Similar thought processes – but also different! My gut reaction was to wonder not just about the “only” 7%, but the why and how.
I found this article, also from the Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-pledge-slashing-medical-research-costs.html and I wasn’t too uplifted by it. Then, I read re. the free personal care at home bill “Mr Burnham said he planned to pay for the measures by diverting £60million from his department's R&D budget and £50million from public health promotions.
Cutting spending on management consultants would provide £60million, while further funds would come from a productivity drive intended to secure £20billion in efficiency savings across the NHS over the next four years.”
And finally, so as to keep this post as short as possible:
http://www.labnews.co.uk/news_archi...rch-budget-as-europe-pushes-for-greater-spend
“UK cuts research budget as Europe pushes for greater spend” – recession there too.
“The reduction is due to the HM Treasury’s decision to retain the MRC’s commercial fund – the money resulting from the exploitation of the council’s intellectual property.”
“The MRC has a strong record, through its commercial arm of exploiting the intellectual property created by the scientists who work in our units and institutes. The results have helped hundreds of thousands of people around the world: Monoclonal antibodies for example now make up a third of all new drug treatments for a variety of major diseases.” I just happen to be a strong follower of ‘monoclonal antibody’ research and development – so long may it continue to thrive. Alongside other worthwhile causes. My guts say that we cut research funding at our peril - recession or no recession.
Downing Street's all yours! Too corrupt for my liking.
