The European experiment

SCIENCE shows little regard for politics. Subatomic particles smashing together in underground colliders cross borders in a flash. Cells in a dish grow with stubborn disregard for international treaties. So British scientists might be expected to be similarly equanimous about the forthcoming referendum on the country’s membership of the EU. They are not. Britain is a research powerhouse. With just 1% of the world’s population, it has 4% of its researchers and produces 16% of the world’s most “highly cited” (influential) journal articles. So many researchers are worried by the prospect of life outside the bloc.

An informal survey of 666 British researchers by the journal Nature found 80% support staying in the EU. Over 150 fellows of the Royal Society, Britain’s national academy of sciences, wrote in March to the Times, warning that Brexit could be a “disaster for science”.

Money partly explains their Europhilia. About 10% of the cash that pays for research in British universities comes from the EU. As the government has scaled back funding for science (about a 6% cut in real terms in the four years to 2013/14), the country’s universities have benefited from increasing amounts of EU research cash (over 60% more during the same period).

A report published last week added more fuel to fears that a Leave vote would affect funding. The analysis from Digital Science, a technology company, suggests Brexit would cost British science £1 billion. Work in the fields of nanotechnology, forestry sciences and evolutionary biology, which each receive more than half their funding from Europe, would be most at risk.

European funding is also appealing because it eases collaboration between research teams in different countries. Without it, labs working on a common project would each have to apply for funding from their own nation’s funding agencies. That is a cumbersome process and the odds of every partner securing money are slim. Under Horizon 2020, Europe’s current science programme, they can apply together.

In the event of a Leave vote, Britain could pay to take part in Horizon 2020. Sixteen countries already do so (including, most recently, Georgia and Armenia). Such countries have little power to influence EU research priorities. They are also relatively small players, winning only 7% of Europe’s research pot altogether. By contrast, Britain took over 18% (€8.8 billion out of €47.5 billion) between 2007 and 2013 while contributing about 11% (€5.4 billion). It is difficult to imagine Britain being allowed back in to the club on the same terms.

Scientists For Britain, a pro-Brexit group, argues that the government could plug any funding hole. Yet spending cuts are expected until at least 2018. Others claim that stemming EU migration could allow in more highly qualified people, including researchers. “We have clamped down on Indian scientists because we cannot clamp down on Romanian fruit pickers,” says Matt Ridley, a science writer. Yet should Britain choose to halt EU immigration, there is no guarantee the government will allow more scientists to enter the country from the EU or elsewhere.

Most convincingly, scientists who favour Brexit cite the stifling effect of some EU regulations. The clinical-trials directive of 2001, is widely blamed for a steep fall in the number of therapies tested on patients in Europe. It set out rules for running drug trials across the continent. The result was burdensome. In 2007-2011, trials cost more to run and were often delayed. The result was a 25% drop in applications to carry out such studies in the EU.

The story, however, did not end there. New legislation, reflecting the concerns of researchers and drugmakers, was approved by the EU in 2014. Britain’s medical research charities, biotech sector and pharmaceutical industry, which played a key role in the process, strongly support the new rules—and favour staying in Europe. Getting EU science policy right can be difficult and slow, but Britain can argue for its own scientific interests from within.