Talk:Brexit and arrangements for science and technology

Article title

Hi, could someone please replace "academia" by "science" in the heading for this page, as the content goes beyond academia. The new title would read Consequences of Brexit for science. With thanks in advance,--Susan Schneegans (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Surely it goes beyond science as well: what about humanities, for example? Another title may be required; an alternative is to move the non-academia stuff into the Brexit article. EddieHugh (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The current version of the article needs some rewriting to clarify the consequences for academia as a whole, and that part which is more or less directly connected with the sort of research that results in patentable inventions which can be exploited commercially. It would not be acceptable to cloak the latter in the name "Science". Qexigator (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

+ "UK produces 33% of the worlds humanities research (compared to USA 37%) but 10% of the world’s science (compared with 25% for the USA)... is one of the top destinations for overseas study. Last year, the value generated by arts and humanities overseas students was £3.6bn. The UK is currently one of the top 5 destination countries for Erasmus" etc. in The Future of Creative Higher Education Post-Brexit.[4] Qexigator (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

To avoid pages becoming too long, as the consequences of Brexit will need to be monitored over time, why not create a new page on the consequences for arts and humanities? Links could then be made between the various pages on related topics.--Susan Schngeegans (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Please identify discussion agreeing to change of title, and the log for this. The title "science" is obviously inept. Qexigator (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

COI Notice board is the place for this discussion. In my opinion such as it is, there is no COI here, and note that expertise should not be confused with a COI.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC))
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is getting out of control. The page was moved by John Cummings, who is "Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO" and the creator is Susan Schneegans, who is "Editor-in-Chief of the UNESCO Science Report series". The article itself is rapidly becoming a condensed version of a UNESCO report. Lots of the article is not about science, so the title is wrong. In addition, editors inserting information from their or their employer's publications should probably declare a potential Wikipedia:Conflict of interest on this talk page. EddieHugh (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC) This is getting out of control: agreed and this should be rectified, given that the article was "moved by 'Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO'" and its creator is "Editor-in-Chief of the UNESCO Science Report series" and "editors inserting information from their or their employer's publications should probably declare a potential Wikipedia:Conflict of interest". Qexigator (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Hi Qexigator and EddieHugh, I'm sorry you feel this way. Can you explain a little further why you think this is conflict of interest? Here are my thoughts on why I don't think it is: Neither of us are "contributing to Wikipedia about ourselves, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". Susan is sharing knowledge on Wikipedia using existing open license text that she was involved in writing. Expert outreach is strongly encouraged on Wikipedia and Wikimedia chapters spend a great deal of time working on it. For example Wikimedia UK has a page on expert outreach to encourage contribution and their current calendar of events includes running a workshop called Improving Wikipedia in your subject area at Oxford University. There are also global expert outreach programmes like 1Lib1Ref. The only difference between this work and the standard version of expert outreach is that the text is already written, rather than being constructed specifically for Wikipedia, this approach reduces the amount of time needed for experts to contribute to subjects and in much greater depth. Thanks --John Cummings (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC) It is worth referring to WP:EXTERNALREL. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC) I'm saying that there's a potential CoI, not that there definitely is one. The expert outreach essay that you linked to ends with "When in doubt, it is good practice for a person who may have a conflict of interest to disclose it on the relevant article's talk page and to suggest changes there rather than in the article. Transparency is essential to the workings of Wikipedia." This is the same as what I've asserted, although "suggest changes there rather than in the article" is, in my view, not necessary at the moment. The tipping point for me was when one UNESCO worker responded to a request by another (I'm assuming that your user descriptions are correct) on this new article, with no clear record of how that happened, and particularly when the ensuing action (a page move) was explicitly opposed by the only two editors who had responded on this talk page. This doesn't look good and is not in keeping with the consensus-based nature of how things should be done. When things don't look good, there's inevitably a suspicion that things aren't good. Please keep editing, but being up-front about potential CoI and following norms of consensus will help things go more smoothly. EddieHugh (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Hi EddieHugh, thanks for the clarification, I work at UNESCO, though I am not employed by them, I'm funded by grants from Wikimedia. The reason there is no on wiki record is because I have been teaching Susan how to contribute to Wikimedia projects in person, I will keep this in mind in future. We are trying something fairly new working with experts to add openly licensed text to Wikipedia so are going to run into issues along the way. I appreciate you taking the time to explain things and work on the article, if you can offer Susan help in future I would really appreciate it. Its interesting (and somewhat painful) to see the jarring experience she has has so far, several articles have been speedy deleted despite them being labelled as from openly licensed sources, she's had some less than civil messages from other users and run into Wikipedia's less than clear instructions on several occasions. I'm definitely understanding more clearly why Wikipedia has such a problem with editor retention. Thanks again --John Cummings (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Why not use the term 'Research' instead? That then incorporates science and humanities topics while remaining wider than 'academia'? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The changed title is unsuited to the article. The focus of the current version is not "Science" but "Consequences of Brexit for academic and commercial research and innovation". Qexigator (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Qexigator: Did you see my suggestion just above? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

M-P-: Yes, and that's OK as far as it goes but it does not actually describe the article content, and would also be disguising it to satisfy a POV which is evidently influenced by the UNESCO connections mentioned above, COI or not. Qexigator (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Honestly Qexigator this, "would also be disguising it to satisfy a POV which is evidently influenced by the UNESCO connections mentioned above, COI or not." is assumptive and an assumption of bad faith which has a chilling effect on discussion and creation of this article. We are dealing with a new editor here who is working to improve an article. Please do not bite the newbie. We are losing good editors all the time and its up to us more experienced editors to help them. Susan is expert in this field so we should be welcoming her with open arms and assisting her as much as we can. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC))

