Annex
SUMMARY
Impact on physics and astronomy
— STFC will have to cut £80 million
from its planned programme of activity over the CSR period, which
will have devastating consequences for many of its science areas.
STFC's Delivery Plan announced a 25% cut to grants, which will
lead to a loss of millions of pounds in research income (of up
to £750,000) for many physics departments which will threaten
their financial viability.
— The cut will result in research project
cancellations and a significant cut to rolling grants, which will
affect the projects of all STFC user communities (eg astronomy,
particle physics, nuclear physics, etc.), and lead to redundancies
at STFC operated facilities at the Daresbury Laboratory, the Rutherford
Appleton Laboratory, and the Astronomy Technology Centre.
— Uncertainties raised about the long-term
prospects for physics may lead to a reduction in the attractiveness
of physics undergraduate, MSc and PhD programmes and of physics
as a long-term career path. A reduction in the number of students
choosing physics would have implications not only for the financial
viability of physics departments, but also for the long-term competitiveness
of the UK's economy.
— Reneging on existing commitments
without prior consultation will damage the UK's reputation as
a leading player in international collaborations.
Principal issues
— The Institute and the Society urge
DIUS to allow STFC to postpone the implementation of its Delivery
Plan until after the health of disciplines review of physics (the
Wakeham review) has reported in mid-summer 2008. There needs to
be a commitment that the Wakeham review will address the current
STFC problem, and that it makes use of informed international
opinion.
— STFC should be given time to produce
a revised Delivery Plan in which its scientific priorities are
developed in full consultation, and that the balance of capital
investment and associated operations and exploitation costs are
optimised. Important long-term decisions should not be made on
such a short timescale as was the case with its current Delivery
Plan.
— The 25% cut in grants will pose severe
financial constraints to many physics departments. The Institute
and the Society urge DIUS to provide the £80 million shortfall
in STFC's budget, or at least £20 million to allow STFC's
planned programme to continue until after the Wakeham review has
reported.
— Increases in the running costs of
major facilities should be allocated to the research councils
who make the most use of facilities. In the case of the Diamond
Light Source and ISIS, users are largely outside of the STFC funded
community. It is not fair that core funding of physics grants
should be affected by increased activity in, for example, the
study of medical materials.
— The Institute and the Society are
concerned that the arrangements for compensating for changes in
international subscriptions have reverted to STFC. DIUS should
revert to the practice of providing protection against changes
in exchange rates and net national income from a departmental
reserve.
BACKGROUND
The Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) announced
in 2007 led to an increase to the total science budget of 17.4%[12]
over a three year period. The Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council (EPSRC) and the Science and Technology Facilities
Council (STFC), the two major funders of physics research, were
allocated 18.6% and 13.6% increases respectively. It is understood
that the vast majority of these increases will be needed to cover
the full economic costs (FEC) of research, whereby 80% overheads
are paid on grants. Even though FEC is a positive development,
with more money entering university science, its phased introduction
does make it difficult to unravel the financial consequences of
the CSR settlement. Essentially, its effect is not to fund more
science but to ensure that the science that is supported is better
funded.
For EPSRC, significant funds which would have
been allocated to it were instead directed to the new Technology
Strategy Board (TSB) and the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI);
around 3% of its annual budget. Its actual budget will rise by
an average of 6.2% a year from £711 million in 2007-08 to
£843 million by 2010-11. But over time, with inflation and
the need to pay 80% FEC the number of grants awarded via its responsive
mode mechanism will be reduced. This is a situation that the Institute
intends to monitor as a reduced number of funded grants will mean
less research income for physics departments. Increased competition
for a smaller pot of money will have an impact on the morale of
academics and lead to financial pressures on departments.
According to STFC, due to the need to pay 80%
FEC, redundancy costs associated with the forthcoming closure
of the Synchrotron Radiation Source (SRS) at the Daresbury Laboratory,
etc., the 13.6% increase to its budget basically amounts to a
flat cash settlement, ie a reduction in real terms, even though
the increase is above inflation. STFC's annual budget is proposed
to increase from £573.5 million in 2007-08 to £651.6
million in 2010-11, an average increase of just 4.5% per annum.
