Public opinion shows “stark divisions” over specific R&D issues

The political consensus around research development is “shallow”, a new report from the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) has warned, with clear evidence of diverging views towards specific areas of science and technology visible across the UK electorate.

The report draws on CaSE’s previous public opinion research, complemented by a new survey of more than 4,000 UK adults which was conducted in July 2026.

The bottom line, according to CaSE, is that while British science is one of the top sources of hope among an electorate which is largely pessimistic about the country’s future, few feel they have an in-depth understanding of research and development:

“Investment into R&D can land as a cold and unfamiliar abstraction that many struggle to relate to their own lives or ambitions. This unfamiliarity risks R&D being linked to wider attitudes towards government spending, which often focus on waste or scandals.”

When the survey turns its attention to specific research areas, CaSE sees signs of “strong divisions along party lines.” For example, when respondents were asked where they would prioritise investment for science, innovation and technology, around two-thirds of those intending to vote for Conservative or Reform chose defence and security areas as one of their preferences, whereas only around a quarter of Green voters felt the same.

For clean energy technologies, on the other hand, Green and Lib Dem voters were much more likely to be supportive than right-wing parties. Across the public as a whole, biology and medical technologies came out as the top investment priority.

Equally, there are splits by political affiliation regarding what the government’s aspirations should be for UK R&D. While job creation and talent retention were broadly prioritised across the left-right spectrum, global collaboration was – unsurprisingly – much less valued by those intending to vote for Reform or Restore.

Only 11 per cent of the public said that the government should not prioritise scientific research over other immediate national needs – though this rose to 24 per cent of those not planning to vote.

CaSE concludes that while R&D might not yet be a highly politicised issue, it is by no means a given that this state of affairs will continue:

“We already see opinions towards R&D diverge around specific issues – such as climate or defence – and debates about the value of universities rage on. The instinctive support enjoyed by the R&D sector has not been fully stress-tested and we can’t assume it would survive a compelling political narrative.”

The report arrives at suggested messaging for the UK’s current, fragmented voter landscape, outlining how R&D investment should be framed for different groups in order to stand the best chance of winning support:

• Conservative: as a national strength and tool for security.
• Green: as means for a “cleaner, greener society” which can also tackle challenges around finances, housing and jobs.
• Labour: as a tool to tackle society’s problems – using tangible examples.
• Lib Dem: as a means to solve problems and support policymaking, with environmental and international links emphasised.
• Reform: as a “vital tool in the UK’s recovery plan,” with jobs and self-sufficiency at the forefront of messaging.

The research sector’s most united and visible political advocacy “tends to happen around moments of pressure and crisis,” CaSE concludes. But it warns that this alone is not a good platform from which to build a broader narrative about R&D as a source of hope and national pride.