Conclusions and recommendations
The Science Budget
1. Given
the range of programmes and disciplines covered by the Science
Budget, the name is somewhat misleading, especially since the
transfer of AHRC into the budget in 2005. We recommend that DIUS
change the name of the Science Budget to the Science and Research
Budget to reflect the inclusion of arts, humanities and knowledge
transfer which we note matches the welcome change in title of
the DIUS official in charge of the budget to the Director General
for Science and Research (DGSR). (Paragraph 11)
2. We welcome the
Government's decision to maintain its commitment in the ten-year
framework to increase the science budget by 2.5% per annum in
real terms. (Paragraph 13)
Sainsbury and Cooksey agenda
3. We
welcome the evidence within the Science Budget Allocations of
the Government's commitment to the Sainsbury and Cooksey agenda.
(Paragraph 14)
The Science Budget allocations process
4. We
are concerned that a structure of independent expertise such as
suggested by the Royal Society may be too bureaucratic. However,
it is clear that more and better information needs to be passed
from the Research Councils to the DGSR on the potential implications
of projected allocations from the Science Budget in order that
Ministers can be made fully aware of the consequences of those
decisions. We note that the documents prepared by STFC for use
in the bilaterals with DIUS have been made available through the
Freedom of Information process and we recommend that the Director
General of Science and Research and the Research Councils publish
such documents as a matter of course to increase transparency
and accountability. (Paragraph 18)
Full Economic Cost
5. In
view of the importance of attaining sustainability and transparency
for ongoing and future research in the UK, we welcome the Government's
commitment to FEC. (Paragraph 20)
Haldane Principle
6. The
increase in the Science Budget does not fully cover increased
expenditure on FEC and the new bodies (OSCHR, ETI and TSB), which
means that Research Councils will have to redirect money previously
earmarked for research grants. Additionally large parts of the
budget are tied to cross-council programmes that largely follow
a Government agenda. It is of course acceptable for the Government
to set priorities for UK research but not for it to micromanage
individual Research Council budgets. We recommend that the Government
make a statement on its application of the Haldane Principle.
(Paragraph 27)
Impact of the Science Budget allocations
7. We
are concerned that the Government has failed to protect both the
existing and planned research base by allocating insufficient
funds to cover FEC and the new bodies. The large increase in MRC's
budget means that the effect of this near cash deficit is concentrated
on the other Research Councils. (Paragraph 29)
Science & Technology Facilities Council
Legacy Issues
8. We
remain concerned that the former PPARC community has been saddled
with a £75 million (at 2006/07 prices) funding deficit derived
from CCLRC to meet the additional running costs of Diamond and
ISIS TS2, despite assurances from the Government that STFC would
be formed without any legacy issues. We conclude that the combined
budget of PPARC and CCLRC was never going to be sufficient for
STFC to manage Diamond, ISIS TS2, the other large facilities and
all the PPARC research programmes. This was noted by the National
Audit Office in January 2007, and therefore the Government should
have known and should have acted upon it. The fact that it did
not has had unfortunate consequences. We believe that the Government
should ensure that its original commitment to leave no legacy
funding issues from the previous Councils is honoured. (Paragraph
39)
9. The timing of the
formation of STFC was not propitious. It takes time to set up
a new organisation, especially one as large and complex as STFC.
The Government's expectation that STFC would be ready for a new
CSR was overly ambitious. (Paragraph 41)
Delivery Plan
10. We
welcome STFC's decision to support its major facilities to the
extent set out in its Delivery Plan and recognise the valuable
role that these facilities currently play, and will play in the
future, in maintaining the excellence and continuing the growth
of UK science. However, we are concerned that the decision to
support the large facilities has come at the expense of research
in fields where the UK excels and in which STFC and its predecessor
Research Councils have made significant investments. (Paragraph
46)
Ground-based solar-terrestrial physics
11. We
find Keith Mason's explanation for the withdrawal of funding from
ground-based solar-terrestrial physics (STP) facilities to be
inaccurate, unconvincing and unacceptable. PPARC did not decide
to cut funding to all ground-based STP facilities, but intended
to maintain a reduced capacity in this field. We urge STFC to
suspend its decision on ground-based STP so that the issue can
be revisited with proper peer review and in full consultation
with the community, including NERC. (Paragraph 59)
Daresbury
12. We
do not see a major distinction between Keith Mason's proposal
of 2 November 2007 to move major facilities from Daresbury to
RAL and the situation in which Daresbury currently finds itself.
