So, the wait is over, the Wakeham review is finally out! For those of you who don’t hang on the every work of RCUK, this was a review into the so-called STFC funding crisis, which led to such brilliant headlines as Boffins slashed in big-science budget blunder bloodbath (thanks to the Register for that one!), accompanied by pictures of the shiny new Diamond synchrotron. Now we’re back again, only this time accompanied by headlines like UK physics in good health – study and, rather more mundanely, Independent panel passes judgement on UK physics.

The link to Diamond is that STFC came into being as part of a merger between the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) and the CCLRC (too clumsy to spell out that acronym!) who looked after the big research facilities, including Diamond. When STFC announced budget cuts earlier in the year, it was reported in the media as a bun-fight between the particle physics and astronomy community and the national facilities, and Diamond was, inaccurately, named as one of the causes for the funding deficit.

I think that element of conflict was the main reason that what was essentially a rather dull science policy decision garnered all the press attention that it did. That, and a few enterprising astronomers who did an excellent job promoting their cause and documenting the process. The report does conclude that the saga led to the UK’s reputation in physics being damaged, by "…the furore that was generated by the manner, timescale of changes and announcement of recent STFC funding decisions,”. I think that is a bit disingenuous. I don’t think the crisis was handled particularly well, but the media coverage pitching it as a fight within the physics community was damaging in its own right. Science is by nature competitive, but this dispute came across as petty infighting rather than healthy competition, which doesn’t help when pitching for an overall increase to the UK science budget.

Let’s hope that Martin Rees has it right, “Government funding for science has been positive, and this review serves as a good reminder that to deliver on the potential of science the government must maintain that support.”