Of all the problems facing the world, how do funding organisations pick one to focus on?

Identifying a problem to fund is a huge responsibility. Whether you’re a charity, foundation, funding agency or philanthropic organisation, the problem you choose will mobilise and energise people, it will focus their attention and interests, and it will use up their time and resources. It’d better be a good problem.

Finding a good problem to focus on may seem straightforward. There are so many problems out there that it’s almost ridiculous to think that finding a good one to focus on might be a challenge. But it’s precisely this abundance that makes identifying good problems difficult. It creates the impression that focusing on anything is likely to be of some use to someone. But when you’re dealing with increasingly limited resources and a growing pressure to demonstrate impact, identifying a good problem becomes essential.

In this post we’re outlining some of the things we found to be of help in this process - from defining a ‘good problem’, to creating engaging stimulus materials and using them in conversations with domain experts, users or potential solvers to gather feedback.

Defining a Good Problem

When you start scouting for a good problem it is extremely useful to have a set of criteria to search for. This will help set priorities, structure research, and shape conversations with formal or informal advisors. Here is our list of criteria for what makes a good problem.

1. A good problem identifies a real obstacle to be overcome. The challenge here is being able to make a distinction between the root-cause and a symptom of a problem. Misdiagnosed problems often end up being only symptoms of larger, poorly understood problems. Trying to address these symptoms brings limited value as it ultimately fails to solve the underlying issue. A good problem will identify an actual barrier that, if addressed, can enable progress.

2. A good problem is worthwhile. The ‘worth’ of a problem is dependent on a funding organisation’s desired impact. This can be anything from a positive impact on a specific group of people, to a significant advancement of scientific knowledge. A good problem, when solved, will unlock the type and scale of impact sought by the funder.

3. A good problem is timely. Problems are not defined in isolation. A good problem is one where current external factors – political, economic, legal, social – are not barriers, but are conducive to innovation and positive change. A good problem will take advantage of technological advancements, but will also be aware of their constraints.

4. A good problem draws together a community of solvers. A good problem should provoke and incite curiosity. Regardless of the topic, a good problem will have some aspect that will entice an existing or new community of solvers to come up with new ideas and work on refining them into viable solutions.

5. A good problem is one that a funding organisation can do something about. Even though a problem may be ‘good’ according to the above criteria, it is important that funding organisations appreciate whether the problem is good for them and whether they are best placed to do something about it. This means making sure that they have the relevant funding, capacity, networks, or convening power necessary to support and incentivise problem-solving.

While the above are a good starting point for defining a good problem, these criteria will need to be adjusted and expanded on to match the vision, ambitions, and resources of a funding organisation.

For instance, for our project around designing Tech Challenge Prizes for the European Commission Horizon’s 2020 Programme, we looked for problems that focused on technological limitations, had a significant European impact, and could be solved by launching a multi-million EUR prize. For our work with The Humanitarian Innovation Fund we identified problems related to the adequate provision of water, sanitation and hygiene in the specific context of a humanitarian emergency.

Having a clear understanding, from the beginning, of what makes a good problem helps narrow and focus research. Instead of investing time and effort into evaluating problems that might not be suitable for a funding organisation, resources can be directed towards investigating the suitability of relevant and impactful problems.

Investigating a Good Problem

To build an accurate understanding of a problem we speak with a wide range of stakeholders. By ‘stakeholders’ we mean people who are either directly affected by the problem, involved in researching it, or working on building solutions.

This process can quickly become overwhelming as stakeholders can have different, often conflicting opinions about a problem. To overcome this challenge and make the most out of the feedback received we stick to three guiding principles:

1. Create an engaging stimulus and focus conversations around it. There are many variables to consider when speaking with different stakeholders - various backgrounds, interests, cultures, and perspectives. Having a constant in these conversations can help make sense of feedback, structure it, and act on it. In our conversations, this constant is often a stimulus material that reflects our understanding of a problem. This stimulus can be anything from a document, to a visual map of a problem and the barriers preventing its resolution. Its design depends on how well the problem is defined and the level of feedback we’re interested in gathering. We share these materials with people during interviews or workshops and ask them to help us fill out gaps and validate or disprove assumptions.

2. Update the stimulus when you start hearing repetitive feedback. We speak with a variety of stakeholders because we want to get a balanced view of a problem. After a number of conversations using the same stimulus, patterns will begin to emerge. Changes that we need to make to the materials will become obvious, while new questions about the problem will appear. At this point, we update the materials to reflect our latest understanding of the problem and focus conversations on the new questions.

