I agree that this is directionally correct, and it’s arguably overdue. The Tickell Review highlighted duplication and low success rates as contributing to workloads in the research system. Organising by discipline means that UKRI has around 300 strategic funding programmes in the funding service, and limited ability to see how these connect and deliver to the strategic outcomes they are supporting. Academics simultaneously have increasing workloads in a failing funding system and defend a research system where they might spend months drafting proposals, accepting an 80-90% failure rate. STFC is at a very sharp end: I was on the STFC top-level advisory Science Board some years ago, and back then funding was partly opaque with universities recovering very low indirect costs to prop up ever increasing facilities and National Lab costs, so STFC has not had a transparent and sustainable funding settlement for many years. I agree with you therefore that Ian Chapman is doing a difficult and necessary job to make change in a period of national and international challenge. It might have appeared less radical and painful if it had happened sooner.
I agree that this is overdue. The underlying reason is, I believe, that it has taken until now for UKRI to have the strategic capacity. More integrated systems and funding control, aligned Executive Chairs, appropriate governance, a committed and informed Science Minister, a dedicated Department with a clear focus. Because these were delayed it was probably not possible until now.
"Bluntly, it is not right that other Councils (and disciplinary areas), EPSRC most notably, are called upon to make cuts towards the end of the financial year to meet overruns from STFC." misses the fact that STFC funds the facilities EPSRC and the other councils use. The cuts within STFC have a disproportionate effect on particle, astro and nuclear (PPAN) research because they are a soft target when facilities overrun. The Drayson partitions were nominally proposed to prevent PPAN from being raided by facilities for precisely this reason, but those appear to have been ditched. I'm sure given your desire for fairness here that you can see how it may be fairer for the councils that use these facilities to tension them against the rest of their portfolios...
Thank you. I understand that this is a difficult tension but we should first acknowledge that STFC is not the only Council to have facilities. The current arrangement avoids complex and opaque cross-charging arrangements. EPSRC (and as I understand it, BBSRC) have already picked up significant cost overruns on agreed budgets. That is not long-term sustainable.
I think you're missing the crucial difference here. Yes other councils _have_ facilities, but STFC staffs and provides facilities specifically _for_ the other councils benefit, hence the name. See eg: Diamond and ISIS. Cost overruns in those facilities are not billed to EPSRC, BBSRC etc. They have been 'fixed' historically by raiding the PPAN budget. This is not the first time, it happened before in 1990, and in 2008. Diamond and its current upgrade support in the majority EPSRC research, but are tensioned against STFC-PPAN research. To be abundantly clear, this would not be a problem if STFC was funded with this in mind. These are important and useful facilities that benefit UK research and should be supported. Their overruns however, are being borne by research that does not use them and this has been recognised as unfair before. Hence Lord Drayson's work. To claim the PPAN researchers 'assume the tone of an aggrieved Common Room, resentful of accountability.' indicates that you are unaware of this and it doesn't do anyone any favours when the accountability issue is not with PPAN, but with UKRI's treatment of STFC's portfolio.
I always suspected that engaging with 'a kerfuffle' would ultimately lead me to debating the famous physics budgets of 1990! Seriously however, recent overruns have spilled over into other budgets, latterly, as I have indicated EPSRC and BBSRC. Physicists look well represented across the leadership and governance of STFC. The comment on 'accountability' was intended however, not to be directed at PPAN specifically but rather at those scientists who do not wish to 'own' the deal that comes with the recent SR settlements.
