This is what the science business website claims. He interviewed experts who argued that for Europe, losing Britain would mean losing the continent's best research institutions. However, it is assumed that Britain will continue its obligations at least until the end of the Horizon 2020 program. The question is - what next
Unlike the rest, a little more than half of the British, most of the scientists were in favor of remaining in the Union. for example Prof. Steve Farber from the University of Manchester, one of the developers of the ARM architecture He said at the ChipEx2016 conference in Tel Aviv at the beginning of June, in the introduction to his lecture on upgrading brain research, that he does not imagine a situation in which Britain would separate from the Union. "I will vote in favor of remaining separate, for the sake of science - this is the most correct thing." said.
British Science Secretary Jo Johnson told the Science Business website Because the loss of funding from Europe may be significant. But apart from a few hidden contingency plans no one has prepared to deal with it practically.
Carlos Moates, Commissioner for Research in the European Union, and a citizen of Portugal says that he is afraid. "I don't think it will be good for Portugal in particular," said Nuno Tones, an associate professor of informatics engineering at the Institute of Interactive Technologies in Madeira. "We are one of the Atlantic countries of the European Union and we have good relations with Great Britain. If the EU's center of gravity moves to Central and Eastern Europe we will have even less influence; Portugal will be even more peripheral. "
"For Europe, losing Britain means losing the continent's best research institutions," Nunes said.
Similarly, Krzysztof Klinkiewicz, professor of intellectual property management at the University of Warsaw, says that research is not a "zero-sum game" but an opportunity to explore synergies and coordinate activities, thus increasing impact through joint efforts," he said. It would therefore be strange to expect that a certain country or group of countries would benefit from the dismantling of the European research system. However, Klinkiewicz sees one possible positive aspect of Britain leaving - that it would help Eastern European countries retain the scientists they have nurtured. "The UK university system is promoting a brain drain of skilled researchers from many countries."
Others think it would be more difficult if the British required visas from European scientists.
Politicians, researchers and lobbyists warn that the loss of Britain's authoritative voice would be a fatal blow to the quality of research in Europe. The British were the strongest pushers for the establishment of the European Research Council (ERC), and also provided a significant part of its budget. The president of the Royal Society Paul Nurse who chaired the committee and a committee that included Nobel laureates intervened to prevent a cut in the ERC budget.
Many say that the former British Minister for Science and Innovation, David Willetts, was one of the drafters of the Horizon 2020 plan. Without Britain, Horizon 2020 would have looked very different, said Marie Goggigan Quinn, the former head of research.
"The British Cancer Research Association and the Wellcome Foundation helped develop a data protection regulation that enabled cross-border clinical trials. The Academy of Sciences says that EU laws on animal testing have been influenced by UK regulations.
Concerns about cutting the research budget
The EU could also lose one of its biggest budgets due to Britain leaving. In 2014, the most recent year for which figures are available, Britain made the third largest contribution to the EU budget, €7.1 billion, ahead of France with €7.4 billion and Germany with €17.7 billion. Therefore, as far as research is concerned, either other countries will raise their budget or it will be necessary to cut EU spending, including research. Although it is possible that like 16 other countries (including Israel) Britain can continue to pay and participate in the Horizon 2020 program from the outside. The UK currently leads with 1,483 projects in Horizon 2020, more than any other country. Spain is second with 902 grants.
The British scientists who were interviewed for the article say that they do not see a practical possibility to stop the research and therefore they estimate that their funding will continue until 2020.
The important question is what's next, the departure process is supposed to take two years, according to the Lisbon agreement, will it even be possible to formulate the post-Horizon 2020 research program during such a period, and if so, what will it look like without Britain or, more likely, with limited participation by Britain. There is still no answer to this.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
12 תגובות
Alright Yossi, everything has pros and cons, that's what the people there chose, personally I'm very dissatisfied with the choices of the majority in Israel. That's what Israel has, cooperation with America - even though we're not part of the United States. The International Space Station shows that even rivals share Action (even with this crisis time between Russia and the USA)
Not convinced. Separatism and fragmentation = war sooner or later. It is possible to build a computer model for this in which alliances are made between countries and there are random events of conflict of interests. Unity = renouncing a separate foreign policy = not renouncing internal autonomy. It has its drawbacks. Nothing is perfect. Developing technology for a journey to Mars and colonization = a necessary condition, investment by a large number of countries together, not alone.
Yossi, and still the British were not satisfied with their situation even though they were in the Union - and wanted a change! When the capitalists don't pay taxes, the British working class pays - immigrants from Poland and Romania steal his work, and he grew up in a bad education system. Obviously, this deal was not good for him. The fighter plane The European one is garbage. And France builds a plane at a much better level (Raphael).