Crucially, and unlike most of the other research
councils, STFC has many fixed costs associated with running national
facilities and paying the UK's increasing subscriptions to international
facilities (of the order of £180 million per annum). STFC
also has to cope with increased operational costs for a number
of new facilities, especially the Diamond Light Source and the
ISIS Second Target Station, which according to the Public Accounts
Committee report, "Big Science, investment in large scientific
facilities"[13],
totals about £27 million per annum. It appears that the lion's
share of the problem for this shortfall is a consequence of the
structure of the system which provides capital funding to construct
new facilities but not operational costs. Moreover, these increased
costs were ring-fenced within STFC's allocation, which is a legacy
that it inherited from CCLRC. This arrangement directly contradicts
the reassurance that PPARC users were given by the government
that STFC would not be burdened with the liabilities of CCLRC,
following the merger on 1 April 2007.
Principal issue: Increases in the running costs
of major facilities should be allocated to the research councils
who make the most use of facilities. In the case of the Diamond
Light Source and ISIS, users are largely outside of the STFC funded
community. It is not fair that core funding of physics grants
should be affected by increased activity in, for example, the
study of medical materials.
In addition, STFC will also have a greater responsibility
for dealing with the effects of fluctuations in international
subscriptions (eg CERN) caused by changes in the value of the
pound. In the event of a sustained decrease in the value of the
pound against the Swiss Franc and/or the euro, such changes could
lead to a decrease in the volume of research possible to make
use of the international facilities provided by the subscription.
This is a new development thrust upon PPARC and now STFC by the
government. Such a vulnerability to currency fluctuations appears
unique among major European nations. Making provision for possible
fluctuations is another constraint on STFC's budget (and the budget
of other research council's with international subscriptions).
As a consequence of these factors, STFC will
have to cut £80 million from its planned programme over the
CSR period. This will have devastating consequences for many of
STFC's science areas, with the biggest impact due in year one
of the CSR period.
Prior to the announcement of its Delivery Plan,
STFC made the decision to withdraw from the Gemini Observatory,
which will save it about £4 million a year in running costs
(this figure may not include withdrawal penalties). Other measures
announced in the Delivery Plan include the withdrawal from major
facility programmes (eg the ILC), the reprioritisation of investment
in high priority science programmes, and a cut of at least 25%
in grants for all areas. The cut translates into various project
cancellations and a significant cut to rolling grants, which will
affect the projects of all STFC user communities (eg astronomy,
particle physics, nuclear physics, etc.), and result in redundancies
at STFC operated facilities at the Daresbury Laboratory, the Rutherford
Appleton Laboratory (RAL), and the Astronomy Technology Centre
(ATC). Indeed, STFC is planning to remove funding from its current
programme in the region of £120 million rather than just
£80 million, in order to create headroom in its budget to
revive some cancelled projects and for investment in new projects.
The reductions represent a hammer blow to the
morale and future prospects of the physics and astronomy communities
funded by STFC, especially when considering the encouraging statements
made by an independent panel of international physicists and astronomers,
who benchmarked the quality of the UK's research efforts in physics
and astronomy against its leading international competitor nations[14].
The panel noted the considerable efforts that had been made to
improve the status of physics and astronomy in the UK, since the
preceding review in 2000, and was struck by the general improvement
in the research environment and the positive outlook of those
involved with the research effort at all levels. The panel also
reported that the UK continues to enjoy a high international standing
in the areas of astrophysics and solar system physics, particle
physics, and nuclear physics; this world-leading position is now
under considerable threat.
Following the announcement about the Gemini
Observatory and concerns about further proposed cutbacks, the
Institute and the Society consulted with their membership and
made representations to the government, along with several other
bodies, in order to discuss various options that could be used
to support STFC and limit the damage that would fall upon the
physics and astronomy community, and prevent redundancies at STFC
operated facilities. It is understood that there was some flexibility
offered in response, first, a loan in the region of £27 million
for year one of the CSR period (which has to be paid back in years
two and three) to aid STFC in reprofiling its structure (ie redundancy
packages), and second, £5 million per annum has been released
from STFC's capital funds which can be utilised immediately for
recurrent costs. However, these limited measures are not going
to prevent damage being done to the physics and astronomy research
base, especially as they will not significantly alter the margin
of cuts announced to grants.