Littleolive oil, you shut down the debate on this above; if you want to restart it, then reopen the original one. Qexigator is not assuming bad faith, but is highlighting the fact that there can be unconscious bias, among other things, when there is closeness to the source material. I (and, I imagine, Qexigator) welcome Susan S's contributions; however, the new title is wrong and is now a reflection of her area of expertise – science – rather than what is was created to be, after considerable discussion. EddieHugh (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Back to the point: how about 'Consequences of Brexit for academia and research'? I don't like the first word, as it has negative connotations, the whole thing is predictive and inaccurate, as Brexit hasn't happened yet, but it's the best that I can offer. On the plus side... the article already covers more subjects than just science (hence "academia"), more than just academic research (hence "academia" as a broader term) and more than just research (e.g., patents, but that comes about because of research, so could be considered to be subsumed under "research"). EddieHugh (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

No, actually. I hatted a discussion of COI accusations which do not belong in discussion of an article's content and I further asked for an assumption of good faith. Assuming anything about an editor rather than focus on the edits simply derails discussion. Your attempts to focus back on the article is a positive step seems to me. I think that its very true that that article title may predispose a certain kind of article so the topic title must be chosen carefully to reflect the content. However, that a title reflects a certain area of expertise is not a concern unless that title does not reflect what the article is about. The conflating of expertise with a COI or POV editing is a mistake in understanding, because it assumes expertise necessarily means an editor is not capable of neutrality - an error in application of what POV and COI are and mean. We need experts and we can expect that they know more than we do in their area of expertise so maybe we can work with that as you now are.

On the title effects is a word with less connotation than consequences. How about that?(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC))

Thanks for the suggestion. Please go ahead and replace "consequences" by "effect" in the title of this page. It would then read: Effect of Brexit on science.--Susan Schneegans (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose "go ahead" to rename as "Effect of Brexit on science" which cannot be reconciled, with npov accuracy, given that

• the article is not about the advancement of "Science" as such but matters arising in connection with Brexit.
• "Brexit" denotes the UK's prospective withdrawal from the European Union.
• "withdrawal" is a legal and political process whereby a state exercises its right under the Treaty on European Union to cease to be a member of the Union.
• the EU is a political entity with paramount lawmaking and judicial institutions, and taxing and spending powers, created and continuing by a series of international treaties, with principles, aspirations and objectives set out in the consolidated version (preamble[5] and Articles[6])
• Article 3 mentions the promotion of "scientific and technological advance" in a context governed by "The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples", the Union's "internal market", "work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress", the requirement that "The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the competences which are conferred upon it in the Treaties", and (Article 4) "competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States".

Qexigator (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Noted that L- o-'s remarks above fail to address the issue that The focus of the current version is not "Science" but "Consequences of Brexit for academic and commercial research and innovation (and see[7]). To my mind, if "assumptive" is meaningful in this context it applies to L- o's remarks. Given AGF, the problem is the article content, newby or not, and expertise is no guarantee of npov editing, any more than simple naive enthusiasm would be. Now, for the title: possibly "Effects of Brexit on academic employment and commercial results". Qexigator (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Littleolive oil, your edit inserted "The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it"; if "The following discussion has been closed" isn't shutting a discussion down, then I don't know what is. I'm not conflating expertise with POV or CoI: "Determining that someone has a COI is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity". Back to the title... the article covers: UK research intensity, nationalities of students at UK universities, international cooperation in research, research funding (businesses and universities), patent systems, other European agencies, business R&D, possible UK-EU models (linked to immigration, funding, etc). That's a lot. So far, we agree that the title should be Effects of Brexit on, but no further. The contents cover more than research, much more than science; "commercial results" lacks clarity... Mixing in bits of Qexigator's "Consequences of Brexit for academic and commercial research and innovation", how about Effects of Brexit on academia and commercial research? Add a sentence or two introducing the relevance of patent systems and other European agencies to academic and commercial research, and trim the UK-EU models section to make it relevant to research only. That would, approximately, match up contents with title, for now. EddieHugh (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

"academia" maybe, but note "Academia Europaea". Not sure about using "commercial research" that way: sounds like "market research" or the business of undertaking market research for reward. A Google search put this at the top: "The future of access to academic research is subject to two contradictory trends. Firstly, commercially sponsored research is tending to be more secretive, because of the commercial interests. Secondly, Governments (who are often a major funder) are pushing the Open Data agenda, making research less secretive. See also "Commercial Research"[8] and NHS[9] etc. Qexigator (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so Effects of Brexit on academia and research? EddieHugh (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"Consequences of Brexit for science" is certainly a misnomer, as said above, but still not sure whether the main theme is "research" or the economic and social results, with particular reference to academic scientific research. Perhaps Jytdog's critique of the content gives a pointer. First, we need a topic name that is likely to be of more than passing relevance. Secondly, we could consider removing the "Models" section, retaining no more than an edited version of the paragraph describing the relevant part of the government's white paper, knowing that sooner or later it will be overtaken by events. Are the other current section headings acceptable: "1 Demographics, 2 Concerns over future funding of research, 3 Britain's participation in Unified Patent Court, 4 Future status and arrangements with specialized European agencies, 5 Consequences for business research and development" ? Qexigator (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That can be addressed after the title. Economic results is a different matter for a different article. Are there any better suggestions for this article's title? EddieHugh (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me clarify: to decide on title, we need to agree content and focus. If the 5 current section headings are OK, the article title should match. The article is not about economic effects in general, but covers specifically those in the 5 sections which are essentially about some potential economic results of UK ceasing to participate in the current EU set up for specialized agencies -- Medicines, Chemicals, Aviation, banking and financial services -- and industrial production in respect of the automotive sector (to name but one). Academia and international scientific collaboration appear, in this context at least, to be incidental to commerce, industry and finance, which is to be expected, given the EU treaty principles, aspirations and objectives cited above, including "scientific and technological advance" in the treaty context quoted. Further, the related Brexit section has now been tagged for containing "unverifiable speculation and unjustified claims. Information must be verifiable and based on reliable published sources". There are two parties to Brexit: first, the UK, acting by UK government having constitutional responsibility to Parliament, and second, the EU, comprising the 27 other member states, acting by (?) responsible to (?). Thus, a reasonable starting point is what the UK government proposes to negotiate about, as expressed in the white paper, and what effects that must have, or could have, according to RS. Qexigator (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

