Science, Innovation and Technology Committee
Oral evidence: Pre-appointment hearing, UK Research and Innovation chair, HC 1844
Wednesday 22 April 2026
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 22 April 2026.
Members present: Dame Chi Onwurah (Chair); Emily Darlington; George Freeman; Dr Allison Gardner; Kit Malthouse; Freddie van Mierlo; Dr Lauren Sullivan; Martin Wrigley; Daniel Zeichner.
Questions 1-48
Witness
I: Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, Government’s preferred candidate for the role of chair at UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)
Witness: Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz.
Chair: Welcome to today’s meeting of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. We are questioning the Government’s preferred candidate for the role of UK Research and Innovation chair, Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz. He has held senior leadership roles across research, medicine and higher education; as a scientific researcher, he has made significant contributions to our understanding of how immune systems fight viral infections, and it is thanks to his work that girls are now vaccinated against cervical cancer. His announcement as the preferred candidate has generally been welcomed. Our role is to scrutinise the Government’s decision and to understand the candidate’s intentions for UKRI and whether he is qualified to be successful in them. Welcome, and thank you for joining us this morning.
Q1 Kit Malthouse: Professor, good morning. You have one of the most extraordinary CVs any of us has ever seen or is likely to see in the future. You have been rightly garlanded with awards and honours, from not just this country but across the world. You have a distinguished academic record, including leading one of the world’s premier universities. What on earth made you think that walking into this lions’ den was a good idea? What first attracted you? What made you think it was something you wanted to do?
Professor Borysiewicz: It was not a decision I undertook lightly. Having been involved with UKRI from its very outset, even in the shadow format, and from my experiences at the MRC before that, it was clear that an organisation such as UKRI was going to be absolutely vital for the future. It now has a good budget, bearing in mind the economic situation. It has clear goals and directions in the round, particularly in terms of delivering growth, improving lives and, at the end of the day, supporting Britain and ensuring it remains close to the forefront, if not at the forefront, of many scientific disciplines.
As you said, I have spent much of my life working in research. When you look at this as an opportunity to actually make change happen—to enable it to happen—it is unparalleled. I had to take a long hard look at what I was doing and say, “Well, if I had to do something, here is an opportunity to make a difference.” It is making a difference that is still the driver and the passion that I have in wanting to undertake this task.
Q2 Kit Malthouse: You said that UKRI now has clear objectives. Is your perception that it has not, until recently, been quite the creature it should have been?
Professor Borysiewicz: I think UKRI has evolved over time. When UKRI first started, there was a considerable amount of discussion in the academic community—and, for that matter, in the commercial community—as to whether it was fit for purpose, whether it was just replacing research councils and how it was going to function. A good deal of time had to be spent ensuring that those activities were co-ordinated.
What is changing, and what is changing in the world of research, is that to tackle the really important societal, national and international issues, we will have to bring disciplines together more and more. Taking a siloed approach within individual councils was retrograde, I would say, and not forward looking. Over time, UKRI has been able to take that position, but now it is in a position to look at the very important, broad goals it has been given and say, “How do we deliver against those goals?”, not merely, “How do we discuss or give grants that might achieve those goals?” It now has to be able to deliver those goals for the taxpayer and the United Kingdom.
Q3 Kit Malthouse: What would those look like? You are a research scientist, so when you embark on a branch of research, it is uncertain what the outcome will be. When you looked at this job, did you have some certainty about what the outcome of your work might be in two, three, four or five years’ time?
Professor Borysiewicz: It is very strange for scientists, whatever branch or discipline they are in, not to have some idea that this is going to actually improve things at the end of the day. If you are a clinician, that is pretty direct: you undertake a piece of research, and you have the vision that, if all goes well, it is going to help people and maybe groups of people at the end of that discovery. I believe the same applies to many branches of research. There is pure and fundamental research, which is absolutely vital. In many ways, for me, this was well described by that famous adage, “There is applied research and not yet applied research.” It is equally valid, and we have to look for where the applications may well reside.
You rightly point out that much of my career has been spent in academia and in relatively pure disciplines. However, I have also had to lead the Cambridge Phenomenon part of Cambridge. I was involved in setting up Imperial Innovations with the then rector, Richard Sykes, at Imperial College. I have had to lead MRC Technology, as well as the transformation of Cancer Research Technology to early investments in spinouts. I have even been on boards of spinout companies and engaged very much with large industry—particularly Siemens, GSK and a number of others—in advisory capacities.
I believe I would be reasonably well placed to have both a perspective on the importance of fundamental research in sustaining Britain’s position and, at the same time, a very close association and affiliation with the idea that we need to take good ideas and ensure they can actually deliver at the end of the day.
Q4 Kit Malthouse: I guess you would not necessarily have any kind of hard target: “I’m going to do this job for three or five years”—whatever it is—“and at the end, I want five world-beating drugs.” It does not work like that.
Professor Borysiewicz: I am afraid it does not work like that. I wish it did, because it would be much easier for this Committee to scrutinise what we do if we could do that.
Let us have a look at fundamental research. We are talking about a situation that major universities have to contemplate as well. You operate on an investment timescale of 10, 15 or 20 years. I am willing to say from my time at Cambridge that many of the things I instituted will probably only bear fruit long after I have departed this world. You have to take that very long-term perspective, and have a sense of belief and understanding and an evidence base that says, “If I do x, then y might follow.” You have to take the long-term perspective.
Against that, there is also the imperative for smaller companies and novel ideas to be supported in the short term, so that they are given the best opportunity to excite and to deliver products that can both improve lives and hopefully deliver growth as well. Part of that is bringing on side large-scale industries that already have a very strong presence and invest heavily in the United Kingdom, so that they believe that investing in the UK and investing alongside where UKRI places its bets can succeed. It is a multifaceted operation.
Q5 Kit Malthouse: You will be pleased to hear that we all share your faith in science. I have one final, practical question. You are a busy chap, with a lot on. How are you going to balance this with your other commitments?
Professor Borysiewicz: In taking this decision—this is why it was a difficult decision to take in the first instance—I am demitting from virtually all the activities I have done. I decided at this point that this is the one thing to which I am going to commit whatever time I have in this role—three or four years—to ensure that I give it my absolute, full attention. With most of the other activities, there are conflicts, but they all have to, in essence, take a back seat, so I will not be undertaking them.
Kit Malthouse: Thank you.
Q6 Emily Darlington: Professor, you have a very distinguished background and have worked alongside science organisations around the world. I want to understand what you see as our international competitiveness, where our strengths and weaknesses are, what you think we should be doing about them and what you will be pushing in your role as chair.
Professor Borysiewicz: Thank you; that is quite a complex question. The United Kingdom does have excellence. We have very strong foundations. We have a strong core of universities. We have a commitment to developing young individuals through this area. This is absolutely fundamental; without that, we cannot succeed.
