The axe falls

The snow that fell over Westminster today could not muffle the sound of an axe dropping rather heavily in a building behind the Abbey.

Here, the Science and Technology Facilities Council announced major cuts to its programme and confirmed that it is shifting cash away from nuclear and particle physics in order to focus support on areas that have been identified as government priorities.

The council’s five-year programme for 2010 to 2015 introduces a 25 per cent reduction in studentships and fellowships—an “unpalatable decision” that had to be made, according to Keith Mason. It also includes withdrawing from over 20 projects and a cut of 10 per cent from the grant funding used to exploit facilities. Jobs are also at risk at the Daresbury and Harwell science campuses as part of an attempt to save £11 million from the STFC’s internal budget in 2010-11.

Projects to be dropped include, ALICE at CERN, the UK Neutrino Factory and the New Light Source. But nuclear physics is particularly badly hit with two major projects, AGATA and PANDA, being dropped.
Nuclear physicists say that this amounts to a 52 per cent cut and have argued that the STFC is decimating their discipline at a crucial time. At today’s Westminster press conference, the council’s leaders said that they did not agree with a report that was submitted to them by Sue Ion, which argued that any cut to nuclear physics would threaten the UK’s ability to rebuild its nuclear power industry. They said that nuclear undergraduates would make up the backbone of the sector and that these students would not necessarily need to be taught by leading academics in the field—which many might see as being a rather short-term view.

The introduction of shared research programmes and noises within government about supporting a few select areas that will benefit the economy have fuelled concerns that the research councils are being pressured to invest in certain areas above others. The STFC’s decision today may well fuel these complaints. The council has elected to increase investments in the Diamond Light Source, which is an important instrument for life scientists, but will make cutbacks in many other areas to make up for it.

The other research councils have had to reach into their own pockets to ensure the future of the surviving facilities by providing the STFC with an additional £14 million to cover some of the costs in the coming year.

The council is also hoping to save £42 million by pulling out of space programmes, including the European Space Agency project Venus Express and the Nasa-led Cassini. How this will affect the budget to be awarded to the recently announced UK space agency is another question that will need to be answered.

In astronomy, it has confirmed that the UK will not stay in the Gemini telescope partnership after 2012, instead choosing to invest in the Square Kilometre Array and the European Extremely Large telescope.

The STFC admitted that the choices it has made could have serious repercussions for university departments and has said that it plans to work with them to manage the fallout, though it remains unclear what support, other than of the financial kind, will help them recover.

Science minister Paul Drayson has also said that he intends to help the STFC to overcome the problem which many believe has played a central role in these cutbacks. He says that he wants to find a better solution to the arrangement that currently sees the council paying for international subscriptions from its own budget, even if the cost escalates as the Pound fluctuates against the Euro and Swiss Franc. This could indicate that he intends to call on the Treasury to pay for them directly. We can expect his conclusions on the matter in February.

Space agency is go...

The UK is to have its own space agency, the government announced this afternoon. The agency will replace the British National Space Centre in a bid to bring greater efficiency and clout to the sector.

The agency, which doesn’t seem to have a name yet, will consolidate the efforts of all the bodies that currently oversee space activities—a total of six government departments as well as two of the research councils, the Technology Strategy Board and the Met Office.
The decision follows a public consultation on how the government should structure its space efforts in the future to make the most out of the UK’s technological strength in the field.

“Our space sector hasn't missed a beat during this recession. This is the classic story of outstanding UK science and entrepreneurship continuing to create jobs and achieve exceptional growth,” science minister Paul Drayson said during a speech at the Appleton Space Conference in Oxfordshire this afternoon. “The new space agency is about making sure that the UK fully exploits its competitive advantage in satellites, robotics and related technologies.“

The agency’s goals include strengthening the UK’s position within the European Space Agency, working with industry to decide how to make the most of space technologies and provide a “clear voice” on space issues.

However, the government is yet to reveal the size of the agency’s budget, an issue which could prove crucial if it is really going to fulfil its goals. In the build up to the announcement, many scientists have said that they back the idea of having an agency and that it could serve to put the UK in a strong position internationally, both within and outside ESA. But they have also warned that it will have little influence without a budget of its own—a problem which appears to have held the BNSC back from playing a more central role.

The announcement comes on the same day as the BNSC published its Space Exploration review, which suggests that the UK should increase its space efforts. The report appears to favour a mixed human and robotic space exploration programme for the UK, projecting costs of around £100 million per year for the first few years, increasing to £229m in 2015.

The review also backs the MoonLITE programme, a non-ESA robotic mission to the moon that is currently in its design stages but has suffered from delays to its budget as a result of the ongoing problems at the Science and Technology Facilities Council.

Drayson grilled over impact

Science minister Paul Drayson faced a hostile audience at a debate on the future of UK research at the Wellcome Trust in London last night. Surrounded by a panel of young researchers and science communicators, who at times seemed somewhat out of their depth, Drayson was interrogated by academics in the audience over impact assessment in research funding.

The exchanges got heated at several points, as academics took the opportunity to vent their frustrations over impact at the minister. It didn’t help that Drayson and his opponents both seemed to conflate two different issues – HEFCE’s proposed impact assessment in the REF, and the impact section on the research councils’ grant applications.

Drayson was correct when he tried to reassure researchers that they would not be required to predict the eventual impact of their work to get quality-related research funding from HEFCE. The impact statements in the REF are indeed retrospective rather than predictive. But it got confusing when he kept mentioning “grant applications” – which only makes sense if you see the REF as one giant grant application. I suppose it is, in a sense, but in this case it only served to heighten the confusion.

When asked about the research council applications, which do ask for a prediction of future impact, Drayson either misunderstood or dodged the question and continued to talk about the REF. After the debate, one of Drayson’s aides said that since the councils didn’t use the impact statements to decide on funding, there was nothing for academics to worry about. But of course they are worried, and for the science minister not to address those worries is a mistake.

It is encouraging, though, to see a minister so engaged with his brief. Few other politicians would have been willing to face such a one-sided debate. Even the moderator, particle physicist Brian Cox, was not entirely unbiased. The fact that the debate arose from Drayson’s exchanges on Twitter with astronomer Colin Stuart, who was also on the panel, shows how willing the minister is to talk directly to the public. Let’s hope he keeps it up.