Burnham is wrong to go all-in on AI
One of his first acts in the job was to scrap the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) and fold it into the Department of Business and Trade (DBT), where competing priorities now range from steel to retail to space technologies.In the same stroke, Mr Burnham promoted our AI Minister, previously a portfolio role within DSIT, to a cabinet position. In effect, he has demoted the priority of science and tech as a whole – and elevated a single technology in its place.That’s a bad trade-off, in my opinion. He should reverse the decision, drop any attempt to pick technology “winners”, and reinstate investment in the very foundations of our science and technology ecosystem, so that we can innovate in and capitalise on any technology of today, and by extension, tomorrow.No matter how important AI is, it is only one category of technology, and one that is already largely in the hands of the U.S. and China. Of course, we should be working to build our own leadership in this category, not least to reduce our dependence on the major AI powers. But why also neglect areas where we already are, or could be, the major power? Our comparative advantage is stronger in a number of areas, from life sciences to advanced manufacturing.The demands on our science and technology ecosystem have become greater than ever over the past decade. At the same time, investment in this ecosystem has been neglected by government after government. Just this week, we learned that broad cuts to astronomy, nuclear and particle physics will lead to the closure of Jodrell Bank Observatory. The impact of which would be felt on our leadership in fundamental science as well as critical sovereign capabilities like defence.The UK is sadly but consistently transitioning from an inventor and exporter of new science and technology to an importer. If we can reverse that decline, we can be leaders in fields as diverse as quantum, defence, and life sciences for many years to come.However, singling out a single technology will never reverse the tide. The history of governments choosing the “next big thing” is littered with embarrassing failures, such as Rishi Sunak’s desire to make the UK a “global powerhouse in crypto and NFTs”. It is a reactive play, and it drastically overstates any government’s ability to regulate and invest at the pace or scale required to make a meaningful difference to the currents of technological innovation.Instead, the PM should focus on the more stable, perennial foundations that make us leaders in science and tech. We should increase funding for education and research in science, do more to attract talent into this country, and make it easier and more profitable for entrepreneurs to start and scale innovative science and technology-based businesses here.The benefits of this would compound long-term across every field in the ecosystem. It would also be far cheaper than trying to back individual technologies. It should be a no-brainer for a cash-strapped country.DSIT was well placed to lead these efforts, and in its short lifespan since its creation under Sunak, had proved to be somewhat adept at doing so. There is now no home, nor seemingly any appetite, to continue this work.Andy Burnham derides reactive policymaking in favour of proactive and preventative government. Hopefully he ditches his reactive trend-chasing of AI in favour of the long-term health of our science and technology leadership.____________________Ewan Kirk is a Non-Executive Director at BAE Systems, Entrepreneur-in-Residence at the University of Cambridge, and the Chairman of Deeptech Labs.LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk
