CaSE Public Attitudes to R&D and the General Election 2024

The next General Election is a crucial time for R&D advocates. To support them to make an effective case for R&D to both political and public audiences, CaSE is conducting a series of polls to explore attitudes to R&D and topics relevant to the election, such as economic growth and how people would like their MP to act on issues related to R&D and their local area. This section uses quantitative data from polling in March/April and June 2024. 

Attitudes to R&D priority topics

Key takeaways

• Investment in R&D for healthcare is a clear priority for the public, followed by environmental research
• When shown a mix of potential scientific breakthroughs, a majority expected that all would be first achieved by a country other than the UK
• Breakthroughs in AI, computing efficiency, and robotics were seen as most likely to happen first in China, and breakthroughs in monitoring and engineering of the weather and the climate in the US
• Breakthroughs in productive and climate-change resistant crops, and globally-accessible high-speed internet were seen as the most personally beneficial
• Medical advancements were seen as being most likely to be achieved in the UK, but a larger proportion felt they would occur first in the US
• A majority expected that all the breakthroughs would be achieved in the next 20 years
• Medical breakthroughs, agricultural engineering and climate technology were more likely to be prioritised by respondents

Our March/April 2024 polling included a set of questions exploring the areas where respondents would like to see greater investment.

Investment in R&D for healthcare is a clear priority for the public, with more than three quarters (78% of 2,011) wanting to see investment in this area. This is followed by the environment (45%) and education (36%). At the other end of the scale was arts and culture research, selected by just 7%.

However, after healthcare – which is the most popular across all age groups – priorities differ between age groups. Younger people were more likely than older people to prioritise investing in R&D for education (55% among 18-24s; 23% among over 65s), while older people prioritise R&D in the environment and security and defence. Security and defence was selected by 42% of over-65s, compared with 25% of 18-24s.

When asked why they had selected these topics, the reasons given differ between areas of R&D, although the idea that the area just needs more investment in general was the most-selected reason for five of the eight topics.

Although the reason that investment would benefit the economy and create more jobs resonated across many topics, respondents could most readily see the connection between investing in R&D in economics and benefits to the economy or creation of jobs. In contrast, the reason “I find this area more interesting” was in the bottom two for all topics apart from arts and culture, where it was the most-selected reason.

In June 2024, we sought to understand which areas of R&D should be a priority for the next Government. When asked to select from a list which areas of research the Government should give more attention to, the most popular options were medical, environmental, mental health and wellbeing, and data and cybersecurity research.

Medical research and new medical technology was highest, with 55% selecting this option, followed by renewable energy and environmental research at 50%. The areas that were seen as needing the least attention were research into arts and humanities (11%) and space exploration and technology (12%).

Later in the poll, respondents were shown the same list of research areas and asked which they would like the UK to be a world leader in. The same choices came top, and – apart from respondents being more likely to select ‘Don’t know’ for this question – the priority order was the same as that of areas the Government should give more attention to.

Exploring areas framed around aspirational R&D

CaSE’s wider research suggests that the public feel a stronger connection with R&D when presented with specific areas of research and a clear explanation of why it is being carried out. In our June survey, we sought to explore the framing of forward-looking or ‘blue skies’ research areas, taking the areas being pursued by the Government-funded Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) as a framework.

We showed respondents a range of hypothetical future technologies or research breakthroughs based around ARIA’s seven research themes, alongside two nearer-term digital technological advancements. We note that the ARIA connection was not mentioned to respondents.

For each example, we asked how much personal benefit the public saw in them, when they thought these breakthroughs might occur, and where in the world they thought the breakthrough would first occur. We also ran a MaxDiff analysis to understand the relative prioritisation of each breakthrough. This involves presenting participants with a selection of the breakthroughs and asking which they would most and least like to see achieved.

Relative prioritisation of breakthroughs

This MaxDiff analysis showed that medical breakthroughs, agricultural engineering and climate technology tended to perform best. Robotics and AI tended to perform least well, although it should be noted that these scores are relative; this does not necessarily mean they are unpopular, they are just less popular than other topics. There were some notable differences among demographic groups, however: for example, crops that can feed the world heavily underperformed for the youngest respondents (18-24 year olds) while “high-speed internet which can be accessed anywhere in the world” and developing “AI technology that costs one thousand times less than it does currently” overperformed among this group.

Perceived personal benefits

The areas seen as offering the greatest personal benefit were predominantly in environmental research, with agricultural engineering and weather and climate monitoring breakthroughs coming in the top five options. The top three options all saw 59% of respondents say they would personally benefit a great deal or to some degree: “Develop crops that are so productive they can feed the world”, “Develop climate-change resistant crops” and “Develop high-speed internet which can be accessed anywhere in the world”. Notably, the examples that were given for medical technology breakthroughs were seen as less personally beneficial, despite CaSE’s wider public attitudes research finding that the public consistently describe health and medical R&D as priorities. For instance, among this list just 38% of respondents saw personal benefit in “Develop a “pace-maker for the brain” to treat brain disorders”, and 27%, saw personal benefit in “Develop technology that can cure paralysis”.

When assessed alongside the MaxDiff analysis, which saw medical breakthroughs prioritised, this suggests that people’s priorities are influenced by additional, or different, factors than personal benefit.

