British science and technology in 2024: Implications for ‘Net Zero’

Executive summary

• Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of modern times. It threatens our environment and ecosystems, as well as human health and wellbeing through impacts on agriculture, infrastructure, and social, political, and economic institutions more broadly.

• The United Kingdom (UK) has made progress in tackling climate change, and decarbonised faster than any other Group of Seven (G7) economy between 1990 and 2021. However, further progress and the target of becoming a Net Zero economy remains a challenge.

• The transition to Net Zero is at the heart of Britain’s efforts to tackle climate change and ensure the future prosperity of the planet. It is also an opportunity for the UK to reap the benefits of a global shift towards the green economy and to compete with countries around the world for investment in green technologies, businesses, infrastructure, talent and skills. 

• The green economy is growing rapidly, and Britain is losing out on the benefits of this to competitors such as the United States (US), People’s Republic of China (PRC), and many of the countries of the European Union (EU).

• Through a survey of over 60 scientists, innovators and business leaders, policymakers and policy experts, this Report investigates how Britain can build a greener, more competitive, and resilient science and technology base and unlock the nation’s potential for enhanced prosperity and security. 

• According to this research, respondents believe Britain’s scientific and research base is hampered by a number of problems, such as:
  • Incoherent strategy: The UK’s current approach to science and technology lacks a coherent long-term vision;
  • Average business investment: While British research and development (R&D) expenditure has increased, business investment has stagnated, showing potential for improvement;
  • Short-term funding: Funding mechanisms often prioritise short-term projects, stifling long-term innovation;
  • Bureaucratic burden: The current application process for funding is cumbersome, particularly for small businesses; 
  • Risk aversion: The UK should be more comfortable with calculated risks in R&D, especially in areas critical for realising Net Zero;
  • Skills Gap: Britain’s current visa system is a barrier to attracting top international talent, and risks making the country a less competitive environment internationally;
  • Limited access to infrastructure: R&D infrastructure will decline without investment and maintenance, and there is inadequate access to key infrastructure, such as laboratories and data centres, which hinders research efforts in the UK.

• These findings highlight weaknesses in the British science and technology ecosystem and help to explain why the UK is lagging behind when it comes to seizing the opportunities offered by Net Zero. The weaknesses with respect to Net Zero can be summarised as follows:
  • Lack of coherent vision: The lack of a clear, coherent vision and long-term commitment from HM Government makes it difficult for researchers, innovators, and investors in green technologies to plan for the future;
  • Shortage of investment: The UK – and particularly British business – does not invest enough in R&D, and there is a particular shortage in funding for start-ups at a post-fundamental research stage – when they are trying to commercialise, but before they are profitable;
  • Unattractive environment for skills and talent: The UK risks becoming an unattractive environment for the world’s best and brightest researchers and may lose talent to countries with more stable and supportive R&D environments for green technologies.

• Consequently, if the UK is to reach the objective of becoming a Net Zero economy by 2050, HM Government should:

1. Ring-fence British science and technology R&D spending and link it by law to the countries which invest the most in R&D as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP); 
2. Develop a coherent cross-departmental roadmap to unlock prosperity through science and technology;
3. Review its discretionary planning system and liberalise planning laws;
4. Expand the foresight capacity and capabilities of the Government Office for Science, particularly with respect to the UK’s performance and how the international landscape is evolving;
5. Generate a long-term plan for British science and technology skills and talent, including reform of its visa arrangements;
6. Craft a Decadal Funding Plan for R&D in areas of science and technology identified as being of national importance in the UK’s long-term strategy, as well as expand trials of funding methods which are high risk, high reward;
7. Investigate how public sector procurement can better support early stage businesses and cutting-edge science and technology through the Cabinet Office Public Procurement Review Service;
8. Legislate to prevent businesses critical to the UK’s roadmap for science and technology from being sold off to foreign competitors, particularly if doing so would harm Britain’s strategic advantage or potential economic prosperity;
9. Increase support for scale-ups through improved capacity and resources for Innovate UK;
10. Improve databasing of science and technology R&D knowledge and capabilities across the UK.