+ The article states that it incorporates text from UNESCO Science Report: towards 2030. It is difficult to see anything in the report, beyond headline generalities, that has notable informative value for the prospective Brexit negotiation between UK and EU, or the effects that may have. But its content supports the view that the topic is concerned with applied science and technology in the service of industry, trade, and commerce, by way of "sustainable development". The D-G's foreword mentions "science, technology and innovation" in the service of the UN's policy document "2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development", stating that "Sustainability depends on the capacity of states to put science at the heart of their national strategies for development, strengthening their capacities and investment to tackle challenges, some of which are still unknown" and "The UNESCO Science Report draws a comprehensive picture of the many facets of science in an increasingly complex world – including trends in innovation and mobility, issues relating to big data and the contribution of indigenous and local knowledge to addressing global challenges." It mentions "investment is in the applied sciences", and "a large number of countries are incorporating science, technology and innovation in their national development agendas, in order to be less reliant on raw materials and move towards knowledge economies" and "countries across the world are striving to attract and retain scientific talent, upgrading their higher education and research infrastructure and developing new scholarships and scientific visas. Private firms are relocating research laboratories and some universities are setting up campuses abroad to tap into a bigger talent pool." Part 9, "European Union", discusses "Europe 2020,: a strategy for smart growth" in a way which is predominantly concerned with the economic data and state of affairs. It opines "To meet its ambitions for research, the EU will need to augment the number of researchers in the EU, a significant share of whom will have to come from third countries. For the EU to be able to compete with the USA in attracting research talent, for instance, EU legislation will need to be applied to the letter. Member states have already reformed their higher education sectors as part of the Bologna Process and special scientific visas have been designed to help researchers obtain authorization to live and work in any member state more easily." Section headings include "Research spending up in energy, health and infrastructure" and "Space research a strategic investment", and so on. Qexigator (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

+ A viable title could be Effects of Brexit on sustainable development policy, given the above remarks and online information about UK sustainable development policy and Agenda 21 such as:

• House of Commons International Development Committee UK implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, 2016
• Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. March 2017
• Guiding principles for sustainable development
• Sustainable MOD strategy 2015 to 2025
• Government Definitions of Sustainability
• "UK Sustainable Development Strategy"
• Agenda 21 .

Qexigator (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"Sustainable development is the organizing principle for meeting human development goals while at the same time sustaining the ability of natural systems to provide the natural resources and ecosystem services upon which the economy and society depends." That sounds like another, separate article again! I don't see much in common with the contents of this article, which is about science, research, academia, intellectual property, not natural resources. Am I missing something? EddieHugh (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That's just the problem, the current article content lacks theme or focus, and using the label "science" doesn't do the work. But the UK, EU and the EU member states are committed to the use of scientific research and application by way of technological innovation in order to achieve "sustainable development" as that is officially described, and we may surmise, until otherwise declared, that the negotiation between UK and EU will seek to maintain such arrangements as are conducive to that end, which they have in common, with as little disruption as possible. That should not be too difficult for willing parties negotiating in good faith: it's about funding and persons whose occupations involve them being able to move and reside where they are needed, and it is simply part of the everyday job of governments to see to that. Let me retract "Effects of Brexit on sustainable development policy" and instead tender Effects of Brexit on research and innovation policy, per white paper[10] para. 10.4. Qexigator (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That's better. Are the contents limited to "policy" though? I read the title as being about a) research policy and b) innovation policy, but I think that reality is at least as important as policy (the two usually differ). Drop "policy" from the title to make it broader, but include it in the contents? EddieHugh (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me that "policy" should be there, in respect of both research and innovation. How would Wikipedia identify and write about "reality" for Brexit purposes other than as something which notable comment in RS describes by reference to policy? As I undertsand the position, the effects in question for this article are only those attributable to the UK withdrawal, for which the negotiation is about to begin between UK of the one part and, of the other part, the EU comprising the continuing union of the other 27 member states. The effects on research and innovation will be a result of the policy of those two negotiating parties, to be ascertained from existing known commitments and any published declarations of intent to repudiate or vary any existing commitment made by either party unilaterally, or by both parties. The policy may be open to notable public comment, including statistical analysis supporting a given policy or otherwise; and the policy at any one time may conform with, or extend or diminish, existing commitments to the overall UN policy of sustainable development, connected with UN's current policy document "2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development". As I see it, so far there are two principal sources for ascertaining policy: first, the UK government's white paper, and secondly, the TEU. As said above (9 March), the EU is a political entity created and continuing by a series of international treaties, with principles, aspirations and objectives set out in the consolidated version (preamble[11] and Articles[12]), of which

• Article 3 mentions the promotion of "scientific and technological advance" in a context governed by "The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples", the Union's "internal market", "work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress", the requirement that "The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the competences which are conferred upon it in the Treaties", and
• Article 4 mentions "competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States".

