Summary
Science is about—and for—everyone. It shapes our daily lives, drives economic growth, and underpins solutions to the most pressing challenges of our time. Yet, for too many people, science and technology can feel distant or inaccessible. We want to help foster and encourage a better understanding of, and an increased focus upon, the potential—as well as the risks—of scientific and technological innovation amongst parliamentarians. At the same time, we want to reach out to as wide an audience as possible. To this end we undertook a nationwide engagement exercise, inviting the public to suggest topics for future scrutiny.
The culmination of the process was more than 300 responses to our call for ideas on what the Committee should put “under the microscope.” Submissions came from a range of contributors, including individuals, schools, children and young people, and organisations across the UK. This report includes a high-level overview of the responses, and how we have used them.
The results of this engagement have already informed the Committee’s work programme, and will do so throughout the rest of this Parliament. We aim to bring new topics, perspectives, and organisations to the attention of MPs and government, and to provide a platform for ideas that will contribute to the shape of the UK’s scientific and technological future.
1 Introduction
Under the Microscope
1. The core tasks of select committees include public engagement: to “assist the House of Commons in better engaging with the public by ensuring that the work of the committee is accessible to the public.”1 We launched the Under the Microscope initiative in December 2024 to invite ideas from the public, schools, businesses and under-represented communities, as well as expert groups. The aim was to identify the science and technology issues that matter most to people, and to ensure that our work reflects a broad range of perspectives.
Goals
2. The initiative sought to:
- Give the public and stakeholders—especially those select committees do not usually hear from—an opportunity to influence our agenda;
- Bring new topics, ideas, people and organisations to the Committee’s attention;
- Offer a public platform for proposals that could shape our future work.
Structure and activities
3. The programme has consisted of:
- Member-led workshops;
- Engagement with schools;
- An online survey; and
- A public evidence session for scientists to pitch their areas of research.
Respondents to the survey were asked to outline, in no more than 200 words:
- What issue the Committee should examine;
- Why that issue mattered; and
- How government policy in this area could be improved.
Under the microscope: Who responded to the Committee’s call for ideas
Some schools sent us their contributions in illustrated form - a selection are reproduced below:
2 What we heard and learned
4. A wide range of topics were suggested by respondents, but several clear themes emerged. The submissions from schools and young people in particular reflected a sense that the digital world poses significant risks, and that the current STEM education curriculum does not prepare them for the future.
Box 1
We want to enjoy finding things out without worrying that what we see is wrong or too grown-up.
Source: Witton Middle School
The online world
AI and online safety
5. Respondents raised concerns about:
- Regulation, oversight and accountability: Many expressed concerns about how algorithms are used to make decisions in areas such as health, education, and criminal justice, and called for transparency and fairness in AI systems and the right to challenge decisions.
- Mental health: Submissions raised concerns about the interaction between mental health and the digital environment, and its impact on young people. Many young people expressed concerns about the need for greater online safety, including through age restrictions and better regulation around content that can affect self-esteem and mental health. They raised the mental health risks from social media and AI-driven platforms, as well as the need for protection against cyberbullying and viewing inappropriate material.
- Safety and ethics: There were calls for research into AI safety, bias and long-term risks. Respondents warned about unintended consequences of use of AI models, the need for human control, and the importance of making ethical choices about how to use AI.
- Jobs and society: Some submissions expressed concern about automation and its effects on employment, and how to prepare the workforce for an AI-driven economy.
Box 2
We fear that AI is heightening our emotions and polarising relationships. Our fears and loves are in effect monetised, our emotions manipulated. What effect is this having on our psychological development. It seems that our emotions are heightened with targeted memes and advertising, and our empathy for others lowered. What effect will this have on us as adults? Are we already seeing the effects in schools?
Source: Shenley Brook End School
Data
6. Respondents raised the following points:
- Consent and data: Respondents called for clearer rules about how data is gathered, who has access to it, and how it is used. Some participants questioned the use of data from public services to develop AI tools, arguing that public data should not be used for private profit without transparency or benefit to citizens.
- Public understanding and trust: There were concerns that secrecy, bias or unfair outcomes could make people less likely to support AI’s use in public services or daily life. Some respondents suggested that the government needs a programme to build public trust in AI and the use of data, calling for education and engagement to help people understand what AI is, how it works, and their rights in relation to it.
