The UK as a ‘Global Science Superpower’: Going from Rhetoric to Reality?

The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) will ‘provide strategic direction on the use of science and technology as tools to tackle great societal challenges, level up across the country and boost prosperity around the world’. Its stated aim is to put science and technology ‘at the centre of policy and public services’. The ministerial council, based in the Cabinet Office, will be chaired by the prime minister himself, and his hopes and ambitions for the reforms were laid out in a recent column in The Telegraph.

By nailing his colours to the mast from the outset, the prime minister has indicated his belief that the council will be the vehicle to restore the UK’s status as a ‘global science superpower’. Additionally, Sir Patrick Vallance – now a known and trusted public figure – has been handed the role of ‘National Technology Advisor’, heading up the Office for Science and Technology Strategy (OSTS) and working closely with the NSTC. One of the OSTS’s first tasks will be to review the technology bets the UK should prioritise for strategic advantage and the protection of capability in areas of critical national infrastructure. This is clearly an increasing source of concern for policymakers: from falling behind countries like China in the ‘AI race’ and the development of 5G communications, to being overly reliant on China and others for the production of semiconductors, personal protective equipment and vaccines.

Vaccine Programme Leading the Way?

It is the success of the vaccine programme, from research to delivery, which appears to have driven the prime minister to demand that the whole of government works with the new Council and Office to achieve its aims. The extent to which the vaccine programme can be relied upon as a model is questionable – people tend to be more inclined to drop their guard and collaborate when the threat is immediate and the need urgent. While the target of meeting net zero by 2050, for example, ticks both those boxes on paper, the reality in many cases is one of heel-dragging.

Nonetheless, the lesson being drawn from the vaccine experience is our daily dependence on high-quality scientific research, and therefore the need to ‘abandon any notion that government can be strategically indifferent, or treat research as a matter of abstract academic speculation’. When it comes to scientific and technological discovery, however, there is a distinct balance to be struck between government, academia and industry. Senior policymakers taking a keener interest in science and technology is good news, but if this plays out in an overzealous or partisan manner, there is a risk of the science following the government rather than the government following the science.

Finding Room in a Crowded Landscape

This raises the question of how these changes will interact with the various structures and strategies that already exist or are in the pipeline. For example, the Council for Science and Technology, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI, containing the Science and Technology Facilities Council) and the forthcoming Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) all have a stake in the issues which the NSTC is being set up to address. The role of the ARIA is defined as looking for ‘unknown unknowns’ or ‘moonshot’ projects, while the UKRI, as the UK’s main funder of upstream research, will presumably be expected to direct traffic to support the priorities as defined by the NSTC. Elsewhere within government, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is delivering its National Data Strategy, while the Office for AI is working with partners to draw up a new National AI Strategy. The Ministry of Defence launched its own science and technology strategy back in October 2020, which set out five capability challenges that emerging technologies need to meet in the coming years.

The above is not an exhaustive list, but it demonstrates the importance of spelling out linkages across Whitehall in a way that encourages complementarities rather than duplications – or worse, conflict. The NSTC and OSTS have the weight of the prime minister and Sir Patrick Vallance behind them, which is likely to ensure they receive a more favourable reception in terms of funding, but this on its own will not be enough to coordinate all the moving pieces into a coherent whole.

Making Reality Match Ambition

There was a reassertion in the prime minister’s article of the ambition to raise R&D spending from its current total of £14.9 billion for 2021–22 to a new target of £22 billion. New targets are fine, but unless they come with deadlines, they can easily be glossed over when the economic climate becomes challenging. Reaching this target will not be incumbent on the government alone; the prime minister is adopting a sterner stance towards the private sector’s contributions to R&D and has criticised the fact that UK firms are investing a fraction of the OECD average on research. For the moment, the plan appears to be to boost the private sector’s confidence that it is backing national priorities set by the NSTC. While this may bring clarity, it does not necessarily convince private sector organisations that those priorities are the right ones or incentivise them to endanger their bottom line with high-risk investments.

This brings us to the process by which the NSTC and OSTS will decide on the priorities most deserving of attention. As a Cabinet Office initiative, there will be questions as to how it will avoid the risk of becoming siloed at the central government level and incorporate the views of the private sector at the earliest opportunity, as well as universities beyond Oxford, Cambridge and London. Failing to do so increases the risk of technology and strategy being developed among a privileged section of the academic community, in an unquestioning manner and without rigorous scrutiny. Only with a networked approach defined by genuine co-creation will we see health experts operating alongside security experts, without prejudice towards the organisation that they represent in their day job. With this foundation in place, the government can move from ‘hoping’ – in the prime minister’s words – that the private sector and academia respond to the NSTC’s signalling, to knowing that they will.

Finally, the prime minister is steadfast in his commitment to STEM and training in science and technology, but this needs to come with an understanding of the role of social sciences and research that holds ‘pure science’ to account. The idea that science takes place outside of a broader social context with live legal and ethical considerations is one that will quickly lead the country down undesirable paths.

It is undoubtedly very early days for the NSTC and OSTS. Structural reorganisation does not happen overnight, and time will be needed to get the right personnel in place and ensure expectations are made clear across the board. But with the government saying that this is a priority for the here and now, the challenges laid out above ought to be considered as soon as possible to give these reforms the best chance of delivering genuine societal benefit, rather than just being grand gestures.

The views expressed in this Commentary are the author’s, and do not represent those of RUSI or any other institution.

Have an idea for a Commentary you’d like to write for us? Send a short pitch to commentaries@rusi.org and we’ll get back to you if it fits into our research interests. Full guidelines for contributors can be found here.