House of Commons - Astronomy and Particle Physics - Science and Technology Committee

Astronomy and Particle Physics - Science and Technology Committee Contents

1 Background

The Science and Technology Facilities Council

1. The Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) is the newest Research Council, created in 2007 from a merger of two existing research councils: the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC) and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC). This brought together the grant-giving function of PPARC with the large facilities managed, and subscribed to, by the CCLRC. The rationale for the merger was to "create a more integrated approach to large scientific research facilities".[1] The STFC funds researchers in universities directly through grants, particularly in particle physics, astronomy, and nuclear physics. It also provides grants for facility development and supports research infrastructure, training, knowledge exchange and public engagement activities through a variety of funding schemes and activities.[2]

The work of predecessor committees

2. Concerns arising from the formation of the STFC and its first few years of operation, in particular related to its finances, structure and relationship with the researchers that it funds, were addressed in two reports by our predecessor committees.

3. First, the former Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee's 2008 report, Science Budget Allocations, concluded that the budget formed by the combined budgets of PPARC and CCLRC was insufficient and this, coupled with the merger of the two councils to meet the deadline of the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review, had resulted in a shortfall in its spending review allocation of around £75 million.[3] The Committee also criticised the STFC's failure to consult on withdrawal from a number of international scientific facilities[4] and believed there were serious questions over the ability of the Chief Executive to command the confidence of the scientific community.[5] Concerns were also raised over the impact STFC budget reductions might have had on research and facilities beyond those that it directly funded or owned, such as the Jodrell Bank Observatory near Manchester.[6]

4. Second, the previous Science and Technology Committee's 2010 report, The impact of spending cuts on science and scientific research, highlighted particular problems with the structure of the STFC upon its formation which had led to the STFC's grant-giving functions being "financially tensioned" against its commitments to international subscriptions and the associated cost pressures arising from exchange rate fluctuations.[7] The Committee also recommended that withdrawals from programmes following the STFC's 2009 prioritisation exercise (see below) should be suspended until after the 2010 Spending Review when budget allocations for 2011/12 to 2014/15 would be known.[8]

2009 STFC prioritisation exercise

5. In 2009, the STFC carried out a Science Programme Prioritisation for the period 2010 to 2015. This was carried out for two reasons: to prepare for tougher budget outcomes expected as a result of national budgetary constraints; and to ensure the STFC's programmes delivered maximum scientific, social, economic and international benefit to the UK.[9] During the prioritisation exercise the STFC commissioned an independent panel to review the astronomical ground-based facilities supported by the STFC.[10] The panel placed:[11]

"very high priority" on the UK's ongoing involvement in the European Southern Observatory (ESO) and future involvement in the development and operation of two future astronomical projects, the European-Extremely Large Telescope (E-ELT) and the Square Kilometre Array (SKA);
"high priority" on ongoing access to the William Herschel Telescope (WHT) on La Palma to 2017 (one of the Isaac Newton Group (ING) part-owned by the STFC), and the two telescopes located at the STFC's Joint Astronomy Centre in Hawaii—the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT) to 2014, and the UK Infrared Telescope (UKIRT) to 2014—in addition to a number of other facilities; and
"medium priority" on an ongoing share in the Gemini telescope in Hawaii.[12]

6. Following the prioritisation programme, the STFC announced the managed withdrawal from a range of projects, programmes and facilities.[13] In particular the STFC said it would be withdrawing from a number of ground-based astronomical facilities, including Gemini (from 2012), the ING telescopes including the WHT (from 2012), the Liverpool Telescope on La Palma, the JCMT (from 2012) and the UKIRT.[14]

7. A full summary of the STFC's decisions in relation to astronomy and particle physics projects following the prioritisation exercise is provided at Annex 2 to this report. Descriptions of selected ground-based astronomical facilities with UK involvement are set out at Annex 3.

2010 Spending Review

8. The 2010 Spending Review, published on 20 October 2010, set spending limits for every Government department for the four year period 2011/12 to 2014/15.[15] As part of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills' (BIS's) settlement, it was announced that the resource expenditure element of the science budget would remain ring-fenced and maintained in cash terms over this period at £4.6 billion a year. The impact on individual components of the science budget, its capital elements, and in particular individual Research Council budgets was not announced until 20 December 2010 with the publication of the BIS document, The Allocation of Science and Research Funding 2011/12 to 2014/15.[16]

9. Table 1 below displays the resource budget allocations for each of the Research Councils over the next four years compared with 2010/11. The allocation for the Large Facilities Capital Fund (LFCF) is also shown. The LFCF supports Research Councils' investments in large research facilities with capital funding where that could not be sensibly accommodated within individual Research Council budgets. The capital allocations are "indicative" for the three years from 2012/13 to 2014/15.[17]

10. The STFC "core programme" annual resource budget will be 3% lower in cash terms in 2014/15 compared with 2010/11. However, following decisions made by the previous Government, the allocation included separate budgets for the STFC's international subscriptions and cross-council facilities in order to better manage cost pressures arising from exchange rate fluctuations and also the longer-term planning required for large domestic facilities.[18] Therefore, overall the STFC's total annual resource budget will be 23% higher in 2014/15 compared with 2010/11.

