Letter: Research distinctions
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Proposals in the Government's White Paper 'Realising our potential' (report, 26 May) include the dismantling of the Science and Engineering Research Council, with 'big science' concentrated in a separate research council.
Big science involves internationally co-ordinated projects, and there has been a wide consensus among scientists that a mechanism should be found to protect domestic science against the consequences of sudden changes in exchange rates. It is clearly improper that an unpredicted change of expenditure at Cern or the European Space Agency should affect the grant of, say, a chemist from the University of Newcastle.
Protection against short-term exchange rate fluctuations requires a technical solution from the Treasury (long-term adjustments are already covered by our international agreements). But, instead, the White Paper suggests the separation of scientists according to whether their programmes are large or small in scale.
There is a great danger in this proposal. It will produce a situation in which there will be, on the one hand, a research council for high- profile, internationally regarded, curiosity-based research protected by international treaties, and, on the other, a rump of unexciting, parochial 'British' science. To have done this for purely technical and organisational reasons does not augur well for the planning of science in this country for the 21st century.
Yours faithfully,
IAN BUTTERWORTH
Imperial College
London, SW7
28 May
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments