Lord Mandelson, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, will tomorrow announce his intention to place science "at centre of vision of Britain's future prosperity" in a speech at the Science Museum in London.
Marking the launch of the museum's centenary celebrations, Mandelson will outline the role of science in the newly-created Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. In a press release he stated:
A new world is emerging. One on the edge of a new industrial revolution that's driven by new technologies and the world's shift to low-carbon. And where global competition will be even tougher. To fully realise our potential as a our country, now is the time that we need to define those comparative advantages that will secure our global lead in this future. And our ability to maintain and develop our strong science base through both applied and a substantial element of fundamental curiosity-driven research, will be essential to our long-term economic success.
Science features heavily in party manifestos as a tool in Britain's developing 'knowledge-based economy' - the liferaft politicians hope can carry us out of recession. So when Mandelson talks of the need to define the UK's "comparative advantages", it's likely he's referring to Chancellor Darling's "areas of predicted economic benefit", to which £106m of funding was reallocated in the 2009 Budget.
The BIS was formed during Gordon Brown's reshuffle last week by combing the Department for Innovation, Universities, and Skills with that of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. As such, the new department bears a striking similarity to the Department for Trade and Industry, which plundered £68m from the science budget in 2007, leaving many understandably worried that the new arrangement leaves science vulnerable to corporate raids. However, Lord Mandelson is keen to allay these fears, stressing that the science budget will be ringfenced and overall investment "raised and protected".
- Log in to post comments
Oh Mandelson, I'm sure you'll ringfence money earmarked for propping up British biotech and other areas with a calculated economic impact, but I'm sure any money earmarked for fundamental science research could easily get re-directed when the next British car manufacturer starts having problems...
I still wonder how much good research could have been done with the £68m the DTI squandered on the money pit that was Rover. A grant I'd co-written at that time would have been funded (given its ranking) a year earlier, but post 2007 the response was 'Sorry.Not.Enough.Money'.
Not that I'm bitter ;-|
Haven't we heard this all before - back in 1963? "A Britain forged in the White-heat of Technology" to paraphrase Harold Wilson...
Mandelson's pronunciations couldn't be less credible if he had a red nose, oversized shoes and a squeezy horn that went PARRRPPP every time he delivers his more blatant lies.
I was a named PDR on a grant in the last NERC round. The panel normally considers 30 to 50 grants and might fund a dozen or 15. They funded two. My 2nd supervisor just got a NERC fellowship. They interviewed 45 candidates and were reported to have 30 fellowships to grant. They awarded eight. The research councils have already been told to tighten their belts. Government statements along the lines of "you can't cut your way out of a recession" are straightforward lies.
Well hopefully they will probuce more funding then. Most of the labs I know seem to be scrounging desperately for it at the moment, the big funding foundations seem to have cut down their support rather a lot, do governmental help would be welcomed.
I thought that this blog was supposed to be about Science, not outrageous fiction...
;)