A dystopian but possible future: the Fall of British Science 2028-2033

In which I think about how a UK populist government could undermine science as a way of prompting discussions about how to protect it.

The Trump administration has launched a comprehensive attack on the funding and independence of science in the US. You can read excellent summaries of what has happened in recent articles by Scientific American and Nature. It turns out that much of the independence US scientists had relied on was illusory.

It got me thinking about how vulnerable UK science would be to similar attacks. Scarily, I think the answer is “very vulnerable”. If a populist anti-science government was elected with a large majority, it could do a lot of damage and quickly. So, for this post, I’ve written a short “set in the future” piece imagining a dystopian but possible future. Where are there are hyperlinks, they point to precedent, whether from Reform’s 2024 manifesto, recent UK laws, Orban’s actions in Hungary or Trump’s current actions.

There is nothing in the piece that is not possible and if it seems far-fetched, imagine how unbelievable those “attacks on US science” articles linked to above would have seemed four years ago, at the start of Biden’s term. The crucial point is that that we still have time to advocate for increased protections for science in the UK - and I hope we use it. It’s certainly something I will be spending time on the coming months and years.

******************************************

The Fall of British Science: 2028-2033

The Sovereignty Party, the result of a merger of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK with the most radical elements of the Conservative Party, swept to power in 2028 on a wave of populist discontent. Its rise heralded the rapid decline of the UK’s world-leading scientific institutions and know-how. Evidence-based policymaking gave way to an agenda driven by deregulation, economic nationalism, and ideological oversight.

The Rise of the Sovereignty Party: A New Political Reality

Founded in 2026 and supported by large donations from Elon Musk’s Freedom Foundation, the new party tapped into public anger over “expert elites” and “bureaucratic interference” and years of frustration with mainstream politics. Building on Reform UK’s 2024 manifesto, Sovereignty’s manifesto for the 2028 election promised radical deregulation and a gutting of the civil service, an end to “climate hysteria”, an end to an education system that “poisoned young minds”, and the restoration of Britain’s economic strength through opening up oil and gas mining, including fracking in Lincolnshire’s enormous gas field.

Sovereignty’s electoral victory was decisive. Once in government, headed by Nigel Farage (Prime Minister) together with a radical cabinet of Liz Truss (Chancellor), Suella Braverman (Home Secretary), Kemi Badenoch (Education & Science Secretary), and Robert Jenrick (Business & Energy Secretary), the party fundamentally reshaped the nation's political and economic landscape.

The UK pivoted toward the New Alliance, a geopolitical bloc shaped by an authoritarian-leaning United States, alongside Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Russian satellite states like Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, and Hungary. Sovereignty enforced strict oversight on public broadcasting, including restructuring the BBC into a government-aligned institution and strengthening Ofcom’s power to tackle government-defined ‘misinformation’ in the press. At the same time Braverman tightened up voting regulations including requiring two forms of ID to vote.

The Legal and Political Restructuring of Science

Parliament embodies the supreme legal authority in the UK, and neither the courts nor the House of Lords had the authority to overrule legislation. Strong constitutional conventions existed, but were by definition not legally enforceable. With their large parliamentary majority, the Sovereignty government could and did push through sweeping legislative changes. Some of their most impactful new laws for science and health included:

• 2029: The Climate Freedom Act: Ended net-zero commitments, defunded green energy projects, and relaxed environmental regulations.

• 2029: The Data Sovereignty Act: Consolidated control over economic, health, and environmental statistics, inlcuding the absorption of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) into a new centralised government department. This limited public access to government data that might “distort national confidence.”

• 2030: The Higher Education Accountability Act: Reduced funding to universities engaging in “political activism” and curtailed diversity and inclusion programmes.

• 2030: The Scientific Enterprise and Innovation Act: Gave the government direct oversight of publicly funded research, shifting grant allocations away from climate science and public health toward AI, defence technology, and fossil fuel extraction.

• 2031: The Public Health Market and Responsibility Act: Introduced full-scale privatisation into the NHS, limiting government involvement in preventative healthcare and vaccination programs, framing individual health choices as a matter of personal responsibility.

Additionally, the government immediately dissolved the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and the Met Office Hadley Centre for climate change research. Consistent with Prime Minister Farage’s longstanding opposition to the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Change Treaty, the UK immediately withdrew from both. With control over public data, reporting on health, economic trends, and environmental degradation was significantly reduced or restructured to reflect government priorities.

Legal Challenges and Resistance

Legislation from previous governments had already made resistance more difficult. The Conservative government of 2019-2024 had reduced the independence of universities through the Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act in 2023 and significantly restricted the public’s right to protest in 2024. Public health agencies had already lost much of their independence from government, beginning with the replacement of the Health Protection Agency by Public Health England in 2013, followed by the transition to the UK Health Security Agency in 2021.

Nonetheless, opposition groups did challenge the new Sovereignty Party measures, but faced serious legal obstacles:

• The Haldane Principle, which traditionally protected scientific funding from political interference, was a convention rather than a legally binding rule.

• International Human Rights Law, once a potential safeguard, became irrelevant after the UK withdrew from many international agreements, including aspects of the European Convention on Human Rights.

• Judicial Review, which could have provided a check on government overreach, was weakened by the Sovereignty government’s restrictions on court challenges to “politically motivated” litigation.

Learning from Viktor Orban’s example in Hungary, Sovereignty successfully used both the media to smear and discredit opponents and emergency powers meant for threats to democracy to suppress dissent, ending further meaningful opposition.

The Consequences for British Academia and Scientific Research

Universities, once a stronghold of independent thought, became increasingly constrained. The Higher Education Accountability Act effectively punished institutions that opposed government policies, and the attacks on diversity led to an exodus of female and minority researchers.

Many leading scientists left the UK, migrating to Canada, the EU, and Japan. The government, however, celebrated the departure as a “realignment of research priorities”.

The Economic Consequences: A Fragile, Dependent and Less Free UK

Sovereignty’s economic policies, heavily reliant on deregulation and fossil fuel expansion, failed to deliver the promised economic boom. Instead, Britain’s scientific and financial sectors suffered from a lack of investor confidence. International companies moved AI and biotech research elsewhere, citing regulatory instability and the loss of independent expertise.

Britain increasingly relied on support from its New Alliance partners. Much like East Germany was once propped up by the USSR, the UK received direct investments from Russia and Saudi Arabia, though these came with economic and political trade-offs. Russian energy firms took control of parts of the UK’s oil and gas infrastructure, while American firms exerted increasing control in the technology sphere.

By 2033, Britain’s scientific landscape had been irrevocably altered. No official bans on research existed, but funding and institutional priorities had been carefully realigned to serve corporate and nationalist interests. The press was technically free but largely uncritical. Science still operated but in a much narrower, politically curated space. Public health and preparedness for future health emergencies was dangerously weak.

The UK had not become an autocracy—but it had become a country where dissent was costly and both knowledge and truth were controlled.

******************************************