Royal Society slams UK.gov science shake-up

Whitehall changes a 'big mistake' as anything going in with Business department gets squeezed 

The president of the Royal Society has slammed the government’s decision to move science policy from the department also covering technology to the business department.

In changes announced after Andy Burnham became UK Prime Minister in July, the government abolished the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) – created by former Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak – and split its responsibilities among other ministries.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCSM) became Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) while the Science in DSIT went to the new Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (BIST). Jonathan Reynolds was named Secretary of State for the department. Kanishka Narayan has been given a Cabinet-attending role of Minister for Artificial Intelligence, working jointly in the Cabinet Office and BIST.

REG AD

Chris McDonald, Minister of State for Science, Innovation and Investment is work jointly across BIST and the Department for Health and Social Care with no Cabinet role.

REG AD

Speaking to MPs this week, Sir Paul Nurse, the President of the prestigious Royal Society, said moving science to the business department was a mistake… “actually quite a big mistake”.

Nurse, whose main research was in genetics, argued that science cuts across business, health, defense, transport, energy, and the environment.

“The future of our country depends on what science can put into all that we do. Giving it just to business — there are ways through that — is restricting just what it can do, and that is a mistake. I would have put science and AI together, because AI is in fact science. I don't know why that is so neglected all the time. AI isn't just large language models and rushing after big databases. It is also about promoting creativity in science and actually generating appropriate technologies.”

Nurse said experience with other government activities thrown in with business did not bode well for science. There have previously been a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and a Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

“When you talk to the civil servants, they see the big thing about their department, which is business. So every time I had to speak to them, it was always about application to particular business objectives. They couldn't get off that. Now that is something for the Secretary of State to deal with, but that is a problem. It's not just leadership. It's also what comes underneath. And the Secretary of State has nine policy areas, of which only one is to do with science,” Nurse told the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.

Also speaking to the Committee, Alicia Greated, executive director for the Campaign for Science and Engineering, said that while there was a government connection between science and health, there was none with the Department for Education, which is responsible for universities and higher education.

“That connection is extremely important. Our members are asking for stability, whether it's in funding, strategy or policy. We need to be thinking more long term. A lot of the objectives of the current departmental priorities are going to be quite short term.”

Greated also said she feared a “deprioritization” of basic research. “It's not just R&D; it's the skills, it's the infrastructure, it's the ideas that feed into our whole innovation pipeline.”

REG AD

In a letter to the Committee, ministers from the Cabinet Office, BIST and the DCMS said: “The Prime Minister has made a number of changes to the Machinery of Government to rewire the state to deliver a stronger, more strategic center which acts as the engine room for driving economic growth across the whole country.

"These changes include transforming how the Government is structured to approach science, innovation, and technology. This reflects that the UK stands at a critical juncture where unprecedented global changes demand that we secure our position as a world leader in AI, science and technology. In this context, we cannot see science and technology as an isolated issue, limited to one department.” ®