We have a structure that is based on a multiplicity of funders. UKRI is one, and it is a very important one, but we also have the charity sector, we have the commercial sector playing in and we have a number of foundations and other bodies that contribute to this activity. That is not a weakness; it is a real strength to have that.
We must start looking at where our advantages are. We have to recognise that, in some sectors, we are not a world leader, but we have enormous opportunity to take leadership in particular niches that actually may well resolve. If you were to challenge me and say, “Are we world leaders in AI?”, the answer would be, “Probably not.” But there are segments of the AI industry we should definitely take that role. There are segments that we could heavily support, such as in quantum computing, where there are some very good ideas. Could UKRI, even with its enviable budget, take on what Amazon, Microsoft and others are doing? The answer is no. But what we can do is work alongside and ensure that there is a strong British contribution to that.
In the life sciences, the sector I know best, we are blessed with a good research-oriented pharmaceutical industry based in Britain. It is very important that it remains here, because at the end of the day any exploitation requires the private sector to deliver something that is of value to individual patients. There is no public body that is able to do that anywhere globally. It requires real interaction. We have really good leadership in certain areas of the life sciences.
Part of the challenge is going to be, where can we identify those things, and what is our observatory function like? We need to be able to get ahead of the game and spot where opportunities are arising, and it is important that we are able to do so at controlled risk—I am going to use that word, because there is always a risk in backing some of these technologies. It has to be carefully considered and controlled. By using the expertise that exists within UKRI, we can ensure that, when we make an investment, we minimise the risks and maximise the chance of getting a good return for the UK.
There are many areas in which I would identify the UK as being potentially leading. I wish I could say we were leading in AI and in quantum, but unfortunately the answer is that we probably are not at the present time, because of the work going on in the US, the private sector and China, in particular.
Q7 Emily Darlington: I want to drill down into a few of the functions of UKRI. In particular, we have struggled in the UK to exploit our great ideas and research and turn those into commercial activity, which is why Innovate UK, or its predecessor, the TSB, was set up. What is your assessment of the effectiveness of Innovate UK at commercialising our great research?
Professor Borysiewicz: I am going to say “improving”. When UKRI first started, Innovate UK was one of the major challenges. Between 2016 and 2018, the research councils were operating reasonably effectively, but Innovate UK had to undergo a lot of changes to begin to work alongside the other research councils. There was a lot of turmoil in the early phases of UKRI, with particular changes and difficulties in recruiting leadership to Innovate UK. I still recall how difficult that was.
What I see at the present time is that we now have much more stable Innovate UK leadership. Secondly, I am seeing Innovate UK being more heavily integrated in terms of the way in which the chief executive has outlined the broad proposals by which we are going to operate in the future as UKRI. That means that it is really now at the decision-making table.
In many ways, when Innovate UK first started, UKRI was a reactive body; it was giving out an awful lot of support at very early stages of development, but it was less proactive than maybe I would have wished it to be. I am hoping that Innovate UK, under its current leadership and engaged within the totality of the UKRI agenda, will be capable of providing that proactive leadership role in taking companies forward.
We create very many great small companies, but they fall foul at that stage. They almost—I do not want this terminology to appear pejorative—sell out too early. They do not grow from small to that mid-size that would make a difference in jobs and other opportunities. We need to think hard about how we ensure that that investment can occur. There is no shortage of ideas in the United Kingdom; we just have to work very hard at delivering them better.
Q8 Emily Darlington: I think the Committee would agree with your assessment there. The Committee has taken a particular interest in catapults; we often mention them because of the role they play in regional innovation and regional economic success. We have heard differing stories about the success of catapults. What is your assessment of them, and what are you hoping to influence and change?
Professor Borysiewicz: I should make it clear that I was on the board of a catapult—one that did not succeed—and that was the catapult in personalised medicine, so I have seen both sides: where catapults work and where they do not. They have the capacity to encourage and engage a large number of individuals and to provide a home where a variety of companies and academics can begin to find a shared sense of purpose and direction in leading things forward.
They can also go wrong because, although the catapult model is very interesting, one size does not fit all. The problem in the early days of the catapults was that this was not a model that served the development of personalised medicine at that time particularly well. That was particularly evident in the catapult I was serving on, and we rightly had to say that we would bring it to a conclusion.
I therefore think that catapults will always—and probably should—be looked at closely. If they are succeeding and providing the support that is necessary for a part of the market, they should be supported. But there also has to be rigorous assessment as to whether they are fulfilling a need, or whether that resource would be better allocated and used in different ways to support that segment.
Emily Darlington: Thank you, Professor.
Q9 Chair: Professor, we have talked about strengths and weaknesses, but this is a slightly different question: what are the challenges facing UKRI and the research sector, and how would you look to address them?
Professor Borysiewicz: Goodness!
Chair: We’ve asked all the simple questions first.
Professor Borysiewicz: On the biggest challenges, I am going to pick three examples. The first challenge is the speed of change: technology and science are advancing at a rate that makes things difficult for those who have the unenviable task of invoking regulation in particular areas. Almost before regulations or debates have gone through, the technology has already advanced internationally. That is a real challenge: the speed at which this moves.
Another challenge is multidisciplinarity. There is still individual brilliance, and thank goodness we still see individuals who make a considerable difference and who sometimes shake us up and make us think, “Why didn’t I spot that?” It is great that we have individuals of that ilk. But, in the main, an awful lot of science is dependent on the ambient technology available. We have to be able to utilise that technology, and the data derived from it, in a coherent way across silos. We still have the conventional disciplines of physics, chemistry, mathematics and, for that matter, the arts, culture and other things, but it is at the interfaces that we will see the best opportunities developing—there is nothing new in that statement. It is a question of ensuring that we are able to better deliver that, and that is going to require all the partners working together—both the research providers and UKRI.
That leads on to the third big challenge that certainly I see UKRI facing. We are facing a period of considerable change. Being able to deliver this is going to require considerable change, and change always, in large sectors, will cause elements of turmoil and uncertainties. But I would argue that change should only be enacted if it is likely to make a difference, and if so, the arguments for that change have to be sustainable and supportable.
Q10 Chair: I think the Committee would agree with your assessment of change both within technology and globally, and the challenges that poses.
I am going to ask you about a different challenge that you did not mention, which the Committee has looked at as part of our regional innovation and growth inquiry, which we reported on recently: driving innovation and research across our country. You grew up in Wales, and you had your medical training there, but since then, your entire career has been within the golden triangle. Looking through your fantastic and excellent CV and your current interests, it was not possible to find an interest outside the golden triangle unless it was abroad. What are you going to do for the rest of the country?
