The UK needs more ambitious science investment to build on Covid achievements

One of the few bright spots of the coronavirus pandemic has been a flourishing of scientific innovation. British science has been at the heart of this – and in his budget, Rishi Sunak is expected to pay tribute to its role and paint a picture of a “future economy” characterised by nimble scientific entrepreneurs, making use of “the agility we will have as we leave the EU”. ^[1]

The vision is appealing – particularly for a government that sees science and innovation as central to its mission. But converting Covid successes into longer-term economic growth will not be easy.

British science has had some big successes in the pandemic

UK science has chalked up an impressive list of achievements, from identifying Covid treatments which have saved hundreds of thousands of lives to sequencing the genomes of the virus’s variants, creating some of the world’s largest and most revealing patient studies and developing a cheap and effective vaccine that is being deployed globally.

The Economist last week, arguing that UK science had “come to the rescue”, put this down to the potent combination of “elite institutions, streamlined regulation and big datasets”. ^[2] The UK has particular strength in life sciences concentrated in a handful of places; UK regulators also proved willing to act more quickly than counterparts in Europe and the US.

The decision to delay to the second dose – a policy once questioned but now endorsed by the World Health Organization – showed a nimbleness and willingness to take risks.

Those involved say that you cannot draw boundaries around or attach flags to modern scientific achievements. UK institutions are staffed by scientists from around the world, and one of the remarkable changes during Covid has been the acceleration of scientific collaboration, from the huge proliferation of “pre-prints” (papers that are shared before they have been peer-reviewed) to the sharing of information between vaccine manufacturers. Nevertheless, the UK has punched above its weight.

But the UK has long suffered from a lack of research investment

However, the UK’s narrow strength in biomedical sciences and pharmaceuticals disguise wider problems. As Richard Jones of Sheffield University has argued, while the UK has top scientists in academia (often measured by Nobel prizes), it has long suffered from relatively low levels of R&D (in both the public and private sector), weak translational and industrial R&D, and excessive concentration in already prosperous parts of the country. ^[3]

The dominance of life sciences and a small number of elite institutions may have helped the UK respond to Covid-19 – but they long been seen as problems for boosting the role of science and innovation across the economy, starving other sectors and regions of the country of funding. ^[4] The government may like to see science as core to its ambitions – whether on regional inequality or net zero – but it has yet to set out compelling vision of the role it will play.

The UK also struggles to turn academic excellence into innovative companies (though the reasons for this are debated). For all the Oxford vaccine’s success, it is notable that the UK’s effort to create an RNA vaccine – a new technology many believe will be truly transformative – failed. Instead, that advance was achieved by Moderna in the US and Pfizer-BioNTech in Germany, helped by decades of reliable financial backing.

Covid successes are unlikely to provide a template for “levelling up”

The government has made some positive steps. In his first budget, Sunak announced a large increase in government  R&D spending from £9bn a year to £22bn by 2024-25. There will be a new Advanced Research and Innovation Agency to fund blue skies research – though it looks small in scale and its purpose remains unclear. ^[5] An R&D Roadmap last year offered some initial plans, with more due after a consultation. In this budget Sunak is expected to announce a “fast-track visa” to help companies secure high-skilled workers.

But the problems the government is trying to address are ingrained. As well as a focus on transport and institutions, the ambition to “level up” will require patient work to boost capacity and public and private R&D investment in the regions, tailored around local strengths. It is not clear how much life sciences – which comprise a tiny share of the economy and employment – provides a template.

There are other headwinds, too. A ‘fast-track visa’ may help to staff some innovative companies, but universities may see it as small compensation against the new and ongoing uncertainties about research collaboration with the EU and the relatively restrictive immigration status of students after they complete their studies.

The government’s manifesto talked about the UK’s “extraordinary advantages” in science – and made better utilising them central to its purpose. The attraction of a more science-based economy, as the UK looks for a role after double hit of Brexit and Covid, is obvious. But while British science may have “come to the rescue” in this crisis, the government still has work to do to explain how science will help it to achieve its other missions.