Welsh scientific adviser finally announced

by Laura Hood

The Welsh Assembly Government has finally announced the name of the man who will take on the role of chief scientific adviser, and he’s Welsh!

After much head scratching, the Assembly has appointed John Harries, a professor of Earth observation at Imperial College’s Blackett Laboratory, and a member of its Grantham Institute for Climate Research. He will start the job on 1 May.

The appointment follows months of speculation and a dark period last year during which the assembly was thought to be considering scrapping the position entirely due to a lack of funds.

Former first minister Rhodri Morgan commissioned a report as long ago as 2007 to look at whether or not the Assembly needed its own CSA. However, it took until June 2009 for the Assembly to confirm that the position would be created and until now to decide who it should be.

The Assembly is eager to point out that, despite his esteemed career in institutions based in England, Harries is first and foremost, a Welshman, originally from Aberavon. He will take responsibility for promoting science in the assembly’s policy making and will be expected to challenge ministers on their decisions. He will also “provide access on level terms” with John Beddington, the UK government’s CSA.

Harries has held a number of other high profile positions in his time, including associate director of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory’s Space Science Department at director of projects and technology at the British National Space Centre. He has also been president of Royal Meteorological Society.

Could the Extremely Large Telescope be built on European soil?

by Laura Hood

Jerzy Buzek, the president of the European Parliament, is backing plans to construct the European Extremely Large Telescope in the Canary Islands, Research Europe has learned.

Buzek will announce his support for the project on 3 February, paving the way for debates on whether the location for the 1 billion euro telescope should be chosen according scientific or socio-economic factors.

A European Southern Observatory team is currently considering a number of sites for the project, including the Canary Islands, home to the European Northern Observatory, and Chile, where ESO's Southern Observatory is based. The group is due to report back to the ESO council during its meeting in March, although some believe it is unlikely that a final decision will be made on the spot. Meanwhile, a delegation from the European Parliament is to visit the Roque de los Muchachos Observatory on 19 February to learn more about the location.

Those backing the Canary Islands are likely to argue that the location provides tax benefits and presents an opportunity to develop the region. They may also suggest that the site is already fairly well prepared to host the 42 meter diameter segmented mirror project, whereas the Chile site might absorb more cash during the construction phase. The islands are already home to a number of astronomy projects, led by the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias.

However, the Chilean side may equally argue that Europe has already spent a considerable amount of money in developing Chile as a base for its astronomy work and that the E-ELT would provide the perfect complement to existing instruments in the region.

Rows over the importance of socio-economic factors when choosing locations for European projects have arisen before, including that over the site for the European Spallation Source. This ultimately went to Lund in Sweden, despite competition from less developed regions, such as Debrecen in Hungary.

Some newer member states have lobbied for research infrastructures to be used as a means to develop their regions rather than locating them in areas that already host research facilities, even if they might offer a better scientific environment. Those backing La Palma will argue that the Canary Islands fits the bill in both respects.

The axe falls

by Laura Hood

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...

by Laura Hood

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.

Lessons learned from Nutt fallout

by Laura Hood

The government is to rework the terms of engagement for using scientific advice, science minister Paul Drayson has confirmed.

Drayson says that the government will endorse the recommendations set out by a group of scientists in Principles for the Treatment of Independent Scientific Advice and that a set of rules governing science advisory bodies will be prepared by Christmas. The science minister will work with the signatories of the principles on the terms as well as other government scientific advisers.

The principles, which were signed by a number of respected scientists, including Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, and former chief scientific adviser Bob May, state that speaking out about policy issues should not constitute grounds for dismissal when a scientist is advising the government in an unpaid capacity and that advisory boards should be allowed to operate without political pressure.

They were published in response to the sacking of David Nutt from his position as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs last week by home secretary Alan Johnson. The decision sparked fury among scientists, many of whom have warned that Johnson’s actions could discourage academics from working for the government in the future.

In an interview with Research Fortnight, Drayson said that he has spent the past few days in discussions with Johnson, the Prime Minister and John Beddington, the government chief scientific advisor, about how to handle the situation and that he has decided to draw up the new terms as a result, based on the ideas put forward in the principles document.
“I want to absolutely underline the government’s commitment to the principle of academic freedom and independent scientific advice— the principle and the practice,” he says. “These principles are a very good starting point.”

Drayson says that he hopes that the terms will go some way to drawing some good from the Nutt scandal.

