Rotten & decayed

Every so often, a new medical breakthrough or health-assisting device hits the market. The latest innovation to grab the headlines and change the health industry for the better is a cuff-shaped apparatus conceived to measure blood pressure in the largest artery in the body. As the brainchild of researchers at the University of Leicester and institutions in Singapore the cuff, which is fitted around the patient’s wrist, serves to give a much more accurate reading than the traditional arm cuff.

Cut science funding, and innovations such as the new blood pressure device wouldn’t come to fruition, nor would life-saving medicines, let alone space ships. Still, the question of whether more money should be pumped into scientific research at the time of financial hardship is a delicate one. Before raising the budget-busting axe, it should be taken into account that unlike most areas of public spending, the science research budget tends to pay for itself. To offer a tangible figure, the Medical Research Council in the UK estimates that every pound it parts with brings back a 40p return each year. To further prove the strength of the segment, university offshoot companies have been acquired or floated on the stock market for a total value of £3.5bn in the past few years, creating jobs for over 14,000 people in the UK.

Indeed, scientific research is, or rather has been, one of the UK’s most sound areas of economic competitive advantage, and as ardently stressed by institutions such as The Royal Society, the country faces a doomed future and stifled economic growth unless it invests heavily in research. “History shows us that new technologies drive economic development – look at the industrial and digital revolutions. The UK has been in the top two of the scientific premier league for the last 350 years. It would seem obvious that politicians would recognise the need to invest in this competitive advantage rather than cutting funds,” says Sir Martin Taylor, who chaired the Royal Society report entitled The Scientific Century in March last year.

The significant and much buzzed about report was put together in a bid to create awareness leading up to the new budget announcement of 2011 that didn’t seem to favour R&D. While some muttered that the paper was nothing but a piece of propaganda drafted by a gaggle of scientists fretting that they’d be forced to hand in their lab coats for good, the actions of international rivals supported the pro-science argument by making scientific research and exploration their number one priority. To give a snapshot of what the competition is up to in an attempt to boost their economies via science research, President Obama’s stimulus package included more than $100bn for science, seeing an increase of 5.9 percent per year, while the country’s overall budget stayed intact; President Sarkozy of France, meanwhile, announced an extra €35bn for research, whereas Germany is set to spend an additional 12bn on education and science by 2013.

Also upping its game significantly, China has ramped up research funds by 20 percent a year for a decade and is thus considered the new monster force in the sphere of global science. To strengthen its position further, the top scientific bodies of China and Taiwan have formed a partnership to promote exchanges and cooperation between researchers, who will also share research resources and data. The country has also made progress in the field of space science and is widely regarded as taking a leading role in some areas of space research in the future.

Since we’re on the subject, France and the US are equally keen to invest in the space industry. In his 2012 budget request for Nasa, Mr Obama is asking Congress for $850m to help seed the development of a series of private space vehicles – a $238m increase on the 2011 budget (that is yet to be implemented, but has been authorised). The request for Nasa as a whole is $18.7bn – the same as the current figure. Under the proposed budget, Nasa would continue to work with the same budget through to the fiscal year of 2016.  Hot on the heels of the US, France is on a roll too, launching new space innovations on a regular basis.

Academics’ campaign pays off
Returning to bleaker territories, the UK and less fortunate parts of the EU need to be on their guard if they’re not to fall by the wayside, ramping up their spending and general science investment to match that of their rival nations, the US and China. Giving the UK as an example, while the R&D pot of gold was full to the brim during Blair and Brown governments, when it doubled in value, the situation looks much different today, with a £178bn deficit to be dealt with. Leading up to the latest budget announcement, academics fought their corner with gusto, without much assurance from government to encourage their cause. The Shadow Science Minister even went as far as to state that cuts were inevitable. Hence, the research community expected nothing but a catastrophic outcome with at least a 20 percent cut in grants for science research. To everyone’s surprise and delight, the campaign paid off; in October 2010 George Osbourne announced that the £4.6bn science budget was ring-fenced for the next four years. In his speech, Osborne rightly said: “Britain is a world leader in scientific research, and that is vital to our economic success.” The funds are divided between the seven research councils, which in turn hand out grants to relevant scientists and institutions, leaning towards a distribution favouring areas with the most potential to deliver wealth creation and promote a low carbon economy.