Professor Borysiewicz: First, I have had the privilege of spending, in essence, my professional life in three locations. I was in Wales for one third of my life. I was leading medicine in Wales until 2000, so that is a considerable period. It was a level of seniority at that point where only one medical school in Wales had to look after the whole of medical education and science development in the country. I was in London, through mostly Imperial College, and then Cambridge.
When I look at the regional agenda, it is an absolutely essential component. Britain cannot be made great again—to use the sort of parlance that is used elsewhere—if only a small fraction of the United Kingdom is leading. We cannot expect people from different parts of the United Kingdom, or, for that matter, academic scientists; we need to ensure that strong research is supported wherever it is found. That is a cliched statement, but there is a lot of truth in it. We need the regional support.
That said, there is also a responsibility for UKRI, as it has the words UK in it. At the present time, when I look at the regional support, Wales and Northern Ireland are way below where any of the English regions sit at the present time. I was delighted to be shown data that the rate of increase of expenditure outside the golden triangle has accelerated. It is a process of evolution, because we still have to support the areas that are likeliest to be able to deliver at the end of the day, but we also have to observe where that is happening, wherever that is happening, within the United Kingdom to ensure that it can be delivered. I want to see an equitable distribution. I also argue that some of the four nations of the United Kingdom have to look to themselves to make sure that they are providing the environment in which the research can be best supported. To an extent, that also goes with the regions.
Each of our regions is capable of doing something that is relatively unique. However, particularly in the academic world and the world that I have occupied, there is a follow the crowd mentality, where you do not do something different because you are terrified that it would take you outside it. In medicine, you always want to have strengths in cardiovascular, cancer and neuroscience—that is the big area—and if you ask the communities, everybody wants that. Sometimes, you need to look outside that and maybe argue that if we started to look at pulmonary or occupational diseases, that might give us an edge and an opportunity.
I look forward to discussions around the regions. I passionately believe that we have to serve the whole of the United Kingdom and I want to ensure that we are able to do that. It will not be easy. At the same time, I do not believe in robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is actually a question of ensuring that the excellence is there to support—
Q11 Chair: I appreciate that answer. It is somewhat reassuring, although you have also indicated some of the trade-offs that need to be made. I am going to come back to a specific question on that, but you talked about a follow-the-crowd mentality. There is also an old-boy-network mentality, and your networks will be Cambridge and golden-triangle based. How are you going to extend your networks?
Professor Borysiewicz: I would hope they are not based that way, because through organisations that I have had to serve and engage with, I have engaged with different parts of the United Kingdom. I am also fortunate that one of my daughters is a professor in Lancaster, so I am very firmly being told what is going on in the north-west. We are also seeing initiatives at, for example, Imperial; this initiative has seen the joint creation of the Pears medical school at Carlisle. So these are important. I have known and worked with Kent, in the south-east area. It is easy to lump this in with the rest of the south-east, but it is not London—
Q12 Chair: I still suspect you know many more people in Cambridge than in Newcastle or Manchester, for example.
Professor Borysiewicz: Of course I do, but I suspect that where I would need to get to know them would be in the areas outside medicine. I am well connected, particularly in life sciences and medicine, with Newcastle, because you have to be. If you are sitting in Cambridge, you have to look to where the best people are. You are at that point trying to identify them.
Q13 Chair: I appreciate that compliment to Newcastle. Outside life sciences, what will you do to extend your networks?
Professor Borysiewicz: I believe that one has to actually meet and engage with the communities, but again one has to be very careful. It is not enough merely to engage with the bodies that speak for the communities, because many of those bodies are actually embedded very firmly in the south-east. It means actually going out—
Q14 Chair: Excellent. So we can expect a tour from you after you take over the job. Let me go to something specific. The Science Minister, Patrick Vallance, has spoken to us about the importance of not spreading the jam of funding across the country equally and said that it is right that UKRI supports excellence. However, excellence now may be concentrated in certain areas. It does not necessarily support excellence in the future and it can lead to incumbency and so on.
I will give you a specific example taken from Newcastle, which is now world leading in mitochondrial research and development, a consequence of which is that mothers have been able to give birth to babies who do not have mitochondrial disease. When that started 40 years ago, Newcastle was not world leading in relation to mitochondrial disease; nobody was. It was not world leading in life sciences generally. So if you are going to fund only world-leading capability, how are you going to ensure that the next mitochondrial disease work or whatever gets funding and that that does not necessarily go to the golden triangle?
Professor Borysiewicz: There are two major elements to this. The first one I have referred to in terms of the observatory function. It is to be ahead of the game in looking to where potential advances are. The second, under the freedoms given through the higher education Acts to universities and funding that comes through Research England, is to ensure that that funding is not totally directed at extant science, but is giving vice-chancellors and others in the regions an opportunity to create those novel directions that may occur. The role of UKRI, when that nidus has been established, is to be able to seek to support it, if it is gaining the traction necessary for it to go forward.
I will pick some examples that I think have been excellent. Very near Cambridge, in the University of Northampton, decisions are made to work very closely with the Formula 1 industry—because it happens to be based around there—to create jobs and technologies. Cranfield is a very specialised university and takes advantage of its unique position in the aerospace sector. There is also Wrexham, Bodelwyddan and elsewhere because of BAE Systems. So these opportunities do exist. We have to find them. We have to ensure that there are opportunities for independent views on that, and I believe that in particular the universities will have a strong role to play in that through the support that they receive through Research England.
Q15 Dr Sullivan: Professor, you were touching on regional leadership, and about moving money and power around. Is there a structure within UKRI to focus on regional leadership and investment? That way, we can hold them accountable. I am thinking of Dundee, as a former student, where they have gone outside the box and got their own money there, though, but they do not feel supported. I wonder how we can address that.
Professor Boryslewicz: Dundee is a difficult question, as you know, because of the issues that have arisen at the university in broader terms. That has meant there has been less resource than in other institutions at the present time. I have known Dundee mostly through the phosphorylation unit, which was well established, and the drug discovery unit that I worked with closely during my time at the Tres Cantos Foundation, in supporting them.
Those are excellent examples of what is happening. The question as to what level is rather more difficult because of the Scotland area, and how the QR support given to universities in Scotland is rather different, on a scale that sometimes does not parallel what Research England is doing. Here we have to take a strong view of engaging the four nations of the United Kingdom to ensure that what support is available within the devolved Administrations is targeted, and also that those nations believe that UKRI is genuinely working for the totality of the United Kingdom.
We look at opportunities, ensure we are able to identify them, and do not have a bias if it is in the University of the Highlands and Islands. There are certain areas of research that could only be done there very effectively, but we require also that local vision and direction to ensure that those areas are identified. Maybe at the Highlands and Islands or my old alma mater in Cardiff there would be very different choices from those that Cambridge or Imperial would be making centrally. I believe diversity of opportunity, and the diversity that is available through UKRI, is something that could come to play an important part.