I don't doubt EPSRC and BBSRC have also had their budgets squeezed. It is however clear that PPAN is facing cuts disproportionate to other areas in other councils because it is the first to go when STFC facilities overrun. This is fact, and is recognised in Sir Ian's first open letter on the topic. "The situation at STFC is unique among the UKRI councils because its cost base has increased significantly due to the type of facilities and services it manages, the research it funds and some projects with higher costs than foreseen.". Your writing on this topic reads a lot like you want to protect areas you are more involved in from what you see as an unfair raid on their budgets, which is understandable, but in doing so you're being rather careful to avoid engaging with the fact that one area in particular is experiencing what can only be described as an existential threat. 'Those scientists who do not wish to 'own' the deal that comes with the recent SR settlements' are doing so because it is existential, and unnecessary, as has been pointed out in both the commons and lords select committees, by the IoP, the Royal Society and the heads of dept of most physics depts in the UK. Lord Vallance appears to agree given his statements that PPAN science must be protected. Of course, it could be that this new approach brings untold riches to other areas, but what I'm hearing about the allocation of bucket 2 makes me think the common room is likely to get a lot busier soon.
I am supportive of Ian Chapman and his mission to provide some coherent strategy and some fairness over the RCs. I have sat on the councils of both EPSRC and BBSRC (a while ago, lol) . They were culturally very, very, different, with the EPSRC's mission aways much more top down and the BBSRC's more bottom and rather complicated by the various institutes. MRC is constitutionally diferent again.
The STFC investments were always long-term, O(decadal), as with the UK's support for international collaborations (not just CERN and all telescopes) but various other physics and materials facilities (usually abroad an international): that is all very expensive science and really hard to justify in terms of any immediate innovation (and impacts : knock-on jobs, products, and services), or advantage for the UK. The tangential spin-ooff argument wont work. While I so want to see the UK as a thought leaders within global science, such big science is expensive at a time of economic hardship, the need to up defence and security to deal with existential threats and so on (ther is no pint in getting attached ink cyber space and with in physical war theatres, and losing our national way of life, while the UK is being brilliant at PP and A. Big science is also not particularly timely. If it pauses for 5 years there is no great loss to the national security, or our way or life, and our economy: but it is a sad and acknowledged loss to the individuals involved, who have chosen a lifestyle and intellectual (globally excellent) career.
But there are indeed existential threats now to the UK as a nation: its security and defence, our way of life, and the economy. "Get real" everybody in university common rooms. So, some strategy is essential... not for decadal development, but for the next 5 years at least.
So the reset is both useful and urgent. Useful for reserach academics and useful for small companies. [BTW I am running one: and the Innovate UK mechanisms are underfunded in AI, yet are run like a club, with no-feedback peer review that is afraid of or avoiding risks... that is another story: lack of vision and proper articulation of the role of public funding in te TRL pathway - reminds me of the Liverpool pathway - that an InnovateUK problem.]
One present problem with EPSRC is that iy has had to suspend early fellowships. Yet for recent PHDs and ECRs those grants are (were) essential.n There is simply no where to go and no end in sight (is there?). And the UK should urgently invest in those people for their curiosity-deriven innovation, not as part of the national strategic priorities (which are solo predictable... yawn - with every developed country competing in races to the bottom).
If you got your PhD 3 or 4 months ago, and you want to remains in academia and move towards becoming independent, you can:
(i) get a PDRA position on a EPSRC grant and hope to have a benign PI who allows you to do some of your own curiosity drive R&D (not keeping you 100% nose to grindstone);
(ii) apply for a non-existent first-step fellowship (no longer an option);
(iii) apply for an FutureLeadershipFellowship: but you need to see those as a second step when you have a few more papers and a plan. FLF are also gobbled up (weighed towards) the strategic priority themes;
(iv) go outside of the public money (RAEng, Welcome, ...) ;
(v) give up.
This is very very poor form indeed from people who should know, and I think do know, better. In subjects that are foundation and potentially disruptive for AI, such as the maths sciences, we are letting down a generation of PHDs. There is little for them.
Why are EPSRC doing this? Why not just sort it out? `Investments in individuals is largely incontoleld as it will and shoudl follow teh scince wher ever it e; lad. RCs could give the big grants a hair cut or even turn some off after a review (I only ever saw one grant threatened with the tap being turned off). The problem is that the leadership of EPSRC and other RCs have to be mindful of, and pay homage to, the strategic priorities of UKRI (thematic national priorities) and so they like to pander to Gov (DSIT) and invest monies into those. Tick that box.