Time expected to achieve breakthroughs

When asked how long these advancements would take to achieve, a majority of respondents expected outcomes within the next 20 years, regardless of the topic. Many felt outcomes could be achieved quickly, with at least a fifth expecting each could be achieved within five years. Digital technology breakthroughs were seen as being quickest to achieve: 43% expected high-speed internet which can be accessed anywhere in the world to be developed in the next 5 years; and the same proportion felt this way for “Develop fully immersive virtual reality technology for work and leisure”. The technology breakthrough that the public expected would take the longest was to “develop a superintelligent AI that can solve humanity’s unsolvable problems”, with 20% expecting this to have happened within five years, 14% more than 20 years, and 23% saying it could never be achieved.

When compared against the areas that respondents felt would have most personal benefit, 34% felt that climate-change resistant crops could be achieved within five years and 28% felt that crops that can feed the world could be achieved within five years.

Where are breakthroughs likely to occur

When asked where these breakthroughs were likely to occur, and given a range of countries or regions, the majority expect that all the scientific breakthroughs described would occur outside the UK. The medical advancements were seen as being most likely to be achieved in the UK, each by 21% of the public – but a larger proportion felt they would occur first in the US. Most of the advancements in AI, computing efficiency, and robotics were seen as most likely to happen first in China, while the US was seen as most likely to achieve breakthroughs in climate and weather monitoring and engineering.

Comparing attitudes across the questions

This analysis shows that there are relative advantages to a range of different breakthroughs, and this should be considered when communicating about such areas of work. Some breakthroughs that are seen to have clear personal benefits feel imminently achievable, but are lower priority for the public – such as high speed internet that can be accessed anywhere in the world. Meanwhile others, which are not felt to have such strong personal benefits, feel less achievable but are high priority – such as medical breakthroughs. One consistent finding, however, is that while the UK is seen as being a player in some fields, it is expected to lag behind China and the US when it comes to being the first to achieve the majority of breakthroughs.

Attitudes to actions to support R&D for the next Government

Key takeaways

• A majority of the public believe R&D-related policy actions recommended by CaSE would create jobs and bring positive impacts to the economy
• More than a third would like the next UK Government to listen to people who work in R&D when deciding what actions to take
• A majority had never heard the phrase ‘science superpower’ before, but about two-fifths said it sounded ambitious

In our June 2024 polling, we asked respondents what they thought the economic impacts would be if the next Government took a range of actions. Four of these actions were framed around CaSE’s 2024 General Election manifesto asks, and two were additional actions that could be taken:

1. Committing to a long-term plan to support the R&D system
2. Supporting skills for a more research-intensive economy
3. Maximising the impact of regional R&D strengths across the UK
4. Incentivising businesses to invest more in R&D
5. Raising the minimum wage
6. Increasing taxes on the biggest businesses

For each of the four R&D related actions, the two most-selected outcomes were that they would grow the economy and create more jobs – in different orders depending on the action – followed by encouraging foreign investment in the UK. This indicates that the public strongly connect the actions that CaSE is calling for to support R&D with growing the economy.

For all four actions, between 8% and 10% think that the actions will make them personally better off, while 5% or fewer feel it will result in negative outcomes such as making them personally worse off or reducing the number of jobs in the UK.

For raising the minimum wage, the most-selected outcome was making those on low incomes better off, and for increasing taxes on big businesses, discourage foreign investment in the UK.

We then asked respondents whether they thought the same actions would have a positive or negative impact on the economy in the long or short-term. More than 60% think that each of the four R&D-related actions would have a positive impact on the economy in the next 5-10 years, and more than 50% think all actions aside from “commit to a long-term plan to support the R&D system” would have a positive impact on the economy within the next 5 years.

Respondents are more likely to think that any R&D-related action will have a positive impact on the economy in 5-10 years than the non-related R&D actions.

Advice

In our June 2024 poll we asked who respondents would prefer the UK Government to listen to when deciding what actions to take. There was most support for public sector staff like nurses and doctors (selected by 52%), followed by economists (39%) and people who work in R&D (36%). At the other end of the scale, 6% selected religious leaders, 8% creatives like artists and musicians, and 16% charity sector workers.

Our previous polling has demonstrated that the public tend to trust people who work in R&D, and R&D organisations like medical research charities or universities. It has also shown that – while the public recognises the potential for bias in researchers talking about investment in R&D – they still consider voices from within the R&D sector to be well-placed and honest about these issues.

In CaSE’s landmark 2022-23 Public Attitudes to R&D study, we explored terminology, language and messages that are effective when communicating about R&D.

Science superpower

In light of the fact that both Labour and the Conservatives have used language related to the idea of the UK being a scientific or tech superpower, we re-ran questions from our May 2022 and February 2023 polling to explore the “science superpower” brand that the Conservative government used through the early 2020s.

In our June 2024 polling, we found that a majority had never heard the phase before (65%), and just 10% had heard of it and knew what it meant. This is very similar to our February 2023 poll, where 65% had never heard the phrase and just 12% had heard of it and knew what it meant.  In May 2022, just 8% said that they had definitely heard of the phrase.

However, when the concept behind the phrase was explained, and respondents were asked to select words to describe it from a list, the top three words were: ambitious (42%), inspiring (27%), and exciting (24%). This echoes our February 2023 results, where the top choices were: ambitious (44%), inspiring (27%) and achievable (23%).

Attitudes to R&D and economic growth

Key takeaways

• The public feel confident in their understanding of commonly used phrases related to economic growth
• The public naturally link economic growth to R&D investment and vice versa, and report a clear understanding of how R&D investment can lead to growth
• When compared with more tangible potential outcomes of R&D investment, the phrase ‘grow the economy’ performed very well
• Another strong argument for R&D investment was job creation, which performed similarly well to growing the economy in the context of an election campaign

Our March/April 2024 polling explored attitudes to economic growth, beginning with a question to assess respondents’ familiarity with terms that are commonly used in these discussions. Respondents reported a fairly strong grasp of the meaning of most of the phrases we tested relating to economics and growth.

