretary of State and I have decided to protect the science budget.

Britain is a world leader in scientific research. And that is vital to our future economic success.

That is why I am proposing that we do not cut the cash going to the science budget. It will be protected at £4.6 billion a year.

Building on the Wakeham Review of science spending, we have found that within the science budget significant savings of £324 million can be found through efficiency.

If these are implemented, then with this relatively protected settlement I am confident that our country’s scientific output can increase over the next four years.

We will also:


invest £220 million in the UK centre for Medical Research and Innovation at St Pancras;
fund the molecular biology lab in Cambridge;
the Animal Health Institute in Pilbright;
and the Diamond synchrotron in Oxford.
Research and technological innovation will also help us with one of the greatest scientific challenges of our times – climate change – and it will support new jobs in low-carbon industries.

So today, even in these straightened times, we commit public capital funding of up to £1 billion to one of the world’s first commercial scale carbon capture and storage demonstration projects

Not a bad result for science, I'd say.

[Dave B]

Better than I expected.

[Alan H]

So, a cut in real terms, £324 million 'efficiency' savings from where we do not know and he expects scientific output to increase over the next four years. I think we need more details before 'celebrating' and a lot more details on the savings and how the scientific output is to be measured.

[Nick]

I didn't say it was perfect, Alan, and I don't know what the Wakeham Review said, but not bad, in the colloquial sense, in the present financial climate, is, I think, a fair assessment. We can all find vital things we'd like to spend money on, can't we?

[Alan H]

We can all find vital things we'd like to spend money on, can't we?

Like Trident.

[Nick]

I didn't realise you were such a fan!


Unlike me.

[Alan C.]

Ah Trident, the capability that will probably (I hope) never be used but we are told we must have.
If (as they tell us plebs) "It's just a deterrent".
Why not just pretend we have it and save £billions ?

(well no, we already do have it) why does it need to be replaced? Isn't the present system capable of destroying the whole planet and everything on it? I don't see any need for an upgrade.

[grammar king]

Maybe they are just pretending we have it, how would we know?