While it is, of course, the government's right
to prioritise whichever area of science it chooses, it is not
sensible to implement such damaging cuts to physics and astronomy
apparently by accident and before there is any opportunity for
debate or planning. Indeed, the scale of the changes could cause
irreversible damage to the UK's long-term ability to lead in a
number of key areas of physics and astronomy research, which will
have an impact on the UK's ambition to be leading knowledge-based
economy.
IMPLICATIONS OF
STFC'S DELIVERY
PLAN
It is understood that STFC's Delivery Plan[15]
was formulated very quickly, and it did not have time to consult
its user community effectively. STFC has publicly admitted that
there are many issues within it that still need to be agreed and
finalised. In addition, the creation of STFC occurred just a few
months before the submissions for the Comprehensive Spending Review
of 2007, which did not allow much time to prepare a robust case.
Principal issue: STFC should be given time to
produce a revised Delivery Plan in which its scientific priorities
are developed in full consultation, and that the balance of capital
investment and associated operations and exploitation costs are
optimised. Important long-term decisions should not be made on
such a short timescale as was the case with its current Delivery
Plan.
The following are the headline statements from
STFC's Delivery Plan in response to which we have outlined the
likely impacts on physics and astronomy as gleaned from our communications
with physics departments and government-funded laboratories.
25% CUT IN
RESEARCH GRANTS:
At the town meeting organised by STFC on 13
December 2007[16],
it was outlined by Professor Keith Mason, STFC's chief executive,
that STFC's grant awarding capacity in all areas will have to
be cut by around 25%, including grants that are currently being
reviewed for funding. Current STFC grant funding in university
physics departments across the UK is in the region of £80
million, so this could lead to a £20 million sector wide
reduction over this period, which we calculate to be a loss of
around £9 million in overheads under FEC.
Principal issue: The 25% cut in grants will pose
severe financial constraints to many physics departments. The
Institute and the Society urge DIUS to provide the £80 million
shortfall in STFC's budget, or at least £20 million to allow
STFC's planned programme to continue until after the health of
disciplines review of physics (the Wakeham review) has reported.
The impact of this cut will be differential
across physics departments and will be felt over a period of time,
but all departments will suffer. STFC funding typically accounts
for anything between 25 and 80% of departmental grant income in
a range of subject areas such as physics, astronomy and applied
mathematics. (One department, in particular, is entirely dependent
on STFC for grant income; this also applies to many individual
research groups within departments.) A cut of 25% could equate
to a loss of millions of pounds in grant income including overheads,
a result that would raise concerns over a department's financial
viability within many university funding models. In addition to
project and facilities funding, STFC grants also directly support
academic staff, postdoctoral research assistants (PDRAs), technical
and administrative staff, and PhD students.
For example, one particular research-intensive
physics department, on average, secures over £17 million
per annum in research income (based on spend), of which 40% is
secured from STFC. This includes staff costs, non-staff spend
(equipment, travel, consumables, etc.) and overheads but not the
associated spend at facilities. A 25% cut would then equate to
a loss of around one-tenth of its total grant income (£1.7
million). The loss in overheads resulting from a 25% cut (ie around
£750,000) would have a severe effect on the department's
finances, a situation that is in sharp contrast to the HEFCE funding
introduced to protect the future of high cost scientific subjects
deemed vulnerable but key to the economy[17].
It would be particularly difficult to re-adjust to this situation
on the timescales that seem to have been proposed as there are
additional costs in making staff redundant which would not be
borne by STFC. At the level of a 25% cut, a reduction in research
support staff of between 20 or 30 could be anticipated for a number
of departments. There would also be significant detriment to the
work of staff outside the former PPARC community, for example,
condensed matter physicists who use central computing facilities
and plasma physicists who user the Central Laser Facility (CLF)
at Harwell. For one department, income based on the use of such
facilities in the RAE period was over £3 million.