More than 50% of 2,011 respondents said they could explain the meaning of ‘Economic growth’, ‘Deficit’, ‘Return on investment’, ‘Economic productivity’ and ‘GDP’. Of these phrases, economic growth performed best, with 97% of respondents saying they have heard the term, and 76% said they could explain it.

To understand the public’s overall perception of economic growth ahead of any questions about how this relates to R&D, we first explored respondents’ associations with the economy growing or not growing.

 When asked about the potential personal benefits of economic growth in the UK, the public mainly connected this to improvements in their standard of living (56% of 2,011 respondents), improvements to public services like transport, education and the NHS (45%) or making it easier to afford the essentials like food (43%). Just 4% said economic growth would not benefit them. This was fairly consistent across different demographics.

Reflecting this, when asked to consider the consequences of the economy not growing, most people connected this to a worsening of standards of living (71%) and a negative impact on jobs and businesses. Some 66% (of 2,011 respondents) expected shops and small businesses would close, 65% expected unemployment would increase.

Prior to any mention of R&D in the poll, we presented respondents with a list of potential actions that could encourage economic growth. Respondents were most likely to choose ‘reducing the costs of basic household needs, such as energy and food’ as a driver of economic growth (40%). Among the most popular options selected, there was a strong emphasis on actions that would have a personal impact and ones that would support business activity or skills development.

Various actions referring directly or indirectly to investing in R&D were seen as actions that would increase economic growth. This included 31% of respondents saying that ‘putting money into research and development’ would lead to more economic growth, putting it into the top 10 actions chosen.

Notably, other more specific actions that reflect investing in R&D – without referring to R&D explicitly – performed slightly better. These included strengthening the manufacturing sector (38%), promoting entrepreneurship and support for small businesses (37%) and putting money into businesses which are doing new or innovative things (33%).

This trend was particularly apparent among older respondents. For example, more respondents over the age of 65 gave strengthening the manufacturing sector (54%) and putting money into research and development (47%) as actions that would lead to economic growth than the youngest age group (24% and 28% of 18-24s, respectively). Younger respondents did generally connect actions relating to R&D to economic growth but were more likely to choose actions that may be more relevant to their own lives, such as more affordable housing (39%).

Respondents were then asked whether, to grow the economy it would be better to invest in R&D or to carry out one of a number of other typical near-term policy interventions, such as minimum wage increases or building hospitals. The majority of respondents (ranging from 50%-64%) thought investing in R&D was a better strategy, irrespective of the alternative action given.

This suggests that R&D is understood to be an effective strategy to grow the economy. This observation is reinforced by the finding that 65% of respondents felt it was clear how investing in R&D would grow the economy, compared with 23% who said it was not clear.

To test if the connection between R&D and economic growth existed in the opposite direction, respondents were asked what they thought might be potential benefits of the Government investing more money in R&D.

The notion that investing more in R&D would grow the UK economy was the joint most chosen benefit, alongside the idea it would make the UK better prepared for the future (each selected by 49% of respondents). Growing the economy was chosen by more people as a benefit of R&D investment than other commonly cited benefits, such as developing new life-saving medicines and treatments (42%) and helping solve long-term problems such as climate change (34%).

We saw comparable responses to a similar question in our May 2022 polling, although at that time the most-selected reason (by 51%) was that R&D investment would develop new life-saving medicines, and 49% that it would get the UK economy growing.

We then asked respondents whether they thought that ‘grow the economy’ or a more tangibly phrased reason was a more convincing argument for increasing investment into R&D. For each tangible phrase given, such as putting more money in people’s pockets in the long run or creating jobs that people want, the majority of respondents thought growing the economy was a more convincing argument than the alternative.

However, when we split the sample and tested different messages, we find that both growing the economy and creating jobs performed equally well. We later asked respondents to rate the strength of each of a set of arguments for R&D investment. ‘We should invest more into R&D as it will grow the economy’ performed best, with 84% of respondents saying it made a somewhat or very strong case. This was followed by an argument that it would create jobs that people want, which was seen as strong by 79%.

Respondents were asked a similar pairing of questions, but with the framing that the arguments were being made in the run up to the next General Election. Again, growth and job creation performed best (81% and 84% respectively). When asked to choose which of the arguments would make the best case in the context of the election, economic growth slightly surpassed job creation as the best argument for R&D investment (chosen by 22% and 19%, respectively). This direct comparison makes growth seem like the clear winner, but this result doesn’t translate into a clear stand-alone differences in the strengths of these two arguments for investing in R&D, in the context of General Election messaging. Notably, the negative framing that ‘businesses leave the UK because of a lack of R&D investment’ was selected by just 8%.

When provided with a range of reasons to invest in R&D and asked how important they were, respondents were more likely to choose national-level reasons. For instance, providing 250,000 new jobs across the UK and growing the UK economy were the most popular reasons to invest in R&D (33% and 32% said this was one of the most important reasons, respectively) from the options provided.

Fewer respondents felt that smaller-scale arguments were the most important reason. For instance, arguments to provide 50 jobs in a nearby town or grow the local economy were less likely to be chosen as the most important reason to invest in R&D (17% each), but the majority still felt these were important reasons to invest in R&D.  

