Loss of DSIT opens door to ‘fundamental policy redesign’

Scrapping the UK’s science department midway through major reforms to research funding may signal Andy Burnham’s intention to entirely rethink how the Labour government tackles huge challenges facing the university sector.

“We are going to see a period of policy flux, if not fundamental policy redesign,” said Ben Johnson, a former special adviser to several science ministers at both the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) and the Department for Science, Innovation and Trade (DSIT), the latter of which was scrapped on the first day of Andy Burnham’s premiership.

Its two leading figures – science secretary Liz Kendall and science minister Patrick Vallance – have also both left government, although AI minister at DSIT, Kanishka Narayan, remains in post. He will straddle the newly renamed Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Technology (DBIST) and the Cabinet Office while attending Cabinet meetings.

With Vallance instigating significant reforms to research funding over the past two years – including a major shake-up of how UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) distributes funding and a push, as outlined in the post-16 skills White Paper, published in October, for more universities to specialise in which areas they conduct research, Johnson said the next as-yet-unnamed science minister may be landed with multiple research funding issues to solve.

“Institutions have been told they should be focusing on things they do well in research and Research England is examining how it can make this happen, but this is very difficult work for government to achieve. They’ve just started doing it but it’s going to be very controversial,” said Johnson, who is now co-director of Science Works, an innovation thinktank.

“None of the longstanding challenges faced by the sector have gone away either,” continued Johnson. “The university system is still chronically under-funded, unloved by politicians and the public and reaching crisis point at many institutions, even while science and technology is seen as a panacea for the nation’s ills,” he said.

“The research system is mired in bureaucracy and faces major fiscal challenges faced by UKRI, as seen with the Science and Technology Facilities Council, while there has been an explosion in grant applications since the arrival of AI,” said Johnson, adding: “All of this will need to be addressed by the next science minister.”

However Johnson said it was clear Burnham intended to make a “fresh start” from the policies of Keir Starmer’s government, raising the possibility that many, if not most, of the policies initiated by Vallance would be scaled back or scrapped. “If you look at the regional push to increase devolution and decision-making it would be naive to think science and innovation wouldn’t be included in this – Burnham has said he’ll set out a 10-year vision so this might mean a fresh start for the next science minister, rather than just dealing with whatever is in his inbox.”

Bringing science into the business department – with DSIT’s annual £14 billion budget eclipsing DBT’s £4 billion annual spending – would also expand resources for DBIST’s industrial strategy plans, another former ministerial adviser, Andy Westwood, now a professor at the University of Manchester, noted.

But Johnson said disbanding DSIT is likely to make it much harder for a minister to get to grips with the sector’s challenges as key departmental figures transitioned to DBT or other departments, with responsibility for AI being distributed between the Cabinet Office, DBIST and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

“It will mean months of reorganisation as people move to new teams, get new email addresses and desks and work out their roles in a new department – it just wastes months of people’s time at a moment when AI is moving ahead at lightning speed,” he said.

Nor would Narayan’s elevation to Cabinet compensate for the loss of the joined-up strategy on AI that DSIT had established, argued Johnson.

“I’m pleased that Narayan has the job but DSIT had the advantage of having everyone under the same roof working together on supply chains, scientific research, regulation. Having that ministerial team focus on this allowed you to make meaningful progress…just one minister cannot bring together all the different parts of government on AI policy,” he said.

Several former science ministers have, however, applauded the decision to bring science back in the business department, with Greg Clark, who held the role from 2014 to 2015, arguing on X that “government has too many silos”.

“Reuniting the science, innovation and business departments – as when I was [secretary of state for science] and chair of the science & technology select committee – can make the whole more powerful, joined-up and effective. (I would add the universities brief…too.)” he said.

George Freeman, who served as Conservative science minister at DSIT, also welcomed the department’s demise, having frequently criticised what he saw as its overwhelming focus on AI to the detriment of other technology sectors while serving on the House of Commons’ science, technology and innovation committee.

Speaking to Times Higher Education, Freeman said: “To properly harness UK science, research and engineering to drive the innovation economy – the only sustained and resilient growth – we need research and development embedded across the whole of our economy, government and foreign policy. Not just an AI deep-tech department focused on Google.”

“So I welcome the creation of the Department for Business, Science and Innovation to better embed and support R&D clusters from Glasgow satellite manufacturing to south Wales semiconductors, Sheffield’s advanced manufacturing and Norwich’s agritech,” he said.

Diana Beech, a former adviser at DSIT, agreed, stating she did “not view the integration of DSIT into a larger growth-focused business department as a setback for UK science”.

“If anything, it reflects a recognition that research should sit at the heart of economic strategy, not inside a policy silo,” said Beech, now a professor of higher education policy at City St George’s, University of London.

“Under DSIT, the science community arguably became a little too comfortable making its case to people who already understood its value. The challenge now is proving what science delivers and demonstrating how it contributes to productivity, prosperity and national resilience,” continued Beech.

“Bringing science, universities, business and industrial strategy closer together could strengthen the case for research across government and enhance universities’ legitimacy with the public. Moreover, having not one but two ministers championing science at Cabinet – through a powerful business secretary and a dedicated AI minister – should also give research a stronger voice at the top table,” she added.

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com