“What this has shown is that both the political world and the scientific world need to have a better understanding of each other but also that the rules of engagement need to be more rigorously applied,” he says.

Nutt was dismissed after making a speech at King’s College London in July, which was published in a pamphlet last week, during which he suggested that ministers “distort” the value of scientific evidence in their policies. He argues that the government’s classification of ecstasy and cannabis should be reassessed and says that his panel has faced continual political interference in its work since Gordon Brown came into office.
Nutt has called for Drayson to lead on remodelling the ACMD in the wake of his departure. But while Drayson says that the terms of engagement will address issues such as giving committees access to an independent press office, he believes that Beddington would be better placed to advise on the specifics of the ACMD itself. “I do think that it is the role of the advisers to advise ministers on the setting up of those committees. My role as science minister is to champion science in government.”

Drayson says that Johnson was wrong to sack Nutt without consulting either him or Beddington and that he would expect ministers to communicate with him in the future on such matters before taking action. However, asked whether he agreed in principle with the sacking of Nutt, if not the method, the minister said that he does not think it “helpful” to go over the details of the incident.

Wales to get chief scientific adviser

by Laura Hood

Wales is to have its own chief scientific adviser for the first time, the Assembly government has announced.

First minister Rhodri Morgan, who also acts as the Welsh science minister, has agreed that the assembly government would benefit form the advice of a top-level scientist as it continues its own science strategy, independently of Whitehall.

The decision follows a 2008 review, which was commissioned by Morgan as a first step to assessing whether or not an independent CSA would be needed.

Chris Pollock, the former director of the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research in Aberystwyth and author of this report, has been widely tipped for the role.

Morgan was expected to make a decision on appointing a CSA as early as last December, but reportedly delayed the announcement over funding worries. However, now apparently looking to a more financially stable future, Morgan said in a statement that appointing a CSA would help efforts to “encourage the knowledge, skills and enterprise to strengthen businesses in Wales ahead of the global economic upturn”.

The adviser will report directly to Morgan, making recommendations on promoting science, technology, engineering and maths in Wales, and on general policy making.

The Welsh CSA will be expected to act as a link between UK CSA John Beddington and the Welsh government.

The assembly will begin the recruitment process for the CSA position immediately.

Phew! Now all we need are New Year details and Spring allocations...

by Laura Hood

Research managers across the country are by now bent over the mass of data that has been produced by the RAE 2008, seeking to spin the best story possible out of it for their institution. And as everyone has by now realised, the 2008 RAE system offers much scope for precisely that–making the most of it. Universities will be able to take advantage of the more detailed rating system on offer to play to their individual strengths.

The exercise has cost HEFCE £12 million to run and many sleepless nights. It must be a frightful relief to David Eastwood, the council’s departing chief executive (to run Birmingham university), that the main thing we can all take away from the 2008 RAE is that UK research is really great, and it’s great everywhere! Phew.

The results have shown that 17 per cent of our research was rated as internationally excellent, with a 4* rating, and a further 37 per cent landed in the 3* category.

However, HEFCE assures us that this excellence has not come at the expense of research volume. The council rejects the suggestion that universities have been leaving out staff to boost their average quality rating, and it notes that the number of academics reviewed under the RAE has increased by 12 per cent.

Someone has been playing the system though, because actual submissions dropped by 9 per cent.

While today’s outcomes will provide ample food for thought, universities will have to wait until 5 January to get fuller feedback on their performance, and until 4 March to find how much cash they have secured for their efforts.

Cardiff pockets gold

by Laura Hood

The sound of champagne glasses clinking in the background when Cardiff picked up the phone was a good indication that the university is pleased with its RAE results.

Now, if there’s one phrase that has been overused in the 48-hour scrum for quotes that has so far constituted the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise, it’s "pockets of excellence."

HEFCE has used the phrase at every opportunity as a way to describe just how great the new RAE system is at recognising all the different types of research that have been allowed to shine under the new assessment model.

But, buzz phrase or not, does Theresa Rees, pro-vice chancellor for research at Cardiff, feel that her institution is one of the universities that could really benefit from this ‘pockets’ approach?

"We’ve always been a university that’s interested in research-based teaching and evidence-based policy for quite a lot of subjects, like sociology and business," she says. "Maybe the system does allow that type of research, particularly its impact, to be valued more than it has been in previous times. I think that is where we are particularly strong."

