Appendix 2: Science and Technology Facilities
Council (STFC) Response
Summary
1. The Science and Technology Facilities Council
(STFC) welcomes the Committee's continued interest, and notes
that the Committee chose to focus in this inquiry on the disciplines
of Astronomy and Particle Physics. In addition to these inspiring
and important disciplines, STFC also: supports Nuclear Physics;
operates and/or manages large neutron, photon and laser research
facilities in the United Kingdom and overseas used by a wide variety
of researchers from the physical, life and heritage sciences;
provides extensive support for innovation activities and cross-disciplinary
research efforts; has responsibility for the two National Science
and Innovation Campuses; operates national research laboratories
and other research infrastructure, and; provides, through funding
support and direct efforts, a significant public engagement programme
with a particular emphasis on improving the take-up by younger
people of STEM subjects.
2. STFC is an advocate to Government, Parliament,
domestic and international research communities, the media and
the general public for our research disciplines, facilities, international
subscriptions and other activities. Our efforts in this regard
helped secure our positive 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review
settlement which, despite the difficult economic climate, provided
full funding for the international science subscriptions we manage
on behalf of the UK, the operations of the three world-class domestic
research facilities at the Harwell campus in Oxfordshire, and
resource funding to deliver the programme identified in our 2009
prioritisation, although as the Committee notes the outcome of
capital funding remains more difficult across government.
3. STFC has invested significant effort over the
past four years in listening and responding to the concerns of
our stakeholders and communities. We have introduced new and more
effective methods of engagement with key stakeholders, including
our research communities, Government and Parliament, the private
sector and universities. The recognition of these efforts by our
communities, and the Committee, is obviously welcome. New initiatives
to build even stronger links and partnerships are already underway
with universities, public engagement partners and the community.
4. The Committee notes a concern within the academic
community in relation to maintaining a 'healthy diversity' across
the STFC research programme. STFC's research programme has been
approved by our Council based on rigorous scientific advice from
our Science Board, which comprises leading members of our scientific
community, and which in turn benefits from an advisory structure
involving the wider members of our research communities. In formulating
the programme, Science Board has had to balance the requirements
of excellence and breadth of research against affordability. Science
Board, our Council and our Executive have already noted with concern
the concentration of research in fewer, larger and more expensive
projects as a result of recent prioritisations and funding settlements.
As a result STFC is working to allow grant panels some flexibility
to broaden the programme by supporting new opportunities. Decisions
on these investments will, as usual, be made through a rigorous
peer-review process.
5. STFC notes the Committee's message to the Astronomy
and Particle Physics communities that it is time to put the past
behind us and move on. We agree, and will remain heedful of lessons
learnt.
6. Set out below are STFC's responses to the Committee's
specific recommendations for action in relation to matters for
which we are directly responsible.
Specific STFC Responses to Conclusions and Recommendations
Nos 1&2: Given the evidence and documentation
presented to us, we accept that there was a stated long-term intention
to withdraw from some facilities following ESO accession. We note
and welcome the clarification by the STFC that this was a financial
rather than scientific strategy. (Paragraph 32)
However, while ESO accession required some strategic
restructuring of UK investments, as set out in the 2001 PPARC
papers, the strategic decision does not provide cover for all
future reductions in spending on astronomy. We find it inexplicable
that the planned withdrawals detailed in the 2001 PPARC papers
were not incorporated into all subsequent PPARC and STFC policy
documents. This would have given the UK astronomical community
the opportunity to challenge this policy in more detail, particularly
as it was suggested to us that more than double the savings had
been made than were required to join ESO. Unfortunately, this
failure by STFC to communicate is chronic and typical and is the
reason why its client communities have such a low opinion of it.
(Paragraph 33)
7. STFC notes the Committee's observations. We note
that the astronomy community was, and is, fully engaged in the
PPARC and now STFC decision-making process through our advisory
structure, and that access to northern hemisphere facilities has
been regularly reviewed through this process. Evidence strongly
indicates that confidence in the STFC by its science communities
is higher than it has been in the past and continues to improve.
No 3: For the benefit of transparency, we recommend
that the STFC make publicly available all PPARC and STFC council
minutes and strategy documents which discuss UK spending on, and
involvement in, ground-based astronomical facilities over the
last ten years. (Paragraph 34)
8. STFC will examine the relevant documents with
a view to publication online if they do not contain commercial-in-confidence
or other confidential information, noting that Council Minutes
of STFC since April 2007 are already online.
