UK Research and Innovation¡¯s (UKRI) investigation into claims?that led to science secretary Michelle Donelan paying damages to a professor whom she suggested had expressed sympathy for Hamas cost the taxpayer more than ?23,000, it has emerged.

Through a post on social media last October, Ms Donelan claimed that members of Research England¡¯s expert advisory group on equality, diversity and inclusion had shared ¡°extremist¡± and ¡°unacceptable¡± views, saying she was ¡°outraged¡± that Kate Sang, professor of gender and employment studies at?Heriot-Watt University,?had ¨C as she put it ¨C?described the government¡¯s plan to crack down on Hamas support in the UK as ¡°disturbing¡±.

The advisory group was suspended while UKRI ¨C Research England¡¯s parent body ¨C commissioned an independent investigation, which earlier this month found no evidence of wrongdoing by any of the panel¡¯s members, and no evidence that any members had expressed support for a proscribed terrorist group.

Ms Donelan subsequently agreed to pay ?15,000 damages to Professor Sang, without admitting liability, with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) footing the bill.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

Now a request made under the Freedom of Information?Act has revealed that the UKRI investigation cost taxpayers ?15,000, plus a further ?8,280 for external legal counsel ¨C a total of ?23,280. This does not include additional work conducted by UKRI staff in addition to or as part of their existing roles.

The request was submitted by Michael Merrifield, who retired as professor of astronomy at the University of Nottingham last month. He said the findings raised the question of ¡°who should be paying for this debacle¡±, with Ms Donelan having faced widespread calls to reimburse taxpayers for the cost of the payment to Professor Sang.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

¡°I was shocked when this whole story blew up, and somewhat disgusted to learn how much money was wasted dealing with the fallout,¡± Professor Merrifield said. ¡°[This is] money that could have been spent on perhaps funding a PhD student to actually help fulfil UKRI¡¯s mission.¡±

Ms Donelan has apologised for the public nature of her ¡°intervention¡±, conceding she could have contacted UKRI ¡°in confidence¡±?rather than posting on social media.

In a?statement posted on X, Ms Donelan said that Professor Sang had clarified that her tweet related to the entirety of an article in?The Guardian?and not just the headline quoted in her tweet; and, on that basis, she had withdrawn her concerns about the tweet.

Bindmans, the law firm?that brought a libel complaint against the minister on behalf of Professor Sang, said that Ms Donelan had based the false allegation on a report by the thinktank Policy Exchange.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

Ms Donelan had also condemned the ¡°amplification¡± of a tweet by the advisory body¡¯s chair, Kamna Patel, a development studies academic at UCL, which ¡°condemns violence on both sides but makes reference to Israel¡¯s ¡®genocide and apartheid¡¯¡±.

Another member of the body,?Dibyesh Anand, interim deputy vice-chancellor for global engagement and employability at the University of Westminster, later told ³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ that UKRI needed to regain the trust of the advisory group, saying that members needed ¡°reassurances from UKRI that they have learned from the process because the work of [equality, diversity and inclusion] is more important than what happened¡±.

UKRI declined to comment further on the affair. Speaking previously, Dame Ottoline Leyser, its chief executive, said that she hoped the investigation would bring a ¡°clear resolution¡±.

¡°Our intention, as soon as these concerns were raised by the secretary of state, was to adopt a well-governed process to support evidenced, principled decisions,¡± she said.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

patrick.jack@timeshighereducation.com