Memorandum submitted by the STFC Science
Board (FC 46)
We felt that it was important for the record
to explain the thinking behind the actions that Science Board
advised in light of the cuts which were necessary to balance the
STFC budget.
1. The official report from the Science
Board meeting can be found on the STFC web pages. Science Board
was very distressed at the level of funding cut that was being
called for, and it became clear early on that this would not be
like previous prioritizations of the programme, but a major restructuring
and re-alignment of STFC's entire remit, encompassing both facilities
and fundamental science research. The level of cut needed was
about 10%, but because more than half of the STFC responsibility
consists of international subscriptions, this translated into
a cut of approximately 25% on the domestic science programme.
2. Science Board first off recommended funding
for all the international subscriptions, which provide facilities
for all the grant funded science areas, and also provide most
of the photons and some of the neutrons to the UK users. The extensive
consultation of the community clearly identified the facilities
which are made available to researchers through the International
Subscriptions as being essential for keeping our scientists on
the first rung on the world stage. Some of these subscriptions
have gone up substantially in the last few years from a combination
of increases and exchange rate effects (ESA is a case in point).
3. Science Board agreed that they had a
responsibility to run STFC's own facilities at some optimal level
(way below maximum exploitation) to make sense of the investment:
after all, the international facilities do not get their budgets
cut, but presently STFC is running their own facilities at low
duty cycles. Furthermore, the idea that we should not support
the new Diamond beamlines, after the government has invested £0.5
billion so that it can become an internationally competitive UK
facility, would be irresponsible.
4. Any further facility development would
be focused on Diamond and ISIS, but Science Board advised that
investment in any other future facilities should be withdrawn
because of the low likelihood of additional operating costs being
made available in the future.
5. In the grant funded PPAN area Science
Board could advise only for funding for the top priority projects
which the communities have put forward and even these projects
had their resources reduced in order to balance the budget. The
outcome of this is a definite shift to "big science"
projects, and more than half the projects which were being funded
and will have to be terminated were smaller less high priority
projects. Science Board felt that some resources must be put aside
to manage this withdrawal carefully in order to give the researchers
time to realign their research. However, even though some extra
funds were made available by RCUK for grants this year, the cuts
to the grants which are necessary in future years are substantial.
6. The dominating factors in this whole
budget crunch are from the international subscriptions, an increase
in the cost of research through FEC which was not fully covered
by the allocation, inflation and exchange rates.
7. Throughout all its actions, Science Board
took cognisance of the recommendations of its advisory panels.
Each panel had its own priorities, but it is the responsibility
of Science Board to weight those priorities across the entire
gamut of STFC's remit. This has, not surprisingly, led to disappointment,
and a feeling that the advice of the panels was ignored. Science
Board would like to stress that the work undertaken by the panels,
and the consultation they organised with STFC's community was
a vital part of the prioritisation exercise, and Science Board
is very grateful to the panels for their input to a very difficult
process.
8. Science Board is satisfied that the prioritisation
was a transparent and accountable exercise. Science Board also
knows that the outcome is going to cause enormous problems and
frustrations within the scientific community as years of scientific
work are lost. Indeed, members of Science Board are experiencing
those frustrations themselves, as all members of Science Board
are practising scientists and are also subject to the cutbacks
and restrictions imposed from the prioritisation.
9. It was not an easy exercise, and no-one
is happy. It is incumbent on Science Board and the STFC Executive
to ensure that STFC's community is now able to deliver a combination
of top-class pure and applied research that will act as a platform
for future developments and discoveries. This is essential to
ensure that the UK maintains its position as one of the leading
nations in scientific research and technology development.
10. Science Board is always open to ways
in which it might improve its practices. It is keen to work with
DBIS as it looks at the tension between grants and facilities
within STFC.
11. Science Board thanks the Committee for
this opportunity to clarify the process by which STFC completed
its recent prioritisation exercise, and the thinking behind the
(frequently unpalatable) decisions that were made.
12. We all need facilities, whether national
or international, and they provide a basis for almost all of our
science.
DECLARATION OF
INTERESTS
MINOS Project Spokesperson
Member of Faculty, UCL
Chair of STFC Science Board
Professor Jenny Thomas
Chair of STFC Science Board
on behalf of STFC Science Board
| 
