The president of the Royal Society has publicly criticized the UK government's decision to relocate science policy from a dedicated technology-focused department into the business ministry, calling it "actually quite a big mistake." In testimony this week before Members of Parliament, Sir Paul Nurse condemned the July reorganization that dismantled the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and scattered its duties across other ministries. The restructuring followed Andy Burnham's appointment as Prime Minister and has sparked concern among scientific leaders about whether research will be sidelined in favor of immediate commercial priorities.
After the government abolished the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—which former Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak had created—science responsibilities moved to the newly formed Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, with Jonathan Reynolds named as Secretary of State. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport gained "Digital" in its title to become DCMS. Kanishka Narayan received a Cabinet-attending position as Minister for Artificial Intelligence, splitting time between the Cabinet Office and BIST, while Chris McDonald was appointed Minister of State for Science, Innovation and Investment without Cabinet status, working jointly across BIST and the Department for Health and Social Care. Reynolds now oversees nine policy areas, only one of which concerns science.
Speaking to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Nurse argued that science intersects with business, health, defense, transport, energy, and the environment, warning that "giving it just to business...is restricting just what it can do." The genetics researcher emphasized that "AI is in fact science" and shouldn't be separated from scientific research, noting that artificial intelligence extends beyond "large language models and rushing after big databases" to include fostering creativity in research and developing suitable technologies. Alicia Greated, executive director for the Campaign for Science and Engineering, told MPs she worried about a "deprioritization" of basic research and highlighted the absence of any formal government link between science and the Department for Education, which controls universities and higher education.
Nurse's criticism drew on past experience with similar departmental arrangements, pointing to civil servants who consistently framed discussions around "application to particular business objectives" during previous iterations like the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. According to the Royal Society president, bureaucrats viewed business as "the big thing about their department" and couldn't shift away from that lens. Greated emphasized that researchers need "stability, whether it's in funding, strategy or policy" and urged longer-term thinking, expressing concern that current departmental priorities would drive short-term goals at the expense of "the skills...the infrastructure...the ideas that feed into our whole innovation pipeline."
In a written response to the Committee, ministers from the Cabinet Office, BIST and DCMS defended the changes as necessary to "rewire the state to deliver a stronger, more strategic center" driving economic growth nationwide. The government stated that "unprecedented global changes demand that we secure our position as a world leader in AI, science and technology" and argued that science and technology can't be treated as "an isolated issue, limited to one department." The Prime Minister's machinery-of-government reforms aim to transform how the UK approaches science, innovation, and technology at what officials described as a critical juncture. For departments that traditionally prioritize quarterly results and regulatory compliance, the challenge will be carving out space for foundational work whose payoff may not materialize for years—and convincing ministers that both timelines deserve equal weight.