Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United Kingdom Science Technology

UK Scientists Fear Brain Drain as Brexit Rows Put Research at Risk (theguardian.com) 182

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
British science is facing the threat of a highly damaging brain drain that could see scores of top young researchers leaving the UK. In addition, the futures of several major British-led international projects are also now in jeopardy following a delay in funding by the European Union. From a report: Senior scientists say the UK's scientific standing is at serious risk while others have warned that major programmes -- including medical projects aimed at tackling global scourges such as malaria -- face cancellation. "There is a real prospect that bright young scientists will decide it will be best for their careers if they leave the UK," said Martin Smith, head of policy at the Wellcome Trust. "At the same time, if research partnerships involving the UK break down, Britain will no longer be seen as a reliable scientific partner. UK science will suffer."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Scientists Fear Brain Drain as Brexit Rows Put Research at Risk More

UK Scientists Fear Brain Drain as Brexit Rows Put Research at Risk

Comments Filter:

  • No way (Score:5, Insightful)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Monday February 28, 2022 @02:17PM (#62312211)

    Wait, you are telling me the hateful tribal nationalism model is inferior to global pooling of capital, labor, ideas, and innovation? How can that be?

    • Brainxit, long anticipated, it's materialising slowly...

      • UK is seeing the anti-fruits of their xenophobia. Deal!

        It's a good thing the US booted their orange xenophobe, but his minions are still creeping around DC.

        • Don't shout victory yet. He can still come back, and he has a lot of minions. He may do a little Putin manoeuver to show he can keep up. We humans seem to be loosing our cool.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Tablizer ( 95088 )

            > Don't shout victory yet...We humans seem to be loosing our cool.

            The power of fake e-news has been incredible. You don't need to fool everybody, just a really frothy 25% or so. If 25% want chaos, they can achieve it, being that order is the harder task.

            Entropy is a very effective weapon, and the orange dude & followers are masters of entropy. Rural people don't fear the collapse of order as much as city dwellers because they are used to living half off the grid, and have lots of guns.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by thsths ( 31372 )

        Some say it is a long-term effect of mad cow disease.

    • So what you're saying is the "chicken in every pot" campaigning of the Leavers might have just been a populist fantasy? That keeping out the much feared Romanian carpenters and Polish lorry drivers might actually be harmful to the UK economy?

      tune in next week, when Scotland, now coming out of the pandemic, decides once and for all that folks down in Westminster, Number 10 and Whitehall are in fact demented morons, makes a bid for independence, Northern Ireland finally decides border guards stopping goods an

      • You forgot the Bulgarian produce packers who were particularly dangerous!
        Also those bits in cyprus, I hear they're real scorchers in summer!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hey! ( 33014 )

        The Scotland independence question is greatly complicated by Brexit. Emotionally, Scotland has been dragged into exiting the EU against its will. Pragmatically, rejoining the EU through independence would require setting up a border between Scotland and the rest of the UK, ending free movement of people and goods across the isle of Great Britain. Scotland has been part of the UK so long such a border would be economically and socially catastrophic.

        Scottish independence would have had few practical drawba

      • Oh, but they'll still have the Falklands, Gibraltar

        Until the Spanish decide to close the border with Gibraltar again.

    • Simplifying assumptions (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Monday February 28, 2022 @02:45PM (#62312293) Homepage Journal

      Wait, you are telling me the hateful tribal nationalism model is inferior to global pooling of capital, labor, ideas, and innovation? How can that be?

      Because global pooling of capital, labor, and ideas is a great idea in theory, and can be shown to be a better model given some simplifying assumptions.

      But the simplifying assumptions are key: any of a number of cultural differences can make the original analysis invalid.

      A good example here is to compare employment prospects between UK and Greece, both in the EU before brexit. In theory, having the larger pool of potential employees, and the larger pool of potential employers in UK + Greece, considered as a whole, should have made for a better situation for both sides.

      It did not.

      A dental hygienist in Greece can move to the UK and make a large salary, but a hygienist in the UK moving to Greece has to take a considerable pay cut. The Greek hygienist in the UK can send money back to Greece to help her family, while the UK hygienist in Greece cannot.