Cardiff University, Wales’ only Russell Group member, scored highly in a number of areas, but particularly in what Rees terms "professionally oriented" disciplines, such as civil engineering. In this area, 65 per cent of Cardiff’s researchers were rated 3* and 25 per cent 4*. Other areas of excellence were psychiatry and psychology.

Rees says she welcomes the recognition of policy-oriented work, which is particularly important to Cardiff. "We are close to the Assembly Government and were interested in informing the way in which they develop policy," says Rees. "The government is now much more interested in the impact of its resources and we’re in a particularly good position to show some interesting results in that sense."

Scottish results vindicate funding spread

by Laura Hood

Scottish universities are celebrating their RAE successes today and Universities Scotland is planning to use the results as ammunition in its campaign to place research at the centre of the country’s economy.

Scottish universities increased their share of internationally excellent research from 11.6 per cent in the RAE 2001 to 12.3 per cent in this year’s exercise, despite accounting for just 8.5 per cent of the UK population.

In 2001, 10 per cent of RAE submissions were assessed at the highest level while, in 2008, 15 per cent of RAE submissions were rated at the 4* level, indicating international excellence.

What’s more, this good fortune was spread fairly evenly across the country, a trend that has been taken by Universities Scotland as a justification for the Scottish government’s approach to distributing university funding.

"We were told that Scotland’s strategy of spreading funding a bit more widely and a bit more flatly would not work," says Robin McAlpine, the organisation’s spokesman. "Unlike in England, there is not a single university in Scotland that does not have any world leading academics. So, those who said that you can’t have a flat broad sector that is still excellent were wrong.

"Excellence happens wherever academics are given the freedom to think, and it doesn’t have to be at one type of university or another," says McAlpine. "The assumption that there is no alternative to research funding concentration has probably been discredited."

Universities Scotland is now planning to broadcast the success of its universities not just within the higher education sector, but to the wider public in a bid to combat the "endemic anti-intellectualism" that McAlpine says is holding the economy back.

From January, the organisation plans to lobby Scottish government officials and business to make the recruitment of postgraduate students a top priority as a tool for economic recovery.

"While the financial sector is collapsing around us, there’s this giant big flag saying here’s something the UK can actually do well," says McAlpine. "We’ve lost half of our entire financial services base. We need a new strategy and at some point someone needs to realise we need an alternative.

"Scotland needs to look at a new era. What else is there in which Scotland has 1,000 people named as world leaders?" he asks. "If even a fraction of the kids who picked up a bike after they saw Chris Hoy winning gold at the Olympics picked up a test tube after seeing Scotland’s remarkable results in the RAE, we’d be on the right track….we need to follow through."

For Universities Scotland, the Scottish result is also vindication for the research pooling policy that has transformed the country’s higher education landscape. It is in subjects such as physics, chemistry and economics that the 20 universities north of the border with England performed poorly in the 2001 RAE. Now that the universities have sought to combine their resources, these disciplines have shown to be the fastest growers in this year’s exercise— a result that McApline says is "no coincidence".

French researchers up in arms over CNRS plan

by Laura Hood

It is not just railway workers who are exercising their traditional French right to protest today, researchers across the country were also due to take to the streets this morning to fight the government’s attempts to “dismantle” the public research system.

Plans to restructure the CNRS, France’s main research agency, have been trundling along for months now, but bubbling concerns from the academic community have boiled over into sheer rage this week as it emerged that Nicolas Sarkozy and Valérie Pécresse have shut them out entirely from the decision making process.

As part of a wider shake up of the higher education system, the government plans to put universities at the centre of the research system. This, it would appear, means stripping the CNRS of its decision making powers and using it only as a body through which government funds can be channelled in specific directions.

Researchers have already registered their discontent with this idea, but they were dealt a huge blow last Tuesday which seemed to seal the organisation’s fate. When members of the CNRS scientific board gathered together to discuss the changes, they were told by Arnold Migus, the CNRS president, that the government was no longer willing to hear their views. Instead it would finalise the reforms on its own.

Shocked by the news, CNRS national committee president Yves Langevin sent letters to 1,000 members, warning them that their organisation was in jeopardy. He also gave an interview to Humanité, saying giving the government too much control would have disastrous consequences for blue-skies research. How could scientists explore new avenues, he asked, if they can only work on projects deemed to be important by politicians?

The researchers’ message seems to have been somewhat eclipsed by media coverage of the railway strike in France. But if Langevin and protest group Sauvons La Recherche are to be believed, Sarkozy won’t have his way without a struggle. SNCS calls for mass protest over CNRS plans - on Research Day: Europe.