Curing baldness may just be about having enough pluck

Ok, when will it come back? HuffingtonPost.com , CC BY

Shaved heads have come in and out of fashion over the past few decades, but some people don’t have the option of allowing their locks to grow. Thankfully, for those who do suffer from hair loss, or alopecia, help may be at hand. Somewhat counter-intuitively an effective treatment for baldness may come from plucking a certain number of hairs – in a specific formation – from the scalp.

Hair follicles – the skin organ responsible for hair growth – contain stem cells that constantly divide, they are the driving force behind new hair growth. A healthy hair follicle produces about six inches of hair every year, but if the follicle stem cells malfunction and stop dividing, hair growth ceases and conditions such alopecia are observed.

Androgenic alopecia – or male pattern baldness – is the most common form of hair loss and will effect around two-thirds of men and one-third of women during their lifetime.

Regeneration response

Our recent study, published in Cell, and completed on a mouse model, is unique because it not only studies the regeneration of a single hair follicle, but focuses on the regrowth of several follicles that had previously been effected by alopecia.

We demonstrated that plucking a few properly arranged hairs can trigger regeneration of hair follicles stem cells in up to five times more neighbouring, un-plucked surrounding hairs.

It is not surprising that follicle stem cell injury – caused by plucking – can cause a regeneration response. But, generally the stimulation of one stem cell through injury is only thought to cause regeneration in that stem cell alone. Triggering the regeneration of a whole head of hair in this way would be highly inefficient. But can the regeneration response of several stem cells be triggered by stimulating only a few key cells or signals?

Decision making in stem cell populations

Recently, we accidentally discovered that regeneration could occur through a collective decision-making process. By plucking the correct number of hairs with a proper arrangement, up to five times more neighbouring, unplucked resting hairs were activated to regrow. But if the number of plucked hairs was below a threshold, no hairs regenerated.

Collective-decision time. Cheng-Ming Chuong, CC BY

This type of regeneration is an all-or-nothing process which is dependent on the signals produced by a fraction of hairs being plucked, and is an example of the process known as “quorum sensing”.

Quorum sensing can be thought of as a decision-making process which is dependant on certain criteria being met within a population. Signalling molecules are released by each stimulated component of the population, the more components that are stimulated the more signal molecules are released. As the elements in the system are able sense the number of signal molecules released by the population as a whole, they can also sense the degree of stimulation. When a certain threshold of stimulation is reached, a collective response from the components in the system will follow.

The process of quorum sensing has been used to describe bacteria cell-to-cell communication, where the expression of certain genes is coordinated between many bacteria in response to environmental factors such as an increase in the presence of bacterial toxins. Quorum sensing has also been used successfully to explain the behaviour of social insects such as ants and honey bees for their collective decision-making.

Cast and count

But in reality, how does the population of hair follicles “cast and count its vote” in quorum sensing?. First, there is a stimulus – such as hair plucking, which stimulates follicle stem cells – to some, but not all, hair follicles. Second, the plucked hair sends out a signal to surrounding cells. Third, the group of cells gauges the intensity of signal from its surroundings. Finally, a local decision is made within the population in an all-or-nothing fashion: if enough hairs have been plucked, mass hair regrowth will occur, but if not, there will be no response at all.

In the most simple cases of quorum sensing, the signal molecule spreads by diffusion from the secreting cell. But it was found that the signals being released by plucked hair follicles were travelling further than could be achieved by simple diffusion, suggesting that a something more complicated was involved.

Molecular and genetic analysis revealed the that the signals were transmitted through a two-step immune response, triggered by the plucking of the hair follicle. First injured hair follicle stem cells will release a small signal molecule, this recruits a specific cell type involved in the immune response called a macrophage. This then secretes a signal molecule involved in the immune response called a cytokine, which acts directly on surrounding hair follicle cells by stimulating various cellular regeneration signal pathways.

Repair and regeneration

This work shows that a quorum-sensing system can sense cell injury and use immune response to quantify how much damage has occurred. The stem cell population then disregards the stimulus if the minimum number of hairs has not been have not been plucked, or responds to it with a full-scale regenerative response in many hair follicles when a threshold is reached.