3. Keep track of feedback and decisions made. Using a stimulus makes it easier to record feedback and group it around specific aspects of a problem. This makes it easier to communicate divergent views and reach a consensus about next steps. We found that having a transparent record of feedback received and decisions made is incredibly useful as it offers a clear and evidence-based justification for the focus on a particular problem. It can also encourage open conversations around the desired impact of a funding organisation and the extent to which focusing on a particular problem is going to achieve that impact.

While these principles make the process of engaging with stakeholders and validating a problem easier, it’s never easy. It takes practice to learn how to design an engaging stimulus, what questions to ask, how to collate feedback, and how to act on it. Every community will be different, but collaboration is crucial to identifying a problem worth solving.

Funding organisations are under increasing pressure to evaluate and demonstrate the impact of their funding programmes. This pressure comes from an increased scrutiny from donors, a diminishing of resources, and an increase in the scale of the challenges they face. Most organisations try to measure the impact of their programmes after the moment they allocate funds. But funders might find that they are able to access a great deal of untapped potential by improving the way that they identify good problems.

The first thing we do when we start working on a project that covers a topic new to us is understand and assimilate the vocabulary and its different nuances. This introduction to a problem area can be a smooth one where key terminology and concepts are clearly defined, or it can be a bumpier ride. In these cases, it becomes part of our task to make sense of conflicting definitions and propose a consensus in order to advance dialogue.

In all honesty, none of the problem areas we have worked on were really smooth rides. While key concepts may have clear definitions, the context of our work is to encourage new thinking around problems. This often means encouraging a new language or vocabulary. A perfect example of this is our work around gender-based violence interventions.

In 2016 we worked together with the Humanitarian Innovation Fund (HIF) to help them design a number of innovation challenges. The aim of these challenges was to encourage solutions to some of the most pressing problems faced during humanitarian emergencies. One of these problems was Gender-based violence (GBV).

Forward note on terminology in the GBV Gap Analysis Report. We helped the HIF edit the report and Poważne studio helped design it. Read more about the project on our GBV Challenges page.

Gender-Based Violence

Most relevant in this case, IASC GBV Guidelines define GBV as “an umbrella term for any harmful act that is perpetrated against a person’s will and that is based on socially ascribed (i.e. gender) differences between males and females.” This definition is purposefully open to be inclusive of all categories of GBV survivors including men, boys, and the LGBTI community. Still, the guidelines stress that females should be given special consideration due to their documented greater vulnerability to GBV, especially in a humanitarian context.

Despite this emphasis, the change in perspective to adopt a more inclusive definition of GBV has generated tensions. Advocates for GBV as a female-centric issue argue that they have fought hard to get people and funders to pay attention to the topic within the context of humanitarian emergencies. Their concern is that now that the topic is gaining increasing attention, broadening the focus of GBV to include men or the LGBTI community would lead to a dilution of this message, and most significantly, a dilution of the funding allocated to the cause.

The lack of consensus on the definition of GBV had two consequences:

• it was difficult to have a clear delimitation of the problem

• it was difficult to move conversations beyond this point.

This problem was often flagged up by the research partners on the project, the Small Arms Survey. Doing research on the ground, they noticed that the lack of a common definition for GBV led to disagreements and used up valuable resources.

We weren’t in a position to provide an answer to the debate, but it became obvious that focusing on language on its own wasn’t going to lead to any progress. So we made a decision to move the conversation a step forward.

We acknowledged the different perspectives and decided to adhere to the broad definition proposed by IASC GBV Guidelines. As the role of the challenges we were designing was to open up problems in the GBV humanitarian emergency sector to a wider group of people and skills, this definition felt appropriate and timely. It also set the tone for the challenges as it implied an inclusive way of approaching the problem, one that required a new and open language. This decision allowed us to move beyond the stalemate and refocus the conversation on concrete barriers that are holding back progress.

Innovation in a GBV Context

The term ‘innovation’ presented a different provocation. The problem with the term ‘innovation’ is that it has been overused and so often misused that it’s lost meaning. The problem with using it in the context of GBV was that it was seen by some as frivolous.

But innovation is not about gadgets or high-tech solutions, it’s about adding value. Innovation is about creating something new – whether it’s a product, service, or approach – that adds value and leads to an improvement of a current situation.

