How not to fix an AI institute

The Alan Turing Institute doubles down

The Turing senior leadership’s message to staff: an artist’s impression

Introduction

Back in March, I published a long-read exploring what went wrong with the Alan Turing Institute, the UK’s national AI and data science centre. The piece argued that a lack of clear goals, poor leadership, and the decision to outsource its operation to a coalition of universities had created an underpowered body that advised the government poorly. The only functional part of the institute was the team focused on defence and national security. This team drew less on academia and the world of research grants, in favour of partnering directly with the national security community.

After I published the piece, I received a range of responses. Many current and former members of Turing staff wrote in to express their wholehearted agreement, while a handful of academics accused me of being involved in a ‘technolibertarian’ conspiracy with Tony Blair. Jean Innes and Doug Gurr, respectively the CEO and Chair of the Turing, gave an interview that reaffirmed the institute’s present approach and didn’t address any of the criticisms. The story then went quiet.

Suddenly on 3 July, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology Peter Kyle sent a letter to Gurr, demanding widespread changes. This followed a meeting with the institute’s leadership in May. The letter praised “the existing excellent work” being done on defence and said that “defence and national security projects should form a core of the ATI’s activity” and that “the ATI’s current non-defence activity would need to be reoriented to support this renewed focus and strengthen the UK’s sovereign AI capabilities”, with leadership “that reflects the institute’s reformed focus”. I’ve added the entire text of the letter and any other correspondence referenced in this piece in an appendix at the bottom, as I realise not everyone is on X.

This is nothing short of a call for the institute’s current leadership, along with much of its current work, to be cleared out. However, as far as the Turing’s management is concerned, it’s business as usual.

Over the past week, I’ve spoken to Turing staffers, exasperated officials, and research world insiders. The picture that emerges is of a leadership determined to batten down the hatches and avoid meaningful reform. Worse still, Innes and Gurr may not even be behaving irrationally.

Please disperse, nothing to see here

When you see Peter Kyle’s letter printed in full, the irritation with the Turing is hard to miss. However, the government did not publish the text and media reporting tended to focus on the handful of quotes Politico (who were the first to get hold of the letter) opted to publish. This, unfortunately, played into the Turing leadership’s hands.

In an internal message sent to all staff the next day, Jean Innes reassured the team that the media was “quoting selectively” from a letter that was “collegiate, not critical”. Innes argued that the letter was in fact “endorsing the Turing 2.0 approach, noting our crucial role in the UK’s AI transformation, outlining the strength and impact of our existing work”.

This was an egregious misrepresentation from Innes, who was likely banking on the full text of the letter never seeing the light of day. It is true that the letter acknowledges that the institute has produced good work. It is, however, an act of olympic-level contortion to describe it as an endorsement of the current strategy.

Despite Innes and Gurr positioning it as a revamp in their FT interview, the Turing 2.0 strategy was adopted in 2023. It committed the institute to focussing on three ‘grand challenges’: health, environment and sustainability, and defence and national security. A letter calling for two of three focus areas to be scrapped can in no way be described as an endorsement of the current approach, nor is a letter saying that “further action is needed to ensure the ATI meets its full potential” conceivably “not critical”.

This would seem obvious to anyone attached to reality. But Innes seized on one sentence, in which the minister praised the institute’s work on weather prediction, as evidence that “our high-impact missions are increasingly interlinked”. The line the institute appears to be taking is that i) the government likes our defence mission, ii) all our missions are interlinked, iii) our missions are all therefore defence, iv) nothing needs to change.

The full quote from the Secretary of State’s letter was that “impactful existing work on weather prediction and fundamental AI research would align well, albeit with a renewed emphasis on, and specific linkage to, the UK’s defence, national security, and sovereign capability”. The Secretary of State is outlining a single example of work from another of the Turing’s missions that could be repurposed, not suggesting that all the institute’s current work can or should be preserved.

Based on conversations with officials and people familiar with Peter Kyle’s thinking, DSIT does not believe that the Turing’s leadership is taking the letter seriously.

Spinning out of control

Since late last year, the Turing has been running a consultation on making 143 staff redundant and has been gearing up to slash a quarter of its research projects. Throughout this entire period, the leadership team has maintained the pretence that everything is functioning as it should.