The fact that merciless cuts were avoided is undeniably positive, but the stagnant budget still sees a reduction of about 10 percent once inflation has been taken into account. Stepping in to rescue dwindling revenues, charities are under greater pressure than ever to fund the area, particularly the field of medical research. But organisations such as the Wellcome Trust are careful to point out that they’re not stepping in to substitute for government, as that would send out the wrong signal. “The government knows very well that the Wellcome Trust believes this is about synergy not substitution,” said Mark Walport, Director of the Wellcome Trust, in a statement responding to the government’s feeble attempts to rescue the UK science industry from cuts.

Apart from the obvious drawbacks of a shrinking scientific community, such as challenged prosperity and an increasing number of vacant labs, countries with a less forward-thinking scientific culture risk seeing their best scientists becoming easy prey for international rivals ready to lure them away with more lucrative offers and high-profile ventures. In developing countries, ‘brain drain’ is a problem, where many skilled scientists undertake studies in science abroad, but rarely return to home turf to utilise their expertise.

But it’s not only practicing scientists that are in decline. Looking at A-levels in science in the UK, for example, a mere 17 percent of 16 to 18-year-olds took one or more science A-levels in 2009, according to a fresh report by The Royal Society. Equally worrying, British universities produce less than 10,000 science graduates per year, and there’s a significant fall in the number of selective schools putting forward candidates for physics. To compare, in 2005, every private school in the UK had physics candidates, but in 2009 that number had dropped to 89 percent. “At a time of economic uncertainty, when science and scientists can play a key role in revitalising the UK’s financial outlook, it is deeply worrying to find that numbers of A-level science students are at such low levels,” says Professor Athene Donald, chair of the Royal Society’s education committee.

Empty labs
The pharmaceutical industry has been hotly debated for some time now, and spending in some areas is in decline worldwide. Making headlines when the news broke in January 2010, UK pharmaceutical name AstraZeneca has made substantial cuts that form part of a global restructuring plan to make up for losses linked to lost patents and pressure to reduce drug prices. On the job loss front, the number will reach 8,000 across the company’s various international sites by 2014. Of the total cuts, around 1,800 account for worldwide redundancies within the R&D segment, with another 1,700 shifting to other locations or therapeutic areas.

In a bid to up its profit, AstraZeneca will be exiting  research areas where the risks outweigh the rewards. These include thrombosis, acid reflux, ovarian and bladder cancers, systemic scleroderma, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression and anxiety and hepatitis C. The company will continue to invest in all its traditional areas, namely cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, oncology, respiratory, inflammation, neuroscience and infection.

Adding to the worrying trend, the US drug company Merck has also closed facilities worldwide in countries including the Netherlands, Canada and Denmark, whereas GlaxoSmithKline has decided to withdraw its antidepressant research facility in Britain in an attempt to save £500m a year by 2012.

Another major blow to the R&D community is the announcement that US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer is to close its main European research site in Sandwich, UK. By no means a minor player, the company boasts Europe’s largest research and development facility, bringing together prime chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer scientists and clinicians – some of the fields that the UK specialises in. At the Sandwich site, key areas of research and development include that of drugs fighting Alzheimer’s and cancer. The closure of the facility, planned for 2013, will result in 2, 400 employees being made redundant within the next two years.

According to company executives, the decision to close the site is not a reflection on the UK environment, but part of a global plan to create a more “focused and sustainable R&D engine for innovation”. This new route involves exiting certain therapeutic areas, such as allergy and respiratory, which significantly is based at the soon to be abandoned site. By no means struggling, Pfizer recorded a 36 percent increase in revenue for the financial year to $67.8bn. The upswing is primarily a result of the Pfizer’s merging with Wyeth in 2009. Not planning to clear out of the UK entirely, Pfizer is said to be opening a new Pain and Sensory Disorders Unit based in Cambridge. Still, the company’s ruthless plan of action has created furore in the UK, and the House of Commons won’t let the company or the government get off lightly. In due course, the Science and Technology Select Committee is to summon Pfizer representatives and science minister David Willetts to give evidence about the closure and job losses. 

In order to soften the blow, Mr Willetts recently suggested that the government should attempt to transform the Sandwich site into a new life sciences park. Furthermore, the ABPI (Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries) has backed the UK as a destination for scientific research, owing much to the fact that the government recently introduced the so called Patent Box – a promising new tax-reduction initiative aimed at luring the pharmaceutical industry.