Sparring is over, let the fight begin!

Worrying cases have already emerged suggesting we are missing out on EU science funding and collaboration opportunities. Not, however, due to the official removal of any EU funding, but as a result of the anxiety of uncertainty. It seems that for science funding – not unlike the financial markets – even uncertainty has teeth.

The dizzyingly swift political changes over the last few months have put so many heads on spikes it's beginning to feel medieval. And for science it is starting to feel like the hood is on and the executioner is getting twitchy.

UK astronomer Dr Nick Wright has the wounds to prove it. He was hoping to work with collaborators on similar research projects around Europe via an EU travel and accommodation grant. That was until one of the collaborators raised concerns that the mere presence of a UK institution on the application would harm the overall chances of success. Dr Wright was then asked, politely no doubt, not to be involved. And this is one example of a growing list. In an attempt to predict the projected bias of an EU funding machine feeling potentially wounded by a high-profile snub, it’s as if grant applicants are hedging that EU decision makers might be spiteful toward their irksome neighbour. They are playing on perceived prejudices – and it isn’t pretty. Do they really think so little of the European purse holders?

Clearly some do – and they might be right. To win scientific grants you have to be savvy and, to some extent, play the game. And the scientists that do so understand those making decisions on funding can’t – even in the best of times – be completely objective. And this isn’t the best of times – this is a time dominated by the near deafening background noise of Brexit. That is the real problem. Science works best when it is as close to a meritocracy as possible – biases based on anything other than technical and academic achievement are damaging to advancement.

So as the mists of a single disruptive decision clear, what will UK science look like? Despite all this, I think it’ll look – in time, and perhaps with a slight squint and a little rub of the eyes – much the same. The EU worked for us: funding, collaborations, and staffing – by any metric of success you choose to examine it was clear science in the UK had a good thing going with the EU. But we made it work for us. It didn’t come on a plate. Funding flowed, collaborations sprung up, and talent was attracted because of the science – not because of organisational superstructure. Now we need to work out how to make the new world work for us. And while, in the short term, this will be in the hands of the politicians and negotiators as we untangle ourselves from the EU, it’ll also depend on the outcome of some current unknowns (will we, for example, actually be frozen out of EU Horizon science funding?). But we still have the key assets – the ideas, expertise and institutions that have allowed our science to change the World.

For now leaving the EU is, despite the narrative coming from the leave camp, an isolationist move – and isolation is never good for the shared goal of scientific discovery. But UK science has always been good at hitting above its weight, and while there is no question this just got harder; since when was it easy? Turbulent publishing practices, tortuous grant proposals, risk-averse funding agencies – obstacles have always hindered science.

Time to strap the gloves on again – the perception and the practicality of leaving the EU is less than ideal for UK science – so let’s bob, weave and then get back to the job of landing body blows.

Phil Prime