Anthony Finkelstein: universities ‘part of nation’s power’

In the era of mass videoconferencing, it seems notable that the former UK government chief scientific adviser (CSA) for national security, until recently the nation’s “spy tech chief” as the BBC put it, uses Microsoft Teams rather than Zoom for his calls (Zoom has reportedly used encryption keys issued via servers in China).

There are plenty of other reasons to pay heed to Anthony Finkelstein, who left government and returned to academia as president of City, University of London in June. He has a unique position from which to assess UK universities’ position in the geopolitical contest in science that he identified while in Whitehall – and an intent to “take risks and innovate” at City.

Professor Finkelstein, a former chair in software systems engineering at UCL and head of computer science at City, explained that his CSA role involved leading the science, technology and innovation programmes across national security and “supporting the critical missions of the national security community”, including in fields such as counterterrorism.

In government, he was part of the policy team that shaped the UK government’s post-Brexit integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, published in March, which described science as a means to sustain global “strategic advantage” and said the UK must be a “science and tech superpower”.

“I think people have underestimated the significance of the policy step that is represented by the integrated review,” said Professor Finkelstein. “This is the first time we’ve seen a convergence of science policy and defence, security and foreign policy writ large.”

Covid has highlighted this convergence, he added: “Our ability to produce a vaccine in the UK demonstrates a strategic capability of vast importance to our national security.”

Professor Finkelstein continued: “If you say science and technology moves to the centre of geopolitical contest…then that places universities precisely in that ambit. That means that we are part of a nation’s capacity, part of its power.”

That “also entails us recognising the threat that’s posed to universities as a result of that”, he added.

By “threat”, does he mean that science policymakers and universities need to be acutely aware of competition from a nation like China?

“Absolutely,” Professor Finkelstein replied. “And not being in government, I don’t need to say, ‘from a nation like China’. I can say, ‘from China’.”

Are there particular principles he would pinpoint in thinking about how collaboration with China should operate for City researchers, for example?

“It’s clear that where there are countries with whom we do not share values, that necessarily the sorts of relationships that we make are going to be much more heavily constrained, and principally transactional,” said Professor Finkelstein. “That doesn’t mean they are not valued relationships…important things come from those relationships. They are not partnerships; they are relationships of mutual interest.”

On City’s strengths and future, Professor Finkelstein said: “It is a vocational school. It’s a trade school. It’s a technical school. That’s what its mission is.”

But, he continued, “people mistakenly think that means that…we are not research-oriented, that we are a ‘mechanics’ institute’ as distinct from a professional school. We need to find a way to really tell that story about City. It’s an extraordinary place. We are building an elite professional school – that’s our aim.”

In a blog post this month, Professor Finkelstein described “a homogenised and deeply conservative higher education sector” in England.

That was a statement of City’s distinctive character, “a statement of ambition…a statement that I am prepared to take risks and innovate in that pursuit – and this institution is going to do that”, he said.

This, he continued, “might entail changes to the shape of our programmes and their content…It might [involve] an assertion of our vision and our values of what higher education should be, over dominant cultural memes.”

In particular, he objected to the prevailing view of vocationalism “as if that weren’t something that could be excellent…as if it was not possible for an institution like this one”.

Professor Finkelstein’s blog criticised academics and universities – rather than the external policy environment – for creating that “homogenised” sector.

The research excellence framework, for example, is “a mechanism for allocating funding to institutions”, but “its reading as a pecking order of who is producing what and as a sort of aspirational ladder to be climbed – that’s our choice”.

On aims to work with colleagues across the sector and beyond, Professor Finkelstein said: “One of the things I learned in government is that you don’t get far simply by complaining about other people’s policy directions. What you’ve got to do is make the policy agenda…I think you will hear me less as a voice chipping away at particular policy issues in the sector and more as a voice trying to construct new agendas that we can bring people alongside.”

john.morgan@timeshighereducation.com