It was a sunny morning here in London, all the better to lift the moods of the research council chiefs called before House of Commons select committee on science and technology.

The two-hour hearing covered a lot of familiar ground for those of us who have covered the British budget crunch recently. The word “challenging” came up a lot, especially when talking about the sinking capital budgets of the research councils. In December, we learned that, although core funding would be protected, capital was set to be cut some 40% from its present level of £873 million (US$1.4 billion). That cut means less money for facilities around the country, and less money for international collaborations like CERN and the European Southern Observatory.

It was clear from today’s hearing that not everyone would be affected equally by the coming capital crunch: David Delpy of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and Rick Rylance of the Arts and Humanities Research Council both had comparatively little to worry about—most of their money is spent on grants and projects rather than infrastructure.

By contrast Keith Mason, head of the Science and Technologies Facilities Council (STFC), and Alan Thorpe of the Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), had a lot to worry about. For Mason, the cuts mean less money for international subscriptions to things like the Gemini Telescope, and fewer operating days at the ISIS neutron source at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire. Alan Thorpe, on the other hand, has to worry about finishing a new research ship and somehow coming up with funds for other international projects in ocean and atmospheric monitoring.

To me, Thorpe’s comments were the most ominous. The budget at NERC is tight, and the council may have to dip into grant money if it wants to fund its new projects. “There will be difficulties and we’re going to have to prioritise very carefully to minimise the damage,” he told the committee. (By contrast, the STFC has already come up with a plan to manage cuts to its capital budget).

The committee also grilled the participants on the Haldane principle, and the growing demand for economic payback from fundamental research. On this last point, David Delpy’s response to a question from committee chair Andrew Miller was particularly interesting. Miller asked about the EPSRC’s move from being a “funder” to a “sponsor” of research.

“We’ll be working much more closely with the community in describing what we want from the community and helping them identify steps along the way where we can intervene with partners,” Delpy said. Specifically, he envisions the EPSRC intervening to provide development funding for research that could be applied. That funding will likely come from other sources, like the Technology Strategy Board or charities such as the Wellcome Trust.

The research councils are working to finalize their budget plans in the coming months, so there should be more to come.