Memorandum submitted by Professor Sean
J Freeman (FC 24)
EVIDENCE RELATING
TO CUTS
IN AREA
OF NUCLEAR
PHYSICS AND
TREATMENT OF
SMALLER AREAS
OF SCIENTIFIC
EXCELLENCE IN
THE STFC PROCESSES
1. Nuclear physics research in UK universities,
including the nuclear physics group at Daresbury Laboratory, is
primarily a curiosity-driven science, asking fundamental questions
such as the nature of the atomic nucleus and radioactivity and
how chemical elements are manufactured in stars. The much wider
field of applied nuclear science has the commonly known application
of nuclear power, but many others in areas such as health/medicine
and material engineering. Nuclear physicists in UK universities
play an important role in nuclear skills education underpinning
these activities at undergraduate, masters and postgraduate levels,
as well as participating in applied nuclear activities themselves.
Without funding for the fundamental science programme provided
by STFC, it is likely that this community will dwindle, scientific
output will fall and the important side benefits and wider impact
will disappear.
2. UK Nuclear physics is rated highly in
international circles. For example, the International Review of
UK Physics and Astronomy Research 2005 indicates that: "…
UK nuclear physics research is first class, has high international
prominence, and has improved since the 2000 review"
The full report can be found at the following URL:
http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Projects/International_Review/
The high quality of UK NP is also illustrated
by the large number of UK nuclear physicists holding leading positions
in international projects, on international scientific and technical
coordination committees, and on programme advisory committees
who advise on the specific experimental proposals to use international
facilities.[4]
3. Nuclear physics funding was done under
the auspices of the Engineering and Physical Science Research
Council (EPSRC) until 2007, when it was transferred to the newly
created Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC). Before
the transfer it received approximately £10 million per
year, a relatively large fraction of the EPSRC physics budget.
However, under EPSRC process, it was very difficult to commit
funding on a medium-term period, 5-10 years, which is necessary,
if the UK NP community were to continue to make impact in large
European projects. The funding of nuclear physics was therefore
switched to STFC on its creation.
4. The 2007 STFC crisis had already
led to a 25% cut in the uncommitted funds for NP, in common with
the other STFC science areas. The recent cuts announced in December
were additional to this. In total, the amount of money for NP
has been reduced from approximately £10 million per
year when leaving EPSRC to £6 million per year for future
years.
5. The current round of STFC cuts announced
Dec 2009, using numbers from STFC for the whole programme including
subscriptions, are: nuclear physics 29%, particle physics 4%,
astronomy 10% and space science 6%. Nuclear physics appears to
have suffered more than other areas.
6. The numbers of UK academics in these
science areas differ greatly: nuclear physics approximately 55,
particle physics approximately 250, astronomy and space science
approximately 450. In other countries, the numbers are better
balanced.
7. The prioritisation process, by which
these cuts have been decided, has been done with little NP expertise
on the relevant higher-level STFC committees. Input has been solicited
from the science communities via Advisory Panels, but they are
not directly involved in the decision making process, as is suggested
by their name. The population of the higher committees in STFC,
that have actually taken decisions on tensioning the programme,
include few nuclear physicists. Participation from the different
science areas appears to be largely in proportion to the size
of the academic community.
On STFC Council, their Science Board and their
Particle Physics, Astronomy and Nuclear Physics (PPAN) Committee,
there are only two people with nuclear physics expertise, one
in each of the latter groups. It is noted that, due to conflict
of interest, these experts must leave the room when nuclear physics
is discussed and decisions are taken. The other areas of STFC
science, particle physics, astronomy and space science, with much
greater participation, do not experience the same issues.
Concerns about the levels of nuclear physics
expertise on STFC higher-level committees were raised with STFC
officials at town meetings on nuclear physics around the time
of STFC's creation.
It is noted that the organisation, process and
procedures used in STFC are largely those of the Particle Physics
and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC), which was subsumed within
STFC on its creation. No changes were made to accommodate properly
smaller scientific areas of excellence.
