Written evidence submitted by the Royal Society (SDY0021)

The Royal Society welcomes the opportunity to submit written evidence to the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s inquiry into science diplomacy - a field that is critical to navigating an increasingly contested world and underpins the United Kingdom’s global influence, national security, and economic prosperity.

As a self-governing Fellowship of the world’s leading scientists and the UK’s national academy for science, the Royal Society’s fundamental purpose, reflected in its founding Charters of the 1660s, is to recognise, promote and support excellence in science and to encourage the development and use of science for the benefit of humanity. Throughout its history, the Royal Society has demonstrated leadership in using science as a source of soft power, promoting and facilitating international scientific collaboration, and has had a Foreign Secretary for over 200 years.

Our submission draws on the insights of our recently updated report with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Science Diplomacy in an Era of Disruption,[1] the Royal Society’s 2024 visa cost analysis,[2] our call for an International Science Strategy,[3] and our submission to the consultation on ‘S&T for Growth - A new HMG Africa Approach’.[4]

Together, these works recognise the importance of harnessing scientific excellence as a cornerstone of the UK’s soft power and international leadership.

Executive summary

• At a time of huge upheaval in international science, the UK is widely recognised as a global leader in science and innovation, with a rich history of groundbreaking research and technological advancements. The UK's scientific excellence significantly enhances its soft power by fostering international collaboration and promoting a positive national image. This soft power is instrumental in building strategic alliances and influencing global scientific agendas. The UK’s scientific and R&D capability is also crucial for its ‘hard’ power, including defence and national security and its ability to both pre-empt and respond to global and national risks.

• To sustain and build upon this influence, the UK must take a global, leadership approach to protecting the international collaboration which is crucial for scientific progress that improves people’s lives. From climate change to energy and food security, public health and pandemics and responsible use of emerging technologies, the challenges we face are global and require global solutions. This is more important than ever at a time when science is under threat. International scientific collaboration is now coming under greater scrutiny to ensure that its benefits are spread evenly (see points below on research security and equitable partnerships).

• Without political ambition and commitment, the UK risks losing its competitive edge in the global scientific arena. The UK’s productivity and levels of R&D investment, as a proportion of GDP, lag behind our international counterparts. The UK is 11th in the OECD for R&D investment as a % of GDP (2.9% in 2021),[5] behind Belgium, Austria and Finland. The compound annual growth rate for UK Government investment in R&D over the past decade falls below inflation and is outperformed by our international counterparts, while productivity growth also remains sluggish.

• The Government should take bold steps to market the UK as a destination of choice to global investors, innovators, scientists and entrepreneurs. Making the UK home to cutting-edge discoveries and innovation would help to create a welcoming environment that will ultimately improve people’s lives as they benefit from new technologies and products, as well as creating high-value jobs and domestic supply chains. More action is needed to encourage global companies to base their R&D activities here and to attract overseas investment. This not only includes policy and investment certainty but also removing barriers to attracting the world’s top scientific talent – including addressing prohibitive upfront visa costs which are on, average 17 times higher, than our international counterparts[6].

• The Royal Society advocates for the development of a single, highly visible, cross-government international science strategy. Such a strategy would include clear objectives for international partnerships, mechanisms for safeguarding intellectual property, and frameworks for addressing ethical and security concerns. It would also outline priorities for investment in key scientific areas and establish guidelines for engaging with international scientific organisations. 

• The Royal Society supports international scientific collaboration that is inclusive and underpinned by fair and equitable partnerships. In particular, the UK Government should engage and align with development and other associated agendas developed by Africa for Africa.[7]

• Science diplomacy is an important tool for the conduct of international relations. Scientists obtain and sometimes apply new knowledge about the world, while diplomats pursue national and/or institutional interests. When the interests of both coincide, they can work together to great effect – as demonstrated by projects such as CERN. There are also examples of scientific and diplomatic interests diverging - for instance, treaties governing the global commons (e.g. space, poles, oceans) that theoretically safeguard them for scientific research are increasingly coming into conflict with sovereign national interests.

• Science diplomacy is increasingly used by non-state actors. In recent years, there has been an increase in non-state actors, particularly global technology companies, using science diplomacy to conduct their own equivalent of ‘statecraft’ in support of their company’s objectives, which may be distinct from those of any national government. These actors have growing scientific, economic, and political influence, in some cases comparable to individual nations.

• There is a need for awareness of national security risks in scientific collaborations. Scientists must carefully scrutinise the intentions of potential research partners and their networks, while policy makers, who are increasingly concerned with research security, should be as open as possible about the threats they seek to avoid.

• Clarity and transparency are needed regarding the roles and responsibilities of practitioners of science diplomacy. Scientists and diplomats operating in the sphere where their two fields meet should be clear on their respective roles and responsibilities for the benefit of their working relationship, as well as for building public trust.

