Business as usual for now, but post-Brexit funding, R&D worries remain at forefront

LONDON – One week on, and researchers in the U.K. still reeling from the Brexit vote have been told by the science minister Jo Johnson to carry on as before.

In legal terms, nothing has changed. "We remain an EU member during the two-year negotiation period, with all rights and obligations that derive from this," Johnson said in a speech given at the headquarters of research charity the Wellcome Trust, to an audience including university vice chancellors, representatives of research funding bodies and practicing scientists.

Johnson acknowledged that leaving the EU "inevitably poses new challenges, at a time when research itself is becoming more collaborative and more global."

Of immediate concern is the potential loss of EU research funding. The U.K. is a net recipient, putting in £4.3 billion (US$5.7 billion) from 2007 – 2013, and getting back almost £6 billion. In the current research program, Horizon 2020, the U.K.'s top six research universities alone are leading or participating in projects with a total value of £400 million. Overall, British universities receive about £1 billion per annum, equivalent to around 10 percent of total research spending, from EU sources.

The money allows U.K. researchers in academic institutions and companies, large and small, to take part in projects across Europe, enables postgraduates to study here and attracts leading scientists to work in Britain.

To take one example, Newcastle University has 600 staff members who are EU nationals. Their positions are now in question, not only on account of funding but also because one of the key points of those who campaigned to leave was to limit the free movement of labor from the EU.

"We remain fully open to scientists and researchers from across the EU," Johnson said. "There are no immediate changes to their rights to live and work in the U.K." EU students currently in the U.K. or arriving at the start of the next academic year remain eligible for student finance for the duration of their courses.

While there may not have been any changes to status or circumstances as yet, there have been unconfirmed reports that U.K. researchers have been asked to drop out of Horizon 2020 grant applications or have volunteered not to participate in collaborations in case their inclusion affects the chance of success.

Although aware of the reports, he "has not been given a dossier of evidence that says it is happening in concrete terms," said Johnson. "It is business as usual for Horizon 2020. I would be concerned about any discrimination against U.K. participants."

He has spoken to the EU research commissioner Carlos Moedas about the issue and researchers should communicate any instances of discrimination. "If I see any specific evidence that it is happening, I will bring it to the attention of the team [in his government department] and they will make the relevant authorities and the commissioner aware of it."

Johnson said that while the vote to leave the EU was not what he or the academic and life sciences community wanted, he accepted the decision and was committed to make it work.

The problem with those reassurances is that the government of which Johnson is part has no agreed plan around which to negotiate terms of the U.K.'s withdrawal from the EU. Johnson told the audience he was unable to commit to any future definition of the freedom of movement for EU scientists coming to work in the U.K., or what the U.K.'s standing would be in future EU R&D programs.

MORE ISSUES EMERGING

From the initial shock expressed by researchers when the result of the referendum was announced on June 24, more detailed concerns have emerged, and more issues have been aired.

One such is the status of the EU's new unitary patent, which after decades in the framing, is due to come into effect early in 2017. Once in force, a granted patent will be enforceable across Europe and any dispute will be adjudicated by a unitary patent court.

That contrasts to the current position, where patents granted by the European Patent Office must be registered separately in all the countries in which they are to be enforced and infringement cases brought to national courts, which on occasion have handed down different rulings from each other.

The U.K. is due to be home to the section of the unitary patent court dealing with pharmaceuticals and chemicals. Brexit means not only that U.K. participation is in doubt, but that there will inevitably be a delay in implementing the patent.

Another issue concerns R&D tax credits that can be claimed against corporate research spending. EU companies are worried they will no longer be eligible to get credits for research they do in the U.K.

A further concern relates to recently agreed changes to EU data protection rules. In the face of demands for a more restrictive regime, U.K. research funding bodies and in particular the Wellcome Trust, took the lead in arguing the case and ensuring that the use of consented medical data was not restricted. Now EU medical researchers are worried that without the support of influential U.K. funders those provisions will be undermined.

Similarly, after taking a leading role in negotiating the details, the U.K. med-tech sector was celebrating new EU rules for regulating medical devices, which were agreed a week before the referendum. Now companies in the U.K. do not know if they will be part of the revamped EU regulatory system or not.

In total, there are 18 pieces of EU legislation relating to life sciences. Upon Brexit, those will need in some way to be transposed to the U.K. statute books.

Source