A Kerfuffle

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

TL;DR UKRI’s restructuring of research funding is directionally correct, both necessary and consistent with what a national funding agency should be doing. The noise surrounding it reflects the stress of a sector under pressure from multiple directions, not a measured judgment on the merits of the changes. The task now is for the research community to engage constructively rather than assume the tone of an aggrieved Common Room, resentful of accountability.

There has been a kerfuffle. A kerfuffle is, in common parlance, a commotion, typically caused by someone making more of a situation than it warrants. It entails a degree of noise and agitation that is more than slightly disproportionate to the underlying issue. In this case, a public row on research funding that is undignified and has generated more heat than light. @profserious aims, as a matter of general principle, not to engage with ongoing kerfuffles, but in this case the commotion is damaging to the collective interest, unjustified and unjust, and I intend to respond.

The matter at issue concerns changes made by UKRI (the UK research and innovation funding agency) to the organisation and distribution of their funding support to the UK research and innovation ‘ecosystem’. The changes are attributed to the (relatively) recently appointed CEO of UKRI, Sir Ian Chapman, though - of course - the Council of UKRI, the Executive Chairs of the ‘constituent Councils’, and, at arms-length DSIT and the Minister, Lord Patrick Vallance, will each have been engaged.

Before I consider the changes I will make two framing observations that I believe are important. First, UK science has benefited from strong political support and has secured good funding settlements over an extended period. This against a background of stressed public funding and in the context of competing societal priorities. The ‘deal’ is that the research community will deliver on commitments to growth, prosperity and, increasingly security. We must honour the terms of that deal and therefore our funding needs to be organised accordingly.

Second, when UKRI was created many believed that the intent was to build a lightweight governance layer over the existing Councils, simplifying the oversight for what was then the Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS), now the responsibilities are with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT). There was some hope that UKRI would, over time, secure necessary, but essentially incremental, readjustments in the respective allocations to the Councils, which would then largely operate autonomously.

This idea that UKRI would simply preside over ‘business as usual’ was never sensible. The fact that this view persists in some corners is, to me, astonishing. UKRI is a national science funding agency, it was always clear that it would be expected to act strategically, deliver national priorities, respond to larger political imperatives. It was always clear that it would need to act as a unitary organisation. Even if this method of working was not an organisational necessity it would, in any case be required to pursue agendas across science and technology that are increasingly interdisciplinary and ‘systemic’.

So to the changes themselves. The following is a short summary.

There will be a restructuring of how UKRI allocates its budget for the 2026–2030 Spending Review period. Investment will be reorganised into three ‘buckets’: curiosity-driven research; strategic government and societal priorities; and support for innovative companies.

Where previously multiple councils run parallel programmes in the same field, UKRI will consolidate these into single cross-council programmes.

STFC (the Science and Technology Facilities Council) will be required to achieve cumulative savings of £162 million by the end of 2029–30. Rising energy costs and adverse currency movements have increased STFC’s annual costs by over £50 million, making a reset necessary even as its core budget holds broadly flat. Project leaders at STFC have been asked to model cuts of up to 60% on existing schemes, and staff have been warned to expect job losses.

MRC (Medical Research Council), BBSRC (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council), and EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) have each suspended several of their main funding routes during the transition.

Innovate UK will make a strategic pivot to support fewer companies but provide more intensive support to those selected. This has entailed suspension of the open Smart Grant scheme.

Before turning to the reactions these changes have provoked, it is worth noting that the science community is under broader stress that predates and is largely independent of these changes. Much of the relevant activity involves universities and academics, directly or indirectly. The HE sector is under extraordinary pressure. Research is structurally underfunded. The resources hitherto devoted to research, largely derived from overseas student fees, have had to be redirected to subsidise domestic student education. The need to keep the ‘show on the road’ has yielded larger workloads and continues to erode the time available for ‘unfunded’ research that supports the broader research enterprise. Larger uncertainties over jobs and disciplines form part of the picture, contributing to the atmospherics. Kerfuffles are most common when communities are under stress. The kerfuffle here is better understood as a symptom of that stress than as a measured response to the changes themselves.

