DBIST 2.0: More Disasters, Less Disclosure

The Futility of Governance: Burnham's DBIST and the Illusion of Coordination

In a move that has sent shockwaves through the UK's tech sector, new Prime Minister Andy Burnham has scrapped the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) and replaced it with a newly created Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (DBIST). The appointment of Jonathan Reynolds to lead the DBIST is seen as a further attempt to centralize power and control in Whitehall.

The justification for this move is that the DSIT's responsibilities will be rolled into the DBIST, supposedly creating a more coordinated national industrial strategy. However, this decision has already sparked a backlash from tech leaders and investors, who fear that the creation of a "super-department" will dilute government attention to these sectors.

The reality is that the DBIST is nothing more than a rebranded version of the DSIT, with the same outdated thinking and bureaucratic inefficiencies. The move is merely a cosmetic change, designed to mask the fact that the government is not willing or able to fundamentally reform its approach to science and technology policy.

The tech sector is already feeling the effects of this decision, as the AI Security Institute, the Sovereign AI Fund, and UK Research and Investment (UKRI) are all at risk of being disbanded. This is a disaster waiting to happen, as it will slow momentum and investment in a sector that is growing at 10% per year.

The appointment of Kanishka Narayan as Minister for AI is a token gesture, designed to placate the tech community. However, it does little to address the fundamental issues facing the industry. The creation of the DBIST has merely papered over the cracks, rather than addressing the underlying problems.

In a rare moment of sanity, Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, has spoken out against the move, warning that science must not become a "junior partner" in the DBIST. This is a crucial point, as it highlights the need for the government to put its active support behind the full science system.

The creation of the DBIST is nothing more than a desperate attempt by the government to appear proactive and innovative, while actually doing little to address the real issues facing the tech sector. It is a classic example of bureaucratic inertia, where the solution is merely a reorganization of existing problems rather than a fundamental reform of the system.

In conclusion, the creation of the DBIST is a recipe for disaster, as it will only serve to further entrench the government's outdated thinking and bureaucratic inefficiencies. The tech sector needs real change, not just cosmetic rebranding exercises. It is time for the government to put its money where its mouth is and actually deliver meaningful reform.