I should perhaps have been more specific. I should have written" there is evidence of decreasing scientific cooperation in Europe, funded from EU funding streams". I have no concern that, over the long term, scientists across Europe will find ways of obtaining the necessary funding from other sources. Access to specialized equipment is a strong driver that works both ways. In the same way, access to expertise and experience on both sides of the channel is essential. I suspect that when everything dies down there will be agreements either with the EU or with individual countries for mutual scientific cooperation. In the meantime British science is and will suffer. Some severing of links will not be repaired.

I wonder where this thread will get its evidence from? How many academics of ex-academics post here? Will they be willing to speak? I know of two cooperative ventures that have foundered or are in difficulties post Brexit vote, but I cannot write about them because matters are so sensitive. You will have to rely upon news releases or statements from those affected, that some of you refuse to acknowledge. Everything post Brexit must be kept rosy and the myth of everything in project fear being untrue must be upheld. And this reaction from people who accuse climate scientists of ignoring evidence that is inconsistent with their dogma. Sheeesh!

The evidence is already in, there is a discernable negative influence, starting with astronomy.

RR. This is exactly the period, freed from teaching and most administrative duties, that university researchers can concentrate on doing research and preparing/finalizing research applications. I don't believe anyone in academia thought that the effect of Brexit would show itself so early. I suspect, but do not know what the situation and morale is in research institutes, but I would imagine it's similar.

Martin A I find it difficult to understand your cavalier attitude to UK science, something the country punches well above its weight and which is acknowledged to be so important to our economy. So I won't try.

M.Courtney. Not the top boffins directly perhaps but certainly their research groups. They may well be unable to attract the best from Europe until everything is sorted out. Our most promising researchers may also be unable to study in Europe. Eventually matters will be normalized but how long will it take? Two years? Some parts of science advance so rapidly that British science may find it difficult to regain its current eminence.

Sometimes I think it's wonderful to see galaxies light-years away or to find extra-solar planets. But then I think, other than to keep astronomers employed, what's the point?

Try reading the news Stewgreen. The evidence is there, not in the cases I mentioned. I only including this information to indicate that the situation may be more extensive than has so far been reported. The "evidence" from my statement is that I wrote it. Whether you accept it or not is immaterial to me. What does concern me is that you ignore or dismiss reports that have already been made. Before the referendum warnings could be dismissed as part of project fear. But the referendum has passed, so what are you accusing the science community of when they complain that Brexit is affecting them negatively?

Martin A. You have four alternatives. You can believe 1) I lied, 2) I was lied to, 3) I misinterpreted what I was told (by two separate people) or 4) I correctly reported the gist of what I had been told. What you come to believe is immaterial to me. You are informed by a number of sources (individuals and organizations) that cooperation with British scientists will be negatively impacted. What EVIDENCE do you have that those sources are lying or are mistaken?

I fail to see how removal of British science from a potential income stream (where the UK has been a net beneficiary) can be viewed as anything other than as a negative. But there yeh go, anything's possible at BH.

Our aggressive press, which was/is predominately 'remain' in nature loves reporting 'brexit' negatives.

the DailyMail is full of business woes apparently due to 'Brexit'.

I have yet to see reports of academic research being impacted yet. I am sure it will be reported as much of academia is is a state of flux with changes afoot. With fee increases, realignment of sectors etc.

Everything post Brexit must be kept rosy and the myth of everything in project fear being untrue must be upheld. And this reaction from people who accuse climate scientists of ignoring evidence that is inconsistent with their dogma. Sheeesh!"

Why must everything be keep rosy? I think everyone here would prefer just the truth please!

Steve Richards. Some people here don't recognise (or wish to accept) the truth even when it's told to them.

Stewgreen

I note that this has already been discussed in Parliamentary committee.

EM - please test your links before hitting 'Create Post'.

Martin A

It worked for me the first time and is now giving the subscription page instead.

Try putting "British scientists tell MPs about Brexit damage" into a search engine. You might get the original article before the cookie cuts in.

I think it is entirely probable that various British based scientists, working with others within the EU, on joint research ventures applying for EU funding will have considered it prudent to consider that their funding proposals may not be considered favourably due to their Britishness. This seems logical and practical under the circumstances.

