There is, as the poet Samuel Butler pointed out, a natural reluctance to look a gift horse squarely in the mouth; but there are occasions when it can be prudent, if only to avoid nasty surprises later on. Such is the case with the extra funds that the British government has announced it is to make available for the support of research in universities and through the research councils over the next three years (see page 307).

Three interrelated aspects of the boost in funds stand out. The first is the central role in which it places the Wellcome Trust, which is contributing £400 million ($660 million) towards the £1.4 billion of new money announced by the government — including half of the £600 million fund for refurbishing university laboratories and equipment. The second is the de facto power given to the Director General of Research Councils (DGRC), as co-chair of this fund's steering committee, over the way its money is distributed. The third is the heavy emphasis being given, implicitly through Wellcome's involvement in this fund and explicitly in the allocation of new money to the research councils, to the life sciences.

The logic behind that emphasis is clear. The sciences of molecular biology and genomics are among those at which Britain excels, while its pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have a stronger competitive edge in the market-place than most other sectors. Wellcome's major commitment to genome research is already complemented by the keen interest that those companies have shown in exploiting this research. Economically at least, it makes sense to play to the strongest suit.

But the danger of a continuing decline in the physical sciences — or at least in those substantial parts of such disciplines that are unlikely to contribute, either directly or indirectly, to the exploitation of the genome — is obvious. To be fair, the scientists at the top of the government's science structure — Sir Robert May, chief scientific adviser, and Sir John Cadogan, the DGRC — have never underestimated the importance of core sciences. Physics and chemistry will no doubt continue to be supported, at least insofar as they underpin economic development and improving the quality of life. A fair implementation of the original case made by Sir John to the Treasury for the science base would be for Wellcome's £300 million to be spent on rebuilding the infrastructure of biomedical sciences, and most of the other £300 million equipment boost to be devoted elsewhere.

Given their influential supporters, chemists and environmental biologists are likely to see their situations improving. But others can anticipate an accustomed and possibly increasing lack of generosity. Although particle physicists have received the long-term backing of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council for involvement in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, the European Laboratory for Particle Physics, this leaves the council's other clients, mostly astronomers, more exposed to the pressures of government priorities. Meanwhile ‘small’ physicists — for example, the excellent UK community working on semiconductors and other functional materials — may suffer by comparison with biologists, given the lack of powerful voices from industry or elsewhere speaking up on their behalf. Without such external advocates, the envisaged structure for allocating the new funds, and the all-powerful DGRC in particular, are likely to have difficulty in finding the motivation to give them the necessary support.