Memorandum submitted by Cluster Early-Career
Scientists (FC 41)
We are all scientists in the early stages of
our career, who use data from the European Space Agency's Cluster
satellites. Our research is currently funded by the Science and
Technology Facilities Council (STFC).
We would like to submit the attached document
about the STFC prioritisation exercise for your inquiry into the
impact of spending cuts on science and scientific research.
Declaration of interest: We are all supported
financially by STFC, either through PhD studentships, fellowships,
or as research associates employed on grants provided by STFC.
| Elizabeth Davey | PhD student
|
| Dr Robert Fear | Postdoctoral Research Associate
|
| Dr Adrian Grocott | Postdoctoral Research Associate
|
| Anthony Williams | PhD student
|
| University of Leicester |
|
| Glyn Collinson | PhD student
|
| Dr Colin Forsyth | Postdoctoral Research Associate
|
| Roger Duthie | PhD student |
| Kimberley Steed | PhD student
|
| Dr Andrew Walsh | Postdoctoral Research Associate
|
| Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London
|
| Dr Laurence Billingham | Postdoctoral Research Associate
|
| Christopher Chen | PhD student
|
| Dr Jonathan Eastwood | Advanced Fellow
|
| Edmund Henley | PhD student
|
| Dr Robert Wicks | Postdoctoral Ressearch Associate
|
| Imperial College London |
| Dr Emma Woodfield | Postdoctoral Research Associate
|
| Lancaster University |
| Aliyuthuman Sadhique | DPhil student
|
| University of Sussex |
SUBMISSION
1. We are scientists in the early stages of our careers
at various UK universities. We are all funded by the Science and
Technology Facilities Council (STFC), either by Ph.D. studentships,
fellowships, or as postdoctoral research associates employed on
grants provided by STFC. We use data from the European Space Agency's
Cluster satellites to understand the physics of Space Weather—to
learn how solar activity can cause disruption to the Earth's magnetic
field harming both ground and space-based facilities for telecommunication,
navigation, meteorological observations and entertainment that
are vital parts of everyday life for everybody.
2. We accept the need for STFC's prioritisation programme,
and therefore participated in the community consultation carried
out by STFC's Near Universe Advisory Panel (NUAP).
3. The consultation resulted in a list of seven "high
priority" science questions and an accompanying prioritised
list of facilities required to address these questions. Three
of the science questions require local measurements of particles
and magnetic fields in space made by spacecraft such as Cluster.
4. We are concerned by the decision of STFC's higher
committee structure to ignore the opinions of the scientific community,
as expressed through the NUAP consultation. Despite the fact that
three of the "high priority" questions proposed by NUAP
require local space plasma observations made by spacecraft such
as Cluster, and even though related facilities were rated highly,
no such facilities will be supported. However, lower-priority
facilities will be supported.
5. No explanation has been provided for why the community
response has been ignored. We have been told that the decisions
have been taken on the basis of "peer review",[52]
but contrary to an open and scientific peer review process, the
peer review documents, including the detailed advice and reasoning
of STFC's Science Board and its advisory committee PPAN, have
never been published. STFC has previously been criticised by the
Select Committee for its peer review process failing to account
for community consultation.[53]
We believe that the current process demonstrates that STFC has
made only superficial attempts to respond to this criticism.
6. The fact that these decisions have been taken without
any science strategy in place at STFC is a serious cause for concern.
Whilst the NUAP prioritisation was based on key scientific questions,
the absence of a community-formed science strategy adopted by
STFC makes STFC's choices opaque. Without such a strategy the
tension between facilities and their exploitation within STFC
cannot be addressed in a consistent and objective way.
7. The community consultation also recommended prioritising
the exploitation of data through grants, studentships and fellowships
assessed by scientific excellence rather than by the facilities
used. We are therefore deeply disturbed by STFC's Science Board's
recommendation to withdraw exploitation grants for projects not
recommended for funding.[54]
Over the last few years, STFC has funded spacecraft such as Cluster
which have built up valuable data sets which will still be available
for use after the end of the mission. To refuse to exploit these
data is a huge waste of previous investment in both the hardware
and the training of scientists in the field of space plasma physics.
This is recognised for example by NASA, who have developed specific
grant lines to exploit archived data, leading to considerable
scientific progress.
8. If the stated STFC prioritisation is implemented,
young scientists will leave this crucial area of research in which
the UK is a world leader, or they will be forced abroad. This
will significantly harm the UK's ability to sustain its expertise
in space weather, and will prevent STFC from achieving the science
goals identified in the consultation process. It will ultimately
impact the UK's ability to play a leading role in future space
research.
52
eg http://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/ras_pdfs/Astronomy_Forum/ASTRONOMY%20FORUM%20Jan%202010.pdf,
para 14. Back
53
Fourth Report of the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities,
Science and Skills, "Science Budget Allocations", HC
(2007-08) 215-I, pp 32-35. Back
54
http://www.scitech.ac.uk/resources/pdf/SBNews161209.pdf, p 5. Back
| 
