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

Astronomy and Particle Physics - Science and Technology Committee Contents

3 Other funding issues

51. Setting aside the impact on current and future astronomical facilities, a number of other issues related to the STFC's budget settlement and planned funding for astronomy and particle physics over the next four years were raised during our inquiry. The following chapter outlines concerns that were raised to us related to capital funding and how and where it will be spent, particularly in relation to instrumentation research and development (R&D) and future particle accelerator technologies and the impact on the UK's existing infrastructure. The impact of budget reductions on the UK's international reputation and the diversity of the STFC's programme are also discussed.

STFC grants

52. First we will look at a problem encapsulated by Professor Stephen Hawking, Director of Research at the University of Cambridge's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology, when he noted in his submission to us: "It has been said that not all research and development comes from our Universities, but that all the researchers do".[74]

53. In its delivery plan for the next four years, the STFC has stated that it "will maintain resource spending on grants and keep studentship numbers constant, and will transition all our grant support to a new consolidated grants mechanism".[75] Appendix B to the plan indicates resource spending on research grants will be £69 million in 2011/12 rising to £75 million in 2014/15.[76]

54. In the past, as we have noted, there have been financial tensions in having responsibility for international science projects, large scientific facilities, and domestic grants within a single research council. The problems were highlighted in our predecessor Committee's 2009/10 report, The impact of spending cuts on science and research, and in paragraph 4 above.[77] Stability in funding for research grants has now been promised with the allocation of separate STFC budgets for its international subscriptions distinct from its core programme. This should put an end to past problems where the STFC grant provision was seen as a resource that could be raided to fund shortfalls in the STFC's international commitments.[78]

55. Nevertheless, there still remains a strategic tension between investing in individuals while, at the same time, ensuring those individuals have access to world-class facilities. The argument whether people or facilities should be prioritised in terms of investment is clearly a complex one that will be revisited if and when science funding increases. As Dr. Maggie Aderin-Pocock, Space Scientist at Astrium Ltd and Science Innovation Ltd, said to us, "I don't think you can ignore facilities, but at the same time you do need the inspiration of good teaching. They go hand in hand. I don't think you can put a particular emphasis on one and not the other".[79] However, it was put to us in oral evidence that the STFC could, and should, place more emphasis on the resources available to grant funding both now and in the future.[80] Indeed, in response, Professor Keith Mason, Chief Executive of the STFC, affirmed that:

we need to get the case across that we need to invest in talent. That is what is going to keep this country healthy in the future and we are a prime source of that talent. [I], for one, will certainly be promoting the case, as the economy improves, that we need to see this [research grants] as an excellent place to make additional investment.[81]

56. 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.

A UK BRAIN DRAIN?

57. Looking forward to the next four years, we received evidence that past reductions in the number of grants awarded mean the UK is starting from a lower base than it should, which risks losing some of the UK's best young scientists to overseas countries.[82] The submission from the Far Universe Advisory Panel and the Near Universe Advisory Panel, two of five standing advisory panels which report to STFC's Science Committee for Particle Physics, Astronomy and Nuclear Physics, said that past reductions in the STFC's research grants had already resulted in many of the brightest students looking abroad to continue their careers.[83] Such concern that past and future funding constraints may have long-term impacts on the UK's reputation and ability to attract and retain the world's best scientists were echoed in oral evidence by Professor Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell, President of the Institute of Physics,[84] and perhaps most significantly, by the young scientists we spoke to. Anna Barth from Camden School for Girls said:

One thing that made me a little bit nervous, and I don't know what could be done about it, is that, at Harvard, UCL and even with the science teachers I have now, a lot of their time is spent trying to work out where they are going to get funding from for different projects and getting grants and less time actually doing science. That doesn't seem too appealing.[85]

