Memorandum submitted by the Magnetosphere,
Ionosphere and Solar-Terrestrial (MIST) Council on behalf of the
MIST science community (FC 53)
On behalf of the Magnetosphere, Ionosphere and
Solar-Terrestrial (MIST) council we would like to submit the accompanying
memorandum as evidence to the Committee's inquiry into the impact
of spending cuts on science and scientific research.
MIST is an informal community of UK-based scientists
with interests in physical processes within the Sun-Earth system
and other planets. This includes studies of the mesosphere, ionosphere,
thermosphere and magnetosphere of Earth and of other planets and
the solar wind. The role of MIST is to help promote these interests
to the public, wider scientific community and other stakeholders
as well as provide a platform for scientists to present their
work to the rest of the UK community. MIST is currently represented
by a council formed of five elected members.
Although part of the MIST science area has been
transferred to NERC following the Wakeham review of physics, the
Science and technology Facilities Council (STFC) retained space-based
observations of the solar-terrestrial system and solar system
space plasma physics. The recent prioritisation has done significant
and lasting damage to this important area of science with little
regard to the community input. STFC's lack of strategic thinking
(they still have no council-wide strategy) is disproportionally
harming areas of internationally excellent science. It is far
from clear to many in the MIST community that STFC in its current
form is a fit custodian of British Science.
Dr Andrew J. Kavanagh
Member of MIST council
MIST council:
| | Prof Mike Hapgood (chair)
|
| | Dr Colin Forsythe
|
| | Dr Gabby Provan
|
| | Dr Andrew Kavanagh
|
| | Prof Betty Lanchester
|
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. MIST council would like to address two issues named
in the inquiry: the implications and effects of the announced
STFC budget cuts and the scope of the STFC review announced on
16 December and currently underway. The budget announcement by
STFC in December has its roots in the settlement received by STFC
in the 2007 comprehensive spending review (CSR07). Initial cuts
imposed by STFC to the grants line and facility operations were
insufficient to plug the financial hole. Relief provided by DIUS/BIS
prevented the situation from becoming worse by covering the cost
of fluctuating exchange rates and providing a loan to help with
cash flow but did not address the initial shortfall. The recent
budget announcement from STFC is based on an assumption of future
flat cash settlements given the current economic outlook.
2. The MIST community appreciates the financial constraints
on STFC that have driven this approach, but is deeply concerned
about the strategic consequences of these effective cuts for UK
research. Implications arise across the whole remit of STFC science
funding (astronomy, space, particle and nuclear physics) but MIST
has a responsibility to the space-based solar-terrestrial physics
and space-plasma physics communities who have been hit hard by
the recent cuts. In particular we have grave concerns over the
process by which STFC prioritised its science, the lack of strategic
planning and implications for future science development. Significant
damage to national capability is likely with the UK reduced in
stature and its ability to deliver world-class science.
FURTHER REDUCTION
IN THE
GRANTS LINE—JOB
LOSSES
3. In 2008 and 2009 STFC imposed a 25% cut on the grants
line; the announcement on 16 December 2009 revealed a further
10% cut. This has meant a significant loss of job opportunities
for the present generation of UK young scientists and will reduce
the number of young people developing advanced skills. The short
duration of UK PhD training, compared to most of our economic
competitors, means that early research jobs play a vital role
in bringing our young scientists to world-class levels of skills:
the UK three-year PhD + four year post-doctoral position provides
the same experience as a seven year PhD elsewhere. The severity
of the cuts cannot be underestimated.
4. At a recent Astronomy Forum[85]
meeting the chair of STFC's Astronomy Grants Panel (AGP) informed[86]
the assembled scientists that although in the past rounds they
had supported approx. 90 positions, this year only 75 posts would
be available (this is estimated from funding 12 standard and 14
rolling grants). However this number is likely to reduce to 56
posts in the future. The damage caused by such a reduction was
highlighted by the AGP chair. This of course has implications
for the review announced by Lord Drayson—any move to protect
the grants at this new level will be safeguarding a sub-par level
of investment. These figures represent purely the impact to astronomy
and space (including solar and space plasma physics) and it is
likely that similar scenarios exist within particle and nuclear
physics.