At the end of last year, 93 Turing staffers signed a letter to the Board of Trustee that criticised “the CEO’s failure to make decisions, communicate clearly, or take responsibility for the Institute’s direction” and warned that the wider leadership team’s “actions are jeopardising the viability of the Institute as a whole”. They point to how slow decision-making had led to contracts going unhonoured and potential funding falling through. The letter noted that “while ELT [the executive leadership team] continues to assure us that everything is fine, this message is increasingly at odds with the reality we observe across the Institute”.

Innes and Gurr’s response so far suggests that the leadership remains committed to its long-term strategy of denial. Multiple current Turing staffers have described leadership’s communications with staff as tantamount to “gaslighting”.

On Thursday, Gurr joined an all-team meeting and reiterated Innes’ internal message and delivered remarks that were “light on accountability” and “delusional”. While he stopped short of explicitly backing Innes, Gurr suggested that the ministerial letter should be viewed as good news and proof the institute was “exactly where we should be”. He labelled the implicit criticism in the letter as “perfectly standard questions”. In his rendering, the letter was not a criticism of the Turing, but a reflection of the government increasingly prioritising defence spending. Gurr also welcomed an apparent government commitment to allocate more money to defence and security research – something that was not in the Secretary of State’s letter and which no Turing sources believe to be true.

Gurr stressed the importance of independence and made it clear that the institute would continue with its health and environment work. As he spoke, questions piled up in the Zoom chat. Gurr is said to have taken two grudgingly, before making his excuses and exiting the meeting.

Haldane-ing onto power

To an outsider, Innes and Gurr’s response to the government may seem like a kamikaze-like provocation, but there’s a chance it might work.

The Turing is an independent body. Ministers can share their opinion on how it should be run, but have no direct ability to pick its leadership or set the strategy. Real power sits with the five founding universities and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), the Turing’s primary funder.

The EPSRC sits under UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), the UK’s research funding agency. The Secretary of State does have the power to issue directions to UKRI, including setting conditions on funding, but there are certain limitations. UK research policy is governed by the Haldane Principle, the notion that researchers themselves, rather than politicians, should decide how research funding is spent. The idea dates back more than a century and is currently enshrined in the 2017 Higher Education Act:

In practice, this means that once UKRI’s overall strategy has been approved by the Secretary of State, the research councils can theoretically ignore any requests made by politicians that don’t come with new money attached. Although the EPSRC is profoundly unhappy with the Turing’s current performance, and as its primary funder can take a decisive position on reform, it may be reluctant to set a precedent of rethinking funding decisions in response to political pressure.

As one insider from the research world put it: “The tactic Jean and Doug are using is to cry foul on the Haldane principle and independence, and to try to play EPSRC off against DSIT. EPSRC don't have a clue what they actually want to achieve with the ATI money, but will defend their right to manage from DSIT overreach.”

If the EPSRC doesn’t bite the bullet on this occasion, it risks creating a limbo. This would see a national AI institute operating along lines the government doesn’t want, propped up by a funding body that thinks it’s dysfunctional. The only winners in this scenario are the institute’s underperforming senior leadership team. Questions also have to be asked about the EPSRC’s own oversight, with the organisation seemingly not exercising its right to pick a member of the Turing’s board of trustees following their last representative’s retirement in the summer of 2023.

It’s all faintly awkward for the government, which appointed Doug Gurr interim chair of the Competition and Markets Authority in January 2025, after ousting Marcus Bokkerink. Any overt public clash may cast doubt on the wisdom of that appointment. Meanwhile, Patrick Vallance, now Minister for Science, sat on the panel that appointed Jean Innes CEO in 2023. At the time, Vallance described Innes as “the outstanding candidate to provide leadership of the Turing”. This may explain why, back in May, when pushed on the difficulties the institute was facing in a parliamentary question, he provided an uncritical recitation of the leadership’s script on Turing 2.0. Demis Hassabis, the co-founder and CEO of Google DeepMind, had volunteered to help the Turing on its 2023 CEO search, but, according to multiple government sources, his offer went unanswered.

Closing thoughts

The challenge of reforming the Turing illustrates the consistent shortcomings of an era in UK innovation policy. In the halcyon days of 2010-2015, under then science minister David Willetts, government assumed that agile, outsourced ventures – backed by competitive grants and co-funding from industry – would be more effective than vertically-integrated labs. It concentrated funding in a few elite universities, believing that excellence would spill over, and relied on partnerships and open data to drive commercial uptake.