Attitudes to R&D and jobs

Key takeaways

• When asked in broad terms about what types of jobs the Government should prioritise, respondents chose jobs in areas of high unemployment, for young people at the start of their careers and that provide a long-lasting stable career
• R&D investment is seen to create jobs that make the UK competitive on the world stage, are for young people at the start of their careers and provide long-lasting stable careers
• When arguing for investing in R&D, campaigns would benefit from focusing on the creation of long-lasting, stable job opportunities for people at the start of their careers

Early in our March/April 2024 poll, prior to any discussion of R&D, respondents were asked about the types of jobs the UK Government should be working hardest to create in the UK. The top three types of jobs that the public felt should be prioritised were: jobs in areas of high unemployment (50% of 2,011 respondents), jobs for young people at the start of their careers (49%), and jobs that provide a long-lasting stable career (48%). The jobs that were seen as the lowest priority were jobs for people with university degrees (16%).

Older respondents are more likely to favour the creation of jobs in areas of high unemployment (selected by 66% of those aged over 65 compared with 41% of 18-24s); jobs that make the UK more competitive on the global stage (59% compared with 23%) and jobs outside of London and the South East (54% compared with 19%).

We found some overlap between the jobs respondents wanted the Government to prioritise and the types of jobs they thought investing in R&D would create.

When asked what types of jobs would be created by greater R&D investment, the most common response was jobs that make the UK more competitive on the global stage (48% of 2,011 respondents); jobs for young people at the start of their careers (45%); jobs that provide a long-lasting stable career (45%); and jobs that benefit society more broadly (44%).

However, just 28% felt R&D investment would create jobs in areas with high unemployment and only 25% felt the jobs would be open to people who find it difficult to find employment.

When asked what advantages they felt R&D jobs would have over other jobs, the most common response was better pay (43%) and good progression opportunities (40%), but few saw R&D jobs as being more accessible (18%).

Another question that asked respondents to rank potential qualities of R&D jobs on a variety of scales reinforced the finding that people expect R&D jobs to be relatively well paid and have good progression opportunities. This ranking exercise also showed that respondents tended to view R&D jobs as being elsewhere in the country (45%), rather than in their local area (26%).

The perception that jobs created by R&D investment would be elsewhere in the UK was stronger in the North East, Northern Ireland and Wales, although samples are small in these regions. Respondents in London had the highest level of expectation that R&D jobs would be local. The expectation that jobs would be in their local area was considerably higher among younger people.

When asked whether respondents would personally be interested in a job in R&D, the majority described themselves as very or somewhat interested (62%). In total, just 3% said they already worked in R&D, and 17% said they would not be interested at all. Overall, these results are similar to the results from our October 2023 poll, where 66% of 1,094 respondents said they would be very or somewhat interested, and 15% not interested at all.

A majority (67%) said they would like there to be new R&D jobs in their area. Younger people are more likely than older people to want R&D jobs in the UK but not their area (28% for 18-24s and 10% for over 65), but a majority of those aged 18-24 still say they would like the new R&D jobs to be in their area.

In our June 2024 polling, we find a lower proportion saying they would like there to be new R&D jobs in their area, although this is still a majority (50%). We believe the relatively large decrease in attitudes in a short period of time could be due to the positioning of this question in the two polls. In March/April, this question came after questions about the types of jobs that R&D supports, while in June, the question came after those focused on the political context of R&D.

However, we do see a general dip across other questions that may be explained by the context of the General Election, which can alter the meaning of questions or refocus priorities onto the key issues being debated in the campaign. CaSE will be monitoring this and other trends going forwards, to understand how embedded these changes are or how quickly they revert when the next Government is formed and the political situation is clearer.

Attitudes to political messages about R&D and economic growth and jobs

Key takeaways

• There were greater levels of support for statements said to come from Labour leader Keir Starmer compared to Conservative leader Rishi Sunak
• Messages that prioritised economic growth or job creation through R&D investment were popular among respondents
• When statements were said to come from Labour leader Keir Starmer, respondents were more likely to feel they are achievable and that the promises would be kept than when they were said to be from Conservative leader Rishi Sunak
• Less than two-fifths felt that investing in R&D to grow the economy or increase jobs would be a priority for them personally, regardless of the messenger – supporting wider CaSE research that suggests politicians are not the most effective R&D messengers

In our June 2024 poll, we asked a series of questions exploring Labour leader Keir Starmer and Conservative leader Rishi Sunak as messengers for two messages:

• Our priority is growing the economy by investing in the UK’s research and development sector
• Our priority is increasing the number of jobs available in the UK by investing in the UK’s research and development sector

Respondents were asked whether this would make them more or less supportive of the messenger; whether it is something respondents would expect this messenger to say; whether the messenger would keep that promise; how unachievable the statement was; and how high a priority it is for the respondent.

Support for the messenger

When shown as statements from Keir Starmer, messages about both the economy and jobs performed similarly well in bolstering support (46% and 50% would be more supportive of Starmer, respectively). However, when shown as statements from Rishi Sunak, jobs outperformed growing the economy (37% and 29% would be more supportive of Sunak if he expressed this priority, respectively). This increased support for Keir Starmer as a messenger is to be expected during an election campaign in which Labour held a substantial lead.

Respondents were considerably more supportive of the statements when they came from the leader of the party they intended to vote for. For instance, among respondents intending to vote Conservative, some 58% are more supportive of Sunak when a statement about growing the economy is said to come from him. When the same statement came from Starmer, 67% of those who planned to vote Labour said it would make them more supportive of Starmer.

However, we do see more support for Starmer among non-Labour leaning voters. Looking at the statement about economic growth, some 47% of those who intend to vote for Liberal Democrats and 36% of those who intend to vote for Conservatives said they would be more supportive of Starmer if he said this. This is compared with 32% of Liberal Democrat voters and 22% of Labour voters when the same statement is said to be from Sunak.

