MEMORANDUM 31
Submission from Professor John Wood, ex
Chief Executive of the former Council for the Central Laboratories
of the Research Councils (CCLRC)
PERSONAL EVIDENCE
TO THE
SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY SELECT
COMMITTEE'S
INQUIRY INTO
THE INTERNATIONAL
POLICIES AND
ACTIVITIES OF
THE RESEARCH
COUNCIL
CCLRC was merged with PPARC from April 2007
and so I am not able to give a corporate response to the inquiry.
This response is an entirely personal one based on my time as
chief executive of CCLRC over the past six years. It does not
necessarily represent the view of the new STFC.
CCLRC had responsibility for the provision of
light sources (synchrotrons and lasers) and neutrons for UK researchers
and overseas users. In addition, it had major programmes funded
by third parties (mainly other research councils) in the areas
of particle physics, space science and technology, high performance
computing. It had three main centres in the UK; Daresbury Laboratory,
Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory and Chilbolton. In addition, it
held the UK shareholding in the Diamond Light Source (86%), and
in ILL and ESRF both sited in Grenoble. Through its programmes
and facilities CCLRC had extensive international interactions
and the researchers were engaged in undertaking joint research
with other similar laboratories around the world. In some cases
staff may be located at such facilities overseas for several years
when critical experiments were in progress. In addition, many
of the staff acted as advisers to international facilities during
construction and subsequent operation.
A number of bi-lateral arrangements had been
made with international bodies to provide specific facilities.
An example of this is the long term collaboration with Riken in
Japan for muon research on the ISIS facility. Other examples include
the provision of specific pieces of equipment to the CCLRC in
exchange for general access to facilities. Also there is much
loaning of key equipment between collaborating laboratories (eg
key components of the Energy Recovery Linac Project currently
under construction at Daresbury laboratory have been provided
by the Jefferson Laboratory in the USA. They have also provided
invaluable technical advice).
A key aspect of the CCLRC's mission was to develop
strategic advice for government on the potential for further investments
in facilities within its remit whether built in the UK or elsewhere.
It is generally recognised that all new major facilities will
have to be built with international partners in the future because
of their high cost. This involves negotiations that take a number
of years to complete in order to allow all the various interested
countries to finally make a commitment. This is a special problem
for European facilities and does put us at a disadvantage compared
with large countries such as the USA and China who can take unilateral
decisions. It is vital that the UK maintains a constant position
with a professional negotiating team that does not continually
change direction or looses international expertise due to the
movement of critical personnel. It is also clear that such people
need scientific credibility if they are to be taken seriously
elsewhere.
STRENGTHS AND
WEAKNESSES OF
EXISTING RC AND
OSI MECHANISMS.
A key strength is the provision of the large
facilities capital fund that can support a number of projects
over several years. Currently this stands at about £100 million
per year and has remained constant for most of the past six years.
While this fund is very welcome it is not sufficient for the wide
range of activities the UK wishes to be involved in. Some thought
ought to be taken whether this sum should now be increased in
line with the general increase in the Research Council funding.
Capital projects often take several years to arrive at the point
where the full financial commitment becomes clear. Until this
point is reached preliminary research and design studies are necessary
to find technical solutions and to confirm the final design. Groups
from several countries accept to undertake specific work-packages
as part of their commitment. CCLRC did not have any significant
unallocated funds to participate in these or to lead them in the
past. Hence the UK has not attracted any international science
facility to the UK since JET. Early participation can "win""
the high ground.
The NAO report on investment in large scientific
facilities draws attention to the problems of estimating the running
costs at the start of construction. This is a problem for all
countries and early commitment from any country to funding its
share is unrealistic. The approach taken by the ESRF in Grenoble
which allowed countries to make indicative contributions at the
start with a mechanism for paying more if the usage by one country
increases is probably the most appropriate mechanism. The current
issue with the European X-Ray Free Electron Laser (X-FEL) in Germany
is a case where no country is willing to give even an indicative
operating contribution since the full range of its potential when
it is built is unclear and will not become clear until the first
phase is up and running. We know that an increase in light intensity
by nine orders of magnitude beyond existing synchrotron sources
coupled with very short time resolutions is likely to realise
dramatic results in many areas of science. Just which will prove
most fruitful at the start is not possible to predict accurately.
There is also ambiguity as to where key decisions
are made. Ultimately funding for a new large international facility
will come from the financial ministries in the partner countries.
The recent example of the XFEL is an example of the difficulties
faced. Germany originally offered to contribute 60% of the original
capital costs and 50% of the running costs. After two years of
planning based on the original design, no other country has yet
made a firm commitment due to internal procedural problems. The
UK was the first to signify its intention to commit around 12
months ago but no binding commitment has actually been made to
date.
A more concerning example is that of the next
generation spallation neutron source for Europe. Some 18 months
ago I submitted the CCRLC's strategic advice to the minister on
this subject with a private communication of what was needed in
practice for the UK to maintain its leading position in this area.