I would personally prioritise these ECRs, and first step fellowships, ahead of any spending on academic hubs, institutes, PI and Co-I buys outs (stop these), etc. Pull/reduvce the bigger spends. I think that the early fellowship schemes (the first steps for PhDs) are an essential national step: with both immediate impact and growth for the future. [BTW the CDT follow-on use of little bits of spare moneys for short fellowships, within HEI's is ridiculous: needs to be a national competition.]
So, you cannot do both the steric large invetemenst and protect ECRs. Leaders inside RCs and UKRI need to step up (start what Chapman is doing now 0- but ECR should not be casualties).
Presently, for example there is a £8M (or something) EPSRC call out for foundational AI (which will be de-risked at application and review stages, and wil be all potentially within the present paradigm (not disruptive or adventurous enough at all). It wil be more of the same, that supports the PM's and DCIT's AI push (only apparently) - the PIs dont care once they get funded). In fact, this money woudl be perhaps better invested, £400k at a time, in early career people with ambitious aspirations and some tech smarts.
In summary, the UK's "ace up its sleeve" is not having the same set of clusters/hubs and strategic priorities that every other developed country has.Its "ace" is the ball-breaking excellence of the minds that it hosts and nurtures. We have an excellent science base and yet it is the (low risk) need to support me-too, predictable, strategic themes and institutes (totally non unique for the UK) that is letting down a whole generation of PHD.
Thank you for a very interesting commentary! Of the various themes you develop, it is the final one that resonates most strongly with me. The risk that our 'big bets' will essentially be anaemic versions of those that others are pursuing and that even if we gain a scientific edge we will lack the competitive industrial capacity to exploit them.
Anthony. I agree with your analysis. These are times of significant change and change causes painful disruption. However. A question. How transparent have universities been in their funding of research from excess resources being available from fees from overseas students, which as you correctly state has hugely diminished and now if there is an excess being used for domestic students. My perception is the lack of transparency of this aspect of research funding has further amplified the scale of the kerfuffle.
University funding is complicated and (as I have argued in earlier articles) ill-understood. It is clear that the complex pile of cross-subsidies on which the system rested were yielding misdirected incentives and would always lead us to this point. You are right. We should have shouted earlier.
I note that you don’t say anything about the humanities and social sciences here, though AHRC and ESRC are limbs of UKRI. The question of how far “science policy” can encompass the “human sciences” has never really been tackled, despite periodic reminders that the “creative industries” are major economic contributors to the UK.
Yes, I should have been clearer. AHRC and ESRC have been notably less affected than the councils that have attracted most of the controversy. In ESRC's case the picture is actually positive. ESRC's budget for applicant-led research rises from £66 million in 2026–27 to £73 million in 2029–30. Both ESRC and AHRC map reasonably well onto the "strategic government and societal priorities" bucket. I think however, you are correct that the science policy frame is not uniformly applicable.
Fundamentally, the load-bearing factual claim made here is:
> It is right that STFC bears the costs of its operations and meets the relevant budgetary constraints placed upon it. Bluntly, it is not right that other Councils (and disciplinary areas), EPSRC most notably, are called upon to make cuts towards the end of the financial year to meet overruns from STFC.
But this is wrong.
In fact, the opposite is true: STFC is being asked to cut its own research programme to cross-subsidise unforeseen facilities expenditure incurred on behalf of other research councils, in facilities STFC manages on their behalf --- while those councils' own research budgets are ring-fenced against facilities pressure.
Plainly, in the absence of any actual mismanagement at the facilities level, and none has been claimed, it would be reasonable for any unforeseen overspend on facilities managed by STFC on behalf of other research councils to be met by those councils, rather than being subsidised by cannibalising STFC's own research budget.
As for the broader context, PPAN research has received, in nominal terms, pretty much the same annual research budget from UKRI for 15 years. It may even have been slightly higher, in nominal terms, 15 years ago. In real terms that's a 30-40% cut. To propose 30% on top of that ~35% is to believe that ~2010 levels of PPAN funding were 2x too high and it's reasonable to cut them by half over 15 years.