8. The prioritisation process did not take
independent expert advice. All members of PPAN, for example, have
potential vested interests in the outcome of the process and may
have difficulties in taking a wider view. [Science Board has one
non-UK member from particle physics, but from CERN where a large
amount of STFC money is spent. It may be difficult to assume independence
in this situation.] STFC Council accepted the advice of these
committees without change.
Independent advice is readily obtained from
international scientists, without conflict of interest, and there
are many individuals who could have been used in such a process.
This might be considered particularly important when dealing with
a small area of scientific excellence, where representation of
the relevant expertise is difficult.
It is noted that the lower-level STFC grant
panels, who deal with the peer review and prioritisation of individual
university grant applications, do all include at least one international
member. It is strange that such policy is not used in the higher
committees in STFC, especially when there are major consequences
to the decisions made.
9. Without independent expert advice, and
when there is a shortage of expertise, peer-review processes can
develop problems. Here I do not wish to call into doubt the integrity
of anyone serving on STFC committees; I have the utmost respect
for all involved at personal and scientific levels who are involved
with such difficult decisions. However, there are unintended pathological
outcomes that arise from a peer-review setup such as this.
There is a natural tendency for reviewers to
look at areas outside their own expertise conservatively. People
are reluctant to score highly areas they do not fully understand.
Similarly do not rate very badly either, however, scientific excellence
tends to be missed due to the lack of expertise. As a result the
smaller subjects will tend to cluster in the middle of any ranking.
This is understandable, but fatal in the current financial environment
of STFC.
A robust process should acknowledge and overcome
such flaws, but the STFC process appears not have any corrective
measures imposed in it. No truly independent experts are called
on, for example, from the international community. For smaller
areas of scientific excellence, where expertise is not available
due to committee composition and conflicts of interest, this presents
great difficulties. I believe these effects have contributed to
the disproportionate cuts imposed on UK nuclear physics.
10. To illustrate international concern
over the cuts in nuclear physics funding, note the following letter
sent to the Times newspaper by senior US researchers. They note:
"The UK nuclear science effort is simply world class".
The full letter can be found at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6962052.ece
11. To illustrate the significance of these
cuts to NP internationally, even before the recent announcement,
UK NP was not funded at a similar level to other EU countries.
The following table shows funding levels and personnel in NP in
different countries. The total physicists includes tenured
academics, fixed-term researchers and PhD students. The numbers
are correct at the end of 2006, so prior to both sets of reductions
in funding by STFC and are sourced from NuPNET, a grouping of
the relevant European research agencies.
| Country | Funding (MEuro)
| Tenured Physicists | Total Physicists
| Technicians
& Engineers
|
| Belgium | 7.6 | 38
| 133 | 21 |
| Bulgaria | 6.8 | 28
| 52 | 9 |
| Czech Republic | 5.3 | 16
| 75 | 12 |
| Germany | 200.0 | 330
| 1100 | 500 |
| Spain | 21.0 | 119
| 215 | 15 |
| Finland | 5.3 | 24
| 120 | 25 |
| France | 87.5 | 351
| 488 | 566 |
| Greece | 2.3 | 35
| 55 | 15 |
| Hungary | 3.1 | 59
| 87 | 26 |
| Italy | 64.8 | 354
| 628 | 295 |
| Netherlands | 9.7 | 31
| 78 | 55 |
| Poland | 14.5 | 203
| 441 | 109 |
| Romania | 19.5 | 213
| 340 | 85 |
| UK | 11.7 | 63
| 228 | 31 |
12. The 2009 Review of Nuclear Physics and Nuclear
Engineering Report on the training aspects provided by
nuclear physics, (regrettably the panel did not feel they were
equipped to review the scientific aspects of nuclear physics)
illustrates the importance of the academic nuclear physics community
in applied nuclear physics research and in providing essential
training in the area of nuclear science, a well known skills gap
for UK PLC. They also indicated the risks for the UK community
with levels of research funding, even before the recent cuts:
"The panel acknowledged that recent funding cuts had
damaged the UK's Nuclear Physics community, and that the size
of the community now meant that it was extremely vulnerable. It
was recognised that financial pressures have an adverse effect
on the ability of the Nuclear Physics community to realise its
potential in economic impact areas. It was felt that further funding
cuts could be terminal, resulting in the loss of an important
skill set which would impact the delivery of Masters courses."
