Watch News Science Science funding crisis Military research should bear brunt of science cuts, say leading scientists

Military research should bear brunt of science cuts, say leading scientists
Senior academics say science cuts should focus on military research projects, including finding a replacement for Trident

Missile tubes on a Trident nuclear submarine. The scientists want all Britain's nuclear weapons placed in secure storage. Photograph: Murdo Macleod/Guardian
Military research projects, including plans to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system, must bear the brunt of science funding cuts if Britain is to stay at the forefront of scientific research, academics have told the prime minister.

Thirty-six scientists and engineers, including seven Royal Society fellows and one Nobel laureate, have today written to David Cameron raising concerns over the future of British science if civilian research is cut while defence research is spared.

The government spends £8bn on scientific research, of which more than £2bn is earmarked for Ministry of Defence projects at facilities such as the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston. The nuclear weapons lab will play a central role in developing a successor to Trident if ministers decide to go ahead with a replacement.

"Of particular concern is the fact that world class research into health and global environmental problems is under threat, while the government continues to fund the multi-billion pound research programme at the Atomic Weapons Establishment," the authors write in the letter, which is published today in the Guardian.

"Our view is that current MoD funding is not only disproportionate, it also includes expenditure on programmes which are of minimal benefit or counterproductive to the UK's security," the letter adds. The authors call for Britain's nuclear warheads to be placed in secure storage and the successor to Trident scrapped to free up funds for civilian science research.

The letter, signed by Professor Alastair Hay, an expert in chemical and biological weapons at Leeds University, Sir Harry Kroto, who won the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1996, and the mathematician Sir Michael Atiyah, continues: "We believe that any cuts to public science spending should predominantly come from cuts to the Ministry of Defence's research and development."

The letter comes a week after the prime minister told the Conservative party conference in Birmingham that he would take "no risks with British security" and stressed his commitment to renewing the Trident nuclear missile system. In the letter, the scientists urge ministers to "shift their priorities so that science and technology can contribute to tackling the real threats to the UK's present and future security."

The scientists concede a need for extra funding on some defence-related issues, including research into ways of monitoring arms control agreements, non-violent conflict resolution and strategies for "tackling the roots of conflict and insecurity".
coppied by http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/13/military-research-science-cuts-scientists