Interesting, good to see - I'd be interested to know how its success will be evaluated and whether the messaging really addresses the "disconnect" problem

Bureaucracies have no reverse gear. UKRI spent the last year behind closed doors convincing themselves that while this is all terribly regrettable, there is no alternative. Now when asked to find another solution, they can only waffle in public - while digging their heels in behind the scenes.

Yes. Not one person, from the minister on down, has said that this is what they want to see happen. But no one seems to be willing or able to actually do anything about it.

Great book! I read it cover to cover in one day on the beach in Greece in 1986

but instead, we are told that this was not a strategic choice at all. Instead these research areas simply have the bad luck to be funded by a part of UKRI which is chronically unable to balance its budget - in completely different parts of its portfolio - and needs to learn to do so.

UKRI has a mandate to set strategic priorities, for sure. If anyone at UKRI had had the cojones to stand up and say that they were deprioritising particle physics and astronomy to allow spending in other areas to grow, they would have earned respect

No, apparently you just need to shut up and suck it up, because UKRI is “directionally correct:”

bsky.app/profile/john...

I agree - US English doesn't make the distinction clear. From my experience people tend to say 'which' when in British English they should say 'that,' at least in science writing, perhaps because it sounds more educated

It helps me! To be honest, I don't remember ever being taught this in school. In the US the tendency is to over-use 'which' because it sounds more highbrow, so when I moved back to the UK I had to re-train myself in the correct British English usage

Yes - and for people, in English, it's also the same word 'who'

I just remember that it's all about pencils and tables.

Pick up the pencil that is on the table

vs.

Pick up the pencil, which is on the table

A Kerfuffle … UK research funding (and in defence of Sir Ian Chapman)

Back in your box, particle physicists and astronomers! Shut up and suck it up, because (a) STFC is a chronic financial basket case and needs to be sorted out and (b) UKRI is doing important work, and Ian Chapman needs support 🤷

open.substack.com/pub/profseri...

Read the article. It talks about both Reform and the Greens.

You can sense the frustration at not being able to control the narrative:

"Why does everyone keep focusing on the 5% of our activities that are being cut? Why don't you talk about the 95% that we are investing in?"

Well, duh, because one is news and the other is not.

Indeed. One could equally well say:
- UKRI spends about 50% of its budget supporting missions, challenges and industry
- it spends about 30% of its budget on supporting universities with funding allocated through the REF
- and only about 20% on grant funding of proposals through peer review

"Communication in the age of misinformation" - latest

It's worth remembering that THERE IS NO STFC COMMS TEAM. It was disbanded and merged into UKRI. So all we get is UKRI coprorate level spin, because only UKRI corporate level comms exists.

To get reality, speak to staff on the ground

Note that this is Research England money, what used to be called HEIF funding for university infrastructure. It's not the research councils Infrastructure fund.

What is UKRI for, and do the people in charge know? - Research Professional News Breaking up UK Research and Innovation could be the way forward, says John Womersley

I wrote about this here

www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-v...

No, this is not defence. It is more likely the ministerial preoccupatiion with AI, plus a way to pay for the exascale investment announced earlier (noting my institutional COI on that 😉)

Ever since it was created, UKRI has been something of a solution in search of a problem. Using it to set big research priorities is not a bad thing, in itself. But doing this in a way that looks non-transparent is not the right approach

Exactly. “We need to do something to make this go away. It’s distracting attention from the important structural changes we are trying to make at UKRI.”

What about your much-vaunted buckets, Lord Vallance? Tension the PPAN grants against the rest of Bucket 1.

If that has ever actually happened, which I am highly sceptical of, it must be a recent phenomenon. It could never have occurred when each research council had its own budget set by DSIT or its predecessors.

Begs the question of who decides how much money the research council will get

The comms have indeed been terrible. But the idea that this is primarily a communication problem is just a comfort blanket for Vallance and Chapman. The message is awful no matter how it is communicated.

I think this reveals two things:
1. Actual curiosity-led grant funding is really quite a small fraction of UKRI's spend, and they wanted to 'bulk up' bucket 1 to look better
2. They see both QR and grant funding primarily as ways to support a university system. The research outputs are a by-product

University physics heads warn Vallance of STFC cuts impact - Research Professional News Cuts “inconsistent” with government plan for growth, says open letter urging science minister to act

University physics heads warn Vallance of STFC cuts impact.

Cuts “inconsistent” with government plan for growth, says open letter urging science minister to act.

www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-r...

Fears over STFC cost-savings plan aired since September 2025.

Oversight body repeatedly raised concerns over “lack of transparency” with research community.

www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-r...

Jesus. Seriously? So it seems to have consciously been done as a way to allow them to raid grant funding this year. They knew just what they were doing. And Council, despite the reservations, went along with this?

I agree with Ken - I think it's saying 'stop whining astronomers, we are going to be hitting our own internal STFC staff even harder than we have hit you.' Which is not perhaps the reassuring message they think it is.