In a report published today, Public Funding of UK Science and Engineering: Putting Government Rhetoric to the Test, the lobby group claims that ?1.6 billion less will have been spent on science by 2014-15 than would have been if the government maintained spending at 2010-11 levels.

George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer, said when presenting last year¡¯s Budget that the government would not ¡°cut the cash¡± going to science.

Mr Osborne defined the science budget as money for the seven research councils, ¡°quality related¡± research funding from the ÖйúAƬ funding councils and other programmes such as knowledge transfer funding.

Despite this, CaSE contends that, using the ¡°pre-2010¡± definition of the science budget ¨C which includes capital expenditure ¨C spending has been cut by 12 per cent in cash terms.

ÖйúAƬ

The report also states that, even with a frozen budget, science spending will decrease in real terms due to inflation increasing at a higher rate than expected.

CaSE cites as an example statistics from the Department of Health ¨C which is expected to increase spending from ?1.025 billion in 2011-12 to ?1.089 billion in 2014-15.

ÖйúAƬ

Inflation would have to stay at less than 2.74 per cent for that to count as a real-terms increase, it says. In fact, inflation has remained above 4 per cent throughout the year.

Imran Khan, director of CaSE, said that more money needed to be invested in science and engineering, or the UK would ¡°feel the costs for decades to come¡±.

¡°The government received praise for earmarking science and engineering as an area that must be invested in if we¡¯re to achieve growth,¡± he said.

¡°However, we need to start looking ahead and asking if this financial settlement is really going to help the UK get to where it needs to be.

ÖйúAƬ

¡°A nation like ours has to invest in research and development, or risk becoming irrelevant and uncompetitive.¡±

Lord Rees, former president of the Royal Society, said that the message of the survey was ¡°disquieting¡± and said that the UK¡¯s university system was ¡°at risk¡± if more investment was not forthcoming.

¡°If we don¡¯t match the investment of other nations, and are perceived to be in relative decline, we will lose, rather than attract, the mobile talent that is crucial for sustained excellence.

¡°And we will send a negative signal to young people who are ambitious to pursue a scientific career. The sum 'saved¡¯ by these real-terms reductions is very small compared to the opportunity costs of choking off a long-term recovery.¡±

ÖйúAƬ

A spokeswoman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: ¡°Despite enormous pressure on public spending, science and research programme funding has been protected in cash terms at ?4.6 billion annually over the spending review period. ¡°This is a very good outcome for science and research, and the ring-fence has been extended to Hefce¡¯s quality-related research funding for the first time. A strong research base is vital for Britain's future in the global knowledge economy.

¡°Furthermore, an additional investment of ?100 million in 2011-12 was announced in the last Budget. It is already being used to develop infrastructure at the national research campuses in Daresbury, Norwich, Harwell and Cambridge.¡±

ÖйúAƬ

sarah.cunnane@tsleducation.com