Open Letter from the STFC Advisory Panels

To: STFC Science Board, STFC Council, Executive Chair, Executive Director of Programmes

Cc: UKRI Executive Leadership

February 2026

We write jointly as the Advisory Panels representing the UK’s particle physics, particle

astrophysics, astronomy, solar and planetary physics, and nuclear physics communities.

We recognise the financial pressures facing STFC and the need for prioritisation in a

constrained environment. In such circumstances, the role of the Advisory Panels as the

formal mechanism for structured community input becomes especially important.

The scale of reductions currently under discussion, on the order of 30% in the Particle

Physics, Astronomy and Nuclear Physics (PPAN) programme, represents a fundamental

structural change to the UK’s long-term research capability in this area, not simply a

marginal adjustment. Decisions of this magnitude, including recent changes to research

infrastructure funding, have system-wide implications for infrastructure sustainability,

intellectual capital and technical expertise, international commitments, career

pathways, and long-term strategic positioning. In particular, the impact on early-career

researchers, technicians, engineers and research software engineers, and the potential

loss of emerging talent more broadly, poses risks that may not be reversible, risks

undermining the UK’s ambition to be a globally attractive destination for science and

technology, and risks weakening the future student and skills pipeline on which that

ambition depends.

We are concerned that a headline reduction at this scale appears to have been

articulated prior to a comprehensive, cross-programme impact assessment informed by

the Advisory Panels in their role as the formal mechanism for community input to

Science Board. While project-level proformas provide important local information, and

were directed primarily to major project grants, they do not capture the full breadth of

the community and cannot substitute for programme-level evaluation of

interdependencies, cumulative effects, and long-term capability risk.

Across our communities, confidence in the robustness and transparency of the

prioritisation process has been shaken by the perception that structural reductions were

introduced without full advisory consultation and impact assessment. In periods of

exceptional constraint, the scale and distribution of reductions should be the outcome

of properly resourced, evidence-informed prioritisation, not its starting assumption.

To restore confidence and ensure the protection of long-term research capability, we

believe the process must now be reset to include formal and iterative Advisory Panel

engagement in system-level impact assessment before structural decisions are

finalised. Effective prioritisation requires not only the provision of advice, but

transparent dialogue and feedback on how that advice informs decision-making,

including the evaluation of trade-offs across the PPAN landscape.

The Advisory Panels stand ready to engage constructively and intensively with the

Science Board, Council, and the Executive to support rigorous, cross-disciplinary

prioritisation. Our shared objective is to safeguard the long-term health, international

standing, and talent base of the UK’s PPAN research ecosystem, and its role in

supporting the UK’s wider science and technology ambitions.

Chairs of the STFC Advisory Panels (on behalf of the members of the PPAN Advisory Panels)

Particle Physics Advisory Panel (PPAP) Ruben Saakyan

Particle Astrophysics Advisory Panel (PAAP) Laura Nuttall

Astronomy Advisory Panel (AAP) Aprajita Verma

Solar System Advisory Panel (SSAP) Ashley King

Nuclear Physics Advisory Panel (NPAP) Bjoern Seitz