Articles 3 and 4, are, of course, currently binding on both UK and EU. Qexigator (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

e.g. policy (law) now is that the UK is equal to all other EU states; reality, based on some info already in the article, indicates discrimination ahead of Brexit. Is the suggestion to cover both policy and reality under the article title you propose? EddieHugh (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

If your point is to show fact differs from policy, then the lead concept is policy and fact can all the better be shown to differ, as in "The official policy is ..., but already and for some time that has been honoured more in the breach than observance". Brexit = formal withdrawal from the treaty in the way the treaty permits: notice + negotiation +/- exit treaty. Qexigator (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I support the proposal. We can wait a bit for other comments. EddieHugh (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, ok, and wait a bit. Qexigator (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose the statement that a' viable title could be Effects of Brexit on sustainable development policy'. It would be totally inappropriate to refer to sustainable development (or similar) in the title, given the subject matter of this article. Sustainable development is a broad term that covers a wide range of fields. Take a look at the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and their 169 targets and you will see what I mean.--Susan Schneegans (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the shorter title of 'Effect of Brexit on science' but, in a spirit of compromise, propose the following alternative: 'Effect of Brexit on scientific research'. --Susan Schneegans (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Please note that the current proposal is Effects of Brexit on research and innovation policy, for the reasons given above, We are here concerned with the use of language in the context of this article, not, eg, in a snappy headline for readers of Nature. The sources relied on are (presumably knowingly if written by and for reasonably knowledgeable people) using the word "science" in a more general sense, and near slang or jargon form, and not in the more specific sense relevant to Brexit. See Science (disambiguation), linked in previous comment . It would be more accurate to write "The prospective effect of the prospective withdrawal from a treaty between UK and EU on the private and public law of persons and of property obligations in respect of persons engaged in or promoting, sponsoring, or funding scientific research, development and innovation, and on the product of their work." That could be the long or extended title (using civil law concepts) for a book or published article, under the short or abbreviated title "Effects of Brexit on research and innovation policy". Qexigator (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)corrected 16:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I can accept the title of Effect of Brexit on research and innovation policy. If everyone agrees, I suggest that we move on.--Susan Schneegans (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

EddieHugh: If Effect of Brexit on research and innovation policy is now OK/acceptable for title, should the change be done via the move log? Will you operate? Qexigator (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. (As "Effects" rather than singular, as I took that to be the intention.) EddieHugh (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Eddie Hugh: I just read the first sentence of the article that is now entitled 'The effects of Brexit on research and innovation policy'. It states that these effects include future arrangements in respect of promoting, sponsoring, or funding scientific research, development and innovation as a result of Britain's withdrawal from the European Union. (Thanks for updating this information on the adoption of the Bill.) This new first sentence does not reflect the content of the article, which is not only about policy but also trends. For example, if there is a drop in scientific mobility or less scientific collaboration with EU countries, this will be a trend which is dependent on factors other than research and innovation policy, such as the UK leaving the single market. Idem for the presence of innovative non-UK firms in the UK. They may reduce their presence if the UK leaves the single market. I realize now that the title of research and innovation policy is actually a misnomer. The article goes beyond research and innovation policy, examining the impact (or effect) of Brexit on research and innovation in light of a range of policy decisions that go beyond research and innovation policy. Research and innovation will be affected by industrial policy and policy with regard to trade, higher education policy and so on. To reflect this, please revise the title to Effect of Brexit on research and innovation. (This will encompass research and innovation policy but also other policies and, thereby, reflect the content of the article better.) Please revise the first sentence accordingly, or I could do it. With thanks in advance.--Susan Schneegans (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair comment, but, given that while forecasts of such "trend" effects are likely to be at least speculative, and possibly tendentiously promotional or partisan, and that they will either be taken into account by those who are responsible for "policy" or not, and may eventually be borne out in the actuality or not: all of that can be mentioned more informatively under the current title by reference to RS. Qexigator (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I did suggest that title, but we settled on including "policy"... I suggest we leave it for now and see how the article evolves. It can be adjusted with a few linking sentences, I expect, to fit the "policy" title. If not, then we can change the title again later. EddieHugh (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to data trends. In other words, trends supported by evidence, such as trends in the amount of spending on research and development. These trends are documented and based on official statistics, so not tendentiously promotional or partisan, contrary to what was suggested above. I would prefer adjusting the title to the article, rather than the reverse. Would it not be a straightforward change to make? If you really want to keep policy in the title, it would be more accurate to speak of the Effects of Brexit on science policy. Please consider this correction.--Susan Schneegans (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The "science" bit is too narrow. Back to Qexigator: "policy" or not policy? EddieHugh (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The word "science" is unsuited to the title for this topic because it is either too narrow or too wide. Brexit is not affecting "science" in the wider sense of the product of a world-wide activity often referred to by that name, which will carry on with or without Brexit. Brexit is a prospective and unique event in the political development of the UK and EU. It is the present government's policy to bring it about with an exit treaty or not, according to the terms of the existing treaties. The government's white paper for exit policy acknowledges that the exit necessarily involves some change in the laws of the two parties, namely UK and EU, to accomodate, so far as can be, a mutually acceptable settlement for, among other things, their ongoing policies for research and innovation, including but not limited to science in a narrower sense. The effect on research and innovation policy is the notable element in the article, and "science" in a narrower sense is within the scope of that topic. If, for example, there is definite evidence that a change in the arrangements resulting from the UK exit from EU will have a notable impact on the future of the practice of science based medicine world wide, the information could be included in the article: ditto, atomic physics, or any other branch of physics, chemistry, biology, geology and so on. Qexigator (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

data trends: "A market trend can only be determined in hindsight, since at any time prices in the future are not known." based on official statistics: Further to other comments on this page, from a Wikipedia npov, gathering and processing and reporting such information normally has to be paid for, and political or other publicly or privately funded entities may be accepted as acting disinterestedly for the public good but still are there to serve a policy and have some policy in view. Some of it can be used for public information, such as weather forecasts, which all the world can soon compare with what actually happened. Much of it can be deployed in a period of more or less contentious public debate and negotiation, and thus contribute for better or worse to policy outcomes and effects. A "trend" may actually result from unattributed causes. Qexigator (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

There is always a time lag with data but statistics will nevertheless be an important means of measuring the effect of Brexit on science. The statistics available now provide baseline data on the situation at the time Article 50 was triggered (e.g. indicators on research spending, number of researchers), against which future trends can be measured over time. When one speaks about evidence-based policy-making, this refers to the information and data that inform policy-making. Brexit will affect policy but it will also affect the practice of research and the teaching of science and engineering at engineering. Thus, it is true to say that Brexit will affect policy but not only policy (also the mobility of scientists, the productivity of scientists, etc). Moreover, it will not only affect research and innovation policy. Science teaching and scientific research will be affected by policies that have nothing to do with research and innovation, such as immigration policy or trade policy. In a nutshell, the limitation of the title to 'research and innovation policy' is too narrow. It does not correspond to the focus and scope of the article.

