The success of UK researchers is exemplified by our success in obtaining EU funding. This should not be jeopardised
The main story following this May's local council elections seems to have been the "success" of the UK Independence Party (Ukip), which has the express aim of getting the UK out of Europe. From a scientific point of view (as from so many others) this would be a disaster.
The UK benefits in all kinds of ways from being a member state, but in science it derives particular benefits. There are a variety of EU programmes that fund scientists based in the UK and, whatever metric one uses, we do spectacularly well. The UK punches above its weight in science, is continuing to do so, and we should not forget that fact in our nation's all-too frequent hand-wringing about our alleged inability to innovate. As we approach D-day for the spending review at the end of June, we should remind our politicians of the value of science to the economy and the crucial role we can play if we remain at the heart of Europe.
I should declare upfront that not only am I a Europhile in the main, I am also a member of the European Research Council's Scientific Council, the top-level committee charged with oversight of the ERC's programmes. I have only been on board since February, so I'm very much learning the ropes, but it doesn't take much study of their statistics to realise just how successful we are. The EU provides various sources of funding for science; the ERC is only one stream. But it is a unique one: when it comes to considering grant applications it is only their research excellence that counts.
The chair of the Scientific Council, Helga Nowotny, has made it absolutely clear that potential future usefulness – badged in the UK under the word impact by the research councils – is not a relevant criterion. She has stated, on the contrary, that "frontier science does not work like this. We cannot programme scientific breakthroughs or order them from a menu … We can't foresee the consequences of what we discover." As I'll show later, that doesn't mean that those in the UK aren't making good use of their "blue skies" ERC funding to do useful stuff! Additionally, it should be remembered that frequently blue skies research is exactly where we are likely to find unexpected breakthroughs and discoveries that, down the road, can change people's lives.
The ERC is also unusual in that it doesn't fund science only in the way the English language tends to use it; it has a significant strand of funding for social sciences and the humanities too, reflecting a much older use of the word science (derived from the Latin word for knowledge, scientia).
First, some metrics. The UK is one of the group of four countries (the others being Belgium, Cyprus and the Netherlands) that hosts a higher share of ERC grants than expected based on their population, GDP and research investment. My own university of Cambridge, with 95 grants, hosts rather more than the whole of Ireland, Portugal, Poland and the Czech Republic combined. The lack of scientific infrastructure in some of the newer member states compared with those with a successful tradition in science makes it hard for them to compete for funds; this is a source of worry within the ERC, but not one I wish to consider here.
The UK's success rate for ERC awards stands at 14% over all the different calls between 2007 and 2012, compared with an overall average of just over 10% for all ERC funding. (This figure is rather lower than that quoted by Jon Butterworth in his recent article on this site, which seems to overestimate total success rates. As shown by the EU's own figures, for the entire Framework 7 programme 2007-11 success rates were around 21%. It should be noted that the UK does very well across all strands of EU science funding as that same report shows, with equivalent success rates of around 24%.)
For many people setting out on their careers, the ERC Starting Grants, for those with 2-7 years' experience after completing their PhDs, are a massive boost. For researchers with more experience there are two additional main programmes corresponding to the subsequent stages of their career progression. At whatever level it is increasingly clear, certainly from committees I have sat on recently, just how much the award of an ERC grant is seen as a cast-iron measure of esteem. Unlike the crude use of impact factors of journals as a proxy for excellence of the research being published there, because the peer review process which leads to the award of ERC grants is so rigorous and specific for the individual, using an award as a relevant metric seems justified (at least as long as it's used alongside an appropriate range of other measures).
My Cambridge colleague classicist Mary Beard is one of those who sits on these rigorous panels and is a great fan of the process. In an (unprompted) Twitter exchange I had with her last week she remarked: "I've just finished 3 day stint on a Europ. Research Council scholarship meeting. Generous funding excellent projects across Europe. Exciting … Starting grant evaluation a real model, and valued added in evaluators' discussions and contact. It's damn good."
That's a pretty fair endorsement from someone who knows how to be critical when she wants to be.
I mentioned above that, just because impact is not a criterion for these awards, it doesn't mean the work that is done is esoteric and irrelevant. The ERC has a rather small and experimental programme known as Proof of Concept grants available (of course after further peer review) to existing holders of the main ERC grants, to allow them to explore the innovation potential of ideas arising from their ERC-funded projects. The UK holds 23 of these, more than twice as many as those held either in Germany or France. Noting that the so-called linear model taking us from science to innovation is deeply flawed, nevertheless UK researchers are serious about making sure their research is developed where there is scope to do so, whatever myths persist about our failure on this front.
As we approach the spending review, let us hope that the government holds its nerve about the centrality of science in our economy, the importance of ensuring it is properly funded and the crucial role EU funding plays in the sector. In a recent joint letter in response to the recent government consultation on science and research funding, the presidents of the various UK national academies say: "The UK has an excellent research base that is the most productive in the world and includes a higher education sector worth almost £60bn per annum in jobs, exports and added value. The government's emerging industrial strategy should help to ensure that the UK generates maximum economic and social value from these assets." Those sentences apply just as much to our position in Europe, and the importance of funding from sources such as the ERC for the UK economy, as for the UK's own internal research infrastructure.
Athene Donald is a professor of experimental physics at the University of Cambridge and a member of the ERC's Scientific Council. She tweets at @athenedonald