Blog29th July 2024
The General Election will already feel like a distant memory to many of us. Labour secured a majority, the Prime Minister has appointed his cabinet and the King’s speech has shone further light upon our new Government’s people-centred legislative priorities.
The dust is settling, and it will have surprised very few to have heard Rachel Reeves, Chancellor of the Exchequer, describe the inherited piggy bank as ‘not a huge amount of money’’. The Government has made it clear that boosting the UK’s economy is top of their to-do list, and they have signalled that they will, in part, be looking to our research and development (R&D) sector to identify where ideas should receive long-term funding in the hope of securing economic growth.
While technological advancements have a contribution to make as Government tackles some of our biggest problems, prioritising commercially focused scientific endeavours triggers a degree of unease among researchers and publics alike. We were reminded of this in a recent workshop exploring ethical implications of engineering biology – an area of research the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) has singled out as one for them to invest in heavily.
All of the choices we make are, at heart, ethical decisions, but they are not always transparently or explicitly so. I would like to take this opportunity to suggest how the Government could embed ethics across all policy areas, and in so doing, develop our R&D sector in a way that is fair and trusted.
First, a focus on how funding decisions are made, taking a bold approach to weigh up their benefits and harms. We all appreciate there will be difficult decisions when you’re faced with distributing limited funds. However, we need to ensure that financial pressures are not unfairly weighted. Ethical decision-making ensures social benefits, such as promoting health, equality and inclusion are also key considerations. Monetary return cannot be our highest or only value indicator for a wise investment. Engaging with a range of views and how these should be weighted up is essential to ethical decision-making.
Second, I suggest that to build a scientific community that will strengthen our ability to innovate fairly and equitably, the Government must find ways to create and support an R&D workforce that is richly diverse in its experiences and expertise, including from the humanities and social sciences. To achieve this the UK needs infrastructure capable of nurturing home talent and attracting international minds. This is why I am concerned by recent Home Office data reporting an 80% drop in international students applying to stay and work in the UK after completing their studies, and by UK work visas currently costing up to 17 times more than the average of other leading science nations. We are at risk of limiting the diversity and creativity upon which innovation depends. And our bank balance could suffer too, with Universities UK reporting international students have boosted our entire economy by £60bn since 2019.
Since taking office, Labour has reaffirmed its commitment to being mission-led and having its eye on long-term goals. They have not shied away from the hard truths, and they have been upfront about how long it could take for us to see and feel the impact of any positive changes. Robust ethical analysis that encompasses public values and priorities takes time. I feel this Government’s demonstration of patience aligns well with an ability and readiness to further embrace ethics across all policy areas.
As such, I’d like to extend an offer to Government for us to work together and develop an enhanced ethical framework for guiding how we should fund and support research and innovation for health benefit. By embedding ethics more overtly and transparently into these decisions, the inevitable trade-offs could be better navigated, and researchers and the public will likely feel a higher degree of trust in the choices made and the expected benefits that they promise.