Introduction

Science, by its very nature, is international. In an era of disruption and where global challenges transcend national borders, science diplomacy is a pivotal instrument for nations seeking to navigate complex international relations and foster collaborative solutions. Science diplomacy can not only accelerate innovation but also enhance global health, security, sustainability, and resilience in the face of national and transnational challenges.

As science and technology have become the enabler of economic and strategic priorities, the integration of science and diplomacy is deepening. Nations are increasingly turning to science diplomacy to pursue their interests, joined by an increasing number of influential non-state actors, especially technology companies. Rapid advances, such as in artificial intelligence, are evolving faster than regulatory and governance regimes can keep pace, and areas once seen as apolitical scientific frontiers, like outer space and the deep oceans, are now sites of geopolitical contention.

Yet today, the science that underpins science diplomacy is in growing danger. An increasingly polarised politics has seen a resurgence of nationalism and authoritarianism around the world; and there are a number of threats to science: to science funding, to the values that have driven science, to scientific evidence and those who advocate for it, and to diversity in the scientific enterprise.[8]

Response to the Committee’s questions

Question 1: 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 widely recognised as a global leader in science and innovation, with a rich history of groundbreaking research and technological advancements. This leadership is evidenced by the UK's high ranking in global innovation indices, 5th among 133 economies,[9] and the presence of world-renowned institutions, including four in the top 10 of the QS World University Rankings 2025.[10] The UK's scientific excellence significantly enhances its soft power by fostering international collaborations, attracting top talent, and promoting a positive national image. This soft power is instrumental in building strategic alliances and influencing global scientific agendas.

However, to sustain and build upon this influence, it must be proactive in marketing the UK as a destination of choice for R&D investment, backed by a stable policy, regulatory and funding environment. The UK must also address challenges related to immigration policies and visa costs to ensure that the UK remains competitive in the global scientific arena.[11]

Question 2: How has this agenda been impacted by the current geopolitical environment, including the international activities of Russia and China?

The Royal Society's report, "Science Diplomacy in an Era of Disruption," highlights how the current geopolitical environment has significantly impacted the science diplomacy agenda. The report notes that the increasingly adversarial global context, marked by heightened competition and fragmented power dynamics, has transformed the landscape of science diplomacy. Specifically, the international activities of Russia and China have influenced this agenda in the following ways:

Russia

• Overall, scientific collaboration between Russia and many Western countries has effectively ceased in a number of areas of research since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.[12]
• For example, just weeks after the invasion, the seven non-Russian Arctic Council members agreed to boycott future meetings and halted the work of the Council, and CERN ended its cooperation agreement with Russia and terminated the participation of Russian scientists in its programs.[13] Evidence shows that Russia’s collaboration with countries such as China and India has increased during the intervening period.[14]
• Russia has announced it will leave the International Space Station and focus on launching a new space station of its own – not unlike the Tiangong space station which China operates independently.
• In March 2024, President Putin signed an update to the 2030 national science and technology strategy, which calls for funding for research and development to double to 2% of gross domestic product and stresses an increased role for applied science amid “sanctions pressure”.[15]

China

• US-China competition is growing, in part fuelled by rivalry over sensitive technologies such as AI and semiconductors, which were notably excluded from the recently renewed US-China Science and Technology Agreement. [16]
• S&T cooperation has been a significant component of China’s Belt and Road Initiative through developing international technology transfer centres, science exchange programs, and capacity for S&T in participating countries. [17]

In general

• Increasing economic competition: Both nations are investing heavily in scientific and technological advancements, which has intensified global competition.
• Security: It is important that a well-balanced and thoughtful approach is taken to managing potential risks to international security from research collaborations, while ensuring that mitigating measures are proportionate and do not discourage collaborations in areas which do not pose the same risk.
• Shifting power dynamics: Geopolitical currents impacting global science, economics and defence are shifting rapidly which may change the nature of these relationships in unpredictable ways.

Our joint AAAS-Royal Society report emphasises that our societies are being rapidly upended by an array of extraordinary science, engineering, and technological advances. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are evolving faster than regulatory and governance regimes can keep pace. A small number of huge multinational companies that develop, manufacture and supply these highly advanced technologies are increasingly becoming diplomatic actors in their own right.

The open system of international scientific collaboration is being exploited to strengthen some national military capabilities, leading to heightened concerns about research security. Previously ungoverned spaces – for example, the deep oceans, the poles, the moon, and inner and outer space – which were once considered largely as the domain of scientists due to their inaccessibility, are now much more accessible and thus subject to political contestation.

Further, there has been limited progress on preventing, mitigating, and adapting to global challenges, including climate change and biodiversity loss, as well as continuing high levels of global poverty. More than eight billion people now inhabit the Earth, and the greatest threats facing present and future generations remain largely unsolved. Finally, by integrating science into our national security framework, we enhance the UK’s ability to counter strategic threats.