58. Hillary Lamb from Stroud High Schools believed that pursuing a career in a theoretical subject such as astronomy or particle physics was particularly difficult in Britain and an area "[one] might have to go over to Europe to do".[86] As Jim Al-Khalili, Professor of Physics and Public Engagement in Science at the University of Surrey, said to us, such perceptions are not surprising given recent and future funding constraints:

If, at the moment, they are hearing the stories that research grants are squeezed, there aren't the post-doc positions at universities in particular areas, and, "If you want to do this, you are going to have to go abroad", of course, it is going to turn them away, even if they are well aware of a possible career path in science.[87]

Post-doctoral research positions

59. Evidence to the inquiry highlighted a particular problem with Post-Doctoral Research Assistant (PDRA) positions where the number of such positions has fallen by around half over the last decade.[88] In the case of astronomy, Professor John Peacock, Head of the University of Edinburgh's Institute for Astronomy, said that 56 new PDRA positions were awarded in the most recent STFC grant round compared with over 100 in 2005.[89] Although the STFC delivery plan commits to maintaining studentship and fellowship funding,[90] there appears to be no commitment to correct this historical decline in PDRAs. The delivery plan does state that the STFC intends to implement a new Studentship Enhancement Programme (STEP) which will provide 15 awards per year to students "in the first stages of their postdoctoral research careers",[91] but funding for this will be redirected from elsewhere in the STFC's programme.[92] The STFC acknowledged to us that:

In terms of the number of postdoctoral researchers, yes, it has declined [and] it is magnified by the fact that we have such a large fraction of long-term commitments that are beyond our immediate control in the short term [i.e. international subscriptions]. So the postdoc numbers are part of this little amount of flexibility we have and, clearly, they suffer much more proportionally.[93]

60. Professor Robert Kennicutt, Director of the Institute of Astronomy at the University of Cambridge, told us that the full impact of past reductions in the number of postdoctoral positions is yet to be realised. However, he warned that if the situation persisted, the "best and brightest" would begin to look to fields outside of particle physics and astronomy[94] and that:

The worry is that the Stephen Hawkings of the future, who are coming up as undergraduates, will move away from the subject, from their chosen research field, in the end, if they fear there is not a job for them. That is the concern.[95]

61. Professor Phil Allport, Head of Particle Physics at the University of Liverpool, highlighted the findings of a survey of scientists working at CERN who were funded by the STFC when studying for their PhDs.[96] While the survey was not statistically rigorous, it indicated that of those who had gained their doctorates since 2007, two-thirds had been made job offers outside the UK. This compared with a quarter of those who had gained their PhDs prior to 2007. Professor Allport said:

The anecdotes are that of this year's crop, almost everybody who is staying in the field is doing so by taking posts outside the UK. That does feed back into people's expectations. Certainly, in the last round of student interviewing that I was involved in for PhDs, a number of people were expressing concerns about the prospects for careers at the end of the process.[97]

62. 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.

63. 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.

Capital funding and R&D

64. Another key area of concern in the evidence we received was the impact of the STFC's reduced capital settlement on the UK's existing scientific infrastructure and capital intensive R&D. The University of Manchester said:

Capital funding pays for equipment and some new projects, and its reduction will greatly affect instrumentation groups, as well as groups with high computing demands. Future projects in all areas, including Nuclear and Particle Physics, will be difficult to fund for STFC, and this will affect instrumentation work in all three areas of STFC science, hitting severely the international competitiveness of the UK.[98]

65. Professor Kennicutt believed that, should there be an extended period of reduced funding, the UK would "suffer a permanent loss of leadership and skilled scientists in astronomical instrumentation".[99]

CAPITAL GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES

66. Although, as already noted, resource research grant funding will be maintained over the next four years, the STFC delivery plan indicates capital grants to Higher Education Institutions will fall (see Table 3 below).[100] While the majority of capital funding to universities comes from the higher education funding councils[101] to support infrastructure and running costs, research councils can provide capital funding for specific research and programmes.

