Vince the Evil Genius?

Oh Vince, what have you done? You seemed like such a nice, sensible chap.

Naughty Cable guy

It sounds like Vince Cable is going to take a rusty scythe to the science budget, leaving thousands of research scientists out in the cold, threatening our future economic security*, and doing untold damage to basic research capacity by favouring commercially-driven projects. A decent analysis of Vince's words comes from Evan Harris, here. Although the details aren't yet known, unsurprisingly the scientific community is up in arms.

My favourite suggestion from @arclight is that we scientists should use our technological skills to take the City hostage with some sort of Death Ray. Hmm, perhaps not. More practical is the suggestion that the scientific community puts on a show of strength by marching on London.

I'll let others go through the blindingly obvious reasons why science is so important to our economy that these cuts are bloody stupid idea. I also can't be bothered (because I've done it before) detailing why I believe Vince might have a point when he asks universities to do "more from less" - essentially I think many departments are flabby, wasteful pedlars of bollocks, FEC a farce, and the grant review system not fit for purpose. Cuts would be easier to resist if we hadn't been running such a rotten setup for so long.

Why have we ended up with such a crappy system for research? Pretty much all university research relies on grants from the government and charities. Success in this grant-awarding system is largely based upon... success in the grant-awarding system.

For he that hath, to him shall be given (Mark 4:25)

If you make it to the top within this system, naturally, you aren't likely to see a need for reform. But how can you know it is optimal? How unscientific. The grant system is a self-policed monopoly - how could it yield a lean, efficient system for research? I have little faith in reform by rules and regulations, what is needed is for the monopoly to be broken by a bit of competition. Now, I believe, is the ideal time for this.

There will be several thousand more scientists in the dole office over the coming years. That's terrible, but on the upside it is also a huge resource. Dave and Nick are big on Big Society, which (perversely) was best explained inadvertently by Tony Blair the other day when the BBC was helping promote his book tour...

"(serious face) you know, I believe, that, you know, the role of, government, (pensive face) is, to put in place, the systems, that, erm, you know, enable people, to help, themselves (inane grin)".

Well we scientists constitute a big society that needs a bit of help. The best result for everyone - scientists, the flabby university system, the economy, Big Bad Vince - would be to develop new ways to fund research without grants. This would generate that much-needed competition to sharpen up the universities, more jobs for us non-tenured** scientists, less demand on the remaining funding, and more research overall. 

Perhaps Vince is an evil genius and this was his plan all along? Or perhaps Gorgeous Gideon put him up to it?

I've gone on about this idea of independent research many times before. With a bit of innovation it is possible for certain types of research. One good example is the Freshwater Biology Association in Windermere, who I'm told get by with very little grant funding. For a more underground flavour see the growing DIYbio movement. Getting something like this going is hard (I have tried), but perhaps Vince's words will make the threat that little bit clearer and focus our minds.

*As in other expensive northern European countries, leading research will likely be one of the few viable future economic activities for the UK.

**Tenure - another concept that must go.