Nature | News

UK political parties promise science funding boost

Researchers welcome pre-election promises to raise R&D, implying billions more for science.

Article tools

Rights & Permissions

Getty Images

Tim Farron (Liberal Democrat), Theresa May (Conservative) and Jeremy Corbyn (Labour) have all presented manifestos that pledge to raise UK R&D spending.

UK scientists worried about how Brexit will affect their funding received a boost this week, when the country's three main national parties pledged long-term targets to raise research spending. The announcements came in party manifestos unveiled ahead of national elections in June.

It's “a surprise and a delight” to see the promises, says Graeme Reid, a science-policy researcher at University College London. None of the manifestos makes detailed financial commitments to science. But each sets targets to substantially increase spending on research and development (R&D) as a proportion of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) — an indicator often taken as a measure of a nation’s commitment to research.

The United Kingdom spends 1.7% of its GDP on research, less than the European Union’s 2% average and well behind many other developed nations (see 'Research spending gap'). The governing Conservative Party — which polls suggest should sweep the 8 June election — has promised to raise that figure to 2.4% within 10 years, and to aim for a longer-term goal of 3%. The opposing Labour Party says it wants to hit 3% by 2030, and the Liberal Democrats — traditionally the country’s third party — promise a “long-term goal” to “double innovation and research spending across the economy”.

Source: OECD

The pledges are aspirations that will take more than one term of Parliament to deliver, Reid notes. And a government by itself won’t be able to achieve the targets, because they rely on business R&D investment rising in concert with public funding. But if the parties stick to their pledges, there should be billions of pounds more for British scientists.

The London-based Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) calculates that to reach the 3% target, the government would have to commit an extra £6 billion (US$8 billion) per year to research funding, on top of its current £6 billion and an existing commitment to raise annual funds by £2 billion by 2020. That calculation assumes that for every pound spent by government on R&D, businesses will chip in twice as much — a 2:1 split that’s typical internationally, CaSE says.

“This is a significant and welcome commitment," says James Wilsdon, a research-policy specialist at the University of Sheffield, UK. “It’s 13 years since we last heard such an ambitious GDP-linked target for R&D spending from a party of government.” In 2004, the then-Labour government aimed for R&D funding to reach 2.5% of GDP by 2014, he notes, but the pledge was derailed by the financial crisis. A coalition of the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives that governed from 2010 to 2015 avoided setting a long-term goal.

Researchers have often called for a 3% spending target. As far back as 2000, the European Union set itself the aim of raising its R&D funding to that level, but it is still nowhere near. Reid says there is not a huge amount of evidence on the optimum level of research spending, but what there is suggests that around 2.5% of GDP is best. The United Kingdom is far beneath that, so a political commitment to increase R&D spending is more important than fretting about which level to reach, he says.

Not everyone thinks that an R&D spending measure is a useful target. William Lazonick, an economicist at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, says that a national overall R&D target ignores the fact that research spending is disproportionately concentrated within a few, high-spending sectors, such as the pharmaceutical industry. A 3% target is “much too general”, he says, and does not help assess spending in research-intensive sectors. And spending on R&D does not necessarily translate into economic productivity gains, he notes. 

Journal name:
Nature
DOI:
doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22020

For the best commenting experience, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will see comments updating in real-time and have the ability to recommend comments to other users.

Comments for this thread are now closed.

Comments

Comments Subscribe to comments

There are currently no comments.

sign up to Nature briefing

What matters in science — and why — free in your inbox every weekday.

Sign up

Listen

new-pod-red

Nature Podcast

Our award-winning show features highlights from the week's edition of Nature, interviews with the people behind the science, and in-depth commentary and analysis from journalists around the world.