Between 2004 and 2022 Innovate UK distributed billions in taxpayer money, to companies who have perpetuated inequality in the science and technology sector. It's time for this to change. Between 2004 and 2022, Innovate UK distributed over 3.7 billion of taxpayer money to “professional, scientific and technical” companies. These grants are intended to drive innovation and bolster the UK’s position as a leader in science and technology. Great. However, a glaring issue persists. This money is being distributed without consideration for the diversity of the teams which it funds; teams that remain distinctly homogeneous. Anyone with an idea and a fair bit of patience can apply for Innovate UK funding. This has created a highly competitive environment. Anyone who has worked in an ecosystem where companies are looking to secure this type of funding knows the extraordinary lengths that organizations will go to secure it. Things such as falsifying bank statements, inventing boondoggle-esque projects to qualify for funding, to outright fraudulently misrepresenting their operations. Companies can, do, and will continue to prioritize winning these grants over genuine innovation, or sustainable business ideas. Meanwhile, diversity in science and engineering roles remains an ongoing issue. Women are still sidelined in support and non-technical roles, with only 15.7% of roles in technology and engineering filled by women in 2024. In the same year, other underrepresented minorities continue to face persistent barriers to entry and advancement. Despite years of public discourse, The representation gap has not narrowed substantially. Why? Because systematic change is hard work, and the individuals who dominate the sector have no incentive whatsoever to foot the bill. The Case for Linking Diversity to Innovate UK Grants Innovate UK is in a unique position of power to drive meaningful change. If it were to introduce diversity requirements as part of its funding criteria, it would incentivize applicants to take representation within its workforce seriously. Imagine if a key part of the funding application scoring process was tied directly to diversity in engineering teams. My experience suggests that those applying for the funding would be fairly reactive to ensure they met such requirements. Delivering equality would surely seem like a fairly small price to pay, in exchange for free money? Improving Outcomes This approach is not just about equity. It’s about improving outcomes. Lack of diversity in engineering teams leads to solutions that fail to serve a diverse population effectively. Some examples: Male-centric crash test dummies that mean women are 73% more likely to be fatally injured in a car crash than their male counterparts. Blood oxygen meters that don’t work as reliably for people with darker skin, leading to poorer medical outcomes for said individuals. Voice recognition that struggled with Chinese and Spanish accents. These issues, and countless others like them, stem in part from homogeneous engineering teams, failing to consider diverse use cases in the development of their products. You cannot design, for what you are not. The Business Case. But if fairness doesn’t float your boat, maybe cold hard cash will? Research has consistently shown that diverse teams far outperform homogenous ones Products built by diverse teams will have increased market reach. They are also less likely to result in lawsuits over biased technology. If the goal of Innovate UK is to fund projects with the greatest potential for impact, then ignoring diversity is both short-sighted and counterproductive. Lessons From Other Sectors The British film industry provides a compelling case for how diversity and requirements on funding, can accelerate change. The British Film Federation (BFI) incorporates diversity criteria into funding decisions. The standards set out have been adopted by, among others, the BBC and Film 4 making them de facto for receiving funding for filmmaking. Between June 2016 & March 2019, the results were promising; 86% of applicants met Standard A (on-screen representation, themes, and narratives) 74% Standard C (industry access and opportunities) 67% Standard B (creative leadership and project team) While room for improvement remains. The stats represent a significant step forward compared to the tech sector. How Might Innovate UK Achieve This Using the example of the film industry, multiple standards could be adopted in the scoring process. Each standard covers a different area of equality and diversity. Such standards might include Equal representation within engineering teams Equal representation within the leadership teams The presence of inclusion strategies A track record of delivering on those inclusion strategies Plans for improving equality in the talent pipeline Clear accessibility standards across the organization While I appreciate it, you may not be able to just 'magic up' a diverse team due to issues in the talent pipeline. You can acknowledge this problem and have a clear plan for how you intend to improve diversity within the team. Such scoring would need to be mindful of