Threats to science

Fellows of the Royal Society are concerned about the growing threats to science globally. These include threats to science funding due to financial pressures; ideological agendas being used to suppress research, threaten academic freedom and to cut funding. Scientific evidence and those who advocate for it are coming under attack from those who wish to undermine rational debate; platforms that should facilitate open, transparent debate giving free rein to harmful misinformation and ideological attacks on people and ideas; and attacks on equality  threaten our global community of scientists – a community that is strongest when everyone can contribute, regardless of who they are or where they come from.[18] Cutting science will harm global growth. Science is a global collaboration and so cuts in one country can affect everyone. If cuts to science are ideologically driven, we will surrender one of the most valuable commodities, the evidence-based thinking and innovation that protects and improves lives.

Vaccines, for example, have saved countless lives over the decades, eradicating many diseases and protecting us from others. New vaccines are being developed to prevent cancers and other diseases. Like all medicines, they are not perfect, they can have side-effects, and the risk must be balanced against the benefit both for society and for the individual. That requires open transparent debate, based on the scientific evidence. 

Climate change is another example. Human induced climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels and other activities has increased the risk of extreme weather, caused sea level rise, and threatened ecosystems, lives and livelihoods across the world. We all need to take more ambitious action now to reduce the risks of dangerous climate change, while preserving and restoring nature.

Research security

The Society recognises that it is important for national security considerations to be taken into account when collaborating internationally. We have welcomed programmes such as Trusted Research[19] and the creation of the Research Collaboration Advice Team[20] which both provide helpful guidance and advice to the sector and enable secure international collaboration. We are also grateful to HMG for providing sector-specific guidance for the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (FIRS).[21] However, concerns remain that the legislative approach to securing research against hostile state actors is producing a chilling effect whereby UK researchers are disincentivised from collaborating internationally.

Academics who wish to collaborate internationally must keep informed of multiple separate areas of legislation, all of which are managed by separate government departments. These include the Academic Technology Approval Scheme (ATAS);[22] UK Export Controls;[23] and FIRS,[24] as introduced by the National Security Act (2023).[25] There is concern that the bureaucratic burden of this legislation on individuals, combined with the relatively high penalties for non-compliance (including in some cases up to 10 years in prison), strongly dissuades international collaboration.

FIRS is designed to enhance transparency and protect national security by requiring individuals and organisations to register activities directed by foreign powers. FIRS has two tiers: the political influence tier, which covers activities aimed at influencing UK politics, and the enhanced tier, which includes broader activities by specified foreign powers or entities. Currently, Russia and Iran are specified under the enhanced tier. The scheme aims to deter covert activities by requiring registration and public disclosure of foreign-directed political influence and other relevant activities.

Although some concerns of the sector have been mitigated by the introduction of sector-specific guidance, the scheme still has potential to significantly impact the science community in several ways. The bureaucratic burden on researchers and institutions. including registering activities and ensuring transparency in collaborations with foreign entities, will divert time and resources away from scientific research. This comes amid ongoing financial challenges at UK universities,[26] and it is likely that many institutions will have limited capacity for additional administrative tasks. The need to register and disclose foreign-directed activities may also deter some international researchers and institutions from engaging with UK-based scientists, limiting the exchange of ideas and collaborative opportunities that are crucial for scientific advancements.

Question 2A. How does science and technology innovation contribute to the UK’s national security?

Three core principles underpin the role of science in national security:[27]

1. Every security challenge presents opportunities for innovation.
2. Agility is essential in responding to adversaries and adapting to dynamic threats and circumstances.
3. Over-reliance on rigid strategies is risky; flexibility and adaptability are key to managing unforeseen crises effectively.

Science plays a crucial role in detecting threats, developing protective measures and navigating vulnerabilities. As science and technology become increasingly central to geopolitics, the UK must strategically leverage its scientific capabilities to maintain and enhance its competitive edge. This especially requires strategic planning to ensure that the UK research system has the capability and capacity to be called upon, and that the education and skills system are producing the mathematically and scientifically literate workforce the national security system will require.

British scientific advances have often been essential in rapidly developing defence technologies and doctrines in the face of external threats. The first major Royal Society policy publication in 1664 was a response to a commission from the Navy Board on improving the domestic supply of timber in the wake of a series of naval defeats in the Anglo-Dutch wars. The mid-twentieth century saw the development of radar by Sir Robert Watson-Watt FRS, the turbojet engine of Sir Frank Whittle FRS, and the code-breaking devices of Alan Turing FRS. Britain retains significant defence-relevant science and engineering capabilities to this day, from operational research to communications technologies to directed energy weapons.

A resilient and agile system is needed to enable these developments, balancing long-term strategic research areas against emerging short-term needs. However, the research system can only absorb and respond to irruptive events if there is enough capacity in the system, otherwise other meaningful work is disrupted. As with the role of science in the economy, the research system is not just about creating cutting edge research, but also a reservoir for knowledge and skills which may become important (and exploitable) later.

