Science secretary Liz Kendall has rejected criticism that Labour’s increased direction of research funding towards its national priorities breaches long-held conventions limiting political interference in science.

In her first major speech on science policy since becoming secretary of state for science, innovation and technology in September, Kendall told an audience at the Science Museum that while it was important that the government continued to support curiosity-driven research, which was “open-ended, unrestricted” and allowed “for scientists to follow wherever the science takes them”, there was also a “case for prioritisation” of research.

Kendall told a UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) event on 24 November that nearly a fifth of UKRI’s budget will be earmarked for research aligned with Labour’s missions, with £8 billion of its £38.6 billion budget over the next five years “targeted towards the UK’s national priorities”. 

She said this would capitalise “on areas where we already excel but could go even further, like net zero research, defence, health and our ”.

51�Թ�

At the same time £14 billion would go towards “curiosity-driven R&D”, £7 billion would “help fledgling businesses with real potential to scale up and succeed” and £7 billion would go towards science and research infrastructure, explained Kendall.

The announcement follows last month’s confirmation that UKRI will receive an above inflation increase of 4.6 per cent to £9.2 billion in 2026-27, with its budget set to rise incrementally over the decade to close to £10 billion by 2029-30. Individual allocations for research councils are expected to be unveiled next month.

51�Թ�

The division of research funding outlined by Kendall closely follows the articulated by science minister Patrick Vallance, which he has used to spell out the importance of protecting basic research.

Explaining the rationale for focusing funds on areas identified by the Industrial Strategy, Kendall invoked the success enjoyed by Team GB, which won relatively few medals at the Olympics in the 1990s but finished second globally at the 2016 Rio games.

That “turnaround” was not just about increased funding “but how exactly that money is spent,” said Kendall, describing the “‘no-compromise’ approach, where you give the most resources to the best-performing sports”.

“In other words, doing fewer things better,” she said, explaining that government can “learn from this for UK innovation”.

“We already have the top talent, the thinkers and companies who rank up there with our legendary athletes. But we know funding gets spread too thin,” she explained.

“We have got to be smarter about where we prioritise, not stretching resources trying to do everything, but the gold-medal research, focused work, that changes lives,” continued Kendall.

51�Թ�

She went on to identify priorities including “finding cures for diseases, clean, abundant energy, and innovations that drive a strong economy, where research can be applied and commercialised more easily, so that companies can grow, and our national wealth along with them”. 

To this end, the government was “doubling R&D investment in critical technologies, like engineering biology, AI and quantum, to a record £4 billion over the next four years, with R&D investment in AI alone growing from £600 million to £1.6 billion”, she explained.

51�Թ�

With ministers more explicit in where they want research funding to go, Kendall addressed the “relationship between government, politics and research”, noting the 1918 Haldane Report, which outlined the principle that “public research should be done by independent bodies with enough time to focus on an issue, not government officials, with the urgent demands of day-to-day administration”.

“The business of inquiry and thinking, the report said, should be in the hands of those whose duty it is to study the future,” she said.

However, that basic understanding missed the “important nuance” of the principle, whereby “in the 1960s and later in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher, the Haldane principle became somewhat mischaracterised as the idea that public research should be completely separate from public policy goals”.

“That all researchers should be left entirely to their own devices, doing empirical work with no strategic direction, or as some would say, no interference,” she said.

“Now there is of course a clear middle ground here,” she continued.

“If we’re smart about funding, and target the most promising areas, and if we work together in partnership: government, civil society and businesses together; we can create the same spirit of hope and optimism, based on great British ingenuity, and inspire our country for generations to come.”

51�Թ�

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com