this, and funding dependent on the execution of such a plan over the length of the project. The Cost of Inaction Diversity in engineering and technical roles is clearly not a situation that’s getting any better on its own accord. As previously shown, in 2024, the number of women in such roles was down, and girls are taking technical GSCEs such as computer science less and less. Further, minorities and the disabled remain underrepresented. As technology becomes ever more complex, many of the groups discussed are at risk of being left behind, and the products being developed by engineering teams risk compounding the inequalities that already exist across society. Big tech’s inaction in the area demonstrates that they really don’t care. Unable to fix diversity in their own ranks, and as a result, still releasing products that are racist and sexist. They even fire dissidents. The rock star salaries they pay to engineers suggest they are more content to fight over the resource that is available than make meaningful attempts to improve the resource pool. The cost of inaction is that nothing will change and the problem compounds, becoming harder to address. Final Thoughts While big tech and private corporations may not care for equality and diversity, Taxpayer-funded grants must reflect public values, including fairness and opportunities. By failing to consider diversity a priority in their funding, Innovate UK is reinforcing a system that benefits few while side-lining many. The cost of this failure is not only a failure to advance equity but also a failure to foster the best possible innovation. For Innovate UK, diversity is not just an ethical responsibility; it’s a strategic imperative. Between 2004 and 2022 Innovate UK distributed billions in taxpayer money, to companies who have perpetuated inequality in the science and technology sector. It's time for this to change. Between 2004 and 2022 Innovate UK distributed billions in taxpayer money, to companies who have perpetuated inequality in the science and technology sector. It's time for this to change. Between 2004 and 2022, Innovate UK distributed over 3.7 billion of taxpayer money to “professional, scientific and technical” companies. These grants are intended to drive innovation and bolster the UK’s position as a leader in science and technology. Great. However, a glaring issue persists. This money is being distributed without consideration for the diversity of the teams which it funds; teams that remain distinctly homogeneous. 3.7 billion of taxpayer money Anyone with an idea and a fair bit of patience can apply for Innovate UK funding. This has created a highly competitive environment. Anyone who has worked in an ecosystem where companies are looking to secure this type of funding knows the extraordinary lengths that organizations will go to secure it. Things such as falsifying bank statements , inventing boondoggle-esque projects to qualify for funding, to outright fraudulently misrepresenting their operations . Companies can, do, and will continue to prioritize winning these grants over genuine innovation, or sustainable business ideas. falsifying bank statements fraudulently misrepresenting their operations Meanwhile, diversity in science and engineering roles remains an ongoing issue. Women are still sidelined in support and non-technical roles, with only 15.7% of roles in technology and engineering filled by women in 2024 . In the same year, other underrepresented minorities continue to face persistent barriers to entry and advancement . only 15.7% of roles in technology and engineering filled by women in 2024 continue to face persistent barriers to entry and advancement Despite years of public discourse, The representation gap has not narrowed substantially. Why? Because systematic change is hard work, and the individuals who dominate the sector have no incentive whatsoever to foot the bill. The Case for Linking Diversity to Innovate UK Grants Innovate UK is in a unique position of power to drive meaningful change. If it were to introduce diversity requirements as part of its funding criteria, it would incentivize applicants to take representation within its workforce seriously. Imagine if a key part of the funding application scoring process was tied directly to diversity in engineering teams. My experience suggests that those applying for the funding would be fairly reactive to ensure they met such requirements. Delivering equality would surely seem like a fairly small price to pay, in exchange for free money? Improving Outcomes This approach is not just about equity. It’s about improving outcomes. Lack of diversity in engineering teams leads to solutions that fail to serve a diverse population effectively. Some examples: Male-centric crash test dummies that mean women are 73% more likely to be fatally injured in a car crash than their male counterparts. Male-centric crash test dummies that mean women are 73% more likely to be fatally injured in a car crash than their male counterparts. 