For almost all groups of voters, we see that these R&D-related priorities are more likely to see voters become more rather than less supportive of whichever leader said it. However in most cases where the leader is not from the respondents’ preferred party, a plurality say it would not have an impact on their support.

Attitudes to the statements

We then asked respondents to rate how much they expected the statement to come from that messenger, whether they felt it was a promise the named party leader would keep, and how achievable the statement was.

We find that for both party leaders the statements are something a majority of the public would expect them to say. There was little variation in this, although we do find that for Starmer “growing the economy” (54%) was slightly less likely to sound like something he would say than “increasing jobs” (59%).

In other areas there was a starker difference between the two leaders. When coming from Starmer, the promises are more likely to be expected to be kept (35% for the statement about growth, and 32% for jobs) than Sunak (22% growth, 24% jobs); and they are more likely to feel achievable from Starmer (52% growth, 51% jobs) than Sunak (38% growth, 42% jobs).

However, this exercise did reveal a potential challenge for Starmer; the plan to grow the economy by investing in R&D was felt to be achievable by half of the public, but a promise he was likely to keep by only a third.

Notably, and demonstrating our earlier work that showed the challenges with political messengers for R&D, having the message attributed to Sunak meant fewer people were likely to regard the policy as a priority for them personally (32% for both, compared to 38% for both with Starmer). The popularity of the messenger not only changes perceptions of the message, but also the perceived importance of the policy itself.

Who is more likely to talk about different aspects of R&D?

To further explore perceived differences between the Labour and Conservative leader among the public ahead of the 2024 General Election, we showed respondents a series of statements related to R&D and asked who they thought would have been more likely to say each. The statements are taken from real speeches, from either one of the leaders or someone else, and respondents could choose either or neither Conservative leader Rishi Sunak or Labour leader Keir Starmer.

We found that there was a tendency to think that Sunak made statements that referenced the private sector or businesses, and for many statements there was a fairly even three-way split between Sunak; Starmer; and those who either didn’t know or said neither.

Attitudes to UK Universities and International Students and Researchers

Key takeaways

• Around half of people think universities have a positive impact on the UK, produce high quality R&D and have a positive impact on the local area in which they’re based
• More than two-thirds agree that the UK’s universities are some of the best in the world, with more than half of these citing the fact international students want to study in them
• Around 4 in 10 think UK universities shouldn’t change the number of international students they accept
• When framed around the benefits they bring the UK and recruiting global talent, the majority view international students coming to the UK as a positive thing
• Many people think that employing international researchers can diversify ideas and culture, bring improvements to the economy, increase opportunities to collaborate internationally and strengthen the quality of R&D
• People were more likely to see hypothetical immigration reforms that led to negative impacts for R&D and university recruitment as a failure than a success
• A majority would prefer universities in the UK to recruit the best global talent, even if it means more immigration to the UK
• Some groups’ attitudes to immigration align with their views on international students and researchers, such as those planning to vote Reform UK and those who voted to leave the EU

In our June 2024 poll, we asked a series of questions seeking to understand public perceptions of UK universities and attitudes towards international students and immigration.

UK universities

First, we explored public attitudes to the quality of UK universities, including their global reputation, as well as what makes UK universities successful.

When asked how well they felt UK universities performed against a variety of potential achievements, the proportion of respondents who thought universities performed well was similar across most areas. More than half (53%) of 4,100 respondents thought universities performed well or very well at having a positive impact on the UK as a whole. This was followed by producing high quality R&D (50%), having a positive impact on the local area they are based in (49%) and graduates leaving with skills that make them employable (48%).

To understand what is perceived as important in supporting university-led research, we asked respondents to select the factors they felt were important for UK universities to produce high quality R&D. The most selected options were having well-resourced R&D facilities like laboratories (49% of all respondents) and employing leading researchers in academic roles (42%), while the least selected was having good relationships with other universities (28%).

When asked whether they agreed that “The universities in the UK are some of the best in the world”, a majority (69%) agreed. This sentiment spanned all age groups and the political spectrum. Although respondents intending to vote for Reform UK in the July 2024 election showed lower levels of agreement, this view was still held by a majority of this group of voters. There was stronger agreement with the statement among socioeconomic groups AB and with increasing formal levels of education, which was driven by uncertainty among the other groups rather than outright disagreement.

When we asked if it was important to respondents that the UK is regarded as having the best universities in the world, a majority (69%) said it was. This opinion was largely consistent, regardless of voting intention in the July 2024 election (ranging from 68% among those planning to vote for Reform UK to 77% for Conservatives).

This pair of questions shows that while respondents who were intending to vote Reform UK were just as likely to say that it is important for UK universities to be regarded as the best in the world, they are less likely than other voters to agree that they currently are the best in the world. This distinction perhaps reflects a more general sentiment that “nothing in the UK seems to work anymore”, which – as discussed elsewhere in our June 2024 polling results – is held much more strongly among Reform UK-leaning voters than for other parties. (Shown in slide three of the story below.)

We asked respondents who agreed that universities in the UK are some of the best in the world to select the reasons they thought so from a list of possibilities. The most selected reason was that many international students want to study in them (54% of 2,844). In contrast, just 35% selected the option that many international researchers want to work at UK universities. It is worth noting that CaSE’s previous public attitudes research found that the public primarily thinks of universities as education institutions, rarely thinking of them as R&D workplaces without prompting.

Other reasons given that universities in the UK are some of the best in the world were that they have high quality facilities (44%), high quality researchers (37%) and high quality teaching staff (36%). The least selected reason was that the UK Government has enabled universities with the right policies, with only 12% of respondents choosing this.