Developments in robotics and AI are increasing the use of autonomous systems in combat and surveillance, quantum technologies have the potential to transform communications and sensing, and new materials and cheaper ways of printing essential parts will lead to reduced costs. Scientific research is critical to the UK’s national security and defence capabilities.

There is also a national security impetus to the long-term strategies needed to tackle climate change. Climate change is a multifaceted and cascading threat with far-reaching consequences for public health, migration and resource security. It will have a direct impact on the geopolitical landscape as states adapt to these challenges, and an increase in the number of ungovernable territories gives more opportunity for non-state actors. Managing these risks requires long-term policies, including the development of clean energy systems and strategic capabilities.

Question 3: 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?

The UK Government's strategy to position the country as a global leader in science and technology is encapsulated in the Science and Technology Framework, launched in March 2023, under the previous government. This framework outlined a vision to establish the UK as a science and technology superpower by 2030, focusing on critical areas such as artificial intelligence (AI), quantum technologies, semiconductors, future telecommunications, and engineering biology. Progress has been made in these sectors, including the hosting of the first global AI Safety Summit in 2023 and significant investments in quantum and AI infrastructure.[28]

DSIT plays a pivotal role in advancing this agenda by coordinating efforts across government departments, overseeing funding allocations, and fostering international collaborations. The Department's evaluation strategy stresses the importance of evidence-based decision-making and continuous improvement to ensure the success of science and technology initiatives

However, for the government’s agenda to be truly advanced, DSIT cannot be the sole government department responsible for its implementation. All government departments must own the science, technology and innovation agenda. This requires a cross-governmental approach to ensure there is strategic alignment, a joined-up narrative and coherent policy and investment approach. The inclusion of the cross-departmental Science and Technology Cabinet Committee under the new government is a welcome step, as is the recognition of the value of R&D and growth science sectors (life sciences and digital/AI) in the Industrial Strategy Green Paper, and at the Chancellor’s 2024 Investment Summit. More must be done to systemically embed science and innovation across the structures of government.

Question 3A. Does the UK need an International Science Strategy and what would it contain?

Yes.

Key Components of the Royal Society’s call for an International Science Strategy

1. Global Leadership: Positioning the UK at the forefront of international scientific endeavours, influencing global research agendas, and setting standards in various scientific domains.
2. An Open and Welcoming Approach to Global Talent: Attracting and retaining top-tier scientists and researchers from around the world to enrich the UK's research ecosystem and drive innovation.
3. Engagement with Future EU Framework Programmes: Actively participating in European Union research initiatives to strengthen collaborations, share knowledge, and access funding opportunities post-Brexit.
4. A Clear Framework for Collaboration: Establishing transparent and effective mechanisms for international partnerships, ensuring mutual benefits, and aligning with the UK's strategic interests.
5. Support for Science in International Development: Leveraging scientific expertise to address global development challenges, promoting sustainable solutions, and enhancing the UK's role in international development.

Recommendation: The Royal Society advocates for the development of a single, highly visible, cross-government international science strategy.[29] Such a strategy would include clear objectives for international partnerships, the UK’s science diplomacy efforts, mechanisms for safeguarding intellectual property, and frameworks for addressing ethical and security concerns. It would also outline priorities for investment in key scientific areas and establish guidelines for engaging with international scientific organisations.

This cohesive and collaborative approach to science and technology will not only enhance the effectiveness of national policies but also position the UK as a global leader in scientific innovation and technological advancement. Like the appointment of chief scientific advisers across government departments, there could be an individual co-ordinating their respective department’s effort to implement an international science strategy.

More coherent, strategic and long-term funding programmes would provide clear signals to international researchers and investors. In recent years, particularly in the area of science for development, we have seen a plethora of relatively short to medium term initiatives of a few years or so which have then been abruptly cut in response to economic difficulties.

Question 5: What impact will the rebranded Science and Technology Network have on the UK’s global position?

Maintaining the position of the UK as a global leader in science, engineering and technology is essential for the UK’s long-term prosperity and international standing. Furthermore, diplomacy in support of science is at the heart of the development of international policies and collaboration to address issues such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, pandemics and food security.[30]

The Science and Technology Network’s team of diplomats and civil servants is an asset and resource for the UK and has a long track record of collaboration on several international events and visits over the year. The STN will continue to play an extremely important role in support of these aims.

Question 5A: Are the thematic areas selected by the Network the right ones to prioritise?

-

Question 5B: What areas or sectors should the Network prioritise in the coming years?

In addition to the thematic areas already prioritised by the UK's Science and Technology Network, there are a couple of other critical areas which could also be considered:

1. Space Exploration and Governance: As more countries and private entities engage in space exploration, international cooperation is essential for managing space resources, preventing conflicts, and ensuring the peaceful use of outer space
2. Pandemic Preparedness and Response: Strengthening global health systems and enhancing preparedness for future pandemics through international scientific collaboration is vital for protecting public health

These areas reflect emerging challenges and opportunities where science diplomacy can make a significant impact. Prioritising them alongside existing thematic areas can help address a broader range of global issues.

