Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elen90)
    One British person was pioneer in 90s. Therefore pioneers will forever continue to flourish under an isolated UK. - Your cherry picking fallacy, I'm afraid.

    Don't pat yourself on the back for something you didn't do. No, wait - don't pat yourself on the back at all. You look incredibly conceited.

    That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works, but I'm too tired to bother refuting your inane point. Quote me in later.
    As I previously said, you don't know what a cherry picking fallacy is. My point is that we produced great researchers, innovators, inventors and scientists before the EU which shows we do not need the EU for it to continue. Its absolutely hilarious how some of you think the EU is the be all and end all when most of the world is not in it and at one point in time neither were we.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Which leader? Farage, who admitted to advertising blatant lies this morning? Cameron who just resigned? Boris, who didn't even want to leave in the first place, he just swooped in to become the next PM? Or Michael "I've had enough of experts" Gove?
    http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2016/ju...it-funding.cfm
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DontVoteLabour)
    If we decide the EU's science is the best option we simply keep giving them the money.
    Yeah, because that is how EU funding works and because EU is all the time funding research projects in countries having nothing to do with the EU.... Do you really believe that? I mean, honestly?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by welshiee)
    As I previously said, you don't know what a cherry picking fallacy is. My point is that we produced great researchers, innovators, inventors and scientists before the EU which shows we do not need the EU for it to continue. Its absolutely hilarious how some of you think the EU is the be all and end all when most of the world is not in it and at one point in time neither were we.
    Ahem...you know that e.g. British Math got so isolated at one point, it was regarded as being backwards? How about talking about the times Britain did not do fine? How about talking about building huge experimental facilties? Science has developed quite a bit, which you see e.g. at the Nobel Prizes, which usually are won by more than one person.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nathanielle)
    Ahem...you know that e.g. British Math got so isolated at one point, it was regarded as being backwards? How about talking about the times Britain did not do fine? How about talking about building huge experimental facilties? Science has developed quite a bit, which you see e.g. at the Nobel Prizes, which usually are won by more than one person.
    And yet the most innovative and recognised pioneers of our time either came before the inception of the EU or from countries outside the EU. Incredible isn't it?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    So glad that we've got so many armchair experts here who understand more about science funding than economists, scientists and leaders of the scientific community.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    These are emotional responses. None of them give a solid reason why the government won't replace lost EU funding - given then the UK government ultimately pays for it anyway - or even note the possibility that it could. It is like someone hearing that his company is going to be merged assuming not only that he will be fired but that he will never be able to get another job again.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by welshiee)
    Yes, being outside of the EU will ruin our scientific research and drive us all into a state of retarded oblivion.

    Lets just pretend all of the following scientists, innovators and pioneers didn't exist in Europe before the existence of the EU.

    Isaac Newton
    Alexander Fleming
    Charles Darwin
    Michael Faraday
    Tim Berners-Lee
    Isambard Kingdom Brunel
    Alexander Bell
    Linus Torvalds
    Nikola Tesla
    Ada Lovelace
    Albert Einstein
    Marie Curie
    Niels Bohr
    Rene Descartes
    Louis Pasteur

    The list goes on............................

    Yes, we, and any other European country, clearly need to be part of the EU to be pioneers in the world.

    Stop talking drivel.
    Irrelevant. Successions of british governments have not put research funding as a priority to the point that not only does the research community rely far too much on EU funding, because the domestic funding doesn't exist, but that it gets more out of the EUs research budget than the UK contributes. Unless the government reverses years of policy towards scientific research and not only gives all the money that would have gone to the research budget to domestic research AND then gives more as well to make up the shortfall then british scientists and researchers will have lost out as a result. It's all well and good us having a great history of scientists and of leading the way in research but if the money isn't there to allow that then our history is for naught.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nathanielle)
    Yeah, because that is how EU funding works and because EU is all the time funding research projects in countries having nothing to do with the EU.... Do you really believe that? I mean, honestly?
    Currently the UK is a net contributor to the EU budget. If the UK declined to continue participating or the EU refuses such a participation, the EU will have to cut its science budget by more than it currently spends in the UK, and researchers and projects in remaining EU countries would therefore have to lose their funding.

