Letters: The perfect song to wash your hands to

British science

Sir: Dr Fink is right that the UK bats well above its weight through curiosity-driven research (‘Back to basics’, 14 March). This forms the bedrock of scientific progress, but it is misleading to imply that ‘blue skies’ thinking and practical application are mutually incompatible. Should we not nurture both? In this way the UK will lead in discovery and exploitation for societal benefit through the earliest application of new ideas, preventing us from dropping the ball as we have in the past.

He is right that we should let scientists focus on delivering new science, but is it too much to spend a few weeks outlining forward plans every five years? Research grant writing is hard but energising work, allowing free and creative thinking before the longer process of implementation. Not all ideas lead to a Nobel prize, and having a low (~20 per cent) funding rate ensures the taxpayer only supports the very best science and the very best scientists.

I agree that the application process could be faster, but it is not fundamentally broken. Unlike in the US, most established researchers in the UK do receive regular funds to allow them to explore freely. If the government honours its commitment to redirect European-bound funds directly into UK research, we will be in a very strong position post-Brexit. A rich funding environment will continue to attract the brightest and the best into curiosity-driven and translational research, from our own universities, from Europe and beyond.
Patrick Chinnery
Professor of Neurology, University of Cambridge and Gonville and Caius College