Cancer and Brexit: Young Britons Are Anxious About Their Future

The European Union (EU) provides substantial support for many studies in healthcare. Laws supporting cooperation between EU countries and their talented clinicians are only part of this. Following the Brexit vote, British citizens will lose many advantages offered by the EU in healthcare, and this most concerns young people, who truly own the future.

The success of scientific research conducted within the EU stems from effective funding arrangements and scientists’ ability to work easily with experts across the continent. Looking at problems from different perspectives and approaching them in different ways has strengthened science. In the final hours before the Brexit vote, many scientists and researchers in the country shared concerns about its severely negative impact on research. A report from Digital Science demonstrated the scale of that impact: if the United Kingdom failed to fill the resulting gap successfully, annual research funding could fall by £1 billion. This is an alarming figure, but examining the loss more closely makes the seriousness of Brexit’s damage to research even more concerning.

The United Kingdom ranks fifth worldwide in writing and publishing scientific journal articles. Immediately behind the United States, China, Japan, and Germany, it leads India narrowly and France and Italy more substantially. Journals such as the British Medical Journal and The Lancet are based in Britain and are world-renowned. European funding does not affect these journals themselves, but it affects both the quantity and quality of research available for publication. This means that their most logical choice is to preserve publication and collaboration rights by moving to Germany, which will be by far the strongest country for European research funding.

Factors affecting the strength and productivity of British research will include the impending economic downturn and the loss of European funding for British research centers and departments. An economic downturn is a nationwide problem affecting many fields beyond research, but its devastating effect on research is indisputable. During the 2008 downturn, Cancer Research UK lost £76 million in funding. This showed the need for British research fields to become more independent rather than relying on the government or Europe.

40% of Cancer and Oncology Research Funding in Britain Comes from the EU

A substantial proportion of cancer research funding in Scotland, approximately 60%, comes from the EU. London has similar figures, and both places voted overwhelmingly to remain in Europe. Of London’s 33 boroughs, 28 voted to remain, and all Scottish cities likewise wanted to remain. This vote shows that people in these areas understand how dependent their home regions are on Europe. Cambridge and Oxford are also highly dependent: Europe provides 20% of Cambridge University’s research funding and 23% of Oxford University’s. Both areas clearly wanted to remain in Europe, with more than 70% of voters in each voting to remain.

The Brexit referendum was a historic moment for the United Kingdom, but whether the vote was honest remains debated. The best way to predict how an area would vote was to examine the proportion of residents with university degrees. This fact shows how poorly the public was informed about the consequences. Age groups were also useful predictors, with more than 70% of people aged 18–25 voting to remain. However, extreme nationalism and fear appeared in the country in the month before the vote, influencing voters’ perspectives. Immigration into Britain was among the greatest concerns of those voting to leave, and Turkey’s possible entry into Europe was intensely debated on both sides. The Leave campaign itself began by presenting strong arguments and facts, but gained votes through racism and lies as the referendum approached. A substantial part of the public believed that all the money going to Europe, approximately £350 million weekly in total, would be redirected to the British health service after leaving the EU. Yet on the day the result was announced, Nigel Farage—one of the Leave campaign’s most influential leaders—said this information was not a promise, merely a possibility, and would not be realized. This means voters were lied to twice: first, that incoming migrants were straining the health service, and second, that more money would be directed to it after leaving. In fact, a large proportion of doctors and nurses working in the health service migrated from Europe to Britain, and the government had never intended to transfer more money to the health service.

British healthcare and research services will suffer severely from the Brexit vote, but unfortunately those who decided this future were the people who would be least affected by it. A predominantly older and less educated section of the population voted to leave, and they are the fortunate ones. They need not consider the many problems now facing future scientists and researchers; they can simply rejoice that Britain is “independent” again. It is truly saddening that such an unrepresentative vote took place, and a large part of the public argued that holding it was wrong. Prime Minister David Cameron resigned and Theresa May succeeded him. The entire economy plunged overnight, and sterling reached its lowest value in 31 years. The economy is slowly recovering, but nobody disputes that Britain has entered a very uncertain period, and people fear for its future. A petition requesting a second vote received 4 million signatures. People took to the streets on the morning the results became known, and those aged 16–17 protested in central London because they had no right to vote at such an important moment.

In conclusion, the country’s young people feel unheard and unrepresented, and feel they were never considered during the referendum process. In our future, as older people gradually pass away and we take their place, the opportunities offered to them may not be offered to us. We may not travel freely around Europe to complete our research, apply to Europe for funding whenever we wish, or have the same employment rights, because those rights come from the European Union rather than the British government. To me, this situation is entirely unnecessary and the vote should never have happened, but what I think does not matter. The vote has happened; there is no going back now. For young people’s future, I hope the government effectively fills the gap created by leaving Europe and finds a way for Britain to remain one of the world’s strongest research centers.

Ecem Duygu Mimoğlu

A young Turkish person living in Britain who hopes to become a doctor