These events come at a time when the UK science budget has been steadily increasing - up 14 per cent in real terms since 1997 and increasing 10 per cent year on year as a result of the 2002 Spending Review - it will reach £2.9 billion by 2005-6. It is no wonder charges of mismanagement of funds are bound to be politically sensitive. Ending her foreword justifying such spending increases, trade and industry secretary Patricia Hewitt vowed that "where science is concerned, this government means business".

If the country is serious about becoming the "scientific hub of the world", as a government white paper puts it, then how the money is spent must be at least as important as how much is spent. That is why the government last year established "Research Councils UK" with an overall coordinating role. That is why the criticisms have hit home.

The MRC is the UK's largest public funder of biomedical research. One of seven research councils, it focuses over £400 million of expenditure on research to: "Promote research into all areas of medical and related science with the aims of improving the health and quality of life of the UK public and contributing to the wealth of the nation."

On March 25, the Commons Science and Technology Committee released a report on the MRC that accused it of "financial mismanagement", "inconsistent and inadequate communications", and - perhaps worst of all for a scientific body - supporting "politically driven" projects at the expense of projects recommended through "a standard process of peer review".

The report alleges that the management of the MRC has grown distant from scientists. Ian Gibson MP, chair of the committee and a former scientist himself, describes the MRC as run by a "small London-based clique who fail to understand what people out in the community think".

As a partial consequence of this, the report continues, money has been diverted away from "top quality grant proposals" towards expensive long-term projects of questionable worth.

The MRC immediately declared itself "deeply disappointed" with the report and implicitly denied all charges. Professor Cotgreave, who submitted evidence to the committee as director of Save British Science, categorised the MRC reaction as a "knee-jerk response".

The question is what the government will do in response to the criticisms contained in the report and the connected furore over the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR). Its response is expected imminently and early indications suggest that it is not about to wholeheartedly embrace the report's findings.

Located in Mill Hill, North London, NIMR is the MRC's biggest research centre with over 700 scientists employed there. The Forward Investment Strategy proposes to move NIMR to Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge. However an official review of NIMR only three years earlier rated the centre as "excellent" and proclaimed the "paramount importance of preserving the integrity of the Institute". The council appears to have done an about-turn.

While the case for and against the proposal is complex and requires a more in-depth analysis than possible in the current context, the process by which the consultation was formulated seems indicative of the "inconsistent and inadequate communications" attacked in the committee report. Presented in its final form to the NIMR on March 31, the consultation period ended only six weeks later.

An open letter from senior scientists at the NIMR condemned the proposal as "ill-conceived" and argued that it came "without any proper form of consultation". It continued "it is hard to resist the conclusion that the lack of communication and haste were deliberate policy rather than accidental mismanagement".

Labour's Andrew Dismore, whose constituency contains Mill Hill, reiterated the point, saying "in a proper consultation, the MRC should be upfront about a decision such as this, which clearly it was not".

Demonstrating their active interest in the MRC, the Science and Technology Committee are keen to follow up their report on the funding body with further evidence sessions on the closure of NIMR.

There is a need, both within Westminster and within the MRC, to address the concerns expressed in the report and highlighted in the proposed closure of NIMR. At the very least, the confidence of the MRC's own scientists in their funding body has been dented.

One hope is that a "change of face" will help stabilise matters. Coming to the end of his tenure in October, Professor Radda will be replaced by Professor Colin Blakemore, head of the MRC's Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience in Oxford.

Described by a critical scientist as a "fortuitous appointment", Professor Blakemore has been lauded as a fine communicator, winning an award for furthering public engagement with science.

If Britain is to become "the scientific hub of the world", he will need all his talents to defuse this row and put the MRC back on the right course. The government response to the criticisms is awaited with interest by many.