Chris McDonald ‘will challenge researchers more than Vallance’

Newly appointed science minister Chris McDonald brings a markedly different background to the role compared with his predecessor, but his “unusual” experience could make him a stronger advocate for science, research policy experts have said. 

McDonald, the MP for Stockton North, was this week finally confirmed as science minister in the newly formed Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (BIST).

He replaces Patrick Vallance, who left his role as minister of state for science, innovation, research and nuclear during a reshuffle by new prime minister Andy Burnham.

With BIST still taking shape after absorbing the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), there have been concerns over how science policy will sit alongside business priorities.

John Womersley, a special adviser within the College of Science and Engineering at the University of Edinburgh, said McDonald was “well qualified for the job, but in a different way than Vallance”.

“Vallance is seen in the research community as a friend, but McDonald will be seen more as the sort of minister who needs to be convinced, not the sort of minister who will do the convincing,” said Womersley, a former chief executive of the Science and Technology Facilities Council.

McDonald’s experience varies greatly from Vallance’s, whose background was more rooted in the life sciences. The former minister served as the government’s chief scientific adviser from 2018 to 2023 and he was president of research and development at pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline.

McDonald, on the other hand, has a stronger industrial and engineering background. Before becoming an MP, he was chief executive of the Materials Processing Institute (MPI), a research centre serving organisations that work in advanced materials, low-carbon energy and the circular economy. 

“Working with Vallance was very easy for leaders of the research community,” Womersley said, adding that the former minister understood their concerns and was inclined to advocate for them likely because of his own career in life sciences.

“McDonald, I suspect, will be more sceptical, but probably a better and more effective spokesperson for science because of that,” he said.

On the loss of DSIT, he said: “I don’t think it’s a big deal, because [DSIT] became seen in government as the department that advocates for science, which is great if you’re a scientist, but it can be ineffective in persuading other parts of government.

“One thing that I hope will come out of the new organisation is that the views of scientists will be challenged a bit more when they land in government. If they can withstand those challenges, they will be respected more when they get to the Treasury.”

Graeme Reid, chair of science and research policy at UCL, noted that DSIT had existed for only three years and, when science research was previously part of the business department, budgets had been protected.

He welcomed McDonald’s appointment. “I cannot think of a previous occasion when we have had successive science ministers with previous careers in science or engineering research. Perhaps a pattern is emerging,” he said.

“Let’s give the new ministerial team time to find their feet, but I expect research and innovation to be prominent parts of the new department. The name alone suggests that will be the case."

Luke Georghiou, professor of science and technology policy at the University of Manchester, said there have been 18 science ministers since the start of the Tony Blair government, many with an industry and tech background, but McDonald was “unusual as a science minister” because of his experience as a practised, established research engineer. 

“He’s effectively built a successful interface research and technology organisation,” he said, referring to the MPI, which is based in north-east England. 

“He’s maintained and built a substantial, practical R&D capability and innovation capability in a region where it might have been more challenging to do. It fits in with Burnham’s idea of regional strength.”

Research organisations have urged the government to ensure that the merger does not narrow the role of publicly funded research.

The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) said it was “critical” that the new minister “champions the whole R&D system, from curiosity-led to applied research; academia to scale-up businesses; and across disciplines”.

CaSE said McDonald’s joint ministerial role with the Department of Health and Social Care could strengthen links between the departments and benefit R&D, particularly in the life sciences.

“However, this must not be at the expense of other areas of research, and we look forward to more clarity on his responsibilities, which I am sure will follow imminently,” it said in a statement. 

Beth Thompson, executive director for policy and partnerships at Wellcome, said the new department “must build on DSIT’s legacy”.

“There are benefits to merging the departments, but science cannot be relegated to only serving the needs of business,” she said.

“BIST must use the full strength of the UK’s science sector so it serves all corners of society. The new science minister’s joint role across BIST and DHSC provides exactly this opportunity, ensuring cutting-edge science can drive the NHS to deliver the best outcomes for patients."

She added: “While recognising difficult decisions need to be made, it’s clear that a focus on short-term growth must not compromise long-term investment in curiosity-driven research if we are to cement the UK’s reputation as the global partner of choice for R&D.”

seher.asaf@timeshighereducation.com