Question 6A: To what extent are science and technology innovation activities supported through UK Official Development Assistance (ODA) spending?

Notwithstanding the latest round of ODA cuts, the UK has a long and effective history of supporting science in international development which brings mutual benefit.

UK-funded research and innovation has contributed to significant global advances, including a dramatic reduction of child deaths from malaria, eradication of the devastating livestock disease rinderpest, reduction of gender-based violence and building the case for climate action. These contributions demonstrate the critical role of research and innovation in supporting broader UK objectives, and help it to become a problem-solving and burden-sharing nation with a global perspective.[31]

The Royal Society is currently a delivery partner in the International Science Partnerships Fund (ISPF) which includes ODA-eligible projects aimed at fostering collaborative research with countries such as Brazil, South Africa, and other Least Developed Countries.[32] [33] These initiatives are designed to support the development of sustainable and mutually beneficial partnerships, enhance research capabilities, and drive innovation.

As the Society advocated in its response to the 2025 consultation, S&T for Growth - A new HMG Africa Approach, the co-creation of new ideas, solutions and innovations that are culturally relevant is essential for embarking on transformative collaborations, right from the start of agenda setting, as is promoting fair practices, policies and agreements. It is also critical that the impact of science is properly recognised and supported, including with long term sources of funding and resource support. Taking account of research outcomes and ensuring development policy is research informed, including through research from across the Global South, will also help to rebuild and sustain trust in bilateral efforts.

It is important to recognise the legacy of an uneven playing field in scientific knowledge production and that this is a multi-layered imbalance that must be addressed. A systems-based approach, focused on capacity strengthening across multiple aspects of how science systems work and how they can support development work would be a particularly effective approach. Care is also needed to ensure proper recognition is given to how different science systems work in different countries. This includes considering interlinked policy areas beyond science including education, employment, and wider government policy and how these aspects work effectively together.

Recommendation: The UK Government should engage and align with development and other associated agendas developed by Africa, for Africa.[34] It is critical that UK-Africa international scientific collaboration must be inclusive and underpinned by fair and equitable partnerships – a key recommendation of the Society’s 2025 report, Science diplomacy in an era of disruption.[35] Such partnerships have been characterised as entailing “mutual participation, mutual trust and respect, mutual benefit and equal value placed on each partners contribution”.[36]

The impact of cuts to ODA

The Royal Society has expressed significant concerns regarding the impact of cuts to the ODA budget on scientific research and development. In 2021, the Royal Society's Foreign Secretary highlighted that cuts to the ODA-funded R&D budget would be a devastating blow to global research and send a message that the UK is not a reliable partner in science.[38] These cuts were detrimental to global scientific progress, especially in areas such as climate change and global health.  This year’s immediate withdrawal of USAID, [39] coupled with more reductions in UK ODA funding, presents a gap which is likely to be filled by other countries, acting in their national interests.

Question 8: What are the benefits of bilateral agreements or global collaborations, such as CERN, for the UK economy and its innovation ecosystem?

UK participation in multilateral science project reinforces its position as a world-leader in scientific research, enhances the UKs ability to set the agenda for the most ambitious research programmes, and delivers tangible scientific, economic, technological, and educational benefits. These collaborations exemplify the value of international partnerships in advancing national interests.

Large-scale research infrastructure (LRI) are research infrastructures that necessitate multilateral funding to construct and operate, of the scale of European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN). Whether through participation in international projects or hosting facilities domestically, LRI offers opportunities for unique scientific advancements, as well as driving economic development.

The last time the UK successfully bid to host an internationally collaborative large-scale infrastructure of this magnitude was the Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor at Culham, constructed between 1978 and 1983. A 2020 assessment of UK spending on fusion research, including JET, found that the programme delivered significant scientific benefits alongside economic returns estimated at £4 for every £1 invested in the decade 2009–2019. JET also contributed thousands of skilled jobs in the Culham area, drove successful spinouts, enhanced the UK’s skills capacity, and positioned the country as a key influencer in the emerging regulatory framework for fusion technologies.

While hosting can foster scientific leadership, alternative – such as distributed or virtual infrastructure – offer some of the same benefits. For example, projects like the Square Kilometre Array Observatory (SKAO) demonstrate how partially hosting world-class facilities can strengthen local research ecosystems and enhance the UK’s visibility on the global stage.[40] The UK has hosted the SKAO's global headquarters at Jodrell Bank, Cheshire, since 2018. Beyond securing the leadership of the UK (and Manchester in particular) at the forefront of radio astronomy, this has led to the securing of €131.8m in construction contracts awarded to UK organisations, €38m for UK-based consortia working on system architecture, and the injection of ~€12m into the local economy of east Cheshire from high-skilled employees.

