IOP response to STFC update on funding changes

UK physics funding is going through a period of significant change. Over recent months, government announcements and decisions by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) have signalled a major reshaping of how research funding will be allocated in future.

While there have been welcome commitments to invest in strategically important areas such as AI and quantum technologies, these changes have also brought deep uncertainty for foundational and curiosity-driven physics research and for the people and facilities that underpin it.

Since the start of the year, the Institute of Physics (IOP) has been working intensively on behalf of the physics community to understand the implications of these changes, to reflect the concerns we are hearing from members, and to engage directly with UKRI, STFC, parliamentarians and partner organisations.

We have been clear that the UK’s long‑term scientific strength depends not only on targeted investment in priority technologies, but on a healthy, well‑funded physics ecosystem that supports curiosity‑driven research, national facilities, skills and early‑career researchers.

The IOP and our members have been particularly concerned about the potentially significant reduction to particle physics, astronomy and nuclear (PPAN) funding and we have called for the process to be slowed down and extended to allow for meaningful consultation and a full impact assessment.

In this context, STFC’s latest update on planned cost savings and funding priorities is an important development. Below, we set out what STFC has said, how the IOP has responded – including where we welcome progress – and the key questions that remain for the future of UK physics.

The IOP has cautiously welcomed a commitment from STFC that postdoctoral researcher numbers across PPAN will be protected at “at least the same level as last year”. We have called for further clarity on what this commitment includes – such as how many posts it covers, how it will be funded and on wider issues referred to in the STFC update.

Recent weeks have also seen the welcome announcements of major investment plans for both the UK fusion sector, which has been backed with £1.3bn in government investment designed to provide a pathway from world‑leading science to commercial fusion energy and for UK Quantum, which has been pledged £2bn.  

The commitment on early-career researchers was made in an update on 14 April from STFC Executive Chair Michele Dougherty about the UKRI budget and £162m of cost savings that STFC intend to make across the Spending Review period.

At the start of the year researchers working on projects in PPAN were asked to model cuts of 20%, 40% and 60% to these projects, with STFC using this modelling to make decisions over the summer about the prioritisation of funding.

The IOP and parts of the wider science community have raised serious concerns about the implications of these budget reductions and the wider implications of UKRI’s changes for how scientific research will be funded.

Early-career researchers 

A major concern of the IOP and scientific community when the cuts were first announced was the potential for job losses among early-career postdoctoral researchers, who carry out vital research funded by STFC and whose roles account for a large proportion of overall grant funding. More than 200 roles have already been identified as at risk by particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics groups due to due to either grant-funding reductions or cuts to projects in 2025-2026.

The update from STFC commits to ‘maintaining postdoctoral researchers across PPAN at least at the same level as last year’, and this is welcome. It also notes a specific issue affecting postdoctoral researchers in particle physics theory where grants were not issued in time for the recruitment round. STFC commits to top-up funding to appoint additional postdoctoral researchers.

However, important questions remain about the commitment which affect both these roles and the future health of physics.

• Whether the commitment covers grant- and project-funded roles. 
• Whether the commitment includes roles lost or at risk due to funding reductions since 1 April 2025.
• Whether this commitment will be met with additional STFC funding, and if not, where funding will come from.
• If additional funding is not available, whether other areas funded by STFC such as national science facilities are now at risk of greater cuts.

Curiosity research and Drayson partitions

The update reiterates commitments made previously by government that curiosity research, which drives breakthroughs seen sometimes decades down the line, will be protected. This is welcome. However, it also says that “the financial situation at STFC is unique” because its cost base has increased due partly to international subscriptions and currency fluctuations. Disappointingly, it confirms that the so-called Drayson partitions, which aimed to prevent international subscriptions putting pressure on grant funding, no longer apply. Issues we will be seeking clarification on:

• How will curiosity research within STFC, which funds foundational particle physics, astronomy and nuclear research, be protected?
• If curiosity funding for research in these areas will come from elsewhere, where will this be?

Consulting on where PPAN sits in the funding structure

The update says STFC is committed to listening to the community on where PPAN should sit within UKRI’s funding structure. It also says that whether STFC or EPSRC should be accountable for PPAN will be considered in the coming months. 

However, it is unclear what the process of this community engagement is and whether a formal consultation will take place, with clear opportunities for the community to feed into it. The IOP will need to take a position and is keen to hear your views. 

Request for feedback from IOP members

To ensure we represent the views of the whole physics community, we ask members to share any concerns, updates, insight and impacts relating to the UKRI changes overall and this update from STFC in particular. We are especially keen to hear views from members on where PPAN grant funding should best sit in the government funding structure.

Please share your views in our feedback form.

Commenting on the commitment to protect early-career research roles and the update from STFC, IOP President Professor Paul Howarth CBE said: “We cautiously welcome the commitment by STFC to protect vital physics early-career researcher roles – the hundreds of researcher jobs being put at risk meant we are already hearing about talented scientists seriously considering moving abroad or out of science altogether. 

“These are the hands-on scientists who deliver ground-breaking UK research and who will go on to be the science and innovation leaders our economy needs, so any commitment to protect these jobs is a positive step. 

“However, significant uncertainty remains and the overall STFC budget still faces cuts. The government must confirm that this commitment includes the roles already lost due to funding reductions since April 2025. 

“We also need to know whether new funding has been found to make these commitments, rather than the strain being moved onto other areas of physics to fund these posts – that runs the risk of compounding rather than solving the risks to physics and the benefits it brings.

“It must also ensure that cuts do not fall instead on other essential research and infrastructure as a result of this positive move, and that other key questions on curiosity funding, facilities and funding structures are answered.

“Given the uncertainty surrounding the proposed changes to STFC’s funding and structure, we believe that the process should be slowed down and extended to allow for meaningful consultation and a full impact assessment. The risk of unintended consequences and adverse impacts on different parts of the scientific community mean that UKRI should take more time to explore options with the community before reaching decisions.

“We all need a thriving science base to power growth in our nation. That means skills, research, innovation and world-leading facilities, all properly funded and all primed to succeed.”