Sixty years ago, Harold Wilson¡¯s incoming Labour government created the new role of chief science adviser (CSA), with Sir Solly Zuckerman as first holder. Now a new Labour government has gone a stage further and for the first time made a former CSA its science minister. When it comes to science, the chief adviser is now the chief decider.

There has rightly been a warm welcome across the research community for Patrick Vallance¡¯s appointment. It is great news. He is accessible, thoughtful and has a close understanding of all the issues.

This is the first time a science minister has been someone with a long career in science ¨C although there have been science ministers from outside day-to-day politics, notably David Sainsbury, one of the great holders of the post. The British model has tended not to regard expertise in a particular discipline as a prerequisite for being a minister.

We don¡¯t think we need a teacher as education minister, a doctor as health minister, a soldier as defence minister or a scientist as science minister. The science community was very tolerant and, indeed, welcoming of me, a non-scientist, as science minister, especially because science in this departmental context really means Wissenschaft, so it includes humanities and social sciences. There are also distinct skills to being a minister that do not depend on being steeped in the relevant profession.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Vallance¡¯s suitability for the role does not depend simply on his being a scientist. His role as chief scientist during the Covid crisis means that he has seen politics close up, at its most intense and significant. He will have spent more time inside No 10, involved in highly charged government decisions, than just about any member of the Cabinet. He has more media experience than many ministers. He also has high-level business experience from GSK. It is not as if he has just emerged from deep in the lab to find himself suddenly in the strange world of politics. His extraordinarily wide range of experience ensures he can engage with politicians, investors and journalists, as well as scientists and researchers.

A political background and the experience of facing voters in a constituency would matter a lot more if the government had a tiny majority and needed to consider the parliamentary angle for every decision. But one of the advantages of a large majority is that there is more generous political cover for experts brought into ministerial roles.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Moreover, science enjoys considerable cross-party support.?Vallance will not be facing partisan challenge. Instead, he will be dealing directly with formidable cross-bench expertise in the House of Lords. We can look forward to his being questioned by the likes of former Aston University vice-chancellor Julia King, former University of Cambridge director of research Robert Mair, Astronomer Royal Martin Rees and former Jesus College, Oxford principal John Krebs,?all leading scientists and engineers. Those could be some of the classiest exchanges Parliament has seen.

Indeed, with Jacqui Smith, the universities minister, also in the Lords, the Upper House can play an important, constructive role in universities and science policy. Accountability to the Commons will be in the hands of Peter Kyle, the very capable secretary of state.

Science and innovation are key to the government¡¯s missions. The quality of our research can attract private investment and drive growth. Science and technology can help tackle the climate emergency. New technologies such as AI can help ensure better public services. And the security perspective is increasingly important ¨C ensuring that the UK has the sovereign capabilities it needs in times of crisis. All these are desirable objectives, and they often complement each other.

But if it were all so straightforward, we wouldn¡¯t really need politics at all. In reality, resources are constrained and difficult decisions have to be taken on priorities, especially if the science and technology budget is stuck at flat cash. Getting the Treasury engaged and sympathetic will be crucial. But increases in budgets wouldn¡¯t remove the need for tough decisions.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

There are different approaches to AI, for example. Should the focus be on safety and regulation ¨C a preoccupation of the Cabinet Office under the previous government? Or should we instead aim to apply machine learning to sovereign national datasets, such as in health, education and earnings ¨C the approach of the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) and one that I personally favour?

We have already seen in the first days of the new government a shift from the Cabinet Office to DSIT of key AI responsibilities: the Government Digital Service, the Central Digital and Data Office and the Incubator for AI. This is encouraging evidence that?Vallance and?Kyle will take the lead on such decisions.

They will also be deciding to what extent the AI agenda should dominate science spending and priorities. It is obviously of enormous significance but we still need a broad science and research base, including arts, humanities and social sciences.?Vallance has never been a STEM reductionist ¨C one of the big lessons from Covid is the importance of understanding human behaviour.

So this all looks very promising. An extraordinarily capable science minister backed by enormous goodwill and a whopping parliamentary majority could do much to nurture the kind of national scientific endeavour that will be vital to any prospect for meaningful growth.?

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

David Willetts is a member of the House of Lords. He was minister for universities and science between 2010 and 2014.