Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Is scientific cooperation with Europe decreasing ?

"the evidence of decreasing scientific cooperation with Europe grows ever stronger and as predicted."
hmm I don't know about that.

A Brexit Britain may have increasing scientific cooperation with the rest of the world with new trade deals on the cards..We probably already have much more cooperation with Commonwealth countries than the rest of the EU.

Jul 21, 2016 at 9:51 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

"the evidence of decreasing scientific cooperation with Europe grows ever stronger and as predicted."

Replace "decreasing scientific cooperation with Europe" by "increasing global temperature" and you have a statement that could have been found on almost any CAGW believer site. So the statement is totally unconvincing.


In my dictionary "scientific cooperation with Europe" largely equates to "giving money paid from taxes on the population to mediocre academics". (Alternatively to huge doomed-to-failure wanks like ITER). So I would welcome decreased "scientific cooperation with Europe".

However, the immediate signs for this indicate the contrary:

Impact of the UK referendum on the COST programme

Statement of the President of the COST Association, Dr Ángeles Rodríguez-Peña

The UK referendum and a potential future Brexit will have no direct impact on the COST programme. The COST programme is run by an independent, intergovernmental organisation, of which the UK has been a full member since the programme was created in 1971. And this status is independent from European Union membership.

There are no consequences to be expected, neither with regard to the organisation of the Open Call, nor with regard to our COST Actions.
...


http://www.cost.eu/media/newsroom/Impact-of-UK-referendum-on-COST-programme

Jul 21, 2016 at 10:31 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

I should perhaps have been more specific. I should have written" there is evidence of decreasing scientific cooperation in Europe, funded from EU funding streams". I have no concern that, over the long term, scientists across Europe will find ways of obtaining the necessary funding from other sources. Access to specialized equipment is a strong driver that works both ways. In the same way, access to expertise and experience on both sides of the channel is essential. I suspect that when everything dies down there will be agreements either with the EU or with individual countries for mutual scientific cooperation. In the meantime British science is and will suffer. Some severing of links will not be repaired.

I wonder where this thread will get its evidence from? How many academics of ex-academics post here? Will they be willing to speak? I know of two cooperative ventures that have foundered or are in difficulties post Brexit vote, but I cannot write about them because matters are so sensitive. You will have to rely upon news releases or statements from those affected, that some of you refuse to acknowledge. Everything post Brexit must be kept rosy and the myth of everything in project fear being untrue must be upheld. And this reaction from people who accuse climate scientists of ignoring evidence that is inconsistent with their dogma. Sheeesh!

The evidence is already in, there is a discernable negative influence, starting with astronomy.

Jul 21, 2016 at 11:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

So, within a month – a month when much of Europe is winding down for the summer break – it has become obvious that any scientific co-operation between Britain and Europe has declined since the vote to leave. Hmmmm….

Another headline: “Research has shown that the roads will soon be empty of all traffic. An extensive survey of a main road in Godalming revealed that between 0800 and 1000, the traffic density fell from 150 vehicles per minute to just 15. At this rate, all the roads in Britain will be clear of all vehicles by 0836 on Saturday!”

Jul 21, 2016 at 11:44 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Alan - I am sure that you viewpoint on this topic will inevitably be very different from mine. Above all, my view that cuts in govt funding of "research" is actually a good thing, to be welcomed, and an unexpected benefit of Brexit (if it really does result in such cuts). And that cuts in funding that passes from the taxpayer (or from govt deficit) via the EU is a doubly good thing.

"...starting with astronomy". Sounds promising but I somehow doubt that that means we can assume that Ken wotsisname (ATTP) will have to start actually earning a living in the foreseeable future.

Jul 21, 2016 at 12:14 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Research projects are not over in a week or two. Any change is going to add uncertainty to the project.
Therefore, it seems certain that there will be a move to quarantine projects from UK involvement.

Is that a long-term thing? Who knows?

But it seems unrealistic to expect people to take extra risk with their research funding - unless the advantages of working with the UK are overwhelming.
It shouldn’t affect our established top boffins.

So the CRU at the UEA will be fine.

