Back in 2010, UK science dodged a bullet – sort of.

Following a global recession, the scientific community was warned to expect cuts of up to 40% to the core research budget. We rallied, presenting strong arguments for the role of science in fueling the economy. Afterwards, the £4.6b ring-fencing of these funds announced in the subsequent Autumn Spending Review came as a relief.

But that was a long time ago. Nearly five years later, thanks to the depreciating effect of ongoing inflation – and despite a small boost this financial year – that money doesn’t go nearly as far as it used to. In fact, in the context of a strengthening economy, our overall science spend fell below 0.5% of GDP in 2012 – which is the lowest it’s been in the past 20-odd years, and well below the G8 group of nations average of 0.8%.

The government argues, quite rightly, that it has made up a near-equivalent of the depreciated amount with commitment to ‘capital’ spending. Although such an infusion is obviously a great thing for science, it doesn’t change the fact that without investing in the core budget – which is used to fund the actual experiments, and the scientists and equipment running them – we may soon struggle to maintain our world-leading excellence, or attract and maintain the highly skilled workforce who gather here to make brilliant new discoveries.

Scientists have been feeling the effects of this erosion for some time now: grants are hard to secure, and labs are making do. Yes, we scientists have been doing more with less: but there must be a theoretical minimum beyond which entire systems become dismantled. Such systems could reasonably be expected to take a generation to rebuild.

Last week, Chancellor George Osborne asked government departments to model spending cuts of 25% and 40% by 2019-2020, as a way of making savings of £20bn. These cuts would fall, he said, on any non-ring-fenced areas.

If this is all starting to sound very familiar to you, you’re not alone.

Very unfortunately, we no longer know where science stands with regard to its ring-fenced core budget. The current protection was renewed back in February 2014 to run though to March 2016. After that, there’s a big question mark.

The government, on the face of it, seems to be science-friendly, with repeated remarks about its priority. Science is Vital, the grassroots campaigning group that I chair, recently wrote to Jo Johnson, the new science minister, asking for him to clarify his position on the ring-fence.

But with typical political aplomb, Mr Johnson evaded the question. A few weeks later, his first major speech on science was also silent on the matter.

The current science minister, unlike his predecessors Greg Clark and David Willetts, no longer attends cabinet. This downgrading of position does not necessarily bode well for science’s prominence in the government. Science is Vital has also failed to secure any face time with the new minister – which was more readily available with Mr Willetts.

We know, from our 2010 experiences, that threats of 40% cuts may not materialise if we kick up a fuss. But equally, we’re living in a different Britain: the Conservative government has a majority, and even the opposition are voting for cuts in welfare. Although the economy is in recovery, austerity is still in full swing. It was hard to justify a stay of execution for science in 2010, and it might be even harder today.

However, even the government is acknowledging that science, as an investment, leads to excellent returns: in Mr Johnson’s speech, he quantified that return as at least 20% per annum. If that were a stock portfolio, you’d be thrilled. So slashing it makes little financial sense.

Science also brings cures and solutions, and fosters great technological developments. To invest in science is a win/win situation. On the other hand, the UK will be hard-pressed to remain economically vibrant, competitive and world-leading if a long-term plan of genuine investment in the fundamentals is not set forth and executed.

In his written response to Science is Vital, Johnson assured us that he wants to make the UK the “best place in the world to do science”, and that our science – and scientists - are a “precious resource”.

We sincerely hope that, come the 25 November spending review, the Government will put its money where its mouth is.

Jenny Rohn is a cell biologist at University College London, and Chair of Science is Vital. She writes here in a personal capacity.