      This is not a condemnation of Greece, only pointing out that the economies and cultures are so wildly different that the economic theories that underpin the reasons for having the EU break down.

      I agree that in theory, pooling resources and opportunities is a good idea, makes sense, and can be shown as the superior choice. In practice however, those same theories break down under the weight of real world complications. Pooling is advantageous to both sides only when both sides are roughly equal.

      The decision to exit the EU was not taken lightly, and only after decades of attempts to resolve the problems the UK was experiencing. It's easy to dump on tribalism, but if the tribe is being abused by the situation and seeing little gain, why should we expect anything different?

      I welcome anyone to debate the issue using reason and logic, or you can just mod me down to suppress an analysis you can't counter. "Hateful" (your word) and subsequent posturing was an emotional response.

      • Maybe I am off base since I am not in the UK/EU but this feels awful similar to the folks who want the US to withdraw from NAFTA in that it's not so much a failure of the deal itself but one of domestic policy failing to account for the negative outcomes.

        NAFTA has been an overall win for the average US consumer. Goods have become cheaper and the overall economic output has increased. Problem is the positive effects of the deal are very disparate, no single single citizen is really going to "notice" the be

        • NAFTA is a free trade agreement. Before the EU, there was the European common market. That was a good thing overall.

          The EU is a political structure. It unifies laws across very diverse countries. It guarantees freedom of movement across these countries, It adds an entire layer of government on top of the national government. It unified the currency (in nearly all countries). Precisely because the countries are so diverse, this is anything but a clear positive.

          The common market made sense. The political

          • Actually, the EU "punitive treatment" of the UK is simply the enforcement of the rules that apply to any other non-EU country when it comes to trading with the EU, rules that the UK as a majority stakeholder in the EU legislative system has actually helped put in place. You can't complain that it is hard for a non EU citizen to travel to the Schengen zone when you spent the last 20 years lobbying for these rules "to protect your borders".

          • If the EU were now willing to deal with the UK as an independent country that had never been in the EU, there would probably not be much problem.

            The EU is never going to give the UK a better deal on anything than that which other EU members have. Spoiled child has tantrum. People rightly laugh.

          • ... which were British laws and which were EU laws.

            Funny how now Britain has left EU control, it's changed zero EU laws.

        • >Where the US went wrong is not using that economic growth to counter those who feel the direct economic pain.

          How would that help the profits of the people in power?

          One of the most important things to recognize in any political movement is that most powerful people will only push for it if they see potential for greater personal profit or power than with the alternatives.

          The people pushing for NAFTA were all positioned to profit from NAFTA. Sharing the profits with the economic losers would have signifi

      • You have the same problem in many different size economies. People move around the US for better salaries. Within the UK itself there are poor and rich areas and towns so a successful dentist can move.

        The biggest flaw in your reasoning is that being in the EU or not doesn't stop a dentist from Greece moving to the UK, or anywhere else. If you're a skilled worker then countries want you. I'm only a programmer and I've lived in the UK, US, Denmark and NZ - the US had the most stringent paperwork.

        • "Within the UK itself there are poor and rich areas and towns so a successful dentist can move"

          The NHS pays them all the same amount, no matter if they are in London or in Buttfuck Gloucestershire.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jemmyw ( 624065 )
            The NHS doesn't (or didn't when I lived there) fund all dental work. So dental practices were usually a mix of NHS and private, with a limit on the number of NHS funded patients.

      • " but a hygienist in the UK moving to Greece has to take a considerable pay cut"

        If he can get a professional Visa, 3rd countries like the UK rarely get those.

      • Re:Simplifying assumptions (Score:4, Insightful)

        by XXongo ( 3986865 ) on Monday February 28, 2022 @03:30PM (#62312495) Homepage

        The decision to exit the EU was not taken lightly,

        No, it was done hastily and as a result of an advertising campaign that flat-out lied about the effects of Brexit.

        and only after decades of attempts to resolve the problems the UK was experiencing.

        It turns out that the problems with dealing with the EU get noticed and highlighted, but all of the many ways in which the EU benefitted the UK were taken for granted and nobody even noticed them.

