Ahead of the Jun. 23 referendum over whether the UK should remain in or leave the EU, voices from the science sector were increasingly heard arguing in favor of staying – before the Jun. 16 fatal shooting of an anti-Brexit member of parliament (MP) from Yorkshire temporarily interrupted the dialog.

When the heated discussions resume, as can be expected, in the last week before the voting is held, most UK observers believe the Remain side will gain the upper hand. Adding urgency to the debate in the science and industry sector were separate reports drawn up by the House of Commons science and technology committee and the House of Lords technology committee.

The committees in both Houses have warned that separation of the British from the EU science infrastructure would not be easy, and that contingency plans would be have to be developed quickly to protect research and innovation if the referendum’s outcome is Brexit.

Leaving the EU would cost the UK “substantial funding” for life sciences in particular, the Commons committee argued, citing the case of Switzerland, where voters in a 2014 referendum opted to curtail the number of foreign workers entering the country.

Committee chair, Nicola Blackwood, a Conservative party MP, recalled that Switzerland, an associate member of the EU’s Horizon 2020 research program, which focuses heavily on life sciences, saw its participation threatened by that referendum’s outcome. “Following lengthy negotiations, Switzerland was permitted re-entry to Horizon 2020 but on much more restrictive terms,” she said.

 “Given the cautionary example of the Swiss freedom of movement referendum, we urge the government to conduct a risk analysis of the science and innovation funding and collaboration scenarios in the event of Brexit, the Commons committee said. 

Adding its voice, the British BioIndustry Association (BIA), which represents biotech firms, said: “As the report acknowledges, the only thing we can be certain of in the event of leaving the EU is uncertainty. Changing the current arrangement would lead to disruption, expense and significant regulatory burdens as a new system is developed.”

In its paper, the House of Lords suggested that, in life sciences in particular, Britain actually steers the other EU member states, so that a British exit would require the EU to reorganize anything from the approval of new drugs to clinical trials.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA), which allows a single application to for a marketing authorization is valid simultaneously in all 28 EU states simultaneously, is based in London, the Lords pointed out.

Beyond Britain’s being instrumental in developing the EU’s new Clinical Trials Regulation, having the EMA based in London “helps enormously,” as the country takes a lead in the assessments of drugs, pharma-covigilance or scientific advice, by a representative of the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) told the Lords committee. This, the agency said, in itself “helps reinforce the UK as a strong place for the pharmaceuticals sector to have a strong national agency.”

The biotech association added that the MHRA has been “able to exploit its reputation, leadership and expertise to positively influence the EU medicines regulatory regime.”

Even if the science sector is largely in favor of the UK remaining in the EU, however, many of the country’s scientists told the two parliamentary groupings that they perceived a need for change in certain rules, whereby most focused on regulatory bureaucracy and the length of time it takes to get legislation through all instances.

While much of the need for improvement voiced to the parliamentary committees did not involve the chemical–pharmaceutical industry’s main product lines directly, some of those commenting to the Lords criticized the bureaucracy of REACh.

Others said the Clinical Trials Directive was inflexible and inconsistently applied, Criticism was also leveled at what was seen as the EU’s overly cautious approach to the cultivation of GM crops. The EU’s Royal Society has publicly called for a review of the EU’s blanket prohibition of GM crops.