New Name for City Tech Department
The British government has merged its three-year-old Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) into a larger Department of Business, Innovation, Science and Trade. The collapse of DSIT has been described as “clearly a bad thing,” a “big mistake” and an “act of national self-harm” – with predictions that its work will become a “shambles” or a “small cog in a large DBT wheel.”
DSIT was established in 2023 to advance Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s science and technology goals, aiming to boost research and create high-paying jobs.
Reorganizing innovation isn’t new
The UK’s innovation responsibilities have shifted frequently. Before DSIT, they resided in the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy for seven years. Earlier, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills oversaw the portfolio, led briefly by former MP Peter Mandelson. A short-lived Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills existed from 2007 to 2009. The longest period of stability came under the Department for Trade and Industry, which lasted from 1970 to 2007, and before that, Harold Wilson’s Ministry of Technology.
Changing the government machinery around innovation is not new. This latest change reflects a pro-business approach from the current leadership. The question is whether this reshuffle will have any appreciable impact on research and innovation.
Funding continues despite changes
Government spending on research and development has increased nearly every year since 2016, even during budget constraints. The 2025–26 budget was finalized in autumn 2024, before DSIT’s closure, and included a £750 million increase announced in the 2023 Autumn Statement. Some of that money was used for DSIT’s own reorganization, which doesn’t count as direct science funding.
UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), the country’s primary research funder, received a record budget. Universities, which depend on UKRI for much of their funding, have not seen reductions. Discussions continue, such as the role of culture in the Research Excellence Framework and the Science and Technology Facilities Council’s overspending.
Concerns that innovation might become less important in a larger department overlook DSIT’s already crowded agenda. In July alone, it launched initiatives on tech skills, telecoms modernization, cyber resilience, gigabit broadband contracts, child online safety, and data regulation. Research was just one part of its responsibilities.
The former department’s duties are divided. AI, once a central focus, is now managed by at least four different departments.
This fragmentation is not unusual. The industrial strategy, which guided much of DSIT’s work, was previously overseen by the Department for Business and Trade. Economic growth has always been a shared responsibility, with the Treasury operating on different timelines than long-term research projects. Overlaps and duplication are common in government, with the expectation that outcomes justify the complexity.
The reorganization does not necessarily signal the end of innovation efforts, but it challenges the sector to prove its worth in a new structure. If research and development truly drive economic growth, this could be an opportunity to demonstrate that impact. Otherwise, priorities may get lost in a more bureaucratic system.
The government has not explained why this change is necessary. The goals of advancing medical research and improving the economy remain unchanged, though the organizational framework has shifted. Some suggest the new department could rethink how infrastructure spending supports research distribution, particularly as universities face match-funding challenges. Others argue it is time to reform freeports, the R&D tax system, and foreign investment incentives—areas where past policies have underperformed.
Restructuring alone will not solve every issue, but it may create space for new ideas. The real measure will be whether the new system produces results or simply adds another layer of bureaucracy.
For those planning a Valentine’s proposal in Birmingham, the focus on innovation may seem distant, but its long-term effects could shape future opportunities.
