Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
PROFESSOR KEITH
MASON
18 JANUARY 2006
Q1 Chairman: Thank you very much indeed,
Professor Keith Mason. I will call you Keith, as we have met informally
before, if that is okay of course?
Professor Mason: Absolutely. I
am an informal sort of a chap.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed,
and what exciting times you lead. You have only been in the job
a few months and suddenly we are going to Mars and it is all down
to you, sir. We are very impressed indeed, but we do congratulate
you on your appointment, we are delighted that you are in front
of us and can we say that the aim of this session is really to
get to know you and indeed to find out a little bit about your
thoughts. We do not publish a report on this particular session,
but every word you say will be written down and could be used
in evidence, as they say. I am going to ask my colleague, Adam
Afriyie, to begin.
Q2 Adam Afriyie: Thank you very much,
and good morning. I will call you Professor Mason because I do
not know you quite so well. Welcome to your new job. You have
said that there are many things that have frustrated you for so
long and now, as chief executive, you can finally do something
about them. What would be on the top of your list of things to
do?
Professor Mason: As the Chairman
has said we live in very exciting times and times of great potential
for the future. We are on the verge of opening up the Large Hadron
Collider and perhaps solving the mystery of mass; we are going
to Mars as has already been mentioned, looking for life on Mars;
we are probably going to measure gravitational waves for the first
time, opening up a whole new area of astronomy, and at the same
time the world is thinking about what the next step ought to be.
We are talking in the PPARC area about world facilities, so during
my term of office what I would like to do is essentially develop
the UK as a centre of excellence in this sort of science. That
means playing with the big boys, being at the centre of things,
having the UK attract the best minds, the best ideas so that we
can actually do fantastic new science, but also benefit from the
spin-offs that occur in terms of intellectual property, technology
and the economic benefits of this sort of cutting edge activity.
There are three things that are at the top of my agenda really.
Firstly, we need to reshape physics within the UK because we are
playing on a world stage, we have to be competitive on a world
stage, and I think many universities in the UK realise this and
are already moving in that way across the whole gamut of science.
My job in PPARC is to make sure that PPARC is in the centre of
that activity so that we can develop centres of excellence within
the UK that can compete within the world. The second thing is
that most of our business within PPARC is engaged with international
co-operation, we are part of our international organisations which
are necessary in order to do these large projects. The UK needs
to have a strong voice in those international organisations. We
need to be at the centre there, we need to make sure that the
UK agenda is heard and we need to make sure that PPARC acts as
an advocate for the UK in these international organisations. These
are European focused organisations by and large—CERN, ESO,
ESA—and we need to make sure that those organisations do
take a global view and not a European view because we are now
in a global environment. The third thing is that we need to benefit
from the work that we do—this is the knowledge transfer
agenda essentially—and I think we have done very well in
reaping those benefits, but we can do better and we need to organise
ourselves, recognise that this is an integral part of what we
should be about rather than an add-on, make sure we build it in
from the start and actually get the huge benefits that come with
working at the cutting edge.
Q3 Adam Afriyie: Your three goals are
reshaping the area in the UK, international organisations co-operating
and the UK taking the lead and then reaping some of the benefits
for Britain of those advances.
Professor Mason: Yes.
Q4 Adam Afriyie: Why have those things
not been achieved to the extent you would like so far?
Professor Mason: The world is
changing. We are living in an evolving situation, so I do not
think we have been remiss in the past but we need to keep up with
the evolution of the rest of the world; we need to remain competitive.
This move to globalisation in PPARC science is something that
has been happening over the last decade and will accelerate in
future. We cannot just sit back and let it happen, we have to
make sure that we are ready and waiting and prepared for it and
ahead of the game rather than catching up. Again, the knowledge
transfer agenda is something that I know you are looking at and
we have been looking at as well. Somehow the UK has perhaps not
done this as well as other nations, perhaps, but we can certainly
all do that better and, again, it is a matter of recognising that
we do not live in ivory towers, that PPARC is not just engaged
with pure science and forgets about the rest of the world but
also looks at the consequences of what it is doing and advertises
the consequences of what it is doing so that other people can
benefit. It is making those links and making those links work
better which is the key to actually improving the situation.
Q5 Adam Afriyie: You have a challenge
to meet the priorities you have set yourself; do you see any other
challenges over the next four years, maybe in terms of organisation
or maybe in terms of refocusing what is happening at the moment
or taking a look at the strategic plan?
Professor Mason: There are a number
of challenges that flow down from those top level objectives.
For example, looking at my own organisation, PPARC, it is a very
capable set of people. Since I have been inside the organisation
I am even more impressed with the job that they do but in order
to remain competitive with the rest of the world one of the things
I want to do is introduce more technical expertise within PPARC,
because that is basically what we have to deal with with our international
partners. Organisations like CNES, for example, have that embedded
within them and unless we can fire with similar ammunition we
will lose out, so we need to build up that sort of capability.