For another department whose STFC turnover is
about £1.9 million, a 25% cut would represent a £475,000
reduction in funding, of which the overheads are around £200,000.
The potential impact of the cuts in grants would be severe threatening
the viability of STFC funded research programmes in the university.
This scenario applies to several small- to medium-sized departments
and will have damaging consequences. By their nature, these departments
are in challenging financial positions, where their universities
are investing heavily to maintain and develop world-class research
effort.
Perhaps even more damaging is that STFC has
stated that it will cancel some existing grants. This will damage
the relationship of trust between universities and the research
councils and make forward planning very difficult. It will leave
departments having to make people redundant at very short notice
when they have been awarded contracts with explicit long-term
end dates. It will cause great damage to a wide variety of science
programmes and a department's ability to recruit high-calibre
staff.
In summary, the loss of grant income to a department
will inevitably lead to:
— an increased risk of closure, exacerbated
by the accompanying reduction in direct funding and overheads;
— an abrupt loss of posts funded on
grants that are cut;
— a loss of leadership prospects for
high profile international projects, coupled with a reduced international
reputation and a loss of collaboration partners;
— a reduced ability to attract other
grants (eg EU, industry, etc.) as a result of reduced leadership
roles, reputation and matching funding;
— to a reduction in the attractiveness
of physics undergraduate, MSc and PhD programmes and of physics
as a long-term career path;
— a reduction in institutional support
for staff and equipment, which could lead to lack of exploitation
of the investment made to date and to facilities becoming run-down;
and
— a reduced ability to attract and
keep hold of high-calibre academic staff within an increasingly
global job market.
PARTICLE PHYSICS:
STFC Delivery Plan: We will cease investment in
the International Linear Collider.
The withdrawal from the International Linear
Collider (ILC) will have a major impact on the UK's international
credibility in future collaborations. It is damaging that a long-term,
high-profile international programme which PPARC/STFC has actively
encouraged over several years has been terminated without consultation.
A number of particle physics research groups
have been working on the development of the ILC project, which
is currently in its design phase, and have international leadership
roles. Indeed, the international review panel reported that the
UK's experimental particle physicists are taking a leading role
in all aspects related to the ILC which is to become the next
major project in particle physics.
In addition, the statement in the Delivery Plan
that the increase in the CERN subscription will come out of the
particle physics grants line is at variance with the treatment
of other international subscriptions (eg ESA), which are top-sliced.
This additional siphoning from an already shrinking particle physics
domestic programme will greatly reduce the UK's ability to exploit
the CERN subscription at a critical time when the first data are
due from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
These decisions will have serious consequences
for UK particle physics in the post LHC era, as the ability to
attract good scientists to fellowships, or PhD students, etc.
will be adversely affected.
NUCLEAR PHYSICS:
STFC Delivery Plan: We will focus our investment
in nuclear physics on the highest priority programmes.
The nuclear physics community is already under
pressure as a result of the transfer of responsibility from EPSRC
to STFC and has been subject to planning problems for over a year.
Nuclear physicists are very concerned by the vagueness of this
statement, which is almost meaningless, as it hides the possibility
of some serious pruning. A major concern is the possibility of
a cut in grant funding. Because of the changeover, all funding
for nuclear physics is through grant applications which are currently
under consideration. Hence a cut of this nature would be a cut
on the total nuclear physics programme and not just that part
which comes up for renewal at this time.
In addition, at a time when the government has
just announced its commitment to new nuclear build, it seems incomprehensible
that a cut should be made on research groups which will provide
a training ground for new, young staff with the skills required
for the safe operation of a new generation of reactors.
Moreover, there are also serious longer-term
implications, beyond short-term financial loss, if STFC is unable
to collaborate in international nuclear physics ventures such
as the Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research (FAIR) based in
Germany, membership to which was recommended by the international
review panel along the lines of the CERN subscription[18].
