While the government has thrown £1.6 billion of funding at AI over the next four years, the public remains cautious and there are concerns too that the law hasn’t kept up. 

In mid February, the government released its AI strategy for UK Research and Innovation to make AI deliver for the UK’s cutting-edge science and research efforts.

The UK’s largest public research funder UKRI committed £1.6 billion of funding directly targeted at the AI sector over the next four years, its biggest single investment area for 2026 to 2030. This includes funding for specific activities that UKRI will deliver on behalf of  the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) – which is subject to change as delivery plans are finalised. It also sits alongside significant additional AI investment woven through the broader UKRI budget.  

“From spotting cancers earlier to cutting backlogs in public services, new research into AI will be a game-changer, bringing the promise of tomorrow’s technologies to the UK today,” said deputy prime minister David Lammy. 

The strategy also commits to expanding doctoral and fellowship routes co-designed with businesses. It will also support recognised career frameworks for research software engineers, data scientists and ethics specialists – supporting the high-paying jobs of the future.  

Under the new strategy, it will help to deliver up to £137 million as part of DSIT’s AI for Science Strategy to back AI-enabled scientific discovery, starting with drug discovery and new treatments. 

AI is not trusted yet

All good news, but the public still remains cautious about AI. 

New polling from the Health Foundation’s third annual health tech tracker survey shows that while the public backs most of the proposed new functions for the NHS App, many remain cautious around the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care.

With the government’s 10 Year Health Plan signalling major ambitions to expand the NHS App, the charity’s survey of 8,000 members of the public and more than 2,000 NHS staff reveals that around three-quarters of the public would be happy to use the NHS App for functions such as booking hospital appointments (76%), choosing a preferred hospital (73%) and accessing information about procedures (73%). But support drops significantly when AI-generated advice is involved. 

Only 49% of the public say they would be willing to use the proposed AI-powered Doctor in Your Pocket feature for non-urgent care, and nearly a third (32%) said they would not use it.

“As policymakers seek to develop the UK’s approach to overseeing and regulating AI in health care, it will be important to create an environment where the use of AI is trusted by patients and the public,” said Ahmed Binesmael, senior improvement analyst at the Health Foundation.

“While an effective regulatory framework may well be able to balance speed, safety and other principles, our findings suggest the public currently prioritises stronger diligence and safeguards over potential benefits such as speed or availability,” he continued. 

It is a problem for which healthcare leaders are still striving to find an answer. 

Matthew Taylor, interim chief executive of the NHS Confederation and NHS Providers, welcomed the great potential that AI and digital tools have to improve NHS productivity, solve organisation-specific problems and give people control and access to the information they need, but that there was still a need to “build trust” in their use. 

The law is lagging

At the same time, concerns remain that the law has not kept pace with advances specifically for patients who suffer injuries where faulty AI is used in their treatment. 

“The law is lagging behind when people are injured and AI technology is involved. AI use in healthcare is set to be transformative in providing rapid, accurate diagnosis and personalised treatment, so it’s key that if patients are hurt due to negligence where AI plays a part that they have a clear and accessible route to redress through the courts in the UK,” said Pauline Roberts, vice president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL). 

“People injured by medical products that utilise AI are forced to take on well-resourced manufacturers, sometimes based abroad, by pursuing product liability claims, which are notoriously complex, costly, and lengthy,” she continued. 

APIL has responded to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)’s call for evidence to inform the recommendations of the National Commission as it develops the new regulation framework for AI use in healthcare.

It is not alone, the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR), the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM), and the Society of Radiographers (SCoR) all called for a properly trained and funded workforce and clear, consistent regulation across AI developers, healthcare providers and professionals in their responses. 

“AI must be regulated as a safety-critical technology. That requires clear standards across the AI lifecycle and a workforce with the capability and authority to assure these systems in clinical practice,” said IPEM’s president Mark Knight. 

Although the consultation has closed, there is no timeline for when recommendations will be published. But whatever happens, it will be an uphill struggle to get people onside.