RAS Astronomy Forum: April 22nd 2026

The RAS Astronomy Forum regularly brings together the heads of Astronomy Institutes across the UK under the “Chatham House Rule” to discuss the pressing issues of the day.  This month’s Forum welcomed representation from STFC to discuss the Science Board prioritisation exercise that is currently reviewing options to cut the PPAN budget by 10/20/30%. The official minutes of this RAS Forum will be collated by RAS and circulated to the community, after approval of the participants.  Given the urgency of the current situation, however, and the fact that the minutes from February’s Forum were only just approved by STFC this week, I’ve decided to circulate my own notes from the meeting.  The rule is such that I cannot attribute the information, and I have paraphrased the questions and answers to keep this succinct.  If anyone at the meeting disagrees with my summary or has questions, please do add a comment in this Google Doc, and I will update the text accordingly.

23rd April 2026
Prof. Catherine Heymans
Astronomer Royal for Scotland

Postdoc numbers and definitions

• Q: What counts as a “postdoctoral researcher” for STFC’s commitment to maintain numbers?
  • A: The commitment refers to maintaining the number of new AGP-funded PDRA’s each year, as set by the number awarded in 2025/26. The numbers of project-associated postdocs going forward will depend on the outcome of the prioritisation outcomes.
• Q: Will maintaining PDRA numbers force deeper cuts to projects?
  • A: STFC is seeking to protect GP-funded PDRA numbers by finding funds elsewhere in STFC. They are not asking Science Board to find the necessary additional costs of ~£9m/yr from within PPAN.  This may need UKRI top-ups in this year and next year.
• Q: What is the baseline and expected reduction?
  • A: Baseline is the 2025/26 PDRA level. Community feedback is that this is too low but any uplift would require further case-making and funding. 

This was not detailed during the meeting, but for context, this is the AGP graph of new awards per year.  Taking 25//26 as the baseline for the level of yearly awards locks us into an historical low, and a ~30% cut relative to PDRA numbers in 23/24. 

Quotes from the AGP report:
Awards start in the financial year (FY) following the round, e.g., RIAs awarded in the 2025 round start in FY26/27. The difference between open and filled circles shows the real effect of slipped grant start dates.  

As a simple comparison, the total number of RIA-years funded by STFC in financial year 26/27 (including commitments made from previous rounds) will be around 168. This compares to the approximately 235 RIA-years that were funded in FY 24/25, a 30% reduction in total RIA numbers.

 

Scale, timing, and strategy of cuts

• Q: What scale of project cuts is being considered (overall percentage and timeline of impacts)?
  • A: PPAN Science Board is preparing 10%, 20%, and 30% scenarios across the programme with 48 projects submitting proformas. Their report will include impact descriptions, allowing STFC to present the stark consequences—especially at 30%—to UKRI and DSIT.
• Q: Over what time horizon are impacts being assessed?
  • A: Scenarios consider near-term constraints but are guided by a 10-year programme health principle.
• Q: Is there adequate breadth and independence in the prioritisation process?
  • A: Science Board has been expanded to include five advisory panel chairs (total ~22 people). The grants panel and PPRP chairs are not included to keep the group manageable; but detailed peer-review-level scrutiny will occur at implementation if viability is in doubt.

Consultation and external review

• Q: Will the community be consulted after Science Board has submitted its scenarios? Who are the international reviewers?
  • A: STFC will engage UKRI/DSIT and involve an international panel (5–6 senior scientists across astronomy, GW, particle, nuclear) to check for any missed opportunities and recognition of our world-class areas. UK PIs will be consulted over the summer, but this will not be opened up for discussion with the whole PPAN community. 

Sustainability, buckets, and subscriptions/currency risk

• Q: How will STFC achieve long-term sustainability given fixed international subscription costs and FX volatility now sitting in “bucket 1” with grants?
  • A: This is a major concern. Bucket 1 includes grants, projects, some STFC staff for projects, and international subscriptions; FX exposure (e.g., CHF) can add £15M in a year. STFC is pressing DSIT/UKRI for a solution; partitions are no longer functioning as before with UKRI, and there’s no automatic top-up. Some subscriptions for other communities have moved to “bucket 4”; PPAN-relevant ones remain in bucket 1.
• Q: Why can’t the old “Drayson partitions” approach be reinstated?
  • A: With UKRI formation, funding is consolidated; the prior partitions were not backed by extra money and didn’t function as true protections. Today’s “buckets” replace them operationally, but FX increases still compress bucket 1 unless extra funds are found centrally.

Position of PPAN within UKRI and possible EPSRC move

• Q: Is moving PPAN grants to EPSRC under consideration; will the community be consulted?
  • A: The idea resurfaced after letters (including from some ECR groups [note the ERCs dispute this assertion]) flagged concerns about sustainability/partitions. PPAN Science Board has formally opposed the move in a letter to STFC/UKRI and is gathering advisory panel/community feedback. The idea of creating a new council (splitting STFC) has been rejected; discussion continues, but many do not think a move to EPSRC is right. Formal community input is being sought via advisory panels.

Governance, EB expertise

• Q: Did the STFC Executive Board fail to anticipate consequences, and does it lack PPAN expertise?
  • A: STFC signalled risks last year; allocations were only known in December. STFC had already applied ~15% mitigations in anticipation of flat cash and construction pressures; the outcome was worse than hoped. There is a plan to restructure EB after the current crisis phase.

Timelines, spending plans, and immediate pressures

• Q: When will spending plans for 2027/28 be finalized?
  • A: Modelling is ongoing and depends on decisions within PPAN and STFC-wide changes  The Science Board report is due to STFC Council on the 9th June. Some STFC internal savings cannot be achieved immediately; additional short-term funds will be sought from UKRI (this year and next).

Community sentiment and next steps

• Q: How concerned is the community?
  • A: Strong, widespread concern recorded. Further town hall next Wednesday (29 April, 11:00–12:45). Unanswered questions will roll forward; written Q&A can be provided. Science Board will complete scenarios; international review and consultations will follow.