So far as relevant, the above comment supports the view that policy, with its effects, is the paramount concept here. Qexigator (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I would beg to differ. The title current reads Effects of Brexit on research and innovation policy. Brexit (such as the UK's new trade or immigration policy arising from withdrawal negotiations) will have an effect on research and innovation but not necessarily on research and innovation policy, specifically. If a large number of EU scientists and multinaional companies move from the UK to another EU country, this will affect the R&D being done in the UK but the solution will not necessarily lie in research and innovation policy but in other fields of policy. My point is that 'research and innovation policy' is a narrow field, too narrow for the scope of the current article. Brexit will affect a whole range of policies (trade, immigration, higher education, industrial policy, etc) that will, in turn, affect academic researchers, university teachers, innovative companies, etc. Currently, the article does not reflect the title. Eddie Hughes, Littleolive and others, do you have any objection to removing policy from the title?

Well, it is generally surmised that the prospective negotiation for UK exit, and the eventual result, will have some modifying effect on a range of the policies of the UK and EU, among them research and innovation policy. An important aspect of policymaking is to take into account the interaction of the particular policies, such as those mentioned in Susan Schneegans' (unsigned) comment above. Statements/ comments/ information/ opinions about "Consequences/ effects of withdrawal for the United Kingdom/EU" can be little more than surmise, before or after the event. But the policies of the negotiating parties can be ascertained, at least to the extent that they have been or will be published, and that is what has a determining effect or influence on the legislative and funding state of affairs, by reference to which individuals, commercial companies, research bodies and so on will make their own assessments and decisions, according to their own intentions and expectations. One example from a report published today: "Making a success of Brexit will require a large volume of legislation to be passed through Parliament against a hard deadline. Meeting that requirement while still ensuring adequate scrutiny and leaving room for the Government’s domestic policy agenda will require both government and Parliament to adapt their normal approach to making legislation, and to recognise the value and importance of the other’s objectives and role. We recommend: For government...To make space for Brexit legislation, departments will need to ruthlessly prioritise other legislation and indeed find non-legislative approaches to achieving policy aims where possible, particularly in the context of the Government’s narrow Commons majority. ... It will be up to policy teams and departmental lawyers to draft the legislation and explanatory memoranda required, and the scale of the task for some departments, ...While the Government plans to use secondary legislation to make EU law ‘operable’, the Brexit white paper states that any ‘significant policy changes’ – i.e. changes to the content of that legislation – will be made in new, primary legislation..."[13]

Interesting comments. Do you consider, then, that we should leave the current heading for the page Effect(s) of Brexit on research and innovation policy?

References

Significant content issues

In general this whole article is written in violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:RECENTISM and WP:RELTIME - think about reading this page say three years from now, and say ten years from now -- the first when decisions have been taken and initial consequences are known, and the second when longer term consequences are known (and other intervening events have happened, whatever they may be). Almost everything here will have to be rewritten or deleted, even three years from now.

Some specific issues...

• I don't know what to do with the section header "A pole of attraction for globally mobile talents" but it is like an advertising brochure for the UK science enterprise. Something neutral would be "Demographics of scientists in the UK" or the like. The content in that section also doesn't discriminate between people sojourning in the UK (students, who might not (?) be affected by Brexit) and people who came to live and work in the UK and would be (?) affected.
• The "Future mobility and international scientific collaboration" is various people's opinions about what might happen. The paragraph there about international co-authorship is just kind of weirdly stuck in; not sure what the point is. If there is some issue that Brexit might affect specific collaborations between scientists in the UK and scientists at universities in the EU then that should be stated more clearly.
• Most of the "Models for UK's post-Brexit relationship with EU" section belongs in Brexit and is WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:UNDUE for this article. It is about a third of the article.

- Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This article exists because the Brexit article had become huge. There was a case to add a good subsection on the anticipated consequences of Brexit on Universities and research, but editors agreed that it a ten line paragraph could not do the subject justice. This is probably the first of many topics that will be hived off the main article. So naturally, since it must be reasonably self-contained, it has to repeat some of the key context statements of the main article - specifically the "models".

But I do agree that there is a serious risk of WP:CRYSTAL. Brexit hasn't happened yet and we don't know what form it will take. However we do know what happened to Swiss participation in EU-funded research activity when Switzerland refused free-movement rights to Croatia. So it is certainly reasonable to draw parallels. Nevertheless you are correct to flag these issues and the article needs some editing so that it refrains from excessive speculation - "if this, then that" is just about ok [provided it is sourced] but we mustn't construct a big speculative edifice. We could hold off completely until 2025 and then record what happened but that doesn't seem to me to be either useful to our readers or within the aims of the project (which has many articles dealing with emerging events). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Meantime, is there a suitable top tag template warning that this is a work in progress? Qexigator (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

All of Wikipedia is 'work in progress'! :-D

--ranging from raw to starred status, but never without room for improvement. Qexigator (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Please go ahead and replace "consequences" by "effect" in the title of this page. As for the subheadings, they can be easily changed, if it is deemed preferable. The first sentence needs simplifying urgently. The end of this sentence is now convoluted and overburdened. It has been modified by someone to read as follows: 'The consequences of Brexit for science include effects of Britain's withdrawal from the European Union (Brexit) on its existing and future arrangements with the European Union as concerns scientific research and innovation for academic and commercial purposes, and employment.' It originally ended with scientific research and innovation The term 'science' covers all of these aspects. Alternatively, to keep the term of 'research', the expanded term for R&D could be used, namely, scientific research and experimental development. The part on models was moved here from the Brexit page at the suggestion of Wikieditors. These models are cited in a lot of literature tied to Brexit, including the recent reports of parliamentary committees and the Royal Society. As for the 'recentism' levied at the page, it was decided to create this page now, so the content can only be recent. The article contains a lot of factual references to government and academic documents. As the situation evolves, the page can be updated. As someone pointed out above, 'all of Wikipedia is work in progress'.--Susan Schneegans (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

