D Cuts

LONDON—Scientists working in this country's military sector may suffer a "considerable" reduction in funding within two or three years if the Conservatives are returned to power in next week's elections. On the other hand, those involved in civil R&D may benefit from money transferred out of defense work. These intentions were outlined by Defense Secretary George Younger as he unveiled this year's Defense White Paper shortly before the June 11 election was announced. "We shall be taking a close looking at defense programs with a high R&D element, to ensure that government funding is really essential," Younger said. "At the same time, we hope to move finance into non-military research." Although the other two competitors in the election—the Labour Party and the Social Democratic/Liberal Alliance—have promised a substantial boost in money for civil science, neither party has advocated a specific reallocation from defense. Younger's comments marked a significant policy shift by the Thatcher government in response to recent claims by industrialists, economists and even the Cabinet's own science adviser, John Fairclough, that defense has been consuming too large a share of R&D funds. At present some 55 percent of total government R&D expenditure flows from the Ministry of Defense. Although the newly announced 1987-88 R&D budget of £2.35 billion ($3.9 billion) represents only a slight decline, after taking into account inflation, from the current figure of £2.26 billion, economies stemming from greater efficiency, and international collaboration are intended to release more substantial sums into non-military work. Separate Slices Quite apart from uncertainty surrounding the election, Younger's announcement has been greeted with skepticism in many quarters. Philip Gummett, lecturer in the Department of Science and Technology Policy at the University of Manchester and rapporteur for the Council for Science and Society's recent study entitled U.K Military R&D, doubted whether the proposed shift of funds would really come about. "I accept Younger's good intentions, but if you examine the fine print of the White Paper, the details of this alleged new policy are simply not there," Gummett said. "In the past, at least, British governments have never thought of R&D spending as a single cake waiting to be sliced and distributed to departments. It has always been budgeted for in separate slices, one for each departmental cake." Alan Carnell, commercial director of Racal-Decca and president of the Electronic Engineering Association, said he was "disappointed" by the White Paper's indication that R&D could fall to below 20 percent of the overall defense budget. He also anticipated that his association's member companies—many of them in the defense field—would be doubly disappointed if the intended transfer of funds did not provide a much-needed fillip for civil science. "If money has to be taken from defense, it should not go straight back into the coffers of the Treasury," he said. Britain's overall defense budget is the fourth highest in NATO in relation to gross domestic product (GDP), behind the United States,. France and West Germany, and in per capita terms, behind the United States, Norway and France. But its spending on defense R&D as a percentage of GDP (at 0.68 percent) surpasses France (0.49 percent), West Germany (0.11 percent) and Japan (0.01 percent) and is exceeded only by the United States (0.81 percent). Critics of current policies have focused on the recent economic success of countries that spend comparatively little on defense spending, and on Britain's finite pool of 65,000 qualified scientists and engineers. At present, more than one-quarter of them are associated with the procurement of military equipment. "It would be regrettable if defense work became such a magnet for the manpower available that industry's ability to compete in the international market for civil high-technology products became seriously impaired," declared the White Paper. Younger did not indicate specific areas where future cuts might occur. The most likely possibility is the Ministry of Defense's own research establishments, which have declined in the past decade from 22 to seven and whose staffs have shrunk from 30,000 to 22,000. Increasing numbers of R&D projects have been contracted out to private industry, and to a lesser degree to universities. According to Gummett, however, an extension of extramural research could pose other problems. "Of course, I would welcome the proposed transfer of finance to the civil sector," he said. "But a point would soon be reached in this process beyond which the ministry would lose the expertise needed to properly monitor these out-of-house programs." Dixon is European editor of The Scientist.

D Cuts

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of