This finding also is important in the field of regeneration medicine as a whole. We believe that the quorum-sensing behaviour principle is likely to be present in the regeneration of tissue and organs beyond the skin. Using such efficient regenerative strategies opens a new window in treating hair loss as well as many other degenerative disorders.

How a mindful approach to computer and smartphone use might just make you happier

Too much going on in there. messy mind by Ollyy/www.shutterstock.com

Computing today is perverse. Information technology may have freed up our time through computerisation and automation, but it has also encroached on our ability to switch off and relax. Technology is blamed for information overload, inescapable multitasking, the loss of any work/life balance, internet addiction and the abusive behaviour found on social media.

Research shows that internet use releases dopamine in the brain, triggering a reward response and leading to potentially obsessive pleasure-seeking behaviour. We can get so wrapped up in our internet use that we even forget to breathe — email or screen apnea is the effect of taking only shallow breaths or even holding your breath while working or playing in front of a screen.

Computers have infiltrated our entire waking day, so we are nagged constantly by text messages, notifications from Facebook, Whatsapp, or Viber – on top of the usual deluge of email. How we respond to these messages depends on our state of mind at the time, but our state of mind is also affected by them.

Computers stressing us out

As with any innovation, there are always concerns over how the benefits and drawbacks will play out. The rapid and almost total computerisation of society, particularly with the arrival of smartphones, has given us little time to consider how best to use them. History shows a pattern, with enthusiastic supporters becoming euphoric about a technological innovation while at others see the innovation as “the end of the world”.

Could computers be inherently bad for us – is it us, or is it them that turns us into computer addicts? Our relationship with technology has become a love-hate affair, with some taking extreme measures to eliminate or abandon email or social media or smartphones in an effort to stop the disruptions and help them focus on family or work. This sort of “digital detox” has been promoted as the way forward in getting our normal life back.

Computers giving us a break

So while there’s evidence technology has stressed us out, what has it done to improve matters, to introduce relaxation into our lives? There are a number of apps such as Headspace designed to help us relax and unwind, offering relaxing music, sounds of nature, or exhortations to breathe deeply or sleep.

It might seem that using technology to de-stress from using technology sounds oxymoronic, but we’ve previously suggested it’s possible to practise mindfulness to manage digital overload.

Mindfully speaking johnhain

One definition of mindfulness is the conscious awareness and acceptance of present experience. Mindfulness promotes presence of mind and awareness of patterns of thought and emotion, and how they affect mood, thought and action. Mindfulness has been used extensively in medicine, psychology and the business world as a way to alleviate stress and anxiety. In the context of business, mindfulness helps executives to see different perspectives and viewpoints, shed assumptions, and find new insights.

But there’s little research on mindfulness and the processing power of computers. A mindful approach to computing could provide us a way to use the technology we rely upon safely without suffering from the burn-out it tends to bring, while keeping our family and “real life” within reach.

Following a mindful approach, some strategies have already been suggested to bring a greater level of awareness to emailing and using social media. For example, a salesman rushes into the office while also responding to a trivial instant message. His stressed mind produces an irritated reaction to his unsuspecting colleague’s message. Had he created a dedicated hour for managing messages, rather than add to his already crazed morning, the outcome may have been different.

Re-writing the rules

There is a larger picture: technology doesn’t exist apart from society. According to Social Construction of Technology theory, a technology is not fully adopted before all interested parties are sufficiently convinced to align around using the technology for a common purpose. Just as traffic laws and etiquette formed around the automobile, we need to agree social rules around what is appropriate phone and computer use.

We need to set expectations at work about interrupting one another in order to protect our focus on projects, or get across how quickly queries require responses. What time should we stop sending or responding to email? Should we stop celebrating multitasking as a badge of honour when really it is a practice in futility? At home, families must decide when and where are screen-free times and places, in order to protect quality connection with each other over the lure of constant access to information.

We can’t do this without a collective conversation about our relationships with these devices and how we use them. Every culture, firm and family will have it’s own answers – but we need to start asking the questions.

Why employing autistic people makes good business sense

Autistic people see patterns that others miss. head by Dragana Gerasimoski/shutterstock.com

Microsoft has announced its intention to hire more autistic people – not as a charitable enterprise but because, as corporate vice-president Mary Ellen Smith said: “People with autism bring strengths that we need at Microsoft.” Employing autistic people makes good business sense.

