Reorganising
Research ’26

Every era of scientific progress has rested on the invention of new ways to organise it: the research university, the national laboratory, the corporate lab, the funding council, the mission agency. Each was an institutional technology with its own affordances and blind spots, suited to some kinds of work and limiting to others. The British research system today rests overwhelmingly on a single such technology — the grant-funded university department — and has comparatively little structural variety compared with its international peers.

For much of the last century, this system has served us well. But its resilience is under pressure from significant political and financial headwinds. Alongside this, the way research is being conducted is changing fast as AI starts to bite; the speed of development is set to continue exceeding our available institutional bandwidth.

There is therefore growing appetite — across government, philanthropy, and the research community — to strengthen our position, by addressing both gaps in the institutional landscape and issues with the sustainability of current funding models. This will likely include some diversification of each, to make the overall system more resilient and responsive. But we lack systematic knowledge of what has been tried, what works, and what policy and funding barriers stand in the way.

This retreat is a working session on that question. Rather than starting from what is wrong with the current system, we start from what the country now needs its research institutions to do, and ask what mix of organisations, funding models, and governance arrangements would best deliver it. Some of that mix already exists; some of it will need to be built.

What the retreat will work on

The retreat is organised around a small number of core questions, which participants will shape and extend:

• What can be learned from the institutional experiments already underway — within UK universities and beyond, and internationally — across the full range from basic research to technology development?
• Where are the real capability gaps in the UK system: which kinds of valuable work are currently struggling, and why?
• What types of evidence are needed to make better decisions about our institutional mix?
• What are the concrete policy and funding bottlenecks that block new organisations or funding architectures from being created or scaled — and which are the most tractable to fix?
• How can philanthropic, public, and commercial capital be sequenced and structured to sustain different institutional forms?

Our goals for this event

We are bringing together thinkers, policymakers, institutional entrepreneurs, and potential funders to exchange knowledge, build relationships, and spark collaborations that outlast the two days. The sessions will feed a structured evidence base — interviews, comparative cases, and data — that supports policy work underway at Science Works and Wellcome. But where the group identifies a tractable blocker, in policy, funding, or technical infrastructure, the aim is to begin work on it during the retreat itself, as enabled by the unconference format.

The group we are bringing together spans a wide range of views, and is not politically or ideologically partisan. The one premise we ask everyone to share is that the structures underpinning UK R&D and science policy can be improved.

What we hope you take from it

• An enduring network. Sustained, productive time with a carefully assembled group — people building, funding, studying, and governing research institutions, in one place, off the record.
• A sharper view of the landscape. A clearer, comparative picture of what is being tried in the UK and abroad, what is working, and where the binding constraints actually sit — informed by people with direct operating experience.
• A hand in shaping what follows. The retreat feeds directly into Science Works’ and Wellcome’s ongoing work — a map of institutional models and funding architectures, an inventory of the most tractable policy bottlenecks, and a small portfolio of testable reforms.
• Collaborators and momentum. The format is built to start concrete projects, not just conversations. Several of the working relationships and initiatives that come out of these events outlast the retreat itself.

A small amount of structure is fixed in advance — a handful of short scene-setting talks, brief presentations from representatives of existing international experiments in the organisation of science, and a closing synthesis. Beyond that, we turn the agenda over to you. Anyone can propose and lead a session (alone or in groups), or suggest topics for discussion. What are you most excited to address? What problems do you want to solve? Do you have a project you want feedback on?

We’ve divided the days into a series of 45-minute sessions, and suggested four rooms where sessions can run simultaneously. There will be a central whiteboard where you can write up details of sessions you’re planning, and see what’s on.

A few tips

• Focus on specific and concrete suggestions to achieve shared goals, rather than broader philosophical and political questions. Consider politics as a constraint on what can be achieved, rather than a topic to discuss.
• It’s fine to leave a session quietly, at any point, for any reason. Move between sessions as much as you like, or take a break.
• Listen and ask questions. If you don’t know much about a topic, feel free to join a session simply to learn from others.

Leading a session

We’ve invited each attendee because of your expertise, drive, and curiosity, and we encourage everyone to consider leading a session (or several). You don’t have to be an expert in a topic to run a session — you just have to be interested in framing a discussion on it.

Some formats you could consider:

• A feedback session — pitch a project you’re excited about and hear feedback from others.
• A problem-solving session — brainstorm ideas on a particular problem or set of problems.
• A how-to session — share your skills with others.
• A debate — present two sides of an argument.
• A lecture — share information about your area of expertise.
• A working walk through the lovely grounds.

We suggest you open by outlining your plan and framing the problem or question you want to look into. Tell people how you’d like to structure the session, and what you’re hoping participants can contribute.

As moderator, you set the guardrails of the conversation. Steer the discussion towards specific and tangible ideas — What is the next step? Who do we need to get on board? — rather than What would the ideal system look like? Try to make sure everyone has an opportunity to speak, and keep the conversation moving in productive directions. Be prepared to intervene if it becomes repetitive.