The other challenge that flows down is to look at our programme
very objectively and to keep tilling the ground; we need to make
sure we are prepared for the new opportunities that come up and
of course we have to do that within a limited budget, so inevitably
we have to make room for the new activities and we have to be
quite hard-nosed about, if necessary, shutting down existing activities
that are perhaps—we are not doing anything that is not productive—on
the start of the decline in order to invest in new things.
Q6 Adam Afriyie: Not to put you too much
on the spot, but have you identified any areas where you have
had concerns like that or you see there is a challenge from perhaps
shutting down—
Professor Mason: One of the things
I have instigated since being in the job is something we call
a programmatic review and we have a science committee that advises
across the whole programme. I have instigated a process which
will occur every two years now to take a very strong, hard look
at what we are doing and prioritise the various areas. We are
midway through that exercise. What is coming out of it actually
is that, as I said before, we are not doing anything that is not
front rank, so that means that if we want to make room for new
things we have to take really tough decisions.
Q7 Adam Afriyie: Are you happy with the
priorities you have inherited in the Strategic Plan that takes
us to 2008? Are you comfortable with those priorities or are you
at a stage now to say which priorities you would like to see changed
perhaps?
Professor Mason: The Strategic
Plan focuses on the future and we are engaged in programmes that
will last 10 to 20 years, so they are not going to change very
rapidly. I of course was a member of PPARC Council prior to taking
this job so I was involved in producing those priorities and,
by and large, I think they are spot on. We continually need to
be refocusing, of course, as the world situation changes, but
by and large I am happy with them.
Adam Afriyie: Thank you very much indeed.
Q8 Chairman: You talked about building
a technical capacity; how are you going to go about doing that?
Professor Mason: There are a number
of things we can do. First of all, we have many examples of where
PPARC science activities have led to benefits elsewhere. If you
have been through Heathrow Airport recently then you will see
they are trialling body scanning machines to improve security.
That is technology that came from the astronomy programme, that
was technology that was developed in order to image planets and
now we can use it for what is now called homeland security. This
is an example of the sort of benefit that has always been there.
Some of it has been exploited, I think more could, and one of
the issues that we need to address is to advertise what we have
more effectively. If industry does not know that something exists
they cannot exploit it.
Q9 Chairman: I misunderstood what you
meant by technical capacity. I am going to come on to knowledge
transfer later.
Professor Mason: You mean within
PPARC, I am sorry.
Q10 Chairman: You said you are going
to have to build technical capacity in order to really move forward
and I did not quite know what you meant by that.
Professor Mason: Essentially what
I am talking about is on-the-ground skills in project management
specifically. Within PPARC we have very good administrators, very
good programme managers, very good financial people, but in the
past we have relied on external expertise for the technical side,
so if we want to engage in a technical discussion with our counterparts
we are at a disadvantage, so I want to bring that into the organisation
so that we have the experts on hand and can have a consistent
view across it.
Q11 Chairman: I misunderstood that. We
would certainly as a Committee like to congratulate you on winning
further funding for the Aurora project from Government. The last
time we met at the Treasury it was slightly in the balance, though
it did seem to be in the bag, if you do not mind me saying so,
at that time—there was a lot of champagne flowing. Did you
expect the Government to put forward the whole £74 million?
Professor Mason: That is what
we recommended that they do and we won the arguments, I think.
The reasons that we advocated that is that we have now gone into
Aurora as the second largest contributor, which means that we
will be much better placed to win key roles within the organisation
and therefore maximise the benefits. Had we gone in at less than
the full amount then that would have severely eroded our ability
to benefit from the great things that we can do with it.
Q12 Chairman: Where is the money coming
from? Is it coming from the Treasury, is it coming from the Office
of Science and Technology, is it coming from other science projects,
where is it coming from? Is it new money in other words?
Professor Mason: There is new
money from the last Spending Review; £40 million has gone
in to support the programme up until 2007 when we get the next
Spending Review. Beyond that we have a planning provision for
the money that we need, but of course we have to make that case
within the Spending Review context.
Q13 Chairman: This is what worries me
and, to be honest, it worries the Committee, that there is some
secure funding roughly until 2009, but thereafter there is real
uncertainty. The Chancellor tells us that it is going to be very
difficult at the next spending round and perhaps we cannot expect
the same level of funding support for science and technology which,
to be fair, has been very generous over the last two comprehensive
Spending Reviews. How essential is it that you get a long term
commitment to the Aurora project rather than working on these
relatively short term cycles?
Professor Mason: It is absolutely
essential, you cannot do a programme like this unless you know
how much money is in the pot and you can plan it properly, otherwise
you risk not reaping the benefit. This is a perennial problem,
of course, you need to make that long term commitment to do these
long term programmes, but virtually every country has a shorter
approval cycle than that. All I can say is, yes, it does depend
on making a strong case at the next Spending Review and beyond
that, at subsequent Spending Reviews. We have a very strong case
to make is what I would say, so I am very hopeful that we can
be compelling in the need for doing this. If we do not get new
resources, of course, we will have to take very hard decisions
with regard to our existing PPARC programmes and the place that
Aurora has within those.