Microsoft is not the only firm to reach this conclusion. More and more companies are beginning to seek employees from the pool of autistic talent. Specialisterne is a consultancy that recruits only autistic individuals. Originally based in Denmark it now operates in 12 countries worldwide and is currently working with Microsoft.

In recent years Vodafone and German software giant SAP have also launched recruitment drives to find more autistic employees, and to provide better support for them in the workplace. Both companies state that this is due to the competitive edge it gives, with SAP executives reporting increased productivity.

This is testament to the excellent work that many autistic people and their supporters have done to raise awareness of the strengths and abilities associated with autism, as well as the better-known difficulties with social communication and interaction. But what are these strengths?

Highlighting strengths not drawbacks

The three companies above might suggest that benefits come to those working in computing. Indeed Specialisterne has revealed that its autistic consultants find on average 10% more bugs than their non-autistic colleagues when checking software code for errors.

There is growing evidence to back up these observations. Studies of attention and perception among people with autism reveal that those with the condition see the world differently. For example, my colleagues and I have shown that autism is characterised by Increased Perceptual Capacity – the ability to process more information at any given time.

This can be problematic if the extra information results in altered sensitivities – such as finding bright lights painful, or having difficulty focusing on a conversation in a noisy room. But in other situations it can provide an increased ability to absorb and process useful information at an exceptional level of detail.

For example, in tasks that require you to find a target hidden among other elements, autistic people are faster and more accurate. They are also better at noticing both expected and unexpected things in their visual field. Autistic people also show excellent pattern recognition, a superior ability to identify and remember sounds and are much more likely to have perfect pitch.

This gives them skills to excel as artists, musicians and scientists. Perhaps controversially, these skills are also put to military use: the Israeli Defence Force has a specialist intelligence unit comprised exclusively of autistic analysts, whose skills are used to detect military threats.

Computer hacker Gary McKinnon, who was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, and his mother Janice. Katie Collins/PA

Beyond stereotypes

Is this idea of the “autistic genius” who is more comfortable with computers than people a worrying throwback to old stereotypes? We should be careful not to regress to the Rain Man vision of autism, depicting autistic people as largely unable to function yet with an isolated area of genius. Such savants do exist, but they are rare (1-10% of the population), whereas the increased perceptual abilities discussed above are more common. While the latter are less extreme, they demonstrate that alongside the difficulties autistic people often have unique gifts.

Temple Grandin, an autistic author, self-advocate and professor agrees, arguing that: “the autistic brain is good at something and bad at something else”. She urges us to seek out autistic people’s skills, rather than fixating on shortcomings. There are many old jokes within the IT industry that the top programmers at leading firms are on the autistic spectrum – hidden away in solitary cubicles, coding for hours on end (for example Bill Gates is regularly diagnosed as autistic by the press).

But Grandin reminds us not to pigeonhole all people based on classic “autism skills”. There are many types of autistic brain: not only the pattern thinkers and mathematicians who will excel at programming but also visual thinkers who will be great graphic designers, artists such as Stephen Wiltshire and photographers, or verbal thinkers who would make excellent stage actors (including Darryl Hannah) or journalists.

Stephen Wiltshire, an autistic artist who draws huge landscapes entirely from memory. Wallace Woon/EPA

Improving chances

Society’s understanding of this issue is improving, but there’s still much to be done. According to the National Autistic Society’s 2012 survey, only 15% of autistic adults in the UK are in full-time paid employment (compared to 31% for other disabilities), despite 61% of those who are unemployed saying they want to work.

What can we do to improve this? Microsoft’s announcement and others like it helps, but employers need to be better educated about the value autistic employees can bring. Businesses need to know about potential difficulties that autistic employees might experience, the simple adjustments that can accommodate them and the wide range of skills and interests that they can bring to the workplace. Lee Scott MP, the prime minister’s special needs envoy, is developing a scheme that will ask each MP to help find work for young autistic people in businesses in their constituencies.

We also need the education system to be better at equipping autistic people with the skills they need. On his blog, John Elder Robison, an autistic author and engineer, explains how the expectation of college graduation is harmful and believes we need to focus on making sure students, autistic and non-autistic alike, gain the skills they need rather than achieve a particular qualification. This leans towards more vocational programmes that capitalise on individuals’ special interests and abilities, helping shape those into employable skills.

