Why do most scientists think Brexit is bad for British science?

Question

From what I've seen in the media, almost all British scientists think Brexit is bad for British science. However I don't understand why. Some of the most common reasons I've seen are:

Loss of funding - UK researchers receive lots of funds from EU grants, and these would not last once the UK leaves. But since the UK pays the EU more than it receives in benefits, the UK could simply redirect some of that money into science. It could be that the UK does not actually redirect the money, but that would be because the UK as a whole decided that science isn't worth it, in which case it would be democracy in action and one can't really complain.

Isolation - this seems to be based on the idea that Brexit makes the UK a less attractive place to work in. However the US didn't seem to suffer a similar brain drain after the 2016 elections, so it's not obvious to me that the UK will. Individuals might leave, but there's apparently no shortage of people wanting to move to the UK anyway (e.g. there were record numbers of international applicants to British universities in spite of Brexit).

Loss of collaborations - it's not clear to me why this would happen. The EU presumably doesn't have a "you may only collaborate with other EU researchers" rule, since there're lots of countries that are not part of the EU. But if they don't have such a rule then presumably collaborations can persist whether or not the UK is within the EU. Further, the EU would be incentivized to keep such collaborations because they're presumably win-win. Finally, even if EU collaborations are jeopardized, there's still the rest of the world. There are scientific powerhouses like the US that aren't part of the EU either.

Other reasons I've seen, like "there's no clarity on what we can or cannot do", should be temporary. They might be causing problems now, but five years in the future they should be resolved also.

Is there anything about Brexit that is fundamentally injurious to British science? If not, why do UK scientists so universally regard Brexit as grim?

Answer 1

tl;dr: Although it is possible to have Brexit without British science suffering, this would require meaningful political support, and there is little to suggest that this will be forthcoming in the near future.

A recent report by the Royal Society provides some context. This report is focussed on the British research sector as a whole, rather than on science specifically, but not too much turns on that. Some key figues include:

• Britain receives a significant amount of funding from European bodies (e.g. ERC)
• A sizeable fraction of the UK science workforce originates from other EU countries (16% of academic staff; 14% of PhD students)
• 70% of British researchers held a non-UK affiliation at some point in the period 1996-2011, although there is no EU-specific figure.

The overall picture is that British research benefits from EU membership, through direct financial input and through mobility of individuals. British universities are disproportionately well-regarded on the international stage (e.g. the Times Higher Education ranking has 7 British universities in the top 50, compared to 7 from the rest of the EU combined), and so historically Britain has been able to attract excellent researchers from around the world, especially EU neighbours.

It is right to say that Brexit does not need to change any of this. However, maintaining the status quo would require political and financial investment from the government, and there has been little evidence that this will be forthcoming in the short term - especially given the difficulties the government has had in agreeing the basic framework for Brexit. Domestic investment in research has fallen significantly in real terms in recent years, and it is not clear that any more cash will be available in the immediate aftermath of Brexit.

It is also currently unclear how EU citizens currently living in the UK, and British citizens living in other EU countries will be affected. Some progress has been made on this, but (anecdotally) not enough to allay individuals' concerns. This is compounded by (real or perceived) xenophobic attitudes that precipitated the Brexit vote. Numerous UK-based, non-British researchers of my acquaintance are concerned over what the future holds for them, and have started to consider what other options are open to them.

Finally, it is perhaps worth noting that the Brexit vote was correlated with socioeconomic status, and the ideology of Brexit has never enjoyed much support in any of the academic circles I have been familiar with.

Answer 2

Loss of funding - UK researchers receive lots of funds from EU grants, and these would not last once the UK leaves. But since the UK pays the EU more than it receives in benefits, the UK could simply redirect some of that money into science. It could be that the UK does not actually redirect the money, but that would be because the UK as a whole decided that science isn't worth it, in which case it would be democracy in action and one can't really complain.

The Brexiter's solution to everything. I thought this extra money was supposed to be used for the NHS? Or that it was supposed to be used to help British farmers/workers to help with the new tariffs with the EU? Even the proponents of Brexit had to admit that this was a lie, and that you cannot evaluate the repercussions of such a huge decision with a pocket calculator and two numbers. The fact is, nobody knows how research funding will be affected by Brexit, which has real consequences now: who will want to make a life commitment to go work in the UK when they don't know what their situation will be in 5 years?