The same top reason was selected by almost all respondents when broken down by age groups, except for 25-34 year olds, for whom high quality facilities was selected equally as often as that many international students want to study in UK universities (44% and 43%, respectively). Notably, older respondents were more likely to cite international students’ interest in studying at UK universities as a reason they felt UK universities were among the best in the world, with 68% of those over 65 selecting this. This is compared to 44% of those aged 18-24.

International students and researchers

In this section of our June 2024 poll, we asked a range of questions aiming to understand public attitudes towards international students and overseas recruitment to UK universities.

When shown different types of prospective students and asked whether UK universities should accept more or less of them, a majority felt UK universities should be accepting more UK-based students finishing secondary school education (52%). A similar proportion (49%) said UK universities should accept more mature students who have had jobs but are going back to university. For each of these types of students, around a third of respondents felt universities should not change the amount of students they accept (33% for UK students from secondary schools and 35% for mature students).

However, when asked about international students, we see a mixed picture. The largest proportion of respondents (42%) thought universities should not change the number of international students they accept, while 25% said universities should accept more and 23% that they should accept less. By comparison, only 6% of respondents thought universities should accept less of the other two types of students shown.

While opinions on home and mature students were highly consistent across demographic breakdowns, international students were more polarising. Older respondents tended to show greater support for decreasing the number of international students, and reduced support for accepting more. Some 14% of over-65s said UK universities should accept more international students, and 33% said they should accept less. These figures were 40% and 13%, respectively, for 18-24 year olds. Notably, among the youngest age groups, as many supported accepting more international students as supported keeping the number the same.

Similarly, both groups of respondents who voted Leave in the 2016 EU referendum and respondents who were intending to vote for Reform UK were more likely than average to say universities should accept fewer international students (34% and 49%, respectively).

We explored attitudes towards international students further, asking respondents to what extent they agreed or disagreed with various statements about international students coming to the UK. Despite the overall reluctance for UK universities to accept more international students expressed in the previous question, when framed around the talent and benefits these students offer the UK, a majority agreed they would be happy for international students to come to the UK.

Some 70% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I am happy for international students to come to the UK if it helps support the work of UK universities”, and 65% said the same because of international students’ contribution to the wider economy. A similar proportion said that they wanted talented international students to be able to come to UK universities (67%) and that they were proud that many students from around the world want to come to universities in the UK (65%). By comparison, only a small proportion didn’t agree with any of the statements shown (less than 11% of respondents for each statement).

We next asked some questions that explored the public’s understanding of international recruitment of researchers to UK universities and its perceived advantages.

When asked how easy it is for high performing researchers to get jobs at a UK university, the greatest proportion of respondents felt that it is no easier or harder for high performing UK or international researchers to get jobs at a UK university (35%). Just 18% felt it would be easier if a researcher was from the UK and just 15% thought it would be easier if they were from a country other than the UK. However, there is a notably large proportion of respondents who say they don’t know (32%), and this increases to become the largest proportion of respondents among women (36%) and over 65s (43%).

When asked to select from a list of potential advantages of UK universities employing international researchers, the most popular choice was that it brings diversity of ideas and culture to the UK (37%). After this, a number of benefits were selected equally often (33%) which related to improved opportunities to collaborate internationally, international relations, strengthening the quality of R&D and bringing in top talent, as well as benefits to the economy. Only a small percentage of respondents (6%) said that they do not think there are any advantages of UK universities employing international researchers, highest among Reform voters (17%).

Immigration reform

Lastly, we explored public attitudes towards the impact of UK Government immigration policy reforms, as well as asking about the trade-offs between restricting immigration and attracting global talent.

In this section, we first asked whether people were more likely to view the effects of immigration reforms as a failure or a success in the context of their impact on UK R&D and international recruitment to universities. Overall, respondents were more likely to see hypothetical immigration reforms that led to negative impacts for R&D and university recruitment as a failure rather than a success. The clearest cases were:

• If immigration reforms meant that a UK research lab moved overseas, 47% said this would be a failure, and 22% saw this as a success.
• If immigration reforms meant that a high performing student from abroad could not accept a place at a UK university, twice as many respondents said this would be a failure as those who said it would be a success (44% failure to 22% success)

One of the immigration policy impacts we explored aimed to understand public attitudes towards the rules and purpose of the Graduate Route Visa, which gives international students permission to stay in the UK for at least two years after successfully completing an undergraduate or postgraduate course in the UK. This came under scrutiny and was reviewed by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) in 2024. While the MAC’s final report advised that the visa route should be retained in its current form, at the time of writing, the future of this visa option remains uncertain.  

A key objective of the Graduate Route Visa, as set out by the Home Office, is that international students are able to stay in the UK for a limited time after they finish studying and contribute to the UK economy. Without naming the policy, we asked respondents whether they felt immigration reforms that would mean that more international students could stay to work in the UK for a limited time after finishing their studies would be a success, and 51% said it would be a success.

By contrast, when the converse situation was presented – with reforms meaning that more international students finishing their studies in the UK immediately returned to their home country – only 31% saw this as a success and 32% as a failure.

When considering the trade-offs between restricting immigration and attracting global talent, a majority (52%) would prefer universities in the UK to recruit to the best global talent, even if it means more immigration to the UK for these roles. By comparison, only 35% said they would prefer to keep immigration to the UK lower, even if it means UK universities are unable to recruit some of the best talent. However, the proportion of respondents that favour lower immigration over recruiting talent increases strongly among those who voted Leave in the 2016 EU referendum (51%) and those who intended to vote Reform UK in the 2024 July election (69%). Notably, Reform was the only political party to see a majority support this side of the argument, with all other party’s voters leaning in the opposite direction.

