The Labour government in the UK has certainly moved quickly since it was swept into power at the start of May. At first it was window-dressing – “call me Tony” the new prime minister Tony Blair told the first meeting of the new cabinet. But there has been substance too: Scotland and Wales have already voted in favour of devolution, the Bank of England has been given more independence and there have been genuine efforts to get the “peace train” moving in Northern Ireland. However, it was all quiet on the science front until Margaret Beckett, the cabinet minister with responsibility for science, delivered her first major speech on science and engineering last month. Beckett explained to the annual meeting of the British Association in Leeds that the government was still developing its policy for the science base: “We will not rush into initiatives just for the sake of early action.” But she made a point of not promising extra money for science.

So what is Labour’s science policy so far? Beckett identified three priorities: partnership between business, the scientific community and the government to maximize the benefits flowing from scientific and technological developments; the need to maximize the potential of people, “the scientific world’s most important resource”; and increased public understanding of science to ensure that social, environmental and economic objectives are met. All told, Labour’s embryonic science policy – in particular Beckett’s comment that “it is essential we make maximum entrepreneurial use of the outcomes of science” – is little different from that of the previous Conservative government.

But there are differences too. Beckett emphasized that the Labour government would pay as much attention to improving the quality of life as it would to creating wealth, which previously had top priority. Moreover she promised that Labour would be taking a long-term view of science “far beyond the perspective of one parliament or even one government”. Before then, however, is the pressing problem of the decaying research infrastructure in UK universities. The Dearing report on the future of universities estimated that it would cost at £500m to bring this infrastructure up to date.

Beckett was explicit about her support for universities. “The UK still has an excellent science base, which is a tribute to those who have carried out research and teaching in our universities over many years, ” she said in Leeds. “And this has been achieved despite widespread concerns about the problem of funding. Let me state emphatically that this government attaches great importance to supporting and strengthening that base.”

Much will depend on the government’s forthcoming response to Dearing, although its reactions so far do not fill one with hope. Dearing’s recommendations on tuition fees and student maintenance grants were effectively ignored by the education secretary David Blunkett, while the government has yet to confirm that the money raised from tuition fees – let alone any of the “new” money requested by Dearing – will go to universities. And a week after Beckett’s speech, John Battle – one of her deputies and the minister for science, energy and industry – mocked Dearing’s proposal for an Industrial Partnership Development Fund funded by the public and private sectors.

Beckett and Battle are clearly interested in science. Battle in particular is a passionate and enthusiastic politician with a healthy appetite for meeting people and visiting laboratories. That enthusiasm needs to be turned into action. Before the election, Labour politicians were quick to point out how the UK’s position in various league tables – e.g. the world prosperity league, R&D spend as a percentage of GDP – had slipped under the Conservatives, but their performance so far suggests a “business-as-normal” approach to science and technology. Unless new policies are developed fast, Labour is unlikely to benefit the science base in the UK in the short, medium or long terms.