The Treasury is privately planning to claw back a significant proportion of the science funding that it committed in its much-vaunted ten-year review of science last summer, The Times Higher has learnt.
Last July, Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, announced an unprecedented doubling of the science budget over ten years, with government spending rising by 5.75 per cent a year over the decade beginning 2005-06.
But less than a year on, Treasury insiders have admitted the department no longer feels able or willing to keep to this pledge.
A senior source with close links to the Treasury told The Times Higher that the Government was now describing the 5.75 per cent increase as a target it might "move towards", and that the commitment was likely to be slashed dramatically.
The source said: "They are planning a considerable reduction in investment. It is terrible."
The news will come as a major blow to the science community, which had been relying on a big injection of cash to provide a sustainable environment for research.
The commitment was intended to enable the UK to compete with nations such as the US in the science spending stakes for the first time.
Scientists close to the Government are speculating that the Treasury might be reacting to pressing financial demands such as debt relief in Africa as well as the prospect of economic downturn.
But there is concern that the Government will play up industry's failure to increase spending on research and development.
The Treasury insider said: "It does not look like there is going to be a sudden surge in business research and development. That will give them the excuse they need to back away from their commitment because it was always presented as a partnership with industry."
But any attempt to blame industry for a lack of government commitment is likely to be inflammatory.
A high-level figure in the pharmaceutical industry, who asked not to be named, said: "If they are cutting back already in the next spending review, this will be clear to all. You can't make these decisions one year into a ten-year plan. It is far too early to judge industry investment."
A research council source said that council chief executives had privately voiced concern that the Government might use "smoke and mirrors" to make it appear that it was keeping to its funding commitments while diverting money elsewhere.
Martin Taylor, vice-president of the Royal Society, warned: "While the Government has no direct control over private expenditure, any attempt to backslide on its target during the next spending review would have serious consequences for the UK's competitiveness."
He added: "As both the Prime Minister and Chancellor have acknowledged, the science base is the bedrock of the UK's economy."
Richard Joyner, chair of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, said:
"People will be very shocked if this happens. The science strategy has the status of a manifesto commitment. If we were to find the Government was to go back on this so soon after the election, we would be extremely concerned."
A spokesperson for the Treasury said: "Our position remains precisely as it was in the ten-year science framework. Our ambition is that overall levels of spending on research and development will reach 2.5 per cent of GDP."