Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
There are material number errors in this article and some key omissions.
Firstly, the £8.8bn per year is in fact €8.8bn over 2007-13 (inclusive). This is evident from the House of Lords Report the author cites. The gap the author cites is correctly calculated as £450m/year. This can be compared to the ~£165m/week net contribution the UK makes to the EU (after rebate and all money received back through structural funds, the CAP, or research money, https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/). It would therefore take just under 3 weeks to fill the research funding gap.
From the same House of Lords report, the EU R&D funding is further put in context as 3% of total UK R&D funding. Of equal importance, 15 "associated" countries and ~100 other countries outside the EU have access to the EU "Horizon" funding - it is not restricted to member states.
The author of this silly piece of politics is saying that, if the UK left the EU political club, the UK would have more money left over but he doesn't trust our, UK government to spend as much on science as the EU. In other words, UK Scientists do not feel that the UK Citizens would give them as much money as the EU Overlords.
Surely, the whole purpose of Brexit is that we, as a nation, get to decide where our priorities lie and we do not have to pay the EU to administer our budget for us.
Brexit also enables us to avoid TTIP and all that implies for our NHS, or is the author happy to see American companies running a privatised NHS.
Brexit is more than just how much money is available to scientists. It is about our desire for self determination. It is about democracy and free will.
Re: UK scientists would lose money and influence under “Brexit,” says Lords report
There are material number errors in this article and some key omissions.
Firstly, the £8.8bn per year is in fact €8.8bn over 2007-13 (inclusive). This is evident from the House of Lords Report the author cites. The gap the author cites is correctly calculated as £450m/year. This can be compared to the ~£165m/week net contribution the UK makes to the EU (after rebate and all money received back through structural funds, the CAP, or research money, https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/). It would therefore take just under 3 weeks to fill the research funding gap.
From the same House of Lords report, the EU R&D funding is further put in context as 3% of total UK R&D funding. Of equal importance, 15 "associated" countries and ~100 other countries outside the EU have access to the EU "Horizon" funding - it is not restricted to member states.
Competing interests: No competing interests