Q16 Dr Gardner: I am happy to invite you and welcome you to Stoke-on-Trent and the world of advanced ceramics and manufacturing any time. As you may know, the Haldane principle is a UK Government policy principle that states that decisions on which specific research projects to fund should be made by experts and research councils rather than politicians. That ensures scientific independence, research quality and merit, rather than political agendas. Do you think the Haldane principle can realistically be maintained under the new buckets approach to R&D funding, given that bucket 2 explicitly refers to supporting Government priorities?
Professor Boryslewicz: The short answer to your question is yes. I would not have applied for this position if I had felt for a moment that was not going to be the case. It is right that, at the end of the day, UKRI is beholden to the UK taxpayer for the budgets we receive. It is, therefore, right that Committees such as this and others would hold UKRI accountable, that we are using and investing that resource wisely. The specific nature of that allocation, where it will go, has to be seen to be independent. What I hope, as I explore in more detail how bucket 2 is going to operate—which is by no means clear to me or anyone, I suspect, at this point—is that supporting the Haldane principle, even within the bucket 2 tier, is very important.
It is entirely appropriate that Government says that there are priorities we need to look at. How those priorities are best supported is where the Haldane principle for me has to come into effect. No, it is not a diktat that it has to be in place x or y, as happens so often in the United States and France. These are decisions that have to be made based on how best to support research at that point.
Q17 Dr Gardner: Thank you for that clear answer. I appreciate that you see that as a challenge that needs ironing out.
Governments, of course, do change, as do Government priorities, and attitudes to diversity and areas that we know we are weak on in supporting research relevant to female areas can also change. Are you prepared to have difficult conversations with Government Ministers and officials when required?
Professor Borysiewicz: The answer is that I think that anyone who has known me will know that I have been prepared to ask difficult questions through the whole of my career. No, I am not a yes man and never have been. The fact is, I do not believe you could be a researcher and take that position.
What is strange about people who spend their careers in research? I suspect we have never really grown up. We start at the age of five with the question, “Why?” and when you are 75, 80, you are still asking the question, “Why?” It is a very important principle that you have to keep questioning why a decision is taken and argue as to whether it is the right decision.
It is the responsibility of UKRI to provide independent advice to Ministers and to point out where there may be a difference of view. But at the end of the day, we also have to recognise that Ministers have a far wider responsibility than merely science and technology in terms of final decisions that they would have to take. So, there is what I would call a brilliant balance in here of being able to provide advice and guidance based on experience and based on the evidence. But there also has to be an understanding of those providing that advice, that there is a broader perspective that Ministers and Government have to take.
Q18 Dr Gardner: Your answers are wonderfully diplomatic and actually quite kind. But if, for example, a Minister really directed you, “I want this funding to go here, for this reason,” how would you deal with that? What would your response be?
Professor Borysiewicz: First, I would want to understand the reason that the Minister is choosing that particular area. If I disagreed with that, I am afraid I would be quite open and say, “Minister, it is your opportunity to make that judgment, but it is not maybe an appropriate use of UKRI resources to be able to do that under the principles in which we operate.” I am afraid that I would be prepared to take that up at a variety of levels, and the Minister would have to be able to defend their position.
Q19 George Freeman: Good Morning, Professor—Borys, if I may. It is lovely to see you, and I should declare that we have worked together over the years in various roles.
I come back as a sort of recycled Minister to share my battle scars as the new Government get to grips with this. I wanted to ask about the buckets and the strategic priorities. In the previous Government, I was very proud to help increase funding from £14 million a year to £20 million, and I congratulate this Government on going to £21 million a year and a longer-term settlement.
I welcome the Minister's focus on three buckets: excellence, growth for all and sovereign, secure missions for impact. I want to really dig down and follow up on Alison’s questions. You will be aware that in the global race for science and technology, it is great that we are at £21 billion a year, but China is at 135 billion, the USA $85 billion, Germany €35 billion, Japan 30 billion, South Korea 20 billion and France €20 billion. We are actually at £17 billion at the moment—we are on the way.
We have to turn that £17 billion or £20 billion into impact, which requires UKRI to be a Formula 1 engine, with small litres of money into terabytes of thrust. It is on the journey. Could you describe how, in that context, you would describe UKRI’s progress towards being that Formula 1 engine—the fuel injector of small money into high impact areas?
Professor Borysiewicz: UKRI has the foundation that is absolutely essential to deliver that thrust. You can build a Formula 1 car, but if the chassis is not up to taking the thrust, it is going to fail. It is very important that UKRI maintains that foundational excellence in research that exists across all disciplines. Although I have focused my response mainly on science, I do not for a moment wish to move away from the importance of the creative industries, culture and so on, because they are part of that total equation.
Secondly, it brings to bear that combination of being able to engage directly in translation, which is where we are beginning to link discovery to the opportunity of growth and improvement in individuals so that there is an emphasis on delivery of that proposal. However, it is also clear that in so many ways, even in the funding area of life sciences, with the last numbers I was using, the totality of what UKRI can bring to bear through BBSRC funding, previously, and MRC funding is less than the charity sector brings in. It is also less than the NIHR contribution from the NHS, and it pales into insignificance compared with the £4.2 billion brought in by industry.
To deliver those thrusts, I am going to argue that partnership will be extremely important. Winning some of the hearts and minds of large-scale industry, small-scale industry, regions and all those investing in research places UKRI in a very strong position to provide the foundation on which such partnerships can be forged. If we can forge them, that £1 billion delivered in the life sciences sector from the MRC can suddenly be multiplied and deliver the thrust that is required.
Q20 George Freeman: I want to get down to detail. You will have heard that the Government split the funding settlement: £14.5 billion to curiosity, £8.3 billion to the missions and £7.4 billion to growth. I want to pick up the theme from earlier of the priorities for you as the chair of what we have to change. At the end of your two, three, four or five years, what changes?
There are various metrics on curiosity and excellence. We are losing the patent race in key areas—we cannot win it everywhere. Rankings is another. How excellent are we? There are also citations. What is the metric for you? You will have seen our report, “Flying Blind”. We are worried that the Government are pouring money into a machine that is not capable of impact, let alone accounting to Parliament for it.
On curiosity, what should we be getting better at, and what will you be looking to get better at? On the missions—sovereignty and security—Minister Vallance laudably said the other day that we are hardening up; we now want to own in quantum. That presumably has an implication for you. On growth, the Secretary of State put it very well: we want to attract more private sector money. What do each of those mean for you as the chair of UKRI?
Professor Borysiewicz: The first is supporting what works at the present time. We have to remember that the major research deliverers are the universities and institutes that are forged. We have to look at how those institutions are able to ensure that the infrastructure and environment exist to enable that curiosity-driven research to thrive. We have to ensure that curiosity-driven research is well supported and funded. One of the most interesting facets is that the biggest supporter of UKRI research is actually the university sector, to the tune of about 15p for every pound invested.