Sovereign capability
7. Respondents pointed to the need for sovereign capability in areas including manufacturing the components used to run AI systems. Several submissions called for funding of cutting-edge research, development of key skills, and support for selected industries.
Health technology
Medical and health tech
8. Many submissions called for the Committee to look into how to better support medical and health systems—particularly those coming from children and young people.
- Health research: Respondents called for more funding for specific areas of health research, including cancer, rare diseases, mental health, and frailty and ageing.
- Technology in healthcare: Suggestions including promoting the use of AI in medical research, exploring the use of robotics in health and social care, and the potential applications of microbiome research, as well as research into genomics, biotechnology and personalised medicine;
- Consumer safety: Some called for research into long-term safety of consumer products, and the impact on specific ethnic groups—such as products for Black hair.
Ageing and frailty
9. Submissions raised the needs of an ageing population, including perceived problems created by a lack of classification of age-related pathologies, as well as “normal” ageing. There were calls to remove barriers to age-related research into geroprotectors and prevention of age-related frailty. One school submission asked for research into the use of robot carers to support social care. Other submissions mentioned dementia, healthcare access, digital exclusion, and the economic impact of longer life expectancy.
STEM skills
10. Many respondents said the UK is not doing enough to develop strong skills in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Responses from professional groups frequently cited concerns about the risks to the UK’s economic growth, global position and security posed by this.
Education
11. STEM education was a particular focus of the submissions from schools and young people. Many said that science and maths lessons are too focused on theory and exams, and not enough on understanding how things work in practice—especially in fast-moving areas like AI, climate science, and biotechnology. They suggested:
- More practical experiments in schools and school science infrastructure;
- Better funding for science teaching;
- Stronger focus on real-world applications;
- More co-operation between schools, businesses and universities.
Workforce
12. Respondents highlighted:
- Skills shortages: Respondents highlighted the need for stronger STEM skills in the workforce. Several submissions described skills shortages in areas like clean energy, life sciences, software development, and advanced manufacturing. Proposals included better careers advice for STEM pathways; support for apprenticeships and vocational training; and for adult education and reskilling;
- Diversity: A number of submissions said that STEM careers should be open to everyone, with more women and people from underrepresented backgrounds working in science and technology.
Literacy
13. Many submissions said that public understanding of science and technology needs to improve. Suggestions included:
- Teaching: Better teaching of science not just in schools, but also in adult education and lifelong learning settings;
- Scientific literacy: Supporting scientific literacy to counter misinformation, and ensure informed public debate on topics such as climate change, AI, data, and vaccines. Including the public in decisions around the use of data and scientific research to support trust in science and technology; and
- Accessible science communication: Improving the communication of science, and public engagement by researchers.
3 Contribution to our work
14. The Committee carefully considered all responses received and has taken forward work in a number of areas suggested by this who responded to our engagement exercise. We analysed the submissions, considering the Committee’s ability to add value by drawing attention to an issue, by influencing policy, or by allowing a range of voices to be heard. We launched a range of inquiries and one-off sessions, and will continue to draw on the inputs we received as we plan our forward programme.
The online world
15. We have explored some of the issues raised around online harms, regulation of AI, and the impact on young people of growing up in an online world through our inquiries into Social media, misinformation, and harmful algorithms and into Neuroscience and digital childhoods; as well as through work on proposed social media age restrictions and on digital inclusion. We have explored issues around the UK’s sovereign capabilities in technology through our inquiries into digital government and science diplomacy.
Health technology
16. We have carried several pieces of work around the use of innovation in medical and health research, including sessions on life sciences investment in the UK. We invited several researchers who made submissions to Under the Microscope to make pitches to the Committee about their work in areas such as mechanobiology, the microbiome, biofilms, neuromorphic computing, silicon photonics, and geroprotectors. On the basis of this, we wrote to health agencies with questions about innovation and health, including geroprotectors, and launched an inquiry into low-energy computing. We also raised the topic of regulators’ role in innovative healthcare with the chair of the Regulatory Innovation Office. We launched an inquiry into the science and regulation of beauty products and treatments, including the impact on Black hair and skin types. We heard from a number of health innovators as part of our “Innovation Showcase” inquiry, which brings innovators to Parliament to pitch their ideas to the Committee.