        Turns out exit gets rid of all the beneficial stuff that people didn't notice.

      • I welcome anyone to debate the issue using reason and logic, or you can just mod me down to suppress an analysis you can't counter. "Hateful" (your word) and subsequent posturing was an emotional response.

        How about this: After Brexit, people that were legally allowed to work in the UK cannot work in the EU without a work visa and vice versa. Before Brexit people were permitted to cross borders and work without the need for visas. For scientists particularly those that work in research, that means fellowships are severely limited now. Fellowships are quite common in the sciences as scientists generally are not moving permanently to another location but maybe for a few years. How much paperwork (with lawyers a

        • So how does scientific collaboration with the UK and the rest of the world work then if leaving the EU prevents it? Hysterical scaremongering, much?

          • So how does scientific collaboration with the UK and the rest of the world work then if leaving the EU prevents it? Hysterical scaremongering, much?

            I specifically listed a problem with Brexit namely fellowships. You brought collaboration which is not relevant to fellowships. What part of "work visas are now required" is not clear? As I stated specifically, fellowships are quite common in scientific research. Brexit makes fellowships extremely limited across borders between the EU and the UK. For example a British particle physicist cannot go work on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) without a work visa now. I guess British particle physicists will have t

            • Research fellowships have nomkegal standing and are nothing to do with the EU. It's down to individual institutions. As for a Visa? Oh boo hoo, first world problems eh?. Tell me , how do american, japanese, australian etc scientists end up working at that colliding money pit then?

              • Research fellowships have nomkegal standing and are nothing to do with the EU.

                What is "nomkegal" and what part of "work visas are now required" is not clear to you?

                It's down to individual institutions. As for a Visa? Oh boo hoo, first world problems eh?.

                So you'll navigate the legal and technical hurdles of applying for visas for these individuals then? And for free as most of these institutions that grant fellowships are not flush with money.

                Tell me , how do american, japanese, australian etc scientists end up working at that colliding money pit then?

                Again before Brexit: no work visas. After Brexit: border checks, work visas. Bringing up other parts of the world is classic whataboutism.

                • Typo, phone keyboard. "No legal".

                  Tell me, what's the big deal about a work Visa snowflake? You think you can just rock up in the USA or australia and walk into a job?

                  • Tell me, what's the big deal about a work Visa snowflake? You think you can just rock up in the USA or australia and walk into a job?

                    My mistake was that I assumed you understand how visas work. Clearly you do not.. Let me explain it slowly to you then. As a citizen or permanent resident of the US, you are granted permission to work in the US. All others must get work visas. This generally true in most countries. Getting a work visa takes time and money. Currently it takes about 5-7 months to process a work visa in the US. That is processing time; it is not guaranteed that a visa will be granted. Depending on the type of permit, a lawyer

                    • Its 3 months for a french Visa and if the worker is a contractor the E99 all inclusive cost can be tax deductable so big deal. There are many cons to Brexit but in the scheme of things this barely rates. As for him moving to the EU permanently, well good luck with that.

                    • Its 3 months for a french Visa and if the worker is a contractor the E99 all inclusive cost can be tax deductable so big deal.

                      And that is for a particle physicist? All work permits are the same then?

                      There are many cons to Brexit but in the scheme of things this barely rates. As for him moving to the EU permanently, well good luck with that.

                      So you will help that British particle physicist out then? Great. I'll let them know. Also every single scientist in the UK because apparently it is easy for you.

      • Greece was a much smaller nation, compared to the UK. Many of the rules and terms for EU membership didn't work well for Greece especially when the economy is slow. The EU biggest mistake was the idea of pooling resources should be proportional, while it is more of a case some nations like Greece would need more resources if it were to abide by the terms and prosper.

        While politically this may seem like a bad deal for a larger country, as it seems they are giving more to a country than they getting back. H

      • So the UK dentist suffers pay cut due to competition from Greek dentists moving in.

        But, population of UK gets better dental care at more affordable prices. Greeks start paying more for their dentists to stay home. There are benefits to pooling. There will always be a few who lose for every change and a few will gain. Over all benefit will be more for more people. Dont try to protect the losers by nationalism and borders.