WP is a work in progress but it is not a blog or a newspaper. The goal is to create enduring content that reflects accepted knowledge; anything that you add to WP should never need to be updated itself. If you write, "As of date X people/group Y thought Z might happen" that will never need to be changed. The "recentism" problem is that too much of the content is written as though it had a dateline and is locked into how things look now, as it is being written, like this were a blog. Please read WP:NOT to become better aligned with the mission of WP. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You state that 'anything that you add to WP should never need to be updated itself'. There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia stating that the UK is a member of the EU. That statement will need to be updated once the UK leaves the EU, in the interests of accuracy. Wikipedia is work in progress. I have taken on board comments made by other Wikieditors. The article on the effect of Brexit on science is heavily referenced and evidence-based. The page focuses on 'science', a term that corresponds accurately to the content of the article.--Susan Schneegans (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Noted that the current version is undergoing improvement. Qexigator (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The difference between academic and commercial research is not as clearcut as some of the comments above suggest. You do not have universities working in one corner and businesses innovating in another. Researchers at MIT produce a lot of patents, for instance. There are interactions between public and private bodies, academia and industry, collaborative partnerships. Decisions regarding the future status of the Unified Patent Court or the European Medicines Agency will affect different stakeholders of scientific research and experimental development (R&D) in the UK. It was the Bayh Dole Act of 1980 in the USA that laid the groundwork for the interactions we see today between academic and commercial research in OECD countries. Here is a citation from p. 151 of the UNESCO Science Report explaining how this relationship works, for information. The Bayh Dole Act 'allowed universities to retain intellectual property rights from federally funded R&D and launched a trend in the university system towards the patenting and licencing of new technology. As a result, some universities have become foci of innovation, where small start-ups developed from on-campus research add value and, usually, partner with a larger established industrial partner to bring its product(s) to market. Having observed the success of these universities in seeding local innovation ecosystems, a growing number of universities are developing internal infrastructure like technology transfer offices, to support start-ups based on research, and incubators for faculty inventors that are designed to support embryonic companies and their technologies. Technology transfer supports the university mission in disseminating ideas and solutions that can be put into practice. It also supports job growth in their local economies and increases ties to industry that form the basis for sponsored research. However, owing to its unpredictable nature, technology transfer is not a reliable supplement to the university’s revenue compared to other sources of revenue, such as federal grants (in the USA) and tuition. From the industrial perspective, many companies in technology-heavy industries are finding that partnering with universities is a more effective use of their R&D investment than developing technologies internally. By sponsoring university research, they benefit from the broad expertise and collaborative environment within academic departments'. End of citation. --Susan Schneegans (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that can be seen as a useful summary of the formation of the current academic-industrial-economic complex, and illustrates interaction with legislative-executive policies of sovereign state governments and inter-state organisations, a major and wide-ranging topic. Qexigator (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Delete crystal - topic is simply misguided - Brexit hasn't happened, so how can we have an article on it's effects?! Preposterous. A rethink and title/topic change may be possible to keep it. I've tagged as notability, and WP:OR, but no doubt there's a better one indicating the crystal. User:Jytdog ? User:Susan Schneegans, User:Qexigator ? Widefox; talk 00:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Needs a ton of trimming and rephrasing, yes. Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Needs a ton of trimming and rephrasing: the content is open to further improvement, such as some trimming and rephrasing in the usual way (like many other articles), but there is no need to treat its notability as doubtful. Brexit hasn't happened- Quite so, as the opening sentence states: "The effects of Brexit... include prospective changes to current arrangements related to scientific research, development and innovation that are within the scope of the negotiation between the United Kingdom and the European Union prior to Britain's withdrawal from the European Union." That can be read as a "long title". But, given that the current ("short") title has an unintended "crystal" air about it, that could be avoided by using a title such as Brexit and arrangements for science and technology. Before slapping on generically hostile and underserved tags, would it not be more helpful in respect of a new article under construction to pinpoint what are seen as parts needing improvement: where specifically do you see a problem? In my view, every UNESCO cite should give its page number . Qexigator (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Trimming doesn't cover it IMHO as it's entirely not an encyclopaedic topic now, or until Brexit in two years, and then it would still be a projection of the future. Like weather forecasting, this is too far to meaningfully predict, but worse than that, it's based on human negotiation rather than physics. WP is not a venue for this type of content for any subject, and the WP:BURDEN is on those adding content, not those who challenge it, but at least at AfD no consensus retains the article and is a fair consensus process. Best to continue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effects of Brexit on science and technology. Widefox; talk 09:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Widefox's opinion noted, with dissent. The topic is obviously relevant to the Brexit negotiations, but needs a standalone article so as not to clutter others. Qexigator (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

WP isn't some blog or scorecard for the current state of play for an extrapolation of ongoing negotiations. That isn't possible to write IMHO, per policies outlined at the AfD. Nobody is saying it isn't interesting, or important, newsworthy, just not encyclopaedic (yet). Widefox; talk 12:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Widefox's comment noted, but it could be overreacting and missing the point: WP isn't some blog or scorecard for the current state of play for an extrapolation of ongoing negotiations looks like a strawmanish remark. article. The article remains open to improvement in the usual way on the part of any editor who choses to take constructive interest in the topic. Qexigator (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Keeping content that fails WP:NOT - a policy which when articles fail leads to deletion is missing the point. Widefox; talk 09:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Related revisions for Brexit article

Given recent revisions resulting in the current version of this article and the current version of the Brexit article ("Article 50 bill,[14] Effect on academic research[15] and lead[16], perhaps some trimming etc to Brexit#Effect on academic research would now be in order. Qexigator (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Further to your suggestion, I have just shortened the section on the effect on academic research.--Susan Schneegans (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

"Effects...examines..."

