Despite widespread financial gloom, 2009 has been an excellent vintage for physics and astronomy. The Hubble Space Telescope's final servicing mission was declared a resounding success, LHC finally powered up after last year's false start, several new astronomy satellites were launched and astronomers have tantalisingly reported a possible first-ever detection of dark matter particles. But in the UK, the year was closed on a blue note following an ominous pre-budget report in early December and the subsequent announcement of drastic cuts to the particle physics and astronomy programmes by the country's Science and Technology Facilities Council, STFC.

Alistair Darling's pre-budget report released on 9 December projecting £600 million of savings from higher education by 2012 showed a glimpse of things to come. In the following week, in which Herschel astronomers showcased their first results in Madrid and the CDMS scientists reported their dark matter research results, British scientists received a cold shower when STFC announced wide-reaching cuts to its entire programme, to fill a hole of around £40 million.

Since its creation in 2007, STFC has stumbled from one crisis into the next. Since then, accounting problems, exchange rate fluctuations and the UK's involvement in large projects such as ESA's ambitious Aurora programme have created a substantial financial shortfall that will now be recuperated from the bread and butter science programme of the nuclear and particle physics and astronomy communities.

Following a public relations debacle in 2008 over the unilateral widthdrawal of a large international astronomy collaboration the council has carried out a lengthy consultation exercise with the community to prioiritise its research activities for the next decade. The recent announcement summarised the outcome of this consultation and showed in detail who were the winners and the losers. Over 20 projects were cut, including some major international consortia such as the radio projects LOFAR and JIVE, several Northern-hemisphere astronomical observatories (in a "managed withdrawal"), AGATA and the ALICE experiment at CERN. Even top-ranked projects face a 10% decrease to their funding.

Particularly painful was the announcement of a 25% cut to studentship and fellowship programmes. In the aftermath of the initial announcement, STFC reported that all 12 postdoctoral fellowships - those aimed at young researchers with recently completed PhDs - would be withdrawn for 2010, and all resources focused on PhD studentships and the more senior 5-year advanced fellowships - although the numbers for these categories will also be reduced. Twelve may seem like a small number to those working in other areas of science, but to a small community like astronomy and nuclear and particle physics, it is a blow on an international scale; one that will force talented researchers out of the field, most likely never to return.

What has proved most damaging to the credibility of the government and the council is the refusal by STFC and the government to acknowledge that the bottom line is bad news for physicists. Just months ago, Gordon Brown proclaimed his commitment to British science in the Romanes lecture at Oxford University:

Some say that now is not the time to invest, but the bottom line is that the downturn is no time to slow down our investment in science but to build more vigorously for the future. And so we will not allow science to become a victim of the recession - but rather focus on developing it as a key element of our path to recovery

This statement stands in stark contrast to the deep cuts inflicted on the physics and astronomy research base. The key word in the British government's approach to science in recent years has been "impact" - maximising impact to the economy, and to society - and the recent prioritisations in STFC mirror this. The UK is focusing its resources on the large international organisations such as the European Space Agency (ESA) and the European Southern Observatory (ESO), as these are likely (or guaranteed in the case of ESA) to result in major contracts for British industry.

This begs the question: what is science without the scientists? Who will exploit these fabulous facilities if talented researchers are unable to find academic jobs? In addition, while many areas of physics and particularly astronomy, appear to score low on the "impact" scale, it is precisely this basic theoretical research that underpins all other scientific and engineering endeavours, from medicine to aerospace to nanotechnology.

A tiny speck of light comes from the response of Science Minister Lord Drayson, who acknowledges that the current funding setup in these communities is not working:

... it has become clear to me that there are real tensions in having international science projects, large scientific facilities and UK grant giving roles within a single Research Council. It leads to grants being squeezed by increases in costs of the large international projects which are not solely within their control. I will work urgently with Professor Sterling, the STFC and the wider research community to find a better solution by the end of February 2010.

Following STFC's announcements, physicists have reacted strongly against the cuts: a group of prominent US nuclear physicists wrote a letter to The Times decrying the "disastrous and unfair funding decision", and the issue has received media attention around the world. The internet, not surprisingly, was set atwitter.

Whatever happens next, the damage has undoubtedly been done for the next couple of years, and scientists can now only hope for a rational restructuring of their funding councils to avoid similar situations arising in the future. Junior researchers in particular face a tough future all over the world as competition for jobs will become fiercer than ever in years to come.

Image: S. Cadman