No 4: Withdrawal from all Northern Hemisphere
ground-based optical and infrared facilities risks, in our opinion,
surrendering the UK's prominence in this field to other ESO member
states and depriving UK astronomers of a leading role in future
discoveries and instrumentation development. It is essential that
the STFC re-examine the case for retaining access to those telescope
that it owns, especially in light of the relatively small amount
of money that would allow continuity. We have concerns that it
could be to the detriment of UK astronomy if the UK presence in
all ground-based optical and infrared facilities outside of the
ESO were to be lost. (Paragraph 45)
9. STFC must balance the UK astronomy community's
requirements for access to astronomical observatories against
excellence and affordability. Decisions on the timing of withdrawal
from individual telescopes or facilities will be made on scientific
advice given the financial circumstances. We have recognised that
there remains considerable scope for UK astronomers to undertake
excellent research using facilities in the Northern Hemisphere
but, where this requires additional funding, access has to be
tensioned against other opportunities. STFC has been working with
international partners to identify new ways of providing access
to these telescopes. As a result, the STFC with its Canadian and
Dutch partners has been able to extend support for the James Clerk
Maxwell Telescope (JCMT) in Hawaii until 31 March 2013. This decision
also allows continued operation of the UK Infra-Red Telescope
(UKIRT) until the same date. Further options for these two telescopes
are the subject of ongoing discussion. Similar negotiations are
underway with our partners in the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes
on the Canary Islands. It should be noted that UK access to any
facility does not necessarily require the facilities to be under
full or part UK ownership.
Nos 5&6: We welcome the recent decision to
locate the SKA project office at the Jodrell Bank Observatory
near Manchester. This will enable the UK to take a leading role
in the ongoing development of this project, and reflects the high-regard
for UK astronomy and astronomers internationally. This happy conclusion
would not have been possible if the STFC had not reversed its
original intention to remove funding for the e-MERLIN radio telescope
at Jodrell Bank, an issue our predecessors had raised serious
concerns about. (Paragraph 49).
We are concerned that short-term funding constraints
may hinder the UK's ability to lead on the ongoing development
and construction of priority astronomical projects such as the
Square Kilometre Array (SKA) and the ESO's European Extremely
Large Telescope (E-ELT), though our concerns were eased by the
recent funding announcements. This is an issue we shall keep under
review and expect to return to later in the Parliament. (Paragraph
50)
10. We welcome the Committee's recognition of recent
developments with regard to SKA and E-ELT and look forward to
reporting progress later in the Parliament.
No 7: We welcome the STFC's commitment to maintain
its resource spending on research grants over the next four years.
We also commend the high priority and value the STFC places on
investment in researchers. (Paragraph 56)
11. STFC welcomes this acknowledgement.
No 8: We would be concerned if the budget for
postdoctoral research grants was still seen as a resource that
could be raided to fulfil shortfalls elsewhere. We conclude that
this would be unacceptable. If the UK is to continue to attract,
train and retain the very best scientists, and reap the future
economic and social rewards that they will inevitably bring, the
STFC must invest in researchers at every stage of their career.
Any gaps or instability in funding during a scientist's career
path risk losing the next generation of UK astronomers and particle
physicists to other countries, disciplines and careers. We welcome
the introduction of the STFC's new STEP awards for postdoctoral
students, but we are concerned that the money used to fund these
awards is simply being redirected from elsewhere in the STFC's
programme. We recommend that the STFC now make a commitment to
address over the next four years the recent decline in Post-Doctoral
Research Assistant positions that it funds. (Paragraph 62)
12. STFC has made clear in its Delivery Plan that
it will maintain resource spending on grants at the current levels
over the period of the comprehensive spending review. STFC notes
that projects fund PDRAs, in addition to PDRAs being directly
supported by grants. Balancing investment between grants, studentships
and projects is a complex issue, and our Particle Physics, Astronomy
and Nuclear Physics Science Committee (PPAN) is currently considering
this balance.
No 9: We also recommend that the STFC carry out
detailed research into the post-doctoral geographic and work destinations
of the researchers that it funds. We would expect the STFC to
report on this in its 2012/13 annual report. (Paragraph 63)
13. STFC already tracks the destinations of funded
students and we will build on this information, working with our
partners. However, we note that this research may be affected
by privacy concerns.
