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

Astronomy and Particle Physics - Science and Technology Committee Contents

4 STFC engagement with researchers

90. In 2008, the former Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee said that the common theme linking many of the problems following the STFC formation in 2007, from reductions in grant lines and specific projects to the impact of its budget on the STFC's own sites, had been poor communication.[140] The Committee concluded that:

STFC's communications are inadequate, particularly its internal communications, which are deficient both in terms of top down communication (for example, alerting staff to proposed changes) and bottom up communication (for example, engaging the community over decisions). We recommend that STFC pursue urgently the appointment of a permanent Communications Director with appropriate skills and experience.[141]

91. Following this recommendation the STFC appointed a communications director, and we received a range of submissions to this inquiry acknowledging that the STFC had made significant efforts to increase engagement with researchers and academia in recent years.[142] This has included the formation of independent panels to inform STFC policy (such as the Ground-Based Facilities Review Panel set up during the 2009 prioritisation exercise)[143] and the STFC's participation at events hosted and convened by learned societies prior to, and after, the spending review and science budget allocations. Professor Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell, President of the Institute of Physics, described the relationship in the past as "atrocious" but said that it was "considerably better now".[144] Indeed, when we asked Professor Bell Burnell "If atrocious is zero and perfect relationships are 10, where is the relationship at now?", she replied "Six or seven".[145]

92. 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.

STFC senior management and structure

93. Tensions still exist, particularly in relation to STFC senior management and the science advocacy role it is perceived to play.[146] Evidence of continued problems was presented to us in the terms used to express the concerns about the comments made by the STFC to the Committee in January on the planned over investment in astronomy and associated withdrawal from some facilities, which we discussed in paragraphs 22 to 34. The Royal Astronomical Society described the comments as "misleading" and requiring clarification,[147] while the University of Manchester did not "recognise" the statements.[148] The wider long-standing tensions were noted by Professor Robert Kennicutt, Director of the Institute of Astronomy at the University of Cambridge:

I regret to say that a disturbing disengagement—sometimes bordering on an adversarial relationship—has developed between the STFC Council and its research community. [The] STFC Council itself often appears to be out of touch, most of all its Chief Executive. [The] financial pressures present since the STFC was formed have not helped; but the level of disengagement and acrimony that I have seen here is unlike anything I have observed in 30 years of professional life in the US and UK. [I] believe its origins are complex and include irrationalities in the structure of STFC when it was formed, insufficient core scientific representation on its Council, and a leadership vacuum from its Chief Executive.[149]

94. We also received a number of representations concerning the composition of the STFC Council and the need to increase its relatively low number of academic members compared with other research councils. Professor Paul Crowther, from the University of Sheffield, indicated that four out of twelve members on the STFC council were "currently" academics,[150] compared with, for example, eight out of 16 at the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.[151] However, Sir Adrian Smith said in oral evidence that including the Chair, Professor Michael Sterling, "there are six members on the [STFC] council who I would view as scientists", which reflects a ratio "about the same" as other research councils.[152] The Government-commissioned 2008 Review of UK Physics (the Wakeham Review) recommended "that the membership of the STFC's Council be broadened to include more of the stakeholders in the science activity at the highest level, and to redress the balance between executive presence and non-executive oversight",[153] and we note that some, such as Professor George Efstathiou, Director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology at the University of Cambridge, remain unconvinced that this had been fully achieved.[154] In a supplementary memorandum Professor Efstathiou said:

STFC has only one research academic in particle physics (James Sterling) and only one research academic in astronomy (Martin Barstow). I cannot see how Adrian Smith can say that the composition of STFC is similar to that of other research councils.[155]

95. 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.

Future communication and the next STFC Chief Executive

96. One of the common themes running through this report and the evidence we received was the adequacy of communication between the STFC and researchers. That continuing difficulties persist between researchers and STFC senior management was clearly shown to us. Two issues during our inquiry epitomised these problems: first, the dispute over the long-term strategy for astronomy dating back to accession to the ESO;[156] and, second, the apparent misunderstanding over the STFC's plans for research on technology, instrumentation and detector development.[157] On the latter, although the STFC was keen to emphasise to us that efforts had been made following the publication of the delivery plan to clarify the STFC's position,[158] the evident ongoing concern in oral and written evidence on this issue indicates enough was not done. This could, and should, have been cleared up far sooner following the publication of the STFC's delivery plan. When we asked Professor Mason:

should [the STFC] really leave it to a public session of the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons to communicate in that way? Shouldn't you be communicating directly and clarifying?

He replied that the STFC had "done so", and cited meetings of the Institute of Physics and Royal Astronomical Society at which the STFC's director of science programmes had made the STFC's position "absolutely crystal clear".[159]

97. The current STFC Chief Executive comes to the end of his term in March 2012.[160] Professor Mike Bode, Director of the Astrophysics Research Institute at Liverpool John Moores University, set out his assessment of what the post of STFC Chief Executive demands:

There is no doubt that the chief exec's job is an incredibly tough and demanding one. The STFC is an exceptionally complex organisation. [There] is a perception in the community that there has been a disconnect between [other senior STFC staff], who have been interacting with the community, and the chief executive. The perception is [...] that the chief executive has been more upward facing into Government, which is obviously a vital role of the chief exec, but he has not been pushing the basic science as much as the other parts of the STFC remit, certainly not as much as the community would have wanted.[161]

98. Professor Kennicutt highlighted a recent report by an STFC working group which defined the qualities, skills and experiences required in a new STFC Chief Executive.[162] We commend the mandatory requirements set out in this document, and in particular that the next Chief Executive must:

a) have a strong and respected STEM background and qualification (at least to PhD level), or similar (e.g. in the biomedical sector) provided candidates can demonstrate an appreciation and understanding of the scale and complexity of the STFC's science and research; and

b) command the respect of the academic communities and be seen as a champion of the STFC's research base.[163]

99. 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.

140 HC 215-I (2007-08), para 86 Back

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

142 See, for example: Ev 41, para 24 [Royal Astronomical Society]; Ev 47, para 13 [Institute of Physics]. Back

143 See, paragraph 5. Back

144 Q 51 Back

145 Q 57 Back

146 Ev 41, para 28 [Royal Astronomical Society] Back

147 Ev 41, para 28 Back

148 Ev w39, para 14 Back

149 Ev 44, para 3 Back

150 The other members of the Council are STFC staff and representatives from industry and university administrations. Back

151 Ev w24, para 14 Back