The doomsayers predicted we'd fail, but with very little time and a massive effort we scientists have shown that united we really can get results, says Jenny Rohn

Last week, I helped deliver the Science Is Vital petition to Downing Street, attended a lobby of parliament, and was part of a delegation invited to speak with David Willetts about the importance of science funding for the economy. During the intervening period, in the calm before the spending review storm, I have been living in quiet fear of today's announcement. And last night I was genuinely astonished at the news leaked from the Treasury: that cuts to the scientific research budget were to be much less severe than initially indicated. Astonished and, yes, happy.

Twitter was alive with jubilation. This morning I woke to a backlash: we wanted investments, not cuts, people were saying, even though what we lost was far less than the 15% that Julian Huppert MP told us last week would constitute a victory. We should be wary, not pleased. Although I do not dispute the wisdom of these sentiments, I think the tide of public opinion will inevitably continue to shift and resettle today as we struggle to know whether we should be toasting our efforts or sobbing into our pints.

The answer, I suspect, lies somewhere in the middle. I speak now not as the founder or official spokesperson of Science is Vital, but as someone at the coal face of scientific research, as one of these young, not quite "excellent" scientists whose career is threatened by the tightening belt of funding. It is no surprise that our emotions are rollercoastering to such an extent: the campaign has been a long, exhausting trip. We packed into four weeks a number of great achievements that most campaign groups would have been happy to notch up after half a year's efforts.

When I kicked this entire thing off a month ago, I truly was not sure we would have any effect on the government whatsoever. Within hours of tweeting my initial call to arms, someone replied that things like this never work, that it would probably just be a sad cluster of a dozen scientists demonstrating in the rain. Even just before the rally, when we had more than 2,000 people signed up to attend, another person helpfully pointed out that if no one showed up, we'd look ridiculous. And yes, that lonely, rainy scenario kept me awake for more than a few nights in the runup.

To make some sort of difference, though, hefty inertia needs to be overcome. I think it is human nature to despair at turning oil tankers, and to think that ordinary people can't make a difference. It is far easier to criticise than to get off one's seat and at least try to do something. Fortunately, these sorts of inertial types were in the minority, and the vast majority of people who heard our call responded in an overwhelmingly positive way: 33,000 signatures; 2,000 demonstrators, 110 MPs signing our early day motion, hundreds of pieces of news coverage, a packed lobby in parliament. Somewhere in the thick of these successes, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a sly piece in the New Yorker saying that Twitter couldn't start a revolution. I think that most would agree that the Science Is Vital campaign proved him wrong.

For me, the most important thing to remember today is this: by all indications, our message was indeed heard, and heeded far more than we had any reason to expect or hope. Yes, there is no controlled experiment where Science is Vital did not exist, but a number of credible sources have credited the science community's voice for the fact that the announced cuts are less than the 25-40% predicted.

The government's own language suggests that our message became absorbed. David Cameron used the adjective "vital" when talking about science in prime minister's questions last week, and in today's announcement, Osborne said: "Britain is a world leader in scientific research and that is vital to our future economic success."

For this achievement – and make no mistake that it is one – we scientists must allow ourselves a moment of quiet celebration: not that our research funding has not been cut in real terms, or that UK science is still not being funded optimally, but that we were able to come together and make some sort of tangible difference to the outcome.

And perhaps more importantly, we now know, in the face of future threats to science funding, exactly how powerful we can be when we pull together to make our voices heard. In this respect, scientists will never be the same again: we've done the experiment.