Q21 George Freeman: Given that a number of our universities are in serious crisis, can I be quite specific? Is your metric that you want to get more Government funding to universities, more private funding or more philanthropic funding?
Professor Borysiewicz: All three. The bottom line is that we have to provide the support. It cannot all come from UKRI or from Government. We have to be able to support institutions, to support our research provider function to be able to utilise resources from all those segments.
On the success or otherwise, yes, we have metrics such as citations. The question will be whether real impact has been delivered. Have you been able to show that this has changed thinking or ideas in certain areas? It does not necessarily mean that there is a product at the end of the day, but has it delivered something that is changing the way in which we are perceiving the future?
Q22 George Freeman: One of these buckets is curiosity—blue sky excellence. There is a lot of mediocrity in our system. How will you at UKRI report to us and to Ministers on driving excellence and making sure that the £14.5 billion of blue sky funding genuinely drives excellence, not mediocrity? How do you focus it on excellence?
Professor Borysiewicz: I think that is one of the hardest questions that anyone could ever pose, because you are asking me to predict a long-term process and a long-term investment on a short-term metric that is going to be a guarantee of success in the future, however you define success. For me at the present time, success in curiosity-driven research is defined as something that has changed thinking, changed direction and provided leadership that others are following in those directions. It is doing something novel and something different; it is not about following the crowd in this area.
Q23 George Freeman: I want to move on, but I suggest that when you are—I hope—in your role, as you take office with the excellent Ian Chapman, UKRI needs to be able to answer these questions quite clearly within a matter of six or 12 months. You need to be able to say, “We have decided we are going to focus on excellence and on getting up this patent league table”—not all of them, but this one, “and we are going to focus on rankings and citations.” Having been the Minister, I know that otherwise the general answers tend to be, “Just give us more money.”
Professor Borysiewicz: Sure. As you know, rankings and citations—all these metrics that are utilised—are flawed fundamentally. Not one of them is actually a metric I would particularly look to do my weekend shopping under.
Q24 George Freeman: But we need some.
Professor Borysiewicz: You will need something, and we will have to provide that, but I am also looking at the possibility of newer metrics that begin to look at impact in different ways. At this point, I would obviously need to discuss a lot of that with the chief executive and the board.
Q25 George Freeman: Do you know when—I appreciate you will need to get your feet under the table with Ian—we might be able to have some metrics?
Professor Borysiewicz: I am hoping that we will be able to get metrics when we present the forward look strategy that is required. At that point, we should also be presenting how you are going to be able to monitor how that strategy is working.
Q26 Chair: Can I just add to that request from George? You said to me earlier today that you are going to look forward to areas of future excellence, to ensure that funding for them is spread effectively and in the best interest across the country. Can you say to us when you will have a metric for doing that?
Professor Borysiewicz: I would like to have a good look at where that is before I really address that question in detail. But when a strategy and a strategic direction are presented, my usual approach is to ensure that there are at least metrics attached to them. Many of those are objective, but some, I am afraid, will be subjective, because they are judgment calls about long-term investment going forward.
Q27 George Freeman: I think I speak for the Committee here: can I make a plea for objective quantitative metrics as far as we can?
Professor Borysiewicz: Absolutely, but it is always a mixture of the two, as you know.
Q28 George Freeman: On growth, the Secretary of State was admirably clear. When asked, she said that the key one is how much public investment we are turning into private. How much are we attracting? When I was Minister, not only did the Department not have that number, but nobody was even asking. In the life sciences, I added it up: we were investing £3 billion a year—£9 billion over three years—but we did not know what the total private investment was. It seems to me that is a basic metric if growth is a criterion.
Professor Borysiewicz: Yes, and that was part of my answer to the second part of your question as to how I would look at growth. I worry about patents being used as a measure—I think we may have discussed this previously. The problem with patents is that patents that are not licensed or utilised are merely a £30,000 to £40,000 cost on the institution paying.
George Freeman: I was not suggesting patents; I was merely asking whether you—
Professor Borysiewicz: It would not be a metric I would put much store by, but what is really important is how many are licensed and how many are actually being used or transferred. There was a recent article in The Economist on this. To me, it is a flawed metric. Many of those countries, some of which I have particularly focused on, like Singapore, will patent just about anything that moves. It does not mean to say—
Q29 George Freeman: My last question is on accountability. You can feel my frustration, because in a country that is struggling, where our constituents are struggling, and we are taking £20 billion a year off them to invest in science, we need to be able to explain that that is not just for the scientists to have fun; it is driving growth and world class leadership, which unlocks more investment, and tackling challenges. It seems to me that we have to be able to have some metrics. It is your job to choose them, and ours to hold you to them. It is not our job to choose them. If I was Minister, I would be pretty frustrated and would want to make sure I can hold UKRI to account. How do you see the accountability? Is it UKRI to Government and to industry? “We’re investing publicly x. Now come on—we need you to invest y,” which links to the catapult question. What is your vision for how people in UKRI will respond to this more muscular strategic focus?
Professor Borysiewicz: I think one of the biggest changes for UKRI is to move it to more of a delivery-focused organisation. That is not an easy change to make. It is not just a grant-giving body, which many do see it as, but it is now an organisation that has to move to deliver at the end of the day. Yes, there would have to be metrics around the delivery functions, and I am sure a lot of work is going on. I am not yet privy to the work that is happening, but if I was in the position of a Minister, those are very much the questions I would be asking.
Against that, it is also important that we have developed the bridges and partnerships with strong UK R&D-heavy industries, that we have major international players and we establish relations to ensure that those organisations also feel that the United Kingdom is the best place to invest in. That means that alongside the three buckets you are identifying is a very important fourth one: how do we invest in a science infrastructure that ensures that we are able to remain at the forefront? That has to be spread across those buckets, in consultation with a number of other stakeholders and players.
Chair: Thank you, and we will be coming to that in more detail.
Q30 Freddie van Mierlo: I fully support the Chair’s views on the need for investment across the entire country. I represent Henley and Thame in Oxfordshire, which is part of the golden triangle, but I fully believe in the need to invest across the entirety of the UK.
I want to follow on from what George was saying about the need to get a better return from the investment made through the grants given by UKRI. How sensitive are you to the fact that you will be giving out taxpayer money—£9 billion of it—that could be used for other things? These are difficult decisions the Government have to make, because that money could be used on hospitals or schools, and we know we have a growing need in defence. How will you justify to Government how much your budget is and what you are spending it on?
