Nerc's grant cut is no way for a council to behave

Many organisations, including funding councils, charities and government departments, put significant sums into research. But one set of funders, the research councils, have responsibilities that run beyond simply paying for research. Their task is to ensure the health of the science for which they are responsible. If areas are neglected, they should encourage their growth; if international opportunities beckon, they should organise UK participation; if there are too few career options in key areas, they must make sure that studentships are available to fill the gaps.

That is why the Natural Environment Research Council's decision that it will not make its summer research grants (page 56) is more than another tale of inadequate funding. It is like a hospital announcing that there will be no more operations this year because it cannot afford surgeons. The result will be important work left unfinished, or not begun, careers ended and opportunities missed. And because Nerc is a world organisation, its inadequate stewardship will also paint the UK as a poor partner in international environmental collaborations, scarcely ideal in the run-up to August's Earth Summit in Johannesburg.

Nerc's management of its financial problems is a useful topic for the House of Commons science committee to consider in more detail. But it also has ramifications for the research councils at large. Denis Noble makes a strong case (page 14) for the large sums of research cash now handled by the funding councils to go to the research councils instead, as part of abolishing the research assessment exercise. But an organisation that lacks basic continuity in its funding stream to researchers is not one that can be offered even more influence than it has already.