‘Science superpower’ plan risks making UK bureaucracy superpower, says peer

Britain's plan to become a "science and technology superpower" is so lacking in focus and so full of new organizational structures that the country risks becoming a "bureaucracy superpower" instead, according to an influential crossbench peer.

The co-author of a report on the government's global ambitions for science and technology said there was no clear strategy as to how the "superpower" ambition could be realised.

Lord Krebs said he was worried that ministers would scale back funding commitments needed to reach the goal. The creation of the National Science and Technology Council and the Office for Science and Technology Strategy would make bureaucracy worse.

The government's plan to become a science superpower is great, but at the moment it feels like setting off on a marathon with no signposts telling you how to get to the finish line. The UK is at risk of becoming a bureaucracy superpower.

The Cabinet Office said last year that cutting-edge science and technology was essential to the country's prosperity in the digital age and that it wanted the UK to become a " science and tech superpower" by 2030. The goal is to raise research and development funds to 2.5% of GDP by the year 2027. Funding fell from 1.84% of GDP in 1985 to 1.7 4% in 2019.

The inquiry found a lot of strategies in different areas with little linking them together. It was difficult to know who was accountable for what in many official bodies.

The inquiry heard that more than a dozen strategies and initiatives linked to research and innovation were launched in the life sciences alone over the course of two years.

The government needs to be specific about what it wants to achieve and publish a plan with measurable goals, according to the report. The appointment of a new science minister at cabinet level is needed to reach the 2.4% GDP target. The post has not been filled in a long time.

The peers criticize the UK's approach to international science collaborations, with massive cuts to overseas aid coming out of the blue and a failure to join Europe's £80 billion programme because of a row over leaving the EU. Krebs said that cutting ourselves off from the biggest international collaborative programme was not a good idea. The previous programme gave the UK more money than it spent.

Krebs said that the leadership candidates had been silent on science and technology. The report should be on the desk of the next prime minister as soon as possible. Some of the commitments to increase science spend may be quietly dropped or dialled down because of the emphasis on tax cutting.