Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stephen Hawking and 150 Royal Society Scientists: Brexit Disaster For UK (telegraph.co.uk)

Posted by timothy on from the whereas-maintaining-a-monarchy dept.

cold fjord writes: Steven Hawking, 150 fellows of the Royal Society (three Nobel laureates among them), and the Astronomer Royal, are warning that exit from the EU by the UK could be a disaster for science in the UK. An immediate issue would be restrictions on travel and how that would result in scientists from around the EU no longer coming to the UK to work. That would make the UK less competitive for new talent. It would also mean that scientists in the EU with grant money would be less likely to bring their research and grant money to the UK to perform their work. Switzerland is listed as an example of the resulting harm. The scientists make the point that freedom of travel for scientists is as important for science as free trade is for economies.

16 of 361 comments (clear)

  1. Stop sneaking in the Forbes link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    FFS.

    New boss same as old boss.

  2. Incentives by butchersong · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So balance that out with some incentives to lure talent and research to the UK. The EU will never have the political will to get its act together and the UK similarly will not have the will to deal with the migrant crisis that will continue as long as they maintain open borders.

    1. Re:Incentives by butchersong · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you mean open borders for the oil we get from the middle east

      You will not get a lot of argument from me that the west has a large degree of culpability for the current probelms in Syria and Iraq but I have never understood the assertion that our primary motivation was oil. If all we cared about was oil we would have continued to support the despots that provided stability. Assad and Hussein were much better for business. Our actions while foolish cannot be attributed to greed. But it might be that I haven't thought this through as well as you. If you have an arugment to make I'm open to changing my mind.

    2. Re:Incentives by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The referendum needs a third option: EU MAX. We would go all in, adopt the Euro, become a major player and shape the union like Germany does.

      As you say, the EU would be much more effective if it was more federal.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Incentives by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You will not get a lot of argument from me that the west has a large degree of culpability for the current probelms in Syria and Iraq but I have never understood the assertion that our primary motivation was oil. If all we cared about was oil we would have continued to support the despots that provided stability.

      If you look at the big picture, you might realize that yes, the West does support strong dictators that provide lots of oil - specifically, Saudi Arabia (and the other countries of the Arab peninsula to a slightly lesser extent). Saudi Arabia is a Sunni country that is in every way like ISIS, all the way to rampant de facto slavery of whoever is not a Sunni Muslim, beheading of apostates and gays, no-go areas for non-Muslims, child brides. Saudi Arabia wouldn't lift a finger against ISIS, but went full-banshee against insurgents in Yemen - because they are Shia, and it is mostly the civilians that are dying during Saudi air raids. All this the West just sees and ignores. Let's not forget that Saudi Arabia is chairing the Human Rights committe at the UN. So, from a further perspective, it does seem that Saudi Arabia is receiving support. Why? I see no other answer but because of the immense power they hold because of the crude oil production capacity and reserves the Saudis hold.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  3. view not shared by all link by iplayfast · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the link The two are intricately linked: if science were not a public good then there should be no tax subsidy to it. If it is a public good then it doesn’t matter who does it nor where. It’s not possible to then claim that it must have the subsidy and it must be done in Britain or by Britons. The one point precludes the other.

    It makes the assumption that if science can be done anywhere then it doesn't matter where. The article totally misses that science is a collaborative field that works by communication and working with differing mind sets. Travel makes this much easier.

    I think the article is just looking for an excuse to make some ink, and has no real thought behind it.

    1. Re:view not shared by all link by Computershack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The article totally misses that science is a collaborative field that works by communication and working with differing mind sets. Travel makes this much easier.

      So does the internet. Scientists would be high up on the list of people allowed to come to the UK so I don't see a problem. If anything being out of the EU and free to do things the EU bans, such as experimenting with GM food, the state of science could be much better in the UK being free to pursue more fields and free of the red tape being in the EU requires.

      --
      I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
  4. More privileged elites whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The UKs involvement in the EU should be a free trade agreement. Full stop. End of discussion.

    No central control, no central laws.

    The EU is an evil cabal filled with unaccountable corruption pushing the agenda of the 1%..

    1. Re:More privileged elites whining by jabuzz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is how do you have free trade if there is 26 different regulations on everything from the permitted additives to food, to what efficiency standards electrical products must meet.

