Readers have responded to an editorial about the threat to research funding, including plans to close the Jodrell Bank Observatory, warning that such cuts will damage Britain's global standing and scientific leadership.
Shortsighted decision on Lovell telescope
George Kildare Miley, emeritus professor of astronomy at Leiden University, the Netherlands, argues that the decision to cease funding the Lovell telescope from March 2028 is shortsighted for additional reasons. Modern astronomy is no longer simply physics; it brings together physics, chemistry, biology and computing to understand how the universe evolved and where we came from. The universe is an inexpensive laboratory in which we can study the interaction of physical, chemical and biological processes under conditions that can never be reproduced on Earth.
Miley, who was a PhD researcher at Jodrell Bank in the 1960s, highlights its pioneering role in long-baseline radio interferometry, which links separate telescopes to create virtual telescopes thousands of miles across. Removing the Lovell telescope from this network would weaken its ability to produce pictures of the radio universe with sharpness comparable to that achieved by billion-pound space observatories such as Hubble. He adds that the Lovell telescope still plays a role in science diplomacy and has long been a symbol of UK scientific leadership and hope.
Historical roots of the funding problem
Mick Foster from Chelmsford, Essex, traces the shortsighted attitude to science funding back to Margaret Thatcher. In the late 1980s, as economic adviser to the chief scientist in the Cabinet Office, he argued that there was no methodology for assessing which research would turn out to be economically beneficial. He also argued that the attempt to quantify research success by counting publications was leading to counterproductive effects, such as pressure to publish too much and too soon, multiple authors on every paper, and a high-stress atmosphere fundamentally counterproductive to good research.
Foster found himself the sole advocate in the Cabinet Office for supporting research for its own sake, to advance human knowledge. He warns that closing the spaces where talented people are given time and funding to follow their creativity leaves us far poorer culturally as well as economically.
Impact on research councils and postdoctoral flow
Douglas Kell from Oxford notes that while the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) budget is expected to rise to £10bn by 2030, the budget for research councils, which mostly fund fundamental science, has plummeted by 40%-50% in real terms since 2011. Universities also grab a higher proportion of grants in overheads, reducing the actual science funded. The flow of postdoctoral fellows needed for innovative industries is consequently being choked.
Damage to international partnerships like Cern
Paula Collins, LHCb deputy spokesperson at Cern, responds to the editorial on the devastating cuts to major projects and research facilities. The Large Hadron Collider beauty (LHCb) upgrade, a top priority of the European Strategy for Particle Physics, has been particularly hard hit. The withdrawal of funding risks cutting off a generation of UK scientists from the future of one of Cern's four flagship experiments.
Collins emphasizes that the UK's leadership in LHCb was built through decades of sustained investment, and the UK should now reap returns: graduates skilled in AI and data science, advances in semiconductors and materials, students attracted to science by world-leading opportunities, and a reputation as a trusted partner in major international projects. Withdrawing previously secured funding has shocked international partners, undermines UK leadership, reduces opportunities for PhD students and postdocs, and damages technological development. This investment represents less than 0.05% of the UK's £10bn annual research budget, and she hopes it will be swiftly restored.