Attitudes to local action on R&D

Key takeaways

• Constituents strongly support their MP taking action to support local and national R&D
• Actions that gain the most support are their MP campaigning for more local clinical trials and the creation of new R&D jobs in the area
• Attracting new local R&D facilities is widely supported, regardless of whether these are led by businesses, charities or the NHS
• If an organisation is looking for a location to set up a research centre, most people would like their MP to actively campaign for it to be in their constituency

In our March/April 2024 poll, we asked respondents whether they would support a proposal to attract different organisations to set up a local research facility.

The majority were supportive of the proposal regardless of the organisation involved, with approximately 80% of respondents in favour, irrespective of whether the facility was being established by a medical research charity, NHS body, university, or business. There is broadly similar support across age groups for the proposals, although those aged 18-24 were more likely than older respondents to feel neutral on the issue when it was a business-led proposal.

The main advantages respondents saw for each type of organisation establishing local research facilities were boosting the local economy and providing jobs for local people. We saw a stronger connection between these top two advantages when businesses were involved in the proposal. Some 58% said this would boost the local economy, and 55% said it would provide jobs for local people when businesses were involved, whereas neither of these reasons were selected by more than 50% for the other types of organisation.

When framed around how they would want their local MP to respond to an organisation’s plan to set up a new research centre somewhere in the UK, a majority wanted their local MP to actively campaign for the centre to be set up in their constituency (60% of 2,011 respondents), compared to a very small number who would rather their MP actively campaigned against the plan (6%).

However, the level of support for such a campaign differed significantly by age group. In our March-April poll, 76% of over 65s wanted their MP to campaign for a local research centre, compared with only 47% of those aged 18-24. This shift in support among younger respondents is due to higher proportions of 18-24s wanting their MP to not get involved (22%, compared with 8% for over 65s) or to actively campaign against it being set up in their constituency (14% among 18-24s compared with 3% for over 65s). Given that the majority of 18-24s would support an organisation of any type setting up a research facility in their local area, this result may reflect this group’s views about the role or priorities for their local MP, rather than the R&D facility itself. (It should be noted that the sample size for doctorate-holding respondents is too small to draw reliable conclusions.)

In June 2024 – at which point the General Election had been called for 4 July 2024 – we asked the same question about how they would like an MP to respond to an organisation’s plans to set up a new research centre somewhere in the UK. In this poll, 45% said they would like their local MP to actively campaign for the centre to be set up in their constituency. CaSE will continue to monitor this trend to assess whether this shift in attitude is specific to the election period, where people are potentially more aware of their local MP’s existing campaign priorities – or the fact their MP has not yet been decided – or whether this represents a more sustained shift in support.

In both our March/April and June 2024 polls, we saw a great deal of support for hypothetical R&D-related actions being taken by their MP. In March/April, actions that received the strongest support related to the MP campaigning for their nearest hospital to host more clinical trials and for the creation of more R&D jobs in the area. These actions received 76% and 75% total support, respectively.

In June 2024, we again saw the most support (71%) for an MP campaigning for their nearest hospital to host more clinical trials. This was followed by their MP creating a new scheme for local school children to visit research centres, and campaigning for more R&D jobs to be created in the area. Again, for most of these we saw a slight drop in support compared with March/April 2024, and CaSE will monitor these trends. 

Respondents were also in favour of political and financial support for R&D. More than 60% of respondents in our March/April poll agreed or strongly agreed that they would like to vote for someone who will support R&D in the UK. In addition, more than 71% agreed that they would like to see more R&D investment and facilities in their local area. (Again, it should be noted that the sample size for doctorate-holding respondents is to small to draw reliable conclusions.)

As noted previously, we saw support levels drop when we ran the same questions in June 2024 and will monitor this trend; in June 2024, 53% said they would like to vote for someone who will support R&D in the UK, and 58% would like to see more R&D investment and facilities in their area.

Constituency-level analysis

Using results from polling carried out in March/April 2024 and June 2024, which polled a total of 6,111 UK adults, a Multi-Level Regression with Poststratification (MRP) analysis was carried out on 13 questions, to model the expected attitudes at a constituency level. The methodology means that hyper-local context cannot be taken into account, and due to the sample size of Northern Ireland and unique political correlates, models do not include projections for these constituencies. (For more details on this methodology, please see Methods.)

Our model predicts that the high levels of support for local actions related to R&D, and local R&D investment, facilities and job creation, is broadly consistent across constituencies in England, Wales and Scotland. This suggests that none of the actions we tested would disproportionately see opposition in any constituency; emphasising broad support and interest in R&D.

We do note some differences in attitudes to a research centre being established on a local high street, where opposition seems to be slightly more strongly held in some constituencies in the south of England, which were – in the 2024 General Election – either Liberal Democrats seats or Liberal Democrats target seats. Additionally, we predict higher levels of people who would prefer their MP not to get involved if a research centre was to be set up in the UK (rather than actively campaigning for or against it being set up in the constituency) in urban areas. This is likely to reflect the younger demographic in those areas, as we find younger people are more likely to say their MP should remain neutral.

CaSE has carried out this analysis to support R&D advocates engaging with Parliamentary candidates and representatives, and the predictions can be explored below.

Trust in R&D messengers

Key takeaways

• Scientists are generally well trusted
• Scientists are trusted because of their perceived knowledge of R&D and a belief they will be evidence-based

Our March/April 2024 poll asked respondents a series of questions about trust in a range of professions. NHS workers and scientists were the most trusted professions, in general terms, with 30% and 22% (respectively) saying they trust them completely. Journalists and politicians were the least trusted, with 20% and 38%, respectively, saying they do not trust them at all.

