Government and academia: Advisory groups

This is one of five deep dives into mechanisms UK central government uses to engage with researchers. The deep dives are accompanied by a report looking at the big picture of how government can improve its approach to researcher engagement. 

These outputs build on past Institute research on how government can work better with academia, and the IfG Academy’s work in supporting academics seeking to engage with policy makers.

Advisory groups and committees are frequently changing structures

There is a wide variety of advisory groups across government. Departments seeking to minimise costs often rely on internal analytical capabilities– rather than commissioning new research from external experts – and lean on advisory groups as a cost-effective way to bring expertise and challenge in-house.

But advisory bodies are often in flux and can be reshaped, disbanded or absorbed as government structures, strategies and policy priorities change. For instance, the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), launched in 2018 with ambitions for statutory status, became the Responsible Technology Adoption Unit under the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) in 2024, and in 2025 it was folded into DSIT and the Government Digital Service. ⁸⁰ Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, ‘Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation’, (no date) retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/centre-for-data-ethics-and-innovation  The AI Council, set up in 2019, stopped meeting in 2023 as DSIT shifted to more ad-hoc expert advice. ⁸¹ Department of Science, Innovation and Technology, ‘UK AI Council: hybrid meeting’, 21 June 2023, retrieved 1 July 2026, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1168333/ai-council-meeting-minutes-21-june-2023.pdf; GOV.UK, ‘Leading experts appointed to AI Council to supercharge the UK’s artificial intelligence sector’, press release, 16 May 2019, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/news/leading-experts-appointed-to-ai-council-to-supercharge-the-uks-artificial-intelligence-sector  The Levelling Up Advisory Committee, created in 2022, also ceased under the Labour government, with the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) taking expert engagement forward. ⁸² Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, ‘About this blog’, (no date) retrieved 16 June 2026, https://levellingupadvisorycouncil.blog.gov.uk/about-this-blog; Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, ‘Levelling Up Advisory Council’, (no date) retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/groups/levelling-up-advisory-council

In other cases, advisory groups have been expanded or placed on firmer footing. The Trade and Agriculture Commission, created in 2020 as a non statutory body, ⁸³ Department for International Trade, ‘Trade and Agriculture Commission (TAC) (2020–2021)’, 20 August 2020, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/trade-and-agriculture-commission-tac  was replaced by a new statutory commission under the Trade Act 2021 to scrutinise new free trade agreements. ⁸⁴ Department for Business and Trade, ‘Trade and Agriculture Commission’, (no date) retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/trade-and-agriculture-commission; UK Parliament, ‘Trade Act 2021’, 2021, retrieved 1 July 2026, www.legislation.gov.uk/en/ukpga/2021/10/part/3/enacted  The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 similarly set up the Animal Sentience Committee with statutory powers. ⁸⁵ Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Animal Sentience Committee: Terms of reference, 2023, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/650052d557278000142519c7/Animal_Sentience_Committee_Terms_of_Reference_Final_September_2023_PDF.pdf  And the Home Office’s advisory non-departmental public body – formerly the Biometrics and Forensics Ethic Group – was renamed the Science and Technology Ethics Advisory Committee in 2025 to reflect its wider remit and is reviewing its terms of reference. ⁸⁶ Science and Technology Ethics Advisory Committee, ‘Home Office Ethics Committee renamed to reflect broader focus’, GOV.UK, 3 October 2025, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/news/home-office-ethics-committee-renamed-to-reflect-broader-focus

A newer model is the ‘college of experts’, which by mid-2026 five central departments had adopted. Beyond these Colleges established at department-level, Colleges of Experts have also been set up by Government Skills under the Cabinet Office and by public bodies such as the Office for Environmental Protection. ⁸⁷ Cabinet Office, ‘Government Skills College of Experts’, (no date) retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/groups/government-skills-college-of-experts ; Office for Environmental Protection, ‘OEP appoints first members to its College of Experts’, (no date) retrieved 16 June 2026, www.theoep.org.uk/news/oep-appoints-first-members-its-college-experts  At a cross-government level, the Evaluation Task Force – a joint Cabinet Office and HM Treasury unit established in 2021 – combines dedicated staff with departmental representatives and external expertise, including academics, through its Evaluation and Trial Advice Panel to support policy evaluation across government. ⁸⁸ Cabinet Office, ‘Evaluation Task Force: About us’, GOV.UK, (no date) retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/evaluation-task-force/about

Advisory groups are therefore being used more frequently in recent years and are often reshaped to meet policy pressures. Reform is sensible where structures no longer serve departmental objectives, but constant reorganisation carries costs: churn makes recruitment and retention harder, prevents bodies from bedding in and reduces the uptake of advice across teams. The aim should be targeted reform when needed and stability where structures are working. Where standing bodies meet policy needs, government should strengthen them, whether through statutory footing or affording them greater prominence in the system.

There is no one-size-fits-all model for advisory councils that will work for all departments

Experts on advisory groups can be called upon to perform a range of tasks, depending on the model implemented. For example, Science Advisory Councils typically perform a strategic role across their organising department’s remit. Science Advisory Committees, on the other hand, have a narrower role of scrutinising departmental data and processes, testing policy recommendations and providing science-based advice on a specific topic or issue. ⁹⁴ Government Office for Science, Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees and Councils (CoPSAC) 2021, 2021, retrieved 25 June 2026 www.gov.uk/government/publications/scientific-advisory-committees-code-of-practice/code-of-practice-for-scientific-advisory-committees-and-councils-c…  Advisory groups vary by department and context, with mandates ranging from narrow and technical to broad and strategic.