While elements of this philosophy lives on in the Turing, the Catapults (government-funded innovation centres designed to accelerate research commercialisation), and individual UKRI programmes, the centre of gravity has shifted towards state-anchored, strategic capability-building. The AI Security Institute, for example, is a fully government-owned body with an explicit sovereign capability mandate. If, in a parallel universe, it had been established six or seven years earlier, it would likely have been governed by a coalition of universities and encouraged to seek paid projects with industry.

In short, if the government considers a capability important and wants it to achieve something specific, it has to pay for it directly. The alternative is a national institute over which the nation has no control.

Disclaimer: These are my views and my views only. They are not the views of my employer, the technolibertarian mafia, Tony Blair, or anyone else. I’m not an expert in anything, I get a lot of things wrong, and change my mind. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

---

Peter Kye’s letter to Doug Gurr:

Dear Doug,

Following our meeting on 16 May, I am writing to outline my vision for the future of the Alan Turing Institute, with a view to ensuring it supports the government’s AI ambitions and meets the evolving needs of the nation at this critical time.

The AI Opportunities Action Plan, and the £2bn of investment now dedicated to delivering that plan, are a testament to the scale of government’s AI ambitions and our belief that AI presents an opportunity to transform the UK for the better. The national institute for data science and AI will hold a critical role in this transformation, but to fulfil that role the ATI must continue to evolve and adapt to the needs of the ecosystem.

While I recognise the progress the leadership has made towards reform, it remains clear that further action is needed to ensure the ATI meets its full potential. Whilst acknowledging the ATI is an independent organisation, its current reliance on public funding means that it is imperative that this resource is being maximised and is delivering value for money for citizens. As such, I am writing to propose a set of changes that will strengthen government’s confidence in the institute and its capacity to deliver for the country.

Boosting our AI capability is critical for growth as well as our broader national security. The Prime Minister has made clear his commitment harnessing the benefits of AI, and to further developing UK defence capabilities through a sustained increase in defence spending. There is an opportunity for the ATI to seize this moment. I believe the institute should build on its existing strengths, and reform itself further to prioritise its defence, national security and sovereign capabilities.

Expanding on this proposal, I would first underscore the vital role the ATI can play as a national security asset. I am aware of the existing excellent work undertaken by ATI in this domain through the Centre for Emerging Technology and Security, the Laboratory for AI Security Research, and the Defence and National Security grand challenge. However, there is potential to cement its place as an irreplaceable asset for the UK and our allies. Moving forward, defence and national security projects should form a core of ATI’s activities, and relationships with the UK’s security, defence, and intelligence communities should be strengthened accordingly.

With this renewed purpose, the ATI should focus on applied research, adoption and commercialisation, in line with the conclusions of the Strategic Defence Review and Strategic Security Review. The ATI would also need to strengthen its relationships with the private sector. To ensure the ATI’s success, government will maintain its current level of R&D funding from national security and defence for the next three years, increasing the defence and national security staff embedded within the ATI, and provide refreshed high-quality research problems for the next funding period. This support will be subject to meeting a renewed set of KPI’s attached to this investment.

This would mean that the ATI’s current non-defence activity would need to be reoriented to support this renewed focus and strengthen the UK’s sovereign AI capabilities. In practice, I suggest the Institute’s work adheres to the following principles: (1) delivers cutting-edge AI research of the type that cannot or would not be undertaken by industry or individual universities, (2) delivers tangible impact in support of government missions, (3) facilitates interdisciplinary collaboration and ecosystem building, and (4) forms part of a coherent programme of work that furthers government’s defence, national security and sovereign ambitions. In this capacity, impactful existing work on weather prediction and fundamental AI research would align well, albeit with a renewed emphasis on, and specific linkage to, the UK’s defence, national security, and sovereign capability.

Regarding the ATI’s existing community of research software engineers, I would welcome the development of a contracting system for government to direct engineers towards deep tech R&D challenges in support of government’s AI ambitions. As the ATI seizes the opportunity to deliver big impact for government through projects such as this, we envision the institute will develop a clear value proposition with respect to international talent. This will build on government’s commitment to work with the ATI and UKRI to drive progress at the cutting edge, support the government’s missions and attract international talent.

To realise this vision, it is imperative that the ATI’s leadership reflects the institute’s reformed focus. While we acknowledge the success of the current leadership in delivering reform at the institute during a difficult period, careful consideration should be given to the importance of an executive team who possesses a relevant background and sector knowledge to lead this transition. Similarly, the Board of Trustees should be made up of experts aligned with the institute’s renewed purpose.