    UK involvement in EU science is not a charitable donation by the EU to the UK. It is a profit-making arrangement for the EU (which of course is a reasonable argument for the UK not to want to continue but that is another question).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Irrelevant. Successions of british governments have not put research funding as a priority to the point that not only does the research community rely far too much on EU funding, because the domestic funding doesn't exist, but that it gets more out of the EUs research budget than the UK contributes. Unless the government reverses years of policy towards scientific research and not only gives all the money that would have gone to the research budget to domestic research AND then gives more as well to make up the shortfall then british scientists and researchers will have lost out as a result. It's all well and good us having a great history of scientists and of leading the way in research but if the money isn't there to allow that then our history is for naught.
    The funding doesn't exist because we're spending a shitload on vanity projects all across Europe. As someone who has lived all across Europe and has actually experienced the results in both the UK and across Europe itself, I fully know well what is going on.

    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by welshiee)
    The funding doesn't exist because we're spending a shitload on vanity projects all across Europe. As someone who has lived all across Europe and has actually experienced the results in both the UK and across Europe itself, I fully know well what is going on.

    What utter tosh. The funding for scientific research doesn't exist because the governments haven't seen it as a priority - it took the Lib Dems ringfencing it a few years ago to stop the tories reducing it even further. Scientific funding isn't losing out because we pay into the EU, it benefits massively from it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    What utter tosh. The funding for scientific research doesn't exist because the governments haven't seen it as a priority - it took the Lib Dems ringfencing it a few years ago to stop the tories reducing it even further. Scientific funding isn't losing out because we pay into the EU, it benefits massively from it.
    Why should they fund it when the EU is doing so? The fact is, without EU funding it will be funded as it was before the EU's existence.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by welshiee)
    And yet the most innovative and recognised pioneers of our time either came before the inception of the EU or from countries outside the EU. Incredible isn't it?
    It is because the world has changed... You cannot return to the times of the British Empire, a Leave-vote is no magig time machine. I am really open for arguments concerning the current research conditions, but I see no point in arguing, about how we could reconstruct the times of Newton and Leibniz.

    And again: Just look at which countries had a flourishing Math and how open they were at that time. Science was actually quite international in the middle ages. Students were coming from a lot of different countries at that time, professors as well.

    (Original post by Observatory)
    Currently the UK is a net contributor to the EU budget. If the UK declined to continue participating or the EU refuses such a participation, the EU will have to cut its science budget by more than it currently spends in the UK, and researchers and projects in remaining EU countries would therefore have to lose their funding.

    UK involvement in EU science is not a charitable donation by the EU to the UK. It is a profit-making arrangement for the EU (which of course is a reasonable argument for the UK not to want to continue but that is another question).
    Explaining me something different to the remark I made, is not really convincing. Attracting research projects into your own country is what counts and that is incredibly difficult without being part of it. You cannot be in, for what you like, and out, for what you don't.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Currently the UK is a net contributor to the EU budget. If the UK declined to continue participating or the EU refuses such a participation, the EU will have to cut its science budget by more than it currently spends in the UK, and researchers and projects in remaining EU countries would therefore have to lose their funding.

    UK involvement in EU science is not a charitable donation by the EU to the UK. It is a profit-making arrangement for the EU (which of course is a reasonable argument for the UK not to want to continue but that is another question).
    Let's just go back to the Horizon 2020 research budget shall we:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25961243

    How exactly does the EU giving 5% more of the budget back to us than we give to them mean they'll have to cut their budget by more? They're losing 11% in contributions, but gaining 16% back that they won't be paying out. Making researchers in the EU better off, and our own researchers worse off.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Let's just go back to the Horizon 2020 research budget shall we:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25961243

