News archive

More funds needed for research into ageing

Published 12 October 2009

Government policy makers are either bored or confused by science, and research funding is suffering as a result, according to one of Britain's leading researchers into the ageing process.

Richard Faragher, Professor of Biological Gerontology at the University of Brighton and Chair of the British Society for Research on Ageing, said funding for every field of research was "insignificant compared to need and potential benefits". More worryingly, he said, "it seems to me that many policy makers are now content to be either confused or bored by science, when they shouldn't be."

He said the trend must be reversed and he intends discussing his concerns with MPs when he spends four days at Westminster in November with Brighton Kemp Town MP Dr Des Turner, as part of a pairing initiative by the Royal Society.

Professor Faragher's comments follow a recent report by The Academy of Medical Sciences showing that research into the biology of ageing is failing to flourish. The report called for a "step change in support for ageing research". Professor Dame Linda Partridge CBE FRS FRSE FMedSci, who chaired the group, said that with the appropriate leadership, vision and support, truly exceptional health, economic and social returns would be potentially available.

Professor Richard Faragher

Professor Faragher (pictured above) welcomed the report saying: "Ageing research is in a sorry state and this must be remedied because fundamental research has shown that it is possible to dramatically slow the ageing process preventing multiple causes of ill-health in later life."

He said health problems from ageing costs British taxpayers over £50 billion per annum. He said: "In contrast, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the flagship Government funder for research into the biology of ageing, is only able to spend about £17 million studying the root causes of frailty and dependence."

"This is about 1/3060th of the health cost of ageing, which are set to escalate unless scientists are given sufficient funds to provide solutions."

He said: "By comparison, £5,000 per person was spent bailing out the banks but only 28p per person is spent giving people longer, healthier lives."

"To me, the most worrying thing is not simply the decline of funding for science but the erosion of the fundamental attitudes engendered by looking at things 'scientifically', such as the certainty that there is a real world out there, that true and false things can be said about it and that it is reasonable to seek to understand that world and to shape policy and policy debates accordingly."

Dr Turner, a member of the Science and Technology Committee and himself a scientist who studied at the University of Brighton and University College London, was supportive: "I have been saying for a long time there is insufficient influence by science in shaping policy. It has improved, thanks in part to the Science and Technology committee's efforts, but it is not what it used to be."

Dr Turner said: "There has only been a dozen or so people with science backgrounds in parliament in the last decade and most of them have either gone or are going and won’t be replaced.There has been a similar downgrading within the civil service and in some respects that is of even greater concern."

Dr Turner will be spending time with Professor Faragher at the university later in the year as part of the pairing project.