        Anyway all this argument is moot. World population is declining much faster than pre

      • Free movement of people was so obviously a daft idea that I'm surprised it got past the ideas stage. A country that invented the language that quite a lot of the world speaks and with minimum wage that would seem a fortune to some European neighbours, not to mention a welfare state that would look after you if things went wrong.... who wouldn't want to brave the cold and wet to live here! Plenty of people came to the UK and worked and sent their money home and left virtually nothing of their cultures here.

      • So, a dental hygienist in Calfornia can move to Alabama, but with a big pay cut. Or the hygienist from Alabama can more to California for a pay increase. Same thing? Sounds super-Calif-exit-ocious!

        It works in US because, at least in modern times, most people think of it as one large country. EU is still "member states", states that still distrust each other in some instances, states without even a common working goal to aim towards (like democracy). EU is far closer to a trade union at times (EEC) than

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        One of the best features of freedom of movement is that it helps people settle. Not send money home, although it's possible, but bring their families and integrate.

        The imbalance between joining nations and long standing members corrects over time. It's a good system. The joining nation is a new market that has an appetite for improving lifestyles, and the existing members have a supply of skilled labour to fill in for shortages.

      • You're post is at once more thoughtful than the usual Brexiteer, but still too simplistic to capture some hard truths. One issue is that the concept of "pooling of labor" is extremely one-sided. To take your example: Britain pulling talent from Greece. This benefits Britain and hurts Greece in the long run. The EU doesn't even out this playing field. It doesn't allow Greece to benefit from the labor pool. However, it does two key things:

        It greases the wheels for Britain, and mitigates a fair chunk of th

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by UpnAtom ( 551727 )

        A good example here is to compare employment prospects between UK and Greece, both in the EU before brexit. In theory, having the larger pool of potential employees, and the larger pool of potential employers in UK + Greece, considered as a whole, should have made for a better situation for both sides.

        It did not.

        A dental hygienist in Greece can move to the UK and make a large salary, but a hygienist in the UK moving to Greece has to take a considerable pay cut. The Greek hygienist in the UK can send money back to Greece to help her family, while the UK hygienist in Greece cannot.

        I'm struggling to see the relevance to anything.
        The UK benefited through cheap dentists, doctors etc in the NHS and through being able to retire to Greece.

        The UK also benefited through borderless trade. Small exporters have largely gone out of business and large ones aren't doing great. Food prices have rocketed because the ports are overloaded with red tape. Investment has dropped like a stone.

    • So now its nationalistic not to want some of your laws made in a foreign country in order to be a part of a trading bloc? I wonder how US citizens would react to being told that Mexico City was going to draft some of their laws in order to stay in NAFTA? Bucket of cold sick scenario I suspect.

      • Well, the difference now is that while before the UK had a say in the EU legislature, now they do not. So, if they want to trade with the EU, and even if they were to re-join the single market while keeping out of the EU (like for example Norway does) they would still have to stick to the EU trade rules like any other country that trades with the EU, but have absolutely no say in it. That's a brilliant win, I guess?

    • I can't help but think that the support of right-wing parties in Europe by Russia, Brexit, Russian disinformation in US, NATO skepticism, Trump... it was all part of a carefully orchestrated plan by ex KGB agent Vladimir Putin leading up to this moment: His long planned dream of restoring Russia to the size and "glory" of the former Soviet empire by "liberating" Ukraine, and eventually also NATO members Luthiania, Latvia, Estonia.

      Leaked Russian article on Ria Novotsi about "New World Order", since removed,

  • No science degree needed... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Harold Halloway ( 1047486 ) on Monday February 28, 2022 @02:24PM (#62312227)
    ... to have seen this one coming. In fact it was widely predicted. But Brexiters don't care because when you have faith bolstered by prejudice and ignorance, who needs science?

    • Ignorance is bliss, just like when Putin said no NATO for Ukraine and Georgia back in 2008...

  • Is there an exodus of scientists from UK to EU?

    • "Is there an exodus of scientists from UK to EU?"

      Yes, scientists always follow the grant money.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      There is definitely an exodus, if only in net terms. I've seen many reports of foreign scientists being denied residency. That residency used to be the default assumption (guaranteed by the terms of the EU "constitution").