The film X+Y is an example of what happens when talent and ability is identified early and fostered in the right way. Based on the real-life documentary (Beautiful Young Minds) about autistic mathematician Daniel Lightwing, the film tells his story from early childhood through his training to take part in the International Mathematics Olympiad. I won’t spoil the ending, but it’s definitely worth a watch.

We must also take care to value all autistic individuals, irrespective of whether they have a particular ability or not. As the extremely eloquent Ari Ne’eman, autistic campaigner and member of the US National Council on Disabilities, said: “People have worth regardless of whether they have special abilities. If society accepts us only because we can do cool things every so often, we’re not exactly accepted.”

Plants suck in nicotine from nearby smokers

Peppermint plants also draw in a fix from tobacco dropped on soil

Peppermint plants can build up nicotine from tobacco dropped on their soil or smoked indoors.

Forest & Kim Starr/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 3.0)

Plants turn out to be secondhand smokers, taking in nicotine from humankind’s tobacco and fumes. And lab tests suggest that slipping a cigarette butt into a plant’s pot sends a temporary surge of nicotine into its leaves.

Researchers sprinkled 100 milligrams of American Spirit tobacco — about an eighth to a tenth of a cigarette — onto the soil of potted peppermint plants. Nine days later older leaves carried roughly fivefold the background level of the leaves’ nicotine, Dirk Selmar of Technische Universität Braunschweig in Germany and his colleagues report April 7 in the journal Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

Nicotine levels spiked also in peppermints closeted with fumes from 11 cigarettes smoked in two hours.

“From a food safety point of view, there is no reason to panic,” Selmar says. He intended the research to help chase down sources of unexpected nicotine in herbal teas and spices despite the European Union’s 2009 ban on nicotine pesticides. Smoking farmers and processors could contribute, in part at least, to the rogue nicotine, Selmar concludes.

Crowdfunding could be a simple way to pay for science research

Eureka! Russiavia , CC BY

The outcome of science research benefits us all, but knowledge doesn’t come cheap. Crowdfunding – promoted by government incentives – may be the best way to meet these costs and garner greater awareness of scientific research priorities.

There is an ongoing debate on how to measure the amount of knowledge created through research. The traditional approach is to look at the number of published articles in peer-reviewed journals and work out the impact they have. How much does it cost to produce knowledge?

In 2012, the worldwide expenditure on scientific research and development was US$1.5 trillion, while an estimated 1.9m peer reviewed articles were published that year. This works out as a whopping US$790,000 per article.

This is a very rough and exaggerated estimate, since not all commercially funded research is published – and some research projects like space missions are extremely costly. Also, this estimate does not account for patents. But it’s an indication of how expensive science is and shows that there’s a market for it. Can we call this a market? I believe so. The average price of a car in the US in 2012 was US$30,000 and more than 10m were sold – this looks relatively cheap compared to the price of a peer-reviewed article.

Even Bill Gates is interested in crowdfunding, and he has very deep pockets indeed. experiment.com

Value for money

So do we get value for money when it comes to knowledge? The likely answer is No, because in most of cases the scientific research market is an “oligopsony” –- a market with many producers (the scientists and research groups) but only a few or even just one formal consumer.

Society is the consumer, but the money to fund research is channelled through at most, a handful of funding agencies (often a single agency). This has the benefit of ensuring that money is divided up fairly between disciplines – but on the other hand, funding agencies may exercise their market power to actually spend as little as possible. Why? Because there’s no one else to offer a better deal to the scientists.

Crowdfunding has proven to be a good source of investment for many small projects and start-up companies as it allows the easy aggregation of small contributions from many individuals to reach a target. As science becomes more mainstream – who hasn’t heard of the Higg’s Boson? – the myth that science is weird and alien is being overturned. This means there’s more fertile ground in which to secure scientific funding through collective effort.

There are now many websites dedicated to scientific crowdfunding such as including Petridish.org, Experiment.com, and crowdfunding has successfully funded several projects – for example the first publicly accessible orbital space telescope, and a specialist pressurised flight suit. These are good models but the real funding vehicle is yet to come, after all these projects have budgets under US$10,000 on average and this sort of cash doesn’t go far in terms of science.