The UK has no nuclear accelerator facility but
physicists have adopted a realistic plan for optimising their
capability to undertake forefront research on international facilities
(eg GANIL, SPIRAL, etc.), by embedding themselves in an integral
way by building a number of key instruments. Thus they play an
enhanced role in the research, highly leveraging the relatively
small funding. The facilities in Europe would not be able to carry
out research of the same quality without UK contributions.
PARTICLE ASTROPHYSICS:
STFC Delivery Plan: We will revisit the on-going
level of our investment in a number of projects, including the
experiments for the direct detection of gravitational waves ie
GEO600 and Advanced LIGO; experiments in the direct detection
of dark matter ie Zeplin III using the Boulby mine; and the cosmic
microwave background experiment, CLOVER. We will cease to invest
in high-energy gamma ray astronomy experiments.
Not only is the immediate threat to CLOVER a
concern, but the decision to cease investment in high-energy gamma
ray astronomy experiments will lead to a loss of momentum and
expansion for the research area, as UK research groups will cease
to contribute to the interpretation of data. Moreover, a lack
of involvement in the development of the next phase of instrumentation
will have long-term consequences.
World-leading experimental groups will be damaged
by withdrawal from ground-based gravitational wave experiments
and from underground searches for dark matter.
ASTRONOMY:
STFC Delivery Plan: We plan to withdraw from future
investment in the twin 8-metre Gemini telescopes and we will work
with our international partners to retain access to Gemini North.
The decision to withdraw from the Gemini Observatory
will have a major impact on astronomy and astrophysics research
groups. The withdrawal, particularly at short notice, will significantly
reduce access to the research tools needed to undertake their
research, and will substantially reduce the UK's capacity to lead
world-class research in these areas over the next few years. This
decision could also threaten the future of the ATC, based at the
Royal Observatory Edinburgh, which plays a key role in delivering
world-class instrumentation.
However, we note that the Delivery Plan states
that STFC are negotiating for continued access to Gemini North
and welcome this. Access to optical and infrared telescopes in
the northern hemisphere (eg Gemini North, UKIRT, WHT) is crucial
for exploitation of SCUBA-2 surveys.
STFC Delivery Plan: We will cease all support
for ground-based solar-terrestrial physics facilities.
STFC has all but done this already as it has
closed or is closing the CUTLASS and SABRE radars, the ionosondes
and the SAMNET magnetometer chain as a national facility. This
decision will cause considerable problems with current facility
grants and missed opportunities in future international collaborations
for many research groups.
STFC Delivery Plan: We will target our investment
in astronomy grants taking account of reduced facility availability.
This decision will reduce the grants of a number
of astronomy research groups, particularly those in observational
astrophysics, which will have impact in terms of reductions in
staff (eg PDRAs), FEC and other infrastructure in renewed grants.
The withdrawal of already awarded grants connected to cancelled
facilities will be particularly traumatic for those involved.
STFC Delivery Plan: As part of the programmatic
review we will consider the case and our financial capacity for
further investment in the operation of the UK infrared telescope
(UKIRT) in Hawaii, Merlin, the Liverpool Telescope, Astro-Grid
and whether and at what level we should invest in the US-led Dark
Energy Survey.
Any reductions in these areas will damage the
UK's involvement in near infrared astronomy, where ground-breaking
surveys are being carried out by UK astronomers with UKIRT, and
in radio astronomy, where Merlin represents the main current UK
facility, which would impact on many departments. Withdrawal from
the Liverpool Telescope or the Dark Energy Survey would fall heavily
on the departments involved.
STFC Delivery Plan: Subject to programmatic review,
we will reduce our post-launch support for existing (space) missions
by around 30%.
This may affect research groups that have post-launch
support grants for current missions like Integral and Newton-XMM.
NEUTRON SCATTERING:
STFC Delivery Plan: ISIS is the world's most productive
pulsed neutron spallation source. In the short-term, given financial
constraints, we may have to consider reducing availability to
UK users in universities.
