Proposals to close the chemistry department at the University of Sussex by senior management are "seriously flawed" and the process has been handled "particularly ineptly," a committee of MPs has warned.

In a damning report, the Commons Science and Technology Committee said financial management had played a role in the declining fortunes of chemistry at Sussex.

It criticised the vice chancellor, Professor Alasdair Smith, for the shrinkage of the chemistry department and said he had made no attempt to replace key staff.

And it said that the university "would be advised to consider whether its future as a serious science university would be sustainable without this department."

The report, entitled Strategic Science Provision In English Universities: A Follow-Up, concluded: "The university's efforts to downplay the part played by financial considerations in the decision to refocus chemistry are at odds with the importance it has attached to the expected income of the department in the next Research Assessment Exercise."

It went on: "Financial management has played a role in the declining fortunes of chemistry at Sussex - historical levels of investment in the department will inevitably have impacted on its attractiveness to both staff and students."

The MPs said it was ultimately up to the university to decide the fate of the department.

They criticised the decision to "refocus" the department, adding: "The idea that chemistry can be replaced with a stand-alone chemical biology department is highly dubious and certainly unsupported by any evidence."

Sussex's chemistry department has a 5 rating nationally - just one down from the top 5* score. But under the proposals, from October 2007, it will no longer accept new chemistry students and will be renamed the Department of Chemical Biology.

The University of Sussex hit back at the report, claiming the committee had "allowed itself to become part of a campaign rather than taking a dispassionate view of the real difficulties". In a statement, the university said: "We do not accept that the university should have proceeded differently in relation to handling its discussions about academic options and plans."

It added that the proposals for the department were presented in 2005 and were approved by the senate and council in December.