The creation of a new UK Department for Science, Innovation and Technology was dismissed by some as a sideshow last week, an area so politically uninteresting that Michael Gove reportedly turned down the job of leading it.

This view was summarised pithily in , which said: “Veterans of Whitehall spent the day scratching their heads over the political logic of Rishi Sunak’s reorganisation, a costly and distracting exercise centred on areas that voters care little about.”

It went on to say that with “no plausible electoral or party management rationale”, the only logical conclusion was that the prime minister “did it because he thought it was right”, adding as an afterthought that this “should not be as shocking as it sounds”.

We can probably all agree on the last point. Whatever one’s view of this departmental rewiring, it is a strange state of affairs that in a country with a stricken economy and few truly world-class sectors, science and innovation policy is regarded as politically irrelevant.

̽����Ƶ

The case for a serious focus was made recently by the former Conservative leader Lord Hague of Richmond, also in �ճ�����վ������, when he argued that was “the single most important activity with which [the government] can bring prosperity, growth and security to this country”.

In particular, Hague argued that the structure of government was not set up to deliver on this promise, noting the high turnover of science ministers and their relatively lowly status.

̽����Ƶ

His call for the appointment of “a secretary of state for science and technology with the political authority to crack departmental heads together” has now been heeded, and Michelle Donelan has been handed the role of head-cracker in chief.

This is something of a twist because, while her prior experience as universities minister and then secretary of state for digital, culture, media and sport is a strong enough back catalogue, in the former role her focus leaned heavily towards the populist issues so beloved during the Boris Johnson era – for example, her call for universities to pull out of schemes such as the Race Equality Charter.

Nevertheless eras change, and Sunak has also noted Hague’s lament about the lack of continuity in the science brief by retaining George Freeman as science minister.

Freeman has considerable domain experience, including as a former biotech investor, which will aid the new department in its task of establishing and implementing a serious strategy for science and innovation.

̽����Ƶ

But new secretaries of state are often tempted to make a splash before they have fully got to grips with the issues. So in the spirit of pre-empting rows, here are a few initiatives that may seem initially tempting but would surely be counterproductive:

1. Undermining the dual funding system. Quality-related funding allows universities to invest flexibly in new research directions that are crucial to world-class science.
2. Defunding arts, humanities and social science and giving all the money to medical research. High-minded arguments aside, the pandemic underlined how crucial the social sciences are in times of crisis.
3. Cutting blue-sky research and obsessing over translational research. Without the former, there won’t be anything to translate in the future. The UK would miss out on the discoveries that will turn out to be real game-changers, and the world’s best scientists would take their talents elsewhere.
4. Abandoning the Haldane Principle, the bar on ministers interfering in individual grant decisions. As Australian government missteps demonstrated, vetoing research projects on the basis of a minister’s perception of national priorities risks a damaging politicisation of research agendas.
5. Giving up the pursuit of Horizon Europe association. A replacement scheme would never be as good for the UK. Most established networks are in Europe, and the great prestige of some European Union programmes attracts the world’s best researchers.
6. Cutting research funding to modern universities. The strength of the UK system is as much based in its breadth as its depth.
7. Clamping down on international student numbers. As universities minister, Donelan’s view seemed to be that universities were awash with cash; as science minister, she may be surprised to find how reliant research is on cross-subsidies from international student fees.

Donelan’s ability to crack heads at the Home Office could be crucial in that regard. But she also needs to have a serious word with the chancellor. Spending 2.4 per cent of GDP on R&D – the government’s target – won’t guarantee the UK’s science superpower status. It would be churlish to dismiss recent uplifts, but some key competitors spend more. More money for science may not excite the Westminster bubble, but that shouldn’t stop it being Donelan’s top priority.

john.gill@timeshighereducation.com