Alongside the three buckets, there is additional enabling investment on specific areas of infrastructure and talent funding (£7bn).

However, full details have not been provided on the criteria determining what R&D is assigned to each bucket. Therefore, comparisons to prior funding levels by type of R&D cannot be assessed at present. CaSE will be keeping a close eye on the full UKRI allocations, with breakdowns by research council, expected in the coming weeks, which may offer further clarity of how this new framework affects the distribution of R&D funding.

Curiosity-driven research

We welcome the Government recognising the vital role of discovery research in its priorities, stating its ambition to “sustain excellence”. It is important to note that in addition to supporting excellence and the delivery of the Government’s missions, the diversity and breadth of the research base contributes to national capability – discovery research creates the skills, infrastructure and ideas that underpin the dynamic environment in which all UK R&D thrives. Therefore, it is also important not to lose sight of the role of discovery research in providing the foundation for the other buckets, i.e. strategic government and societal priorities, business R&D and economic growth.

We also know that the public want to see an equal balance of discovery and applied research. CaSE’s 2025 public opinion research found that half of people favoured an even mix of fundamental and applied research.

While the importance of diversity and breadth was recognised in the Post 16 education and skills White Paper, the Government also said it wants institutions to specialise in areas of strength in a more collaborative environment. Therefore, it’s not clear how these two aims will be reconciled if decisions about how and where to specialise are left to individual institutions. There is a risk of a reduction in the diversity and breadth of the research base if decisions are uncoordinated. This was not addressed in the recent announcements by Prof Sir Ian Chapman or Liz Kendall.

Innovation

It is welcome to see a focus on driving private investment in R&D, which has recently declined in the UK. CaSE’s report on Backing Business R&D shows that a stable and predictable policy environment is vital for ‘bucket 3’ to enable effective long-term planning and investment in R&D by the sector, particularly for R&D-intensive businesses. 

CaSE’s report shows that support for businesses at the scale-up stage has been reported to be a particular issue across several areas, including funding and finance, infrastructure, and knowledge exchange between businesses and investors. In addition to investment, there is scope to make more use of levers such as public procurement to de-risk the translation pathway and create confidence amongst investors.

Recent research by CaSE and the British Academy shows that UK innovation requires tailored support to maximise economic returns, and suggests that government intervention should not take a one-size-fits-all approach and instead adopt targeted approaches to capture value from innovation processes. Therefore an understanding of market structures and a tailoring of policy approaches may help generate better economic returns on R&D and innovation investment.  

The same research also highlights, that in the absence of government intervention, private firms tend to invest in innovations with a high degree of value capture for the firm but a relatively low degree of social benefit. A degree of government intervention may be needed to ensure that certain innovations are developed, commercialised and implemented to provide further social value.

Both Prof Sir Ian Chapman and Liz Kendall spoke about the need to prioritise and to choose areas for investment where the UK has existing excellence and expertise and the opportunity to win significant market-share. Liz Kendall used the analogy of funding for Team GB, and the picking of those sports where Great Britain had the greatest chance of success at the Olympics. Prioritising in line with areas of strength and the Industrial Strategy is a legitimate aim, but UKRI and DSIT should take care that this doesn’t turn into trying to pick too narrow a set of winners. Relying on a few “winners” in this way could lead to missed opportunities. Sufficient broadness is needed to make sure new areas of strength can emerge and be nurtured as research and technology evolve.

Articulating the value of R&D to society

The Government hopes the new investment framework will more “clearly articulate and improve the transparency of the government’s R&D priorities.” It is welcome that the Government is moving to better showcase the outcomes from its investment. However, it needs to go further than that to clearly demonstrate how R&D investment benefits citizens.

CaSE research shows that there is a strong desire among the UK public for R&D to deliver benefits, but people struggle to see or feel the benefits of R&D; they feel vague and hard to articulate, especially on a personal level. Our latest study, CaSE Public Attitudes to R&D 2025, found that four in five (80%) said it was ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ important that R&D delivers benefits for “me and my family”. However, less than a third of people could immediately think of lots of ways R&D benefits the UK (29%) or their region (22%), falling to just 18% when asked about their local area or them and their family.

The Secretary of State talked about creating a “… spirit of hope and optimism, based on Great British ingenuity, and inspire our country for generations to come.”  This is paramount for the future of R&D. The sector and the Government need to build a more compelling narrative about the integral role and value of R&D across all missions and across a range of institutions, that everyone – including the public and politicians – can buy into.