down the drain

Scientists made it to the cover of the Guardian today, much reason to rejoice, one would think. There is always the assumption, among scientists, that we don't get the recognition we deserve, that our relentless work in the dark caverns of academic labs is not valued much by society, that the contributions to the economic well-being of the nation – through technological advances, spin-offs, start-ups and the general increase in knowledge – go unacknowledged.

At first glance, all seemed different today. The word scientists on the front page of Britain's most prestigious daily (that might be the Times for some, but I prefer the Guardian), and above the fold on top of that, must give a cause to celebrate the times we live in. Sense prevails at last.

Except it doesn't. The full headline read: Scientists quit Britain in new brain drain. Now you might think about the concept of brain drain as you like. A while ago, the Economist took the unorthodox position of unequivocally praising it. To make its point, it compared several East African countries. Those with colonial histories tied to France were at the mercy of French immigration law. In other words, there was no migration. Those historically aligned with the UK faced open doors: nurses and doctors in particular were invited to come to the British Isles (to relieve a chronic shortage of care-givers and medics). The anglophile countries had much higher levels of public health and more motivated doctors than the francophile ones, possibly because the prospect of well-paid health care jobs abroad drew students into the field and stimulated their ambitions, leading to higher numbers of well-qualified nurses and doctors even when the best had left.

Brain drain doesn't have to be a bad thing, but what's going on in Britain is. The program of financial austerity pro- and all but imposed by a government constrained by the excesses of the past has dramatically reduced funding for all activities outside (incidentally) health care and foreign aid. In other words, there is going to be much less money for science than there used to be; the number brandished most often is 25%. The brains that will leave the country won't be replaced by fresh talent. There simply won't be the money.

The problem is acute and rather serious, which explains some of the reactions. A few weeks ago, the Science is Vital campaign got off to a flying start with a petition by scientists not to cut their funding and a viral load of essays and comments. Emotions were boiling high. The public needed convincing that while benefits might be cut and taxes increased, while transportation costs might soar and library and municipal swimming pool hours be curtailed, while schools might be permitted to deteriorate and infrastructure to decay, science must be left untouched. Only the best arguments would do.

Some honest campaigners, with best intentions and a passionate hearts, went over the top, though. My respected colleague Stephen Curry, Professor of Structure Biology at Imperial College, saw it necessary to invoke the glory of faded empires and bloody wars to justify science funding. The namesake of his institute apparently once designed armor to make British bombers safer for their raids on German cities.

We had a little discussion about his reasoning, which I find troubling and flawed. In my opinion, science can stand strong and proud without invoking war. The benefits are obvious all the same: Salk and Sabin's research on poliovirus led to the vaccine that all but eradicated poliomyelitis. Car tires, thermal underwear and IV drip bags wouldn't be possible if some chemist hadn't started polymerizing simple compounds way back when. And Röntgen's faffing around in the lab opened the way for x-rays, materials science and protein crystallography, the field that both Stephen and I plow. These examples provide generous support for the case of, well, generous support of academic research.

In any case, there's two ways of looking at the situation. A labmate of mine, when shown the headline, commented: "Brain drain? I wish!". And that's pretty much my position as well. I have no emotional attachment to British science and am (and always have been) more than happy to go where the jobs, the money and the opportunities are. If the cuts come, I'll watch the disaster unfold from a safe distance.