67. The STFC's written submission to this inquiry stated that "the reduced capital available will potentially have impacts on [funding] for equipment within University grants".[102] In evidence to us, the STFC expressed "worry" at the reduction.[103] It explained that this category of capital was "mostly concerned with small equipment, computers and supportive equipment for general research" and noted that such grants in 2009/10 had stood at £4 million.[104] This means that the rate of reduction is even steeper than that indicated in Table 3 above, with the level from 2012/13 being just a quarter of the equivalent sum three years earlier.

68. Professor Allport said that it might be difficult for individual university groups, who had in the past used these grants to develop, for example, new detectors for facilities such as CERN, to find equivalent funding from other sources, such as the EU, because these bodies considered that this area of R&D should attract core (i.e. national government) funding.[105] He explained the effect of the reduction in funding:

My concern is that the ability within the universities to [develop] instrumentation, to take on students involved with that instrumentation, and even to train undergraduates with that instrumentation, will be impacted by these sorts of capital cuts. It will not only take the students away from having that contact with cutting-edge technology, which is vital to the training that we should be delivering, but the universities themselves are under pressure to deliver on an impact agenda, which becomes increasingly more difficult if we don't have the in-house capabilities to be developing cutting-edge technologies. It is a double-edged sword in that respect.[106]

Professor Steve Rawlings, from Oxford University, pointed out to us that these capital reductions would also impact upon the work carried out in universities to follow-up and analyse scientific observations:

For example, our theoretical colleagues require high performance computing. That is also counted as a capital expenditure. Of course, without the theoretical part to add to the observational part, we are not doing our full job.[107]

69. 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.

ACCELERATOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

70. The STFC's submission also stated that reductions in its capital allocations would:

potentially have impacts on programmes such as accelerator research and development. [In this area] capital spending will have to be reduced based on the current funding allocation".[108]

71. Some staff at the STFC's Daresbury laboratory expressed concerns that the capital settlement would mean that the future of a number of projects at the Daresbury site might be under threat, such as the next accelerator based light source prototype machine, ALICE, the EMMA accelerator,[109] and the proposed accelerator research centre.[110] Appendix D of the STFC's delivery plan shows funding for accelerator R&D reducing from £7.04 million in 2011/12 to £6.59 million in 2014/15, although the same table also details separate funding for the accelerator centre of £3.82 million in each of the next four years.[111]

72. Professor Mason said that the STFC was currently considering the best way to direct its funds for accelerator R&D and that he hoped there would be "clarity on the direction forward within the next couple of months".[112] We welcome the Government's announcement in the 2011 Budget to invest an additional £100 million in 2011/12 in capital development for scientific facilities.[113] This will mean an additional £20 million in capital funding for the STFC's Daresbury and Harwell sites.[114]

73. More widely, concerns have been raised about the UK's role in the future development of particle accelerators for the post-Large Hadron Collider era (i.e., beyond the next 15-20 years).[115] The STFC decided at the time of the last spending review in 2007 to withdraw UK funding from the International Linear Collider project,[116] and during our visit to CERN in February we learned that overall funding for the Compact Linear Collider, a study for a future electron-positron collider, was being reduced.

74. Professor Andrei Seryi, Director of the John Adams Institute for Accelerator Science, considered that the capital settlement would have an impact on the UK's involvement in the next generation of particle accelerators:

From the point of view of accelerator science [we] are trying to develop various methods of how to make future accelerators and colliders better, smaller and less expensive. For this, we need research developments for attracting students and capital funds to make small test facilities. All these are essential components. I really worry about our ability to contribute significantly to these future projects which are aimed at discovery science, like high energy physics [but] also I worry about our ability to contribute noticeably to applications of accelerators which are beyond discovery science, which are applications for energy security, nuclear energy security, health, engineering and to developing all the facilities which will be needed everywhere in addition to discovery science.[117]

