Key points in Michelle Donelan’s controversial intervention in funder’s equality advisory group, with recent developments
A heated row near the top of the UK R&D system snowballed in the autumn, with open letters, responses to open letters, responses to those letters and further open letters appearing almost daily.
The crux of the debate was a decision by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) to suspend a Research England equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) expert advisory group while investigating concerns over its members’ views on the Israel-Hamas war raised by science secretary Michelle Donelan.
Here, Research Professional News unpacks the row as it unfolded.
26 October
Research England appoints its first EDI advisory group to develop an action plan.
28 October
Government tells UKRI to sack advisers over what it describes as “extremist views”, with Donelan writing to the funder’s chief executive Ottoline Leyser to ask for the EDI group to be disbanded due to some members’ comments on the Israel-Hamas war.
The same day, Leyser writes on X (formerly Twitter): “We are deeply concerned to have discovered these comments. We are conducting an immediate investigation.” This sparks a wave of critical reactions by academics who feel the funder has caved in to political pressure.
30 October
Scientists mount a backlash over Donelan’s “censorship” of UKRI, writing in an open letter to the funder that Donelan’s call for the expert advisory panel to be disbanded goes against academic freedom.
The same day, the head of the University and College Union writes to the science secretary, saying she is “extremely concerned” about government interference in UKRI and calling the move a “dramatic overreach” by the government.
31 October
In anticipation of UKRI’s official response to Donelan, academics call on social media for a “robust” reply from UKRI, with some scientists finding the funder’s initial response to the secretary of state’s letter “deeply concerning”.
The same day, UKRI publishes a letter of reply to Donelan, in which it agrees to suspend the advisory panel’s work, on the request of the science secretary, and to launch an investigation into the issue.
Donelan responds by welcoming “UKRI’s shared concern over these social media posts and the launch of an investigation into the comments, the specific group in question and its wider advisory processes so that this cannot happen again”.
1 November
Researchers slam UKRI for failing to defend its equality group, with many academics shocked at UKRI’s response to Donelan.
The same day, policy experts tell Research Professional News that the suspension of UKRI’s equality committee “marks a new low in political intervention”. They brand the science secretary’s intervention a “manifest threat to freedom of speech”.
Meanwhile, the row sparks several resignations of the funder’s peer reviewers in protest at UKRI’s handling of the situation.
2 November
The University and College Union says it will issue a formal call on its members to resign from UKRI roles should the funder not reverse the suspension of its equality panel.
Leyser attempts to take some heat out of the row, posting on UKRI’s site: “We are fully committed to the principles of freedom of speech within the law and equality, diversity and inclusion. These are the foundations on which research and innovation excellence is built.
“I am determined to uphold these principles through the actions we are taking, despite the heightened emotions surrounding these debates at the current time.”
She adds: “We want to resolve this as quickly as possible, consistent with taking effective, well-founded decisions. The aim is to bring clear resolution in a way that best supports all of those who serve on our advisory groups, and research and innovation in the UK.
“In line with the principles we espouse, we understand that different people will take different views about the best way to act and we respect their decisions.”
3 November
An open letter from UKRI grantholders criticises the funder’s handling of the row, concluding that “the pace, tone and content of UKRI’s response has been interpreted by many of our colleagues as indicating a total lack of independence from government and a deep unwillingness to defend basic principles necessary to intellectual flourishing and research excellence. We share these concerns.”
6 November
A letter signed by over 500 UKRI grantees sent to the national funder objects to its handling of the dispute.
7 November
More academics resign from voluntary posts at UKRI, and the University and College Union asks its members to step down from posts at the funder.
8 November
UKRI downplays the potential impact on its operations after scores of academics resign from its peer review bodies.
15 November
Researchers across the UK continue to express outrage.
17 November
UKRI declines to provide any detail on the ongoing investigation into the advisory group.
5 March
UKRI’s investigation exonerates the relevant board members and invites all of them back to the panel.
“Following the independent investigation, the UKRI board has found no evidence of a breach of the Research England expert advisory group on EDI’s terms of reference,” the agency says.
“Moreover, the UKRI board found no evidence in the public domain of support for a proscribed terrorist organisation or the sharing of extremist material and no grounds to remove any individual members of the Research England expert advisory group on EDI.”
It adds: “We now warmly invite the group to reconvene and to contribute their expertise as we resume the group’s important work.”
Donelan withdraws her original tweet and is said to be paying damages to one of the academics she accused at the time—Kate Sang of Heriot-Watt University—who took legal action against the science secretary. The damages will be paid by the taxpayer via the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
Donelan releases a statement on X saying that she is “pleased to be able to withdraw my original concerns” in relation to the “specific tweet” in which she suggested Sang was expressing sympathy and support for Hamas.
“I have never thought or claimed that professor Sang, or any member of the board, committed a criminal offence,” Donelan says. “I fully accept that she is not an extremist, a supporter of Hamas or any other proscribed organisation and I note that an independent investigation has concluded that there is no evidence that she is.”
05/03 UPDATE: Updated with the latest developments.