Jul 21, 2016 at 12:20 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

RR. This is exactly the period, freed from teaching and most administrative duties, that university researchers can concentrate on doing research and preparing/finalizing research applications. I don't believe anyone in academia thought that the effect of Brexit would show itself so early. I suspect, but do not know what the situation and morale is in research institutes, but I would imagine it's similar.

Martin A I find it difficult to understand your cavalier attitude to UK science, something the country punches well above its weight and which is acknowledged to be so important to our economy. So I won't try.

M.Courtney. Not the top boffins directly perhaps but certainly their research groups. They may well be unable to attract the best from Europe until everything is sorted out. Our most promising researchers may also be unable to study in Europe. Eventually matters will be normalized but how long will it take? Two years? Some parts of science advance so rapidly that British science may find it difficult to regain its current eminence.

Jul 21, 2016 at 1:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

I opened this thread by quoting @Supertroll's words
"the evidence of decreasing scientific cooperation with Europe grows ever stronger and as predicted."

then @Supertroll says Jul 21, 2016 at 11:01 AM
"I wonder where this thread will get its evidence from? "
"I know of two cooperative ventures that have foundered or are in difficulties post Brexit vote, but I cannot write about them because matters are so sensitive"
"myth of everything in project fear being untrue" .."myth" sounds like a strawman that Alan made up
"The evidence is already in, there is a discernable negative influence, starting with astronomy."

I summarize that as :
"there's evidence of decreasing scientific cooperation with Europe"
but I can't tell you cos it's secret
'I repeat "The evidence is already in'

Don't scientists go by EVIDENCE not rumour ?

Jul 21, 2016 at 5:15 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Sometimes I think it's wonderful to see galaxies light-years away or to find extra-solar planets. But then I think, other than to keep astronomers employed, what's the point?

Jul 21, 2016 at 5:53 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

Try reading the news Stewgreen. The evidence is there, not in the cases I mentioned. I only including this information to indicate that the situation may be more extensive than has so far been reported. The "evidence" from my statement is that I wrote it. Whether you accept it or not is immaterial to me. What does concern me is that you ignore or dismiss reports that have already been made. Before the referendum warnings could be dismissed as part of project fear. But the referendum has passed, so what are you accusing the science community of when they complain that Brexit is affecting them negatively?

Jul 21, 2016 at 7:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterAK

"I know of two cooperative ventures that have foundered or are in difficulties post Brexit vote, but I cannot write about them because matters are so sensitive"

Some similarities to EM's plumber who voted for Brexit because he, for some reason, imagined that all non-uk plumbers would be expelled from the UK if the UK left the EU. Then, according to EM, all the projects he was contracted to work on three months thence (new housing estates, large public or commercial building developments) had been cancelled or postponed as a result of the Brexit vote result and within just two weeks. I asked EM if his plumber actually existed. He assured me he did, and that his name was Jeremy. I suggested to EM:

It sounds like he's bullshitting you. Very hard to believe he was "contracted" for anything three months from now. Ask him for the details of what he was signed up that has now been cancelled. Ask him which new housing estate or large public or commercial buildings develpments that he was signed up to work on three months from now, presumably not far from completion, have been abandoned in the last two weeks?

but details of the cancellations (presumably would have been in the local papers) came there none.

Jul 21, 2016 at 7:08 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A. You have four alternatives. You can believe 1) I lied, 2) I was lied to, 3) I misinterpreted what I was told (by two separate people) or 4) I correctly reported the gist of what I had been told. What you come to believe is immaterial to me. You are informed by a number of sources (individuals and organizations) that cooperation with British scientists will be negatively impacted. What EVIDENCE do you have that those sources are lying or are mistaken?

I fail to see how removal of British science from a potential income stream (where the UK has been a net beneficiary) can be viewed as anything other than as a negative. But there yeh go, anything's possible at BH.

Jul 21, 2016 at 8:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterAK

Our aggressive press, which was/is predominately 'remain' in nature loves reporting 'brexit' negatives.

the DailyMail is full of business woes apparently due to 'Brexit'.

I have yet to see reports of academic research being impacted yet. I am sure it will be reported as much of academia is is a state of flux with changes afoot. With fee increases, realignment of sectors etc.

Everything post Brexit must be kept rosy and the myth of everything in project fear being untrue must be upheld. And this reaction from people who accuse climate scientists of ignoring evidence that is inconsistent with their dogma. Sheeesh!"