The UK gets a lot of money for research through the ERC. Nobody knows how that will work out after Brexit. Only two non-EU countries participate in it – Switzerland and Israel, and two years ago it was not even clear if Switzerland would be allowed to stay in due to concerns regarding free movement of people. Compare this with the preoccupations of scientists, who are concerned whether they will be able to continue their research projects over the next ten years, hire new students, postdocs... Why should all this hinge on politics when you can play it safe and go work in an EU country?

Isolation - this seems to be based on the idea that Brexit makes the UK a less attractive place to work in. However the US didn't seem to suffer a similar brain drain after the 2016 elections, so it's not obvious to me that the UK will. Besides, there were record numbers of applicants to British universities in spite of Brexit.

I think I covered this extensively above. Let me add that issues regarding visas are also problematic. Applying for academic positions is already an ordeal, if one needs to apply for a visa afterwards with no certainty of getting it, it becomes hell. You may argue that, maybe, there will be deals to make sure that people from the EU can continue to work in the UK and get easy visas, but that's the thing – we don't know. Can you tell me that you would be willing to uproot your life, move to a new country, all the while not being sure whether you will be allowed to remain in the country based on the whims of ten DUP members of parliament?

The situation is also not at all comparable with the US elections. The elections are reversible; at the end of the year part of their congress is replaced, and in two years maybe this whole thing will be over. Brexit is a priori irreversible. Moreover, the general sentiment I feel when talking to people is that incompetence at the top prevents too drastic changes. Here, incompetence would mean the opposite – maximum change.

Loss of collaborations - it's not clear to me why this would happen. The EU presumably doesn't have a "you may only collaborate with other EU researchers" rule, since there're lots of countries that are not part of the EU. But if they don't have such a rule then presumably collaborations can persist whether or not the UK is within the EU. Further, the EU would be incentivized to keep such collaborations because they're presumably win-win. Finally, even if EU collaborations are jeopardized, there's still the rest of the world. There are scientific powerhouses like the US that aren't part of the EU either.

You have to understand how research is funded. The most attractive grants are collaborative. You apply for grants together with people from other institutions/countries, and then you get money to run experiments, organize workshops together, visit the other institutions part of the grant to learn from your collaborators and actually work in the same room...

Once again, it is unclear how Brexit will affect all this. Given a funding source and British partners, will it still be possible after Brexit to either keep it, or apply again for it? Nobody knows. Since applying for these grants is so time-consuming and the success rate so low, why would you risk it all on the bet that politicians will come to an agreement that suits you?

As for "the rest of the world", well, it's certainly easier to work with people who are a two-hour train ride away than a transatlantic flight away. And yes, the US is a powerhouse, which may not be as good for UK as you seem to think: why would US scientists bother to apply for grants with British scientists (from which funding source?!), when there are perfectly good collaborators already on the same continent working with the same funding sources (NSF etc)?

---

There is also the question of the timeline. You say that the situation is "temporary" and that "five years in the future [issues] should be resolved". One problem, as outlined above, is that we don't know if the situation will be resolved, or how. Perhaps the UK government will manage a complete upheaval of their research funding systems to not rely on external sources after 45 years of integration with the EU. Maybe not.

But you're forgetting about the irreversible effects that happen now. Students want to enter PhD programs. New PhDs want to find a postdoc. Postdocs want to find faculty jobs. Less funding and less certainty about the future means that these people either will not find a job in the UK and leave academia (if they are bent on staying in the UK) or apply for jobs elsewhere. And once you start working in some place, you're more likely to stay there, simply because you start to know the "system" better and you meet more people from that place.

---

Of course, I paint a pretty bad picture of the situation above. British academia will not collapse overnight on March 29th, 2019. But it will certainly be in a worse shape than today. And given the very competitive world we work in, everyone needs any edge they can get.

Finally, let me mention that two Nobel prize laureates have claimed that research will take a blow.

Answer 3

In addition to the practical, and very important answers that others have already given I will make this point about the emotional impact.

I'm a UK citizen in academia, but a lot of my colleagues, collaborators and students (both UG and PG) are from the EU. Before the Brexit vote they had almost exactly the same rights as me to live and work in UK academia. After the vote many feel that they don't, and after the exit they definitely won't (even if the precise nature of that is unclear).

They feel rejected and insulted. Their efforts, working within the UK to teach, and research, and improve our universities, have been deemed less important than the potential benefits of Brexit. I also think that the Brexit vote is an insult and a rejection not just of the EU as an institution but also of its citizens.

