Memorandum submitted by Professor P F
Roche (FC 39)
IMPACT OF
THE STFC BUDGET
CUTS
I am writing to give my personal views on the
impact of the STFC spending cuts on the astronomy programme in
the UK. This is my area of research and therefore the area that
I know best, but I think that the impact in other areas of STFC-supported
physics will be similar.
1. The programme announced by STFC on 16 December
2009, will drastically reduce the research capabilities of the
UK, withdrawing support from many productive facilities and returning
the support for the UK astronomical community to levels far below
those available in many other European countries. The drastic
cuts in Postdoc positions and Fellowships will substantially reduce
career opportunities for young researchers, and the grant funding
cuts will inevitably lead to contraction of astronomy groups in
Universities and very likely a freeze in the creation of tenured
positions. The next few years promise to be dismal in the extreme
as a direct consequence of the formation of STFC and the funding
decisions that are now destroying the carefully-constructed programme
developed under PPARC.
2. The "managed withdrawal" from the
current UK observatories over the next one to three years will
cut many projects before they are completed, in some cases wasting
many years of planning and development. For example, the UK Infrared
Telescope embarked on a world-leading set of infrared surveys,
exploiting an innovative infrared camera that was designed and
built in Edinburgh. The camera took five years to construct. On-telescope
commissioning started late in 2004, followed by a seven-year programme
to mid-2012 in order to deliver a comprehensive interleaved set
of surveys to maximise the science return and provide a ground-breaking
scientific legacy. This is now jeopardised by the planned withdrawal
from UKIRT, with cessation of operations by the end of this year.
It also sends a terrible signal that world-leading
UK science programmes are the most vulnerable to cuts or cancellation
simply because they are within the direct control of the Research
Councils. On the one hand we are told that we must have prominent
UK roles in projects for them to be funded, but on the other,
it is now clear that they are the first to go, often after many,
many years of hard work. This is very demoralising for UK scientists
and their collaborators and for the personnel at STFC who have
to implement the cuts. It is no way to run a successful science
programme. It is especially galling that new ideas or plans nurtured
in our Universities will now have no natural home in UK facilities.
3. In ground-based optical-infrared astronomy,
it is very likely that by the end of 2012, the sole facilities
that the UK will have access to by right will be those operated
by ESO, the European Southern Observatory. The mission of ESO,
like other intergovernmental organisations, is to provide capabilities
that are beyond the resources of individual member states. In
the UK, the STFC programme appears likely to provide no resources
for any national ground-based astronomy facilities. This is in
contrast to France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, and the
Nordic countries which all operate their own observatories in
Europe, Chile or the USA. It seems that the UK will once again
be the poor relation in astronomy in Europe, returning to the
position in the 1950s and 60s after years of world-leading research.
A most unfortunate conclusion to the International Year of Astronomy.
4. Similar arguments hold for space missions.
The UK is to withdraw support for satellites developed and launched
at enormous cost to taxpayers. Last month, the 10th anniversary
of the launch of the XMM-Newton satellite was celebrated across
Europe as arguably the most successful European astronomical satellite
ever. It continues to be highly productive, and in its mature
operational phase, the scientific returns benefit from a deep
understanding of its performance. The STFC will celebrate this
milestone by withdrawing support.
5. Last month, my colleagues and I at Oxford
University interviewed almost 500 prospective physics undergraduate
students as part of the university admissions process. The personal
statements of the applicants emphasised three areas of physics:
Quantum mechanics, Particle Physic, and Astronomy & Cosmology.
The latter two of these are directly threatened by the STFC cuts.
Of course, once at University, students develop interests in many
other areas of physics, but these cuts seem very unlikely to enhance
recruitment in SET subjects.
6. As Director of Graduate Studies for Astrophysics
at Oxford, I will be meeting with our Postdoctoral students and
Research Associates next week. While we do not yet know the full
extent of the cuts, I will be forced to advise them that they
should seek posts overseas where the prospects of a viable career
are much brighter, with the hope that there can be some restoration
of the UK astronomy programme in the next decade.
I regret that our worst fears of the scale of
cuts and closure have been confirmed. The damage to career prospects
and our international reputation will take years to repair. Unless
some relief is provided, the projections are that this will get
worse rather than better in the near term, jeopardising the UK's
ability to fully exploit the remaining facilities that it subscribes
to.
I am afraid that the widely-predicted disaster
for STFC-supported physics is now upon us.
I am very grateful to you and the S&T committee
for your continuing interest in the impact of pending cuts on
Science.
STATEMENT OF
INTERESTS
I am a UK Delegate to the ESO Council, assessor
to the ALMA Board, the Chairman of the UKIRT Board, and the grantholder
for the UK Gemini Support Group.
I am a member of the Physic Department at Oxford
University and Director of Graduate Studies for Oxford Astrophysics.
| 
