Last month, UK researchers welcomed the appointment of one of their own as science minister, the ultimate position of power in British research. Patrick Vallance is a former government science adviser who became a household name during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Following the Labour Party’s landslide election win on 4 July, Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who ousted the Conservative Party from government, appointed Vallance as a minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology — which is responsible for the country’s science strategy and budget.

Five weeks into the job, Vallance — a clinical researcher and former head of research and development at drug firm GlaxoSmithKline — spoke to Nature about the challenges ahead of him.

Why did you take the job as minister?

Because I was asked to. It seems like if you’re given an opportunity to do something to make a difference, and you say no, then you should shut up. And I didn’t feel like shutting up.

The previous government had a target to increase research funding to £22 billion (US$29 billion) by 2026, up from about £20 billion this year. Is that still a goal?

The new government’s undoubtedly very, very pro trying to get science and technology right at the forefront of what it does. I need to protect and grow the basic, curiosity-driven part of the science work — which I think is so fundamental — while making sure we bolster the ability to translate that into development and economic success. The government’s going to have to go through a spending review and has inherited a number of unfunded commitments that it needs to look at.

You will not be surprised to know that I’m going to be arguing very strongly for the science budget, because it’s crucial to all of the things that the government needs to do.

Many UK universities are financially on their knees. Is there a plan to get their funding back on an even keel?

I hope it’s been pretty clear in the last few weeks that the government is very pro-universities. The universities are the jewels in the crown and we need to look after them, nurture them, love them and make sure they’re successful. They’re also autonomous institutions.

Some, not all of them, are struggling. There are a number of pressures on universities: a fall in overseas students, no increase in domestic fees, and the full economic costs of research. And I think there needs to be a long-term solution to all of that. That is where we need to see what universities come up with as options.

It’s not for government to tell them exactly what to do. But this government is very concerned that our very successful university sector needs to thrive.

This month, the government shelved plans to build an £800-million supercomputer in Edinburgh. Was that one of the unfunded commitments you mentioned?

In computing, it’s not just about size, it’s the configuration that is becoming increasingly important, particularly if you’re targeting it towards artificial intelligence (AI) applications. And so Matt Clifford, an entrepreneur and chair of the UK Advanced Research and Invention Agency, has been asked to undertake a review on AI opportunities, over the next few weeks, in which ‘compute infrastructure’ will definitely have to play into that. It’s going to have to be part of a spending review process.

Are you an AI optimist or doomsayer? What’s your personal approach to AI?

Of course there’s a safety element to this. There’s no question about it. I do worry that the safety element is dominating the whole narrative. And there’s a massive opportunity here that spans across medicine, materials, public services, our ability to run things more efficiently. We need to make sure that we can influence globally on all of this. To do that, you need to be at the forefront of it.

The cost to bring a family of four to the United Kingdom on a five-year global talent visa is about £20,000, which is many times the cost in other countries. Will the government seek to make it easier for scientists to immigrate?

We need to recognize clearly that the visa situation is both expensive and complicated in the United Kingdom, and we’ve relied a lot historically on international scientists coming here. There are some things that need to be looked at, for sure. And I know the Migration Advisory Committee, a public body, is being asked to look at the key sectors and international recruitment. And I’m, as you would expect, going to be very keen that they look at this side of it as part of that.

Last year, the United Kingdom agreed a post-Brexit deal with the European Union on science. But damage had been done in the previous seven years. How do you plan to improve relations?

We shouldn’t shy away from the fact that this was a very bad period for our ability to work with our European colleagues in science. What we now need to do is to make sure that participation picks up, because we’re not back where we were. It’s going to be one of the things that the department’s going to be very focused on.

When should scientists judge how well you’ve done in this role?

I know my colleagues well enough to know that they will judge me very quickly. But the reality is, there’ll be some changes quite quickly, and there’ll be some things that take longer to come through. It would be foolish to suggest that this is a turnaround job that that can be done in months. This is going to take years.