This cut has coincided with the operation of the LHC, which means we are deliberately underutilising the fixed costs of our CERN subscription, getting fewer UK scientists and less UK science out of investment we've already made, for want of some PhD stipends and ECR salaries.
The only reason the UK PPAN sector hasn't collapsed already is that, due to the historic excellence of UK PPAN research, UK researchers and collaborations keep winning big ERC grants. This has partially filled in the gap left by UKRI's consistent 'flat cash' settlements for over a decade.
But after this, if the next generation of PIs decides the UK funding environment is too fickle, and opts for Switzerland or Germany instead, who could blame them?
At the very least, this is a consequential series of decisions to reshape UK research priorities that do not appear to have been thought through by anyone with relevant expertise (note, for example, missed ECR offer deadlines for next year, apparently due to ignorance), that nobody is willing to admit they have actually deliberately made or defend on their merits, and that are in direct conflict with the government's stated research priorities, at a time of increased research funding.
It is right that those administering public money on our behalf make decisions transparently in consultation with stakeholders, and are held to account for those decisions. This is normal in every other area of public life, and so too in science funding.
Even if onlookers, spreading more heat than light, write it off as a 'kerfuffle'.
Not my area, however another perspective on the Kerfuffle (related to handbags and argy-bargy) is this one from NAO which I came across at almost the same time as this blog:
TLDR - although this excerpt gives a good flavour:
While UKRI and DSIT now have a clearer understanding of future infrastructure requirements than they had previously, UKRI can still do more to manage its research infrastructure as a portfolio – including balancing acquisition of new capabilities with maintenance and renewal of existing infrastructure – some of which can no longer be used for its intended purpose...
There is also scope for UKRI to improve the value for money of its infrastructure projects by ensuring they adhere more closely to good practice, particularly around addressing over–optimism at early stages of project delivery.
The NAO also have a few comments on missed opportunities with supercomputers.
I agree that this is directionally correct, and it’s arguably overdue. The Tickell Review highlighted duplication and low success rates as contributing to workloads in the research system. Organising by discipline means that UKRI has around 300 strategic funding programmes in the funding service, and limited ability to see how these connect and deliver to the strategic outcomes they are supporting. Academics simultaneously have increasing workloads in a failing funding system and defend a research system where they might spend months drafting proposals, accepting an 80-90% failure rate. STFC is at a very sharp end: I was on the STFC top-level advisory Science Board some years ago, and back then funding was partly opaque with universities recovering very low indirect costs to prop up ever increasing facilities and National Lab costs, so STFC has not had a transparent and sustainable funding settlement for many years. I agree with you therefore that Ian Chapman is doing a difficult and necessary job to make change in a period of national and international challenge. It might have appeared less radical and painful if it had happened sooner.
I agree that this is overdue. The underlying reason is, I believe, that it has taken until now for UKRI to have the strategic capacity. More integrated systems and funding control, aligned Executive Chairs, appropriate governance, a committed and informed Science Minister, a dedicated Department with a clear focus. Because these were delayed it was probably not possible until now.
"Bluntly, it is not right that other Councils (and disciplinary areas), EPSRC most notably, are called upon to make cuts towards the end of the financial year to meet overruns from STFC." misses the fact that STFC funds the facilities EPSRC and the other councils use. The cuts within STFC have a disproportionate effect on particle, astro and nuclear (PPAN) research because they are a soft target when facilities overrun. The Drayson partitions were nominally proposed to prevent PPAN from being raided by facilities for precisely this reason, but those appear to have been ditched. I'm sure given your desire for fairness here that you can see how it may be fairer for the councils that use these facilities to tension them against the rest of their portfolios...
Thank you. I understand that this is a difficult tension but we should first acknowledge that STFC is not the only Council to have facilities. The current arrangement avoids complex and opaque cross-charging arrangements. EPSRC (and as I understand it, BBSRC) have already picked up significant cost overruns on agreed budgets. That is not long-term sustainable.