Many physics departments are heavy users of
ISIS, and any reduction in access would severely undermine their
research efforts. This particularly applies to condensed matter
physicists, who do not get grants from STFC, but rely on the facilities
it provides. The experiments on highly topical problems are least
able to accommodate delays. Thus it would be more difficult for
UK users in universities to publish in the highest impact journals,
and this is one of the key criteria upon which the success of
facilities, and UK science itself, is judged.
If the operation of ISIS is not properly funded,
it will have an impact on the research of not just physicists,
but will also affect considerable parts of biology, chemistry,
and engineering.
INTERNATIONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS:
STFC Delivery Plan: From 31 March 2008 onwards,
any significant increases in international subscriptions resulting
from adverse movements in exchange rates and/or NNI rates will
be dealt with in the same way as uninsured risks ie STFC will
be expected to absorb the increase up to £6 million . . .
The loss of protection from currency fluctuations
and changes in net national income (NNI) is a significant issue,
especially as it is something which the research councils fought
for many years to secure. This protection is even more important
for STFC, given that its remit requires that a large proportion
of its allocation has to be invested in overseas facilities. This
decision could have some serious long-term issues and many are
concerned that the UK's future participation in the LHC could
be threatened.
Principal issue: The Institute and the Society
are concerned that the arrangements for compensating for changes
in international subscriptions have reverted to STFC. DIUS should
revert to the practice of providing protection against changes
in exchange rates and net national income from a departmental
reserve.
THE HARWELL
AND DARESBURY
SCIENCE AND
INNOVATION CAMPUSES:
STFC Delivery Plan: The Harwell and Daresbury
Science and Innovation Campuses form the most innovative and ambitious
aspect of our KE strategy and will be recognised as internationally
leading centres of excellence for science and innovation.
Significant STFC resources will be absorbed
by the creation of the new Harwell and Daresbury Science and Innovation
Campuses, which will aim to improve the UK's performance in knowledge
transfer amongst other things. The Institute is of the view that
the prime beneficiaries of the campuses will be regional economies
rather than STFC funded programmes. Hence, the regional development
agencies should make a contribution to STFC.
LONG-TERM
IMPACT ON
PHYSICS AND
ASTRONOMY
The proposed reduction in research grants will
have a major impact on the viability of individual physics departments,
which, for instance, will reduce their ability to attract and
retain internationally leading research staff. The Institute's
"Survey of Academic Appointments in Physics 1999-2004"[19],
showed that at the time over 1760 staff were engaged in physics
research and teaching in the UK, of which the two most populated
areas were "Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmology and Space
Physics (19%), and "High Energy and Particle Physics"
(11%). These two areas were also the most popular for arriving
staff. In addition, the cuts will also disproportionately reduce
the number of women engaged in physics research, especially in
the areas of astronomy and particle physics.
It is well known that astronomy and particle
physics are the main areas of physics that attract students to
study physics. At a time when the decline in the number of students
sitting A-level physics has been arrested, and the numbers applying
and being accepted to study university physics have been increasing,
these cuts could undermine the efforts of all the stakeholders
that have led to this turning of the tide. We have already heard
from schoolteachers that some students who were considering studying
university physics are now reluctant to do so because of the STFC
funding crisis.
The government, for example, in its Next
Steps publication[20],
has continually stressed the importance of the UK being a world-leading,
knowledge-based economy due to it excelling in curiosity-driven
research and innovation and competing with the threat posed by
the burgeoning economies of China and India. This is dependent
on the UK continuing to produce high-quality physics graduates,
academics being provided with the funds and facilities to undertake
internationally-leading research, and the ability to transfer
the knowledge generated to technologies and services that can
increase the UK's economic productivity and the well-being and
prosperity of its population.
Indeed, along with a number of other subjects,
physics has been identified as a subject of strategic and national
importance, and HEFCE has allocated the Institute £1.8 million
to increase numbers studying A-level and undergraduate physics,
through its Stimulating Physics programme[21].
