Memorandum submitted by senior academics
from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield
(FC 27)
We wish to write to you following your request
for input to the `Impact of Spending Cuts on Science and Scientific
Research' inquiry as senior academics from the Department of Physics
and Astronomy, University of Sheffield. We would like to express
our concerns about the impact of the recently announced STFC prioritisation
exercise, together with our opinion on necessary structural changes
to ensure that fundamental physics within the UK can be better
supported.
Professor Paul Crowther (astrophysics)
Professor Neil Spooner (particle
astrophysics experiment)
Professor Dan Tovey (particle
physics experiment)
Professor Clive Tadhunter (astrophysics)
DECLARATION OF
INTERESTS
We are each in receipt of STFC-funded research grants,
plus various PPARC/STFC committee and panel membership, including
both Particle Physics Grants Panel (2008--present), STFC Particle
Physics Advisory Panel (2009-present) for Prof D. Tovey.
1. We welcome the opportunity to provide
input to the Committee's inquiry, and thank members of the Committee
for their continuing scrutiny of issues relating to the Science
and Technology Facilities Council (STFC).
2. Four of the eight scientific highlights
of the past decade selected by the BBC in December 2009[6]
were from disciplines funded by the STFC, namely the quest for
dark matter, particle physics at CERN, the discovery of extra-solar
planets and the search for life elsewhere within our Solar System.
3. STFC-funded research within our department
is involved with three of these subject areas, namely Particle
Physics, Particle Astrophysics and Astrophysics. We currently
educate around 130 physics undergraduates a year. Our department
was rated joint 4th (with Imperial, UCL and Glasgow) among Russell
Group Universities in the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise. In
common with other UK physics departments we are now facing the
loss of many skilled staff in the next few years, most likely
to our competitor nations.
4. STFC-funded subjects are known to attract
students to physics degrees, for which applications increased
by 19% between 2002 and 2007 nationally.[7]
According to RCUK, the number of physics academics within the
UK increased by 14% between 2003-04 and 2007-08, while the number
of astronomy academics submitted for the PPARC/STFC studentship
quota exercise increased by 13% over this timeframe. These statistics
mimic a 14% growth of the entire UK academic community spanning
all disciplines,[8]
and contradict claims made by STFC's Chief Executive during the
2008 Science Budget Allocations inquiry by your predecessor Committee.[9]
5. Current Government policy is to increase
the number of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
(STEM) students. However, such aims are undermined by ongoing
cuts to subjects for which the STFC is the sole custodian within
the UK. STFC senior management have claimed that cuts arise from
the economic downturn,[10]
yet they predate the financial crisis, stemming instead solely
from the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 (CSR 07) which has
remained ring-fenced to date.
THE IMPLICATIONS
AND EFFECTS
OF THE
STFC BUDGET CUTS
6. The STFC grew out of the merger of the
Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) with the
Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC).
STFC has responsibility for the science exploitation of the Particle
Physics, Astronomy and Nuclear Physics (PPAN) but also national
facilities for all Physics and Life Sciences (PALS). Consequently
only the PPAN part of the UK science programme is tensioned against
national facilities, which serve communities funded by the other
Research Councils.
7. The merger was justified on the basis
that the previous arrangement ran the risk that the UK did not
fully exploit its investment in large scientific facilities.[11]
It is our view that a combination of the conflict of interests
resulting from the poor structure above, a funding shortfall built
in at the formation of STFC and inept senior management decisions
have led to STFC wholly failing in this regard to date.
8. The savage budgetary cuts announced by
STFC in December 2009, amounting to more than 35% (greater than
anything in the Thatcher era) are very damaging not just to the
health of UK research in astronomy, space science, particle physics
and nuclear physics, but to undergraduate Physics education at
Universities as well. They result from a combination of factors:
(a) the £80 million shortfall in the STFC settlement resulting
from CSR07; (b) the inability to withdraw prematurely from long-term,
international commitments (eg Gemini Observatory) without severe
financial penalties and reputational damage for future international
collaborations; (c) forward budget planning made on the assumption
of flat-cash settlements in future spending rounds.
9. The initial CSR07 announcement was particularly
ill-timed for STFC since this new organisation lacked community
input to prioritisation via advisory panels, since advisory panels
to the Science Committee of PPARC had been disbanded. Delays of
two years in the establishment of new advisory panels to PPAN
prevented the outcome of a robust scientific prioritisation exercise
until late 2009, accruing £46 million in loans over 2008-09
and 2009-10, which have to be repaid in 2010-11.
10. Further financial pressures have arisen
from the decline in the Net National Income (NNI) of the UK, calculated
on the basis of GDP and exchange rate. With a weaker pound, subscription
levels for international organisations have increased sharply,
especially the European Space Agency (ESA). So far, these potentially
crippling costs to STFC have been reimbursed by DIUS/BIS to the
value of £17 million (2008-09), £42 million (2009-10)
and approx. £60 million anticipated for 2010-11, but this
has inevitably led to financial tensions within RCUK, including
a contribution of £14 million to STFC from other Research
Councils for 2010-11.
