An update in the STFC minutes saga

The issuing of a revised version of the STFC December council meeting minutes earlier this year created no small controversy at the time – science committee chair Chi Onwurah said that the only way to describe it was an “extraordinary doctoring” of the record.

An initial set of minutes which described UKRI’s new funding allocations as a “major shift” away from curiosity-driven research were replaced with a version which pointed out that curiosity-driven research would rise over the spending review period.

MPs wrote to the what was then the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to request an explanation of what changes were made and on whose authority – this followed DSIT permanent secretary Emran Mian saying that the issue was “a matter for UKRI” and promising to write with an update.

The government has now responded to the committee’s questions with an explanation from UKRI:

“UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) has explained that it recently reviewed several published Council minutes to ensure that they were accurate, accessible and appropriately reflected discussions and outcomes. This review was not limited to the December 2025 STFC Council minutes.”

On the December minutes specifically, the funder’s view is stated to have been that “the wording originally published did not accurately reflect UKRI’s position on funding for curiosity-driven research.”

The original version read as follows:

“[Staff member] joined the meeting and presented an update on the financial breakdown of UKRI’s allocations using the ‘bucket model’, highlighting a major shift of funding from curiosity-driven research to priority areas and targeted programmes. Legal commitments would be honoured but discretionary funding would be severely reduced.”

This was then amended (twice), arriving at the new version:

“An update was provided on the financial breakdown of UKRI’s allocations using the bucket model. Funding for curiosity driven research in bucket 1 was due to rise slightly over the spending review period. But legacy commitments would fall and funding shift to priority areas and targeted programmes. Legal commitments would be honoured but discretionary funding would be reduced.”

The letter also says that UKRI has acknowledged that “multiple post-publication revisions are not the standard it expects for Council records,” and that it has “strengthened its quality assurance processes for drafting, reviewing and approving minutes prior to publication.”

UK-US pharmaceutical arrangements

Separately, the letter to the committee also responds to MPs’ questions about the trade deal between the USA and the UK on pharmaceuticals, in particular on the cost and expected benefits of the arrangements.

DSIT had been asked for its views on an article published in the British Medical Journal which estimated that the deal would more than double the amount of money the NHS will pay for new medicines over 11 years, and displace resources which could have been invested elsewhere in the health system.

The government’s view, we are told, is that this analysis contains “substantive methodological flaws.” However, these are not spelled out, and the government stands by its decision not to publish a full impact assessment over questions of commercial sensitivities.