UK science leader on what’s wrong with the latest funding cuts

The United Kingdom’s largest research funder, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), has suspended some grant review processes in medicine, biosciences, engineering and physical sciences. It is also ending or cutting investment in projects in particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics. Part of the reason is that the government wants UKRI to prioritize studies that generate economic growth. Some of the biggest planned cuts are at the Science and Technology Facilities Council, the part of UKRI that funds UK physicists’ participation in international projects such as CERN Europe’s particle-physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland. Nuclear physicist Paul Howarth, who on 3 March assumed the role of president of the Institute of Physics (IoP) in London, tells Nature that the country’s scientists deserve a more responsible approach from their government.

Are there fields that are especially under threat? Which area is your greatest concern?

It feels, at the moment, that this move is overly burdensome on the key areas of particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics, collectively known as PPAN, which are looking at 30% cuts. I would argue that those fields are of fundamental importance and key to physics as a whole. Also, from my point of view, those disciplines help to attract young people into physics in the first place. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they then spend a lifetime in those areas — but they can learn valuable skills and then go and work in other areas of the economy.

Have any impacts of the cuts been modelled? What are the best and worst outcomes?

Given where we are with the process, it’s just too early to say with any certainty. I would go one step further and say the government has not published those figures. The IoP is working with the scientific community to understand the impacts of the various levels of budget reductions they have been asked to consider, but given that the process is ongoing, it’s not yet possible to model things like job losses in any meaningful way yet: that will follow through, and we are planning to look at this whole area in much more detail in the months ahead.

What is the IoP’s position?

We would like to have a constructive dialogue with UKRI and the government.

We want to understand the impact of these decisions, work with funding bodies and try to find a path that helps to maintain those critical disciplines and safeguards the future of physics departments. For example, some opportunities might be preserved if the government could signal that it will transition its priorities over several years. This would give an opportunity to physics departments to respond appropriately over time. Ongoing PhDs will be completed; international agreements might come to their end; and natural attrition could run its course, as some academics retire. That, managed over time, could be a lot less detrimental to UK physics capabilities. Notwithstanding, there needs to be a base level of funding for the PPAN disciplines anyway. When you switch off such capabilities, then you can’t rebuild them overnight. Also, there will be cases of senior researchers who will go overseas. Physicists at that level are highly mobile.

We want to get these points across, while recognizing the budgetary pressures.

If the government is willing to renege on the United Kingdom’s international commitments, could the country’s membership in international physics and astronomy collaborations, such as CERN or the European Southern Observatory, be at risk, too?

I can’t speak on behalf of the government, but I think, from the view from our international colleagues, seeing the United Kingdom pull out does raise questions about how much the UK is a committed party going forward.