Committee calls on government to offer an immediate commitment to EU scientists and engineers currently living and working in Britain

EU researchers who have come to Britain must be allowed to stay, according to a cross-party group MPs who are calling on the government to offer an immediate commitment to those who have already made Britain their home.

The MPs on the Commons science and technology committee want EU scientists and other researchers exempted from wider immigration controls that will be up for discussion in the UK’s negotiations with Europe over its departure from the union.



A clear signal on the future security of those now working in Britain would reduce the uncertainty for EU scientists and engineers who may be tempted to leave for more secure jobs in other countries, where international collaborations are not under threat, the MPs believe.



Brexit 'not good news for British science' warn new Nobel laureates Read more

“There are about 45,000 EU students and researchers in the UK. Not all will want to stay, but if we reassure them that their status will be maintained whatever happens, that may give them the security they need,” said Stephen Metcalfe, the committee chair.



“The government could reassure researchers right now and it would not undermine our negotiating position,” he added. “It doesn’t change the fact that we have some tough negotiations ahead, but it does help to protect something we are very good at, which is our science base.”



Sir Paul Nurse, director of the Francis Crick Institute in London, supported the call for such a commitment as a “sensible and significant step.” He added: “There is a need for stability to stop people wondering whether they ought to look for posts elsewhere.”



Lord Rees, the astronomer royal, said that since the Brexit vote, skilled people from overseas feel less welcome in Britain, their families less secure. “Researchers and technologists are mobile, like those in finance, or sport. The chancellor has assured international bankers of special treatment, but there’s no comfort for other sectors,” he said. “Many already here will feel they’d be better off abroad. Ambitious young people will wonder whether science is a career where they can do the best work in this country.”

In a major report on the implications of Brexit on science, the MPs argue that government should boost its spending on research to 3% of GDP, a level that would bring the UK in line with other countries such as Germany and the US. But as Nurse points out, following withdrawal from the EU, British research may need an extra £500m a year just to make up for EU grants that now flow into the UK.



UK scientists dropped from EU projects because of post-Brexit funding fears Read more

In evidence given to the MPs, the Royal Society of Biology said that work on cancer, mental health, imaging, neurodegenerative disease, tissue engineering, bioinformatics, and conservation would all be “heavily and negatively affected” if the UK was unable to maintain involvement in centralised EU-wide initiatives.”



The report goes on to criticise the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) for failing to appoint a chief scientific advisor to ensure science has a voice in the Brexit negotiations. In the course of the committee’s inquiry, DExEU minister Robin Walker said the post had already been advertised, but later withdrew the statement and said the department had not decided whether it would establish the role.



“Science is one of those things we’re very successful at and it will be at the heart of our industrial strategy for moving forward. And yet the department for negotiating our exit from the EU doesn’t have a chief Science Advisor,” Metcalfe said. “If they were to advertise the post and quickly appoint someone it would send the message that DExEU is serious about protecting the interests of science as we go into these negotiations.”



Nurse said that since science plays a crucial role in improving the quality of our lives and driving the UK economy, it must be included in Brexit discussions. “There are so many interlocking issues affecting many sectors that the scientific research community cannot fight or lobby on each point separately from outside. It needs scientists present – or some representation for science, research and innovation – who can contribute to wider discussions in a more complete way,” he said.