      I expect that there's also in increase in the number of British scientists relocating abroad, but that I've seen fewer reports on. (Which is what one would expect. People don't complain if they accept a job offer.)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sinij ( 911942 )
        Do you expect such increase because it fits your preconceived notions or because you have some evidence to support your views?

    • If there was to be a mass exodus of scientists from the UK why did it not happen while the UK was still in the EU and the barrier to entry was low? And if it is about following the money why would they be going to the EU when the US pays so much better for top talent?

      No, there is no exodus of scientists. It's just The Guardian still being salty about Brexit.

      • But any European tech company won't open research centres in the UK anymore, and many tech companies are moving out, because their market is no longer easily accessible. Nissan for example is pulling out because it was promised that they would remain in the single market, and that didn't work out, so it makes more sense for them to just shut down or move to France, where their owner Renault is based. Airbus also will have trouble operating from the UK more than from continental Europe, and in general all se

  • Leaving major international decisions to the uneducated masses is a bad idea.

    This is why we have elected officials to make these decisions. Otherwise why don't we vote on every single law and get rid of politicians altogether?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jhon ( 241832 )

      "Leaving major international decisions to the uneducated masses is a bad idea."

      Because Plato's Republic is a desirable "utopia"?

      • "Because Plato's Republic is a desirable "utopia"?"

        You mean not letting the rabble like women, slaves and laborers vote?

    • That's so impractical because then we'd be called "Switzerland"

    • Leaving major international decisions to the uneducated masses is a bad idea.
      This is why we have elected officials to make these decisions.

      So... you're asserting that all elected officials are educated more/enough for our major international decisions -- or any?
      [citation needed]

      Remember that those "uneducated masses" elected them...

      • I think people are loosing confidence in the competences of their governments. There is a lot going wrong. They want to change that, but fail miserably as well.

      • "So... you're asserting that all elected officials are educated more/enough for our major international decisions -- or any?"

        Lit Truss, the foreign minister doesn't even know the differences between the Baltic and the Black Sea, the Russians made amply fun of that fact.

        • Well, she publicly - on bbc - encouraged brits to go to war in ukraine thereby breaking all those laws that saw iss supporters being stripped of their citizenship. Defence minister had to backtrack on that idiotic idea...

    • The problem with the political system is now political parties.

      The elected officials are not making decisions that will benefit their constituents, or the country at a hole. But towards keeping the political party in power, or in a position to get power.

      If they do something for their constituents or for the greater good, however it goes against the party line, there is hell they need to pay, which could include a political primary battle, where the minority (the primary voters of that party) can kick them o

    • Swittzerland? It has a more direct democracy, but also didn't give women the right to vote until 1971. Direct democracy has some advantages, but also flaws. Some of the flaws are that it's very difficult to make unpopular but necessary changes, or have a tyranny of the majority.

      • "Tyranny of the majority" is basically the same idea, that democracy needs to be saved from itself through what amounts to undemocratic mechanisms added to the system, but that comes back to the fact that a democracy can only be as good as the average voter's education. The only thing keeping 50.01% of the population from democratically enacting a genocide of the 49.99% should be the population being educated enough to know that it's a stupid, wrong, terrible idea and thus have no desire to do so in the fir

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      It's a difficult problem. If an elite gets to make the decisions, one can be fairly certain that the decisions they make will benefit that elite. If even idiots can affect the decision, lots of stupid decisions will be made. (And this doesn't only affect "major international decisions".)

      Please note that in this argument "elite" has a rather peculiar definition. It's any statistically separated group. If left-handed people make the decisions, the decisions will favor those who are left-handed. If tall

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hoofie ( 201045 )

      That is precisely WHY Brexit happened. The EU has taken upon itself to move to a superstate model [run in Germany's interest but with France thinking it's in charge] with constant erosion of sovereignty. The UK decided it didn't want that model anymore.

  • ... and some proper negotiations with the EU.

    The only chance of removing the hold the Tory "Brexiteer" right have over negotiations, is a change of government to either a more moderate Tory party (unlikely to happen) or Labour winning at the next general election (I won't make any bets on that, but right now, there's a steep hill to climb).
    Labour would not only have to win, but win by a wide margin.