I think you're missing the crucial difference here. Yes other councils _have_ facilities, but STFC staffs and provides facilities specifically _for_ the other councils benefit, hence the name. See eg: Diamond and ISIS. Cost overruns in those facilities are not billed to EPSRC, BBSRC etc. They have been 'fixed' historically by raiding the PPAN budget. This is not the first time, it happened before in 1990, and in 2008. Diamond and its current upgrade support in the majority EPSRC research, but are tensioned against STFC-PPAN research. To be abundantly clear, this would not be a problem if STFC was funded with this in mind. These are important and useful facilities that benefit UK research and should be supported. Their overruns however, are being borne by research that does not use them and this has been recognised as unfair before. Hence Lord Drayson's work. To claim the PPAN researchers 'assume the tone of an aggrieved Common Room, resentful of accountability.' indicates that you are unaware of this and it doesn't do anyone any favours when the accountability issue is not with PPAN, but with UKRI's treatment of STFC's portfolio.
I always suspected that engaging with 'a kerfuffle' would ultimately lead me to debating the famous physics budgets of 1990! Seriously however, recent overruns have spilled over into other budgets, latterly, as I have indicated EPSRC and BBSRC. Physicists look well represented across the leadership and governance of STFC. The comment on 'accountability' was intended however, not to be directed at PPAN specifically but rather at those scientists who do not wish to 'own' the deal that comes with the recent SR settlements.
I don't doubt EPSRC and BBSRC have also had their budgets squeezed. It is however clear that PPAN is facing cuts disproportionate to other areas in other councils because it is the first to go when STFC facilities overrun. This is fact, and is recognised in Sir Ian's first open letter on the topic. "The situation at STFC is unique among the UKRI councils because its cost base has increased significantly due to the type of facilities and services it manages, the research it funds and some projects with higher costs than foreseen.". Your writing on this topic reads a lot like you want to protect areas you are more involved in from what you see as an unfair raid on their budgets, which is understandable, but in doing so you're being rather careful to avoid engaging with the fact that one area in particular is experiencing what can only be described as an existential threat. 'Those scientists who do not wish to 'own' the deal that comes with the recent SR settlements' are doing so because it is existential, and unnecessary, as has been pointed out in both the commons and lords select committees, by the IoP, the Royal Society and the heads of dept of most physics depts in the UK. Lord Vallance appears to agree given his statements that PPAN science must be protected. Of course, it could be that this new approach brings untold riches to other areas, but what I'm hearing about the allocation of bucket 2 makes me think the common room is likely to get a lot busier soon.
Great summary. Love it.
I am supportive of Ian Chapman and his mission to provide some coherent strategy and some fairness over the RCs. I have sat on the councils of both EPSRC and BBSRC (a while ago, lol) . They were culturally very, very, different, with the EPSRC's mission aways much more top down and the BBSRC's more bottom and rather complicated by the various institutes. MRC is constitutionally diferent again.
The STFC investments were always long-term, O(decadal), as with the UK's support for international collaborations (not just CERN and all telescopes) but various other physics and materials facilities (usually abroad an international): that is all very expensive science and really hard to justify in terms of any immediate innovation (and impacts : knock-on jobs, products, and services), or advantage for the UK. The tangential spin-ooff argument wont work. While I so want to see the UK as a thought leaders within global science, such big science is expensive at a time of economic hardship, the need to up defence and security to deal with existential threats and so on (ther is no pint in getting attached ink cyber space and with in physical war theatres, and losing our national way of life, while the UK is being brilliant at PP and A. Big science is also not particularly timely. If it pauses for 5 years there is no great loss to the national security, or our way or life, and our economy: but it is a sad and acknowledged loss to the individuals involved, who have chosen a lifestyle and intellectual (globally excellent) career.
But there are indeed existential threats now to the UK as a nation: its security and defence, our way of life, and the economy. "Get real" everybody in university common rooms. So, some strategy is essential... not for decadal development, but for the next 5 years at least.