75. During our visit to CERN we were struck by the wide-range of applications and benefits this area of science generates, particularly in the fields of medicine and engineering.[118] However, it was notable that the scientists and officials we met could not yet determine where the future of such colliders lay. Professor Allport said there were lots of directions in which future accelerator science could go:

There are directions which go in terms of the Linear Collider. There are directions which go in terms of the ep [Electron Positron] collider. There are directions in terms of trying [to] double the energy of the LHC in the current ring. Then there are a large number of other facilities around the world which tend to concentrate on doing very high statistics experiments and, therefore, require extremely high intensity beams for neutrinos, muon storage rings, e+ or e- for B-factories and so on.[119]

76. 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.

STFC'S "IN-HOUSE" FOCUS

77. The STFC delivery plan includes a proposal to "focus the capabilities of STFC's in-house researchers, especially in astronomy, particle physics and nuclear physics, on technology, instrumentation and detector development, allowing university scientists to concentrate on research".[120] This proposal was the subject of conflicting interpretations during our inquiry. A number of submissions understood this to be a reduction in support to university R&D which would impact upon the UK's ability to develop and lead in the field of innovative new technologies. The Institute of Physics said that within the field of particle physics, especially in relation to the Large Hadron Collider experiments, much of the recent technology, instrumentation and detector development had been led by university groups:

Detectors in particle physics (and astronomy) can only be built successfully in close contact with those who use the data and understand the nature of the technical challenges and the reasons for the demanding technical requirements; this is how the rest of the world operates. Any attempt to make unilateral changes to this method of working would undermine UK leadership and innovation in detector technology, and may make it harder for UK industry to compete successfully for contracts.[121]

78. The STFC challenged the suggestion that the proposal in the STFC delivery plan represented a move away from the current method of working. Professor Mason said to us that:

What we are trying to say there is, essentially, a re-statement of our existing position and the existing mission of our national laboratories, which is that they are there to support the scientific communities, and in particular in these capital intensive areas of building large detectors—not doing the detector R and D but building large instrumentation. What we were trying to capture there was not so much that we were going to prevent the universities from doing technology development, but we were going to encourage our in-house researchers not to compete with the universities in terms of scientific research and to concentrate on their core mission, which is to support the university communities in their endeavours. [I] would re-emphasise once and for all that we are not intending, nor would it be sensible, to restrict the university community from doing technical R and D and from doing blue-skies research of a technical kind. That would just be totally counter-productive. I hope I can lay that to rest once and for all.[122]

[There] is no sub-text here. There is no subterfuge. There is no hidden plan at all. This is exactly as it seems, which is just re-stating where the national laboratories fit into the overall landscape of scientific research in the UK.[123]

79. Nevertheless, concerns persist. In response to Professor Mason's remarks, Professor Allport said in a supplementary memorandum:

My concern was not where R&D is to be carried out [but] the actual construction work. [Future] construction effort will also have to be at institutions which are fully engaged in the physics exploitation and this is the model that applies to those aspects carried out both in the universities and in the national laboratories.[124]

80. 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.

EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE

81. Reductions to capital funding will also have implications on the maintenance and upgrading of existing scientific facilities in the UK. As indicated in Table 1 at paragraph 9, the STFC's capital budget will fall by 24% over the next four years. The Institute of Physics said that, while capital reductions could be coped with in the short-term, if maintained for longer:

the decay in infrastructure will cause considerable harm to UK science. In relative terms, the UK will very rapidly fall back compared with its international competitor nations where investment levels are greater because they recognise the long-term value of science to their economies.[125]

As we were told by Professor Peacock, "you can get away with it for a while and you hope that nothing breaks, but it will eventually".[126]

82. BIS has stated that the capital allocations are "indicative" for the three years from 2012/13 to 2014/15.[127] In January, Professor Alan Thorpe, Chair of the Research Councils UK Executive Group and Chief Executive of the Natural Environment Research Council, stated that he was "optimistic" that there would be an opportunity for these indicative allocations "to go up in the future".[128]

83. 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.