STFC Science Board appear not to have supported this view,
but the quoted reasoning, for example, in a response to a letter
sent to Lord Drayson[5]
may indicate that the real meaning of the Review's comment was
misinterpreted:
"In particular, the Science Board considered the suggestion
in the Review that any further reductions in nuclear physics support
by STFC might leave its programme subcritical. The Science Board
did not support this view, since projects concerned are all international
collaborations and work largely independent of each other, meaning
that withdrawing from some does not adversely effect the other."
I must admit to not fully understanding this response, but
it appears to ignore the point made about the health and critical
mass of the UK nuclear physics community in undertaking excellent
international scientific projects, as well as the associated impact
noted under Paragraph 1 above.
The full report can be found at the following URL: http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/ResearchFunding/Programmes/PhysSci/RC/Review.htm
13. The consequences of these cuts is likely to begin
with a reduction in the number of academic nuclear physicists,
with a movement to positions in countries with more favourable
funding climates and better research opportunities. PhD graduates
are also likely to be attracted abroad to postdoctoral positions.
With no UK jobs to bring them home, their expertise will be lost
to the UK. Beyond associated reduction in UK fundamental scientific
output, there are wider risks and consequences correlated with
the reduction in academic staffing.
The undergraduate curriculum in nuclear physics could be
limited to the bare minimum, with a notable loss in the availability
of nuclear physics as a practical subject at UG level where higher-level
expertise is necessary. In addition, 70-90 MSc students per
year are trained by the nuclear physics research group through
Masters level programmes run at Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester
and Surrey by nuclear physicists and these courses would be in
danger of disappearing.
There could be a loss of the expertise to apply nuclear physics
technological advances to areas such as medical imaging, homeland
security, radioactive waste management and decommissioning of
nuclear sites. For example, improvements in gamma ray detection
derived from the nuclear physics research programme are now being
applied to improves imaging for brain and cardiac uses, detection
of special nuclear materials and the assay of nuclear waste.
14. There is considerable concern in the scientific community
as a whole that these cuts are really just the beginning. Despite
comments from STFC staff in the press arguing that this round
of cuts is due to the current economic crisis, in fact they stem
from the Comprehensive Spending Review in 2007 and the poor
performance of STFC in the Science Budget Allocation exercise.
The effect of the current economic crisis is yet to come and there
is great concern that these areas of the physical sciences will
suffer yet again when cuts in public spending filter through,
unless the Science Budget is kept constant in real terms.
15. The scope of nuclear physicists to undertake applied
nuclear physics research is currently limited by research council
structure and process. Fundamental nuclear physics programmes
are supported by STFC. Research council funding for activities
in applied nuclear physics such as reactor technology and nuclear
data, medical and homeland security applications, still falls
within the remit of EPSRC—and some applied research simply
falls in the gap between the two councils. There are some nuclear
physics academics, whose primary reason d'etre is curiosity-driven
science, who also run successful programmes of applied research,
but there is untapped potential for such blending of effort. Such
initiatives are actually inhibited by current funding arrangements
splitting funding sources across councils.
16. There is scope for academic nuclear physicists to
increase the volume of MSc training in nuclear skills, and also
in bespoke continuing professional development (CPD) courses for
industry. This appears to be a missed opportunity in helping to
address the skills gap in nuclear science. It would be useful
if this were picked up and promoted in some way by a relevant
body.
DECLARATION OF
INTERESTS
(i) Professor of Nuclear Physics at the University of Manchester.
(ii) STFC Nuclear Physics Grants Panel Chairman (Peer-review
committee advising STFC on individual university grant proposals).
Professor Sean J Freeman
26 January 2010
4
More detailed information could be compiled if felt useful. Back
5
Letter sent by Lord Drayson dated 22 January in response
to communication by Sean J Freeman sent on 7 January 2010 (copy
available on request). Back
| 