This was the result of 18 months consultation with the user community
and taking advice from a number of international experts. Subsequently
I kept the minister informed of the international activity especially
with respect to the position of other countries that were beginning
to firm up their offers to host such a facility. It was widely
expected that the UK would declare its position to offer to host
the next facility and considerable support was received in private
discussions from a number of the key countries in Europe. Now
that no statement has been officially made by the UK two other
countries have made offers to host it. One, Spain, has stated
that it will put up 50% of the capital costs taken from its EU
structural funds. Given this situation, any offer from the UK
will have to be attractive enough to other countries. This will
now be difficult to achieve. The key question is how such an offer
can be made in a timely way within the UK system. CCLRC at a meeting
of its Council did declare that it would like to host the facility
at the Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory. However, it could not make
any statement that the funds would be available.
The key issue concerns projects in which the
UK wishes to lead and host. Since it is so long since such a decision
has been made, it is not clear how the inertia can be overcome.
There is considerable frustration from our potential partners
that we have this problem. Of course, the UK can always let other
countries take the lead. Given the overwhelming evidence of the
socio-economic advantages of hosting such facilities this seems
to fly in the face of the current innovation agenda.
The recent publication of the European Strategy
Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) had highlighted 35
potential European facilities needed by researchers. All the member
states are now assessing their positions on these. If the current
decision making system remains in place then there is a good chance
the UK will be left behind and reduced to managing some of the
smaller projects that are effectively mega-networks. RCUK is,
I understand, looking at the 35 projects at the moment and intends
to signify its priorities soon. It is critical that decisions
based on these recommendations are acted on quickly. CCLRC has
already been collaborating for many years on some of the projects
and it would be unfortunate if we had to withdraw at this stage.
There is a great danger that our international credibility will
be jeopardised if this is not handled in a sensitive and diplomatic
manner. The repercussions of the decision by the UK to reduce
its contribution to ILL in Grenoble to 25% many years ago is still
held against us although it was restored to 33% under the CCLRC.
This is not to say that projects should not be reviewed, but that
random changes in thinking and a lack of continuity of personnel
with little knowledge of the history of a project can lead to
significant consequences.
EU AGENCIES AND
THE FP7 PROGRAMME
Under previous FP programmes the CCLRC ability
to attract projects was effectively restricted by the Euro-DEL
cap. At one time the CCLRC management board had to spend a considerable
time checking each project proposal to assure itself that subsequent
"fines" were not to be levied against us. Projects that
the CCLRC was the obvious lead partner had to be handed to minor
partners for fear of significant financial claw back. This significantly
affected our credibility. While this cap is no longer a problem,
it has caused some difficulties in taking the lead on projects
under FP7 since there remains a belief among partners that we
will not lead. A key test case currently under consideration is
with the EU's programme to support "preparatory design studies"
for large scale infrastructure under FP7.
CCLRC supported the creation of the ERC from
the beginning since it believed that excellent research should
be undertaken on its facilities wherever the researcher is based.
I was disappointed that the funding for trans-national access
under FP6 for funding researchers from all parts of the EU to
use ISIS was insufficient for the demand.
The CCLRC could not see the original rationale
behind the suggestion of an EIT. In order to offset the original
proposal for a distinct institute, I suggested to a number of
similar large scale laboratories that we formed a grouping to
show that at least part of what the EIT was meant to achieve already
existed. Over a year ago we formed the European Large Research
Facilities association (ERF). This is currently chaired by the
Director General of DESY in Germany and CCLRC provide the secretariat.
A coupling has been made with the "Ideas League""
(a group of top university engineering faculties across Europe)
and I have been asked to submit an outline "call for proposals""
to the EU for some preliminary pilot Knowledge and Innovation
Centres (KICs). The Commission is fully conversant on all these
activities and encouraged us to take them forward.
OSI International have had several meetings
with CCLRC on the European and wider international scene. These
have not been systematic and there have been times when we have
not always known what the official UK position has been. It is
my contention that far more effort needs to be put into providing
a joined up position on a number of international research issues.
OTHER INTERNATIONAL
PROGRAMMES.
CCLRC is actively involved in projects around
the world. It took on the coordination role for acting as the
UK centre for energy, nanotechnology and space science between
the UK and Korea following the Minister's lead. More recently
several meetings have been held in China specifically on lasers,
neutrons and space and ongoing programmes are in place. CCLRC
used to regularly brief the FCO science attaches on the international
links and now there is a good rapport with the FCO Science and
Innovation Network team. CCLRC, from the start, were very supportive
of an office in China. We were encouraged in this by Prof Zang
who was the deputy director of basic science at the Chinese Academy
of Sciences. Prof Zang had worked previously at RAL for a number
of years and was entirely conversant with our position.
CCLRC staff have excellent personal links with
international partners at both laboratory and government levels.
The most obvious of these is the partnership on a number of programmes
with the DoE national laboratories in the US and with Dr Ray Orbach.
A similar situation exists with Riken in Japan. Much more advantage
could be taken by the UK Government in exploiting these links.
Apart from the DTI and FCO there are relatively few links with
other ministries with respect to international activities.
MOBILITY OF
RESEARCHERS
The concerns about the EU funding for trans-national
access have already been stated. CCLRC had virtually no funds
to pay for other international partners to come to its facilities
unless these were covered by the home nation. The absence of free
funds was frustrating in this respect.
SUMMARY
CCLRC as an overarching body was not generally
recognised by international scientists. RAL, Daresbury, ISIS etc
on the other hand were well known and respected. However, CCLRC
was seen by other government agencies as a way of bringing large
facilities together and this was looked at enviously by many others
in Europe where each facility is fighting others in the same country.
It was a unique advantage that there was one voice for this area.
May 2007
| 