Regarding funding, I believe the ATI should continue to receive the funding needed to implement reforms and deliver Turing 2.0. That said, I anticipate that delivery of the vision outlined above will catalyse additional investment, both from within government and through related commercial opportunities. This, coupled with cost reductions from ongoing efficiency savings and organisational change, should lead to reduced dependency on EPSRC core funding from 2026/27 onwards. As such, it may be possible to reconsider the institute’s longer-term funding arrangement during the 2026 mid-term review.

I will ask my officials work closely with you in delivering this vision, and in the coming period I encourage continued close working between DSIT, ATI, EPSRC, and relevant stakeholders to ensure a smooth transition while maximising the ATI’s unique value-add.

Thank you for your continued dedication to advancing the institute’s mission at this crucial juncture.

Yours sincerely,

Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP

Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology

---

Jean Innes’ message to Turing staff

Dear all,

As you may have seen in media reporting, as part of our ongoing dialogue with Government, Secretary of State Peter Kyle has written to the Turing setting out his vision for how the institute can build on its existing strengths and best support the Government’s AI ambitions.

This resulted from a recent meeting with the Secretary of State to discuss the AI Opportunities Action Plan, and specifically the Plan’s commitment to “Consider the broader institutional landscape and the full potential of the Alan Turing Institute to drive progress at the cutting edge, support the government’s missions and attract international talent.”

We understand that information presented in the media, quoting selectively from a letter from the Secretary of State, may be unsettling to read. But it is important to recognise that the letter is collegiate, not critical, endorsing the Turing 2.0 approach, noting our crucial role in the UK’s AI transformation, outlining the strength and impact of our existing work and setting out the Secretary of State’s views on areas where the Turing can uniquely add value.

This is to be expected and welcomed in a rapidly moving ecosystem in which the Turing is already evolving, and where we have also seen recent reforms to the AI Security Institute and the creation of a Sovereign AI Unit, the conclusion of the Spending Review, and publication of the Industrial Strategy and Strategic Defence Review.

The Secretary of State recognised the excellent work of our defence and security teams and the vital role we have as a national security asset. He recommended we build on our existing strengths to prioritise our work on defence, national security and sovereign capabilities.

As you know our high-impact missions are increasingly interlinked. As the Secretary of State said, our impactful work on weather forecasting and fundamental research aligns well with his vision, and there is an opportunity to bring all of that work more closely together to support the Government’s AI ambitions and meet the evolving needs of the nation at this critical time.

As you would expect, we will continue to work closely with the Government over the coming weeks and months to support its AI ambitions, developing and deploying new capabilities for the public good, and will continue to share updates as this progresses.

Jean

---

December 2024 Open Letter from Turing Staff to the Board of Trustees

Dear Board of Trustees,

In strict confidence

URGENT: Letter of no confidence in the Institute’s Executive Leadership Team

We, the staff, have worked tirelessly to lay the foundations for Turing 2.0, despite the continuous uncertainty and challenges we have all faced over a number of years. Throughout 2024, we have raised concerns directly with the Executive Leadership Team (ELT), only to see them ignored, minimised or misdirected. We now find ourselves with no choice but to escalate these concerns to you, the Board of Trustees. It is now imperative that these issues are addressed openly, transparently and urgently by you, the Board, and the lack of any action or even acknowledgement of our concerns makes us question whether they have even been brought to your attention until now.

An opportunity missed

We have worked collaboratively to help define a strategy that had the support of the data science and AI landscape and was critical in securing our long-term funding from EPSRC. This milestone should have offered us the opportunity to realise our full potential with a new period of stability.

When the Board appointed a new CEO, we were optimistic that a fresh perspective would drive the delivery of this strategy. However, the goodwill generated by this strategy, long-term funding, and a new CEO, in Jean Innes, as well as Doug Gurr as Chair, appears to have been squandered in a very short amount of time by the CEO and the ELT she has appointed. Not only are we at risk of missing an opportunity to play a key role in the landscape, we are more concerningly being led into a situation where the viability of the Institute is under question. We outline this below for the Board to take the appropriate action.

