London

UK researchers will find more money in the coffers of those funding them over the next three years, thanks to spending plans announced by the government on 12 July.

Hand out: Gordon Brown announces annual increases in funds for basic grants and university upkeep. Credit: SOURCE: DTI/DFES

The plans call for the country's two main science-funding streams, which cater for basic research grants and university running costs, to be boosted by 5.8% a year in real terms between 2004–05 and 2007–08. That does not quite match the 10% annual increases called for in the previous 2002 spending review (see Nature 418, 261; 200210.1038/418261a) and seen over the past few years. But it will still take government funding for science and engineering to £5 billion (US$9.3 billion) annually, up from £3.9 billion in 2004–05 (see graph).

The figures, unveiled by the chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown, as part of a ten-year science strategy, were accompanied by a slew of smaller measures that will also find favour among researchers. An extra £80 million over three years has been allocated to help fund salaries associated with basic research grants, for example, easing complaints that these costs were being ignored by funders.

“There is much in this that appears to be genuinely good news for the science community,” says Peter Cotgreave, director of the pressure group Save British Science. More good tidings were supplied by the Wellcome Trust. To coincide with the chancellor's speech, the medical charity has announced that it will invest £1.5 billion (US$2.8 billion) in Britain over the next five years, which will maintain its spending at current levels.

In the long term, Brown says he also hopes to raise combined government and business research and development funding from the current value of 1.9% of gross domestic product to 2.5% by 2014. This ambitious target would bring Britain in line with competitors such as the United States and Germany — which stand at 2.7% and 2.5%, respectively. If this happens, and funding continues to rise at 5.8% over the next decade, the level of basic research grants may double as hoped (see Nature 429, 688; 200410.1038/429688a). But Brown did not spell out which science-funding streams would be favoured under any future increases.

Critics question whether the strategy contains the new ideas needed to achieve this goal. Science-policy experts say that reaching the 2.5% target depends on increased private-sector funding. America's top 700 companies reinvest around 5% of money from sales into research and development, for example, but UK companies spend only half of that.

Yet the strategy focuses instead on boosting existing measures, such as grants to help universities work with industry. “There are no new fiscal measures and that is disappointing” says Cotgreave.

Lack of action on researchers' salaries was the other notable omission from the strategy. PhD stipends will remain frozen in real terms, although they have grown substantially over the past three years. Greater concern centres on pay for academics. It is unclear whether increases to the university-funding stream will be channelled away from infrastructure projects and into improved wages.