UK Scientists Could Lose $1.4 Billion Annually after Leaving the EU
Science authorities in the United Kingdom are now worried that the country may lose up to $1.4 billion annually in science funding that flows from the European Union.
Science authorities in the United Kingdom are now worried that the country may lose up to $1.4 billion annually in science funding that flows from the European Union. The unprecedented nature of the UK's decisive referendum to leave the EU means that British universities could experience sever shortfalls in staffing and research funding.
According to Nature, "UK universities currently get around 16% of their research funding, and 15% of their staff, from the EU," and a majority of professional scientists were opposed to leaving the EU. The science journal has profiled responses from British and American scientists on the topic of the Brexit, finding confusion, worry, dismay, and little optimism for the future of British science.
It is not only science funding that is at stake because of European funding pools. Britain may lose out on certain funds as a direct result of its withdrawal from the EU if the Brexit stops the free movement of people to and from the country — a fundamental freedom on which the EU is premised.
As Neil deGrasse Tyson explained, "What is certain is that innovations and investments in science and technology are the engines of tomorrow’s economic growth."
Discouraged by the prospect of dry funding pools and uninviting immigration systems, promising foreign scientists could decide to forgo an attempt to establish themselves in Britain. Brain drain of this kind was recently unthinkable in a nation as cosmopolitan as Britain, but as "Leave" campaigners coalesced their message around worries about an immigrant influx, nativism became a rallying cry for many Britons who wanted to leave the EU.
Another American scientists, NIH director Francis Collins, explains the ways in which recession had adversely affected scientific research in the US. Were the British economy to falter similarly, opportunities for scientists would similarly decline:
According to the British daily newspaper The Guardian, Nobel prize-winner Paul Nurse said Britain’s scientists would have to counter isolationism if UK science was to continue to prosper: “This is a poor outcome for British science and so is bad for Britain,” he said. “Science thrives on the permeability of ideas and people, and flourishes in environments that pool intelligence, minimises barriers and are open to free exchange and collaboration.”
A new study shows choosing to be active is a lot of work for our brains. Here are some ways to make it easier.
There's no shortage of science suggesting that exercise is good for your mental as well as your physical health — and yet for many of us, incorporating exercise into our daily routines remains a struggle. A new study, published in the journal Neuropsychologia, asks why. Shouldn't it be easier to take on a habit that is so good for us?
A glass of juice has as much sugar, ounce for ounce, as a full-calorie soda. And those vitamins do almost nothing.
Quick: think back to childhood (if you've reached the scary clown you've gone too far). What did your parents or guardians give you to keep you quiet? If you're anything like most parents, it was juice. But here's the thing: juice is bad for you.
The stories we tell define history. So who gets the mic in America?
- History is written by lions. But it's also recorded by lambs.
- In order to understand American history, we need to look at the events of the past as more prismatic than the narrative given to us in high school textbooks.
- Including different voices can paint a more full and vibrant portrait of America. Which is why more walks of American life can and should be storytellers.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.