Uncertainty over how the UK government will pay up to £2 billion a year to participate in Horizon Europe has underlined the need for a “coherent plan” on how science spending will rapidly increase over the next few years, according to sector leaders.
While the pre-Easter announcement that an extra £250 million will help to pay for association to the European Union’s research programme has been welcomed, senior figures have cast doubt on whether the additional funding will be enough to meet the likely £1 billion annual cost of Horizon Europe, due to rise towards £2 billion in future years.
Writing for Times Higher Education, Michael Spence, provost and president of UCL, which has about 6,000 research staff, said “questions remain” over the UK’s commitment to joining Horizon Europe, despite the extra funding, and called for a “coherent plan” on how the government will deliver its commitment to spend 2.4 per cent of gross domestic product on research by 2027.
Meanwhile, Royal Society president Sir Adrian Smith said there “remain significant questions to be answered” over how the cost of participating in Horizon Europe related to the target to increase public research spending to £22 billion by 2024-25.
In its announcement on 1 April, the government said £400 million earmarked for “government priorities” in the recent spending review – assumed at the time to cover a UK replacement for Horizon Europe when association looked unlikely – would also help to pay the membership fee.
But Graeme Reid, chair of science and research policy at UCL, told THE that these combined totals of £250 million and £400 million “still leaves a gap”, prompting questions about “Who fills it?”
“Will science funding go up by £1 billion to £2 billion a year to cover the recurring cost of Horizon association?” asked Professor Reid.
“This episode demonstrates more clearly than ever the need for government to publish a coherent plan for the 2.4 per cent agenda that continues to be promoted.”
Professor Reid said that many people would accept that there would be “bumpy patches along the way” towards the 2.4 per cent target – such as the recent cuts to research projects funded through the UK’s official development assistance (ODA) budget.
“However, in recent times we seem to have witnessed a series of disconnected announcements: ODA, the new £250 million, plus the repurposed £400 million for Horizon, £75 million for a series of Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council projects and more,” Professor Reid continued.
Creating a “coherent plan” that covered tax incentives, attracting foreign funding, stimulating business investment, increased UK Research and Innovation budgets and the likely planned spending on science by other government departments would reassure scientists that the 2.4 per cent figure was a genuine prospect, said Professor Reid.
“The research community would see a sense of direction rather than an unpredictable sequence of cuts and rises,” he said.
Rama Thirunamachandran, vice-chancellor of Canterbury Christ Church University and former director for research, innovation and skills at the Higher Education Funding Council for England, agreed that clarity was needed as the “scientific community is both confused and concerned about what’s been going on”.
“The government’s R&D road map, published less than a year ago, already feels a bit out of date, so it’s important that the government recommits to it and provides some more certainty,” said Professor Thirunamachandran.
