Physicist John Womersley is the chief executive of the UK's Science and Technology Facilities Council. Credit: STFC

Physics research in the land of Isaac Newton and Peter Higgs faces a “catastrophic” future, and the United Kingdom will “lose leadership and credibility” on the world stage if the current funding strategy continues, according to a panel of experts. Their report was completed last year at the request of the country’s major funder, and is released today.

The stark warning was issued by the science board of the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), which distributes government money for astronomy, particle physics and nuclear physics. The STFC used the report to negotiate with the government over its budget for 2015–16, but the government did not increase its core budget (see 'English research gets cuts reprieve as ministers hit teaching'). The continuing ‘flat cash’ scenario — a budget trend that fails to keep pace with inflation — has led to severe belt-tightening across academia.

The report also warns that prolonged flat funding would impel experienced researchers to leave and reduce the nation's ability to train the next generation.

Critics say British Columbia's grizzly-bear cull not based on science How the $1,000 genome became reality China's moon rover responds but cannot move

Although the core budget remained flat, the STFC points out that the government did increase ‘capital funding’ — which is used to build new facilities and to fund large equipment — and provide money for UK contributions to international projects such as CERN and for operating large facilities. It also says that the report takes a ten-year view of what flat cash means, whereas the government's budget is set only till 2016.

UK researchers have complained for years that the effective decline in science budgets is damaging science and the economy. And the report supports this view, pointing out that the purchasing power of the money allotted to particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics has fallen by 32% since 2010. It then lays out in stark detail the likely consequences of continuing on this path of austerity. In a letter published alongside the review, STFC chief executive John Womersley says that the council shares the concerns of its science board over the impact of the funding freeze.

Sense of perspective

“We still got flat cash; most other areas of government got cutbacks,” Womersley says. “It’s not a bad outcome. Will we be arguing for more [in the future]? Absolutely.”

The report looked at what is likely to happen if the STFC budget stays the same, rises by 10% or falls by 10%, but does not account for the capital and international subscription funding already allocated. The council has redacted the sections that lay out exactly what might be funded under each scenario but says that it will release these details in May.

“It is very clear that significant damage will be done to STFC science under minus 10% or flat cash,” says Yvonne Elsworth, a solar-physics researcher at the University of Birmingham, UK, and a member of the expert panel. “There are many areas in which the United Kingdom has had major scientific impact and it will be a great loss if we cannot continue to capitalize on previous investment in people and facilities.”

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which oversees the research councils, says that the government “has a history of strong support for science despite the considerable financial pressures”. “We are maintaining our £4.6 billion science budget and have increased our long-term investment in science to over £1 billion per year,” it says.