If UK researchers thought they would catch a sneak glimpse of June’s hotly anticipated multi-year spending plan for science in today’s 2013 budget, they were disappointed. In his budget speech, Chancellor George Osborne gave a tantalizing hint that “existing protections” would apply for future spending — meaning that research budgets may be left undamaged — but made no specific mention of science.

The only announcement that might affect cash for research this year was indirect: a 1% cut from the spends of many ministerial departments, including that responsible for science, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. This will not directly affect research grant money, but departments might make savings by cutting their own research spending.

And so the budget leaves British science funding largely where it was: that is to say, eroding slowly up to 2014–15. To summarize the events of the past four years: in the 2010 four-year spending plan, although it promised to protect science grant money, the government slashed funding for research infrastructure. Since then, it has been slowly re-injecting the lost cash, in successive annual budgets announcing money for areas such as graphene, synthetic biology, energy storage and advanced materials.

Osborne seemed to have rediscovered a love for science as an economic driver — and he expressed that love by giving back some of what had been cut. (But not quite all — planned spending for grants and associated infrastructure in 2014–15 is still some 7% lower than in 2010–11, and that does not include further losses from inflation, according to analysis from the London-based Campaign for Science and Engineering.)

New initiatives that were mentioned today related to the more commercial end of science, something that the UK has historically been bad at encouraging. Tax credits for research and development were increased, and Osborne said that he would expand the Small Business Research Initiative, in which businesses compete to procure government contracts. (It’s a mimic of the US Small Business Innovation Research programme.)

Researchers waiting for the 26 June multi-year budget might have been excited that Osborne did say that there would be extra capital spending from 2015–16, although nothing was specifically promised for science. Life sciences in particular might benefit, as this is one of 11 key industrial areas for which an extra £1.6 billion (US$ 2.4 billion) has been promised over the next 7 years.

The Guardian has assembled a cohort of experts with some useful overviews on what the budget means for science — broadly calling for a longer-term vision on investment in science and innovation than is shown in this budget.