What is happening with UKRI funding and the STFC cuts?

The scale and nature of STFC cuts

According to reporting from Research Professional News and later confirmed by Sir Ian Chapman in the open letter, the STFC must deliver a total of £162 million in cost reductions by 2029–30, forcing substantial savings across both external research grants, national scientific facilities and international collaborations. Sir Ian said in his letter that this is a separate issue to the change in funding model and is a consequence of significant increases in cost facing the STFC due to higher energy costs and unfavourable currency exchange rates.

Regardless of their connection to the UKRI restructure, these measures will hit particle physics, astronomy, and nuclear physics particularly hard. Project leaders have been asked to model scenarios of 20%, 40% and 60% reductions to their budgets and to indicate when projects become non‑viable.

The scale of these cuts could also damage national research facilities that underpin many disciplines across the R&D sector, and the UK’s international reputation as a collaborator if we pull back from international projects we have already committed to.

These cuts are being presented as the only option to manage rising costs within the STFC, with funding across the spending review period to 2030 broadly flat. However, rising costs could be met with increased funding, or a combination of both increased funding and cuts. So far, we have not had an explanation as to why UKRI has chosen to meet the increased costs from cuts alone. Increasing STFC budgets could lead to lower budgets elsewhere in UKRI, so there is clearly a strategic decision being made to prioritise that funding over STFC. In the interests of full transparency UKRI should explain how and why that decision has been made.

Moving to the ‘buckets’

In principle the move to the new ‘buckets’ system for funding research should be a positive thing. A better clear set of objectives for UKRI should ensure that the whole of society can benefit from the outcomes of research. However, good, clear communication as this happens is vital. Even if the overall level of funding is going up, change means some people will inevitably miss out. Pausing grant programmes in the manner we have seen, however, creates significant unnecessary uncertainty. Every effort must be made to explain UKRI’s changes, decisions and rationale to the sector.

Pausing funding streams will have consequences that will harm both research and researchers, particular those early in their career, like post-docs on short term contracts. The lack of notice or information about what comes next makes it very difficult for individuals to plan, both in terms of the research and the next steps for their careers. This is why timely, clear information at every stage of the process is critical.

Outstanding Questions

Following on from the open letter, Sir Ian appeared in front of the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology select committee on 3rd February. CaSE followed what Sir Ian said and have set out below how his answers to the committee measure up against the outstanding questions we had ahead of his appearence. We will continue to engage closely with UKRI to ensure that we are able to understand and communicate the changes taking place with our members and the wider sector.

It is also timely that we will all have opportunity to hear directly from and ask questions of Sir Ian on the 10th February when he delivers CaSE’s annual lecture as part of our conference ‘CaSE’s 40th Anniversary: Reimagining R&D’. The livestream of which can still be registered for.