Physicists in the UK have reacted with dismay following the decision by the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) to cancel funding for several high-profile international projects. The Institute of Physics (IOP), which publishes Physics World, says that the axing of support threatens the UK’s international reputation as well as the ability to attract people into the subject.

The STFC cuts come after the council announced late last year that its core annual budget would rise by only £7m to £842m over the four years from 2026 to 2030. One of seven research councils within UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), the STFC runs the UK’s national facilities and supports particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics (PPAN) research in the UK.

In a strongly worded statement, IOP president Paul Howarth is now urging the government to review “this ruinous set of decisions”, calling the cuts a “terrible blow” that will do “real damage” to the UK’s scientific reputation and put future economic growth at risk.

“Despite reassurances, physics has not been protected, crucial facilities remain under threat and jobs are being lost,” says Howarth. “Scientific capability that has taken years to build up is being put at risk by these decisions – it undermines a number of our most important international collaborations and could put a whole generation of young people off a career in science.”

Balancing the books

Although UKRI has received a record £39bn investment across the four-year period, it said last year that projects at STFC would need to be cut given inflation, rising energy costs as well as “unfavourable movements in foreign exchange rates”. Together, the STFC’s annual costs are projected to rise to over £1bn per year by 2030, forcing it to find ways to balance its books by 2029.

Earlier this year, the STFC said it would have to cut its core science budget by at least 30% over 2024/2025 levels. UKRI also noted it would stop funding two UK facilities – the Relativistic Ultrafast Electron Diffraction and Imaging facility and the C-MASS mass spectrometry centre. A UK-led upgrade to the LHCb experiment at CERN and support for the Electron–Ion Collider at Brookhaven in the US would be axed too.

That announcement caused significant distress within the physics community, prompting the heads of UK university physics departments to publish an open letter to then science minister Patrick Vallance, expressing their “deep concern” about funding changes adding that such cuts cause “reputational risk”.

UKRI then carried out further consultation with researchers and the STFC’s expert advisory bodies, with the results of this “funding prioritisation exercise”now revealed. There is some good news for STFC-funded “discovery-led” PPAN research, which physicists had feared could be cut by a third. Following lobbying, UKRI says this work is being “protected”, although it will still fall by 2.7% over the next four years.

Under attack

While facilities such as Diamond Light Source, the ISIS Neutron and Muon Source, and the Central Laser Facility will not be mothballed, the STFC’s budget for multidisciplinary facilities will reduce by 15% over the next four years to save £28m. As a result, ISIS will have to reduce operational time at the facility.

Yet the STFC warns that if saving and income targets for the programme are not met by 2028 then further action could be taken, which could involve closing a multidisciplinary facility.

STFC’s national laboratories and estates budget fares slightly better, falling by 8% over the four-year period, but individual facilities will be hit harder. The operational budget of the Boulby Underground Mine, for example, will be slashed by 40%.

Particle fever

The STFC insists that subscriptions for international projects, such as CERN and the European Southern Observatory, will remain protected despite their costs expecting to rise by 19% over the next four years. But other projects, including the EIC as well as the LHCb upgrade, will not be funded. The latter is expected to operate until 2033 by which time it would have reached the end of its lifetime after years of intense radiation damage.

An upgrade was planned so that it could take advantage of the upgrade to the LHC – the High-Luminosity LHC (HL-LHC) – and offer an order of magnitude increase in luminosity over upgrade I.

Tim Gershon from the University of Warwick, who became international spokesperson for the  collaboration this month, says that the outlook for STFC-funded science is “grim”.

“With a 15% cut last year and an outlook that sees funding shrink further due to inflationary pressure, not even excellent-rated and internationally-leading science like LHCb can be supported,” he adds. “LHCb is the canary in the coalmine for the future sustainability of particle physics and astronomy research.”

Gershon states that the decision to cut UK involvement in LHCb will throw away the leadership it has built up. “Not only is this a tragedy for researchers and engineers who have dedicated their lives to making LHCb one of the most successful experiments in history, it destroys opportunities for current and future students to be involved in world-leading scientific discovery,” he adds.

This is a short-sighted move, to save a tiny fraction of the overall UK science budget

Catherine Haymans

Gershon says it will take some time to understand what the UK’s decision means for the upgrade and how other funding agencies will react but without UK expertise it will be hard to progress given the UK is the largest partner in LHCb with a 20% stake.