Q14 Chairman: Do you regard human exploration
as an essential part of Britain's contribution, or could you in
fact bypass that and allow others to simply concentrate on that
area and just deal with, if you like, the robotic aspects?
Professor Mason: There is no element
of human exploration in the part of the Aurora programme that
PPARC is contributing to, so we are only contributing to the robotic
exploration element of that. In fact, within the current ESA programme
there is only a very minor part that is focused on human exploration
and that is a study for a possible crew transfer vehicle alongside
the Russians and the Japanese. For the next several years I do
not think human exploration is really going to figure highly.
There was a report from the Royal Astronomical Society recently,
which you probably have seen, looking at the potential requirements
or not of human spaceflight, and I think that actually is a very
welcome report because, for the first time, it lays out an adult
debate about whether we need humans in space. There may well be
scientific goals for the far distant future like deep drilling
into the moon, for example, to find out the origin and scientific
goals that will require humans, but what we need to do is to look
at the scientific case, compare it against the other science that
we want to do in terms of value for money and also scientific
impact, and then you can make an educated decision as to whether
the investment in human spaceflight is worth it or not. Right
now we have not had that debate and we are not, but it is something
that we should do so that we can be prepared for the future if
that is the way the future turns out.
Q15 Chairman: You feel it is something
of a distraction though to the main objectives of what PPARC and
indeed our European partners are trying to do with Aurora.
Professor Mason: It is a potential
distraction; it is not an actual distraction. When the Aurora
programme started there were a lot of warm words about human spaceflight
and the like, but the UK took a strong line that we should focus
first of all on robotic development. That line has been echoed
now by most of our other partners and, in fact, we won the day
on that agenda and the agenda we signed up to is very heavily
focused on robotic activity.
Q16 Chairman: I would just like your
opinion on this. There is a slight contradiction for me of saying
that those who put the most money in, therefore get if you like
the largest slice of action as far as the programme is concerned,
irrespective of whether they are best placed to deliver that part
of the programme. Do you have a view on that?
Professor Mason: There is a danger
in that.
Q17 Chairman: Is it a frustration?
Professor Mason: There is a potential
danger in that, but in practice what happens is that we do a lot
of preparatory work, so before we actually signed up for Aurora
there was a study phase that we contributed to and we had been,
for example, very active in just formulating what Aurora should
look like and identifying where the expertise is to do it. I do
not think in practice, certainly in this particular case, we will
be in a situation where people who are paying the money cannot
actually deliver the goods, and if we were we would have to take
corrective action. It is a self-correcting process, the way we
have organised it. The major contributors are Italy and they clearly
have technical capabilities. They put the investment into developing
the capabilities they want to provide and, similarly, the UK has
and the other major partners have. I am very confident that that
situation will not arise in Aurora.
Q18 Chairman: Would there be any circumstances
in which you would recommend that we actually withdraw from the
project?
Professor Mason: There could well
be, yes, and we have actually insisted that such a milestone is
built into the programme. There is a lot of preparatory work that
has been done, but we are still in a definition phase. Over the
next year or 18 months we will do some very hard engineering to
determine whether our aspirations can be realised within the technical
limitations of the mission and also the financial limitations
of the mission. We have insisted that there is a review at that
stage that says "Okay, is this what we wanted?" If it
is not, we have the option to withdraw.
Q19 Mr Flello: Just sticking with Aurora
for a few moments, you have talked about what you see from the
project, but why did PPARC push so hard for funding for Aurora
in the first place? What was the objective behind it?
Professor Mason: You have to go
back to realise that our view of Mars has really been revolutionised
over the last decade. The earliest probes that went there suggested
that Mars was rather a dead, boring, nothing happening sort of
a place. In contrast, in recent times we have now superb imaging
from the European Mars Express, for example, fantastic 3D images.
It is quite clear from the evidence that has been carried from
that and from the US efforts that Mars in the dim and distant
past had a thick atmosphere and surface water, and that it was
very much more earth-like than it appears to be now. We now know
that there is volcanic activity continuing on Mars, there is evidence
from methane, and we have now seen images of surface ice which
10 years ago had been regarded as science fiction. There is also
evidence for large amounts of sub-surface water. Mars is therefore
an incredibly important place to study, both to see climate change
in action, to understand how it got to where it is today from
a situation where it was potentially much more earth-like, and
also the big question is whether life has ever evolved beyond
our own planet. Given the conditions that existed on Mars in the
past it is quite possible that life would have developed there.
We also have learnt in the last 10 years that life is a lot more
resilient than we thought it was, we have discovered life in very
hostile environments on the earth, it can persist, so one of the
exciting things about the Exo-Mars project that we have signed
up to is that we will be able to drill below the surface. The
surface layers of Mars are bathed in UV radiation so the previous
attempts have not shown any evidence of life—that is perhaps
not surprising since it has been sterilised. If you go down a
couple of metres, however, you are protected, so that would be
the place to actually make the first searches, either for existing
life or, more likely, for evidence that life did evolve in the
past. That would have profound implications for society as a whole,
so it is a very important scientific area.
| 
