There are significant opportunities for universities to conduct more research in partnership with the defence sector as the UK government ramps up investment, but a collective change in messaging may be required if institutions wish to avoid further backlash.��

Ministers have pledged to spend 5 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product on defence by 2035 and defence appeared as a key “growth-driving” sector in Labour’s recent industrial strategy.��

For cash-strapped universities, tapping into the government’s mission to shore up the UK’s national security could be a way to help prove their societal worth at a time when they are calling for increased financial support.��

But with a small number of institutions already leading in this area and continued opposition to links with arms companies on campus, supporting the government’s drive is likely to come with challenges for the higher education sector.��

̽����Ƶ

“The opportunity is huge,” said Christopher Fogwill, executive dean of the Faculty of Science and Engineering at the University of Plymouth.��

Plymouth is part of a defence cluster described as a “rich ecosystem” in the government’s industrial strategy, with the university’s Cyber-SHIP maritime autonomy and cybersecurity laboratory at the heart of its work.��

̽����Ƶ

“We do that translatory piece around research: how do you bring systems together and deploy them?” Fogwill said.��

The new industrial strategy and Strategic Defence Review, both released in June, suggest that while “current funding is not necessarily well attuned to that…future funding will be,” he continued.��

However, he caveated, like all research, “it will never shore up our finances completely”.

Heather Goldstraw, director of strategic relationships at Cranfield University, warned that the uplift in defence spending may take time to translate into research funds.

“A lot of the new money, I think, is not going into anything new [like] research and development. It’s fixing some of the longstanding systemic problems,” she said, including improving armed forces pay and housing, as well as rebuilding ammunition stockpiles that have been depleted during the Russia-Ukraine war.��

“That said, I think there are new challenges coming through,” she continued. This could bring opportunities for all institutions, beyond those just specialising in defence, she added.��

̽����Ƶ

“There’s a small amount of it that is very specialist. An awful lot of the investment is going on the whole system,” she continued, and defence “quite often does things through a supply chain”.��

“You can absolutely contribute, but that doesn’t mean you have to find a way to contract directly with [the Ministry of Defence] and you don’t have to have all of the knowledge, the language…the security-cleared staff – all of those things cost a lot of money to maintain…Further down the supply chain, you’re still part of a solution.”

̽����Ƶ

Julian Free, deputy vice-chancellor for regional engagement at the University of Lincoln, said universities needed to look at their existing capabilities and what they may be able to produce in partnership with local industry.��

“You’ve got to have an offer, if you like, [to the] government that says, ‘I’m not just asking you for money. What I’m telling you is, with this, I’m going to achieve this and this and here is an output that I can deliver that I know you need.’”

However, some universities are likely to be reluctant to grow and promote their work in the defence sector, given the possible backlash from students and academics.��

In light of the Israel-Hamas conflict, institutions face growing scrutiny for their links to arms companies, with some organisations forced to cancel their appearances at campus job fairs in response to student protests.��

“Institutions are going to have to make difficult choices,” said Jess Lister, director of education at Public First. “I think what the sector really needs is a better way of explaining why it partners with these companies, and why it works with them and why it does [research and development] for them.

“No institution has really been willing to explain its thinking on this, and I think that’s what leads to some of the increased tension between students and institutions themselves.”

̽����Ƶ

For Fogwill, “it’s developing a narrative about [national] resilience”, rather than just focusing on offensive technologies. “If we are going to benefit from this defence dividend, we need to really come together.”

helen.packer@timeshighereducation.com