5. The reduction in funding for university groups will
impact heavily on future capabilities. It must be noted that many
of the world-class instruments that the UK has produced were developed
by university groups supported through the grants lines. Reducing
that support will reduce the UK's ability to plan for the future
of UK science within the STFC remit. Research is essential in
maintaining UK skills and capabilities in specialist areas such
as STP (and nuclear physics for example). The presence of active
researchers in teaching is important for maintaining and advancing
the level of technical content in teaching; it is an important
path for innovation. Thus it is essential to support the research
within universities as it is a critical part of the skills base;
it supplies both people and ideas and drives quality. The programme
from STFC appears to consider research as irrelevant to the wider
development of the UK skills base and it seems to bear little
resemblance to the community input.
PROCESS OF
PRIORITISATION
6. Following the previous inquiry into budget allocations,
and the subsequent Wakeham review of physics, STFC set up advisory
panels to bolster communication with the community. At the same
time aspects of MIST science that impacted upon the Earth's environment
(and which were ground-based, such as EISCAT) transferred to NERC;[87]
STFC retained space based aspects and fundamental space plasma
physics (eg Cassini and Cluster). MIST science within STFC fell
under the auspice of the Near Universe Advisory Panel (NUAP);
following extensive, but hurried, community consultation NUAP
(and the other committees) developed a series of fundamental questions
forming the basis of a science strategy.[88]
NUAP did an excellent job within a constrained timeframe and selected
seven highest priority questions with associated instrument/facility
rankings required to address them. They also, along with every
other panel, asserted that protecting the grants and fellowships
was of utmost importance (these, of course, translate into jobs
for young scientists who are the backbone of a continuing science
programme).
7. The announcement on 16 December 2009 revealed clear
conflicts between the prioritisation and the NUAP strategy.[89]
Of interest to the MIST community were: the cut to the grants
and fellowships (highest priority from NUAP); managed withdrawal
from several in-situ space plasma missions (Cluster, Cassini and
Venus Express) even though they were identified as high priority
for answering three of the 7 strategic questions; in contrast,
STFC elected to fund the Aurora program, despite this being ranked
as lower-middle priority on a single key question.
8. It appears that although the advisory panels were
requested to provide a strategic input to PPAN, PPAN's remits
was simply to tension all facilities against each other with no
strategic consideration. The exact process will not be known until
PPAN release their report following their meeting (this week).
MIST contends that a list of facility priorities does not constitute
a coherent science strategy. This conflict of approaches must
be addressed before further damage is done to the STFC science
areas. STFC must use the work of the advisory panels to develop
a coherent science strategy which can then inform any future reviews
to avoid doing further damage.
9. This issue has been raised at the Astronomy Forum
where the chair and CEO of STFC met with senior members of the
astronomy community. The chair of NUAP also wrote to the chair
of STFC council to highlight the discrepancies and received a
response that did little to address the issue.[90]
The reason for lack of strategy above the advisory panels is not
clear, yet given the impacts on certain areas of science one could
be forgiven for thinking it was the intent of STFC to close certain
areas of science. If STFC wishes to close down areas of research
and of UK leadership, it should be explicit about that a strategic
level—and be clear about its wider implications for the
UK in terms of impact on the supply of people with advanced skills.
Such decisions should not be left to a facility prioritisation
exercise.
10. A second weakness of the facility-ranking approach
is one that MIST has highlighted in the past; without due consideration
for strategy it is the smaller communities that tend to bear the
brunt of negative funding decisions. It now becomes clear that
past representations were not special pleading. Although the cuts
to astronomy and particle physics are severe, nuclear physics
has been significantly affected. Many of the issues raised by
that community jibe with similar issues that were aired when STFC
decided to cut all funding for ground-based STP instruments (and
associated research). The prioritisation represents a failure
of process, inclined against smaller communities who may well
generate important skills critical for a high-technology society.
WITHDRAWAL FROM
ESA MISSION EXTENSIONS
11. The current prioritisation calls for major cuts in
existing science programmes including "managed withdrawal"
from five space science missions in which the UK has key leadership
roles (Cassini, Cluster, SOHO, Venus Express and XMM). STFC has
also announced that it will cease to fund research based on data
from these "lower priority" missions,[91]
all of which have publicly accessible archives that will support
much new world-class science over the next five years. Each of
these missions has recently (October 2009) received an extension
from ESA, for which the UK presumably voted; thus the withdrawal
sends a message to our colleagues in ESA that the UK is far from
a reliable partner further damaging our international reputation.
