Selling Science to Save the Budget: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Welcome to the Budget Pickle

Universities are in a financial pickle. Not a crunchy, artisanal pickle with notes of dill and legacy, more like the sad, vinegar-soggy kind you find lurking behind the milk, wondering if anyone remembers the pre-austerity days. Tuition fees have been frozen for a decade, energy bills have gone full opera, and inflation is doing laps around the quad. The only thing going down is the number of departments still standing.

Physics and chemistry don’t just need a whiteboard and a dream; they need labs, technicians, safety gear, and the kind of infrastructure that doesn’t fit inside a spreadsheet. You can’t teach quantum mechanics in a broom cupboard. You can’t run a chemistry degree with one Bunsen burner and a prayer. Yet here we are, watching management teams play budget Jenga with the foundations of our future.

Student numbers in core sciences are dipping, which makes departments look financially fragile, and in the current climate, fragility is treated like a contagious rash. So, what do universities do? They reach for the fastest fix: merge the department, cut the course, close the lab. It’s a budget triage with a chainsaw.

The Institute of Physics recently warned that over a quarter of UK physics departments could vanish within two years. Not shrink. Not restructure. Vanish. Chemistry’s already been ghosted. Hull shut down its entire department, and Aston quietly axed its chemistry BSc like it was a forgotten gym membership.

Physics-powered industries account for around 11% of UK GDP. Chemistry underpins everything from pharmaceuticals to energy to materials science. Cutting these subjects isn’t just a loss for academia, it’s a slow bleed for the economy. It’s like selling off your lungs because breathing is expensive.

Schools, hospitals, and regional industries rely on graduates, research partnerships, and outreach programmes. When a department closes, it’s not just a course that disappears; it’s a pipeline, a presence, a quiet kind of service that never makes the headlines but always matters. The chemist who helps the local school run its science fair. The physicist who mentors the next generation of engineers. The lab that quietly supports the hospital’s diagnostics. Gone.

Defence, AI, quantum tech, nuclear energy, and green innovation all depend on physics and chemistry expertise. You can’t build a resilient future on vibes alone. You need scientists. Preferably, those who haven’t had their degree course cancelled mid-application while the university launches a new strategy.

When departments close, students in those regions lose the chance to study locally. That deepens geographic inequality and sends a clear message: if you don’t live near a surviving science faculty, tough luck. It’s not just unfair. It’s structurally cruel. And it turns education from a public good into a postcode lottery.

As one report put it, and quite rightly, this isn’t just a short-term financial fix. It’s a long-term failure to recognise the role science plays in driving innovation, economic development, and societal progress. Sure, you’ll be warm for a bit. But the house won’t last the winter.

Universities are supposed to be anchors of knowledge and service. When they cut fundamental sciences, they’re not just trimming budgets; they’re hollowing out their purpose. Communities lose not just degrees, but the quiet, everyday benefits of having chemists and physicists nearby. The ones who mentor school kids, partner with local industries, and occasionally save the world.

Selling off science to balance the books is like flogging your compass because the map looks expensive. It might feel clever in the moment. But it leaves you lost, cold, and wondering why the future stopped showing up.

Explore more with us:

• Browse Spiralmore collections
• Read our Informal Blog for relaxed insights
• Discover Deconvolution and see what’s happening
• Visit Gwenin for a curated selection of frameworks