If the UK’s position in quantum computing is indeed a success story of long-term investment in fundamental science, as Prof Charlotte Deane argues (Letters, 25 March), it makes the current UK Research and Innovation approach, particularly to Science and Technology Facilities Council funding, all the more perplexing.
No one disputes the need for prioritisation. The community understands that choices must be made and supports doing so responsibly. But what is happening now is neither measured nor strategic. Reforms are being rushed through without clarity or proper consultation. Programmes such as the Quantum Technologies for Fundamental Physics initiative make this concrete. QTFP was a clear success, rigorously reviewed and widely recognised for linking fundamental science to emerging technologies. Its abrupt discontinuation has already resulted in the loss of dozens of early-career researchers trained in a strategically important area. Yet no vision has been set out for what replaces it; nor has there been any meaningful consultation on how such crucial cross-disciplinary programmes should be organised.
A similar disconnect is emerging in artificial intelligence. Many of the techniques now driving impact were developed and deployed in fundamental research communities. Particle physics was an early adopter of machine learning, well before the current boom. Undermining that base risks cutting off the pipeline of ideas and skills that the wider economy depends on.
If we are serious about long-term leadership, prioritisation must be done with care, transparency and a credible plan for sustaining the full ecosystem, from fundamental science through to application.
Prof Ruben Saakyan
University College London; chair, STFC particle physics advisory panel
Dr Simon Williams (Letters, 19 March) says that the UK is cutting support for fundamental research in particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics (PPAN) and says “Ambition in quantum is welcome, but it cannot succeed without sustained investment in people and fundamental science. If the UK wants to lead in the technologies of the future, it must also protect the research base that makes them possible.”
In her response to him, Prof Charlotte Deane says: “He is correct on that point, but wrong to say that UK’s investment plans risk losing quantum computing talent.”
As chair of the 2025 UK Quantum Skills Taskforce, I welcome the substantial UK government investment that Prof Deane highlights. However, a finding of the taskforce report is: “There is a growing demand for a broader range of skills, particularly engineering and technical skills across a broad range of disciplines. Most of these roles will not require deep expertise in quantum physics but will require some form of quantum knowledge or awareness.”
The PPAN area is a training ground for expertise in vacuum engineering, cryogenic engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, software and data skills, and understanding of quantum phenomena. These are exactly the skills in short supply that the UK needs to drive a bright future in quantum computing and quantum technology more broadly. If Peter is robbed to pay Paul, we all end up poorer.
Prof Sheila Rowan
Director, Institute for Gravitational Research, University of Glasgow