11. This combination of factors has nevertheless
resulted in a devastating impact upon STFC science within university
departments. Over 30 project of high international standing are
to be cut and we face: (a) a further 25% reduction in the volume
of exploitation grants over CSR07; (b) major cuts to the current
and future scientific facilities required by STFC's scientific
user base; (c) the inability to maximise the return from major
subscriptions or national facilities.
12. UK-led scientific projects have often
been hardest hit since they lack the penalty agreements with international
partners regarding cancellation/withdrawal. For example, CLOVER
was cancelled by STFC in April 2009 within sight of its deployment[12]
and the UK-based world renown Dark Matter research and Boulby
facility now face withdrawal of all STFC support.
13. The current ratio of investment across
the PPAN area between facilities and exploitation grants is approx.
3:1.We feel that there is a strong imbalance between facility
provision and research grants, in the sense that greater benefit
would result from an increase in scientific exploitation. This
view was shared by the 2006 International Panel on Physics and
Astronomy.[13]
However, STFC's Chief Executive has taken the opposite stance
as recently as January 2010, ie that the balance remains too great
towards exploitation.[14]
The vision instilled at STFC from the Chief Executive's role as
Director of the Mullard Space Science Laboratory appears to be
a desire to leave scientific exploitation to others (ie "build
it, launch it, forget about it").
14. The December 2009 announcements outline
no further cuts to exploitation grants during CSR 07 plus a 10%
volume reduction thereafter. However, for astronomy/space science,
the medium-term reality looks to be far worse, with a volume reduction
of 32.5% below 2007-08 levels according to the chairman of the
Astronomy Grants Panel (AGP).[15]
The figure of particle physics is similarly bad. Notable is proposed
withdrawal from many pump-priming projects that are vital to UK
leadership in the future of the subject, such as the UK's neutrino
programme in Japan. The current strategy in astronomy/space science
is that PDRA funding is planned to reduce towards 60 PDRA's/yr
over the next few years, a decline of 45% with respect to the
2007-08 level of approx. 110/PDRA's/yr.
15. Such a profound shift will inevitably
lead to a yet greater imbalance between facility provision and
exploitation grants, disproportionately affecting junior staff,
with many long-term rolling grants becoming unviable. This will
remove the ability of virtually every research group to provide
leadership in international projects. In addition, plans are made
on the basis of optimistic flat-cash settlements in future spending
rounds, so that the actual cuts may yet be far worse.
16. The combination of unprecedented cuts
to previously announced STFC research grants and the general outlook
for STFC supported science in Universities will inevitably lead
to a rapid decline in academics, postdoctoral staff and postgraduate
students within Physics department, unless confidence can be rapidly
restored through greater stability in funding. In turn, this will
threaten the viability of many physics departments, rapidly reduce
the numbers of students entering University to study physics,
and impact on the quality of education received by those who remain.
17. The planned reduction in standard and
rolling grant awards will not only leave a majority of STFC's
academic community without postdoctoral support, but also represent
the loss of equipment and travel grants, which are generally tied
to Research Council grant awards. This will further impact heavily
on the UK's success at holding leadership in international programmes.
New, supposedly transparent arrangements for PhD studentship allocations
imposed upon STFC's Education, Training and Careers Committee
require that academic staff are in receipt of STFC grant funding
to be eligible for studentship quotas. Therefore, the effects
of future low grant success rates will affect junior academic
staff the hardest, severely hindering their research career progression.
18. STFC has also announced a 25% cut to
the education and training budget for 2010-11, reducing in the
number of postgraduate studentship awards and cancellation of
the 2010 postdoctoral fellowship round at late notice (after the
application process was completed). It will become more difficult
to receive postgraduate training and far harder to take the first
step on the ladder of an academic career, further accelerating
an exodus of the brightest young scientists overseas, a process
that had started before these latest announcements. Urgent changes
need to be made to offer hope of a future within the UK to current
STFC-funded postgraduates and PDRA's.
19. One dramatic consequence of the cuts
to ground-based facilities is that after 2012 UK astronomers may
no longer have access to any optical telescopes in the northern
hemisphere, effectively denying British researchers the opportunity
to observe the sky above their heads. The curtailment in new European
programmes like the Cherenkov Telescope Array and the EURECA dark
matter search, will essentially end UK involvement in Particle
Astrophysics as a field, entirely opposite to the trend in our
competitor countries. The inability to provide instrument technology
funding in Universities for future particle physics will end carefully
established UK leadership in future neutrino programmes like FJNE
and threatens future development of the Large Hadron Collider.
20. At present the UK has enormous strength
in astronomy, space science, particle physics and particle astrophysics.
It is one of the few scientific areas where we are genuinely world-leading,
with the number of citations of scientific papers second only
to the United States in several areas. This reputation helps attract
the best talent from overseas and also has the effect of encouraging
young people to careers in science and engineering. This situation
is rapidly being reversed.