So the reset is both useful and urgent. Useful for reserach academics and useful for small companies. [BTW I am running one: and the Innovate UK mechanisms are underfunded in AI, yet are run like a club, with no-feedback peer review that is afraid of or avoiding risks... that is another story: lack of vision and proper articulation of the role of public funding in te TRL pathway - reminds me of the Liverpool pathway - that an InnovateUK problem.]
One present problem with EPSRC is that iy has had to suspend early fellowships. Yet for recent PHDs and ECRs those grants are (were) essential.n There is simply no where to go and no end in sight (is there?). And the UK should urgently invest in those people for their curiosity-deriven innovation, not as part of the national strategic priorities (which are solo predictable... yawn - with every developed country competing in races to the bottom).
If you got your PhD 3 or 4 months ago, and you want to remains in academia and move towards becoming independent, you can:
(i) get a PDRA position on a EPSRC grant and hope to have a benign PI who allows you to do some of your own curiosity drive R&D (not keeping you 100% nose to grindstone);
(ii) apply for a non-existent first-step fellowship (no longer an option);
(iii) apply for an FutureLeadershipFellowship: but you need to see those as a second step when you have a few more papers and a plan. FLF are also gobbled up (weighed towards) the strategic priority themes;
(iv) go outside of the public money (RAEng, Welcome, ...) ;
(v) give up.
This is very very poor form indeed from people who should know, and I think do know, better. In subjects that are foundation and potentially disruptive for AI, such as the maths sciences, we are letting down a generation of PHDs. There is little for them.
Why are EPSRC doing this? Why not just sort it out? `Investments in individuals is largely incontoleld as it will and shoudl follow teh scince wher ever it e; lad. RCs could give the big grants a hair cut or even turn some off after a review (I only ever saw one grant threatened with the tap being turned off). The problem is that the leadership of EPSRC and other RCs have to be mindful of, and pay homage to, the strategic priorities of UKRI (thematic national priorities) and so they like to pander to Gov (DSIT) and invest monies into those. Tick that box.
I would personally prioritise these ECRs, and first step fellowships, ahead of any spending on academic hubs, institutes, PI and Co-I buys outs (stop these), etc. Pull/reduvce the bigger spends. I think that the early fellowship schemes (the first steps for PhDs) are an essential national step: with both immediate impact and growth for the future. [BTW the CDT follow-on use of little bits of spare moneys for short fellowships, within HEI's is ridiculous: needs to be a national competition.]
So, you cannot do both the steric large invetemenst and protect ECRs. Leaders inside RCs and UKRI need to step up (start what Chapman is doing now 0- but ECR should not be casualties).
Presently, for example there is a £8M (or something) EPSRC call out for foundational AI (which will be de-risked at application and review stages, and wil be all potentially within the present paradigm (not disruptive or adventurous enough at all). It wil be more of the same, that supports the PM's and DCIT's AI push (only apparently) - the PIs dont care once they get funded). In fact, this money woudl be perhaps better invested, £400k at a time, in early career people with ambitious aspirations and some tech smarts.
In summary, the UK's "ace up its sleeve" is not having the same set of clusters/hubs and strategic priorities that every other developed country has.Its "ace" is the ball-breaking excellence of the minds that it hosts and nurtures. We have an excellent science base and yet it is the (low risk) need to support me-too, predictable, strategic themes and institutes (totally non unique for the UK) that is letting down a whole generation of PHD.
It is happening now, this week. Just sayin'
Thank you for a very interesting commentary! Of the various themes you develop, it is the final one that resonates most strongly with me. The risk that our 'big bets' will essentially be anaemic versions of those that others are pursuing and that even if we gain a scientific edge we will lack the competitive industrial capacity to exploit them.
Anthony. I agree with your analysis. These are times of significant change and change causes painful disruption. However. A question. How transparent have universities been in their funding of research from excess resources being available from fees from overseas students, which as you correctly state has hugely diminished and now if there is an excess being used for domestic students. My perception is the lack of transparency of this aspect of research funding has further amplified the scale of the kerfuffle.
