The results of a referendum held in the United Kingdom (UK) on June 23, 2016 in which
33 million voters decided by a margin of 51.9–48.1% to leave the European Union (EU)
came as a shock to many in the UK who had been confident that this would not be the
case, and was accompanied by a sense of disbelief among many outside the UK. Subsequent
analysis has shown that the “leave” vote was highest in the oldest age groups, those
with less formal education, and in areas outside the main metropolitan centers; young
voters and residents of cities with a strong academic center were strongly in favor
of “remain.” The vote provided a binary choice of leave or not, with no opportunity
to consider the kind of arrangements that would follow a decision to leave. In the
18 months after the referendum, protracted discussions have taken place between the
UK government and the European Commission on the nature of Brexit. Some progress has
been made in these discussions on the “divorce bill,” the status of European citizens
resident in the UK, and vice-versa, and on how the border between Northern Ireland
and the Republic of Ireland, which will remain in the EU, will be managed. Negotiations
will now move onto broader issues such as trade, and these negotiations will include
discussions on the future relationship between the UK and the EU on science and innovation.
However, it is still not clear whether a final agreement will be reached before the
UK leaves the EU on March 29, 2019 and, if an agreement is reached, what form this
might take. If an agreement is reached, it is likely that some kind of transition
period will be needed to allow the new arrangements to be implemented.
The outcome of the Brexit referendum will have major consequences for the UK in many
areas, including health and science. The UK National Health Service is very dependent
on contributions of doctors and nurses from EU countries, and recruitment of staff
from the EU has already fallen substantially. The decision to move the European Medicines
Agency, Europe’s regulatory agency, from London to Amsterdam could influence major
pharmaceutical agencies regarding investment in the UK, including agencies involved
in developing medicines for the developing world. The decision to leave is a major
concern for UK scientists because it is now unclear whether they will in future be
able to access research funds provided by the EU, a major source of financial support
for many UK universities and research institutions, and whether they will be able
to continue to recruit talented European researchers to their research groups.
Should the Brexit decision be of any interest or concern to readers of the American
Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene who live outside the UK? I believe that it
should for several reasons. First, the decision to leave the EU may impair the future
ability of UK scientists to work effectively in partnership with colleagues in the
EU and elsewhere in many areas of science, including global health, a field in which
UK scientists currently play an important role. The UK government has promised to
cover the costs of existing grants provided by EU institutions after departure from
the EU, but how UK scientists will be able to participate in EU supported research
projects after that date remains uncertain. For example, it is uncertain whether UK
scientists will be eligible to apply for funding from the European Developing Countries
Clinical Trials Partnership, an important source of support for collaborative research
and research capacity development projects linking European scientists and those from
developing countries. Second, the Brexit decision could have a direct impact on funding
for global health. Currently, the UK is one of the most generous donors to international
organisations concerned with global health such as the Global Fund and the Global
Alliance for Vaccination and Immunization, and a strong supporter of public–private
partnerships involved in the development of products for the developing world such
as the Medicines for Malaria Venture. Although there is no certainty over the financial
impact of Brexit on the UK economy, and this will depend to some extent on the nature
of the final deal, most of the financial experts reckon that there will be a downturn
in the UK economy after Brexit, at least in the short term. Currently the UK government
is providing substantial financial support to national research on global health issues
through a Global Challenges Research Fund, but should Brexit lead to a downturn in
the overall economy, the government will have less money overall to spend and may
change its priorities to issues of more local concern. Finally, the leave vote suggests
that there has been a change in attitude among a significant proportion of the population
of the UK toward a more parochial view of the place of the UK in the world and away
from the idea that a wealthy country such as the UK should be making a major contribution
to meeting the challenges that threaten the world as a whole such as global warming,
food security, migration, and tropical infectious disease, a change in attitude also
apparent in some other western democracies including the USA. The success of the Brexit
“leavers” could encourage those with similar views in other countries within the EU
and elsewhere to press for a similar change in direction.
A high proportion of UK scientists were against leaving the EU, especially those involved
in global health, but after a period of initial shock and a lot of whinging, there
has now been recognition that unless there is some completely unexpected turn of events,
the UK is on course to leave the EU on March 29, 2019. Consequently, efforts are now
being made by the UK’s scientific community to try to mitigate the potentially damaging
impact of Brexit on UK science and to maintain the ability of UK scientists to contribute
to international challenges. Led by institutions such as the Royal Society, the Wellcome
Trust, and major academic institutions, including my own, the government has been
intensively lobbied to ensure that arrangements for easy movement of scientists between
the UK and the EU is given prominence in the ongoing negotiations. Another option
that is being explored by UK universities and research institutions is establishment
of partnerships with EU institutions that will allow UK institutions to access EU
research funds, but it is unlikely that this will be acceptable to the EU unless these
are true partnerships and not just paper exercises. Ensuring that global health is
not neglected should Brexit lead to a significant financial downturn in the UK will
be a major challenge, especially considering an increasing skepticism concerning the
value of overseas aid. Ensuring continuing UK government support for national global
health activities and for major international organisations for which the UK is a
strong financial supporter will require a committed effort from UK scientists, a task
that could be helped by support from academic institutions in the EU and more widely.
The decision of the UK to leave the EU has been a bad one for UK science overall,
potentially reducing its ability to contribute to research on issues related to global
health and also to sustain its major development programs. However, imaginative ways
are being explored to meet these challenges and to ensure that the UK can continue
to collaborate with its partners in the EU and elsewhere to continue to make a major
contribution to global health.