Credibility at risk due to lack of scientific direction

Mark Girolami was appointed over three years ago as Chief Scientist with a primary responsibility to "take responsibility for the creation, refresh and delivery of the Institute’s Scientific and Innovation Strategy having regard to ethics and responsible innovation". Despite this fundamental responsibility, the 'grand challenge' approach, championed by the Chief Scientist back in 2021, has made little or no progress. To date, there are no agreed missions or delivery plans for areas under the strategy. Instead, we have had the same vague proclamations delivered, again and again, devoid of any substance.

The scientific leadership we have had has too often been left rudderless; left behind as both the community and the cutting-edge has moved ahead without us, whilst we are publicly and privately criticised for being behind the curve.

We have repeatedly raised concerns about Mark’s leadership, most recently regarding diversity in the recruitment of his scientific leads. Despite promises from ELT, a report on this issue has continually been delayed since spring this year, leaving the Institute’s EDI stated commitments in question. Staff have not forgotten about this and are still expecting the commitment on the externally produced report to be fulfilled.

Moreover, the S&I Directors, who were appointed as the “cornerstones of Turing 2.0”, have seen their roles rendered untenable. It is clear that commitments made to them to be meaningfully part of the Institute's leadership team and to be given funding to fulfil their ambitions have not materialised. Three of these Directors staked their careers to join the Turing; of those, two have left within nine months over concerns over the leadership, and the third has strongly voiced their dissatisfaction.

With Programmes and their teams all slated ‘at risk’ of redundancy, the future of the Turing’s ability to be a credible scientific organisation is now in serious jeopardy. We operate in a broad and rapidly evolving discipline, but in the midst of high institutional uncertainty our talent pool has narrowed alarmingly quickly as colleagues have left, damaging our scientific capability and capacity to deliver against existing contractual commitments.

Furthermore, the Chief Technical Officer – hired on the premise and presumably ability to oversee delivery teams — cannot reasonably step in to direct the scientific direction in the absence of the remaining S&I Directors being disempowered, and there are only so many people in the ‘inner circle’ who would be willing to take up the necessary 'interim' leadership roles.

We call on the Board to step in to provide their support and expertise to the CEO and Chief Scientist that is necessary to restore momentum and confidence in our agreed scientific vision, and to ensure that a clear, actionable plan is put in place with the appropriate leadership — as expected by EPSRC and other stakeholders in the landscape — to get the Institute back on track.

Transformation — delayed, diluted and in disarray

While the Institute’s long-promised transformation seems to have finally commenced, it comes after more than a year of delays, primarily due to the CEO’s failure to make decisions, communicate clearly, or take responsibility for the Institute’s direction. This in itself is a serious cause for concern as the totally unnecessary delay has meant that pressures on budgets are more acute than they needed to be.

Staff now have serious concerns about ELT's capability and capacity to deliver the required changes within the shrinking timeframe. Regular staff survey data shows an alarming and worsening level of trust.

Key aspects of the transformation continue to be stalled or have been severely diluted under the leadership of the current Chief Strategy Officer (CSO), Donna Brown, who has been promoted twice in quick succession despite her inability to drive the transformation forward. Donna’s reluctance to engage directly with staff is of great concern. Furthermore, the lack of transparency, and misrepresentation of decisions and progress have fostered confusion, frustration and mistrust among staff and partners. This is already having obvious and serious legal, financial and reputational implications to the Institute.

Despite the involvement of external consultants and a dedicated transformation team, it’s evident that there is a significant capability gap in delivering the changes required within what remains a relatively small organisation. The primary challenge for the Institute is that it is conducting an alignment process without knowing what it is aligning to: there are no delivery plans and a decreasing number of scientific leaders — both longer-term and otherwise — in place for the areas outlined in the agreed strategy.

Given the critical nature of transforming to Turing 2.0, we urge the Board to step in directly to support the CSO, both in terms of providing clear direction and ensuring the necessary capability is in place to overcome the current barriers. This will likely involve the Board taking a more hands-on role in overseeing progress, holding both the CEO and CSO accountable for specific outcomes, and ensuring that the transformation is adequately supported at every level of the organisation. If this transformation is not urgently revived with clear, committed leadership and the Board's direct intervention, we risk further destabilising the Institute.

Decreasing stakeholder confidence risking financial viability

The sustainability of the Institute is in question, as concerns from partners and funders — ranging from smaller collaborators to high-profile strategic national and international partners — are increasingly going unaddressed. While the Turing has historically been successful in securing funding, there is growing concern among partners about the Institute’s ability to fulfil its commitments.

