The Alan Turing Institute (ATI) has scrapped an initiative aimed at increasing the number of women working in data science and AI, following government pressure.
The research project, called Women in Data Science and AI, had been established to investigate the “chilly” organisational cultures of technology companies and improve diversity and equity in data science and AI, where women make up only 22 per cent of the workforce.
The government-funded institute had warned that the “persistent under-representation” of women and marginalised groups in these industries could lead to an amplification of bias in AI algorithms. However, these issues will no longer be addressed through the institute’s research.
Why EDI must have a clear place in L&D initiatives
Organisations rebrand EDI as ‘culture’ amid political controversy – but could this erode progress?
Technology secretary Peter Kyle wrote to ATI bosses earlier this month, reportedly directing them to prioritise research on defence and security instead.
The institute reviewed more than 100 of its existing projects earlier this year, with the aim of focusing on a smaller number of science and innovation research initiatives.
A spokesperson for the ATI said: “We’re shaping a new phase for the Turing Institute, and this requires substantial organisational change to ensure we deliver on the promise and unique role of the UK’s national institute for data science and AI. As we move forward, we’re focused on delivering real-world impact across society’s biggest challenges.”
‘Setting the tone’
Between 40,000 and 60,000 women leave the UK’s tech sector every year, according to WeAreTechWomen’s Lovelace Report, costing the economy an estimated £2bn to £3.5bn annually.
Paul Sesay, CEO and founder of Inclusive Companies, an organisation that promotes diversity within UK businesses, said this was just one example of how a lack of diversity is “severely hampering progress and skewing the views and input of tech companies working in AI”.
“We are at risk of alienating a whole range of people if we don’t embed EDI into AI,” he added, warning that this could have a “knock-on effect” within the big tech companies, which are already rolling back their EDI programmes.
Aggie Yemurai Mutuma, CEO and founder of workplace consultancy Mahogany Inclusion Partners, argued that, as a flagship body, the ATI “sets the tone” for the technology sector. “By recommitting now, it can protect the UK’s talent pipeline, inspire other institutions to stay the course and show the world that equity and excellence go hand in hand,” she said.
However, Mutuma added: “If it steps back, universities, labs and start‑ups will feel pressure to do the same, slowing down the hard‑won progress we’ve made in the UK.”
Geeta Nargund, chair of gender parity consultancy The Pipeline, agreed, highlighting that studies have shown that women make up less than a third of the workforce in the AI sector, resulting in the technology being “riddled with gender bias”.
“That is exactly why projects such as the ATI’s initiative are so essential, not only to address this issue but work together to fix it – for the sake of the many younger women who may be incredibly passionate and talented, yet will feel a profession in STEM is out of reach to them, and unfairly have their dreams fade,” she said.
Ongoing backlash against EDI
The decision comes amid a wider rollback of EDI policies in the technology sector. On taking office, US president Donald Trump ordered all government diversity schemes to be shut down and he has pushed for the private sector to follow suit.
Meta and Amazon were among the first to scale back their EDI programmes in response.
Mutuma said: “We’re already seeing UK politicians adopt the same ‘anti‑woke’ language used in the US and media outlets are picking up stories about bans on bias training. Some UK organisations are also pulling back from diversity programmes after seeing their US counterparts do the same.”
Recalling how Amazon was forced to scrap an algorithm that was being tested as a recruitment tool in 2018 after it was found to be sexist, she pointed out: “It only stopped discriminating against women because a diverse team spotted the bias before it caused wider harm. Without that scrutiny, hidden flaws multiply – and both the financial and reputational costs are huge.”
Last year, more than 180 ATI staff signed a letter criticising the organisation’s approach to diversity after it appointed four men to senior roles. In the letter, they wrote: “This is an excellent time to reflect on whether all voices are being heard and if the institute’s commitment to inclusivity is being fully realised in our recruitment and decision-making practices.”
Shakil Butt, founder of HR Hero for Hire, pointed out that embedding EDI within all industries is vital for avoiding “group think” among senior leaders and “navigating constant change” as well as helping to address talent shortages.
“Giving permission to marginalised groups to be themselves and having psychological safety frees up everyone to focus on the work and be more productive,” he added.
