Alan Turing Institute in crisis: Staff warn of collapse, funding cuts

More than a decade after its establishment, the Alan Turing Institute (ATI), intended as a “fitting memorial” to the pioneering British computer scientist and artificial intelligence visionary, finds itself in profound turmoil. Staff warnings suggest Britain’s leading AI institute is teetering on the brink of collapse, caught between internal disquiet and ministerial demands for a stark shift in focus towards defence and security.

The institute, named after Alan Turing, whose mathematical genius was instrumental in cracking the Enigma code and laying the groundwork for AI with concepts like the eponymous Turing test, was founded in 2014. Turing’s legacy has seen a significant resurgence in recent years, including a posthumous royal pardon in 2013, the Oscar-winning film The Imitation Game in 2014, and his visage gracing the £50 note in 2021. Yet, a cornerstone of this revitalised legacy is now deeply troubled.

This month, a group of staff lodged a whistleblower complaint with the Charity Commission, the regulatory body overseeing the ATI as a registered charity largely funded by the UK government. The complaint detailed eight critical concerns, prominently featuring the potential withdrawal of £100m in government funding, which, according to the complaint, “could lead to the Institute’s collapse.” Broader anxieties were also raised regarding the institute’s internal governance, workplace culture, and oversight of spending, with the complaint asserting that “many staff now believe the institute’s charitable status and public credibility are at risk.”

This latest development follows a series of internal revolts. Last March, over 180 staff members penned a letter to leadership expressing “serious concerns” about the organisation’s approach to diversity, particularly after four men were appointed to senior roles. In December, another letter, signed by more than 90 employees, warned that the ATI’s credibility was in “serious jeopardy” amidst a restructuring process that threatened jobs and research projects. Indeed, approximately 50 staff, about 10% of the workforce, have recently been notified they are at risk of redundancy. Concurrently, the institute is winding down projects related to online safety, tackling the housing crisis, and reducing health inequality.

These changes are part of an internal overhaul dubbed “Turing 2.0,” designed to refocus the institute on three core areas: health, the environment, and defence and security. However, a recent letter from Technology Secretary Peter Kyle to ATI’s chair made it clear that this overhaul did not go far enough. Kyle demanded that the institute shift its primary focus to defence and national security, indicating that the ATI’s “longer-term funding arrangement” could be reviewed next year. He explicitly stated that “defence and national security projects should form a core of ATI’s activities,” and suggested that the institute’s leadership might need to be adjusted to reflect this new vision, implying a need for an executive team with relevant sector expertise.

Against this backdrop of prolonged staff dissatisfaction, a strategic and financial overhaul, and the government’s unequivocal demands, the whistleblower complaint emerged. ATI is currently led by CEO Jean Innes and chaired by Doug Gurr. Gurr responded to Kyle’s letter last month, pledging to “step up” on defence and national security and boost the UK’s self-sufficiency in AI, or “sovereign capabilities.” Yet, he also stated the ATI would “continue to drive forward high-impact work in environment and healthcare” where it aligns with government missions and funder interests. This nuanced stance, however, did little to quell internal dissent. A recent remote meeting between staff and leadership saw Gurr facing pointed questions from over 100 employees, with one attendee describing the mood as “contemptuous throughout.” An internal note from Innes and Gurr this week confirmed a new working group involving government officials and ATI staff to discuss the new direction, alongside the reality of impending redundancies and non-renewed contracts.

The ATI’s foundational goals included advancing world-class research to address national and global challenges and fostering an informed public conversation on AI. Its research, often in collaboration with its five founding UK universities (Cambridge, Oxford, Edinburgh, UCL, and Warwick), has included improving weather forecasting with the Met Office, creating cardiac “digital twins” for heart disease research, and enhancing air traffic control.

Political circles have harboured disquiet about the institute’s performance for some time, with concerns about its focus being blurred by multiple university stakeholders. A source from the previous Conservative government suggested that, in this context, it makes sense to either double down on defence and security or “just shut it down and start again.”

Dame Wendy Hall, a professor of computer science at the University of Southampton and co-chair of a 2017 government AI review, noted that the “ATI brand is well recognised internationally.” She cautioned that if it ceases to be the national institute for AI and data science, “we are at risk of weakening our international leadership in AI.” Hall believes the institute has “ceased to be what it was initially set up to be” and now has “no choice but to change” if it wants to avoid closure by the government.

Professor Jon Crowcroft of the University of Cambridge, an adviser to Innes, confirmed the “crisis in terms of people is real,” describing staff as unsettled and questioning their job security. He noted a lack of clear plans to retain staff or address the consequences if too many leave, potentially jeopardising core funding and the viability of their London base. While acknowledging the national importance of defence work, a current staff member, speaking anonymously, expressed concern that a singular focus would be too narrow. They argued that Turing’s strength lies in applying AI to a wide range of societal challenges, from health to the environment, with responsible innovation at its core. This staff member views Gurr’s letter as leaving the ATI in a “precarious standoff” with the government, hoping for a shift in governmental attention or personnel.

Despite the turbulence, Professor Crowcroft maintains that the UK remains strong in AI, citing generations of expertise from top universities and the success of companies like Google DeepMind and UK-based units of Microsoft and OpenAI. A spokesperson for the ATI affirmed the institute is undergoing “substantial” change to fulfil its unique role, focusing on “delivering real-world impact across society’s biggest challenges, including responding to the national need to double down on our work in defence, national security and sovereign capabilities.” A government spokesperson echoed this, stating that the Technology Secretary seeks value for taxpayer money by positioning the institute to safeguard national security where the British public expects it to be.

While Alan Turing’s legacy undeniably endures, the future of the institute bearing his name hangs precariously in the balance.