SRS is closing, 4GLS has been postponed and the future of ERLP/ALICE
is uncertain; the establishment of a computational science centre—important
and welcome as this development is—and the influx of industry
R&D teams do not amount to the presence of a national facility.
(Paragraph 71)
13. It is clear that
Daresbury's future under the current vision is as a technology
and business park. This cuts across previous Government assurances
and pronouncements about the importance of Daresbury in Britain's
overall strategy of scientific excellence. We urge STFC either
to commit fully to science at Daresbury, which would include confirmation
of at least one large national facility and a concrete programme
of future activity and scientific excellence at Daresbury, which
can then be the subject of proper scrutiny and review, or to make
an honest assessment of, and statement on, the future of Daresbury
as a technology and business park. (Paragraph 73)
14. We have no doubt
of the desire of the Government to see a thriving Daresbury campus
and we note from previous announcements that this would include
major science facilities. However, the Government must make clear,
in line with previous commitments, how it intends to deliver future
large-scale science facilities on the Daresbury campus. (Paragraph
74)
Government Regional Science Policy
15. We
recommend that the Government make clear its role in regional
science policy and how this fits with the Haldane Principle. We
also recommend that the Government clarify whether it regards
its regional policy as a relevant criterion when the STFC or other
Research Councils make decisions about capital projects or programmatic
funding. We further recommend that the Government publish a White
Paper on Regional Science Policy as a basis for discussion as
a matter of urgency. (Paragraph 77)
STFC Site Management
16. We
recommend that STFC install a Campus Director at Daresbury and
at RAL. (Paragraph 79)
Cuts to the grant line
17. Given
the anxiety that grant cuts are causing to the physics and astronomy
community, we are dismayed that STFC has been attempting to play
down the effects of the cuts on the grounds that reductions in
future grants are not problematic. We consider cuts to grants
that had already been promised a major problem. We urge STFC to
take immediate steps to communicate clearly and comprehensively
to its research community the impact of its grant cuts. (Paragraph
83)
Communication
18. We
deplore STFC's failure to consult on ILC, Gemini and STP, a failure
that has cost it the trust of the scientific community. We conclude
that STFC's communications are inadequate, particularly its internal
communications, which are deficient both in terms of top down
communication (for example, alerting staff to proposed changes)
and bottom up communication (for example, engaging the community
over decisions). We recommend that STFC pursue urgently the appointment
of a permanent Communications Director with appropriate skills
and experience. (Paragraph 87)
Impact on non-STFC research facilities
19. We
have grave concerns about the impact of the cuts proposed in the
Programmatic Review upon renowned institutions such as Jodrell
Bank. This illustrates the extent to which the STFC's decisions
affect research and facilities beyond those that it directly funds
or owns. (Paragraph 89)
Peer Review
20. Community
consultation is key to peer review. This issue should have been
addressed at the outset using models from the previous PPARC and
CCLRC structure. We conclude that STFC's peer review system is
inadequate and recommend that DIUS review the make up of STFC's
peer review committees. (Paragraph 93)
21. We are at a loss
to understand how Professor Mason could think that secretive reviews
would have anything other than a divisive effect on the community
and undermine confidence in any of his future decisions. (Paragraph
95)
International regulation
22. In
the context of ILC, Gemini and ground-based STP, we do not believe
that proper consideration was paid to the impact of the UK's international
reputation on two counts. First, DIUS did not allocate enough
money to STFC, forcing it to make undesirable cuts. Second, STFC
did not handle the cuts well: it failed in its duty to consult
with the community prior to making a decision and in the case
of Gemini made more than one announcement on which it had to renege.
