Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, criticized the UK government’s decision to dissolve the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) and reallocate science policy to the newly formed Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (BIST). Nurse warned that housing science strictly under a business-focused ministry risks restricting its cross-cutting applications across health, defense, and the environment.
The Machinery of Government Overhaul and DSIT Dissolution
Following Andy Burnham’s ascent to UK Prime Minister in July, Downing Street executed a sweeping Machinery of Government overhaul. This restructuring dismantled the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), originally established under former Conservative Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
Under the new architecture, DSIT’s responsibilities were fragmented. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport expanded into the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Meanwhile, the core science portfolio migrated into the newly minted Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (BIST), headed by Secretary of State Jonathan Reynolds.
The administration also distributed ministerial oversight across multiple portfolios. Kanishka Narayan stepped into the Cabinet-attending role of Minister for Artificial Intelligence, operating jointly within the Cabinet Office and BIST. Chris McDonald assumed the position of Minister of State for Science, Innovation and Investment, splitting his mandate between BIST and the Department for Health and Social Care without a seat in the Cabinet.
Institutional Silos and the Business Bias
Testifying before the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Sir Paul Nurse argued that shifting science policy into a business-centric department is a major strategic misstep. Nurse, whose main research was in genetics, emphasized that scientific innovation underpins virtually every pillar of modern infrastructure.
“The future of our country depends on what science can put into all that we do. Giving it just to business — there are ways through that — is restricting just what it can do, and that is a mistake,” Nurse told MPs. He drew on historical precedents involving past iterations like the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
According to Nurse, civil servants operating inside business-oriented portfolios frequently suffer from tunnel vision. “When you talk to the civil servants, they see the big thing about their department, which is business. So every time I had to speak to them, it was always about application to particular business objectives. They couldn’t get off that,” Nurse explained. He noted that Secretary of State Jonathan Reynolds faces a sprawling remit encompassing nine distinct policy areas, with science representing only a fraction of the portfolio.
AI Policy and the Science Nexus
Nurse expressed particular concern over the administrative separation of artificial intelligence from foundational scientific research.
“I would have put science and AI together, because AI is in fact science. I don’t know why that is so neglected all the time,” Nurse stated.
Higher Education Disconnect and Long-Term Instability
The restructuring has drawn sharp critique beyond the Royal Society. Alicia Greated, executive director for the Campaign for Science and Engineering, highlighted a critical structural gap during her testimony before the Committee: the total institutional disconnect between the science apparatus and the Department for Education, which retains jurisdiction over universities and higher education.
“That connection is extremely important. Our members are asking for stability, whether it’s in funding, strategy or policy. We need to be thinking more long term. A lot of the objectives of the current departmental priorities are going to be quite short term,” Greated warned.
Greated also articulated deep apprehension regarding the potential deprioritization of basic research. She emphasized that maintaining a robust national innovation pipeline requires sustained investment spanning fundamental research and development, physical infrastructure, specialized human capital, and early-stage academic ideas.
Government Defense of the Re-Wire
Defending the structural reorganization, ministers from the Cabinet Office, BIST, and DCMS submitted a joint letter to the Science and Technology Committee outlining the rationale behind the changes.
“The Prime Minister has made a number of changes to the Machinery of Government to rewire the state to deliver a stronger, more strategic center which acts as the engine room for driving economic growth across the whole country,” the ministerial letter stated.
The communication maintained that transforming how the state approaches science, innovation, and technology reflects a critical historical juncture. In the government’s view, unprecedented global shifts require consolidating resources to secure the UK’s standing as a competitive global player in artificial intelligence and deep tech. Ministers asserted that treating science as an isolated domain restricted to a single vertical ministry is no longer viable in an interconnected technological economy.