Professor Borysiewicz: That goes back to my previous answer: it does require us to be able to show metrics and talk about where the impact of the investment is. I am very conscious of the fact that we are looking at taxpayers’ money in very difficult economic circumstances for so many people, so it is right and proper that this is scrutinised and looked at and that UKRI provides the information it can, so that bodies can basically mark our card as to whether we are succeeding or not. It is not just an internal judgment; it is the external judgment that also matters.
Most importantly, it matters how the taxpayer views this, because at the end of the day, these are hard-earned pounds from individuals that are being invested. That is probably the biggest responsibility that sits heavily on me in looking to undertake this role. It is a lot of money, and a lot of people have had to work very hard to ensure it is there. I would have to do my best, alongside the chief executive, the board and all of the executive chairs, to ensure it is used wisely.
Q31 Freddie van Mierlo: One of the bodies that is responsible for holding UKRI to account for its spending is the National Audit Office. Are you aware of its most recent report and its comments in May 2025 about the improvements that UKRI needs to make?
Professor Borysiewicz: Only in the very broadest terms at this point. I have not yet had the opportunity of going into the detail of the National Audit Office report. I go back to the organisation as a whole, as it was judged by the David Grant report and the Tickell inquiry. I am quite pleased, from conversations with the current chair, that a lot of progress has been made around the David Grant areas, but whenever you get a report like this, you need to look very carefully at how UKRI operates.
We have talked about the structures that support research around the United Kingdom and about those areas. There is also the responsibility of ensuring that UKRI itself is an efficient organisation. One number that I have been given sticks very firmly in my mind, particularly bearing in mind national comparators. UKRI’s operating cost as a total of its expenditure is around 3.1%, compared with A&R in France, which is at 5.4%, and the National Science Foundation in America, which is in the region of 4.5%. At the moment, great—that is better than we were when the Grant report was given, but I am sure that I would look at implementing the advice coming from the National Audit Office.
Q32 Freddie van Mierlo: It would definitely be welcome for you to go into detail and to work closely with the National Audit Office. It said that there is “more that UKRI could do to maximise the value for money”. That is probably a diplomatic way of putting it. It also said that none of the objectives in UKRI’s first five-year strategy are “specific, measurable or time-bound”. That speaks to what George was speaking about earlier. Since you mentioned the efficiency of the organisation as a whole, what time are you going to dedicate to this role? Having looked through the papers, it is not particularly well remunerated for your time. Are you personally invested in this beyond the remuneration that you are getting? What kind of time investment are you willing to put into this?
Professor Borysiewicz: In undertaking this, I am leaving everything else that I am doing behind. I am committing very fully to being able to do that. At this stage of my life, maybe my physical presence is not going to be five days a week or whatever. There is a chief executive who has a responsibility to drive that, but there is an absolute commitment on my part that everything else is being moved aside to make a personal commitment to this area. Frankly, I put the remuneration and the nominal day a week or whatever is stated straight to one side. I am in the fortunate position that I am not dependent totally on that income stream. I still have my pension and other sources to sustain me.
Q33 Freddie van Mierlo: Your remuneration is very low for your level of expertise, but you will also have a role in setting the remuneration of the executives and senior leadership of UKRI. I have seen a creep in the salaries of civil servants throughout local government and nationally. What will you do to ensure that value for money is provided when setting that remuneration?
Professor Borysiewicz: In every organisation that I have worked in, the chair of the remuneration committee has had to be able to look at senior salaries and what is being achieved. You have to be very careful and cognisant of what is happening internationally, because these individuals can move boundaries fairly quickly, and you have to recompense where particular achievements have been made. I strongly believe in performance review as part and parcel of this, and strong governance coming from the remuneration committee with advice to the board and decisions that can then be taken. If you look at my CV, there is a track record that I have sat on all these committees, and still sit on them, and therefore I do have quite a handle on what is happening in this area. I will undertake to do this diligently for UKRI.
Q34 Daniel Zeichner: Good morning, Borys; it is great to see you. When you were the vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge, as part of my constituency role we had regular meetings, which I very much enjoyed and which went well beyond just the university and well beyond Cambridge.
I would like to talk to you about some of the controversies that have been raging within parts of the scientific community recently. The Committee has had a number of exchanges, particularly around the PPAN community and STFC. How concerned are you about the cost pressures facing STFC? I think it is fair to say it is quite a long-running issue.
Professor Borysiewicz: Oddly enough, I was not informed of the problems that STFC were facing—maybe quite deliberately—until after I had accepted the chairmanship position at Diamond Light Source. It had not been part of the debate during the time I was at UKRI. I assume it has happened for some reason after 2022, so it does need to be examined to make sure that this does not happen. Yes, it puts enormous pressures on the system and on particular scientific communities, and they have made their views known.
As chair of Diamond Light Source, I have had direct dealings with STFC on this issue. In fairness to STFC, we have been asked at various levels as to what the impact of various reductions would be on the performance of Diamond Light Source as an institute, bearing in mind that it serves a wide user community as well as a very strong commercial community that is dependent on the facilities that are provided. We are providing that information back to STFC. In fairness to STFC, at the moment they are seeking as much information as possible. I do support the idea that they have got to collect this sort of information to bring it back to their own council to consider what actions STFC would need to look at.
We also have to bear in mind that there is a time constraint in respect of what period and over what time. When we look at reductions in funding, which is the fear of many in the PPAN community, there is a timeframe in which we can operate. We have to bear in mind how much flexibility and over what time period such action would have to be taken.
There is then the wider question of what mitigations might be applied within a wider organisation such as UKRI. But the balance there is not easy, because one has to remember that if you suddenly begin to support the PPAN community more, you are withdrawing that from the life sciences community. There is a finite pot, so it is about finding a very careful balance to ensure that the least possible damage is done to individual research disciplines while being able to deliver against metrics that I hope we will be able to provide in due course.
It is a very complex issue, and every single community has particularly strong views. This is going to be an additional challenge when we start talking about the change that is going to be necessary for UKRI to deliver against the targets that are going to be set in the future. It is a very good question, but what is happening and being done at the moment is the right approach. UKRI will obviously have to address it after STFC have opined on what they can do internally.
Q35 Daniel Zeichner: As potential chair, how do you see your role in trying to resolve this difficult dilemma? It is hard for the Committee to see, in the sense that, when Lord Vallance came before us, he told us that no cuts have taken place, yet we are receiving frequent correspondence from people who feel they are very much facing the loss of their posts and funding.
Professor Borysiewicz: At the moment, I think it is fair to say, from the information that I have been given as chair of Diamond, that no immediate cut is being asked for. They are asking for information on the consequences of a variety of levels of different cuts, which we as an organisation have responded to. It is important that the community recognises that it is very responsible of STFC to start asking the community that is dependent on that funding about the impact, so that they can make the right judgment calls at the end of the day.
