Summary

• The UK needs a Civil Service that is better equipped to deliver the new government’s ambitious policy agenda and to support us in governing the country.
• A key issue that must be addressed in order to achieve this is the capacity, capability and understanding of science and technology (S&T) within HM Government.
• It is notable that, globally, the governments most capable of realising their vision have the scientific and technological skills to hand. Singapore is the most well-known of these.
• An effective Civil Service is a prerequisite to economic growth. 
• At the moment, though the UK possesses a well-developed 'Policy Profession' within government, it is critically under-strength in S&T at all levels. Addressing this shortfall, and ultimately tipping the Civil Service away from a reliance upon 'generalists', is a long-term agenda, but here we identify a portfolio of 10 simple interventions and initiatives that will make an immediate difference.
• These actions do not require significant resources, simply organisation and collective will. We can draw on UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), the National Academies, universities, professional organisations and industry for support.
• The quicker we get this underway, the earlier we will have the capability we need.

Challenge and Opportunity

 Each of the government’s missions is characterised by 'systems complexity' and incomplete evidence bases. Each is profoundly impacted by the potential of, and the risks associated with, technology.

S&T capability is required to:

• develop evidence based policy
• build policy for, and regulate, technology
• support growth and prosperity
• secure for the UK 'strategic advantage' in S&T
• underpin UK defence and national security
• support the resilience of complex societal systems - “securonomics”
• contribute to the transformation of health delivery
• implement the 'green agenda'
• spot ‘emerging’ technologies and sectors

Additionally, S&T skills are required to enable the technological and digital step-up that government must make, securing both efficiency and effectiveness.

Finally, the 'tech industry' has developed a repertoire of methods and approaches that are badly needed to allow government to innovate at pace and create impact at scale.

If we get the right skills and approaches in place we will:

• reduce risk in policy development and implementation
• get the right advice early
• understand the complex interactions and trade offs associated with systems change
• make good decisions about the use of technology to power our agenda.

We should acknowledge that there are some assets that can be built on.

The 'Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA)' system is overall extraordinarily successful, and is globally admired. It places senior scientists, from outside government,  in positions of influence within government departments. At its best it is highly effective, but some departments are substantially better at using the capability than others. Many under-resource their own science programmes, and under-empower their CSAs. Practice could be improved. This being said CSAs, suitably equipped, can provide the leadership to support the plan of action outlined below.

The PSREs (Public Sector Research Establishments) have a substantial scientific capacity. They provide much of the operational capability to the government and possess valuable skills. At their best they possess world-leading capabilities. They face significant challenges however, in attracting and retaining talent and in integration with the broader UK science base. They are often held at arm's length from the policy agenda and the quality of the relationship with their principal Department can vary.

Finally, there have been a plethora of actions - fellowships, professional frameworks, policy engagements with universities and research institutes, and similar. Each of these has had merits, but in a Civil Service system that finds it difficult to sustain initiatives, they are often under-funded, and not sustained to the point where benefits could show. Furthermore, they are rarely undertaken with a ‘whole of government’ approach, thus it is difficult for successful approaches to diffuse.

In all the references to S&T in this proposal we take an inclusive view that embraces the quantitative and analytical social sciences, and very particularly the behavioural sciences. The ways in which other disciplines including the humanities, history being a case in point, are leveraged by government merits a separate consideration. It is notable that there is no ‘champion’ for the intellectual and practical contributions of these disciplines within government.

It is a key principle of the plan that follows that this is not simply about more S&T in government but about optimising the relationships between S&T talent, the broader ecosystem and policy professionals.

The plan of action set out below is based on discussions with a broad range of stakeholders. Because we are believers in ‘metascience’ and, naturally enough evidence, we are strong believers in the fact that we should be devoting more effort to the systematic study of the conduct and application of government S&T. Much of this work has, to date, been concerned either with the critical social study of government S&T or with narrower assessment of particular policy interventions, more and better is needed.

Plan of Action

What follows is a 10-point plan of action. It is listed in rough order of priority, though there are opportunities to accelerate this, many of these actions can be undertaken in parallel. 