The types of distributed infrastructures are becoming more common with the continued increase in importance of data science.  The UK participates the European Molecular Biology Lab (EMBL), an international partnership of 25 member countries, and hosts its European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) at the Wellcome Genome Campus in Hinxton, Cambridgeshire.[41] EMBL-EBI is a global leader in the storage, analysis, and dissemination of large biological datasets, and this therefore provides UK researchers with unparalleled access to bioinformatics resources. EMBL-EBI's resources have been instrumental in projects like Genomics England's 100,000 Genomes Project, which aims to integrate whole-genome sequencing into the NHS. This initiative enhances the diagnosis and treatment of rare diseases and cancers, directly benefiting patients in the UK. An independent economic study estimated that EMBL-EBI's data resources underpin global research impacts worth £1.3 billion annually. 

Question 9: 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?

Question 9A: How can the government ensure leading scientific researchers continue to view the UK as an attractive place to base themselves?

More action is needed to remove barriers to attracting the world’s top scientific talent to the UK. International researchers and students bring valuable knowledge and investment to the UK, but global competition is increasing. More action is needed to encourage global companies to base their R&D activities here and to attract overseas investment. We welcome recognition of this from the Government, but there is more we must do to strengthen the UK’s international competitiveness. This requires an honest appraisal of the barriers which put the UK at a competitive disadvantage. This not only includes policy and investment certainty but also removing barriers to attracting the world’s top scientific talent – including addressing prohibitive upfront visa costs.

Upfront visa costs for scientific researchers are some of the highest in the world. Analysis from The Royal Society and Fragomen LLC has found that the UK’s upfront visa costs are up to 17x higher than our international competitors.[42]

The upfront costs of the Global Talent Visa are 1,583% higher than the average across the top 15 countries in the Nature Index.[43] These costs have increased significantly since 2021, mainly due to rises in the Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS), which have driven Global Talent Visa costs up by 58% (40% when adjusted for inflation), reaching £5,891.

Meanwhile, other nations have moved in the opposite direction to remain competitive in attracting R&D talent. For example, France has reduced the cost of its Talent Passport – Researcher visa by 92% (93% when adjusted for inflation), primarily by removing the employer's cost burden.

Recommendation: The Royal Society encourages the reduction of upfront visa fees to restore the UK’s international competitiveness in attracting research and innovation talent.

Conclusion

The Royal Society firmly believes that the United Kingdom’s continued success in science, innovation and technology is inextricably linked to its ability to leverage science diplomacy effectively. Our submission has included the following recommendations:

• The UK should lead efforts to protect international scientific collaboration, which is essential for scientific breakthroughs that improve lives and address global challenges, especially at a time when science is under threat. It is crucial to champion inclusive international scientific collaboration based on fair and equitable partnerships, without compromising national security.

• The development of a single, highly visible, cross-government international science strategy which includes a science diplomacy as an important tool for realising the UK’s international interests.

• The reduction to upfront visa fees to restore the UK’s international competitiveness in attracting research and innovation talent.

We look forward to the opportunity to engage further with the Committee and to provide additional evidence and data insights as necessary.

May 2025

Annex 1 – Royal Society response to government consultation “S&T for Growth - A new HMG Africa Approach”

Stakeholder Questions

ROYAL SOCIETY RESPONSE 

1. Science, research, technology and innovation are widely recognised as drivers of economic growth.  The UK Government wants to ensure that our future S&T partnerships with African countries are developed with economic growth as a joint and tangible goal.    

(a)    What are the best ways to ensure the UK and Africa embark on fair and equitable partnerships that can mutually deliver economic growth? 

Scientific research and innovation are essential building blocks for sustained economic growth – by improving productivity, driving growth, creating high value jobs and ultimately improving people’s lives.

Science benefits the economy in a number of ways: scientific research produces specific bodies of knowledge and process that can be applied for economic benefit; the application of bodies of knowledge and process spills over into innovation and productivity gains; scientific research and development (R&D) has a significant impact on human capital, through education and training and the generation of new types of jobs; and science generates important benefits that enable other economic activity, from improved public health to environmental protection and national security.[47]

Science is key to unlocking Africa’s potential, tackling deep-rooted problems and driving Africa’s economic development and growth. There is a demand for science across a wide range of sectors including health, energy, agriculture, environment and ICT.[48]

The UK Government should engage and align with development and other associated agendas developed by Africa for Africa.[49] It is critical that UK-Africa international scientific collaboration must be inclusive and underpinned by fair and equitable partnerships – a key recommendation of the Society’s 2025 report, “science diplomacy in an era of disruption”. [50] Such partnerships have been characterised as entailing “mutual participation, mutual trust and respect, mutual benefit and equal value placed on each partners contribution”.[51] The co-creation of new ideas, solutions and innovations that are culturally relevant is essential for embarking on transformative collaborations, right from the start of agenda setting, as is promoting fair practices, policies and agreements. It is also critical that the impact of science is properly recognised and supported. This includes long term and broad financial support for science through both ODA and other sources of funding. Taking account of research outcomes and ensuring development policy is research informed, including through research from across the Global South, will also help to rebuild and sustain trust in bilateral efforts.