11. However, while the resource science budget received relative protection, the capital budget did not. It reflects BIS's overall spending review settlement to reduce its capital budget by 44% in cash terms over the next four years.[19] Although the STFC has received the most protection (its capital budget will actually increase slightly in cash terms in 2011/12 by 2%), by 2014/15 it will be 24% lower compared with 2010/11. To put this in context, the total Research Councils' annual capital budget will be 54% lower in cash terms in 2014/15 compared with the 2010/11 level.

Resource and capital funding for astronomy and particle physics: 2010/11 to 2014/15

12. The importance of investment in astronomy and particle physics research in the UK and concerns over future funding in these areas were common theme throughout the written evidence we received. For example, Professor Stephen Hawking, Director of Research at the University of Cambridge's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology, said:

to target funding only using narrow economic criteria is to misunderstand the value to society of science and our Universities. [The] frontiers of fundamental scientific knowledge, like particle physics and astronomy, have always been an inspiration for the next generation of scientists. [The] UK punches significantly above its weight in the competitive world of particle physics and astronomy and has a remarkable history of discoveries and fruitful international collaboration. [Without] strong support for subjects like particle physics and astronomy we will suffer the economic and cultural consequences of a lack of students in the physical sciences.[20]

13. As we noted above, the STFC obtained a relatively good settlement in the overall context of the science and research budget allocations for the next four years, particularly its resource budget. Table 2 below sets out the STFC's spending on astronomy and particle physics over the next four years compared with the final year (2010/11) of the previous spending review period.

14. Astronomy sees a reduction in both its resource (-8%) and capital (-59%) budgets by the end of the next four years compared with 2010/11, with an overall fall of 21% in the total (resource plus capital) astronomy budget from £100 million in 2010/11 to £79 million in 2014/15. In contrast, particle physics sees a small increase in its total (resource plus capital) budget of 5% over this period (from £158 million to £166 million), although increases in its resource budget (+27%) masks a large fall in the capital budget for particle physics (-56%).

15. While overall particle physics spending is set to increase in cash terms, evidence from the Institute of Physics indicated that, when spending on the CERN subscriptions was stripped out and inflation was taken into account, the particle physics resource budget would see a reduction in the region of 50% over the period 2005 to 2015.[21] Professor John Peacock, Head of the University of Edinburgh's Institute for Astronomy, estimated that real-terms resource funding for astronomy was set to be half the 2005 level by 2014 when the STFC's European Southern Observatory (ESO) subscription is excluded.[22] A number of submissions cited the financial problems at the time of the STFC's formation in 2007, which resulted, as we have noted in a £75 million budget shortfall over the ensuing three years, as one of the main reasons for such large historical reductions in astronomy and particle physics spending.[23]

Our inquiry

16. The funding of science is key to future economic growth. The Committee therefore took a very close interest in the 2010 Spending Review settlement and the resulting science and research budget allocations for the next four years. We have, to date, held two evidence sessions on these issues: on 24 November we took evidence from the Minister for Universities and Science, Rt Hon David Willetts, and BIS's (then) Director General for Science and Research, Sir Adrian Smith; and on 19 January 2011 we took evidence from four Research Council Chief Executives.[24] While these sessions gave us some reassurance, we were not clear about the full impact of the science and research budget allocations for the next four years, and we had particular concerns about issues that arose regarding the future funding of astronomy and particle physics by the STFC.

17. Following these sessions, on 26 January we announced our intention to invite representations from the wider scientific community and other interested parties on the future impact of the science and research budget allocations, with a view to reviewing which areas may need further examination following the Easter recess. However, our concerns about astronomy and particle physics were such that, in the meantime, we took the decision to carry out a short inquiry into the future funding of these two fields of science in the UK. To this end, we issued a call for evidence on 26 January seeking views on the following issues:

the impact of reduced capital funding on UK capability;
the impact of withdrawal from international ground-based facilities (for example the Gemini Observatory and Isaac Newton Group of telescopes) on the UK's research base and international reputation;
whether the STFC has sufficiently engaged with its research community in these two areas on its strategic direction and impacts of budget reductions; and
opportunities for, and threats to, outreach and inspiring the next generation of astronomers and particle physicists.

