Memorandum submitted by Professor Albert
Zijlstra (FC 44)
IMPACT AND
CAUSES OF
THE CUTS
IN FUNDING
FOR RESEARCH
IN ASTRONOMY
AT UK UNIVERSITIES
Please find attached a submission to the inquiry
on the impact of spending contacts on scientific research. The
submission concerns the effect of the STFC cuts on research in
astronomy at UK universities, and is based on information provided
by STFC to the astronomy grant panels in January 2010. I am a
member of these grant panels, and am currently Head of Science
and professor of Astrophysics at Jodrell Bank, the University
of Manchester.
SUMMARY
1. The planned cuts in university grants
by STFC are expected to lead to the termination of 48-50 of the
60 existing rolling grants. The rolling grants are the main source
of funding for astronomy research at UK universities, and support
larger projects. The scale of the cuts, and the loss of the associated
fEC funding, endangers the viability of the UK physics departments.
STFC suffers a conflict of interest, where it can change the balance
of funding between its own tasks (subscriptions, facilities) and
university funding in its own favour. The recommendation is to
put safeguards in pace to ensure that STFC does not favour itself
over external stakeholders, to clarify its remit and ensure that
its budget is sufficient for its remit, and to remove from its
remit tasks which are not supported by its scientific goals.
BACKGROUND
2. This submission to the Science and Technology
Committee is in response to the call for input to an inquiry examining
the impact of spending cuts on SET and scientific research. This
submission is related to how STFC funds scientific research in
astronomy at universities. The author is Professor of Astrophysics
at the University of Manchester, and is a member of the astronomy
grant panels of STFC. The author is co-investigator on two STFC
grants. The host institute (Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics)
operates the e-Merlin national facility on behalf of STFC. This
document concerns a personal submission, noting the personal interests
stated above. I will discuss only the astronomy program.
3. The STFC has three distinct tasks. First,
it handles international subscriptions to ESA, ESO and CERN, in
order to provide access to their facilities for the university
physics community. Second, it operates UK facilities, again to
facilitate their scientific use, some of which is outside of its
own science community. Third, it funds university research within
its scientific remit in nuclear physics, particle physics and
astronomy, including, but not limited to, exploitation of its
facilities. STFC itself decides on the balance between funding
its own facilities, funding their exploitation, and funding other
research within its remit which does not make use of its facilities.
It is important to note that all government funding for research
within particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics goes through
STFC. This community has no access to other public UK funding
streams.
4. When STFC was created, the regulatory
impact assessment already noted the potential for conflict in
its tasks, stating as the main risk factor: "With this approach,
there is a risk that funding may be diverted away from grants
to support facilities management and that Universities could also
be disadvantaged in favour of Government-run facilities as a result."
(http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file36094.doc par. 25)
5. There is ample evidence that this has
indeed happened. In response to STFC's financial difficulties,
shortly after its formation the university grants were cut by
25% in 2007. A further 10% reduction was announced in December
2009, and in January 2010 a further 25% cut was announced to take
effect after 2011. This should be compared to a 25% reduction
in its facilities budget whilst the international subscriptions
increased over the same time. In response to the deficit, there
has been a strong shift of funding away from exploitation.
6. STFC also operates Diamond, which is
used mainly by other research councils and has little overlap
with STFC's scientific remit. This introduces a potentially undesirable
overlap between research councils. Over the 2013-15 period, the
STFC plans show a "strategic" shift of 25 million pound
per year from PPAN (particle physics, astronomy, nuclear physics)
to PALS (life sciences), which probably related to Diamond. It
is not clear whether STFC had any choice in this matter.
UNIVERSITY GRANTS
7. University research is funded though
three-year grants to individual researchers (so-called standard
grants), and through five-year, larger grants for teams (rolling
grants). The second stream accounts for most of the research in
astronomy, and the system of rolling grants is believed to be
the main reason why UK astronomy is ranked second in the world.
Long-term projects and strategy depend on rolling grants. The
standard grants account for a small fraction of the research:
at a success rate of 10% per annum, individual academics can only
expect funding through this route once or twice in their academic
career.
8. University grants are primarily used
to fund young postdoctoral researchers (PDRAs). PDRAs typically
stay in place for three years. PDRA positions provide a vital
post-PhD training period. At the end of this period, the person
is equipped to design and carry out independent research, and
is able to lead research projects. This is the highest level of
training UK universities offer. The overheads and fEC attached
to these positions also provide a major source of income to physics
departments.
9. In 2007, at the time of its creation,
STFC funded 135 PDRA positions in astronomy per annum at universities
(some technical positions are included in this number). In 2009
this was down to around 90, and as announced by Prof Mason. in
January 2010, it is planned to reduce to 56-60 after 2011, for
a total reduction of 55%.
IMPACT OF
STFC CUTS
10. Currently there are 60 rolling grants
in astronomy in the UK. To be viable, they require a minimum of
2 funded PDRAs. The reduction in total PDRA numbers to 60 will
have a very heavy impact. Modeling by Prof Cruise (chair of the
Astronomy Grant Panels) shows that only 10-12 rolling grants will
survive. The previous cuts have been severe, but left the rolling
grant system in place, By 2013, we are fully expecting a collapse
of the astronomy research at UK universities, with only a few
viable groups remaining.