Crowdfunding has paid to carry new inventions to the heavens, like this flight suit. Final Frontier Designs/Kickstarter

With a little government help

Clearly, this is where governments have to step in. Many countries have already benefited from governments having acted to remove monopolies and deregulate controlled industries in various markets. For example, air travel deregulation led to the boom in low-cost flights, while deregulating telecoms has seen a growth in services and providers.

In order for crowdfunding to actually involve the crowd, a government has to provide an incentive for funders, in this case its citizens. A great way would be to introduce science-funding shares – a sort of bond that could be issued by any research group for funding a specific research project, which could be tax deductible as an incentive. Of course, not all funding should be given to the crowd, but at least a portion of funding could be distributed in this way, with proper regulations and control.

There’s been a lot written about how crowdfunding can improve research outreach, and the extent to which the public understand research projects' aims and motivations. But large-scale involvement of citizens also poses some interesting questions. For instance, there is little doubt that a country needs strong and well-equipped armed forces. But would the research and development of nuclear weapons be ever sanctioned for crowdfunding by the public? Probably not.

The world is growing more competitive – and science is taking on a more important role in today’s society. In order for countries to remain competitive, new approaches to stimulate growth have to be developed. In the many countries with dysfunctional central governments, crowdfunding could be the only way for citizens to impose their democratic choices.

The internet has radically changed most forms of communication, government and business – why not science and research funding too?

What evidence do MPs turn to when they make policy?

Anyone going to mention RCTs today? PA/PA Wire

MPs value the views of constituents and expert opinion more highly than evidence from randomised controlled trials, a new survey has found. However, the majority of the 104 Labour and Conservative MPs from the previous parliament who were questioned support the idea of using randomised controlled trials to evaluate policies and don’t believe they are too expensive.

The survey, conducted by Ipsos MORI and the charitable trust Sense about Science, also found that MPs were more inclined to act on their own principles than on the results of randomised controlled trials, which involve testing new interventions on a randomly selected group of people and comparing that with a control group of people who get the usual intervention.

Interestingly, the survey found that the views of experts and the opinions of constituents trumped those of practitioners, such as teachers or doctors. It also found that MPs give very little weight to the views of journalists.

There are signs that a lot of MPs harbour some erroneous misgivings about randomised controlled trials, suggesting a widespread lack of understanding of how the trials work and how they might be used to test the effectiveness of policies.

Many thought it unfair that some people would be randomly assigned to not receive the policy being investigated – 35% believed this, including 26% of the 74 MPs who supported the use of the trials. But this is a fundamental principle, and a strength, of this kind of trial.

The MPs quizzed were roughly as supportive of pilot schemes without a comparison group as they were for randomised controlled trials by 67% to 64%, misunderstanding the value that the addition of a randomly selected control group can bring.

Pilot studies also contain an aspect of “unfairness”, for people in areas where the scheme is not piloted. But pilot studies do not have the added benefit of collecting data in those areas to provide a comparison, generating stronger evidence as to whether a policy is effective.

Each word in the name RCT is important. Randomisation of the trial’s subjects mean that, in a health trial for example, there’s less chance of the sickest people being all in one group and warping the findings. Controlled studies compare the new treatment to a baseline group where the usual treatment is given to check whether there’s a real difference between the two. And they are a trial, rather than just implementing a new treatment without testing it first.

What’s important for MPs

The survey also highlighted the difference between where politicians think they should look for evidence when making policy decisions, and what evidence they have actually used to justify the decisions they’ve made in the past. Randomised controlled trials were rated as less important than uncontrolled pilot trials in both instances.

MPs put more trust in their own principles than RCTs. Ipsos MORI

Evidence from experts was voted top of what politicians felt they should consider, but this was beaten by “the views of constituents” when they were asked what they have used to justify a policy in the past. In both instances, the MPs' own principles were rated much higher than evidence from RCTs.

Political decisions will rarely be based on evidence alone. And it should absolutely be the case that politicians want to listen to their constituents and act accordingly. But where the impact of a potential policy change is not known, testing this out before it is widely implemented can save money long-term, and make sure only policies likely to be effective are implemented.

Although the background of the MPs surveyed is not reported, an interest in and understanding of science is somewhat lacking in the corridors of power. In 2010, the Campaign for Science and Engineering compiled a list of MPs with an interest or background in science, and it equated to roughly 10% of MPs in parliament at that time. The implication here is that the other 90% have little or no interest in science whatsoever, let alone a scientific background or understanding of its methods.

