News

CSaP Annual Conference: The future of science and technology in the UK

28 June 2024

Share

The future of science and technology in the UK

Reported by Jacob Bradbury, CSaP Policy Intern (April-July 2024).

Andrew Griffith, former Minister of State for Science, Research and Innovation, delivered the opening address of the Centre for Science and Policy’s (CSaP) 2024 Annual Conference, hosted in the Royal Society. Andrew’s address was followed by a conversation between Hetan Shah, Chief Executive at the British Academy, and a panel discussion between Hetan, Dr Alicia Greated and Dr Hayaatun Sillem, chaired by CSaP’s Executive Director, Dr Rob Doubleday.

To listen to the discussion see below:


Andrew Griffith's opening address

Opening CSaP’s Annual Conference, Griffith reflected on the UK’s strong track record of improving the relationship between science and policy. In a changing world facing a challenging future, the solution is to evolve science and technology, and situate policy based upon evidence at the heart of government. How the machinery of government is organised, and who is in the room to add the science and technology viewpoint is important. Part of the previous government’s answer to this has been to develop a dedicated Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), with no role other than to champion and fund science.

Griffith stated that the level of funding will never keep pace with the number of problems and the scale of the challenges, but the role of DSIT was to lock in this funding and keep stressing the benefits of involving science in solving these challenges. All manifestos in this election are quiet on science and research, but full of important issues to solve. Sustainable homes, quantum technology and crop security are all an exercise in resource optimisation to deliver our current outcomes but with a lower impact on the planet. Despite now having science, innovation and technology in the room, overcoming the culture of government can be a barrier to developing policy with a strong basis in science, innovation and technology.

We are at a time in the world when the problems are greater, Griffith stated, but our ability to solve them only continues to grow. Some challenges include encouraging the public sector to take risks and universities being agile enough to respond to change. Furthermore, how can we continue to use data thoughtfully in a world with such an increase in decision making speed, whipped up by social media. In this unique moment, we have an opportunity to be more reflective, ask ourselves “what do we value?”, and think forward about the challenges that lie ahead.

Griffith in conversation with Hetan Shah

Shah began by asking Griffith how DSIT could maximise its role in research to influence policy. Griffith responded that DSIT was only 18 months old, and in that time DSIT has published the science and technology framework which had established clear priority areas for progress. It was important to scale these plans and to bring them to fruition and DSIT, now well socialised with the sector, is well positioned to do this. As headroom in the Government opened post COVID, new transformational technologies can be realised and deployed throughout government to deliver change.

Shah then asked what an increase in research speed means for allocation in funding? Griffith pointed to Tickell’s Review of Research Bureaucracy, commenting on the pace of response within research to deliver and respond to our greatest challenges. Some companies in the world are better at this, and often the appetite for risk relates to this. Striking a balance between public buy-in with appropriate checks and balances to ensure value for money, and a reduction in bureaucracy that increases the speed of output.

Finally, Shah asked what was the best way to make the case for investment in science, innovation and technology, which Griffith said was all about connecting spending to outcomes. How do we get value for money and solve problems? Griffith argued we innovate; unlocking new technologies to make efficiencies in existing areas that unlocks new areas. In practical terms, researchers can relate their research to government operations, such as defence.

Panel discussion, chaired by Dr Rob Doubleday

Questions were then taken from the floor to Shah, Dr Greated and Dr Sillem, chaired by Dr Doubleday, covering a range of topics.

One audience member asked how the panel suggested that we address the lack of public understanding about R&D. Dr Greated said that co-creation of projects with the public, such as in schools, promoted science in society. Often there can be arrogance in the R&D community, but the sector needed to listen, engage and work together. Do not take for granted the publics mandate for R&D, agreed Dr Sillem. Science engagement is part of citizenship, and we have a responsibility to curate spaces for conversations. Shah added to this, arguing that we need to go beyond public communication, but allow the public to influence research to bring people in.

Another audience member asked given the UK’s respected position on AI, but without a commercial ‘horse in the race’, can we act as a regulator or/and an international broker? Shah suggested the Bletchley Summit was a good example of the UK acting as an international broker, but cautioned people ruling out the UK’s role in development of frontier technologies. Dr Sillem echoed this, arguing that many were too cynical about the UK’s global offering on skills and capabilities, especially as the UK is such an internationalised and open economy. Dr Greated added the importance of competition and collaboration, suggesting that we should not underestimate the role of R&D in our international relationship.

Finally, an audience member asked to what extent has science been extended outside of the golden triangle? Shah suggested that the levelling up has agenda has failed, arguing that the next government needed to do more to improve the outcomes for all regions of the UK. Dr Greated agreed, stating that since needs varied regionally–the government’s approach needs to be nuanced enough to allow both bottom-up and top-down distribution of opportunities. Finally, Dr Sillem, stated that recent advances have been a good first step, but this is not a choice between place-based investment and excellence and it is not just where the investment is going but who and where the benefits are felt.


Image by Su Ford, CSaP Centre Coordinator

Jacob Bradbury

University of Oxford