Written evidence submitted by the Academy of Social Sciences (SDY0010)

Science diplomacy

On behalf of the Academy of Social Sciences, I write to respond to your committee’s current consultation on the topic of science diplomacy.

As you know from previous conversations, the Academy of Social Sciences exists to promote social sciences in the UK for public benefit. We are a national academy and the UK professional body for academics, practitioners and learned societies in the social sciences. Our work is informed and supported by 1,600 leading social scientist Fellows together with 48 member Learned Societies that cover the main disciplines and sub-disciplines in the social science sector[1]. This gives us a reach of some 90,000 social scientists in the UK.

Our responses cover four areas of questioning from those included in the call for evidence, and focus on the social sciences specifically:

To what extent is the UK considered a global leader in science and innovation and how does this contribute to its soft power on the global stage?

The UK is a world leader in high impact social science research, as evidenced in the 2021 Research Excellence Framework exercise: 80% of social science research was world leading (37%) or internationally excellent (43%). Furthermore, analysis of REF2021 impact case studies found that UK research across SHAPE disciplines created impacts across the world, particularly in countries of geopolitical strategic value, noting: “Beneficiaries of research were concentrated in the UK but span a global geographical context... International impact was also concentrated in certain areas such as China and India.” [2]

Furthermore, social science departments in our universities are the envy of large parts of the world. UK universities comprise one-fifth of the top 50 social science universities in the world (including three in the top ten)[3]. This goes some way towards explaining why the UK’s social sciences are so attractive to international students. HESA data[4] show that the UK has 179,545 international students across all subjects, with 73,910 (41%) studying across the breadth of social sciences[5] (with 47% studying STEM subjects and 12% arts and humanities). The value of those students cannot be measured in economic terms alone – they also bring a rich diversity of experiences and perspectives to our academic disciplines, and have been instrumental in helping the UK’s social science communities to build and foster global links.

Other nations’ desire to work with our world-leading social science research base not only enhances the UK’s soft power through the links that are forged, but those links also ensure that social science research and practice can remain genuinely cutting-edge to address global challenges.

How effective is the UK Government’s strategy for positioning the UK as a global leader in science and technology and what role does the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) play in advancing this agenda? Does the UK need an International Science Strategy and what would it contain?

At present, that there is no UK Government strategy relating to the social sciences, including how best to capitalise on the UK’s position as a world leader in these fields. This is hampering the social sciences’ prospects for contributing to UK growth – a situation exacerbated by broader financial challenges facing the UK’s higher education and research sector[6],[7],[8].

The UK position is in contrast to moves elsewhere towards inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary research. The European Union, for example, has signalled its commitment[9] to increasing multi-disciplinary work across STEM and social sciences. This is important given the myriad examples[10] of social sciences’ role in helping to make sense of and amplify research from traditionally STEM areas. In AI integration for example, social science research and methodologies are helping to solve complex regulatory challenges[11].

If the UK is to fully capitalise on the social sciences’ potential to support effective policy design and implementation, the UK Government Office for Science and the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology (DSIT) must develop integrated strategies for engaging with all sectors and disciplines. We have previously suggested that a Social Science Framework, similar to the 2023 Science & Technology Framework, would allow for social science insights to more directly contribute to the UK’s technological, social, economic and environmental priorities as set out by the UK Government. Equally, any International Science Strategy must, as a prerequisite, adopt a broad definition of “science” that includes the social sciences within it.

To what extent are science and technology innovation activities supported through UK Official Development Assistance (ODA) spending?

The Academy has argued previously[12] that the UK Government should reinstate funding for UKRI’s Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF), the Newton Fund and university QR funding for GCRF. Dong so would allow the UK to meet its existing commitments, and to sustain its well-established, highly regarded internationally, and effective long-term research collaborations and associated soft power diplomacy. Previous cuts to these funding streams have undermined the UK’s role in global leadership and influence, as well as damaging our ability to form new international economic partnerships. This has resulted in a loss of international trust and damage to bilateral relations, as well as to the UK’s reputation suffering both as a leader of international science and as a reliable trading partner.

These changes have been felt particularly heavily within the social sciences because GCRF projects address matters of global importance. These have seen STEM and the social sciences working together to tackle issues linked to new technologies, climate change, sustainability and resilience.

How can the UK be made an attractive destination for global R&D investment, and how can the benefits of this investment be maximised locally and nationally? How can the government ensure leading scientific researchers continue to view the UK as an attractive place to base themselves?

For UK social sciences to remain a smart investment for global R&D, we believe there are five key priorities which the UK Government should adopt:

1)      Developing a strong pool of home-grown talent across the breadth of STEM, bio-medicine, and social sciences, to provide the highly skilled workforce demanded by R&D investors.

2)      Making a commitment to sustaining (and increasing) long-term government support for R&D including that in the social sciences[13] as this provides security for those investing globally. This should include UK participation in global initiatives such as EU Framework Programme.

3)      Social science-based R&D should be included within R&D tax relief at the earliest possible opportunity.

4)      The Frascati rules for measuring R&D should be expanded to reflect social sciences’ contribution We would welcome an expanded definition focussing less on publications or patents, as recommended by the House of Commons Science & Technology Committee report[14] on Balance and Effectiveness in Research & Innovation Spending.

5)      Reducing the high cost of visas and associated fees (such as the Immigration Health Surcharge), which are much higher than other comparable nations and prove a huge barrier to investing in UK R&D. [15],[16],[17]

I hope that these points will be given consideration by your committee, and I am more than happy to expand on any of them if you or your colleagues would like further detail.

8th May 2025

Page 3 / 3