No 10: We are concerned that the reduction in
STFC capital grants available to universities over the next four
years will mean that vital work in the field of instrumentation
R&D, as well as the essential support and follow-up work that
requires investment in computing capacity and other supportive
equipment, will be neglected. We conclude that the consequence
will be a loss in the UK's prominence in these areas. (Paragraph
69)
14. STFC recognises the Committee's concerns. We
are working hard to prevent any overall loss in prominence, not
least by encouraging the shared use of capital resources available
to research groups and reducing replication in the procurement
of capital intensive equipment.
No 11: Important decisions will shortly have to
be made about the allocation of relatively scarce resources for
accelerator R&D over the next four years. These decisions
will determine whether the UK has a significant part to play in
this field for decades to come. Given the widespread applications
and benefits of this area of science, the STFC must ensure it
makes these decisions on the basis of a long-term, scientifically
informed, strategic vision that ensures the UK stays at the forefront
of activities in developing new technologies. (Paragraph 76)
15. STFC's Accelerator Strategy Board, a body made
up of external experts including international members, is developing
a strategy designed to ensure the UK maintains its world-leading
status. The major stakeholders from our laboratories and the major
UK university groups active in this area are involved in this
process.
No 12: We welcome the STFC's clarification that
proposals in its delivery plan will not impact on technical R&D
work carried out in universities. However, the STFC must ensure
that what it says is a restatement of the current working relationship
between university groups and the STFC's own laboratories does
not result in the construction capabilities and the expertise
within UK universities being underused in favour of focusing future
construction activities at the STFC's own laboratories. (Paragraph
80)
16. STFC is maintaining a dialogue with relevant
sections of our science communities in relation to the rebalancing
of activities within our national laboratories.
No 13: While in the short-term the impact of capital
reductions on existing facilities may be manageable, the STFC
must ensure that, if opportunities for increased capital investment
arise during the next four years and beyond, it prioritises maintaining
the cutting-edge capabilities of the UK's existing scientific
infrastructure. To enable the STFC to plan properly for the next
four years, we urge the Government to make clear its allocations
to Research Councils for capital spending beyond 2011/12 as soon
as possible. (Paragraph 83)
17. For Government response.
No 14: We recognise the significance of astronomy
and particle physics to a wide range of important scientific developments.
We conclude it is therefore important that the STFC ensures current
and future investment decisions protect the breadth of this work
and ensure the UK is at the forefront of future developments in
astronomy and particle physics. (Paragraph 86)
18. See paragraph 4.
No 15: We are concerned that past and future decisions
to withdraw the UK from internationally collaborative projects
and the subsequent impact on the UK's international reputation
may affect the potential future gains from such collaboration
that the STFC, and other research councils, expect to achieve.
Indeed, there appears to us to be a danger that the UK's track-record
may hinder its ability to join, and be seen as a leader in, future
collaborations. The assessment by Sir Adrian Smith, Director General
for Knowledge and Innovation at BIS, is that the UK is not seen
as an unreliable international partner. We conclude, however,
that this does not fit with the assessment of the Institute of
Physics and Professor Stephen Hawking who, in our view, are in
a better position to make a judgement on this important matter.
(Paragraph 89)
19. For Government response.
No 16: We note the President of the Institute
of Physics' comments on recent improvement made by the STFC in
its engagement with researchers. Some lessons from earlier failures
in communication and engagement have been learned but there is
still a large amount of room for improvement. (Paragraph 92)
20. See paragraph 3.
No 17: We conclude that one simple step towards
winning back the trust of researchers would be to ensure that
researchers and academia are sufficiently involved in the high-level
decision making in the STFC on a consistent basis. We recommend
that the STFC make a permanent commitment to ensure that at least
50% of STFC Council members are practicing academics and include
at least one individual from each of the core scientific fields
for which the STFC is responsible—astronomy, particle physics
and nuclear physics. (Paragraph 95)
21. The composition of STFC Council was established
by the sponsoring Department (DIUS) at its creation, based on
the wide range of responsibilities which it is required to discharge
(see paragraph 1). At the STFC Council meeting of 24 May 2011,
STFC's Chairman and Council undertook to carry out a skills audit
of Council members to inform future Council recruitment exercises.
The appointment of membership of STFC's Council members is managed
in accordance with the Commissioner for Public Appointments' "Code
of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies"[1].