73% more likely to be fatally injured in a car crash Blood oxygen meters that don’t work as reliably for people with darker skin, leading to poorer medical outcomes for said individuals. Blood oxygen meters that don’t work as reliably for people with darker skin, leading to poorer medical outcomes for said individuals . poorer medical outcomes for said individuals Voice recognition that struggled with Chinese and Spanish accents. Voice recognition that struggled with Chinese and Spanish accents . Chinese and Spanish accents These issues, and countless others like them, stem in part from homogeneous engineering teams, failing to consider diverse use cases in the development of their products. You cannot design, for what you are not. The Business Case. But if fairness doesn’t float your boat, maybe cold hard cash will? Research has consistently shown that diverse teams far outperform homogenous ones diverse teams far outperform homogenous Products built by diverse teams will have increased market reach. They are also less likely to result in lawsuits over biased technology. If the goal of Innovate UK is to fund projects with the greatest potential for impact, then ignoring diversity is both short-sighted and counterproductive. If the goal of Innovate UK is to fund projects with the greatest potential for impact, then ignoring diversity is both short-sighted and counterproductive. Lessons From Other Sectors The British film industry provides a compelling case for how diversity and requirements on funding, can accelerate change. The British Film Federation (BFI) incorporates diversity criteria into funding decisions . The standards set out have been adopted by, among others, the BBC and Film 4 making them de facto for receiving funding for filmmaking. incorporates diversity criteria into funding decisions Between June 2016 & March 2019, the results were promising; the results 86% of applicants met Standard A (on-screen representation, themes, and narratives) 74% Standard C (industry access and opportunities) 67% Standard B (creative leadership and project team) 86% of applicants met Standard A (on-screen representation, themes, and narratives) 74% Standard C (industry access and opportunities) 67% Standard B (creative leadership and project team) While room for improvement remains. The stats represent a significant step forward compared to the tech sector. How Might Innovate UK Achieve This Using the example of the film industry, multiple standards could be adopted in the scoring process. Each standard covers a different area of equality and diversity. Such standards might include Equal representation within engineering teams Equal representation within the leadership teams The presence of inclusion strategies A track record of delivering on those inclusion strategies Plans for improving equality in the talent pipeline Clear accessibility standards across the organization Equal representation within engineering teams Equal representation within the leadership teams The presence of inclusion strategies A track record of delivering on those inclusion strategies Plans for improving equality in the talent pipeline Clear accessibility standards across the organization While I appreciate it, you may not be able to just 'magic up' a diverse team due to issues in the talent pipeline. You can acknowledge this problem and have a clear plan for how you intend to improve diversity within the team. Such scoring would need to be mindful of this, and funding dependent on the execution of such a plan over the length of the project. The Cost of Inaction Diversity in engineering and technical roles is clearly not a situation that’s getting any better on its own accord. As previously shown, in 2024, the number of women in such roles was down, and girls are taking technical GSCEs such as computer science less and less . Further, minorities and the disabled remain underrepresented . computer science less and less minorities and the disabled remain underrepresented As technology becomes ever more complex, many of the groups discussed are at risk of being left behind, and the products being developed by engineering teams risk compounding the inequalities that already exist across society. Big tech’s inaction in the area demonstrates that they really don’t care. Unable to fix diversity in their own ranks, and as a result, still releasing products that are racist and sexist . They even fire dissidents . The rock star salaries they pay to engineers suggest they are more content to fight over the resource that is available than make meaningful attempts to improve the resource pool. racist sexist dissidents The cost of inaction is that nothing will change and the problem compounds, becoming harder to address. Final Thoughts While big tech and private corporations may not care for equality and diversity, Taxpayer-funded grants must reflect public values, including fairness and opportunities. By failing to consider diversity a priority in their funding, Innovate UK is reinforcing a system that benefits few while side-lining many. The cost of this failure is not only a failure to advance equity but also a failure to foster the best possible innovation. For Innovate UK, diversity is not just an ethical responsibility; it’s a strategic imperative.