When a new article, such as this one, is being constructed it can sometimes not be altogether simple to formulate its opening sentence and lead. For example, a recent revision of the first sentence was "to reflect content of article better", but it was written in a way unsuited to Wikipedia articles, which are not there to "examine" this or that, as if writing for some other sort of publication.[17] The revised version was:

"The effects of Brexit on research and innovation policy examines the impact on British research and innovation of Britain's withdrawal from the European Union (EU). It also examines relevant policy debates and policies adopted by the British government before, during and after the negotiations with the EU to ensure as smooth a transition as possible."

The previous version was:[18]

The effects of Brexit on research and innovation policy include future arrangements in respect of promoting, sponsoring, or funding scientific research, development and innovation as a result of Britain's withdrawal from the European Union.

The first sentence should say, if possible, what the title "is", with help from the following sentence/s expanding on the first as concisely as possible. The remainder of the lead gives a brief summary of the main points of the article content which is expanded below the contents box, but it does not purport to be an "abstract" as usually required in academic circles. Qexigator (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

+ Would the following version be acceptable as an improvement? --

"The effects of Brexit on research and innovation policy include the changes of policy in respect of current arrangements related to scientific research, development and innovation that are within the scope of the (imminent) negotiation between the United Kingdom and the European Union prior to Britain's withdrawal from the Union."

(+) Later imminent may be changed to current, and, pessimistically, later still failed. Qexigator (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Article title and opening sentence

In view of the discussion and comment above on this page, and given that the white paper The United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union mentions science and technology in connection with the Brexit policy for research and innovation, would it be acceptable to let the opening sentence be re-written as:

The effects of Brexit on science and technology include changes of current arrangements related to scientific research, development and innovation that are within the scope of the (imminent) negotiation between the United Kingdom and the European Union prior to Britain's withdrawal from the Union."

Editors may be aware of the numerous Wikipedia articles with Science and technology in the title, currently listed as 634 in number. To my mind, that is a recognizable expression, indicating that the relevant connotation of "science" there intended is that aspect of the product of the work of scientific research that relates more or less directly to technology, including technology used in carrying on scientific research. The article 'History of science and technology' describes that as a field of history which examines how humanity's understanding of the natural world (science) and ability to manipulate it (technology) have changed over the centuries and adds that This academic discipline also studies the cultural, economic, and political impacts of scientific innovation. The article 'Science, technology and society' describes that as the study of how social, political, and cultural values affect scientific research and technological innovation, and how these, in turn, affect society, politics and culture. Qexigator (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

If that is acceptable, then the title would be the words in bold: "The effects of Brexit on science and technology".

Yes, I could accept the title: The effects of Brexit on science and technology. Concerning the first sentence, the article does not only cover arrangements, it also analyses the effect on the performance of science and technology, how scientists and engineers in academia and public research institutes, as well as private companies, are impacted by Brexit. It is the anticipated or actual impact of Brexit that will inspire many of the 'arrangements' over the next few years to cushion the impact of Brexit on science and technology. This impact will need to be discussed in the article, to explain the motivation for related arrangements. --Susan Schneegans (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Under the article title (I prefer 'effect' in the singular, as a generic term), I would propose for the first sentence (and perhaps a second explanatory sentence): The effect of Brexit on science and technology examines the impact on higher education, scientific research and innovation of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, as well as government policies adopted to cushion the impact on science and technology. This includes interim arrangements adopted during the two-year period of negotiations with the European Union beginning in March 2017. (new para) In March 2017, when Parliament debated and passed the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, the precise terms of Britain's disengagement were still unknown....--Susan Schneegans (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Then we're back to the previous problem: what about non-science? Substantial parts of the article use data that are about all research funding and universities in general, not just science and technology. All of that would have to be cut if "The effects of Brexit on science and technology" became the title. EddieHugh (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

EddieHugh: It may be better to let this article focus on S&T, and include a mention that data etc about academic funding is not for S&T alone. Is there enough material for another new stand-alone article, about non-S&T funding? Qexigator (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Not that I've found: it's tangled up in broader funding/university stuff. e.g., for the social sciences, this document, which includes Horizon 2020. Unless there's a disentangling of the numbers somewhere which would allow us to say 'of the £x spent on research, £y was for science', then it makes more sense to keep it all together in one article. EddieHugh (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that the heading "Funding of research" can be made "Funding of scientific and other research", and that the lead could state that in the EU arrangements, funding for scientific research is part of funding for research generally including social sciences., , it would on the whole be better to let S&T stand alone: the policy issues relating to the product of their work are different in kind. Qexigator (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Susan Schneegans: OK, Effect (singular). Yes, include motivation etc. to the extent not trivial, supported by reliable sources, and prsented in npov Wikipedia style. " Examines ", no - see above: "Wikipedia articles are not there to "examine" this or that, as if writing for some other sort of publication." Arrangements in the Brexit context are "prima facie" arrangements as referred to in the Treaty. Qexigator (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Being clear about what will need to be cut from this article if it's "Effect(s) of Brexit on science and technology": Human resources in science and engineering (almost all of para 1); Funding of research (lots, and/or a major rewrite, putting in multiple caveats); Concerns over future funding of research (the whole section, as the source is not just about science, despite its title); Effect on firms producing value-added goods (the whole section, as it's not about science or technology). Is that ok? EddieHugh (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the article is coherent, as it is. It should remain as is. We are discussing what would be the right title for the article, not changing the article to suit a new title. If someone wishes to discuss the impact of Brexit on social sciences, I would suggest that this be a separate article, along with another separate article on arts and humanities. There should be enough material for each of these topics. There will certainly be a lot of available material on the effect of Brexit on scientific research and innovation over the next two years or more. Scientific research and innovation is a subset of science, technology and innovation. Euratom, for example, is an EU research partnership but also fulfills other missions, such as managing radioactive waste disposal. It can be difficult to separate scientific research from other non-research elements of a project or institution, as these often go together and complement one another, as in the case of Euratom, the European Medicines Agency or Unified Patent Court. Susan Schneegans (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, EddieHugh, some cut and trim of the kind you mention will be a step to make before going for another title change. At the moment the article is improving but not yet well enough focussed on "Science and technology", per white paper policy etc. Qexigator (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

