What went wrong with the Alan Turing Institute?
Martin Goodson, then of the Royal Statistical Society, dubbed the ATI “at best irrelevant to the development of modern AI in the UK”.
The criticism hasn’t slowed. Matt Clifford’s AI Opportunities Action Plan recommended that the government should “consider the broad institutional landscape and the full potential of the Alan Turing Institute to drive progress at the cutting edge”. While Clifford was too diplomatic to say the quiet bit out loud, in government speak, this is code for suggesting that the ATI was not fulfilling its intended purpose.
UK Research and Innovation, the UK’s main research and innovation funding body, is running out of patience. Its quinquennial review of the ATI, published in 2024, was politely scathing about the institute’s governance, financial management, and the quality of its most recent strategy (dubbed Turing 2.0).
There aren’t many areas of consensus across the UK’s fractious tech community, but the ATI has come to play an oddly unifying role. From left to right and north to south, there’s a sense that the institute is running out of friends and time.
