Labour’s appointment of Patrick Vallance as science minister was a bit of a surprise, though fit in with the “government of all the talents” optics that the new administration was keen to go for on taking office.
There was the odd voice at the time which welcomed his deep scientific expertise but hinted that he might not possess the political chops for a ministerial role, especially as he kicked off his tenure by complaining about Brexit.
But it’s easy to forget as Chief Scientific Adviser he was thinking deeply about how the business of government gets done, as evidenced by this document from 2018 on “the implementation of industrial strategy missions”, which was quietly uploaded to the Council of Science and Technology webpages earlier this summer.
One of Vallance’s first big tasks will be to oversee the recruitment process for the next chief executive of UKRI, with incumbent Ottoline Leyser retiring next summer. An interview in the Guardian this morning announced the kicking off the process – or rather, re-kicking off, as a job search was opened under the previous Department for Science, Innovation and Technology in April.
And it looks like during the summer recess either the minister or other Labour science policy people have been going over the previous ad with a red pen, and have made a handful of interesting amendments. Here’s the old one. Here’s the new one. Let’s compare and contrast.
Out with framework, in with missions
The press release and Guardian interview were clear from the start that “supporting Labour’s missions” would form part of the role. This has so far been a policy flavour without any detail for what it means in R&D – but it’s still noticeable that all of the references to the previous government’s Science and Technology Framework have been scrubbed, as well as the mention of the “five critical technologies” accompanying it.
Labour had previously suggested that the framework would be retained as a “policy tool” supporting missions and industrial strategy – no sign of it here though. Quite what that means for UKRI’s attempts to align its own operations to the framework remains to be seen. The previous job ad stated:
We [UKRI] are entering into the third year of our five-year strategy, Transforming Tomorrow Together, which is deeply aligned with our sponsor, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology’s ambitions set out in the Science and Technology Framework.
That’s all been cut. Also gone is the term “science and technology superpower”, which had appeared in both Michelle Donelan’s foreword and the “role of the CEO” section.
The who
Previous science minister Andrew Griffith stressed the attractiveness of recruiting from “outside the academic world” for the next chief exec. An updated person specification suggests this has been tempered. We’ve gone from:
An inspirational leader who can energise and empower staff and senior leaders, with a track record of leading one or more large and complex organisations through corporate change, implementing a sustainable culture of continuous improvement.
to
An inspirational leader from either R&D intensive industries or the university and charitable research sectors, able to energise and empower staff and senior leaders, with a track record of leading one or more large, complex and diverse organisations through successful change, implementing a sustainable culture of continuous improvement.
There’s also an interesting shift in the language around executive chair appointment, which has moved from a reference to doing this in conjunction with Michelle Donelan:
Develop and lead an exceptional executive team and work with the DSIT Secretary of State to identify and recruit high quality candidates for the UKRI Executive Chairs. Support these individuals whilst holding to account for their own delivery.
to a “brightest stars” identification task:
Develop and lead an exceptional executive team, bringing the brightest stars of UK research and business to lead UKRI’s Councils, empowering them to drive their domains forward, bringing their sectors to bear on national and global challenges.
It’s tempting to over-interpret some of these changes (what does it mean that a mention of implementing the Grant review has been removed? Probably not much) but it’s important to note that the substance of the advert is unchanged. But these little tweaks are what we have to go on for now, when it comes to Labour’s position, and arguably they didn’t have to be made – someone sat down and did it.
UKRI, the organisation
Does Labour have big plans for changing how UKRI operates? Bear with me here. Under role responsibilities, we now have added “ensure that UKRI can support new forms of funding bodies.” Where did that come from?
Not once, but twice, we get an edit from (in the original) UKRI being comprised of nine component parts to (in the new version) UKRI currently being formed of the seven disciplinary research councils, Research England and Innovate UK. Should we be expecting more, or fewer?
It feels extremely premature to think that there is policy in the offing here, but the re-writing of the job advert could at least be the minister leaving the door open to things he might like to do.
Another out-of-nowhere addition to the spec is the remark that “the organisation should not seek to be homogeneous.” There’s a line to be drawn here with the remarks under Secretary of State Peter Kyle’s byline in the introduction, which also slips in a mention of varied funding models which was absent from the previous version:
UKRI needs to be a light-touch, efficient, agile, and outcome focused organisation capable of deploying a range of funding models through and across its component parts.
Securonomics and tech
Along with these revisions, there are three additions to the role description. The new chief executive will be required to ensure:
A step change in UKRI’s engagement with tech focussed company formation and growth, both through the funding and collaborations it has with universities and businesses but also through its own portfolio of Catapults, and cutting-edge institutes and facilities.
UKRI must ensure that its component funding bodies are effective and empowered to deliver what is required.
UKRI contributes effectively to the wider Government agendas of national security and resilience.
The latter is right out of the securonomics handbook, while the “step change” in engagement with tech is in keeping with the new DSIT’s lauding of all things digital. None of these additional bullet points is going to set the cat among the pigeons, but it’s noticeable that they have been dropped in, all the same.
All in all, this sprinkling of subtle revisions suggests a government, or at the very least a minister who had a front row seat to UKRI’s work under a previous administration, keeping powder dry for – possible – future moves on how the research councils are overseen and how research funding works.
