Can we devolve more science and innovation spending?

Can we devolve more science and innovation spending?

Title history
  • Can we devolve more science and innovation spending? — observed on 20261025-1526 UTC (YouTube)

by The Foundation for Science and Technology · View the channel on PSI

Humanities, Social Sciences & Thought Science — General & History PDScience: general issuesPDKScience funding and policy
🎙 The Foundation for Science and Technology 👥 348 📅 October 12, 2026 ⏱ 97 min 👁 89 📄 debate 🧭 2026-10-25
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

devolutionR&Dinnovationregional growthpublic funding

Summary

This panel discussion, hosted by The Foundation for Science and Technology, examines the question of whether more science and innovation spending should be devolved to regions across the UK. Chair Lord Willetts introduces the topic, noting the political context and the speakers’ diverse perspectives. Professor Dame Jessica Corner presents data on the distribution of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) funding, showing a shift towards balance between the Greater South East and the rest of the UK, but highlighting that other government department funding and business R&D remain concentrated. Lord O’Neill argues for more devolution but stresses the need for capacity building and warns against a one-size-fits-all approach. Professor Mary Ryan distinguishes between research excellence (which should remain peer-reviewed and centralised) and development/scale-up funding, where local strengths matter, but raises risks of subcritical clusters and unintended consequences. Professor Richard Jones frames the issue as a matter of national economic growth, arguing that the UK’s imbalanced economy and underperforming second cities are key problems, and that urgent action is needed. The discussion covers the role of R&D tax credits, private investment, and the need for national oversight, concluding that devolution is possible but must be implemented carefully to create national assets.

199 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The discussion provides high value by combining empirical data (Jessica Corner’s presentation) with practical experience (Lord O’Neill’s involvement with Northern Gritstone and devolution) and academic perspective (Mary Ryan and Richard Jones). The arguments are well-reasoned, with speakers addressing both benefits and risks. The distinction between research excellence and development funding, the importance of critical mass, and the need to consider the entire innovation system (including tax credits and business R&D) are thoughtfully explored. The argumentation is solid, though largely based on opinion and testimonial rather than new experimental evidence.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The panelists are credible experts: Jessica Corner leads Research England, Lord O’Neill is a former Treasury minister, Mary Ryan is from Imperial College, and Richard Jones is a professor of innovation policy. They reference their own institutional data and experiences, but no external sources or URLs are provided in the description. The debate is rigorous in its consideration of multiple facets, and the title ‘Can we devolve more science and innovation spending?’ is well matched to the content. No formal citations are given, but the expertise of the participants lends authority.

195 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the central question addressed by the panel, with detailed discussion of the feasibility and implications of devolving science and innovation spending.

Quality & Reliability

8/10

Panel discussion featuring established experts in economics, science policy, and regional development. Arguments are based on evidence and experience, though no new primary data is presented. The discussion is balanced and rigorous.

Key Moments

Markers derived by PSI from the transcript: the creator did not define chapters.

Contribution & Novelties

This video contributes a multi-stakeholder perspective on a pressing policy question, offering a rare dialogue between national funding bodies, regional advocates, and university leaders. It clarifies that devolution is not a simple binary but requires careful design regarding which funds and decision-making processes to decentralize. The discussion highlights the interplay between public research funding, tax relief, and business R&D, and suggests that a holistic approach is needed.

Pour aller plus loin :

  • Devolution in the United Kingdom — Overview of the UK devolution processes and scope.
  • Research and development tax credit — Context on how tax reliefs influence R&D distribution.
  • Northern Powerhouse — Initiative aimed at boosting northern England’s economy, directly relevant to the discussion.
  • Economies of agglomeration — Key concept explaining why critical mass in cities matters for innovation and growth.

132 words

Radar Profile

The profile shows high scores in quantity and quality of information, and moderate to high technical level, reflecting a dense expert discussion. The fiabilite is high due to speaker authority, though it is reduced by the absence of explicit citations and the opinion-based nature of parts of the debate.

Reliability 8/10