1. S&T will not make an impact on policy, or be used to its full potential within government without first ensuring that a cadre of policy professionals are trained to be good 'customers' for that capability.

Develop training programmes to provide familiarity with science and technology concepts and methods for ‘non-scientists’. Equip them with basic S&T literacy so that they can commission it within the policy process. Provide them with the basic tools to assess scientific evidence. Understand the practical limits of their knowledge and know how to engage with scientists to collectively enhance this assessment.

2. The National Academies (principally the Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering and the British Academy) have exceptional networks and convening power. They have developed strong policy capabilities and have demonstrated the capacity to build programmes and secure diverse views. They are an accessible and trusted source of S&T knowledge.

Build an enhanced engagement with the National Academies, that will include an accelerated commissioning process, and a scheme of 'embeds' of government policy professionals within their policy units.

3. The response to the pandemic demonstrated that the S&T research and innovation ecosystem can deliver studies, and develop solutions at pace. It is however, outside an emergency, difficult to reproduce this and access this support.

Develop a single cross-government 'fast-response advice' scheme that will allow Departments to very rapidly commission scientific and technical advice from pre-qualified suppliers, using UKRI and the CSAs as brokers.

4. There are a range of Policy and Innovation ‘Fellowship’ schemes of different kinds provided by UKRI and others, aimed at bringing S&T talent into government. These schemes are under-powered and are often tied to a specific proposal. For the most part the schemes attract early-career stage participants however, balancing this with mid- and later- stage fellows might yield enhanced benefits. These sorts of schemes not only bring skills into government, but make researchers better at providing advice and achieving 'impact'. The process of people exchange is a virtuous circle: (a) it improves government's absorptive capacity for advice, and (b) it increases researchers' ability to provide advice that is actually useful.

Power-up the schemes provided by UKRI. These Fellowships will be based on talent and potential to contribute rather than fixed programmes. We advocate for an approach structured around missions. The mission provides a motivation for participants to commit to policy engagement. We should recognise the ‘career risks’ associated with stepping out of the perceived ‘academic mainstream’ and take deliberate steps to mitigate them.

5. It is a commonplace that the Civil Service would benefit from increased mobility with individuals moving in and out of government for periods. This is currently largely ad-hoc rather than strategic. S&T in particular, demands that skills are constantly updated and that there is exposure to cutting-edge technology and methods.

Develop a consistent and managed scheme to support industry and university secondments for Civil Servants to ensure S&T skills and knowledge are kept sharp and enhanced through engagement with the cutting edge. Broader professional networks that span beyond government are also important. It is very important to make sure that the costs of secondments are not borne by the immediate team

6. There have been positive efforts to recruit ‘fast-stream’ talent with an S&T background into the Civil Service. These efforts must be continued. Unfortunately however, simply recruiting individuals with science-based degrees, whilst useful, will not make much of a difference unless their S&T skills are extended and embedded and that there is a platform to ensure that this is sustained.

Extend the recruitment scheme to bring scientific and technologically qualified candidates into the fast-stream. Develop career paths to ensure their skills and exposure to S&T is continuing, including substantial placements in technical roles within PSREs and other government technical organisations. This will additionally ensure that the best talent is attracted to government.

7. There is a great deal of S&T talent - oriented to impact - within the UK early-stage start-up community. Engagement with this community, and access by government to this talent pool is piecemeal. There is a mutual interest in extending the familiarity within the innovation and venture ecosystems with government challenges.

Use government innovation units, accelerators and strategic venture vehicles to extend governments connection to the innovation and venture ecosystems with a talent lens. Explicitly target talent from within this community through innovation placements.

8. Science Advisory Committees (SACs) are a key part of the government S&T architecture, though their critical work, principally testing policy, delivering assurance and holding CSAs to account, is less well known. They mostly however comprise established scientists with long-standing policy connections. They have the potential to be a key part of the talent pipeline for government and increase the breadth of government’s expert S&T network.

Develop 'shadow' Science Advisory Committees (SACs) with 'associates' drawn from early career scientists and technologists who can learn about policy and implementation challenges and build connections with teams within government.