11. The immediate result is that the UK
will obtain little return on its investment in facilities and
subscriptions. A strong example is Herschel, a one-billion-euro
ESA space mission with major UK involvement, which is currently
the largest telescope in space. In spite of the very large investment
by STFC, there are only a few PDRAs funded to work on its exploitation.
With the further reduction in PDRA numbers, there may be none
in the near future. The second consequence is a reduction by half
in the number of young people trained to the level of research
leaders.
12. Physics departments in the UK depend
on STFC for as much as 80% of their research income. The 2007
settlement included for all research councils an amount for fEC,
aimed to make university research fully funded. For STFC, additional
fEC amounts to £21.5 million for 2010-11. STFC no longer
keeps this as a separate fund. Instead, the grant cuts are also
applied to the fEC paid to universities. Government funds that
were explicitly aimed at supporting universities, are instead
used to pay for shortfalls on STFC projects, facilities and subscriptions.
The reduction in university grants by STFC and consequential reduction
in fEC, directly affects the financial viability of the university
Physics departments.
CAUSES AND
PRIORITIES
13. The well-published financial difficulties
of STFC meant that the grants line could not remain unaffected,
and a reduction was expected by the community. However, the grants
line has been reduced far above expectations. This is in part
due to the fact that STFC has no control over large elements of
its budget. The rapid rise in the ESA subscriptions (see figure
1) especially has put severe pressure on the grants line. The
grants line is the only budget element within STFC which can be
rapidly adjusted. Funding streams aimed for supporting university
research are therefore being used to cushion the spending on other
items. This was correctly identified by the risk assessment at
the time of the creation of STFC. If the ESA subscriptions would
continue to increase at the current rate, funding for grants will
drop to zero within five years.
Figure 1
INTERNATIONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS PAID BY STFC,
SHOWING THE VERY LARGE RISE IN THE ESA SUBSCRIPTIONS (pacrowther.staff.shef.ac.uk/subs.pdf)
14. The community consultation carried out
during 2009 (the so-called NUAP and FUAP advisory panels) gave
top priority to maintaining the university grants and studentships.
STFC has chosen not to follow this recommendation, but as detailed
above, is cutting the grants line by 35% between 2009 and 2013.
15. For the future, STFC's highest stated
priority is to be involved in the e-ELT (an european 40-m telescope)
and the SKA (the square kilometre array), both of which are large
international projects. However, funding has to be found from
within the existing budget. This foreshadows a further squeezing
of the exploitation budget.
16. STFC has neither the funding nor the
strategy to carry out all three aspects of its remit simultaneously.
University research funding has suffered strongly, and future
developments are predicted to be calamitous. The original reason
to form STFC was to ensure "that the scientific and wider
economic potential of UK investment in large scientific facilities
is being exploited to best effect". STFC has failed on this.
A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST
17. To find a acceptable solution, it is
important to correctly diagnose the problem. The underlying issue
appears to be a conflict of interest. University researchers and
STFC facilities compete for funding within the STFC. In other
words, the STFC manages a competitive process for funding, where
it itself is one of the participants. It is noteworthy that no
problems have been reported with Diamond, which is operated by
STFC but for which the exploitation grants are handed out predominantly
by other research councils.
18. The solution requires a separation of
responsibilities. STFC should not have the power to change the
balance between facility funding and grant funding, and should
not be allowed to use fEC funds for its own purposes. STFC should
also not have the power to require grant applicants to make use
of STFC facilities (as is currently one of the assessment criteria,
set by STFC). Only under these conditions can STFC carry out its
full role. If this cannot be guaranteed, STF should only fund
and operate facilities, but should not have responsibility for
university grant funds.
RECOMMENDATIONS
19. STFC needs to live within its means.
It is believed that the financial difficulties date back to unrealistic
funding assumptions made at or before its creation, by PPARC and
by RAL, including a lack of an operation budget for Diamond.
20. There has to be sufficient funding for
STFC to be able to carry out its remit. It is unacceptable that
university departments are in danger of closing because STFC only
has funds for its fixed subscriptions and facility operations.
Maintaining viable Physics departments should be a funded, explicit
task for STFC. Two dangers should be avoided: the grants line
should not be locked into a funding level which endangers universities,
and the rolling grant system should be maintained.
21. STFC priorities should be based on scientific
criteria. It is notable that in the December 2009 prioritization,
Aurora was shown to have little importance to the UK community,
and Moonlite none. The UK voluntary subscription to ESA's Aurora
program is in fact a main cause of the current crisis (Fig 1).
There may be good reasons why the UK should be involved, such
as the benefits for the UK industry. But it should not have been
charged against a research budget where the researchers have little
or no interest in it.
22. The conflict of interest needs to be
resolved. STFC should not have the power to change the balance
between facility funding, exploitation, and non-facility-related
university research, to its own benefit.
Albert Zijlstra
Professor of Astrophysics
Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics
| 
