The UK Research Budget and the 2024-25 Millennium – Prime Minister Jeremy Hunt says no science budget is needed despite the economic crisis
The British finance minister Jeremy Hunt has said that the economic crisis will not affect ambitious plans for research spending.
But during today’s address on government spending — called the Autumn Statement — Hunt, the chancellor of the Exchequer, told parliament that he would protect the entire UK research budget because cutting it would be a “profound mistake”. He added that the government will invest £20 billion (US$24 billion) per year in science by the 2024–25 financial year — a commitment made by the government of former prime minister Boris Johnson that was left hanging in the balance when he resigned in July. Truss remained tight-lipped on science spending during her 44-day leadership.
The science budget will be protected, a sigh of relief was posted by the head of policy at the Russell Group.
Anne Johnson is the president of the Academy of Medical Sciences in London. But she warned that there could still be problems ahead for research. We need to protect partnerships between UK researchers and partners around the world because of inflation.
The announcement was very good, according to geneticist Paul Nurse of the Francis Crick Institute.
The move from Vallance to McLean “follows hot on the heels of other machinery-of-government changes”, says James Wilsdon, a research-policy specialist based at University College London. Two weeks ago the government created a department dedicated to science and technology. There are still questions over where the lines of responsibility fall between ministers, senior officials in that department.
The 2024–25 commitment reaffirmed by Hunt is one milestone in an earlier pledge to spend 2.4% of gross domestic product on research and development by 2027. The UK Office for National Statistics says the government has met its target. This is mainly because of changes in the way that research and development spending is calculated, rather than any cash boost.
The website for the government department that oversees science spending, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), lists both Freeman and Ghani as “minister of state”, with Ghani also listed as “minister for science and investment security”. The BEIS could not confirm or deny who had overall responsibility for science.
The Covid Commission Planning Group: How the Office of Homeland Security Can Come Into Being: The 2001 Pandemic Report by J. M. Zelikow
Infectious disease experts predict that pandemics will occur with increasing frequency, fueled by global travel, climate change and humans moving into closer proximity with animals. Biodefense experts say that pandemics are every bit as big a threat to national security as terrorist attacks. The public may not see it that way.
Congress members are attempting to understand the crisis. The final report of the House subcommittee was critical of the Trump administration. Democrats on the Senate homeland security committee studied the early months of the Pandemic. Most scientists disagree with the Republicans on the Senate health committee who think that the swine flu was the result of a lab leak.
Those inquiries are partisan. The commission would be chaired by a panel made up of citizens appointed by congressional leaders from both parties. It would have subpoena power, like the panel from Sept. 11. It would be charged with examining the origins of the pandemic as well as the response by the Trump and Biden administrations.
Senator Richard M. burr said that there is no substitute for showing the vision that was shown in the early 2000s and addressing the things that were not thought of before.
Mr. Zelikow now leads the Covid Commission Planning Group, a privately funded effort involving about three dozen independent experts who have spent the better part of the past two years conducting research to lay the groundwork for a national inquiry. The group, which has held several hundred interviews, grew tired of waiting for Congress and plans to publish its findings in a book this spring, Mr. Zelikow said. He wouldn’t discuss the details.
The COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences: a Nature Briefing on Science, Technology and Innovation for the UK Prime Minister and Cabinet
This week, a team of researchers working with the World Health Organization have used statistical modelling to estimate the number of excess deaths associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021. The work estimates that there were almost 15 million deaths either directly or indirectly attributed to the pandemic, almost three times higher than the official toll.
Stark figures show that the representation of scientists from minority ethnic groups dwindles at each stage of UK academia. To get a sense of the issue and what can be done to tackle it, we spoke to Mahrukh Shameem, a PhD student and an advocate for equity, diversity and inclusion.
We discuss some highlights from the Nature Briefing. This time, how the text-generating AI OpenGPT could spell the end for student essays, and what the successful test of NASA’s Orion capsule means for the Artemis programme.
Never miss an episode. Subscribe to the Nature Podcast on
Apple Podcasts
,
Google Podcasts
,
Spotify
or your favourite podcast app. An RSS feed for Nature Podcast
is available too.
Patrick Vallance will be replaced by a mathematical Biologist so that he can provide guidance on science and technology policies.
He will advise the prime minister and the cabinet on science and technology policies. She will be the first woman to hold the role since it was created in 1964.
She will take over from Patrick Vallance — who has held the role since 2018 and has appeared in many televised public briefings throughout the pandemic — on 1 April.
“I am delighted to take on this role at such an important time in our country for science, innovation and technology,” she said in a press release accompanying the announcement of her appointment on 20 February.
“There are expectations that [McLean’s] role will be quite broad,” says Joanna Chataway, a science-policy researcher at University College London. The priority areas for the government of making science, technology and innovation relevant to a broad economic and social infrastructure is addressed in this proposal.