At the level of UKRI, I suspect this will come up in the debate or discussion about the balance between a variety of budgets and how much UKRI centrally can help STFC in this area. It still bears in mind the equation that if we are to help one element, the funding has to come from other component parts that UKRI needs to support. It is not going to be an easy ask, but it has to be thought through very carefully and very strategically.
Q36 Daniel Zeichner: When Sir Ian Chapman was here, he recognised that the communication had been less than perfect. As chair, what can you do, with the board, to make sure that this kind of issue does not arise in the future and, to some extent, help to rebuild some of the trust that appears to have been damaged?
Professor Borysiewicz: This is a very important area. First, I was very glad that Ian recognised that this was not a good look, frankly, to all those who depend on UKRI funding. As we are embarking on a period of considerable change at UKRI over this period of time, communication and consultation are two very important areas.
If there was a lesson that I saw, at least at a distance, it was about how the community were not consulted in that area. Consultation does not mean that everyone is going to follow the views expressed, but it is quite reasonable for stakeholders to want to ensure that their views are actually considered before some of these decisions are taken. For me, consultation with the university sector or the commercial sector, and with sectors such as the creative arts, with which I may not be as au fait as I am life sciences, will be very important going forward.
Q37 Dr Sullivan: To build on what Daniel asked about, a lot of projects require submission to UKRI but they have to wait a year to get any kind of response. That timetable is where we have lost a generation of physicists. Are there any plans to speed that up and make it a bit more nimble, so that you have, say, 30 days to turn around a research grant application?
Professor Borysiewicz: I think 30 days would be very optimistic, and I certainly would not commit myself to achieving that sort of target. One thing that is of interest, but I still have to look at the detail as to how it is implemented, is the idea of continuous application, so that a grant is judged whenever the applicants are ready to submit it for consideration—it is not tied to rigid periods of time. What happens is that if you start saying that the submission dates are 1 March and 1 October, you begin to get this pile-up of information.
Secondly, we have to look very hard at how we assess applications. This goes to the heart of what George said about the importance of the metrics we are going to use in respect of our efficiency and elsewhere. It is inefficient for grants to be sitting around for a long time. It is also a difficult review process. Peer review itself is under enormous strain—I think UKRI has something like 30,000 applications in a variety of ways. I will leave you to ponder as to how much work has been put in by applicants and universities, and how many man hours have gone into these areas. We also have to look at ways of managing demand as well as outcomes, so that we begin to reduce the burden.
Yes, I will definitely be looking to have a shorter timeframe; having personally experienced the sorts of delays that you are describing, I would not wish it on anyone.
Q38 Dr Sullivan: What you said about the rolling dates is interesting. Once the budget pot has been spent in that financial year—it could be spent by Christmas, for example—there is no more money left. It will be interesting to see how that is managed, and whether there is the rush at the end of the financial year.
Professor Borysiewicz: Also, you are often well aware—certainly I was as an applicant—that there are optimum times of the year to put in your application. Those games are all played. We want to get rid of those sorts of games and produce an equity for applicants.
This is particularly important for me when we start looking at career awards. The development of young careers and the next generation of researchers, whatever disciplines they are in, is absolutely fundamental. If we lose that foundation, we will have lost the most important thing that we have got that other countries aspire to have, I believe. We have to look very hard at ensuring that career progression and opportunities are there for the future. It is probably the most important investment we can make.
Q39 Dr Sullivan: To build on that, and skip ahead to the diversity question, a lot of women have contacted me, as a former researcher, who have had to leave because it is just not possible. What do you say to them? How can we make it so that talent across the board can reach these heights?
Professor Borysiewicz: Let me preface my answer by saying that diversity is a very important issue to me. It is important because we cannot lose so much of the talent that we have in communities. Women have had a difficult time; I have had this conversation personally with my daughter, who is into it.
There are three things that I think are very important. The first is supporting women in their aspiration to move to senior jobs. I am a strong believer in mentorship and the idea of raising aspirations.
Secondly, there are some systems that I find not very effective. There is the idea—fantastic—that we recognise maternity breaks, but this burden falls disproportionately on women. Whatever we think the rights or wrongs are, that is how society still operates. But then we forget society at the far end. The moment that you are through the maternity area, there is a demand for care—very often for elderly and other individuals—which again disproportionately falls on women investigators. So it is not enough just to compensate for one area; we have to think about how this is best managed in the round.
Then we have groupings within the United Kingdom for whom pursuing a career in research is not something that comes to the forefront. We have to do an awful lot to raise the aspiration, so that there is the opportunity for people to aspire to get into research and recognise how important it is.
At the other end, the one thing I worry about is tokenism, because this is rife in science: “She only got that job because she’s a woman.” Rubbish—she got the job because she was the best candidate for that job. It is so important that we do not lose that. Anyone who has been able to undertake this activity should be recognised for the excellence that they have brought, and we have to be able to support them to achieve that excellence.
Q40 Chair: It is rare that the over-predominance of men is explained as, “They only got that job because they are a man.”
Professor Borysiewicz: Well, this may well be happening. Very often I have had it thrown at me that, in health, virtually 66% of entry into medicine is women. I had to point out very often as vice chancellor, “You may attack me and say that there are not enough women mathematicians coming forward, but I struggle just as much in finding that only 8% to 12% of veterinary students are men.” So I have had as much difficulty in recruiting men to some disciplines as recruiting women to others. There is a big diversity question, and what we want is an equitable balance of achievement.
Q41 Chair: I think you implied that tokenism is rife in the sector. What you meant, I hope, was that tokenism is often cited in the sector.
Professor Borysiewicz: It is cited. I hope it does not occur as often, but it is the sort of thing that I think is demeaning to individuals from particular diversity groups. Even in conversation, that can actually become quite a difficult issue.
Q42 Dr Gardner: I was quite taken when I chaired a grant proposal and a very good grant was criticised because the female researcher—the lead researcher—was felt not to have the level of experience, so maybe an older, more senior researcher should be there. The impression given was that a man would have given quite good oversight. To hear that was quite concerning, and I did challenge it. Sadly, that person did not get the grant. That is one area: how grants are awarded, how those conversations are audited to make sure that does not happen, and who we put on those panels.
The second area that I have great concern about is that it is not just about the number of people from diverse group; it is about focus on research topics. Even when you have a diverse group, they will still focus on certain popular topics because that is where the funding is going to be. Then we have a lack of funding in, for example, female health. How will you deal with that direction of funding to ensure that funding topics are diverse?
Professor Borysiewicz: That is a very important point. As you know, for much of my professional career I have actually had to work predominantly in female health. If I may go back for just a second to correct the Chairman’s original mention, my work was on therapeutic vaccines against cervical cancer, not the current vaccine that is in place. It is a very different approach, but conceptually, I am not responsible for the cervical cancer vaccine that is currently in utility. We were looking at using vaccination as a form of treatment.