(b)    Can you envisage and outline briefly below how such a model partnership might work in practice?

It is important to recognise the legacy of an uneven playing field in scientific knowledge production and that this is a multi-layered imbalance that must be addressed. A systems-based approach, focused on capacity strengthening across multiple aspects of how science systems work and how they can support development work would be a particularly effective approach. Care is also needed to ensure proper recognition is given to how different science systems work in different countries. This includes considering interlinked policy areas beyond science including education, employment, and wider government policy and how these aspects work effectively together.

The Royal Society has had a number of successful partnership initiatives in the past, including our Africa Capacity Building Initiative (ACBI), African Academies Programme, and Future Leaders – African Independent Research (FLAIR) Fellowships. To expand on the example of the Royal Society – FCDO (formerly DFID) Africa Capacity Building Initiative (2012-2022):

• This took a consortia-based approach in three priority areas (energy, water, soil), which enabled it to support cross-continent research teams involving a wide range of researchers at all career stages.
• It provided long-term funding, with the initiative lasting for a decade, at a total cost of £15.3m.
• 30 African partners and 10 UK partners across 18 sub-Saharan African countries, over 160 research and research support staff, 44 universities and research institutions directly benefitted through formal membership of the Initiative, and a further 2,000 individuals received training through its inclusive approach.
• The quality of the research produced by the consortia was high, as there were over 320 peer-review publications by the end of the programme, and over half of these with an African-based consortium member as leading or corresponding author.
• ACBI members received 52 awards, honours, medals, or prizes over the lifetime of the programme. 
• Members of the consortia successfully applied for additional funding from other funders (59 grants totalling £25.2m).
• Despite the delays caused by Covid, around 97% of PhD students graduated by mid-2023.  At the end of the programme 89% of the students already graduated were pursuing careers as scientists and over 80% based within the African science community.

2. What are the most critical challenges currently facing Africa’s science research, technology and innovation sectors?

The geopolitical context is increasingly volatile, with intensifying threats to peace and stability in various parts of Africa as elsewhere. The global scientific and technological landscape is being transformed and has made science and technology even more critical to nations for economic growth, and intertwined with this are environmental challenges including climate change and biodiversity loss that continue to pose a significant threat to life on our planet. [52]

Africa is projected to be of major demographic importance in the years ahead with the fastest growing, youngest population of any continent.[53] It is also likely that migration from Africa to Europe will be of great importance, so it is critical that the UK has good relationships with counterparts across the continent. And while the risk remains that the transformative technologies being developed as part of the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution” could entrench existing social inequalities,[54] scientists in Africa are taking advantage of the opportunities they offer, using AI in a wide range of sectors.[55]

Longstanding weak points in many African research and innovation ecosystems (acknowledged by the African Union)[56] include a lack of strong national research and innovation strategies and leadership, weak research organisations, limited access to scientific information, inadequate physical facilities including laboratories, heavy teaching loads, underrepresentation of women in science, and an overreliance on the acquisition of technology from abroad rather than innovation.

We strongly support the UK government’s new approach to “deliver long-term growth rather than short-term solutions.” Sustained, long term funding across science systems in Africa could have a transformational impact on African countries’ development trajectories and promote economic growth. Africa faces a challenge in insufficient financing of STI activities by national governments, with overall investments in the sector falling short of the AU’s 1% target, which coupled with limited financing by the private sector, [57] has led to considerable reliance on donors and vulnerability to their changing priorities.

Poor coordination among agencies and their functions in the innovation system has also been a challenge in many countries in Africa, despite attempts to redress this by the FCDO and other donor investments through the SGCI (Science Granting Councils Initiative). Limited financing and the capacity of agencies to deliver have been cited as reasons for this. [58]

3. What are the key barriers preventing UK and African scientists and innovators working together to resolve these challenges?  How can governments help address these challenges?

The key conditions for economic development are people, infrastructure and stable politics, and it is hard for this to occur without all three. Investing in research and innovation represents value for money in building future capacity in research talent, catalysing networks and partnerships, and leveraging further funding. As the Society has often demonstrated, investment in basic research is critical to economic development. [59]

A key priority here is ensuring long term support is available which will strengthen the effectiveness of any multilateral or bilateral intervention. As the FCDO review of the Royal Society ACBI programme recommended: “The long-term commitment from FCDO across spending reviews (i.e., the longitudinal aspect of ACBI over a 10-year period) was considered invaluable and fundamental for the success of the programme, particularly in the climate and context of the usually shorter funding cycles. The embedded monitoring, evalution and learning project also benefitted from this long-term commitment.”

Improved coordination between ministries responsible for leading on STI and other sector ministries is also critical for progress. The Royal Society has made a similar argument in the UK context for the need for a comprehensive international science strategy backed by cross-government support.[60]

Ensuring that the voice of scientists across Africa features prominently in development and policy discussions will serve to strengthen bilateral and plurilateral effectiveness. Strong research institutions and skilled researchers and innovators are essential for nations, including low-and-middle-income countries, to generate evidence for their own policies.