Contracts signed by the Institute have not been honoured; strategic partners, who were namechecked in the published strategy, now feel excluded from the future; and questions and concerns raised by partners have not been adequately addressed. These relationships, which are crucial for the Institute’s reputation and financial stability, are beginning to show signs of serious and potentially irreparable strain.

Numerous grants have fallen through due to the Institute’s incapacity for making decisions on time and the loss of partners’ trust, impacting our financial viability. A lack of clear and decisive action to resolve these issues risks jeopardising our funding base and long-term financial health.

The Board should step-in to directly and urgently support Nico Guernion as the Director of Partnerships, providing him the confidence to make timely decisions and begin to rebuild trust with our stakeholders and demonstrate the Institute’s capacity to deliver on its promises. Furthermore, given the mixed messages on finances, the Board should intensify the support it is providing to both the CEO and the Director of Finance and Corporate Services on understanding our true financial position, and transparently communicating that to staff.

If these failures continue, the Institute’s financial viability and its ability to secure future funding will be severely compromised. The lack of clear accountability, scientific direction, delivery plans and consistent engagement has left our partners uncertain about the Institute’s direction. Their concerns are becoming more vocal, and relationships that have taken years to cultivate are now at risk.

Risk to retention and staff morale

Staff surveys indicate a catastrophic decline in trust in the leadership, particularly at senior levels. Staff morale and wellbeing has also become a critical concern, with rising levels of stress and burnout across teams — as acknowledged by the data the People team have shared.

This is no coincidence.

The growing sense of disengagement and frustration among staff is directly linked to a lack of accountability and transparency — which are supposedly Turing values — and poor decision-making by ELT. The scale of the problem is clearly beyond the People team’s capability to support staff adequately, with Clare Randall, the Director of People, primarily accountable.

The first phase of the transformation has placed 143 roles at risk and caused consternation and anxiety among everybody else. The statutory process of consultation in relation to redundancies has been poorly managed, raising the risk of legal challenges, and leading to a further decline in productivity, morale, and retention which will further exacerbate the challenge of becoming Turing 2.0. The Institute is nothing without its staff, whose perspectives should be included to improve future decision-making.

We urge the Board to intervene in providing their expertise and capability (for example, on rebuilding the culture) to the CEO and Director of People, as well as clear accountability for wellbeing outcomes, and a comprehensive plan to support staff and retention through this challenging period. Immediate action is necessary to rebuild trust, support staff, and prevent further erosion of morale, productivity and institutional knowledge. If this issue is not urgently addressed, the Institute risks long-term damage to its culture, intellectual capital, and operational effectiveness.

Request for immediate action to protect Turing's future

As outlined above, ELT's actions are jeopardising the viability of the Institute as a whole. Staff have raised serious concerns about our ability to meet the commitments made to EPSRC in relation to our recently secured funding. While ELT continues to assure us that everything is fine, this message is increasingly at odds with the reality we observe across the Institute.

KPIs are at serious risk of being missed; and promises made to EPSRC remain delayed, unfulfilled, or both. We are deeply concerned that it is only a matter of time before EPSRC becomes aware of this discrepancy, and when they do, it will be too late to tackle the challenges we are already facing.

We call on the Board to urgently intervene and hold the CEO and the rest of ELT accountable for their failure to execute the agreed strategy and provide the leadership necessary for the Institute’s success at such a critical time. Before EPSRC, other funders, and regulators are forced to take action themselves, we urge the Board to proactively commission an independent review of the leadership decision-making, management practices, flows of information across the Institute (including to Board) with input from staff at all levels, to ensure that the Turing can recover its momentum and get back on track.

We request that the Board engage directly with staff and partners to rebuild trust and transparency, and that clear, actionable plans are collaboratively developed with staff representation and rigorously implemented to address the ongoing issues.

The Board meeting on the 5th of December should provide an appropriate forum for Trustees to come to a resolution and begin the process of rehabilitation and engagement with staff before the winter break. We strongly believe that without an objective and comprehensive evaluation of the present leadership, the Institute will continue to drift into an untenable position.

We remain deeply committed to the success of the Turing and have demonstrated this through our continued dedication. This letter is written because of this commitment and sent in the best of intentions. We hope the Board will take immediate action to ensure that the Institute can achieve its full potential in the years to come — otherwise it risks a very serious and public failure.

The Alan Turing Institute concerned staff and signatories