The biases in particular themes and topics go to the heart of how we begin to assess investigator-led research in particular. This goes to the question of what mechanisms we will have for assessment, and how we ensure that those mechanisms are equitable. I would certainly look to work with the chief executive to make sure that that does not happen, because I think it closes and narrows the sense of opportunity that is given, and an application, if it is investigator-led, should be looked at across the board as to the quality of what is proposed, rather than pre-judging that everything has to follow in those areas.
There are quite reasonable areas where there is a priority and an urgency that is indicated to applicants before the application is submitted—that particular areas will be focused on in this area. That is entirely reasonable. But once the application has been received, it has to be considered for the content of that application.
Q43 Dr Gardner: I will close, because I know we are coming to the end of our time. That is a value judgment, as often the information as to what is a priority is lacking—prostate versus UTI recurrence, for example, within women. I want to make sure that those value judgments are completely unbiased.
Professor Borysiewicz: Particularly where it is investigator-led, it has to be; and if it is open, it is open, and therefore the judgments are made by the appropriate experts in that field and not necessarily tensioned. The chief executive has talked very often about how you tension different calls on funding. It is that tensioning that has to be looked at by the committees that consider these applications, to ensure that they are tensioned correctly.
Q44 Chair: We are coming to the end of our time with you. I am going to pass over to Martin in a few minutes to close us out. I just want to pick up a couple of points, particularly with regard to the funding controversies and challenges that Daniel raised, and to give one example, which I find particularly disappointing—that of the Facility for Airborne Atmospheric Measurements. In February, it was announced that it would close by the end of the financial year, which is to say April. Staff were notified 30 minutes before the public announcement of the closure. This is work that is leading, and supports our research into weather, and there is no replacement for it. It measures a large number of atmospheric variabilities—weather, climate, air quality and so on. Given that example, would you agree that to close that operation in such a way, with so little notice, suggests a lack of appropriate financial planning, which needs to change?
Professor Borysiewicz: That is an important question, but it addresses an issue that will be faced at all times. It is the responsibility in this instance, as I understand it from the media, which is where I have the information, that this was considered by the NERC council, and they were looking at the priorities for the investment that they were going to make. Their decision was, and I am afraid that decision is made in research at all times, that sometimes certain operations should be shut.
Now, that is their judgment. I cannot comment as to whether that judgment is correct. How it was communicated is something that I certainly would want to explore. If that 30-minute timeframe is correct, clearly that could be managed better. But we always have to look to allocate resources to where the best impact of research will be made, and that does mean that sometimes directions that have been established for a period of time will unfortunately have to be changed.
What I did note in the comments on this was that the resources were actually going to be reallocated to what the committees felt were more effective means of delivering the information than is currently collected by the individual flights.
Q45 Chair: I am not sure that the people working there will find that acceptable, in terms of long-term planning. To finish, your role is to drive UKRI in a direction. We have talked about tensioning between different budgets. One of the key issues with STFC is that the same pot of money that goes towards PPAN researchers and postdocs goes towards long-term, international STFC projects. Is it right and appropriate for postdocs, who, as we have heard, might have caring or family responsibilities and are on low salaries, to find themselves tensioned against multimillion-dollar international programmes that affect the UK’s international standing?
Professor Borysiewicz: I would certainly have to look into the detail on that. I noted that this was raised in the Committee hearing, and I was pleased that it was recognised at that hearing that an error occurred. I understand that it is trying to put that right as quickly as possible. As I have said before, career progression of individuals is absolutely vital. How to get the comparators and tension the various calls will be the challenge that I would face as chair, alongside the board.
Q46 Chair: I asked whether you thought it was appropriate. Is the answer yes or no?
Professor Borysiewicz: The response to put it right was appropriate. Was it right that it happened in the first instance? If I were in position, I suspect I would be asking, “Why did this happen?”
Chair: Thank you, Professor. Martin, let us look forward.
Q47 Martin Wrigley: Looking forward, yes. Thank you, Professor. Having played with innovational pipelines in industry and found it very difficult, I have been listening to your answers with interest.
The Government have come in on a mandate of change, and UKRI is clearly being asked to change quite considerably. In fact, we are in a world where the rate of change is doing nothing but increasing. We are seeing conflicts between traditional, medical, persistent and long-term approaches and AI, data-driven, rapid approaches—we are seeing a clash of all sorts of things. As chair, how will you balance the needs of UKRI between change and persistence?
Professor Borysiewicz: This is literally the $9 billion question. Certain questions are absolutely vital. Some elements of the status quo provide certainty and substance. The funding world for researchers is quite chaotic, but they learn to work well in chaotic systems and find their workarounds. They will therefore always have an element of suspicion about any change. But there is—unless I am misreading things—a recognition that change is happening because of the accelerating rate at which discovery and technology are advancing, as you said, and that the United Kingdom cannot just stand back and say, “We are immune to this; we’ve got an infinite amount of time to consider how to implement that change.”
There has to be a balance between consulting on what currently works and what we do not want to destroy—for me, if I had to pick examples, I would say that career development pathways would come close to the top of that agenda for me—and being open to the fact that technology will overtake particular ways of working. Not only will that change have to affect the way we look at funding applications, and at supporting novel industries and things that arise, but there has to be a demand that recipients and stakeholders recognise that the change is happening and be responsive to needing to change the way they operate. It is where those two clash that the problems will arise.
The role of UKRI—certainly during my tenure as chair, if I am appointed—will be to work with the board and the individual executive chairs to see how we can minimise the friction and tension that will occur. To a certain extent, that tension is inevitable, but we should make sure that it is minimised and properly communicated. The ability to talk to individuals and listen to their aspirations, and what their anxieties are and why, will be a critical part of ensuring that change happens well.
Q48 Martin Wrigley: Thank you. UKRI will be judged on the output of research and on commercialisation, which are also conflicting. In three years, how should we best judge you on all those factors of all those conflicts?
Professor Borysiewicz: That is a good question, although I hope it is not a case of signing my own death warrant. In a way, it is inescapable that the chair is considered alongside how successful the organisation has been. In answer to previous questions, it is about how far we are succeeding against the metrics, and yes, there will be that objective judgment—as there should be, because objective performance indicators are vital for good management and good accountability. But I am afraid that there will be a subjective component for some longer-term areas. I suspect that I will be at your mercy regarding whether that subjectivity be a measure of success or not.
Chair: Thank you very much, Martin, for bringing us to the end just on time, and thank you very much, Professor Borysiewicz, for spending time with us this morning and responding to our questions. We will now deliberate to agree our immediate report, but I want to say how much we have enjoyed hearing about your intentions and vision for UKRI. We look forward to communicating with you again.
Professor Borysiewicz: On my part, I thank you for your time and for giving me the opportunity to be here.
Chair: Thank you very much.