Politicians have been talking about science for decades – but can the UK make the leap?
Just over 60 years ago in one of the most famous political speeches of the 20th century, Prime Minister Harold Wilson warned that if Britain were to prosper, a ‘new Britain’ would need to be forged in the ‘white heat’ of scientific revolution.
Fast-forward to the 21st century and similarly bold rhetoric surrounding scientific innovation is still commonplace within the upper echelons of government.
In 2018, Theresa May described science and innovation as one of the UK’s ‘greatest assets’. Her successor, Boris Johnson, often spoke ambitiously about the opportunities Brexit offered the sciences sector and pledged to transform the UK into the global life sciences hub. And now Rishi Sunak is the latest in a long line of political leaders to talk up Britain’s potential to be a ‘scientific superpower’.
The recognition of science not just as an economic benefit but something that is essential to Britain’s prosperity is driven by something that is increasingly rare in British politics: consensus. But why is this view so common and, more importantly, can the UK really live up to its ambitions and become a ‘scientific superpower’?
Why is it so important to politicians?
Economically, the UK has been stagnating since the 2008 financial crisis. With 15 years of disappointing performance, the importance of economic growth (or lack of it) within the current political climate is best reflected in Labour’s intention to use it as a key plank in its general election campaign. The government makes no secret of the fact that they believe the UK’s science sector is key to solving this challenge. One such example of this came in May, when the Chancellor unveiled a £650 million life sciences growth package, stating that life sciences are a ‘key industry driving UK growth’.
However, the desire to become a science superpower goes beyond purely economic reasons. It is about maintaining influence on the world stage.
Historically a significant world player, the UK successfully leveraged the legacy of the British Empire and its relative economic strength to maintain diplomatic influence across the 20th century. This allowed it to shape the international environment through organisations such as the Commonwealth and the United Nations Security Council. In current times, it is facing something of an identity crisis. With the world rapidly becoming more multipolar, rising powers such as Brazil, India and Nigeria threaten to surpass and supplant the UK. To maintain its position, the UK needs to play on its inherent advantages.
A confirmation of this view can be found within the UK’s 2023 Integrated Review – essentially a comprehensive document outlining the UK’s position in the world across the next 10 years – where the PM acknowledged science and technology as one of the UK’s ‘unique strengths’ and that it was ‘increasingly vital to our future’. There are several more references to utilising science to bolster the UK’s place on the world stage, most notably under one of the four key pillars setting out the ways in which the UK will achieve its international goals, ‘Generate Strategic Advantage’. Here, the review states that ‘UK’s overriding priority under this pillar remains generating strategic advantage through science and technology’.
It is also undeniable that science and technology will become increasingly important to the world we live in. Climate collapse, artificial intelligence, and population growth will all pose challenges that science can help us overcome. Yet in this, there lies yet another opportunity for the UK. By positioning itself as a world expert, the UK hopes to help guide the world and maintain its soft power.
Why is the UK well-placed to achieve this?
When politicians give speeches about science in the UK, it is common for them to dedicate at least a few words to the country’s deep intellectual heritage, conjuring misty eyed images of the industrial revolution and great minds of old such as Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle. This near cliché, while tiring, is not an exaggeration. The UK has a uniquely impressive scientific legacy.
The country is home to four of the world’s top ten universities, far outperforming similarly sized economies in terms of world-leading institutions. It has a positive reputation as well, backed up by public examples of the UK’s scientific capabilities such as the collaboration between Oxford University and AstraZeneca to develop the COVID-19 vaccine. Overall, UK scientists are among the top 2% of the world’s most cited researchers and the country is ranked 4th on the Global Innovation Index, an aggregate score that examines countries’ capacities for success and innovation.
