Guess the year. With a major international ‘make or break’ climate summit scheduled to take place in a European capital, campaigners protest against plans to build a third runway at London’s Heathrow airport. Greece faces a debt crisis, prompting political upheaval across the continent and fears for the future of the euro currency. Serena Williams and Roger Federer play in their respective finals of the Wimbledon tennis championships in London.

Plus ça change. That was — in fact — 2009, but it describes 2015 equally well. And the two years have something else in common: political investment in science sits at a crossroads.

On 9 July, a group of scientists set up to advise the United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-moon startled many researchers with a bold assertion: nations should invest up to 3.5% of their gross domestic product (GDP) in science.

Cue snorts of derision. Although a tiny group of nations invests around this much — Sweden and Israel among them — most fall well below this threshold. According to the latest figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United States invests 2.7%, and China 2%. The European Union average comes in at just under 2%.

Even the UN science advisory board admits that a target of 1% is perceived as high by many governments. It does, however, say that 3.5% of GDP is necessary to put the world on a sustainable development course. If this target seems rather arbitrary, it is because it probably is. But this crude measure of support for science can still be a useful metric.

Take the case of the United Kingdom. Combined private and public spending on UK science is around 1.6% of GDP. Earlier this year, the heads of various learned societies called for politicians to increase this figure to 3%, but the plea raised little more than eyebrows.

An ambition to boost government spending on science might have received a more welcome response in 2009 — but since then austerity has dominated in the United Kingdom. The Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government that came to power in 2010 did fulfil its promise to protect the core UK science budget from cuts, but inflation has whittled away the amount that is available for research.

If there is money to cut taxes, there should be money to support the work that can drive economies.

Following last week’s UK budget statement, there are signs that austerity measures are being relaxed — for some at least. In the first fiscal plan produced by a majority Conservative government for nearly two decades, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced some cuts — to welfare benefits and national broadcaster the BBC, for example — but he also unveiled significant belt-loosening measures, including tax cuts for the middle classes.

Exactly what this means for science is not yet clear. The Conservatives say that they will cut about £17 billion (US$26 billion) from government departments. Some of these axe blows may fall on research spending.

But the party has been vocal in its support for some scientific projects. They have championed the (nebulous) term ‘innovation’ as key to improve the Britain’s woeful workplace productivity. And cash has flowed, up to a point, to huge projects such as the Francis Crick Institute for biomedical research in London and the National Graphene Institute in Manchester.

Still, of Britain’s 1.6% of GDP spent on science, the public spend makes up just 0.44%. Compare that with Germany, where the government contributes 0.85% of GDP out of an overall spend on science of 2.9% of GDP. And the US government spends 0.76% of GDP out of an overall investment in science of 2.7% of GDP.

If Osborne is serious about science, now is the time to prove it. At a parliamentary gathering last month, at which politicians rubbed shoulders with researchers, the subject of science funding was on the lips of many. A reference to the percentage of GDP spent on science has become de rigueur in such conversations, often with an addendum that the United Kingdom ‘punches above its weight’ in achieving what it does with its limited means. This attitude has almost become part of the political identity of UK science: ‘we do so well with so little — why not give us more money and let us show you what we can really do’.

It has a point — if there is money to cut taxes, there should be money to support the work that can drive economies.

There are, of course, many claims on public financing, and scientists must be prepared to fight for their share alongside hospital administrators, road builders and arts funders. But if the UK government wishes to continue to wear the mantle of a science supporter, pushing towards 3.5% would be a step in the right direction.