There have been adverse reactions to these changes, variously expressed. From the physics and astronomy community who feel they must bear, disproportionately, the consequences of STFC costs. From those who are concerned that curiosity-driven research might lose out from a more strategically managed portfolio. And from those in the innovation community for whom changes lead to uncertainty and suggest a move away from SME support.

Whilst there is room for discussion about details, and as you might expect I have opinions, I believe that the proposals are directionally correct.

It is right that UKRI thinks holistically and strategically about the management of its research portfolio and the ‘buckets’ are a fair start.

It is right that cross-cutting and interdisciplinary research is brought together into UKRI operated programmes.

It is right that STFC bears the costs of its operations and meets the relevant budgetary constraints placed upon it. Bluntly, it is not right that other Councils (and disciplinary areas), EPSRC most notably, are called upon to make cuts towards the end of the financial year to meet overruns from STFC.

It is right that the open Smart Grant model, whatever its virtues for early-stage companies, is replaced by something more strategically focused. The argument that open competition reliably finds unexpected winners is real, but it is not a sufficient argument against prioritisation.

UKRI funding is complicated and, often not well understood. Though UKRI has a large budget, it also has very extensive forward commitments to grants and contracts awarded. Innovate UK funding has its own complexities and company spend patterns on programmes are difficult to estimate. The result of the funding arrangements is that even what would, in the long-run, be small changes have large short-term impacts as the bulk of prior commitments work through. Whilst I appreciate this provides limited comfort for individuals seeking to apply to current schemes that may have been suspended, we cannot allow this to lock us out of strategic change.

A slower, more incremental, approach could work to address the broader disruption these changes cause, but that assumes policy stability and political patience, and these are in short supply. This government expects us to show results and a determination to act on its priorities within the political cycle, and expects us to bear some pain in the process. UKRI is simply the messenger in this respect.

One objection deserves a direct response. The most substantive criticism from within the community concerns early-career researchers, that is postdocs and those on (effectively) fixed-term contracts who, in any period of transition, become the implicit shock absorbers of system-level adjustment. Unlike facilities or large programmes, early-career cohorts lost during a contraction cannot simply be rebuilt when conditions improve. This risk is real and UKRI should be explicit about the safeguards it intends to put in place. That said, it is an argument for careful implementation, not for abandoning the direction of travel.

It clearly has not helped that communications have gone somewhat awry. This featured in a House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology committee, where Sir Ian Chapman was called to account. The communications failure was material, and it handed ammunition to critics who might otherwise have had less to work with. Earlier engagement with the community might possibly have helped. My instinct however, is that there is no viable communication strategy that would likely have made this change acceptable to the objectors. Nor would any further ‘transparency’ have assisted except to fuel further enquiry intended to derail change. Perhaps, a better sequencing of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ news could have achieved some damage limitation but would not have neutralised determined institutional opposition to changes of this scale. The volume of objection reflects the interests at stake, not simply the manner of announcement. The question now is whether the community’s response makes things better or worse. I have my view.

The approach of objectors poses a serious risk, particularly the institutional voices. The Spending Review was highly positive for research and innovation, at a moment when many public priorities and key services are compelled to implement significant savings. This seems to me to be a moment when ‘bad for science’, ‘bad for the UK’ rhetoric can seriously misfire. We must demonstrate a collective approach that recognises the responsibilities that we have taken on, and not assume the tone of aggrieved university Common Room, resentful of change.

We are exceptionally fortunate to have Sir Ian Chapman as the CEO of UKRI at a moment when complex but necessary changes must be delivered. He has political, scientific and managerial credibility. Seeing him manage the task of setting out the case with dignity, clarity and good humour is a lesson in effective communication. The job of CEO of UKRI is a highly demanding one. The set of stakeholders who must be aligned is large and their interests are various. We require the leadership he has demonstrated, and we need to invest it with our support. He has mine.

(@profserious was a member of the Council of UKRI, 2021-2024, and a member of Council of EPSRC, 2013-2018)