It’s a long time since British scientists had reason to feel optimistic about the political prospects for UK science. This isn’t so much about where the political dial is set – David Willetts, the minister for science under David Cameron, was well-respected by scientists – but about the appointment by Keir Starmer of informed and serious-minded people to administer the challenges and opportunities for science and technology.
After years of combative posturing, such as the culture war gestures of Michelle Donelan (Sunak’s science minister, who lost her seat in Wiltshire) and Sunak’s dithering over participation in the EU’s Horizon science programme, there’s a palpable sense of relief in the scientific community.
But it won’t all be plain sailing – not just because the task of trying to restore health to British science is now so enormous, but also because Starmer’s government faces conflicting demands that will be hard to resolve.
First, the good news. Peter Kyle, the secretary of state for science, innovation and technology, served in that shadow role since 2023 and has had time to prepare his agenda. He has a technical training in geography and environmental studies, served on the Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee between 2016 and 2020, and has shown himself to be thoughtful about regulation of artificial intelligence while leveraging the potential benefits to innovation it might offer.
And the appointment of Sir Patrick Vallance, former government chief scientific adviser during the pandemic, as minister for science under Kyle has been widely greeted with enthusiasm.
While Vallance’s claim to speak truth to power did not always convince when faced with the Johnson government – admittedly a task verging on the unworkable – his experience as science adviser and subsequently national technology adviser should make him invaluable to a more sympathetic leadership. He seems committed to net zero targets and will surely push for more robust pandemic preparedness.
Together with the current chief scientific adviser, Angela McLean – an expert on the modelling of infectious disease who did not hesitate to voice criticisms of the previous government’s pandemic failings – the UK could hope for no better team to face future threats such as the ominous US outbreak of H5N1 bird flu.
Meanwhile, Ed Miliband as secretary of state for energy security and net zero has a solid history of commitment to green issues. But his ability to fulfil Labour’s pledge to ban new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea faces the threat of legal action from companies that have already paid for exploration licences. More broadly, such curbs on businesses will sit ill with chancellor Rachel Reeves’s urgent need to grow the economy if budgeting is not to rely on new tax hikes.
In such ways, what is best for science, technology and the environment is going to be constrained by political realism. The harms done to British research by Brexit aren’t going to be easily or quickly resolved, especially given Starmer’s assurances that the UK will remain outside the EU. Plenty can still be done to rebuild research collaborations with Europe now there is a genuine will to do so.
But Brexit still means Brexit. Among the issues that need fast resolution is alignment of the regulatory framework for chemicals to safeguard supply chains and help businesses at the same time as ensuring environmental and health safety. Here the Royal Society of Chemistry has called for some form of participation in the European Chemicals Agency regulatory framework. But we must expect media bleating about “reversing Brexit by stealth” for every such pragmatic realignment with the EU.
One of the biggest challenges is to restore the health of UK academia. The promise to raise the R&D budget to £20bn per year, while welcome, won’t fix the parlous state of university finances – although it’s encouraging that this was a problem admitted by the new education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, in her first speech on July 5. But any increase in domestic tuition fees would be deeply unpopular.
Meanwhile, nothing rankled more in Sunak’s boosterism about the UK becoming a “science superpower” than his determination to obstruct the accumulation of international expertise necessary for that goal. His performative imposition of restrictions on family members of overseas postgraduate researchers confirmed to many foreign researchers that they were not welcome here. It was no surprise that the Global Talent Visa scheme launched in 2021 to attract top researchers was a dismal flop.
So for now, forget silly talk of science superpowers. As with so much else, the immediate task is one of healing.