    Should that come to pass, then is the time for a more grownup approach to negotiations and re-joining the comm

    • It's not at all clear that the EU would be interested in Britain joining the Common Market. That's what Theresa May was trying to do when Boris Johnson started lobbing verbal bombs from the back benches, after his rather odious period as Foreign Secretary (you know, when he was in the position to actually try to negotiate some replacement deals and generally smooth European feathers). Any kind of rapprochement at this point is going to put the EU firmly in the driver's seat, and at the end of the day, the k

    • The UK was an obnoxious EU member from day one, always demanding special accommodations and exceptions for itself. It will be a long time before the EU will even consider putting up with the gadfly again. There will no doubt be a rapprochement with deals and agreements over the next years or decades, but, as long as the EU exists, it will be at least a couple of generations before the EU will entertain the notion for the UK to become a full EU member.

    • ". and some proper negotiations with the EU."

      Too late, the EU spent 100 billions on border procedures, built checkpoints, truck parkings and waiting zones, offices and facilities, hired tens of thousands of unfireable customs officers, gave out dozens of billions of subsidies to the 27 EU countries to adapt to Brexit and Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt, Luxembourg and Madrid got £3 trillion business off London, they'll veto any try to rejoin the next 50 years.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sinij ( 911942 )

      Labour would not only have to win, but win by a wide margin.

      Labour is doing the same thing over and over again and hope for a different outcome.

  • The article states that the funds are simply not enough. The big issue is the prestige of being given a grant from the ERC.

  • Sour grapes by the EU (Score:3, Informative)

    by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Monday February 28, 2022 @03:43PM (#62312557) Homepage

    We have the much same problem in Switzerland. Refusing cooperative research is one of the petty ways that the EU has of making its displeasure known. In our case (Switzerland), we contributed more money to joint efforts that we received, so cutting off joint research programs really made no sense for the EU. But, because we aren't an EU member, and we aren't interested in bilateral agreements that (among other things) force us to unquestioningly adopt EU law, well... The EU politicians are insulted. Imagine how much more insulted they were by Brexit.

    Other petty actions include cancelling the agreement to supporting each other's energy grids, even though the pumped hydroelectric dams in Switzerland provided a major source of energy storage for the European grid. Better to cut us off, because EU politicians are toddlers, even though renewable energy desperately needs storage. Their hope is, apparently, that they can cause enough peripheral pain that we will ultimately join the EU. The actual result is to piss people off.

    The EU should disband, and return to just being a common market. Politicians are too damned power hungry, and Brussels is far too remote from the populations it is supposed to serve.

    • The EU should disband because Switzerland is a bit inconvenienced? Seriously?

    • 2019. EU wants Switzerland to sign an agreement such that Switzerland automatically follows the changes in the EU single market rules. Switzerland refuses.

      July 2019, EU banks and brokers not allowed to trade on Swiss exchanges (makes sense in a way since Switzerland decided not to adopt the changes that may apply to banking and trading). https://www.express.co.uk/news... [express.co.uk]

      Displeased, Switzerland refuses to pay their 1.2 b€ contribution to the EU Cohesion Fund.

      2021. Without paying its membership fee, Swit

  • I've seen headlines about Britain's Brain Drain problem since I was in school, and that wasn't yesterday.

    And it's still not true because I'm still here :D

  • What scientist worth his ionic salt would stay in a country with a diminished research budget, that means the scientist is not able to apply for EU and other grants?

    You'd have to be crazy.

  • It's a Guardian article so it would only be printed if it was anti-Brexit.

    The Remainers just won't give up. Apparently the EU is now leading the world in it's response to the Ukraine/Russia conflict despite sitting on it's hand for months and Germany refusing overflight permissions to RAF transport aircraft carrying anti-tank munitions to Kiev.

    Let's not forget that the EU has apparently held the peace in Europe since 1945. Nothing to do with NATO and large US and British Forces being stationed in Germany th

Slashdot Top Deals

A computer scientist is someone who fixes things that aren't broken.

Close