Getty Images / Peter Macdiarmid / Staff

The exasperation is clear in Sir Paul Nurse's voice. "The increasing chaos, and that's what it looks like to us all, around the Brexit negotiations is causing huge concern among scientists," the Nobel Prize winner and head of the Francis Crick Institute warned on BBC 4's Today programme. "The government doesn't seem to be really putting this at the top of its agenda — there's issues around funding, around movement and so on." He said crashing out of the EU with a hard, no-deal Brexit will cost more than £1 billion annually in funding from European grants.

Science minister Sam Gyimah's response was cash, and lots of it. "Where I'd agree with Paul Nurse is a chaotic Brexit would be a significant setback for UK science. And that is why we have a plan to ensure that, deal or no deal, there will be no cliff-edge for UK science." That's being achieved with lots of money, in particular £7bn in extra funding, he said.


But that money may not be enough — not only was that £7bn supposed to be in addition to EU funding, helping to boost already low investment in the UK, but there's plenty more to European collaboration than grants.

The radio debate between the renowned researcher and the science minister was sparked by an open letter from 29 Nobel Prize winning scientists to prime minister Theresa May and EU president Jean-Claude Juncker, urging them to seek the "closest possible collaboration". And it comes as the Francis Crick Institute released a survey of 1,000 of its staff saying 97 per cent believe a hard Brexit would harm their research, with only one in ten feeling confident in the future of UK science.

Read next Google and Microsoft staff set to join the UK’s first tech trade union Google and Microsoft staff set to join the UK’s first tech trade union

That's only partially about money, though there is plenty at stake. While the UK is a net contributor to the EU — we pay more than we get back financially, overall — research funding for science and engineering is one area where it is a net receiver. According to the Campaign for Science and Engineering, between 2007 and 2013, the UK handed €5.4bn to the EU specifically to fund research and development. During that same time, the UK received back €8.8bn for research. The EU was a good deal for the UK, in terms of research funding, at least.

In theory, the government could opt to cover that gap — whether it was promised on the side of a bus or not. Regardless of what sort of Brexit deal happens, it is true that the UK government had already announced plans to boost research funding by an additional £7bn over several years. Those plans were announced post-referendum in 2016, but detailed in last year's Industrial Strategy — page 67, a Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy spokesperson helpfully noted — which explains that annual public funding of R&D activity will increase from £9.5bn in 2016 to £12.5bn in 2021.


Convenient timing aside, that £7bn was not outwardly designed to backstop, if you will, British science. Chancellor Philip Hammond said in response to a question in parliament in December 2016 that the funding was "additional money", rather than being used to prop up sciences if EU funds were lost. In such an instance, he suggested that whatever money the UK normally sent to the EU would be made available; of course, that still leaves the UK industry coming up short, as it pays less than it gets back.

Either way, it's certainly better to have that £7bn waiting in the wings rather than not, even if all it does is maintain the status quo rather than help the UK leap forward in research investment, as was initially planned. That £7bn was originally supposed to help increase the amount of money invested in the UK on R&D from 1.7 per cent of GDP to 2.4 per cent, which is the OECD average, but still below rivals such as South Korea and Japan. That spending figure includes both public and private investment, but of course the government can only directly influence the former, and either way losing £1bn a year won't help meet that goal.

In short, though the government has £7bn to toss around, a no-deal Brexit means less funding for research and development than the industry previously would have had. "Roughly 13 per cent of UK research funding comes through the EU, so it's a significant fraction, but it's not a huge fraction," notes professor Sir Robert Lechler, president of The Academy of Medical Sciences.

Read next Stay Alert never made sense and now we’ve got the data to prove it Stay Alert never made sense and now we’ve got the data to prove it

But it's not only about money — funding is important, but so too are people and partnerships.


Why stockpiling food won't save the UK from a Brexit disaster Food Why stockpiling food won't save the UK from a Brexit disaster

The UK can stay a part of European research even post Brexit, as the EU does allow non-member states to apply for grants and win funding. So-called third countries are normally much smaller players than the UK in terms of finances and research might, but given the UK's status, another option could be a bespoke deal, such as a pay-to-play system with the UK contributing funds but not making a financial gain. The collaboration and partnerships alone could be worth it.

That's the solution called for in the Nobel winners' letter, and what Naomi Weir, deputy director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering expects to happen. "It's highly likely in future programmes, that the UK won't have the net financial benefit we get at the moment," she said. "And it's more likely to be a pay-to-play kind of approach where we pay in a certain amount and get a certain amount back, but the benefit for the UK being involved in those programmes comes across really strongly from scientists in terms of the additional benefits for the UK and science."

That lets the UK back into European research, but what about getting European researchers into the UK? A hard Brexit means the UK research community could lose funding, but losing people is even worse, says Lechler. "We're in a very people dependent business, and it's a very international business, says Lechler. "My biggest concern is that we come out of this, deal or no deal, with arrangements that ensure that talented people feel as welcome and as able to come to the UK as they do now."

Read next The big lesson from coronavirus? We need to listen to the experts The big lesson from coronavirus? We need to listen to the experts

The Francis Crick Institute's survey included 801 of its scientists, of which 44.4 per cent are from the UK, 12.9 per cent are from the rest of the world, and the remaining 42.7 per cent are from Europe. No surprise then that half of Crick's scientists say they are less likely to stay in the UK because of Brexit when they look for their next role — they don't actually yet know if they'll be able to, after all. Only 7 per cent of those polled said they believe the UK will continue to attract top scientific talent. No wonder, when reports suggests scientists are already finding it increasingly difficult to get the necessary visas to attend conferences in the UK.

Money isn't everything. The government has said it will underwrite Horizon 2020 grants, a major EU funding operation. If a British researcher gets funding while we're still in the EU, and Brexit means a project is dropped, the government will pay up.

Despite such a guarantee, UK participation in Horizon 2020 is already slipping. According to the Campaign for Science and Engineering, in September 2016, the UK had the largest share of project participation; it's now slipped behind Germany into second, and getting less funding. Whether that's because fewer British projects are applying or because European counterparts are shying away from working with them with Brexit uncertainty continues.

Either way, with fewer funding options, more difficult collaboration, and uncertainty of where they'll be able to work, Nurse told Radio 4 that scientists are feeling the burden of an uncertain Brexit. "I can't tell you how depressed our young scientists are about all the messages that are coming out of government. This is just awful."

More great stories from WIRED

– Scientists explain why Hyperloop is so dangerous and difficult

– The suspicious Facebook page pushing Brexit ads to millions

– Why India is turning off the internet to fight fake news


– These photos show the devastating impact of human progress

– How to hack your brain to remember anything

Don’t miss out. Sign-up to WIRED Weekender to get the best of WIRED in your inbox every weekend