There is a need to grow and retain talent, enhancing professional and technical competencies; to build and upgrade research infrastructure; and to create an enabling environment for science and innovation. Taking a systems approach is critical.

Support for individuals is important in order to conduct high quality research, and to train upcoming generations that are the future research and innovation base. Approaches to individual capacity strengthening involve the development of researchers and teams often via training and scholarships/fellowships, to design and undertake / lead research, write up and publish research findings, and ensure that research is utilised.

Stronger local research institutions and networks of research and innovation organisations are a key goal of capacity strengthening efforts. They provide the infrastructure and architecture on which individual researchers depend and create a critical mass of expertise.

Creating an enabling environment for research and innovation requires sound incentive structures, political and regulatory context and a strong resource base in which research is undertaken and used. This includes, inter alia, funding mechanisms, regulation, standards, and policy for research and innovation.

4. How can we leverage the strength of our existing Africa-UK partnerships in science, research, technology and innovation to create a step change that will deliver economic growth for both sides?

The UK research and innovation community has significant and deep international partnerships with science partners in Africa. These programmes have helped to pioneer significant changes in UK and international research culture and skills development with the UK well-placed to continue this shared leadership. The Royal Society has been involved in programmes since the 1960s.

Research and innovation partnerships are most successfully built where support is consistent and long-term in nature. The 2021 ‘cliff-edge’ reduction in investment to ODA programmes - and last minute nature of this communication - damaged the UK’s credibility and trustworthiness. The Royal Society and many other organisations were forced to break hard-won partnerships, including where our international partners were also contributing financially and were unable to proceed without the UK as a partner. Whilst recognising that tough choices may be required by the current climate of geopolitical disruption, a key focus should be in ensuring the UK is the partner of choice and avoiding future ‘cliff edges’.

As part of these longstanding relationships, the UK has an excellent track record of people to people exchanges which exerts a considerable degree of soft power, all of which has mutual benefits. Evidence shows that meaningful relations with the UK extend beyond the period of initial exchange.[61] For example, 90% of (global) Royal Society Newton International Fellowship alumni surveyed in 2019 – including in Africa - were still in contact with their UK host (in many cases years after spending two postdoctoral years in the UK).[62] Along with FCDO investments in programmes such as Chevening and Commonwealth Scholarships, UK government could better join-up, network and celebrate its wider alumni networks of science and innovation leaders and emerging leaders, including the DSIT-funded Royal Society Newton International Fellowships (est. 2008 – present) and FLAIR Fellowships (2019-2023) (see also response to 7).

In addition, FCDO/DSIT also has the Science and Technology Network (STN) and Research Hubs, with attaches based in-country across the continent, which serve as a valuable resource and interlocutor.

5. Are there any other forms of S&T collaboration that we are not currently thinking about?

As well as collaboration with governments, research institutes, universities, innovation centres, etc., national academies of science play a role in strong research ecosystems. A good historic example would be the former Royal Society-Pfizer Africa Academies programme which targeted capacity strengthening at the institutional level, leading to the establishment of the Ethiopian science academy in 2010, and which also involved NASAC (Network of African Science Academies) as a partner. [63] Finally, public-private partnerships also help to leverage funding from both sectors..

6. Please outline specific S&T opportunities you have identified with individual African countries and set out what this could deliver for both countries? 

7. What should the UK do more of and less of?

The recent and immediate withdrawal of USAID, coupled with reductions in UK ODA funding, presents a gap which is likely to be filled by China and others, acting in their national interests.

The UK should identify where African research and innovation strengths and gaps are and choose local partners carefully. Long-term investment and aligned programmes should be designed and implemented to create larger transformative initiatives to strengthen research systems, structures, governance and management (including people and skills). With less money, and recognising there is a fragmented landscape, it will be essential to avoid a piecemeal approach; this would perpetuate many long-term problems including donor prioritisation. The UK government should recognise the huge appetite among the UK science and innovation community and help ensure UK partners are joined up by developing a coherent, focused and targeted UK offer, which maximises impact where it matters most. It would be beneficial to have this in place before high level visits are arranged, as often they are put together at short notice without this, which is inefficient and results in missed opportunities.

8. Are you aware of other nations working to address similar issues e.g. S&T for growth in Africa and, if so, which countries?

The Paris-based International Science Council (ISC) of which the Royal Society is the UK member, has recently initiated a 2-year collaborative project to convene a consortium of partners to collaborate on leading a pan-African scoping and development process. More details are here: International Science Council Scoping Project - Future Africa

9. Are there opportunities for the UK to partner regionally or plurilaterally, involving other non-African partners? If so, what would the UK’s bespoke offer be to enhance such a partnership?   

ENDS

9th May 2025

16