I've heard a lot of stories of xenophobic abuse increasing, particularly aimed at students, since the Brexit vote. But that's the nastiest end of the spectrum: most of the hurt that I hear expressed is about the steady normalisation within the UK in general of the idea that EU citizens are a problem.

TL;DR: Brexit supporters intentions and claims notwithstanding, the result is that EU students and academics feel insulted and rejected by Brexit, and this causes emotional damage at least as bad as the practical problems outlined.

Answer 4

The EU organises and funds programmes such as Horizon 2020, the Erasmus programme, and Erasmus Mundus. None of those can be replaced by the UK government in isolation.

On a personal note. Why do I feel so strongly? I am a Dutch citizen and presently a postdoc in England. I have personally benefitted tremendously from freedom of movement and from all three EU programmes mentioned above:

• I thoroughly enjoyed an Erasmus exchange in Sweden (incidentally, among 200 exchange students, there were only 2 from the UK, both Scottish; I believe this anomaly may originate from the same island mentality which contributed to the Brexit vote in England, whereas Scotland voted by large majority for Remain; or it may simply be an anomaly/coincidence).
• I obtained my Master through the Erasmus Mundus programme where I met my wife.
• I am currently funded by Horizon 2020 within the UK.

So I thank my education, my wife, and my job to the European Union. I was living in the UK at the time of the Brexit vote, which has upset me more than any other vote in my life.

Fortunately, postdocs are exempt from the £35000/year income requirement, or EU postdocs might find themselves shut out of indefinite leave to remain completely (as most earn less than this). I hope we won't need to apply for a new visa every time a 1-year contract gets renewed by another year, like in the US.

Answer 5

Just responding to the isolation part...

I am a non-EU postdoc working in UK. Postdocs have short contracts and visas are tied to contracts. I have recently got to 5 years and therefore residency after 4 short term visas. Total visa costs (just for me) over 5500 GBP and no funding provided. Add in my partner's visas to get the full cost.

Also, without residency, a postdoc can't really apply for research funding to the various research councils. This is because you have to make sure your new contract is in place before the current one expires (thrown out of the country at the end of a contract) and therefore the long funding decision cycles mean there's insufficient time to get a decision before moving to the next contract even if the next contract is at the same research group.

This makes UK very unattractive for non-EU postdocs. If postdocs aren't coming to the UK then the next generation of researchers is not going to be based in the UK.

UPDATE: It seems that some commentators were not sure why I was talking about non-EU postdocs. I am expecting that EU citizens in the future will be in a similar position as non-EU citizens now. That is the perspective I was bringing to this question. Barriers are high, so future UK based researchers won't have as broad a professional network because EU citizens are much less likely to do a postdoc in UK and that will lead to separation of the UK from the rest of the research community.

Answer 6

"But since the UK pays the EU more than it receives in benefits, the UK could simply redirect some of that money into science. It could be that the UK does not actually redirect the money, but that would be because the UK as a whole decided that science isn't worth it, in which case it would be democracy in action and one can't really complain."

That's the answer. Democracy in action is not necessarily what's best for science. The UK receives a disproportionate amount of EU research funding. There is no reason to think that the UK will maintain this level of funding after Brexit. The EU (and other systems that I know of) does not apportion research funding democratically, but rather based on perceived scientific merit. This gives an advantage to some UK universities or researchers.

Answer 7

From my perspective it is mainly about freedom of movement. Within the Union all citizens can move freely between countries without need for visas and other permits (for example work or residency). From a country in the Union to one outside, in general you will need visa and a plethora of permits to be able to start an employment (for example a research position).

If a person needs to pay more and go through more paperwork and wait longer for a position, it is reasonable to believe there is an increased chance that person will rather take some easier, faster and cheaper route in one of the countries within the Union.

Answer 8

Because scientists have political beliefs, and most of them are left of average voter so in general they opposed Brexit.

So they are more likely to pick on the negative sides of Brexit and ignore the good ones. Similar problem is with the news they read: news media read by leftists is strongly anti Brexit, so this exacerbates the problem.

This is not to say that Brexit changes will not cause problems for scientists based in the UK, but there is no reason for that to happen beside UK/EU being incompetent and/or trying to cause problems intentionally(so they can blame Brexit for those problems) or because they are using people as bargaining chips in their petty negotiations.

Again this may sound like conspiracy theory, but consider the example of China/US trade war where China is targeting certain swing states. And if you want to make Brexit look bad messing up with science is a good way to do that.