It was this definition and idea that the HIF were keen to communicate through the challenges. Their goal was to not only reestablish the meaning of ‘innovation’, but also create a place for it in the space of humanitarian emergencies.

Our contribution to this process was to make sure the innovation challenges we were designing were targeting real and significant problems and would support the development of genuine and valuable solutions. While our role was to offer a new perspective on core problems and engage a broader audience of problem-solvers, we wanted to make sure that we were presenting a balanced view of the complexities entailed by each challenge and avoided oversimplifications.

Sample Innovation Challenge looking at measuring the impact of GBV programmes in humanitarian emergencies. See full GBV Gap Analysis Report.

One other important aspect that we became aware of was that the ‘novelty’ implied by ‘innovation’ is context dependent. Having worked mainly on designing challenges where solutions were non-existent because of current technological limitations, we were used to ‘novel’ as meaning ‘new to the world’. However, for problems faced in the humanitarian sector, solutions often exist but they are not suitable for a space with limited resources. ‘Novelty’ here can mean creating completely new solutions, but it can also mean adapting existing solutions to a humanitarian context and be just as valuable.

It was through this lens that we designed the innovation challenges. While most of the problems identified were not necessarily new or unknown to GBV practitioners, what was novel about them was the perspective from which they were presented, the clarity with which they set priorities for action, and the different audiences they were targeted at.

Defining the terms we use when working on a new problem area will always be a priority for us. What we’ve learned from this project is that, sometimes, definitions are not readily available but need to be considered and constructed as part of the innovation process. In these cases, the ambition goes beyond that of designing innovation challenges and becomes that of creating a language that can support a new way of thinking and collaborating around problems.

We recently had our first ever awayday, and walked 12 miles in the process.

The Science Practice team at the beach.

Like many companies, there are some things about the way we work, our aims and ambitions, and our company culture that never manage to get spoken about. The day-to-day pressures of projects and clients take over, preventing meaningful discussion about possible changes to working practices and directions within the company.

One way of encouraging these kinds of discussions are through an awayday - literally a day away from the office (and the laptops, projects and clients that go with it) where people are free and comfortable speaking their mind.

Setting off on our walkshop 🌞😎🗺🚶🏼🏖📋.

Taking inspiration from the walkshops run by lecturers at the Steps Centre at the University of Sussex, we decided to take our awayday outside on a day’s walk. A walkshop is described as a ‘walking workshop’, and is based on the idea that the process of walking while talking helps to introduce an atmosphere of openness, and facilitates easy flowing conversation.

Looking for good walks accessible from London, we found the walk across Seven Sisters Cliffs from Seaford to Eatbourne. The walk has some really great views, and is easy to navigate being one stage of the South Downs Way which traverses the entire width of the South Downs National Park.

Our planned route.

Awaydays need different levels of planning depending on their intended outcomes. As we were looking to have constructive conversations and walking a fairly substantial distance, we decided to plan out some specific discussion topics and activities.

Essential awayday equipment.

We decided on three topics for the day: ‘Communicating about Science Practice’, ‘The 5 year plan’ and ‘Roles at Science Practice’. While walking people naturally form and break groups, so we designed activities that worked with this dynamic. We had one-on-one interviews and conversations, and also did wrote down some ideas beforehand to ease the amount of writing needed while walking.

Walking and talking.

Each of the cliffs of the Seven Sisters, has a ‘brow’ and a ‘bottom’ essentially meaning that there are seven ups and seven downs, some of which are quite steep. Bearing this in mind we designed some ‘thinking’ time for the uphill sections, discussions on the downhill part, and breaks to have full group conversations (and lunch) at the peaks.

Thinking time.

We checked the weather forecast a week in advance to give us as good a chance of sun as possible. It turns out that the day we chose was one of the hottest days of August, with unrelenting, beautiful blue skies.

We set off from Seaford station, with clipboards in hand to begin our first activity. It genuinely felt as if everyone had left their normal responsibilities in London and it was refreshing to speak about the issues that had been hanging in the backs of our minds. It did really help that the views from the tops of the cliffs are fantastic, as well as the downs providing some opportunities to get our feet wet!

Crossing the Cuckmere River.

During our discussion at lunch, it did dawn on us that we hadn’t yet got half way and it was nearly 3 o’clock! After this point we did have to walk a bit faster than was intended. Although conversations continued, it was harder to bring everyone back together to share thoughts.

Tempest measured her heart rate as we crossed the cliffs.