Why must everything be keep rosy? I think everyone here would prefer just the truth please!

Jul 21, 2016 at 8:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Richards

Steve Richards. Some people here don't recognise (or wish to accept) the truth even when it's told to them.

Jul 21, 2016 at 9:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterAK

Stewgreen

I note that this has already been discussed in Parliamentary committee.

Jul 21, 2016 at 10:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM - please test your links before hitting 'Create Post'.

Jul 21, 2016 at 10:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Martin A

It worked for me the first time and is now giving the subscription page instead.

Try putting "British scientists tell MPs about Brexit damage" into a search engine. You might get the original article before the cookie cuts in.

Jul 22, 2016 at 12:13 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Martin A. You have four alternatives. You can believe 1) I lied, 2) I was lied to, 3) I misinterpreted what I was told (by two separate people) or 4) I correctly reported the gist of what I had been told. What you come to believe is immaterial to me. You are informed by a number of sources (individuals and organizations) that cooperation with British scientists will be negatively impacted. What EVIDENCE do you have that those sources are lying or are mistaken?

None whatever in any of your four directions. But what you said seemed to be just hearsay in the same vein as EM's statements "... somebody told me something..." as if we should take it seriously and discuss it.

I fail to see how removal of British science from a potential income stream (where the UK has been a net beneficiary) can be viewed as anything other than as a negative. But there yeh go, anything's possible at BH.
Jul 21, 2016 at 8:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterAK

Like Pcar on unthreaded, I have for years regarded govt funded scientific research as being a drain on society.

The availability of government (ie taxpayer) funded grants, uncritically handed out by grants committees, rarely yields anything of significant value, but consumes resources and diverts talent from becoming engaged in challenging undertakings into semi-anaethetised lifelong academic drudgery. Makes no real difference via which route the "income stream" comes, if it is govt funded, it's generally of negative benefit.

Jul 22, 2016 at 12:33 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

I think it is entirely probable that various British based scientists, working with others within the EU, on joint research ventures applying for EU funding will have considered it prudent to consider that their funding proposals may not be considered favourably due to their Britishness. This seems logical and practical under the circumstances.

If it means that some British scientists were only good enough to get funding BECAUSE they were British, and within the EU, what does it say about those scientists, and the funding decisions made by the EU? Perhaps if the UK had more control over how British Taxpayers money was spent, none would be swallowed up in EU political redtape and EU political bureaucracy.

To keep the Taxpayers interest in Science, what about a 'Dragons Den' approach to some funding, televised of course.

Jul 22, 2016 at 2:43 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

MartinA. "what [I] said seemed to be just hearsay.... as if we should take it seriously and discuss it".

This just confirms my earlier comment that you don't recognize evidence when you are given it. You are aware of my history and could therefore assume that I might still have academic contacts who would tell me things. Whether you believe what I reported is another matter, dependent upon 1 my accuracy and 2 what you yourself believe. Quite frankly I don't care about either.

I addressed your comments about science funding over on Unthreaded, where you shingled essentially the same post.

Jul 22, 2016 at 7:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterAK

rhoda. I have thought long and hard about how I might respond to your somewhat whimsical question about Astronomy, but I realized that it ties in with assertions made by others here about science funding. There are several possible answers
1. Because humankind is curious, has always been and presumably always will be. The skies have been a source of fascination since prehistory. Continued interest is amply demonstrated by the continued transmission of programmes like the Sky at Night. A proportion of the public is willing to pay for continued revelations of these "wonders".
2. "Blue sky research" cannot be judged by dollars and cents considerations. You never know the outcomes. Today astronomy is in disarray. Basic understandings have been trashed by new observations and have led to postulates about the existence of dark energy and dark matter. If they exist, and we are searching for them now, can you predict how they might be used in the future? A study of exoplanets has revealed the existence of "hot Jupiters" and has led to the theory that our Jupiter was once far closer to our Sun. I think it might become important to establish if our Solar System is as stable as we once thought it was.

There is talk here about moneys provided by governments being wasted. No new knowledge is a waste. What many here are confusing is the difference between science and engineering: engineering in its widest sense meaning the development of known knowledge (acquired by science) for human benefit.