This was confirmed with a MaxDiff analysis, in which we display a random selection of different messengers to a respondent and ask them to identify the messenger they trust the most and the one they trust the least.

With this approach we find scientists, NHS workers and engineers were the most trusted, meaning they were often identified as the most trustworthy of the options shown. In fact, on average, 54% of the times that “scientists” was shown to a participant, it was selected as the most trustworthy messenger. On the flip side, politicians and journalists were not well trusted. Politicians were selected as the least trustworthy of the options 75% of the time, and the most trustworthy only 3%.

These trust patterns are strong across demographics. The MaxDiff shows that university lecturers and teachers are slightly more well trusted among those under the age of 45, and engineers and scientists slightly more among older respondents. Regardless, even for the youngest groups, scientists were the most trusted of the options.

When asked how trustworthy scientists would be when speaking about different aspects of R&D, respondents mostly felt they would be honest. A majority of people said they would mostly or completely trust scientists to be honest about how helpful R&D is to the public (69%); to honestly explain the results of R&D (68%); and to be honest about how much money the Government should be investing in R&D (59%). This supports results from our previous polls, which found that just over half of people trusted each of researchers, research charities and universities to be honest about how much the Government should invest in R&D.

Scientists’ honesty when talking about R&D investment was explored further in a subsequent question. When asked why they might trust those working in R&D to talk about R&D investment, the most commonly chosen reasons were that those working in R&D personally know the topic well (55%) and that they would take into account all the evidence (45%).

This suggests that the public sees a familiarity to the subject area not as a source of bias but rather as a benefit when communicating about R&D investment, perhaps in part due to the view that scientists will take an evidence-based and transparent approach. This again supports findings from our previous polls; for instance in our May 2022 polling there was stronger agreement with the statement “Scientists know better than others what is needed in science so it makes sense for them to talk about it”, than “It is self-interested for scientists to talk about more funding for research”.

Attitudes to R&D, its benefits and engagement opportunities

Key takeaways

• Most people in the UK would like to hear more about local and national R&D
• Many people don’t think R&D benefits them, or that investment in R&D has improved their lives
• Compared with 2022, more people said R&D shouldn’t be funded by taxpayers, which could be because this poll was carried out during a General Election campaign where tax was a high-profile topic

In June 2024, we asked a series of questions that explored perceptions to R&D and its potential benefits. We found that while a majority are interested in hearing the results of new research (70%), only around half of respondents agreed that it had improved their own lives (49%).

With a focus on investment, less than half (46%) of respondents to our June 2024 poll could think of some or many ways that Government investment in R&D had improved their lives. In contrast, 34% could think of very few or no ways in which R&D investment improves their lives. This is similar to responses to our February 2023 poll, where 37% of 4,005 respondents said they could think of very few or no ways that investment in R&D had improved their lives.

Men, those in socioeconomic group AB and those with higher levels of formal education were all more likely to be able to think of ways investment improved their lives. In contrast to our broader results, younger groups (18-24 and 25-34) were more likely to be able to think of ways R&D investment had benefitted them than their older counterparts.

Consistent with our previous findings, we saw that a majority of respondents to our June 2024 poll (62%) felt that R&D in the UK benefits some people more than others. This is similar to findings in our July 2022 and February 2023 polls, where 59% and 60% (respectively) felt this way.

However, compared to our previous polling, we found stronger sentiments against taxpayer funding of R&D, with 39% (of 4,100 in June 2024) agreeing with the statement “R&D should not be funded by taxpayers”. This is higher than in both our July 2022 poll, when 24% (of 8,474) felt this way, and in February 2023, when 25% (of 4,005) agreed.

This change may be attributable to the timing of the poll, as discussions about taxpayer contributions are heightened in a General Election campaign, and the 2024 campaign saw the Conservatives use taxation as a key issue in their messaging. CaSE will be tracking these questions in subsequent polling.

In our March/April 2024 poll, we asked a set of questions to understand people’s interest and opportunity to engage with R&D. Most people would like to hear more about R&D being carried out in the UK (73%) and locally (72%), irrespective of age.

However, when it comes to participating in R&D, although just over half (53%) expressed an interest, this is largely driven by younger age groups. Less than 30% of over 65s agreed or strongly agreed that they were interested, while nearly 70% of 25-34 year olds expressed an interest in taking part in R&D.

As discussed in a previous section, there is also interest among the public for a new scheme for local school children to visit research centres (72% would support their MP campaigning for this).

And finally… Who could do it better?

CaSE’s June 2024 polling was conducted during the General Election campaign when the personalities of the Labour and Conservative leaders were under great scrutiny, including discussions in the public realm about how relatable they were perceived to be. Such perceptions can significantly influence public attitudes.

To explore this with an R&D lens, we asked a question about which leader would be better at a range of science and engineering-related activities. These ranged from day-to-day tasks – such as assembling flat pack furniture – to the more academic, like analysing poetry or explaining quantum mechanics.

Labour leader and former lawyer Keir Starmer was viewed as the more able to analyse the meaning of a poem (25%, vs 14% for Sunak) or teach someone about a complicated issue (26% vs 18%). While former Chancellor and Conservative leader Rishi Sunak was seen as better able to solve a complicated maths problem (31% vs 18%) or learn a new language (27% vs 17%).

On the question about assembling flat pack furniture, Starmer was the clear winner, with 33% of people thinking he’d be better able to do it than Sunak, compared with 10% believing the opposite.