What does the Scientific Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less-Lethal Weapons have that the Expert Advisory Group on HIV/AIDS does not? Why should the Veterinary Residues Committee die while the Veterinary Products Committee soldiers on? The new UK government is keen to cut down on expensive and wasteful quangos — quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations — but its approach seems haphazard.

Quangos, which are publicly funded advisory and regulatory bodies, are a popular target for politicians and newspapers in Britain. All three main political parties in this year's general election pledged to reduce their number, and the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government is now preparing to deliver on its promise. Documents leaked to media outlets last week detailed 177 such organizations that face the axe, with the future of dozens more described as “still under review”. The government's reaction to the leak suggests that the list is genuine.

The end of some high-profile groups, such as the Health Protection Agency and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), had already been floated. Other entries, including a review of the Environment Agency, were more surprising.

The very existence of some bodies was enough to raise eyebrows. It is not for Nature to judge the value of the Government Hospitality Advisory Committee on the Purchase of Wine, which could soon find itself squashed. But those, including politicians, who would delight in the demise of apparently obscure groups should beware. Most, after all, were set up for a reason.

For some, the motive was to rebuild public trust; the Food Standards Agency (FSA), for example, was set up after the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis of the late 1990s. Others, including the HFEA, were set up explicitly to keep politically awkward decisions at arm's length. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee's work to assess risk in the food chain was vital to policy at a critical time for public health. It is easy for those who are unaffected by a group's remit to poke fun, but most are useful to specific communities, be they scientists or wine drinkers.

Despite stories earlier this year that the FSA was to be abolished, the leaked list suggests that the government will keep it. That could reflect fierce lobbying from its supporters, and a similar effort is now under way to protect the HFEA. Scientists who wish to prevent the loss of other threatened bodies should take note. Without outside pressure, the government is unlikely to rethink its decisions or even explain them and publish a detailed account of the savings. Why would it, when some groups cost the public very little, with members offered barely more than travel expenses?

At a time when central funds are under serious threat, the traditional advocates of evidence-driven policy are unlikely to speak in defence of an unpopular cause. Researchers who value the advice and independence of quangos must say so, or see them disappear.