“Ultimately, the LHCb Upgrade is an essential part of the full exploitation of the HL-LHC, which is the top priority of the European and CERN strategies for particle physics,” adds Gershon. “We are determined to deliver the best detector that is possible within the available resources. But such a major change to the level of expected resources makes this extremely difficult.”

Peter Millington, a particle physicist from the University of Manchester, says that the outcome is “bad news” for accelerator physics and the applications that it fosters, particularly in medical physics. “It is completely at odds with UK priorities across all industrial strategy growth-driving areas, while also eliminating skills pipelines pivotal to a wide range of sectors and eroding the UK’s long-held position as a global scientific leader.”

Astronomy woes

Astronomy is another area that is bearing the brunt of the cuts. The UK contribution to the e-MERLIN network of seven radio telescopes, which includes the iconic Lovell telescope at Jodrell Bank in northern England, is also ear-marked for cancellation. Its funding will now run out in 2028 and the move not only threatens e-MERLIN but also the future of Jodrell Bank , which the Royal Astronomical Society calls a “deeply troubling development”.

Catherine Haymans, Astronomer Royal for Scotland, says she is “absolutely devastated” for those working on e-MERLIN.  “This is a short-sighted move, to save a tiny fraction of the overall UK science budget,” she says. They are now considering contacting the new Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade to reverse the decision.

Other astronomy cuts include the UK withdrawal from the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope located in Hawaii as well as 20% cuts for the UK’s Square Kilometre Array Regional Centre and activities at the Vera C Rubin Observatory in Chile, which recently began a 10-year survey of the universe.

Jim Wild, president of the Royal Astronomical Society, notes the cuts are “devastating news” for UK astronomy. “At a time when technological innovation is crucial to our country’s prospects, discarding unique, globally significant observatories threatens both our scientific future and the inspiration of future generations of astronomers,” adds Wild.

Michele Dougherty, executive chair of the STFC, who is also Astronomer Royal, says that the situation requires “tough, but necessary decisions”.

“After listening to our community we have protected core discovery research within PPAN, through a more focused portfolio that safeguards postdoctoral researchers, protects PhD opportunities and maintains the UK’s international leadership.” adds Dougherty, who stepped down as president of the IOP in January over the conflict of interest with her position at the STFC. “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 post Future of UK physics threatened by ‘ruinous’ funding cuts, says Institute of Physics appeared first on Physics World.

I am writing from Argentina as a researcher working within the country’s national scientific system. While discussions about science funding are often framed in terms of budgets and economic indicators, the reality is experienced in laboratories, offices and research facilities where scientific knowledge is produced.

Today, many of us in Argentina are witnessing a progressive deterioration of Argentine science, both in terms of infrastructure and human capital.

I am based at the Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica (CNEA), where uncertainty has become routine. Hundreds of employees remain on temporary contracts that can be terminated without warning. On 1 July 2026, a total of 61 colleagues lost their jobs, with armed military police officers occupying the building to contain a peaceful employee protest. Beyond the immediate human cost, these dismissals are steadily dismantling scientific capabilities that have taken decades to build.

The impact became tangible when my colleague Paula Alderete, an experienced electron microscope specialist, lost her position. Alderete, who has published two papers with me, was responsible not only for operating a highly specialized instrument, but also for maintaining it and supporting dozens of research projects.

Without Paula Alderete’s expertise, our lab’s electron microscope has become largely unusable. It is a quiet reminder that scientific infrastructure depends as much on people as on expensive equipment.

Faramarz S Gard

Without her expertise, the microscope has become largely unusable. Every morning I pass her empty desk on my way to the laboratory. It has become a quiet reminder that scientific infrastructure depends as much on people as on expensive equipment.

The deterioration extends beyond personnel. In my laboratory, an X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) instrument worth more than $1m must sometimes be protected with plastic sheets because rainwater leaks through the roof.

Equipment designed to operate under tightly controlled environmental conditions is now exposed to circumstances that threaten its long-term reliability. Similar situations are becoming increasingly common across Argentina’s universities and research institutes as maintenance budgets shrink and infrastructure ages.

Argentina has a scientific tradition that reaches far beyond its borders. The country has produced five Nobel laureates, including three in the sciences, and has made internationally recognized contributions to nuclear technology, medicine, agriculture, astronomy and materials science. Institutions such as CNEA, CONICET (Argentina’s national research council) and the national universities have trained generations of researchers whose work has strengthened international collaborations and advanced scientific knowledge worldwide.

