July 9, 2026

expert reaction to UKRI announcing outcome of STFC budget

Scientists comment on UKRI announcing the outcome of the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) budget. 

Paul Howarth, President of the Institute of Physics, said: 

“The choices made by UKRI in this funding package will create long lasting uncertainty and damage in UK science. Key facilities and projects are faced with deep cuts and the overall package will be damaging to physics, the economy and society.

“It undermines our international standing, leaves the threat of closure hanging over some of our most important scientific institutions and could put a whole generation of young people off not only a career in science but the many opportunities opened up by studying physics.

“This is not a drill – the warning lights are flashing in physics, with university physics departments at risk and young researchers already moving abroad. The government cannot afford to cause further harm when significant parts of the UK’s science infrastructure, along with technology, engineering and maths, are already facing up to financial challenges and prior cuts to funding. 

“So while it’s good to see the investment going into technologies like quantum, fusion and AI and steps being taken to ease some of the impacts of this package this is still a real and damaging blow to the foundations of physics – and to the whole of science and engineering.  

“But there is still time to change course and back foundational and transformative British physics.  Only yesterday the Science, Innovation and Technology Secretary, Liz Kendall, was talking in Parliament about how central physics was to our national future and prosperity – the government should act on those words.” 

Professor Jim Wild, Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) President, said:

“We are relieved that the severe cuts feared by the astronomy community have not materialised. Many people from across the scientific community and beyond worked extraordinarily hard to communicate the value of discovery research, and we thank everyone who played a part in achieving this outcome.

“However, the full impact of this announcement will only emerge in the coming months. It’s clear that colleagues elsewhere in STFC, across UKRI and throughout the wider research system face a difficult and challenging road ahead. This is therefore not a moment for triumphalism, but one for reflection.

“The UK remains home to outstanding scientists, engineers, technicians and research professionals. Ensuring that all parts of this ecosystem can flourish must remain a national priority.”

Professor Catherine Heymans, The Astronomer Royal for Scotland, said:

“While the headline settlement appears to preserve much of the UK’s astronomy capability, important questions remain about the impact on facilities, technical expertise and the broader research ecosystem. As the details become clearer, it will be important to ensure that the UK’s long-term capacity for world-leading discovery is not eroded.

“Protecting investment in fundamental science means protecting our ability to train the next generation of researchers and ensuring the UK remains at the forefront of exploring the Universe.”

Prof James Naismith FRS FRSE FMedSci, Professor of Structural Biology, Visiting Investigator Rosalind Franklin Institute, said:

“Today’s announcement reflects the outcome of extensive consultations with the science community about how to manage the acknowledged financial problems faced by STFC. I should start by saying we are fortunate that science has and continues to enjoy the support of the government. Given the size of the challenges faced by STFC, it is not possible for this to be good news. The additional money found from other parts of UKRI will give time to adjust but will limit ambition in other important scientific areas. 

“The loudest and most public voices called to protect the PPAN budget for curiosity science and international subscriptions. This has to a large extent been possible for PPAN (although there will be some losses) and all subscriptions preserved, the national laboratories however, are taking very substantial cuts. My heart goes out to colleagues working in the national laboratories many of whom will inevitably face restructuring exercises. 

“It should not be lost that some national facilities, notably Diamond, support high end manufacturing, defence and industrial R&D in the UK. The government has stressed the value it places on this science, and I don’t believe this will change with any foreseeable political change. In coming years, the science community should be very careful to do nothing to undermine this work, and diminishing taxpayer support (reflected by elected representatives) for science would be a very bad outcome. 

“Finally, I hope there is time to reflect on some of rhetoric that accompanied the consultation. Some comments seemed to attribute malign intent to the current STFC leadership which was entirely unfair. Given where STFC & UKRI found themselves, painful decisions were all that was left. It is easy to demand what must be saved without proposing the means to do so.”

Dr Daniel Rathbone, Deputy Executive Director, Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE), said:

“These cuts to STFC funded activities will be a blow for the foundation of UK research capability. Whilst it is welcome that UKRI have broadly protected the grant giving capability of the STFC and international subscriptions, the substantial cuts to multidisciplinary research facilities and other research infrastructure will likely have a profound negative impact across the research sector.

“The UK’s world leading facilities are not a resource that can be turned on and off on a whim. They require consistent and sustained investment to ensure that they can stay at the competitive cutting edge of new technological developments. They are also vital for the discovery research that under-pins many of the priorities, such as AI and Quantum, that DSIT and UKRI want the UK to lead on and are a focus for significant investment.

“In the long term these cuts are likely to have a much bigger economic and research impact than the level of savings realised in the short term. If we lose capability in any given area, it’s likely it will be very difficult to regain in a meaningful way. DSIT should think again: is it worth losing national capability to make short-term savings?”

Declared interests

The nature of this story means everyone quoted above could be perceived to have a stake in it. As such, our policy is not to ask for interests to be declared – instead, they are implicit in each person’s affiliation.