Many departments maintain standing advisory groups or colleges of experts, consulted through regular meetings or more flexible engagement. Advisory groups can also be project-specific: in 2024, HM Treasury and the Bank of England created a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) Academic Advisory Group – an exclusively academic, multidisciplinary network – to support work on the digital pound. ⁹⁵ Bank of England, ‘CBDC Academic Advisory Group’, 21 November 2025, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.bankofengland.co.uk/the-digital-pound/cbdc-academic-advisory-group; Hall I, ‘UK authorities tap into academia for central bank digital currency advice’, Global Government Finance, 2 January 2024, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.globalgovernmentfinance.com/uk-authorities-tap-into-academia-for-central-bank-digital-currency-advice  Others are context-specific: COBR convenes the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) during emergencies, with membership tailored to the event in question. During Covid, the government chief scientific adviser drew on expertise in public health, virology, epidemiological modelling, paediatrics and behavioural science. ⁹⁶ Government Office for Science, ‘List of participants of SAGE and related sub-groups’, GOV.UK, (no date) retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage-coronavirus-covid-19-response-membership/list-of-participants-of-sa…  SAGE also relies on standing groups such as the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M) and the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP), both funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, as well as ad-hoc groups such as the Independent Scientific Pandemic Influenza group on Behaviours (SPI-B). ⁹⁷ Nice A, ‘Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE)’, Institute for Government, 31 March 2020, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/scientific-advisory-group-emergencies-sage  These illustrate some of the types of advisory arrangements used under different conditions.

Departments should tailor advisory arrangements to their own needs and incentives. Clarifying a body’s role – whether horizon scanning or providing rapid evidence, expert policy advice or scrutiny – and distinguishing it from other mechanisms and internal functions will strengthen its contribution to policy making. For many departments, formal scientific advisory groups, or combinations of advisory groups, are the most suitable model. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), for example, supplements its Science Advisory Council with specialist groups such as the Air Quality Expert Group and the Expert Group on Organic Production, and can establish time-limited subgroups for rapid policy making or more in-depth thematic work. ⁹⁸ Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, ‘Defra’s Science Advisory Council’, (no date) retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/organisations/science-advisory-council  For other departments, the college of experts offers a promising model, showing that openly recruited rosters can quickly plug external evidence and specialist advice into policy work.

There is growing diversity and flexibility in engagement within advisory structures, advanced by the rise of the college of experts model 

The college of experts model consists of a standing group whose members can be called on to provide expertise in their specialist areas. As scientific advisory groups continue to grow, and especially with the rise of the college of experts model, opportunities are widening for a broader range of contributors, including a wider range of academics.

For instance, the model’s flexibility supports recruitment from a wider range of geographies and institutions: as part of their recruitment drive, DSIT, MHCLG, the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) encouraged applications from across the UK’s nations and regions and emphasised primarily remote engagement, such as Teams meetings and reviewing papers, with travel covered in exceptional cases. DSIT has also explicitly recruited for a broad, interdisciplinary college with experts spanning science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), the social and behavioural sciences, and the humanities. This broader, more inclusive approach should strengthen the relevance, legitimacy and quality of academic input by better reflecting the UK’s research landscape.

Another advantage of this model is its adaptability to departmental needs. According to publicly available information on the government website, DSIT, DCMS and now DBT run unpaid colleges of experts with dynamic engagement, typically up to five days a year. By contrast, DfT and MHCLG adopted a model of assigning ad-hoc contractual projects of up to 30 days (or longer by request), with DfT offering a £300 day rate for appointed academics. ⁹⁹ Department for Transport, ‘Applications for membership of the Department for Transport’s college of experts: information pack’, April 2023, https://careers.dft.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/DfT-CoE-Recruitment-Information-Pack.pdf  For more intensive engagements, payment recognises expertise and time, making participation more feasible alongside teaching, research and administrative responsibilities for academics.

Regardless of the model, departments should prioritise disciplinary diversity and enable remote participation to widen geographic and institutional representation. Advisory groups should also include a mix of seniority, avoiding over reliance on senior researchers and an overly narrow emphasis on publications and traditional academic credentials. Departments building a pipeline of early career researchers could help build future capacity further.

Senior sponsorship is key to making advisory bodies a success

GO-Science guidance for CSAs explicitly assigns them “oversight of the effective operation of departmental Scientific Advisory Committees and Councils or College of Experts”. ¹⁰⁴ Government Office for Science, ‘Guidance for government chief scientific advisers and their officials’, GOV.UK, last updated 13 March 2025, retrieved 16 June 2026, www.gov.uk/government/publications/chief-scientific-advisers-and-their-officials/guidance-for-government-chief-scientific-advisers-and-their-officials  Most central government colleges of experts operate under a more direct ownership model, with the CSA team managing communications and activities, and membership often aligning with CSA terms. This helps departments assemble the right cohort and clarify responsibilities. One of the departments we spoke to, for example, has set up a system assigning civil servants dedicated responsibility for managing its college of experts. Its CSA team also runs monthly in-conversation sessions to embed experts in the department.

Depending on the model, ownership does not need to sit with the CSA. Departments should nonetheless define clear leadership and management roles, and set short- to medium-term engagement plans to ensure continuity. Besides having a dedicated point of contact, it is useful to have people with cross-cutting knowledge who can track wider debates and make sure high-quality, policy-relevant research reaches the department. For standing bodies, this can also help ensure established routes into decision making, with outputs channelled through proper governance processes and clear guidance on: 

• who the advisory council advises 
• how disagreements are recorded 
• how recommendations are submitted 
• how actions are tracked.