      In the end if it where not for the EU we would have a bunch of civil servants in Whitehall issuing very similar regulations to that which come out of Brussels. Now I admit we have had to change a whole bunch of regulations over the last 30 years as these have been harmonized, but we have been through 99% of that pain so why throw it out now for something that has already passed?

      On this matter you have to ask yourself is it better to have a single set of regulations covering a much larger market or a minefield of regulations from 26 countries that it may well be impossible to comply with?

      The other question to ask is are the sorts of free trade agreements that you might want with the EU available outside the EU without implementing all the regulations anyway? Clearly looking at countries in Europe outside the EU that is a big fat no.

      I also fail to understand how the working time directive is the agenda of the 1%. Surely the 1% would like to see us work unrestricted hours like a bunch of good little wage slaves? I also wonder how abolition of roaming charges is the interests of the 1% either.

    2. Re:More privileged elites whining by Coisiche · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I also fail to understand how the working time directive is the agenda of the 1%. Surely the 1% would like to see us work unrestricted hours like a bunch of good little wage slaves?

      The big supporters of brexit do seem to favour narrow interests. You just need to consider the ownership of the newspapers that most loudly proclaim how bad the EU is, to see that brexit is what the 1% want.

      When it come to science it's not just movement that helps. Higher education establishment research funding from EU is 15% on top of what UK government gives and that would disappear after brexit. Ah, say brexit supporters, but if we didn't contribute to the EU then there would be more government money. Hah!, retorts any intelligent person who has paid attention to what this government is doing, the additional money will go into the pockets of a select few and not be spent on anything as frivolous as scientific research in establishments where a kid from a council estate could attend.

  5. Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I'll bet the estates these folks live on are nowhere near any North African ghettos. The 'Disaster' is upon us. Some of us.

  6. Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Is the ship sinking? Then it doesn't matter who calls you a rat: Not going down with the ship is the better choice.

  7. Re:"restrictions on travel" - but not for 'refugee by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Secondly, appeal to authority fallacy much? Who cares what Stephen Hawkins thinks about the real world? He is totally divorced from reality (not his fault, but it's a fact nevertheless). How many times does he have to go down a street at night, in an 'enriched' area, and worry about being mugged or raped?

    The Brexit discussion is far older then the migrant crisis, and is only barely related. It's about Britain wanting to remain a sovereign state. 150 successful scientists who have effectively worked for the government their whole lives support a stronger, larger central government? Hey, they're all smart guys, they know how the money flows in their field. But they're perhaps not in touch with the average guy upset that the government he votes for doesn't seem to represent him much. The migrant crisis is just the latest example of that. The more local the government, the more responsive it tends to be.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  8. Re:"restrictions on travel" - but not for 'refugee by jandersen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Secondly, appeal to authority fallacy much? Who cares what Stephen Hawkins thinks about the real world? He is totally divorced from reality (not his fault, but it's a fact nevertheless). How many times does he have to go down a street at night, in an 'enriched' area, and worry about being mugged or raped?

    Hawking is talking about the the effect on science and research. Being one of them, he probably knows a good more about this particular subject that most; he will have had to work with international colleagues, taking part in programmes set up and funded by diverse international bodies etc. Hell. even I know enough about these things to feel that he isn't speaking out of turn, not by a mile.

    As for your comment about 'enriched' areas - what do you actually know about that? The most dangerous areas in UK to walk out at night are normally in the socially deprived estates in some of the English cities, where contrary to your insinuations, most of the residents are ethnically British, who live on state benefits. I speak with some authority, I think - I live in an area of London with a very high proportion of immigrants: Hindus, Sikhs, Polish, Chinese, Muslims. I love it - it is a nice and safe area where people are consderate neighbours. So, you can stop your scaremongering.

  9. Re:EU Funding by Xylantiel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The piece of information that you are missing is that the UK has already gutted its internal research funding. The UK government is not going to suddenly become more friendly to science funding even if the need to pay the EU goes away. As far as I know, one of the few good sources of academic research funding in the UK currently is from the EU.

  10. Re:EU Funding by Coisiche · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Problem is that the funding via the EU probably goes where it is needed. If the government didn't have EU contributions then they wouldn't give more to science funding and you're deluded if you think that it might. They also wouldn't use it to end austerity or increase NHS funding or anything that might be of benefit to the majority of people. It will be used to line the pockets of a select few and nothing more.