    How exactly does the EU giving 5% more of the budget back to us than we give to them mean they'll have to cut their budget by more? They're losing 11% in contributions, but gaining 16% back that they won't be paying out. Making researchers in the EU better off, and our own researchers worse off.
    Britain doesn't fund Horizon 2020, it funds the EU. This may be an area where the UK wins, but the UK loses on net. The net loss of the UK to the EU in one week is about the same as the entire projected annual Horizon 2020 funding for the UK in this article.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Let's just go back to the Horizon 2020 research budget shall we:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25961243

    How exactly does the EU giving 5% more of the budget back to us than we give to them mean they'll have to cut their budget by more? They're losing 11% in contributions, but gaining 16% back that they won't be paying out. Making researchers in the EU better off, and our own researchers worse off.
    Overall the UK is a net contributor. We may get more back in terms of research but we lose out massively elsewhere. I think people are more concerned with 6 month plus waiting lists for cancer treatment than they are about the local boffins budget at Edge Hill University.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nathanielle)
    Explaining me something different to the remark I made, is not really convincing. Attracting research projects into your own country is what counts and that is incredibly difficult without being part of it. You cannot be in, for what you like, and out, for what you don't.
    In an open market I very much can, just as I can shop at Tesco without having to buy every product at Tesco, and no product elsewhere. This is in fact how most financial transactions work. If the EU and UK benefit from cooperation here, and the UK is putting up money at least equal to what is consumes, there is no reason for the EU to decline other than spite. And if spite is what is offered, there are always the US, China, Australia, India, Japan, ..., to whom we can offer money and cooperation instead.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Britain doesn't fund Horizon 2020, it funds the EU. This may be an area where the UK wins, but the UK loses on net. The net loss of the UK to the EU in one week is about the same as the entire projected annual Horizon 2020 funding for the UK in this article.
    Two issues with this argument. Firstly, this only works if you assume that the UK economy would be just as strong outside of the EU as it would be inside of the EU. This isn't true. Our economic benefit from being part of the EU is not a simple money paid in minus money paid back calculation. Secondly, it assumes that the UK government has any intention of re-investing the money "saved" back into science, which given our government's track record is a fantasy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Two issues with this argument. Firstly, this only works if you assume that the UK economy would be just as strong outside of the EU as it would be inside of the EU. This isn't true. Our economic benefit from being part of the EU is not a simple money paid in minus money paid back calculation.
    GDP alone is no true indicator of social wellbeing and quality of life. Both Canada and Australia are doing just fine with lower GDP than us. In fact, both routinely outperform us yet they have controlled migration, no access to the single market, a higher rating in terms of quality of life and they routinely do well in areas of research.

    If we want to become world leaders again in scientific research, there's a really easy solution. We should engage more with the US and strengthen relations whilst also engaging more with the Commonwealth.

    Secondly, it assumes that the UK government has any intention of re-investing the money "saved" back into science, which given our government's track record is a fantasy.
    Why would the UK invest money if the EU is funding it? If my parents are paying my for my rent, why would I pay it as well? When that money stops coming from the EU the government will have to cover the expenses. To suggest that research will just stop is beyond moronic. It didn't happen before the EU and it wont happen after it. In fact, I predict the very opposite as we are so dependent on skills and white collar jobs that we'll need to be pioneers in as much as possible.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Two issues with this argument. Firstly, this only works if you assume that the UK economy would be just as strong outside of the EU as it would be inside of the EU. This isn't true. Our economic benefit from being part of the EU is not a simple money paid in minus money paid back calculation.
    That might be true but it is both a much wider issue than the one being discussed in this thread, and one based on speculation.

    Secondly, it assumes that the UK government has any intention of re-investing the money "saved" back into science, which given our government's track record is a fantasy.
    Has the government made any statement on this? My original criticism of the Nature article was that the people gave no reason why they expected the government not to match the lost funding, even though it can easily afford to do so.

    If the government has said that the funding will vanish then fine, though I have to doubt that the government would be willing to see British universities plunge in the world rankings.

    Otherwise, the comments made by these scientists and science managers and published by Nature should have been much more equivocal than they are. They have no justification for making the claims they have made with the certainty with which they have made them; it s an emotional and not a rational response from a group that was probably strongly pro-Remain for unrelated reasons.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.