The panel of scientists that earmarked the Jodrell Bank observatory for closure decided that projects closer to their own hearts should be given a higher priority.

Ten scientists sat on the panel that assessed the e-Merlin project at Jodrell Bank as being of low priority, when £80 million in cuts are sought.

At least ten projects that are closely connected to the panel members, however, were given either high or high-medium priority, virtually guaranteeing that their funding continues, The Times has learnt.

Only one project with which a panel member, Professor Yvonne Elsworth, of the University of Birmingham, was closely connected was given the lowest rating. One scientist whose field of astronomy lost out heavily in the assessment process described the imbalance as a statistical impossibility if purely random factors were operating.

Scientists are angry that the Government has reduced their funding by £80 million. This grievance has been heightened by the process used by the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) to assess astronomy and physics projects. Some fields had experts on the panel but others, such as astronomy theory, lacked specialists to champion their causes.

Researchers were anxious to avoid accusing the panel of impropriety but were concerned that members had given each other an easy ride when debating the merits of each project. A leading scientist who was critical of the system said: “Although each member must leave the room during any discussion of his own projects, the other members will find it difficult to look him in the eye on his return if they have just panned his life’s work. So these projects inevitably get an easier ride.”

Members of the STFC have been trying to identify where to make the cuts because the Government left them with a big deficit after the merger of two separate funding bodies. Scientists believe that the deficit damages Britain’s reputation in several fields of astronomy. The anger has been directed at the process of issuing priorities and the lack of representation of many fields of astronomy on the STFC. Another senior scientist said: “There is a lot of unhappiness at the way this was done.” The panel was also unhappy about the need to make cuts and stated that it “considers it an outrage that it is forced into a position where it will recommend withdrawal of previously peer-reviewed and announced grants to universities for excellent science”.

Professor Paul Crowther, of Sheffield University, said panel members had done the best they could. But he added: “There is a very strong correlation between the highly rated projects and the people on the panel.” He was particularly perplexed that projects faced being abandoned even though they had received investment and were about to go into operation.

Among them was e-Merlin, which could be dismantled to save £2.5 million in annual running costs, even though £8 million has been spent upgrading it. Comprising a network of dishes picking up signals from space, it was expected to go into operation next year as Britain’s national radiotelescope facility. If the project is abandoned, the closure of the Jodrell Bank observatory in Cheshire is expected to follow because much of its work depends on e-Merlin.

Professor Walter Gear, of Cardiff University, was chairman of the panel, which assessed more than 70 projects. He denied that members indulged in any favouritism. “I stand by this process absolutely. I completely refute any suggestion of bias or prejudice,” he said. “There a very strict protocol that was followed to the letter. There was absolutely no question of undue influence being applied. I think the whole thing was done in an open and completely fair manner.”

He said that he and members of the panel shared the dismay and anger among scientists that £80 million worth of projects should lose out.

None of the projects that had to be assessed was unimportant, he said, and the funding cuts had damaged trust between universities and the research council. “The situation was presented to us by the executive. We decided that rather than throw up our hands and let someone else do it, we would do the best job we could to see sensible science-based decisions were made, not random ones,” he said.

Pet projects

Panel members and the priority levels awarded to projects

Professor Walter Gear University of Cardiff JCMT and Scuba-2: The James Clerk Maxwell Telescope in Hawaii is used to study the solar system. Scuba-2 is a huge camera that will detect heat emitted from the formation of stars — high priority Clover: Intended to measure polarisation within the cosmic microwave background — medium-high priority Herschel: A space telescope built to pick up infrared signals — medium-high priority

Professor Mike Bode Liverpool John Moores University Liverpool telescope: Remote- control telescope in the Canary Islands — medium-high priority

Professor Jordan Nash Cern (European Organisation for Nuclear Research) and Imperial College London The Large Hadron Collider particle accelerator — medium-high priority The Compact Muon Solenoid, which aims to detect the Higgs bosun — high priority

Dave Barnes Aberystwyth University ExoMars: A project to land robotic equipment on Mars — medium-high priority

Jon Butterworth University College London Atlas: A particle physics experiment that scientists hope will explain dark matter — high priority

Sheila Rowan Glasgow University GEO 600: A gravitational wave detector — high priority The next- generation Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory — high priority

Yvonne Elsworth University of Birmingham BiSON: The Birmingham Solar Oscillations Network of observatories — lower priority

Times Recommends

• Charles blazes trail as sun king
• Thalidomiders win payout 50 years on
• Libel gag on talk of 'medical hurricane'