9. There are still deep problems with the grading and career structure for S&T within government. Whilst there are reasonable arrangements for market-based pay, expertise is not fully recognised within the schemes for career progression. It should be possible to advance through a parallel grade hierarchy by virtue of strategic expertise.

Commission and empower a review of the promotion and grading structures as they apply to S&T roles within government. This should include pay progression in specialist roles.

10. In line with the ‘securonomics’ policy imperative to develop UK resilience, it is vitally important that we maintain in the UK a pipeline of UK talent in areas where we are required to retain ‘sovereign’ capabilities, particularly (but not exclusively) associated with defence and national security. It may be necessary to strategically manage residual capability on topics that are relatively ‘niche’ and that, absent some intervention, will not provide sustained access to critical skills.

Commission a review of the UK science capacity - and specifically the supply of skilled and appropriately qualified UK nationals in key ‘sovereign’ areas required by government.

FAQs

How much would this Action Plan proposal cost?

It is difficult to give a precise estimate, but these are generally modest suggestions that leverage existing capacity. Some could be done without resources, others through reallocation of effort. A ‘back of the envelope' estimate that an initial 3-year programme based round this Action Plan could be initiated for £22m. This assumes that changes in the grade structures are cost-neutral and that secondments can be co-funded.

Are there any international comparisons or precedents that we can build on?

Singapore's civil service is at the forefront of leveraging S&T to enhance governance and public service delivery. It has created an efficient, responsive, and resilient public sector. Whilst Singapore’s ‘technocratic’ model is rooted in a very different political culture and system, the fact that a large proportion of their senior civil service has been educated in S&T is a big contributor to what has made for their economic achievements.

There are some interesting models in the US system that are worthy of note and might specifically enhance the Action Plan above. Of particular interest are as follows. The Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) Mobility Program in which academics may be eligible to serve as ‘detailees’ to federal agencies for up to 2 years, with the possibility of extensions. Participants remain employed by their home organisation but work on assignment at the host agency. Schedule A(r) - Excepted Service appointments that are exempt from the traditional competitive hiring process, and in which, agencies have flexibility in filling positions to meet specific workforce needs. Special Government Employee (SGE) scheme in which federal agencies may appoint individuals with specialised expertise on a temporary basis to serve as advisors, consultants, or members of advisory committees. These are typically part-time or intermittent, allowing individuals to maintain their primary employment or academic affiliation while serving in an advisory capacity to government.

Closely related to UK schemes is the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Impact Fellowship, a selective fellowship programme that supports the development and placement of emerging scientific and technical talent within high-impact roles across the US government. See also the AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships (STPF).

What are past or ongoing efforts that are related to your proposed actions?

As indicated above there is quite a complex landscape of smaller initiatives - unscaled and under-funded - that can be recruited in support of this policy thrust. The corralling of these initiatives within a sustained cross-government programme would ensure improved outcomes. To address the conventional challenge ‘we do a lot of this already’ it will be important to look not simply at the programmes but also audit the quantity. Not just ‘are we doing this?’ but ‘are we shifting the dial?’.

What government agency, department, or body will lead this effort?

Clearly DSIT and GoScience, specifically the GCSA and the NTA, have an important role to play, but if this is driven from within the existing S&T stakeholders it will struggle to secure buy-in and will have limited small-p ‘political’ capital. The Cabinet Office (and specifically the Civil Service COO) should lead, but an initiative of this kind would benefit from a cross-government Commission.

Who are important stakeholders, and who might help champion or advocate for your proposal?

There is a broad consensus in support of improving the S&T capability of government, and no shortage of external and internal stakeholders who can advocate. The challenge is prioritising action.

How might your proposed action fit in within the broader priorities of the government or relative departments?

Plans of this kind that are necessarily longer-term and capability focussed tend to be neglected. They are pushed to the margin as the urgent pouches out the important. A Labour government with a mandate for change and a long-term perspective would be well-positioned to take it forward. Aligning this with the 'missions', as proposed above, would be a very powerful way to build a programme.