Randomised trials gaining ground

In medicine it seems obvious to test treatments before rolling them out, and there is a move to apply such techniques to policy too, aided by RCTs. In 2013, the then secretary of state for education, Michael Gove, enlisted the help of epidemiologist Ben Goldacre to help bring a strong evidence base to educational policy.

The Behavioural Insights Team work with the government to design and test policies or interventions, and along with Goldacre and David Torgerson have authored a policy paper called Test, Learn, Adapt, instructing how to run trials for policy.

The Behavioural Insights Team have already used randomised controlled trials to investigate the effectiveness of a number of policy changes or interventions. One such trial showed that a small change to a government website led to increases in organ donation sign-up.

A government-backed charity called the Educational Endowment Foundation have used randomised trials to show that teaching assistants can improve numeracy and literacy when used effectively, which had been doubted after evidence from earlier largely non-randomised research. Goldacre has himself said that if anyone wants to help bring RCTs to policymaking, he will “stand on the barricades” with them.

The results of this new survey suggest MPs would be receptive to this. Rather than smirking at politicians' failure to grasp the complexities of scientific trials, researchers need to explain their importance, design and limitations. Randomised controlled trials have changed medicine for the better, and if done properly can do the same for the way policies are developed.

MPs don’t need a scientific background to value evidence-based policy, but if they need help understanding how to get the strongest evidence, we should provide it.

State of the Nation: government protection of the science budget has come at a cost

Funding, steady as she goes. notes Alessandro Storniolo/Shutterstock.com

Science and research were not at the front of the political debate in 2010. The first coalition government for a generation was cobbled together in the middle of a global economic recession and a domestic banking crisis which combined to put public spending under pressure.

The formal coalition agreement made only fleeting reference to university research. But the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties comprising the coalition made more detailed statements in which they expressed support for science. Has the past five years of government lived up to these signals? Certainly the government has protected and even expanded science funding in the face of public spending cuts in most other areas. But achieving that outcome involved a hard ride through a land of smoke and mirrors, and the support has come with strings attached.

I don’t cling to every syllable uttered by politicians. They need the freedom to try out ideas and allow policy to evolve, with manifestos the place where the outcomes of those trials appear. The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) invited the leaders of three political parties to set out their plans for science in more detail shortly before the 2010 election. The responses to this request were duly published and I treat them as equivalent to manifesto commitments.

During the election campaign, there was close alignment on science between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The Lib Dems were bolder and more explicit in their spending promises but it was clear that, like the Conservatives, they were approaching public finances with caution.

Leaving scientists to choose priorities

The coalition partners agreed that, with some specific exceptions, academic research should be prioritised by researchers. Some minor infringements of this long-standing Haldane Principle by the previous administration made it an election issue. This principle – under which the government outlines research areas of strategic interest and leaves the details up to academics – might seem arcane, but adhering to it has underpinned the UK’s outstanding science and research performance. Most major economies spend more of their national income than the UK on science. Indeed, the UK’s science spending is mediocre by international standards. But not many countries share the ruthlessly meritocratic process by which the UK research community selects its projects, and only the US outperforms this country in terms of scientific excellence.

UK punches above its weight considering the amount it spends on science. Graeme Reid/OECD, Author provided

Perhaps because this was a cost-neutral policy commitment, the independence of science found its way into the coalition agreement:

We will ensure that public funding mechanisms for university research safeguard its academic integrity.

Before the end of 2010, Ministers David Willetts and Vince Cable had jointly published a “clarifying” statement, which explained:

Decisions on individual research proposals are best taken by researchers themselves through peer review. The Coalition government supports this principle as vital for the protection of academic independence and excellence. We all benefit from its application in the UK.

Protecting investment in science

The previous Labour government had been strong supporters of science, with funding growing via a ten-year science and innovation policy developed by the then chancellor Gordon Brown and science and innovation minister David (Lord) Sainsbury. While researchers kept quiet during the election campaign there was unease over the prospect of funding cuts as the country entered an era of austerity.

As newly appointed ministers soon discovered, many researchers across medicine, the environment, the arts, agriculture, engineering and economics joined together when threatened with cuts. High-profile global corporations made it clear that the UK’s strong research base was one reason they invested here. Charities expressed fears that science cuts would undermine their relationships with donors and universities.