No 18: The next STFC Chief Executive must make
it clear from the outset his or her commitment to work with researchers
and academics, and act as an advocate for all of the science disciplines
covered by the STFC. We will continue to scrutinise the actions
of the STFC throughout this Parliament, and will invite the next
STFC Chief Executive to appear before us at the earliest available
opportunity. (Paragraph 99)
22. The STFC welcomes the continued interest of the
Select Committee in our work.
No 19: We conclude that outreach is essential.
We believe there is scope for a more dedicated and defined outreach
role for some researchers and institutions funded by the STFC.
We recommend that the STFC investigate opportunities within specific
grant applications of university groups and institutions to allocate
defined, ringfenced funding for the employment of active researchers
to carry out dedicated outreach and public engagement activities
as an integral part of their role. (Paragraph 105)
23. STFC provides funding support for university-based
researchers to undertake public engagement through two mechanisms—specific
Science in Society grants and fellowships, and by encouraging
university departments and/or projects to bid for specific resources
within their research grants to be used for public engagement.
STFC expects all grant holders to examine the public engagement
opportunities from their work so as to maximise the impact of
their research. STFC also supports the RCUK public engagement
programme.
No 20: We believe the STFC should exploit its
network of strategic partners in the public sector, universities,
learned societies and industry and act as a conduit in developing,
coordinating and promoting a formal programme of outreach between
these partner organisations and schools. The STFC's delivery plan
specifically outlines plans to strengthen its strategic partnerships
and we recommend that outreach be seen as a key element of work
in this area. (Paragraph 110)
24. STFC's existing public engagement programme works
through an in-house team and an extensive network of partners
to link young people and schools with our science and technology.
We are developing new, and strengthening existing, partnerships
to increase visibility of our sciences, which we believe are among
the most inspiring and exciting of any research disciplines.
No 21: At a time when the public profile of astronomy
and particle physics is high, we are concerned to learn that the
funding made available for public engagement award schemes within
the STFC's Science in Society programme has already been squeezed.
The STFC must look to protect and increase this area of funding
wherever possible. (Paragraph 113)
25. As STFC's Delivery Plan makes clear, funding
for the Science in Society programme is protected across the CSR
period, at the same level as previous years. In addition, our
in-house programme of activities is being expanded through new
partnerships and enhanced staff effort.
No 22: Especially in these financially constrained
times, the Department for Education and RCUK should seek to foster
relationships between research councils, local education authorities
and schools in order to enable research council employees, and
research council funded-researchers, to carry out outreach activities
on a more systematic and coordinated basis in primary and secondary
education. (Paragraph 116)
26. All the Research Councils work together through
RCUK to provide a systematic approach to outreach activities in
both primary and secondary education[2]
as well as to the general public at large[3].
We also set out expectations for employed and grant funded researchers
to engage young people in their work[4].
STFC examples of such outreach activities include Particle Physics
Masterclasses and Education Access Days for schools at our laboratory
sites[5], to name just
two, as well as offering grants to funded researchers and others
to enable them to undertake school outreach work[6].
27. At all times, including during the current financially
constrained circumstances, we look for new opportunities to work
harder with limited resources. A key aspect of this in STFC's
forward operational plan for the current CSR period is the development
of improved partnering arrangements. We will explore, with RCUK
and fellow Research Councils, how best to further embed existing
relationships with the Department of Education and other Government
Departments.
28. STFC recognises that the science we support is
unique in attracting future generations into STEM disciplines
across the board, not just Astronomy, Particle Physics and Nuclear
Physics, and we work with our Research Council counterparts and
other partners with this in mind.
No 23: It is unacceptable that senior civil servants
have passed the buck on the future of the NSO. This 'silo mentality'
which pervades government and is a clear barrier to any notion
that Whitehall is becoming more 'joined-up' means relatively cost-effective
educational research projects, such as the NSO, which are so important
to inspiring the next generation of scientists, risk being lost.
Clear mechanisms must be put in place to stop issues like this
falling between ministerial, departmental, and research council
responsibility. (Paragraph 121)
29. STFC will examine with our sponsoring department
and other Research Councils the issues raised by the Committee.
1 http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/science/research-councils/public-appointments Back
2
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/per/Pages/Schools.aspx Back
3
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/per/Pages/Home.aspx Back
4
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/scisoc/SchoolsPolicyfactsheet.pdf Back
5
http://www.stfc.ac.uk/Public+and+Schools/1286.aspx Back
6
http://www.stfc.ac.uk/Public+and+Schools/1342.aspx Back
| 