This is to say nothing of the powerful scientific industries housed within the UK. Nestled around Cambridge, for example, sits the Cambridge Cluster – a highly concentrated region of high-tech businesses, start-ups, and scale-ups. These businesses operate across a wide range of sectors, from biotechnology to electronics, with its close proximity to Cambridge University providing a steady stream of graduates and technologies to capitalise on. This serves as an apt snapshot of the capabilities held by the UK’s life sciences ecosystem.
The UK is also growing in other scientific sectors. In a 2021 report, the UK government set out its goal to ‘build one of the most innovative and attractive space economies in the world’. Similar to its life sciences strategy, the UK plans to leverage its science and technology foundations to capitalise on a rapidly growing sector. Space is estimated to be worth £490 billion by 2030 and the government believes it is in pole position to take advantage of this. While the failed Cornwall satellite launch was undoubtedly a setback for the UK’s ambitions, the sector continues to grow.
With the strong academic foundations, growing industries, and a supportive government, you would be forgiven for thinking the UK had already achieved its goal to be a scientific superpower. However, possessing the ability to produce research does not make one a ‘science superpower’. In the words of the UK Onward Report on the UK’s ambitions to becom a science superpower, a country cannot simply create power, it must mobilise it in the national interest as well. This can be on the international stage in the form of hard or soft power, or domestically, to generate strong economic and technological benefits. It is here where the UK struggles.
“Laboratory assistant to the world”
By failing to absorb the academic output of the country, the UK risks becoming a ‘laboratory assistant to the world, capable of genius but incapable of reaping the rewards‘ according to Onward.
Why is this? A concern voiced by the life sciences industry in particular is that the UK government isn’t doing enough to provide the regulatory and physical infrastructure required to elevate the UK’s science industry to where the government wants it. Talking to the Financial Times, Alexis Dormandy, a serial start-up investor and the former chief executive of Oxford Science Enterprises, said ‘The UK is very good at building companies, the still unanswered question is whether we can build industries?’
Indeed, while the UK is effective at nurturing new start-ups and spinouts in their first ten years, all too often they are bought up by larger companies based out of the US or Asia. This is undoubtedly a ringing endorsement of the UK’s scientific capabilities, but it also begs the question, with so many start-ups, why aren’t doesn’t the UK have more billion-pound scientific businesses?
The UK’s lack of lab space crystallises this problem well. Demand for lab space is rapidly growing in the UK, but a huge portion of the current projects to construct labs are still waiting for a planning decision. Compared to the US, the UK lags far behind in terms of lab infrastructure and by failing to create a joined-up approach to every stage of science policy, the UK will only fall further behind.
A portion of the blame can also be laid at the ever-changing government priorities. Through various rearrangements of Conservative government have come speeches, whitepapers, and reports, but very little concrete policy. Furthermore, as with nearly all of the UK government, the eternally revolving door of ministers has meant unfocused and constantly changing interests. While the life sciences and space sectors have been consistently backed by policy, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and genetic modification have been picked up and dropped seemingly at the behest of current passing interest.
So, can the UK do it?
Lack of government support is a tale as old as time. In nearly every policy area, governments are more than happy to talk big but tend to stumble when delivering on results. As it stands, the infrastructure is not there to support the government’s scientific ambitions – but it doesn’t have to be this way.
The area of the UK science sector that needs fixing – nurturing and encouraging a thriving scientific industry – is easier to achieve than establishing a knowledge base. The UK’s advantage is that it can rely on its strong academic foundations and target this challenge on its own.
There is already evidence the government has realised this. Near the end of 2023, the Chancellor announced a new policy aimed at keeping scientific breakthroughs in UK hands.
As it stands, the UK is not a science superpower. It lacks the regulatory authority of the United States and the manufacturing capabilities of Germany. However, it is undeniable that it has the capabilities to become one. The government simply has to deliver assurance and consistency to scientists and investors. Rather than toing and froing, eternally tweaking tax credits and regulation, it must prove it has the ambition to create a verdant scientific ecosystem in the UK. Only then will it live up to the mighty rhetoric set out by Harold Wilson all those years ago.