Science budgets have not fallen over five years, relatively speaking. Graeme Reid/HM Treasury, Author provided

In an effort to stimulate growth and build confidence in a flagging economy, the coalition latched onto strong evidence of science as an engine of growth. Science funding bodies sought more social and economic impact from the fruits of UK research, an agenda that was gaining prominence coincidentally just as it was needed. Protecting science funding was about more than just calming the academic community: it was about the future of the economy. David Willetts was already a fan of blue-skies research, and by connecting science to the economic agenda he won George Osborne’s support and enthusiasm. This crystallised in the October 2010 Spending Review. While most government departments faced 20% cuts, Osborne announced:

A ring fence will be maintained to ensure continuity of investment in science and research… To support long term growth, the government will prioritise support for world class science [and] maintain resource spending in cash terms.

The cuts affecting other departments had been dodged and a ringfence placed around £4.6 billion each year for science and research until 2015. A wonderful outcome for science. Then we read the small print.

The small print

First, the good news applied only to recurrent expenditure. This meant researchers salaries and project funding remained intact but the annual rate of capital investment was to be cut by almost 40% by 2015, reducing investment in science research facilities by £1.5 billion. The long-term nature of capital investment increased the effect of this sudden withdrawal – having taken into account existing commitments to capital investment, there was hardly any money for new facilities.

It also emerged that the protected part of the budget would be stretched to cover costs of the UK Space Agency, which had previously been funded from elsewhere. There were also cuts of 40% (or “cumulative real growth of -40%”, as the review put it) to administration budgets over the five year parliament.

Marrying science to the economy

By 2011 it was clear that the economic downturn was stubborn. The government was looking for new ways to kickstart growth without leaving its policy of fiscal restraint. A desire to avoid recreating a finance-centric, London-focused economy as existed before the crash led to frequent speeches about improving the diversity of the economy and re-balancing it regionally beyond the southeast.

But what could government actually do to stimulate long-term growth and high quality jobs? How about making capital investments in science and research? That’s a good idea.

So in the March 2011 budget the chancellor announced new investments in high-performance computing, space technology and research campuses in Edinburgh, Oxfordshire, Norwich and Cheshire – details specified by ministers, albeit on scientific advice. More were announced in the autumn statement later that year.

In the 2012 budget there was a further emphasis on science, with the chancellor creating the £100m Research Partnership investment Fund (RPIF) for businesses and charities to invest alongside universities in major scientific facilities. Successive budgets and autumn statements followed a similar theme, with the 2015 budget including the announcement of the Alan Turing Institute at the British Library in London.

More cash, but at a price

Direct capital investment from government has made good the 2010 cuts and increased the annual rate of investment to £1.1 billion, some 20% higher in cash terms than in 2010. It has also committed to maintain that level until the end of the next Parliament in 2020-21. RPIF alone has led to more than £1 billion investment in scientific infrastructure, two-thirds of which comes from businesses and charities. This scheme has been extended until at least 2017 so we can expect even more of these investment partnerships.

This adds up to substantial investment in modern scientific facilities with higher levels of ministerial engagement in priority-setting and specifying the locations for facilities around the UK. In effect the science community was offered money – lots of it – at a time of public spending cuts in return for accepting closer ties to political priorities. This is not blunt political direction of science but nor is it the full independence to which the science community had grown accustomed.

So where are we now? Funding for scientific research projects is still based on merit and managed by independent peer review. The level of this recurrent funding has remained fixed since 2010, as per signals from the coalition on entering office. Of course the spending power of that funding has been eroded by inflation. This raises questions about how the operation of new capital facilities are going to be funded.

Lord Krebs, until recently chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, described a “damaging disconnect” between recurrent budgets and capital investments. Along with CaSE, Krebs is among those calling for a long term science funding strategy and greater transparency in the decisions involved. This would give researchers the opportunity to plan for the future, increase the appeal of UK science to business and charity partners, and offer attractive career options to ensure a continued stream of talented new scientists and researchers.

The outgoing government seemed to recognise this issue in its Plan for Growth: Science and Innovation published at the end of last year. Whether the next government will continue this approach is something we will shortly discover.t