Sir

I am pleased that the recent Wakeham Review of physics acknowledges the strength of UK astronomy and space science (B. Wakeham Nature 455, 592; 2008). I also welcome the clear statement that basic research in the United Kingdom should be funded at a level needed to maintain the country's international standing.

In the wake of last year's science-funding crisis in the United Kingdom, in which the body responsible for funding UK research in astronomy, the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), was hit with a £80-million (US$136-million) budget shortfall, Bill Wakeham and his team carried out a thorough review of physics and astronomy. They make clear and positive recommendations that I am largely happy to support, and that I hope the new science minister and the UK government will soon implement so as to avoid the funding problems we experienced last year. (Reprofiling within the STFC has helped with the projects that were threatened, but there is still a £25-million hole in grants funding.)

The good news from the Wakeham Review contrasts with a call last month from the former chief science adviser to the government, David King, for the best scientific minds to be redirected towards solutions to twenty-first-century problems such as climate change. To achieve this he suggests that less time and money be spent on space exploration and particle physics.

It is extraordinary that he should say this, in a BBC television interview, in the week that the Large Hadron Collider was switched on (see http://tinyurl.com/5cayt8 and http://tinyurl.com/4cm42p). The drastic budgetary measures in the STFC took place while King was still advising the government, and the United Kingdom continues to make contributions to the European Space Agency at little more than half the level of France and Germany.

Tackling climate change is certainly of great importance, but it is not clear that it must be done at the expense of other sciences. This approach would reduce the country's overall science base when it actually needs to increase. Tackling climate change not only requires scientific solutions but also has enormous political and social dimensions. A scientifically literate society will help.

Astronomy and space exploration have long been important in interesting and educating the public of all ages in science. In particular, these fields stimulate bright young people to study science.

King seems to want to move researchers from 'curiosity-driven' science, such as space exploration and particle physics, into 'driven' science. This does not make sense and is not how scientists are motivated.