August 13, 2026

In defence of UKRI communications around cuts to science budget

I understand that lots of people are cross with UKRI right now after major cuts to physics projects and research facilities were trailed and then announced in recent weeks. I applaud the physics community for raising their concerns, and I’m delighted to see the mainstream news media finally putting science funding on the front pages. My mantra from day 1 at the SMC is that science in the headlines is always an opportunity as well as a threat. This story is a good example – the physics community have made their case for the importance of discovery research with passion and flair, and it’s been lovely to see celebrities, politicians and commentators lining up to describe how important places like Jodrell Bank are to our national life.

But there is one criticism of UKRI that I feel the need to challenge and that is the claim that the communication of these cuts has been terrible.

Before I defend what many will see as the indefensible, let me qualify this defence with a couple of points.

Firstly, I have been a vocal critic of UKRI communications since before it was even set up. I wrote a blog warning that ‘putting science at the heart of government’ would also put UKRI media relations at the mercy of government (ie. political) media relations. When my worst fears were realised and research councils’ media relations became less about publicising scientific research and more about feeding into set piece government announcements I spoke publicly and privately about my fear that the UK media and public were losing an important independent voice for science. But it’s because of my previous criticism that I now feel the need to speak out in their defence. 

Secondly, I know nothing about UKRI’s internal or stakeholder communications so I’m not speaking here about how those have been conducted and the criticisms of that may be well founded. What I am more familiar with, however, is their media relations on these funding cuts and it’s that which I am going to defend. 

When I got news that Ian Chapman had been appointed to the role, I did what we always do with people appointed to top jobs in science and invited him into the SMC to meet with science journalists. These ‘Expert Encounters’ are about as safe as the SMC gets. They are on-record and on-camera and do get reported, but they take place over coffee and croissants rather than the usual press conference format. We invite journalists on the understanding that the new person has only just started so can’t be held accountable for past mistakes or expected to know the answer to every question. Despite this some of our science leaders still turn these invitations down. In the end meeting science journalists like Pallab Ghosh at the BBC, Clive Cookson at the Financial Times and Robin Bisson at RPN always brings an element of risk and some senior comms officers prefer to play it safe. Ian Chapman and his team said yes immediately. Unlike some they made no attempt to control anything about the SMC briefing and treated it as an opportunity for which they were very grateful. Everyone in my team noticed this signal of openness and my first thought was ‘ok – this bodes well’. This view was reinforced at the press briefing where Ian answered many questions from journalists directly and openly. The striking part of that initial encounter was that he chose to use it to tell journalists that things would change under his leadership and there would be winners and losers. I was chairing that press conference and surprised that he said it. After all he had only been in the job a few weeks and he certainly didn’t need to use an informal meet & greet to signal bad news.

Several months later we had a second press conference with Chapman. This time it was the UKRI media team who approached us and it was explicitly a briefing to let the media know about the broader decisions to make cuts. This time Ian was joined by several Exec Chairs from EPSRC, STFC and the deputy exec chair of the MRC. I cannot comment on the strengths or weakness of their decisions but once again they took and answered questions from national news journalists and specialist science press and came across as open and honest. They showed zero annoyance at being grilled, were open about negative impacts and real losses and acknowledged that these cuts would be bruising and painful for sections of the physics community. Announcing major funding cuts to projects she had dedicated her life to championing was very obviously painful for Michele Dougherty who I had never met before, but she came over as very authentic, straight speaking and utterly un-spun. Journalists at the briefing agreed with me on that at least.

The 3^rd press briefing we were asked to run, at which Ian and Michele went into more details about where the axe would fall in physics, almost didn’t happen and suffice to say my strong impression was there were people inside government who didn’t want it to. My previous experience with UKRI was that when government communications didn’t want UKRI to speak to press UKRI didn’t speak to press so I briefed my team that it would probably not take place. To our amazement this didn’t follow the usual course and we ran the briefing. By now the physics community had found more details about the planned cuts after a series of leaks to the media and were understandably up in arms. Journalists attending this briefing had already written many articles critical of UKRI and Ian and Michele must have known they were in for a grilling. But they took it and answered all the questions – not of course to the satisfaction of all the journalists but without rancour. 

That UKRI chose the SMC to host the 2 press conferences about the budget cuts is also worthy of note. They could easily have run these press conferences themselves or with government, which would have allowed them much more control. Instead, they chose the SMC knowing full well that we have strict rules around these briefings and will not accept any restrictions from the panellists or their organisations on who attends, how questions are selected etc. Others we have worked with over the years have requested more control. UKRI media team asked for nothing. All journalists at these briefings asked questions and the specialists like RPN often bring 2 reporters and ask several follow ups. As chair I also reserve the right to ask questions and one UKRI press officer joked that one of mine was the toughest. For the most recent briefing on the specifics of the cuts they asked if they could have some knowledgeable third-party experts on the panel to talk about the impact on the sector. I said no on the basis that if these 3^rd parties broadly defended UKRI’s approach it would be more like advocacy than explanation. They took the point and stuck with Ian, Michelle and one member of the STFC Board.

So why I am writing this blog? Certainly not to make myself popular with science journalists, some of whom think UKRI continue to evade certain questions, or my many friends who are deeply upset about these cuts. I am writing it because I think in the angry row about the impact of these cuts on physics, scientists have perhaps not noticed that UKRI have at least tried hard to be proactive and open with the media about their plans.

I am writing it because that openness to media scrutiny should matter to us all.

Perhaps most importantly I am writing it because I think we need to be careful what we wish for. It’s not lost on anyone that working so closely with government can be challenging for arm’s length bodies (ALBs) like UKRI. Maintaining an independent voice can be exhausting and is a constant battle. If we beat up UKRI irrespective of whether they continue to fight that battle and don’t even notice when they prevail then the leadership and comms teams might conclude that they may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb and throw in the towel. 

And it’s not like we don’t see other ALBs being far more emasculated. Any journalist calling the Environment Agency about drought this week will get referred to Defra after the government closed down the comms function of the agency. There are rumours that this approach might be extended to other ALBs. 

UKRI is the voice of research into government. But it’s also the voice of research out to the wider public and media. All the signs are that Ian Chapman, his exec chairs and comms team get that. It also matters for the future of science.

This blog contains the thoughts of the author rather than representing the work or policy of the Science Media Centre.