Written evidence submitted by the Francis Crick Institute (IWS0012)

Executive summary

• International collaboration is fundamental to science, so it is essential that a deal for science and immigration puts as few barriers as possible in the way of that collaboration.
• The Crick Institute is a magnet for overseas talent and employs 519 non-British EU and non-EU staff out of a total of 1199
• Putting barriers in the way of those international members of staff could dilute our international mix, make us less attractive to world class scientists, and ultimately diminish the quality of our science.
• The system which gives priority to PhD level occupations is working well.
• We would like to see a system which takes skill as well as income into account used for other high skill but relatively low paid scientists such as Post Doctoral Fellows.
• UK science needs a system of reciprocation, so that British scientists can benefit from working in other parts of Europe as well as the UK benefiting from bringing scientific talent here.
• Any system also needs to be flexible enough to support collaboration between international scientists.
• The new system should not simply replicate the current system for non-EU immigrants. It needs to be faster and more transparent.
• The uncertainty caused by Brexit is already affecting members of our staff, and international applications for PhD positions fell following the Brexit vote.

About the Francis Crick Institute

1. The Francis Crick Institute is a biomedical discovery institute dedicated to understanding the fundamental biology underlying health and disease. It was formed in 2015, bringing together 1500 scientists and support staff, working collaboratively across disciplines. It is the largest biomedical research facility under a single roof in Europe. Our founding partners are the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Wellcome, University College London, Imperial College and Kings College London.

Q1 - If an early deal for science and innovation could be negotiated, what specifically should it contain in relation to immigration rules and movement of people involved with science and innovation?

2. The Francis Crick Institute is a multidisciplinary biomedical research institute with an international reputation, whose ambition is to be a world-leading organisation. The quality of our work depends on being able to bring together talented scientists from across disciplines and from around the world. International scientific collaboration is central to our mission, and enables us to produce world class science, and any barrier to that collaboration risks diminishing the quality of our science. 

3. Currently, (June 2018), of our 1,199 staff, 368 are from EU countries, and 151 from Non-EU countries. We attract the best scientists from around the world. More than half our Group Leaders – our most senior and experienced scientists – are from outside the UK.

4. We also play a nationally significant role in scientific training. We have more than 200 PhD students and 400 postdoctoral training fellows working here, and we are a magnet for overseas talent at this level. We employ and collaborate with the best scientists from around the world, and this diverse intellectual talent base helps ensure that our science is world class. Anything that dilutes our international mix has the potential to diminish our science.

5. We are concerned that if the current system for non-EU immigration was extended to those in EU countries, this could introduce issues of cost and delay for both individuals and employers.

6. In particular, we caution against any stipulation that a foreign national should only be recruited once all efforts have been made to identify a suitable British applicant. A world-leading life sciences sector requires the UK to attract the best scientific talent from all over the world, and it can be hard to find the right talent even when conducting a world-wide search. When outstanding people are identified there should be no artificial barriers to inhibit recruitment. The current system for non-EU immigrants is expensive, complex and lengthy. This, alongside constraints on the ability to settle in the UK, or to bring accompanying family members, are all factors which risk deterring talented international scientists.

7. New immigration rules should create a system that is faster and more transparent than the current one, and should not simply replicate the current system for non-EU immigrants.

8. There are aspects of the current system for non-EU immigrants that are working well for science. We would want to see continued priority being given to PhD-level occupations in any future system. Salary is a similarly poor proxy for skill level for other categories of scientist, salary, so similar priority should be given to other science roles. Post Doctoral Fellows are highly skilled scientists on relatively low salaries. We would like to see any gauge of skill level being based on measures other than simply salary. In addition, for those on lower salaries, restrictions on bringing dependents can prove a deterrent. For example, if the partner of a PhD student is not permitted to work, that could mean the student is unable to afford to come to London, so we would like to see greater flexibility with regard to the dependents of scientists.

Q2 - What are the specific career needs of scientists in relation to movement of people, both in terms of attracting and retaining the people the UK needs and supporting the research that they do?

9. UK science needs a system of reciprocal benefit with regard to immigration regulations. British scientists spend time abroad as part of their training and development. To reach the top of their profession, they need the freedom to train and work in top scientific institutions around the world, so the UK’s early career researchers must be able to move freely around Europe.  If the UK doesn’t have a system that allows an exchange between UK scientific institutions and their European counterparts, we won’t be able to train our own scientific workforce to the best standards. This will be to the long term detriment of science in the UK. 

Q3 - What aspects of the ‘people’ element need to be negotiated with the EU-27, as opposed to being simply decided on by the Government?

10. The UK’s immigration system for science needs to be welcoming, and based on the understanding that the UK needs international scientists for its future prosperity. The current system sends the opposite message. The principal of reciprocity; freedom of movement of early career researchers within Europe, must be a mutually negotiated principal. This sits alongside access to scientific funding. Even if UK science has access to funding, collaboration with international colleagues is likely to be stymied if there is not freedom of movement. Science is unusual for the extent to which careers depend on international mobility. Therefore we need mutual agreement between the UK Government and the EU-27 on principals of freedom of movement.

Q4 - On what timescale is clarity needed in relation to future immigration rules in order to support science and innovation in the UK?

11. The Crick already has candidates for research positions who are anxious about the uncertainty caused by Brexit and are raising this with us. The longer that uncertainty continues, the greater will be the deterrent effect on international talent. We don’t know how many people are already deciding not to apply. However, the Crick Institute saw a decline in applications from PhD students from outside the EU following the Brexit vote – from 578 applications in 2016 to 358 in 2017.

12. Clarity on this issue is needed as quickly as possible because it is already having an impact; The UK’s standing as a world leader in science must be maintained for our future health, wellbeing and prosperity.

June 2018