The walk ended in Eastbourne at a pub by the station (where we ate bowls of chips faster than should be humanly possible). We were tired, but happy, with a satisfying feeling of a day’s exercise and thought.

Overall we found the format of a walking workshop a useful and fun experience. After reviewing our notes, thoughts and conversations in a short meeting the day after, we found we had come up with some novel ideas and concrete actions that should have a positive impact on Science Practice.

We also learnt a few lessons that could make a big difference for anyone else planning a similar workshop:

• 12 miles is a little too far: The distance meant that there wasn’t enough time to sit down and discuss our conversations fully during the walk.

• A walk with some shade would have worked better: While it feels crazy to be complaining about the sun in the UK, the constant heat did make it hard to concentrate at times, and gave us some very pink faces by the train home.

• The clipboards and preparation beforehand helped a lot: A walkshop doesn’t really work well with lots of writing so a bit of preparation to minimise this is useful, however it is important to take some notes during conversations to make sure important points aren’t forgotten.

• Responsibilities and actions for people after the workshop should be agreed. Awaydays are fun, but they are also an opportunity to come up with ideas and actions to improve how your company functions. After the day any new responsibilities should be agreed and then checked up on regularly, especially if they are culture changes.

This year Science Practice has been moonlighting in the world of social innovation and humanitarian aid through our work with the Humanitarian Innovation Fund (the HIF). We learned a lot about social innovation funding methods from our work with the HIF and want to understand if any of our learnings could translate to the domains of funding for science.

A brief tour of social innovation funding models

Social innovation is defined as a novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, just, efficient or sustainable than current solutions. In other words, the value created should benefit society rather than individuals. With this definition in mind, many of the world’s most recognised foundations including the Rockerfeller Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have been using different funding models to facilitate innovation to best achieve their social aims. The dominant method of funding over the last 20 years is the strategic model, which is defined by a process of outlining clear goals and advocating for data-driven strategies, accountability and evaluation. The approach was developed to support funders to align their programs and grant-making with carefully designed theories of change to produce clear and quantifiable results. The strategic model aims to be strongly predictive of the end results. So, while the model works well to address clear cut problems (like building a hospital), it tends to fall short when addressing the complex problems (like population health, water shortages and food security) we are challenged with today.

To cover these shortcomings, a new “emergent approach” has surfaced. The use of the word “emergent” suggests that an organisation is actively learning what works in practice. In doing so, the approach promotes iteration, failure, learning and knowledge development. There is no pre-determined point of view or a dominant idea of an answer to a problem. Instead, emergence encourages the input from novel ideas, processes and people.

At Rockerfeller, this approach starts with applying the same rigor and critical thought to framing a problem area as it does to evaluating the success of a grant. The foundation’s “Search” function is a highly strategic, analytical process that involves the coordination of internal staff, consultants, and nearly 200 outside experts to help the foundation appropriately frame a problem space. This includes an understanding of interlinking and underlying issues that must be considered in order to find a solution. This process is not dissimilar to Science Practice’s own process of identifying Good Problems. To anyone at Rockerfeller who might be reading this, it would be good to share notes!

New models to fund social innovation are gaining traction. Venture philanthropy aims to build self-sustaining or even profitable enterprises in unlikely places such as disaster relief or drug addiction. Social Impact Bonds (SIB) channel private funding into social initiatives and are backed by the British government who pays interest that rises and falls with the success of the venture. If the initiative fails to fulfill its social aims, investors will simply pursue other opportunities.

What science funding can learn from social innovation

Social Innovation funders (like the HIF) generally have a very clear idea of what change they want to see in the world and apply funding to achieve that vision. In comparison, some science funders, work across a broad remit. With big aims like the Medical Research Council’s desire to “improve human health through world-class medical research”, it’s less clear how science funding is allocated to achieve such goals and objectives.

Since the publication of the Warry Report in 2006, UK science funders have worked to better understand the link between scientific research and economic and societal impact. Factors including political pressure, genuine need and increasing impatience with the pace of scientific discovery have encouraged a renewed focus on supporting research with “impact”. This has helped to shape a shift in trajectory of scientific funding towards translational research. Here, lessons from social innovation can help us to think differently about how science funding is allocated and its impact measured.

Considering that translational research is an area where the development timelines can be long, intermediate indicators of progress are needed. To do this, funders could support teams of researchers working to better coordinate knowledge across basic and translational research. Like the “emergent” approach in social innovation, funders could distribute monies, measure and evaluate the intermediate indicators and adjust future funding accordingly.

