I am a postdoctoral researcher in cosmology in Manchester, and I would like to comment on the recent Science and Technology Facilities Council funding crisis, as discussed by Jon Butterworth. I did not grow up in the UK, and I am not accustomed to writing about public policy. Where I come from, policy can feel like the weather: when the sun shines, one enjoys it; when storms arrive, one complains – but few imagine they can change it. Perhaps I still carry some of that temperament.
So I write not in the hope of shaping national strategy, but because certain perspectives deserve to be heard. Mine is that of an international early-career scientist working in the UK. It may be somewhat representative.
I would like to make three points.
First, the key to scientific investment is not only the size of the cake, but the stability of its supply. Sudden expansions and contractions are equally damaging. Academic ecosystems, especially in science and engineering, take years to build. From first interest to intellectual independence can take a decade. Sharp funding swings distort the talent market and waste training, potential, and human capital.
Second, how should a country respond to technological revolutions? When some invent better tools and rent them at high prices, others produce alternatives and share the blueprints. In such a world, should the UK focus only on ever more sophisticated tools, or also on digging for gold? Surely it would be unwise to reduce the number of people digging while concentrating solely on tool design. One of those goldmines is curiosity-driven science.
Third, science has long been a refuge. A mature and prosperous nation should aspire to be a haven for those who expand the frontiers of knowledge.
Dr Zheng Zhang Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics, University of Manchester
Further to the opinion piece by Jon Butterworth, I would like to clarify details about the justification for the savings programme at the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC).
While is it true that UKRI more broadly is changing how it delivers its investments, partly to align with government priorities and drive growth after a record settlement from government, STFC faces a unique situation among UK Research and Innovation’s councils.
These savings would therefore have been necessary regardless, as STFC’s portfolio faces cost pressures resulting from factors including inflation and an ambitious programme of work from the previous spending review that is no longer affordable. It would be irresponsible to allow forecasted costs to exceed budgets year-on-year, and so we are taking action now to put the STFC portfolio on a long-term sustainable footing.
The majority of STFC cost savings across the spending-review period will be borne internally, to protect the wider community as much as possible.
However, it is important for all of our research and innovation programmes to take the necessary steps to look at how they may be able to contribute to us making savings across our entire portfolio. As we do this, we are consulting with the research community, including our advisory bodies and technical experts, before we make any decisions. We are committed to keeping the research community informed throughout this process.
Prof Michele K Dougherty Executive chair, STFC
