Jodrell Bank Observatory could cease all observations as STFC funding cuts announced

The Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) has announced the consequences for individual projects following the announcement of its budget cutting exercise

Their latest announcement includes cuts to core facilities. Brian Cox has said that

These devastating and irreversible cuts are a legacy from a series of hasty and ill-considered decisions taken by UKRI, overseen by a government department that no longer exists.

STFC has a sprawling portfolio of work and facilities which means many of its costs are baked in unless it chooses to dispose of entire workstreams or buildings. In total, STFC has to reduce its spending by about 15% by 2029/30. This is a saving unlike any other research council.

STFC has made the decision to protect post-doctoral researchers as part of its cuts programme. However, there are several projects that are “not prioritised for further funding.” As the BBC has reported this includes the Jodrell Bank Observatory with the work of up to 3,000 scientists impacted, and a risk that all scientific observations could end by 2028.

Other programmes not prioritised for further funding includes cuts to the LHCB Upgrade Two which Physics World reported could lead to the closure of one of CERN’s largest experiments by 2033. HiPERCAM and ULTRACAM, which are high-speed astronomical cameras supported by seven institutes, will also be deprioritised. Elsewhere, there is a significant reprofiling of the UK Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (Dune UK) which as recently as January was hailed as being part of the quest to discover the origins of matter.

Michele Dougherty, Executive Chair of STFC, has said that

These are never easy choices, but we have made what we feel are the right decisions to bring STFC to a sustainable financial position by 2029/30.The strength of feeling and depth of engagement we have seen reflect the passion people have for the research STFC enables. While this has involved challenging conversations, it has shaped a plan offering the best available way forward and we are grateful for everyone’s input.

The wider question as we have raised on the site is how STFC arrived in this position in the first place. There are unpredictable costs which any funder has to respond to, and with its large facilities portfolio STFC is disproportionately exposed to economic turbulence, but its spending has steadily grown over a number of years. It has now found itself in a position of reducing funding to programmes it had previously hailed as being central to its work.

Aside from the immediate funding questions the changes to funding bring more uncertainty. Cuts may make savings in the medium term but the facilities represent significant sunk costs that have been accumulated over a number of years. The reduction of their capabilities is a loss to the UK’s science infrastructure.

There is understanding, particularly as the sector faces up to its own financial challenges, that savings have to be made. The debate on where the axe has fallen, and how it got to the point that such significant changes had to be made over a relatively short period of time, will surely now intensify.