If it means that some British scientists were only good enough to get funding BECAUSE they were British, and within the EU, what does it say about those scientists, and the funding decisions made by the EU? Perhaps if the UK had more control over how British Taxpayers money was spent, none would be swallowed up in EU political redtape and EU political bureaucracy.

To keep the Taxpayers interest in Science, what about a 'Dragons Den' approach to some funding, televised of course.

MartinA. "what [I] said seemed to be just hearsay.... as if we should take it seriously and discuss it".

This just confirms my earlier comment that you don't recognize evidence when you are given it. You are aware of my history and could therefore assume that I might still have academic contacts who would tell me things. Whether you believe what I reported is another matter, dependent upon 1 my accuracy and 2 what you yourself believe. Quite frankly I don't care about either.

I addressed your comments about science funding over on Unthreaded, where you shingled essentially the same post.

rhoda. I have thought long and hard about how I might respond to your somewhat whimsical question about Astronomy, but I realized that it ties in with assertions made by others here about science funding. There are several possible answers
1. Because humankind is curious, has always been and presumably always will be. The skies have been a source of fascination since prehistory. Continued interest is amply demonstrated by the continued transmission of programmes like the Sky at Night. A proportion of the public is willing to pay for continued revelations of these "wonders".
2. "Blue sky research" cannot be judged by dollars and cents considerations. You never know the outcomes. Today astronomy is in disarray. Basic understandings have been trashed by new observations and have led to postulates about the existence of dark energy and dark matter. If they exist, and we are searching for them now, can you predict how they might be used in the future? A study of exoplanets has revealed the existence of "hot Jupiters" and has led to the theory that our Jupiter was once far closer to our Sun. I think it might become important to establish if our Solar System is as stable as we once thought it was.

There is talk here about moneys provided by governments being wasted. No new knowledge is a waste. What many here are confusing is the difference between science and engineering: engineering in its widest sense meaning the development of known knowledge (acquired by science) for human benefit.

From Breitbart, via Paul Homewood's site:

" The EU unveiled national targets Wednesday for cutting greenhouse gases by 2030, insisting Britain is still legally required to help the bloc meet its UN goal despite being set to leave.
Wealthy northern European countries including Britain bear the brunt of the EU’s plans to meet the commitment it made at the Paris climate summit in December to cut emissions by 40 percent over 1990 levels.

Despite Britain’s shock referendum vote last month for Brexit, the European Commission included it on its list of proposed binding emissions targets for all 28 EU countries.

“These targets are realistic, fair and flexible,” EU Climate Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete told a press conference, adding that the targets would become legally binding if and when approved by member states.

Under the targets, which are based on economic growth, Sweden and tiny Luxembourg must cut emissions by 40 percent over 2005 levels, while Finland and Denmark must cut emissions by 39 percent and powerhouse Germany by 38 percent.

Britain and France are asked to cut emissions by 37 percent while Netherlands and Austria should cut by 36 percent.

“Let’s be very clear: from a legal point of view the outcome of the referendum has not changed anything,” Spain’s Canete said when asked whether the proposed targets would have to be readjusted following Britain’s exit.

“The UK (United Kingdom) remains a member state with all the rights and obligations for member states and EU law continues to apply in full to the UK,” he said."

Curious how the EU is apparently already cutting us adrift when it comes to scientific funding, but how we apparently remain fully-signed up members when they want us to do stuff. Just one of the many reasons for leaving the EU, IMHO.

Mark Hodgson, if the UK decides not to meet it's emissions targets in accordance with EU policies for EU countries cutting emissions, the remaining EU countries will have to cut more than the percentages previosyly agreed to.

This has the potential to fan the flames across the EU.

These emission targets were presumably set following scientific evidence acceptable to the EU Green Blob, prepared by the EU Green Blob, for the benefit of the EU Green Blob. It does make me wonder how much EU Science funding is wasted on politically correct science, to back up the politically correct predetermined conclusions.

How many science studies are required to tell us what might happen if the climate changes? How many science studies only get funding because they will mention what will happen if the climate changes?