Jul 22, 2016 at 8:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterAK

From Breitbart, via Paul Homewood's site:

" The EU unveiled national targets Wednesday for cutting greenhouse gases by 2030, insisting Britain is still legally required to help the bloc meet its UN goal despite being set to leave.
Wealthy northern European countries including Britain bear the brunt of the EU’s plans to meet the commitment it made at the Paris climate summit in December to cut emissions by 40 percent over 1990 levels.

Despite Britain’s shock referendum vote last month for Brexit, the European Commission included it on its list of proposed binding emissions targets for all 28 EU countries.

“These targets are realistic, fair and flexible,” EU Climate Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete told a press conference, adding that the targets would become legally binding if and when approved by member states.

Under the targets, which are based on economic growth, Sweden and tiny Luxembourg must cut emissions by 40 percent over 2005 levels, while Finland and Denmark must cut emissions by 39 percent and powerhouse Germany by 38 percent.

Britain and France are asked to cut emissions by 37 percent while Netherlands and Austria should cut by 36 percent.

“Let’s be very clear: from a legal point of view the outcome of the referendum has not changed anything,” Spain’s Canete said when asked whether the proposed targets would have to be readjusted following Britain’s exit.

“The UK (United Kingdom) remains a member state with all the rights and obligations for member states and EU law continues to apply in full to the UK,” he said."

Curious how the EU is apparently already cutting us adrift when it comes to scientific funding, but how we apparently remain fully-signed up members when they want us to do stuff. Just one of the many reasons for leaving the EU, IMHO.

Jul 22, 2016 at 8:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

@Mark Hodgson said

Curious how the EU is apparently already cutting us adrift when it comes to scientific funding, but how we apparently remain fully-signed up members when they want us to do stuff. Just one of the many reasons for leaving the EU, IMHO.
Yep, but it you'd put that key phrase at the beginning of your post, it would have made it easy for us to read and then stuck the big quotes inside {blockquote} tags

Here's the link to Paul Homewood's post EU Defies Brexit To Force Greenhouse Gas Targets On UK
Paul said

the EU target is only a 40% from 1990. The EU have squared this circle by allowing for much smaller reductions, well below 40%, from the poorer eastern and southern countries.

This is, of course, a typical EU fudge, as countries such as Poland had already made it clear that they would not accept a cut of 40%.
...
The 2030 target for the UK equates to 54% from 1990 levels
(37% from 2005 levels )

Jul 22, 2016 at 10:03 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

@Martin A I agree, so far the proponents are just arguing on hearsay
That's the same as the "EVERYONE KNOWS we are warming to catastrophe" line of the BBC/Guardian.

At least @EM tried
..but it still not good enough. I hate that lazy trick of some debaters as they say "here's a link". No they shouldn't send others on a wild goose chase to wade thru the info at the link..but rather explain carefully what info is at the link.

Searching for @EM link after the one he gave us didn't work
Gives me an FT story British scientists tell MPs about Brexit damage. The "hard" evidence it contains

Philip Nelson, chairman of Research Councils UK, said he had heard “multiple stories of quite unpleasant things happening to UK researchers being asked to leave [scientific research] consortia”.

“I have probably had six vice-chancellors tell me different stories about different consortia that are taking negative attitudes towards UK researchers,” he added.
...........
Jonathan Bamber, a professor at Bristol university, said that all four preferred candidates for postdoctoral research that he had secured European funding for — all from other EU countries — had expressed “deep misgivings and concerns about accepting a post in the UK”.

So that is ALL hearsay
And the 6 comments below also contain zero info , just lazy sneers from Brexiphobic remoaners

Jul 22, 2016 at 10:26 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Mark Hodgson, if the UK decides not to meet it's emissions targets in accordance with EU policies for EU countries cutting emissions, the remaining EU countries will have to cut more than the percentages previosyly agreed to.

This has the potential to fan the flames across the EU.

These emission targets were presumably set following scientific evidence acceptable to the EU Green Blob, prepared by the EU Green Blob, for the benefit of the EU Green Blob. It does make me wonder how much EU Science funding is wasted on politically correct science, to back up the politically correct predetermined conclusions.

How many science studies are required to tell us what might happen if the climate changes? How many science studies only get funding because they will mention what will happen if the climate changes?

Jul 22, 2016 at 10:28 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie