Memorandum submitted by UK Nuclear Physics
Research Groups (FC 28)
1. Nuclear Physics Research is an important
part of any balanced science research programme. The importance
of nuclear physics research has been recognised in recent years
by major investments in new facilities in Europe, USA, Canada
and Japan. The UK does not have any facilities and has not made
an investment in any of the international nuclear physics facilities.
UK Nuclear Physics is recognised as being on very high quality.
This was recognised by the most recent (2005) International review
of UK Research in Physics and Astronomy (http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Projects/International_Review/).
The review concluded that "UK nuclear physics research is
first class and has high international prominence". It further
stated that "the potential for this research is outstanding"
and that that was a need for "stable long term funding".
2. The STFC budget cuts will hit Nuclear Physics
research in the UK particularly hard. The cuts in the Nuclear
Physics budgets were much bigger than in the other fields where
STFC funds grants. The figures in the table below are taken from
the STFC announcement.
Subject area
| 5 year funds
(£M) | Subscription
(£M)
| Grant Funding
(£M) | Cut
(£M)
| Cut
(%) |
| Nuclear Physics | 30 | 0
| 30 | 12 | 29 |
| Astronomy | 267 | 113
| 154 | 29 | 10
|
| Space Science | 639 | 480
| 159 | 42 | 6 |
| Particle Physics | 690 | 460
| 230 | 32 | 4.4
|
The cut in Nuclear Physics is disproportionate.
3. When Nuclear Physics research moved from EPSRC in
2007 the budget for Nuclear Physics was ¥£10M p.a. plus
studentships/fellowships. This is already very low compared to
European and other international comparators. This can be seen
in evidence compiled by NuPeCC (http://www.nupecc.org/pub/survey2006.pdf),
OECD (http://www.oecd.org/sti/gsf) and recent data from NUPNET
(a grouping on EU funding agencies). The NUPNET data (which have
been supplied by STFC who are a member) are shown in the table
below and are based on 2007 figures:
| Country | Funding
(MEuro)
|
| Belgium | 7.6 |
| Bulgaria | 6.8 |
| Czech Republic | 5.3 |
| Germany | 200.0 |
| Spain | 21.0 |
| Finland | 5.3 |
| France | 87.5 |
| Greece | 2.3 |
| Hungary | 3.1 |
| Italy | 64.8 |
| Netherlands | 9.7 |
| Poland | 14.5 |
| Romania | 19.5 |
| UK | 11.7 |
| UK (2010-) | 6.8 |
Since these data were compiled STFC have cut the Nuclear
Physics programme twice to an annual value of approx. £6
million per annum, this is shown in the table as 6.8 Meuros. The
number of academic staff in UK Universities carrying out Nuclear
Physics research is approx.55. This number cannot be sustained
with this level of funding and will reduce significantly in the
next few years to the point where the numbers are below the critical
mass needed to carry out research at the highest international
level.
4. The peer review process used by STFC to reach these
decisions is in our view flawed. Funding for nuclear physics research
is decided following recommendations from the PPAN (Particle Physics,
Astronomy and Nuclear Physics) Committee, Science Board and Council.
Members of all these groups are appointed by STFC. The main peer
review committee is PPAN whose members are all researchers in
Particle Physics, Astronomy, Space Science and Nuclear Physics.
There are no independent members and no international members.
The number of people on the committee reflects the size of each
area both in terms of numbers of researchers and spend. Of the
eleven members one is from nuclear physics, the others are split
between particle physics, astronomy and space science. When the
committee are discussing the allocation of a reduced budget every
member will naturally protect their own area. The result of this
process protects the larger groups and is essentially a majority
vote system. PPAN produce a single list in order to determine
the priorities, there was not attempt to look at how the various
areas compared. The PPAN recommendations were discussed by Science
Board and Council, but were accepted in the belief that they were
the result of a rigorous peer review.
5. The Royal Charter under which STFC operates includes
the following:
To promote and support, by any means, high-quality basic,
strategic and applied research and related post-graduate training
in astronomy, particle physics, space science and nuclear physics
and research in any other field which makes use of scientific
facilities where access is provided, arranged or otherwise made
available by the Council, having regard to the objects of the
other research councils.
This specifically includes nuclear physics. There is no evidence
that STFC through its Council have done this for nuclear physics.
There has been very little promotion of the subject and its funding
has been reduced severely in a period of around three years since
STFC was established. The cuts in Nuclear Physics are much greater
than other areas and STFC are moving funding to different areas
in the portfolio they inherited from PPARC. STFC have made no
effort to change their structures and practices to reflect the
addition of nuclear physics to the PPARC portfolio. This has severely
compromised the STFC's ability to prioritise across disciplines
without showing the natural biases of its panel members. Given
this situation the funding in different areas should be scaled
to the 2007 figures until a robust prioritisation mechanism can
be agreed by all interested parties.
6. The loss of academic nuclear physics in UK Universities
will follow from these STFC cuts unless funding is restored to
a minimum of the £10 million per annum transferred from EPSRC
to STFC. This will have an impact in a number of areas including:
— The undergraduate curriculum and the availability
of nuclear physics as a practical subject and for final year projects.
— The recruitment and training of young people for the
nuclear industries through MSc and PhD degrees. Currently the
UK nuclear physics research community trains about 20 PhD students
per year, 25% of whom take jobs directly in the nuclear industries.
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.
— The loss of the expertise to apply nuclear physics
technological advances to areas such as medical imaging, homeland
security and radioactive waste decommissioning. For example improvements
in gamma ray detection derived from the nuclear physics research
programme (the AGATA spectrometer) as now being applied to improve
SPECT imaging for brain and cardiac uses, detection of special
nuclear materials and the assay of nuclear waste on sites such
as Sellafield.
It is unlikely much of this will survive without the base
of UK academic nuclear physics researchers in Universities that
is funded by STFC.
7. Following the Wakeham review RCUK commissioned a review
of Nuclear Physics and Engineering in the UK. This was carried
out by STFC and EPSRC and the committee was chaired by Dame Sue
Ion. The report is now published at: (http://www.stfc.ac.uk/SciProg/NP/NPEngReview.aspx)
The review agrees with what has been said above. This review
was available during the later stages of the prioritisation process
that STFC announced the results of in December 2009. There is
little evidence that any of the STFC committees took any notice
of its recommendations. STFC and EPSRC are currently preparing
a response to this report, but have already cut nuclear physics
funding further before this has been completed.
REVIEW OF
STFC
8. STFC currently funds International subscriptions,
National Facilities and grants for Particle Physics, Astronomy,
Space Science and Nuclear Physics. It is essentially a merger
of PPARC and CCLRC. It has been in crisis since it was formed
in 2007. The funding of International subscriptions and National
Facilities is causing unacceptable reductions in the amounts of
funds available for grants. The various functions should be separated.
9. A National Laboratory, based on multiple sites, should
be established to run the National facilities. The funding for
the various facilities operated (eg DIAMOND, ISIS etc.) should
come from the Research Councils who wish to use the facilities.
Funding should be agreed between the Research Councils and the
National Laboratory on a three year rolling basis. A new strategic
body should be establishing including independent and international
members to determine the establishment of future new facilities
and the development of current facilities.
10. International subscriptions should be the responsibility
of the Research Council that makes the major use of the facility.
That research council would then tension exploitation of the facility
against the size of the subscription. The subscriptions to ESRF
and ILL should be the responsibility of EPSRC. The major subscriptions
for CERN, ESA and ESO would remain with STFC (in a slimmed down
form) or go to the new space agency as appropriate. Any changes
due to currency fluctuations should be the responsibility of government.
11. The process of awarding grants for Particle Physics,
Astronomy, Space Science and Nuclear Physics needs reform to ensure
that the amount available to grants does not reduce due to outside
factors. Nuclear Physics being much smaller than the other three
area is not served well by the mechanisms currently employed by
the PPAN committee of STFC. Nuclear Physics research needs a funding
mechanism that allows for both long term commitments to facilities
and projects (through rolling grants, project grants and facility
investment) and for shorter term exploitation grants. The STFC
systems allows for all this. The peer review system however would
have to changed to avoid disadvantaging smaller groups such as
nuclear physics. This can be done by ensuring that the peer review
process and the committees making the decisions are not dominated
by groupings from big science areas. The system used by EPSRC
for example for their physical sciences grants follows this approach.
12. For Nuclear Physics grants there are two options
for the future. The first would see Nuclear Physics remaining
within STFC. If the recommendations above are followed then the
current STFC would end up very close to the old PPARC Research
Council which is relatively small compared to others. If this
is the case Nuclear Physics can only survive if the changes described
above to the peer review process are implemented. The second option
would see Nuclear Physics grants (including at least £10
million per year plus studentships) transferred to a modified
EPSRC Research Council. The current EPSRC process would have to
be changed to account for the long term commitments needed, including
rolling grants and facility investments.
DECLARATION OF
INTERESTS
This submission has been prepared by Prof Paul Nolan on behalf
of all the UK Nuclear Physics research groups at:
| University of Birmingham | University of Manchester
|
| Brighton University | University of Surrey
|
| University of Edinburgh | University of York
|
| University of Glasgow | University of the West of Scotland
|
| University of Liverpool | |
| 