The prioritisation represents a massive hit on the UK science
community's ability to operate space missions; a poor initiation
for the formation of the new space agency.
LOSS OF
IN -SITU
SPACE PLASMA
MISSIONS
12. A specific concern of the MIST community is that
the programme of managed withdrawals falls heavily on the study
of solar system plasmas—in particular, cutting all missions
that makes in-situ plasma measurements (an area of UK international
leadership).[92] In-situ
study of space plasma forms a significant element of the ESA science
programme and forms a part of the payloads of Rosetta and Bepi-Colombo.
Similar measurements are planned on several of the ESA Cosmic
Vision candidates. Of the four space missions with current UK
involvement in the in-situ measurements only Rosetta was funded,
and that is about to enter a four year hibernation prior to reaching
its target. Thus the decision to withdraw support is undermining
an internationally recognised area of UK leadership (see MIST—Appendix1)
and influence at a time when future missions will depend on our
expertise (and the UK can reap the benefits).
13. The proposed cuts will create a funding gap during
which relevant UK capabilities will wither. Technical competence
will be lost and the international recognition of our community
is endangered as the UK attempts to take lead roles in future
initiatives. Of direct economic impact, the UK ability to monitor
and, more importantly, characterise space weather hazards (see
MIST—Appendix2) will be restricted, just at a time when
there is a growing European interest and US programme in this
area. It is puzzling that at a time when economic impact is recognised
as important STFC not only actively encourage ground-based STP
(an area of excellent science as well as potential impact) to
move to another research council, it seeks to retain the space
based component and then cuts significant parts of it.
THE REVIEW
OF STFC STRUCTURAL
ISSUES
14. Lord Drasyon's announcement of a review of STFC's
structure was welcome indicating recognition that there were flaws
within STFC. It is not within the power of Lord Drayson to affect
changes to the recent STFC prioritisation without breaching the
Haldane principle and so he is right to concentrate on ensuring
that future damage to research is minimized. In terms of restructuring
STFC and in seeking solutions to the damage to research it is
worth quoting from the regulatory Impact Assessment on the creation
of a STFC.[93]
15. "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. This approach could also lead to the risk of a potential
conflict of interest in grant giving for example in the future
management of large facilities which are currently operated or
managed by CCLRC on behalf of the UK".—paragraph 25.
16. Sadly paragraph 28 is also relevant indicating that
we got the worst of both worlds:
17. "To continue with the current arrangements would
run the risk that the UK does not fully exploit its investment
in large scientific facilities as currently decisions on investment
are taken by several different Research Councils without an overall
priority-setting process in place".
18. Whatever the review concludes it is far from clear
that retaining the current STFC management that has exacerbated
the problems should be part of the solution. In the consultation
before STFC was formed:[94]
19. "... NERC expressed concern that the analysis
in favour of Large Facilities Council lacked sufficient supporting
evidence. It also considered that a Council whose mission is driven
by supporting facilities rather than having a clear scientific
mission may find it difficult to maintain a strong relationship
between facilities and users".
DECLARATION OF
INTERESTSDr Kavanagh is supported
on a STFC research grant and uses Cluster data
Dr Provan is supported on a STFC research grant utilising Cassini
data
D Forsythe is supported on a STFC research grant utilising Cluster
data
Prof Lanchester performs space plasma research using in situ data
for modelling and theory
Prof Hapgood works with Cluster and is employed by STFC
85
http://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/ras_pdfs/Astronomy_Forum/ASTRONOMY%20FORUM%20Jan%202010.pdf Back
86
http://pacrowther.staff.shef.ac.uk/Cruise-15Jan10.pdf Back
87
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2009/30-solar.asp Back
88
http://www.scitech.ac.uk/resources/pdf/MergedNUAPDraftStrat161109.pdf Back
89
http://pacrowther.staff.shef.ac.uk/NUAP15Jan10.pdf Back
90
see http://www.mist.ac.uk for email and response at http://www.mist.ac.uk/STFC_response.pdf Back
91
http://www.scitech.ac.uk/pmc/prel/stfc/CouncilNews161209.aspx Back
92
http://pacrowther.staff.shef.ac.uk/Schwartz-15Jan10.pdf Back
93
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file36094.doc Back
94
http://www.dius.gov.uk/¥/media/publications/F/file34028 Back
| 