STEM skills
17. We have repeatedly questioned the government about the funding of scientific research, including for early-career researchers, and the financial situation at many universities, which rely upon a pipeline of students and researchers with STEM skills, and are considering future work on the STEM skills needed to support the Industrial Strategy.
Future work
18. The Committee will continue to place public concerns at the centre of our work. We expect to continue our engagement, and the themes identified will be considered in our programme for the whole of this Parliament.
Annex: Engaging with the public
Structure and activities
We launched an online survey aimed at professional, research and community groups and a UK-wide schools engagement programme, to ensure the widest range of views could be considered. We promoted the call for submissions through:
- Parliamentary social media accounts;
- The “My Parliament” newsletter;
- Targeted communications to third sector and community groups working with less-heard or politically disengaged communities;
- The Parliamentary Education Centre schools network.
We used the below packs to structure engagement with schools, and we encourage teachers to continue to draw on these as a basis for conversations about science and technology policy:
Schools 7_to_11 Activity Pack Under the Microscope.pdf
Schools 12_to_18 Activity Pack Under the Microscope.pdf
Formal minutes
Tuesday 15 September 2026
Members present
Dame Chi Onwurah, in the Chair
Tom Collins
Emily Darlington
Maya Ellis
George Freeman
Kit Malthouse
Samantha Niblett
Freddie van Mierlo
Martin Wrigley
Daniel Zeichner
Declaration of interests
The following declarations of interest relating to the inquiry were made:
1 July 2025
George Freeman declared an interest in relation to the Under the Microscope evidence session, as an Advisor to the Board of Trustees at the Guy Foundation Family Trust.
Under the microscope
Draft Report (Under the microscope), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 18 read and agreed to.
Annex and Summary agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report be the Fourth Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available (Standing Order No. 134).
Adjournment
Adjourned till Wednesday 14 October at 9.00 a.m.
Witnesses
The following witnesses gave evidence. Transcripts can be viewed on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.
Tuesday 1 July 2025
Dr Periklis Pantazis, Director of the Imperial–Leica Microsystems Imaging Hub, Department of Bioengineering, Imperial College LondonQ1–10
Professor Donal Wall, Head of Bacteriology, University of GlasgowQ11–20
Professor Cait MacPhee CBE, Professor of Biological Physics, University of Edinburgh, and Co-Director of the UK’s National Biofilms Innovation CentreQ21–33
Professor Tony Kenyon, Professor of Nanoelectronic & Nanophotonic Materials, University College London (UCL)Q34–46
Professor Callum Littlejohns, Deputy Director, CORNERSTONE Photonics Innovation CentreQ47–62
Professor Ilaria Bellantuono, Professor in Musculoskeletal Ageing and Co-Director, The Healthy Lifespan Institute, University of SheffieldQ63–73
List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament
All publications from the Committee are available on the publications page of the Committee’s website.
Session 2026–27
|
Number |
Title |
Reference |
|---|---|---|
|
3rd |
Science diplomacy: Sovereignty, strategy, and the global race |
HC 62 |
|
2nd |
Pre-appointment hearing for the Chair of Ofcom |
HC 55 |
|
1st |
Rewiring the state: Delivering digital government |
HC 61 |
|
2nd |
Science diplomacy: Sovereignty, strategy, and the global race: Government Response |
HC 652 |
|
1st |
Flying Blind: Innovation, Growth and the Regions: Government Response |
HC 271 |
Session 2024–26
|
Number |
Title |
Reference |
|---|---|---|
|
4th |
Pre-appointment hearing for the Chair of UK Research and Innovation |
HC 1844 |
|
3rd |
Flying Blind: Innovation, Growth and the Regions |
HC 538 |
|
2nd |
Social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms |
HC 441 |
|
1st |
Pre-appointment hearing for the Executive Chair of Innovate UK |
HC 834 |
|
3rd |
Social media, misinformation and harmful algorithms: Government and Ofcom responses |
HC 1397 |
|
2nd |
Insect decline and UK food security: Government Response |
HC 717 |
|
1st |
Governance of artificial intelligence (AI): Government Response |
HC 591 |