21. Given the scale of the proposed cuts,
we believe that if they are implemented the UK will lose its leading
position and that this change would likely be irreversible. It
will also remove the technical base (for example in instrument
development) that forms the heart of knowledge exchange activities
in this area as well as much of the motivation for scientists
to engage in outreach activities.
THE SCOPE
OF THE
STFC REVIEW
22. We welcome the review of STFC announced
by the Science Minister on 16 December 2009 and endorse the submissions
to the review set out by the Institute of Physics, plus particle
physics and astronomy communities, to which we have provided input.
However, it was necessary for such input to be carried out on
a very short timescale, and in the vacuum of specific details
regarding the new UK space agency.
23. There is a widespread perception that
astronomy/space science receives a disproportionate share of the
STFC near-cash allocation, a view bolstered by the prominence
given to space exploration during CSR 07 negotiations.[16]
However, such costs are dominated by the ESA subscription, which
distorts the overall balance of resources within STFC yet are
largely beyond the control of its scientific community. Over the
past decade, Government policy has served to increase the share
(with associated risks thereof) of the civil ESA budget that is
paid from Research Council, in particular the STFC. The fraction
of the UK's civil space activities for which STFC and its predecessor
organisation has responsibility has increased from 25% in 2000-01
to 44% in 2008-09.[17]
24. The only optional ESA subscription in
which STFC has involvement is the Aurora space exploration programme.
Despite warnings about the long-term financial impact of participation
in Aurora by your predecessor Committee,[18]
the STFC has been reluctant to reduce expenditure in this area,
contrary to input from the scientific community set out in the
Near Universe Advisory Panel report to PPAN, summarised in a presentation
to the Astronomy Forum in January 2010.[19]
If the primary beneficiary of Aurora membership to the UK is industry,
it would be appropriate for its cost to be met by the UK space
agency, rather than Research Councils.
25. If the new approach set out by our communities
for a new research council were adopted, the STFC research grants
line would then be stabilised, providing subscriptions to major
international organisations do not increase in real terms. However,
it is recognised that increases may be imposed on the UK through
majority voting amongst international partners. At the very least,
proposed revisions would create a more transparent decision making
process, where changes to the Council budget would translate more
seamlessly into research activity.
26. Overall we also believe that these solutions
are preferable to shifting the grants line into another existing
Research Council, thereby fragmenting the responsibilities for
UK research in our fields. Some aspects of PPAN research are characterised
by long lead times, sometimes a decade or more, supported by the
"Rolling Grants" model which better ensures continuity
of funding over project lifetimes and builds the necessary skilled
staff. This has been instrumental in allowing the UK to take its
world-leading position. This model is not used in for example,
EPSRC, where research projects are more impact-led and expected
to deliver results on a much shorter timescale. The latter does
offer attractions to responsive-mode funding for some activities,
including computational studies in which the UK excels, requiring
an appropriate balance between the two models.
27. Additional costs associated with the
new UK Space Agency should not be met at the expense of the science
research budget.
28. Finally, recommendations set out by
the community are based upon the desire by the Science Minister
to implement STFC structural changes that do not require legislation
ahead of the next general election. In the longer term, it is
hoped that a better solution can be achieved. If a National Laboratory
sited at Harwell and Daresbury were established, the remaining
science components of STFC together with technology development
specific to PPAN science (eg UK Astronomy Technology Centre) could
be refocused upon the delivery of University-led scientific excellence
via the inclusion of research within its title as the Science
and Technology Research Council, after proper consultation with
its user community. In the longer term, if Government strategy
wished for improved cross-disciplinary links, a single science
research council might be established, along the lines of the
U.S. National Science Foundation or former UK Science Research
Council.
6 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8435246.stm Back
7
http://www.dius.gov.uk/research_and_analysis/¥/media/publications/D/DIUS_RR_08_21 Back
8
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/news/2009/091217.htm Back
9
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdius/215/8022706.htm
(Q341) Back
10
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/thesword/2010/01/uk-facilities-cuts-fair-and-ba.html Back
11
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file36094.doc Back
12
http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/research/instr/projects/clover/?page=status Back
13
http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Projects/International_Review/index.html Back
14
http://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/ras_pdfs/Astronomy_Forum/ASTRONOMY%20FORUM%20Jan%202010.pdf Back
15
http://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/ras_pdfs/Astronomy_Forum/ASTRONOMY%20FORUM%20Jan%202010.pdf Back
16
http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/users/peachk/STFoIC/CSR07%20Bilateral%20v10.ppt Back
17
http://www.bnsc.gov.uk/About%20BNSC/How%20we%20are%20funded/8012.aspx Back
18
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmsctech/808/6011802.htm
(Q.13) Back
19
http://pacrowther.staff.shef.ac.uk/NUAP15Jan10.pdf Back
| 