+ Subject to EddieHugh's points, let the opening sentence be re-written as:

"The effects of Brexit on science and technology include changes of current arrangements related to scientific research, development and innovation that are within the scope of the (imminent) negotiation between the United Kingdom and the European Union prior to Britain's withdrawal from the Union",

and let the title match the words in bold: "The effects of Brexit on science and technology". As said above: "In view of the discussion and comment on this page, and given that the white paper The United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union mentions science and technology in connection with the Brexit policy for research and innovation," and "Given that the heading "Funding of research" can be made "Funding of scientific and other research", and that the lead could state that in the EU arrangements, funding for scientific research is part of funding for research generally including social sciences, it would on the whole be better to let S&T stand alone (the policy issues relating to the product of their work are different in kind). Qexigator (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

To make further progress I have gone ahead, as shown in current version.[19]. It may be that more or less trimming is needed? Qexigator (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

With the rewording of the first sentence in the now current version,[20] are we now ready to change the title to Effects of Brexit on science and technology? Qexigator (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Watchlists will show that title change is now done. But current text remains open to further improvement, and a new section will be needed for imminent post-March notification period. Qexigator (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

+ Effect / Effects? I should mention that my change remains in plural corresponding with "Consequences of withdrawal" in Brexit article. "Effect" may be suited to another type of article, such as one that purports to survey and examine all available information in order to support a particular conclusion; but "Effects" immediately indicates that the article is not, and actually cannot be, about One Big Effect as the sum of an indefinite number of contributory effects. At the same time, "Effects" will not be seen as all effects, but only such as the present or later version reports, in as balanced and npov way as editors are able. Qexigator (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I see that the paragraphs on the private sector have been removed from the article. This is a mistake. The effect of Brexit on science and technology in the UK will not only involve the public sector but also the private sector (impact of STI policy, immigration policy, trade policy, etc). Surely, decisions on text removal should be made by consensus on the basis of solid arguments. --Susan Schneegans (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

If above comment refers to the section headed "Effect on firms producing value-added goods", there was, unsurprisingly, little or nothing in the heading or the text that was unequivocally concerned with anything but commercial investment decisions about manufacturing production, not clearly and solely resulting from the topic of the article. If there is a point to be made, let it be done in some other way. For the sake of the article's informative value it is better not to let it be loaded with a litany of anecdotal or untested remarks made in the ongoing drift of events. Qexigator (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• In view of discussion on this page, given that the article's current ("short") title has an unintended "crystal" air about it, I will be going ahead (subject to further comment) to make the change to Brexit and arrangements for science and technology, and adapt the first sentence to:

Brexit and arrangements for science and technology is referring to arrangements affecting scientific research, development and innovation that are within the scope of the negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union prior to Britain's withdrawal from the European Union.

Qexigator (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Qexigator (talk) 08:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

"Brexit and arrangements for science and technology" is a bad title - is it about "Brexit" and another topic "arrangements for science and technology"? Surely not. If this is aimed as a subtopic WP:SPINOUT of Brexit / Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 then "Brexit arrangements for science and technology" is a subtopic, or "Aftermath..." or "UK..." etc are better. What's the WP:COMMONNAME given in sources? Widefox; talk 12:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

References

"Source", UNESCO publication

Is there sufficient reason to continue the "Source" section with the single item "incorporates text from UNESCO Science Report: towards 2030? There are seven UNESCO citations in the reflist: 5. a b c d e f (not page numbered) and 26 "pp. 247 Table 9." p.247 is in Chapter 9 "European union", which begins A region in a protracted crisis: With the accession of Croatia in 2013, the European Union’s membership swelled to 28 countries, representing a combined population of 507.2 million, or 7.1% of the global population (Table 9.1). The European Union (EU) is expected to expand further: .... It has a box on p. 269 with Brexit specifically in its title. This contains some uncontentious information, such as "The UK is one of the largest net contributors to the EU budget", and some platitudinous remarks such as "The negotiations over the various options for a post-withdrawal relationship would be complex." The rest is pov comment. There is no good reason not to edit the Wikipedia article in the usual way by avoiding putting any of this in "Wikipedia voice". If the opinionated comment is notable and relevant, let it be paraphrased for reporting in the article, and cited in the reflist with all the others, and with the respective page numbers. The document is presumably in furtherance of the policy of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. It is published from a Paris address and printed in Luxembourg ("First contract for the production of the Official Journal of the European Union in 4 languages, 1964").[21] Names in the report team include: Flavia Schlegel, Susan Schneegans, Deniz Eröcal. Qexigator (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This discussion was closed a long time ago. Refer to earlier exchanges on other talk pages for relevant information.--Susan Schneegans (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

CERN

I'm confused why CERN is mentioned at all. It's an international organisation in its own right and unrelated to the EU. Seems off topic to me. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 08:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

For starters, Brexit endangers the immigration status of EU employees of CERN working on JET at Culham; plus the operation of JET receives funding from the European Commission, which will need to be renegotiated after Brexit. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

There's no mention of JET in the CERN Greybook (neither under 'External Experiments' nor 'Recognized Experiments') and CERN's research programme doesn't otherwise touch on fusion. CERN is also not mentioned in the list of EUROfusion member institutes. I find it very unlikely that there are CERN employees working on JET. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)