To do this effectively, funders would need to be much more opinionated about identifying specific research goals to target and be more strategic about how resources should be spent in achieving such aims. But looking at the Medical Research Council’s study on “Measuring the link between research and economic impact” it’s clear that funders might not have sufficient data to understand what proportion of translational output arises from strategic initiatives- ongoing funding schemes in specific areas- and how much is shaped by the “response mode”, a more flexible funding call. A better understanding of what works when it comes to shaping funding schemes and cycles in science research funding would be an excellent place to start (and something we would be really keen to explore).

Processes that are expected to accelerate translation include such things as a good collaborative culture. The more recent development of research sandpits- a facilitated workshop where participants from different disciplines, work in small groups to brainstorm and refine ideas for joint research projects- are being promoted across research councils, universities and big funders. Promoted as a new, innovative way to allocate funds, it’s unclear if the strategy is working and if not, there is little insight on how they could be improved. Better data on the effectiveness of collaborative processes in science and their ability to contribute to more impactful research are needed.

There has been renewed focus on the contribution of venture philanthropy in science R&D. The influence of nonprofits in shaping new models to allocate funds is of note. The Association of Medical Research Charities estimates that nonprofits contribute £1.3bn to the UK’s academic research base, a considerable chunk of change. But medical research charities are looking for new innovative and entrepreneurial models of funding research and are taking greater risks in hopes of discovering the next cure.

Taking a cue from their American sister organisation, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the UK’s Cystic Fibrosis Trust, who used to place all its funds raised into academic research, are now seed-funding biopharma. Investment in biotechnology startups they admit, comes with significant risk, but potentially greater reward when aiming for a cure. The funding the Trust does allocate to academic research has been re-engineered to promote a larger pool of ideas and has established new way of collaborative working across their research base. The In addition, the Trust aims to take the money donated and amplify it with the establishment an Investment Fund to unlock additional sources of money to support scientific breakthroughs.

So, as funding for social innovation transitions to be more responsive to the needs presented by complex, global challenges it appears science funding is in a state of transition too. Each acknowledge that traditional grant making may be too rigid and are challenging the prescriptive allocation of funds with structures that support risk, investment in new business models and a more iterative, responsive approach to understand what’s working. How this shift in science challenges the support for blue skies research and discovery for discovery’s sake (which is something we really believe in) has yet to be fully measured and understood.

We are really interested to learn more about innovation in science research and social innovation funding. We are keen to collaborate with individuals and organisations who want to actively explore some of the ideas presented in this post.

Over the past few weeks the Science Practice studio has been buzzing with talk of Brexit. As with much of the UK, and seemingly both sides of the campaign, we were taken by surprise by the decision of 17,410,742 people to leave the European Union. Probably unsurprisingly for a company with 5 nationalities represented in a workforce of 7 we were unanimously in favour of remaining within the EU. In fact we fit almost all stereotypes of a Remain voter - multi-national, under 35, based in London and working in the science sector. It is fair to say the mood in the office on the 24th of June was pretty grim…

Over the years Science Practice has worked with many scientists and organisations across the EU, including the Commission itself. We have directly benefited from the willingness to collaborate across borders that the EU holds as a core ideology. Our most obvious example is a project in which we helped design challenge prizes for the European commission, involving 68 interviews with EU experts, and a year long collaboration with the University Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna in Italy.

At the time of writing the date for the UK to begin the process of leaving the EU appears to be shifting ever further away. Still, with our new prime minister Theresa May stating that “Brexit means Brexit” we felt it was important to engage with the conversation on Brexit and science. What did the membership of the EU mean for science? What could we lose? And what we should fight for?

What we had.

The majority consensus is that UK science got a pretty good deal from the EU. As a sector it in fact had a net gain in terms of funding, receiving around £1.2 billion a year for research projects, a figure that makes up nearly a fifth of all UK funding from the EU. In the latest funding programme - Horizon 2020 - the UK has received 15.4% of funds allocated so far, second only to Germany. As a whole, the EU is the world leader in terms of scientific output. With 22% of all scientists in the world, the EU puts out over a third of the world’s scientific articles each year.

The UK has a lot of EU nationals working in its academic institutions. Freedom of movement, combined with the very high reputation of British universities made the UK very attractive for talented researchers across the EU. 15% of all researchers in UK institutions are EU nationals, with this number rising to closer to 20% in the top-ranking universities.