Furthermore, HEFCE has allocated £75 million over three years
to ensure that the funding shortfall in its teaching funding formula
will not lead to any further departmental closures in high cost
and vulnerable science subjects[22]
(the most recent being the University of Reading physics department
in 2007). It is of concern that while one branch of the government
is making strenuous efforts to increase the number of physicists
another is taking actions that will have the opposite effect.
Moreover, the cessation of the allocation of additional funding
from HEFCE (2009-10), will coincide with the time the impact of
the RAE 2008 allocations will be fully realised; an occurrence
which is usually a cause of uncertainty for physics departments,
which will be exacerbated by the STFC funding crisis.
There is a special situation in Scotland where
cuts will have a particularly damaging effect on the on the Scottish
Universities Physics Alliance (SUPA). SUPA is an alliance, which
aims to place Scotland at the forefront of research in physics.
In a short space of time, SUPA has built up a reputation of excellence
in world-class physics research and raised the prominence of physics
in Scotland. A significant component of the next phase of SUPA
was a bid was to collaborate with STFC to start development work
on the ILC. If this funding collapses, SUPA could also lose out
on an investment from the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) and future
funding opportunities.
HEALTH OF
DISCIPLINES REVIEW—PHYSICS
The Secretary of State for DIUS has asked Professor
Ian Diamond of Research Councils UK (RCUK) to organise a health
of disciplines review of physics, which will be chaired by Professor
Bill Wakeham, vice-chancellor of the University of Southampton.
We understand that the review is scheduled to begin in mid-January
and is expected to report in mid-summer 2008.
The Institute and the Society welcome the review
which we hope will address the current STFC problem as well as
the longer-term future of physics. The terms of reference of the
review are not yet public but a crucial element will be the balance
between capital spending and running costs, which is certainly
at the heart of STFC's problems. Furthermore, it is imperative
that the Institute and the Society are fully engaged in the review,
in order to provide a broad professional oversight.
Both EPSRC and the former PPARC were joint sponsors,
along with the Institute and the Society, of two International
Reviews of UK Physics and Astronomy Research in 2000 and 2005.
These reviews arose from the interest of the former Office of
Science of Technology (OST) in receiving an international assessment
of the standing of British physics and astronomy research and
the research councils' wish to obtain a better understanding of
the strategic position of both subjects. Both reviews recruited
an independent panel of international leading physicists and astronomers,
who reported on the quality, distribution of effort and future
potential of research in physics and astronomy, providing detailed
comments on the health on each of the major sub-areas of research.
The panels also made recommendations on how the funding of such
research could be optimised. It would seem sensible for the Wakeham
review to take full cognisance of these reports and, perhaps,
to use some of the panel members as consultants.
Principal issue: The Institute and the Society
urge DIUS to allow STFC to postpone the implementation of its
Delivery Plan until after the Wakeham review has reported. There
needs to be a commitment that the Wakeham review will address
the current STFC problem, and that it makes use of informed international
opinion.
12 The Allocations of the Science Budget 2008-09 to
2010-11; December 2007; DIUS;
www.dius.gov.uk/publications/URN07114.pdf Back
13
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmpubacc/521/52102.htm Back
14
International Perceptions of UK Research in Physics and Astronomy
2005; January 2006; EPSRC, PPARC, IOP & RAS;
www.iop.org/activity/policy/Projects/International_Review/index.html Back
15
www.stfc.ac.uk/About/Strat/Council/STFC_DelPLan.aspx Back
16
www.stfc.ac.uk/About/Strat/Council/TownMeeting07.aspx Back
17
www.hefce.ac.uk/News/HEFCE/2006/science.htm Back
18
International Perceptions of UK Research in Physics and Astronomy
2005; January 2006; EPSRC, PPARC, IOP & RAS;
www.iop.org/activity/policy/Projects/International_Review/index.html Back
19
www.iop.org/activity/policy/Publications/file_4148.pdf Back
20
Science and innovation investment framework 2004-2014: next steps;
March 2006; HM Treasury;
www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget/budget_06/assoc_docs/bud_bud06_adscience.cfm Back
21
www.stimulatingphysics.org/ Back
22
www.hefce.ac.uk/News/HEFCE/2006/science.htm Back
| 