University funding is complicated and (as I have argued in earlier articles) ill-understood. It is clear that the complex pile of cross-subsidies on which the system rested were yielding misdirected incentives and would always lead us to this point. You are right. We should have shouted earlier.
I note that you don’t say anything about the humanities and social sciences here, though AHRC and ESRC are limbs of UKRI. The question of how far “science policy” can encompass the “human sciences” has never really been tackled, despite periodic reminders that the “creative industries” are major economic contributors to the UK.
Yes, I should have been clearer. AHRC and ESRC have been notably less affected than the councils that have attracted most of the controversy. In ESRC's case the picture is actually positive. ESRC's budget for applicant-led research rises from £66 million in 2026–27 to £73 million in 2029–30. Both ESRC and AHRC map reasonably well onto the "strategic government and societal priorities" bucket. I think however, you are correct that the science policy frame is not uniformly applicable.
Fundamentally, the load-bearing factual claim made here is:
> It is right that STFC bears the costs of its operations and meets the relevant budgetary constraints placed upon it. Bluntly, it is not right that other Councils (and disciplinary areas), EPSRC most notably, are called upon to make cuts towards the end of the financial year to meet overruns from STFC.
But this is wrong.
In fact, the opposite is true: STFC is being asked to cut its own research programme to cross-subsidise unforeseen facilities expenditure incurred on behalf of other research councils, in facilities STFC manages on their behalf --- while those councils' own research budgets are ring-fenced against facilities pressure.
Plainly, in the absence of any actual mismanagement at the facilities level, and none has been claimed, it would be reasonable for any unforeseen overspend on facilities managed by STFC on behalf of other research councils to be met by those councils, rather than being subsidised by cannibalising STFC's own research budget.
As for the broader context, PPAN research has received, in nominal terms, pretty much the same annual research budget from UKRI for 15 years. It may even have been slightly higher, in nominal terms, 15 years ago. In real terms that's a 30-40% cut. To propose 30% on top of that ~35% is to believe that ~2010 levels of PPAN funding were 2x too high and it's reasonable to cut them by half over 15 years.
This cut has coincided with the operation of the LHC, which means we are deliberately underutilising the fixed costs of our CERN subscription, getting fewer UK scientists and less UK science out of investment we've already made, for want of some PhD stipends and ECR salaries.
The only reason the UK PPAN sector hasn't collapsed already is that, due to the historic excellence of UK PPAN research, UK researchers and collaborations keep winning big ERC grants. This has partially filled in the gap left by UKRI's consistent 'flat cash' settlements for over a decade.
But after this, if the next generation of PIs decides the UK funding environment is too fickle, and opts for Switzerland or Germany instead, who could blame them?
At the very least, this is a consequential series of decisions to reshape UK research priorities that do not appear to have been thought through by anyone with relevant expertise (note, for example, missed ECR offer deadlines for next year, apparently due to ignorance), that nobody is willing to admit they have actually deliberately made or defend on their merits, and that are in direct conflict with the government's stated research priorities, at a time of increased research funding.
It is right that those administering public money on our behalf make decisions transparently in consultation with stakeholders, and are held to account for those decisions. This is normal in every other area of public life, and so too in science funding.
Even if onlookers, spreading more heat than light, write it off as a 'kerfuffle'.
Not my area, however another perspective on the Kerfuffle (related to handbags and argy-bargy) is this one from NAO which I came across at almost the same time as this blog:
https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/dsits-investment-in-research-infrastructure/
TLDR - although this excerpt gives a good flavour:
While UKRI and DSIT now have a clearer understanding of future infrastructure requirements than they had previously, UKRI can still do more to manage its research infrastructure as a portfolio – including balancing acquisition of new capabilities with maintenance and renewal of existing infrastructure – some of which can no longer be used for its intended purpose...
There is also scope for UKRI to improve the value for money of its infrastructure projects by ensuring they adhere more closely to good practice, particularly around addressing over–optimism at early stages of project delivery.
The NAO also have a few comments on missed opportunities with supercomputers.