Given the increasing importance of science for many aspects of our lives, what will the impact be on UK science if we are in or out of Europe?

The first question to ask is whether we are financially better off by being in Europe. In the current EU research framework programme (how the EU invests in research) the UK is the second largest recipient of funding. In the five years since 2007 our scientists in businesses, universities and elsewhere are estimated to have received around £3.7bn from Europe. Just this week it has been announced that 80 out of the 302 senior researchers awarded a share in €680m of European Research Council funding will be based in the UK, twice as many as the next most successful country.

Our strong position is based on the excellence of our science base. As with our own funding system, the EU invests in the best science wherever it may be, and because the UK is good at science we generally do well in the funding competitions. Another beneficial side-effect of competing for financial support across the EU, rather than just at home, is the extra spur it provides towards quality. This competition and the collaborations that result with our European colleagues help us raise our game, increasing the quality of the work we do.

There are presently proposals for a significant increase in funding for the 2014-20 research programme and the UK should gain significantly if that were to take place. Increasing funding makes sense because this will help to promote innovation and sustainable economic growth. Innovation is a key area where the UK and the EU must continue to be strong and this ultimately relies on science. However in the inevitable horse-trading that goes on in Brussels, the proposed increase to the research budget is under threat from those supporting the agriculture and infrastructure budgets. If that threat was made real it would not be good news for the UK. It also should be remembered that in the proposals for 2014-20, the proposed increased research allocation would only account for around 8% of the EU budget, which is small compared with what is spent on the agriculture and infrastructure sectors.

It is also important to realise that science is an increasingly collaborative endeavour. Over 35% of articles published in high quality science journals are international projects. Science does not need pan-European institutions to work together but it does help. There are also some areas of science, tackling global challenges and addressing fundamental questions in science, that require international collaboration. The Large Hadron Collider is a great example of something achieved through co-operation that could simply not have been done at a national scale. The collider is not an EU project but relations with our EU partners will have helped make it a reality. The Innovative Medicines Initiative is an EU programme and is aimed at speeding up the development of better and safer treatments. If done well, it will bring together universities, pharmaceutical companies, doctors and patients to tackle problems such as antibiotic resistance.

And more porous borders can help attract the best scientists to the UK. It was easier for our recent Nobel prizewinners Andre Geim and Kostya Novoselov to come to the UK because they were already working in the Netherlands. The rhetoric around current government policy on immigration is giving the impression to some abroad that the UK is not open to bringing the best people here to work. Were we to be outside the EU, that situation could be exacerbated and that would damage UK science.

Our strength is not only recognised in the funding we secure but also in the fact that the first ever chief scientific adviser to the European Commission is Professor Anne Glover, the former chief scientific adviser for Scotland. This reflects our potential influence over matters in Brussels.

Some things worry me though. Few in the science community in the UK would agree with EU thinking on GM crops, and there are concerns about the EU's position on data protection and health research for example. However, I think that influencing from within would be the most effective way forward. Scientific evidence will more often than not carry the day, as can be seen from the EU's leadership on climate change. The UK's strength in science means that it should play a central role in shaping European science policy and that means that the UK must be at the table.

Looking at it from the perspective of science in the UK, it would be hard to make a case for us being better off outside the EU. There is a reasonably strong financial case and that is only part of the argument. The benefits to promote scientific collaboration are also strong. However, the EU is facing a crossroads in its current budget negotiations. Speaking at the Royal Society recently, David Willetts and George Osborne made a case for the EU research budget to be a larger part of a smaller overall budget. I suspect a greater focus on science and research and recognition of how this can help promote sustainable economic growth would help make a stronger case for many in the UK to support EU membership. This would certainly apply to UK scientists but if the plans to make the research budget more important are rejected then they are less likely to be quite so enthusiastic.

Sir Paul Nurse is president of the Royal Society