Dr Stuart Parkinson, SGR, highlights a range of problems with current science policies, and suggests ways in which they could better contribute to tackling the polycrisis and meeting social and environmental goals.

Article from Responsible Science journal No. 6 (2024). Published online 7 January 2025.

Science and technology have a huge potential to help solve many of the problems facing society – from poverty to environmental crises to war – but too often they are harnessed in ways that actually make matters worse. Researchers and analysts, including Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR), have highlighted two critical elements in science policy:^[1]

• a narrow focus on commercialisation, especially to stimulate growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP); and 
• a narrow focus on technological options or ‘technofixes’. 

This article identifies some of the most important structural factors which determine whether science and technology are used for these two narrow ends, or for broader, more positive outcomes such as peace, social justice, and environmental sustainability. To do this, I introduce two concepts – ‘corporate science’ and ‘responsible science’ – to illustrate the key factors. Then I use these to assess recent developments in UK science and technology policy, highlighting key problems and suggesting potential solutions.

Defining corporate science and responsible science

Some key attributes of the science and technology landscape are listed in Table 1, which also shows how these are reflected in a corporate science world, or one focused on responsible science. Clearly illustrated is the narrow focus within corporate science on commercialism and technofixes, and the broader focus of responsible science. Some authors use terms such as ‘public science’ or ‘science for the public good’ to label what I have called responsible science.

Table 1. Comparison of attributes of corporate science and responsible science ^[2]

How far is the UK down the corporate science path?

Arguably, the simplest indicator of the degree to which the corporate science paradigm influences a nation is the percentage of research and development (R&D) funding which is sourced from business. In the UK, of the £66.2bn spent in 2021, 59 percent was provided by business.^[4] A further 11 percent was classified as ‘overseas’, most of which is thought to originate from business as well. So the influence of the commercial sector in the UK is much larger than either the public sector (28 percent of the funding) or civil society, in the form of charitable trusts (3 percent).

There have also been a range of government policies in recent years which have pushed Britain further down the corporate science road. For example, in 2013, the Witty Review^[5] was very influential in defining the ‘third mission’ of universities, especially in advocating for greater priority to be given to economic growth. The 2017 Higher Education and Research Act used these ideas to introduce greater ‘marketisation’ into the university setting.^[6]

Meanwhile, deregulation of the science and technology sectors was a key motivation for some Brexit advocates. Key amongst post-Brexit science initiatives was the setting up of the new Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA).^[7] With a hefty initial budget of £800 million, this was established outside of the usual public science funding mechanisms to generate “transformative technological change” and help fuel “economic growth for generations to come”. Based on US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency – and exempt from the Freedom of Information Act – the potential for this shadowy organisation to develop new technologies without due concern for social and environmental impacts is substantial.

At the same time, Brexit is leading to an erosion of legal protections for people and the environment,^[8] which could be exploited by corporations developing risky technologies. Safeguards like the precautionary principle and the polluters pays principle have already been downgraded in their legal scope.^[9]

Other disturbing factors include the continuing financial links between the fossil fuel industry and universities, and the major rise in military R&D spending funded by cuts to the budgets for Britain’s foreign aid R&D and basic research.^[10]

The government’s latest policies for this area are summarised in the UK Science and Technology Framework 2023.^[11] This document is short on detail, but reiterates two cornerstones of the corporate science paradigm: an emphasis on economic growth; and a ‘pro-innovation’ regulatory system. It also identifies five ‘critical technologies’ for ‘strategic advantage’: artificial intelligence; engineering biology; telecommunications; semiconductors; and quantum technology. It does include some elements consistent with a responsible science agenda – such as the need to contribute to health, sustainable environment, and levelling up – but there is no specific mention of key issues such as climate change or the Sustainable Development Goals, which calls into question the government’s commitment to social and environmental justice.

It remains to be seen the extent to which the new Labour government will change course.

Challenging the corporate science agenda

There have been some positive developments in recent years in challenging the corporate science agenda in the UK. In the mid-2010s, some of the government’s proposals for greater commercialisation of universities were scaled back following pressure from the Science is Vital campaign and the Campaign for the Public University^[12] (which SGR supported).