I do not claim that they are equal - of course not. But the Union imposes behavior within the framework on all countries. Divisiveness gradually creates a system of alliances and games of weakening all others, and: it does not allow the building of a force at the level of half a billion people, and also when a match is lit that ignites a fire, for example in Europe. The union reached beautiful results. In matters of technology, standardization, the Europeans led - not alone. They did beautiful things that we as Israel only copied as a small country. They landed a probe on an asteroid. Any member of the Union can acquire a free education provided his grades are satisfactory anywhere in Europe. Instead of engaging in hostilities, Germany and France are engaged in building a joint passenger plane, a joint fighter plane, joint space projects. The power of half a billion people does not compare to the power of any individual country. If we want, for example, to settle in space, it seems clear to me, and maybe I'm wrong, that we need multinational cooperation like the LHC accelerator.
On European foreign affairs, they had a uniform speech until recently.
I do not claim that they are equal - of course not. But the Union imposes behavior within the framework on all countries. Divisiveness gradually creates a system of alliances and games of weakening all others, and: it does not allow the building of a force at the level of half a billion people, and also when a match is lit that ignites a fire, for example in Europe. The union reached beautiful results. In matters of technology, standardization, the Europeans led - not alone. They did beautiful things that we as Israel only copied as a small country. They landed a probe on an asteroid. Any member of the Union can acquire a free education provided his grades are satisfactory anywhere in Europe. Instead of engaging in hostilities, Germany and France are engaged in building a joint passenger plane, a joint fighter plane, joint space projects. The power of half a billion people does not compare to the power of any individual country. If we want, for example, to settle in space, it seems clear to me, and maybe I'm wrong, that we need multinational cooperation like the LHC accelerator.
On European foreign affairs, they had a uniform speech until recently.
Yossi, the utopian nonsense you write reminds me of Karl Marx. Humans are not physically equal like women and men. Northern Europeans are not equal to Southern Europeans just as whites are not equal to blacks and no amount of political correctness will help. Look at Africa versus Europe and Norway versus Greece...
The United States of America there is also a tension between the states' desire for independence and the strength and calm to deal with climate and economic crises that unity gives them. California, for example, produces far above its weight in the US population. Even there, voices of ignorance will be heard to divide. In the civil war there were voices to divide. The strength of a people in its unity while giving up things. The union brought to Europe transitory phenomena of economic crises. The weak link pulls the whole chain down. But in a historical perspective he brought them power and they are too full to feel it. The nations see only that they have covered the debt of PIGS. The opposite: the strong links pull the weak link up, and when they all reach a stable position, upward growth is possible.
In my opinion (only) the Union protects Europe from internal war in addition to the fact that it gives them power similar to China, USA, Russia. In a world with increasingly challenging problems with the proliferation of pirates, and the migration of peoples accompanying the greenhouse effect, in my estimation it is partly geographical and climatic - when a hypothetical historian comes in 100 years. Without unity, war will break out. If there is full autonomy for Scotland, Wales - and they each want their own resources, as mentioned in Spain Catalonia, and the Basques, as mentioned, Yugoslavia broke up into Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia and possibly Montenegro, and Czechoslovakia into Czechia, Slovakia and Slovenia. In my estimation, it will not be a prophetic sense but rather as the recognition of a recurring pattern of Malachai 1, 2 - war there.
The Muslims will mark us first because we are on the front line. After we have been marked, they will not be stopped on the way to Europe. A full democracy will not withstand these pressures. I don't understand David Cameron. Who goes to the referendum before he is sure to win. Tomorrow we will go to a referendum on whether to turn Israel into a dictatorship, and some of us will vote yes.
Shame on you, Switzerland, Norway, Australia, Canada, New Zealand are not in the anti-Semitic evil union and are much more prosperous than the union of this faltering mix of nations and Muslim infiltrators, good luck dismantling this garbage
Yossi, a third world war will not break out in Europe (China and Africa is a different question). As for the "victory of the Muslim demographic" - there is no dawn for that, Muslims have a custom of naming at least one child Muhammad (there is no variety of names like in other religions). Therefore, even in Israel, the name Muhammad is the most common Even with Scotland wanting to break away, it will remain very dependent on England.
The reasons for the world wars were European factionalism and the proliferation of nation states that could not defend themselves against anything: Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. In the meantime Czechoslovakia broke up, Yugoslavia into 3, there is Croatia, Albania. Britain wants to split into Scotland or Wales. The First World War, if we remember, broke out because a Serbian nationalist (Yugoslavia?) shot the heir to the Austrian throne and that Germany had a big appetite. World War II broke out for a similar reason.
The most common name in Britain is Mohammed. With a Christian birth rate of 5-6 children per family and immigrants, we will wait a hundred years and see what happens.
Brexit is only for the purpose of reducing immigrants, it has nothing to do with scientific cooperation.