Conclusions and recommendations
Reductions to the astronomy budget and past strategy
1. 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)
2. 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)
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)
Withdrawal from ground-based astronomical facilities
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)
Funding of future astronomical projects
5. 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)
6. 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)
STFC grants
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)
Post-doctoral research positions
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)
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)
Capital grants to universities
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)
Accelerator Research and Development
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)
STFC 'in-house' focus
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)
Existing infrastructure
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)
Concentration of funding
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)
The UK's international reputation
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)
STFC engagement with researchers
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)
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)
Future communication and the next STFC Chief Executive
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)
Outreach
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, ring-fenced
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)
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)
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)
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)
The National Schools Observatory
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)
| 