Other positive developments have included some universities, professional science bodies, and academic publishers reducing their financial links with the fossil fuel industry. Campaign groups active in this area include People and Planet, Fossil Free Research, and SGR.^[13] Meanwhile, many academic publications now have much stricter rules on financial conflicts of interest, and more open source journals are available, helping the public to access research findings on key issues without having to pay large fees. Furthermore, the debate over the third mission of the university does seem to be helping boost the standing of research with social and environmental benefits more generally.

However, the corporate science paradigm still remains dominant. One remedy would be to change the balance of public and corporate R&D spending through, for example, redirecting military budgets to environmental and social goals. Another proposal that SGR has put forward is the idea of an ‘Office for Scientific Responsibility’ within government policy-making.^[14] This could operate in similar ways to the Office for Budget Responsibility – which scrutinises government budget plans – or the Office for Statistics Regulation – which inspects government statistics.

The Office for Scientific Responsibility could assess government plans for their consistency with scientific advice on, for example, health or environmental goals. This could, if implemented well, challenge the narrow and unscientific focus on GDP growth and technofixes as the principle drivers for science and technology.

Dr Stuart Parkinson is Executive Director of SGR. He has written widely on science policy issues, including co-authoring the reports, Behind Closed Doors and Science and the Corporate Agenda.

Image by Gerd Altmann via Pixabay.

References and notes

[1] See, for example:

Krimsky S (2003). Science in the private interest: has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? Rowman and Littlefield Publishers;

Washburn J (2006). University, Inc: the corporate corruption of higher education. Basic Books;

Langley C, Parkinson S, Webber P (2008). Behind closed doors: military influence, commercial pressures and the compromised university. SGR.  https://www.sgr.org.uk/publications/behind-closed-doors;

Langley C, Parkinson S (2009). Science and the corporate agenda: the detrimental effects of commercial influence on science and technology. SGR. https://www.sgr.org.uk/publications/science-and-corporate-agenda;

Oreskes N, Conway E (2011). Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to climate change. Bloomsbury Publishing;

Huesemann M, Huesemann J (2011). Technofix: why technology won’t save us or the environment. New Society Publishers. 

[2] Derived from sources listed in note 1.

[3] Historically, universities have had two ‘missions’ – education and research. Since late 1980s, there have been moves to explicitly incorporate a ‘third mission’, a ‘contribution to society’. This has increasingly been defined in economic terms, in particular, GDP growth. For more detail of this debate, see e.g.: Compagnucci L, Spigarelli F (2020). The Third Mission of the university: A systematic literature review on potentials and constraints. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol.161, 120284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120284 

[4] Office for National Statistics (2023a). UK gross domestic expenditure on research and development, 2021. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/researchanddevelopmentexpenditure/datasets/ukgrossdomesticexpenditureonresearchanddevelopment2021designatedasofficialstatistics 

[5] Witty A (2013). Sir Andrew Witty’s Review of Universities and Growth. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/249720/bis-13-1241-encouraging-a-british-invention-revolution-andrew-witty-review-R1.pdf

[6] Holmwood J (2016). Universities, democracy and science: The challenge of the new neo-liberal knowledge regime. https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/universities-democracy-and-science ; Wikipedia (2023). Higher Education and Research Act 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Education_and_Research_Act_2017 

[7] HM Government (2021). ARIA: policy statement. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advanced-research-and-invention-agency-aria-statement-of-policy-intent/advanced-research-and-invention-agency-aria-policy-statement See also: HM Government (2023). ARIA. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/advanced-research-and-invention-agency 

[8] See, for example: The Guardian (2024). Brexit divergence from EU destroying UK’s vital environmental protections. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/19/brexit-divergence-from-eu-destroying-vital-environmental-protections

[9] Tattersdill E (2023). Personal communication, 12 October. Bexley Beaumont Limited. 

[10] In 2021, UK military R&D spending rose to £1.8bn, a rise of nearly £800m in real terms, while R&D spending by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office was cut by £300m, and the basic research budget (UK Research & Innovation) was cut by £600m. Table 2 of: Office for National Statistics (2023b). Research and development expenditure by the UK government: 2021.  https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/researchanddevel

[11] Dept of Science, Innovation and Technology (2023). UK Science and Technology Framework. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-science-and-technology-framework

[12] As note [6]

[13] For more information of SGR’s work in this area, see: https://www.sgr.org.uk/projects/corporate-influence-project-main-outputs 

[14] Simms A, Webber P (2023). Do we need an Office for Science Responsibility? https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/do-we-need-office-science-responsibility