Scientific systems rarely collapse through a single dramatic event. They decline incrementally: one technician dismissed, one laboratory left unrepaired, one instrument taken out of service, one young scientist deciding to build a career elsewhere. These individual losses accumulate into a weakening of scientific capacity that may take decades to rebuild.

When a country loses the expertise required to operate advanced laboratories or maintain unique scientific infrastructure, the consequences extend beyond national borders.

Faramarz S Gard

This should concern more than Argentina. Modern science depends on international networks of researchers, shared facilities and long-term collaboration. When a country loses the expertise required to operate advanced laboratories or maintain unique scientific infrastructure, the consequences extend beyond national borders.

Knowledge is lost, collaborations weaken, and opportunities for discovery diminish.scientific infrastructure is more than buildings and instruments; it is the people whose expertise gives those resources value. Once that expertise disappears, replacing it is far more difficult than preserving it.

The empty desk of a single scientist may seem insignificant, but multiplied across laboratories and institutions, it becomes a warning of how a research system is quietly dismantled. Argentina’s experience is therefore not only a national concern but also a reminder that scientific capacity, wherever it exists, is a global resource that is remarkably difficult to rebuild once lost.

I write this letter not only to describe a difficult situation but also to call attention to the broader consequences of sustained disinvestment in science. The international scientific community should recognize that the erosion of research systems in countries such as Argentina represents a loss not only for those nations but for global science itself.

Science is built by people, sustained by institutions, and enabled by infrastructure. Today, all three are under increasing strain in Argentina.

The post Letter from Argentina: ‘an empty desk and an idle electron microscope signal the erosion of the country’s science’ appeared first on Physics World.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced a new initiative to convert new research into products and industries. The $1.5bn programme, called X-Labs, however, has been criticized by some in the US scientific community given that financing the plan could come via cutting the budgets of current NSF directorates by as much as 30%.

The NSF says that the first round of X-Labs funding will focus on two areas – one on quantum sensing and AI-driven computational imaging while the second area will be in the development of quantum information and computing.

The projects that are chosen will receive $1.5m over a nine-month period to carry out further work. The NSF will then select projects to move onto the next phase in which they will receive a further $10–50m per year for 2–3 years.

According to an NSF spokesperson, X-Labs are designed to “spur progress on platform technologies critical to US competitiveness”, supporting high-risk, high-impact research that requires “substantial resources beyond traditional mechanisms”. A key goal of the handful of labs, the spokesperson adds, is to “reduce the time it takes to go from insight to impact through this new investment framework”.

While critics don’t have an issue with the concept, there are concerns that it is coming at the expense of basic research. Former presidential science adviser and former NSF director Neal Lane told Physics World that X-Labs is a “terrible idea”.

“There’s been a push to get more practical and get NSF involved in ensuring that science it funds actually makes it to the marketplace,” adds Lane. “But suddenly it’s been taken to extremes by the Trump administration. They’re trying to cut as much basic research as possible and put it all into an experimental programme.”

‘Without precedent’

The X-Labs programme comes as the NSF – one of the main science funding agencies in the US – still lacks a director. The previous head, Sethuraman Panchanathan, resigned in April 2025 after receiving orders from the White house to cut the agency’s budget by more than 50% (US Congress later restored much of the funding).

The Trump administration has announced Jim O’Neill, a Silicon Valley investor, as the next director, but he has yet to go through the necessary Senate confirmation.

There is also no further movement on the new personnel that will make up the National Science Board, the body that acts at the NSF in a way similar to a company’s board. In April the US administration announced that it was terminating the positions of all 22-member NSB “effective immediately” without disclosing the reasons for the move.

“[That removal of the NSB] is quite without precedent,” adds Lane. “It seems to be an effort to simply eliminate the NSF.”

The post National Science Foundation’s X-Labs initiative draws fire as ‘terrible idea’ appeared first on Physics World.

This episode features Charlotte Deane, who is executive chair of the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council – or EPSRC.

In conversation with Physics World’s Matin Durrani, Deane talks about her career in both academia and industry – and her leadership of the University of Oxford’s Protein Informatics Group.

Deane explains EPSRC’s role in funding research in physics and other sciences in the UK. She talks about the long-term strategy behind changes in funding priorities that were announced earlier this year. She also explains how EPSRC is supporting students and highlights the importance of quantum technologies and artificial intelligence to the future of the UK.

The post Inside EPSRC: Charlotte Deane on funding the future of UK physics appeared first on Physics World.