18. We received 41 written submissions in response to our call. We would like to thank all those who submitted written memoranda.

19. During March, we took oral evidence from five panels of witnesses, to whom we are grateful. The first two panels focused on issues associated with point four of our terms of reference, while the remaining three panels addressed issues across the inquiry's full terms of reference. The panels were as follows:

i. Anna Barth, Camden School for Girls, London, Jack Bliss, Allerton Grange School, Leeds, Jessica Grainger, Saints Peter and Paul Catholic College, Widnes, Hilary Lamb, Stroud High School, Gloucestershire, James May, Castell Alun High School, Hope (nr. Wrexham), and Charlie Palin, Neston High School, Cheshire;

ii. Dr. Maggie Aderin-Pocock, Space Scientist, Astrium Ltd and Science Innovation Ltd, and Professor Jim Al-Khalili, Professor of Physics, Professor of Public Engagement in Science, University of Surrey;

iii. Professor Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell, President, Institute of Physics, and Professor Roger Davies, President, Royal Astronomical Society;

iv. Professor Phil Allport, Head of Particle Physics and Director of the Liverpool Semiconductor Detector Centre, University of Liverpool, Professor Mike Bode, Director of the Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, Professor Robert C. Kennicutt, Jr., Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy Director, Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Professor John Peacock, Head of the Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Professor Steve Rawlings, sub-Department of Astrophysics, Oxford University, and Professor Andrei Seryi, Director, John Adams Institute for Accelerator Science; and

v. Professor Keith Mason, Chief Executive of the STFC, and Sir Adrian Smith, Director General, Knowledge and Innovation, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).

20. We also supplemented our evidence with a short visit to the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland where we were pleased to meet many British researchers working in collaboration with their international peers. We would like to thank all those individuals that took the time to meet with us during our visit.

21. A number of short-term and long-term factors led us to launch this inquiry, and they informed our approach to the subject:

the scale of the reduction in the astronomy budget compared with the STFC's overall budget settlement, and the lack of clarity on the past and future astronomy strategy of the STFC and its predecessor;
the UK's continued capacity to benefit from, and be involved in, the wide range of practical applications and future development in particle physics, as described to us during our visit to CERN;
that fundamental and theoretical research in areas such as astronomy and particle physics, which do not necessarily provide immediate returns but are crucial to the UK's long-term growth prospects and international standing, may be vulnerable following the increased emphasis placed on research impacts, national and strategic priorities, and growth by the Government;[25] and
the UK's ongoing ability to inspire, train and attract the next generation of astronomers and particle physicists.

These key concerns are embedded in many of the issues that we look at in this report. Chapter 2 discusses reductions in the astronomy budget and the STFC's strategy in this area. Chapter 3 analyses other funding issues which will be important to the UK's ongoing standing in astronomy and particle physics, including the grants the STFC awards to researchers, and the STFC's capital allocation for the next years, and in particular the impact this will have on the UK's involvement in instrumentation research and development and future particle accelerator technologies. Chapter 4 evaluates how the STFC communicates and engages with the researchers it funds, while Chapter 5 looks to the future and the next generation of scientists. Both of these final issues are clearly integral to maintaining the UK's human capital in astronomy and particle physics and as a consequence ensuring the UK's long-term growth prospects and international standing.

1 Third Delegated Legislation Committee, Draft Science and Technology Facilities Council Order 2007 and Draft Technology Strategy Board Order 2007, 11 December 2006, col 5 Back

2 "STFC Grants and Awards", STFC webpage: www.stfc.ac.uk/Funding+and+Grants/501.aspx, 21 July 2010 Back

3 Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2007-08, Science Budget Allocations, HC 215-I, para 39 Back

4 HC 215-I (2007-08), para 87 Back

5 HC 215-I (2007-08), para 108 Back

6 HC 215-I (2007-08), para 89 Back

7 Science and Technology Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2009-10, The impact of spending cuts on science and scientific research, HC 335, para 51 Back

8 HC 335 (2009-10), para 52 Back

9 "Science Programme Prioritisation 2010-2015", STFC Press Release, 16 December 2009 Back

10 STFC, Ground-Based Facilities Review Final Report, 2009; the Chair and Vice-Chair of the panel have both submitted evidence to the inquiry (Ev w20 [Professor Michael Rowan-Robinson and Professor Robert Kennicutt]; and Ev 43 [Professor Robert Kennicutt]). Back

11 To assist the reader there is a glossary of acronyms and abbreviations at Annex 1 to this report. Back

12 The Panel's final priority list is summarised at Annex 2. Back