(Paragraph 96)
23. We are concerned
that withdrawal from ILC has made the UK look like an unreliable
international partner and that indecision over Gemini and the
withdrawal of funding for ground-based STP facilities while the
UK is engaged in a long term commitment to EISCAT has made the
UK look like an incompetent international partner. (Paragraph
97)
Wakeham review
24. We
recommend that STFC wait for the results of the Wakeham review
before implementing the cuts proposed in the Delivery Plan and
that it use this time to consult with its stakeholders. (Paragraph
102)
Solar-terrestrial physics
25. We
hope that STFC can liaise with NERC and the STP community to find
a favourable solution for all parties. (Paragraph 103)
Astronomy Technology Centre
26. We
welcome news that STFC, ATC and the University of Edinburgh have
entered talks about a possible transfer of ATC from STFC ownership
to the University. We anticipate that ATC would be able to retain
its identity as a world class technology centre and continue to
thrive within the University. (Paragraph 105)
Management
27. We
do not have any confidence that rearranging the responsibilities
of the existing staff will solve STFC's problems. There is, as
noted earlier, immediate need for a Communications Director. However,
the management failings at STFC go deeper than this. The events
of the past few months have exposed serious deficiencies within
STFC's senior management, whose misjudgements could still significantly
damage Britain's research reputation in this area, both at home
and abroad. (Paragraph 107)
28. STFC's problems
have their roots in the size of the CSR07 settlement and the legacy
of bringing CCLRC and PPARC together, but they have been exacerbated
by a poorly conceived delivery plan, lamentable communication
and poor leadership, as well as major senior management misjudgements.
Substantial and urgent changes are now needed in the way in which
the Council is run in order to restore confidence and to give
it the leadership it desperately needs and has so far failed properly
to receive. This raises serious questions about the role and performance
of the Chief Executive, especially his ability to retain the confidence
of the scientific community as well as to carry through the necessary
changes outlined here. (Paragraph 108)
Arts & Humanities Research Council
29. We
are concerned that AHRC's reduced share in the science budget
sends out a negative message to the arts and humanities community.
(Paragraph 112)
30. We are concerned
that reducing the number of postgraduate places will discourage
younger researchers from entering academia in the arts and humanities.
This is of particular importance at a time when the economic impact
of the sector is becoming increasingly recognised as significant.
(Paragraph 114)
Communication with Government
31. It
seems to be a breach of the Haldane Principle that the Government
should direct a Research Council to switch funding from postgraduate
awards to programme funding merely on the basis of it being out
of step with other research councils, or indeed for any other
reason. (Paragraph 116)
32. We are concerned
that the lines of communication between AHRC and the Government
are not clear enough. We recommend that that there be an urgent
review between DIUS and the AHRC as to whether the scale of the
proposed reductions in postgraduate awards should be moderated,
in the light of the concerns we have expressed here. While respecting
the Haldane Principle, we recommend that DIUS review its working
relations and communication strategy with the Research Councils,
so that the process of decision-making should be more clearly
in line with overall strategy and Government policies. (Paragraph
117)
Medical Research Council
33. We
welcome the large increase in MRC's budget and a sharpening of
its focus on knowledge transfer. (Paragraph 118)
34. We ask the Government
to justify the Treasury rules on the treatment of excess on shortfalls
or surpluses on predicted revenue by Research Councils and in
particular the effect it has on higher risk innovation and on
the accuracy of revenue predictions. (Paragraph 121)
35. We are concerned
that the Treasury's decision to take £92 million from MRC's
commercial fund will act as a disincentive for the Research Councils
to be entrepreneurial. This outcome goes against the Government's
aim, which we applaud, to improve the translation of research
into wealth. We urge the Treasury to commit to a set of rules
that encourages the kind of entrepreneurship that DIUS is attempting
to foster. (Paragraph 122)
| 