This pan-european collaboration is widely seen as positive amongst EU scientists. Just under a third of all EU academics have worked in a different EU country, with 80% of them saying that this experience has had a positive impact on their research skills.

Outside of the strictly quantifiable, the UK had a strong influence in the direction of EU science policy. Many advisory positions contain or contained UK scientists, such as the (admittedly short-lived) former Chief Scientific advisor to the Commission - Prof Anne Glover, and Prof Julia Slingo who is a member of the replacement science advisory mechanism.

One aspect of EU membership that is sometimes overlooked is the number of students that move to the UK to access higher education institutions. 47,000 EU students come to study in the UK each year, roughly a quarter of a total 192,000 students. It would be difficult for even the most anti-immigration campaigners to be against this yearly input of students. In 2012 they contributed £3.7 billion to the UK economy, and supported 34,000 jobs.

What now?

The overwhelming response amongst scientists and those involved in science policy is to begin making arguments to preserve as much of the current arrangements as possible. Assurances are being sought from UK science minister Jo Johnson (who has maintained his position after the cabinet reshuffle) that the UK will continue to have access to both people and money from the EU. A member of the remain campaign himself, Johnson’s initial responses have been reassuring in intent, although his ability to make a special case for science in the chaos of negotiations remains to be seen.

There are signs that the current environment of uncertainty is already causing problems for UK scientists. Reports have begun to emerge of EU research partners dropping out of proposals for Horizon 2020 projects. The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee have begun collecting stories from UK scientists to gather a picture of effects on the ground for researchers.

A particular sticking point for UK science is the seemingly strong support for a more restrictive immigration policy. Restrictions on immigration could be problematic for science based institutions in attracting and maintaining their workforces. Although it is likely that the majority of researchers and scientists would meet any new visa skills requirements, the added administrative burden, and perception of a hostile environment would most probably reduce numbers.

A less immediately obvious issue with restricting movement is access to EU funding. In 2014 Switzerland held a referendum on the freedom of movement of EU citizens. The result, which was to introduce stronger immigration controls, led to the almost immediate removal of Swiss institutions abilities to apply for Horizon 2020 funding. Since 2014 the EU’s position has softened a little, Swiss academics can now apply for around 30% of funds, but are treated as a ‘third country’ with respect to 70%. Switzerland was never an EU member state, but was treated very harshly by the EU for challenging one of its core tenets. The UK should be prepared for equally harsh treatment.

Although access to Horizon 2020 funding could be restricted, it may be possible for the UK to up spending on science through money previously allocated for EU membership. Although many sectors will be looking for this money to replace funding and subsidies that are lost, it was considered a possibility in responses to the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee’s investigation into EU Membership and UK Science. My personal feeling is that the UK is unlikely to match the levels of funding previously received from the EU. In times of austerity the idea that a conservative government will increase public spending on science by £1 billion a year seems far-fetched.

One area in which it is less obvious what may happen are in the regulations on science and scientific industries. For example the EU is strict on using genetic modification for food crops. Without the requirement to meet EU regulations, UK scientists and farmers may be permitted to grow GM crops more widely. There is significant support within the scientific community for greater usage of GM technologies for foods, however changing policy to be more permissive would be a controversial move.

Moving forwards

Much has been made of the attempts from supporters of Remain to push for Brexit negotiations to allow for the UK to have access to as much of the EU as possible. In reality it seems doubtful that the EU will allow this easily, early signs suggest that this would seen as encouragement of copycat ‘Brexits’ (Czech-out, Quitaly, Portugo……). For science though, it really makes sense to try and keep things as they were. Jo Johnson, Greg Clarke and Justine Greening (Secretary of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Education respectively) should make a strong case for access to the European funding, and talent. The example of Switzerland should be highlighted, with the need of increased funding from within the UK emphasised if strong restrictions on immigration seem inevitable.

As Science Practice we are unlikely to be directly affected by Brexit, no contracts have been lost and our offices won’t move to Dublin, Paris or Berlin. However our ability to work across borders and engage EU researchers and academics is at risk, although the full extent of this is yet to be seen.

UK scientists are often vocal about how they hope that their sector behaves and is structured, with strong campaigns for open access and increased participation in science from women and minorities, not to mention the case for remaining in the EU. Now another cause must be added - maintained openness and collaboration outside of the UK’s borders. EU membership is not the only thing that makes UK science great, however now more than ever science needs to show that it knows no borders.