Concentration of funding

84. An issue that emerged during oral evidence was the apparent shift by the STFC in recent years towards narrowing its financial support in fewer areas and projects. As noted in paragraph 75, in the case of particle physics, scientists are unclear about the future scientific direction. Professor Bell Burnell said that:

the narrowing of the programme [that] is going to happen, or is planned to happen, as a consequence of the cuts means that we have only a single focus. It is very dangerous to have all your eggs in one basket, and that is effectively what we are going to be doing. It does not [provide] a healthy diversity that will allow for future developments.[129]

85. The figures appear to bear out the concentration of resources. In 2010/11 the STFC's main CERN subscription accounted for over 60% of the £158 million spent on particle physics. On astronomy, there has been a shift by the STFC towards focusing its resources through the ESO. Professor Allport suggested that problems in concentration resulted from the way decisions were taken following the STFC's 2009 prioritisation exercise, with an apparent correlation between those projects that were of high cost being given high priority, and those of low cost assigned low priority.[130] He said that there was, however, scope for a more nuanced approach to be taken:

If one were to take a budget and say, "How do I best fit a programme into it?", then one could do the high priority, high cost, but also try and get the Alpha 2s and 3s—Alpha 2 or Alpha 3 means that this is excellent international science—and try and get those low cost projects into the envelope so that you have a wider portfolio. This requires a different style of managing the science within each science area. It is more subtle than taking a priority listing and then saying, "Everything less than Alpha 3 gets cut." There is room, even within a constrained budget, for trying to broaden the programme, but it requires some different methodology to achieve that.[131]

86. 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.

The UK's international reputation

87. In their evidence put to us in January, the Research Council chief executives highlighted the importance of international collaboration as a means of offsetting future funding reductions.[132] However, past decisions by the STFC on international projects, such as withdrawal from the International Linear Collider programme,[133] and the aborted attempt by the STFC to reduce its involvement in Gemini in 2007/08, which resulted in temporary expulsion of the UK from the project before the STFC reversed its decision,[134] mean the UK has not always been seen as a reliable international partner. Further withdrawals are planned, such as those announced following the 2009 prioritisation exercise[135] and there seems to us a risk that, given future funding constraints, more will be announced. The submission from Professor Patrick Roche, Head of Astrophysics at Oxford University, highlighted the problem:

the hard-won UK reputation in astronomy may be undermined by the reductions in funding at a time when many of our competitors are maintaining or even increasing their funding.[136]

88. The Institute of Physics said that the UK was already "viewed as an unreliable partner",[137] and Professor Hawking took the view that the "erosion of funding for astronomy and particle physics in recent years has harmed the position and reputation of the UK in the international scientific community".[138] Sir Adrian Smith, Director General of Knowledge and Innovation at BIS, however, took a different view:

In general terms, broadly, there is no mood out there that the UK is an unreliable partner. There will be specific projects that one might have wanted to be involved in that cannot be done. That is all part of the prioritisation project. But any kind of exaggeration that the UK is suddenly not a major international player or that our reputation is not respected is nonsense.[139]

89. 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.

74 Ev w27, para 1 Back

75 STFC, STFC Delivery Plan 2011/12-2014/15, December 2010, p 1 Back

76 Table 2 at paragraph 13 above shows future STFC budgets for studentships and fellowships in astronomy and particle physics. Back

77 HC 335-I (2009-10), paras 44-52 Back

78 Q 95 [Professor Bode] Back

79 Q 28 Back

80 Q 95 [Professor Bode and Professor Peacock] Back

81 Qq 143-144 Back

82 Ev w26, paras 3-5 [Far Universe Advisory Panel (FUAP) and Near Universe Advisory Panel (NUAP)] Back

83 Ev w26, paras 4-5 Back

84 Q 55 Back

85 Q 17 Back