STFC delivery plan published

[Severian]

I wasn't sure where to post this, since it is the politics of physics, but I thought the politics forum was more appropriate.

 

The UK's Science and Technology Facilities Council today published their delivery plan for the period 2008 - 2012. The STFC is responsible for particle physics, astronomy, nuclear physics and the funding of large science facilities generally. It was formed recently by a merger of PPARC (the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council) and the CCLRC (Council for the Central Laboratory of the the Research Councils).

 

Strangely, just after its formation, they announced that they were short by about £80M, so that new logo and all the new headed paper must have cost more than expected. This means that they needed to cut something and according to the delivery plan they want to withdraw the UK from the International Linear Collider project.

 

If this happens, I suspect it will decimate particle physics in the UK. Fine, we have the LHC to keep us busy, but we will miss out on all of the planning for the ILC and never be able to take a major role.

 

I am also somewhat bemused by their 'Big Questions' which they state they are trying to answer. The only one remotely applicable to particle physics is "Why is there a Universe?", which I am sure any veteran of these boards will recognise is not a scientific question at all. One wonders what they were thinking...

[bascule]

"Why is there a Universe?"

 

Because if there were no Universe, we wouldn't be here to care...

 

PROBLEM SOLVED! Can I have some of that money now?

 

But seriously, it'd be nice to observe some particles theorized by various quantum gravitational theories...

[Severian]

Here is a BBC story on this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7137387.stm

[Severian]

Also on channel 4:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/thousands+fighting+science+cuts/1210957

 

And it looks like US science is under attack too:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=632

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/1218/1

[Reaper]

Strangely, just after its formation, they announced that they were short by about £80M, so that new logo and all the new headed paper must have cost more than expected. This means that they needed to cut something and according to the delivery plan they want to withdraw the UK from the International Linear Collider project.

 

If this happens, I suspect it will decimate particle physics in the UK. Fine, we have the LHC to keep us busy, but we will miss out on all of the planning for the ILC and never be able to take a major role.

 

That's ashame. What always amazes me about politics or politicians is just how willing they are to cut funding on fundamental science research, despite the fact that this very thing that got us out of the dark ages and allowed us to be where we are today. But then, they are only focused on short-term goals that have immediate effects, rather than going for what is best, and ultimately what is more interesting.

 

I am also somewhat bemused by their 'Big Questions' which they state they are trying to answer. The only one remotely applicable to particle physics is "Why is there a Universe?", which I am sure any veteran of these boards will recognise is not a scientific question at all. One wonders what they were thinking...

 

My guess is, is so that they could make it more attractive to people who would otherwise not care, and/or certainly don't understand anything about the universe around them and aren't patient enough to find out. In this day and age people are more and more only concerned about short-term, quick money schemes, and using 80 M (which I'm sure is only a fraction of the GNP of the UK) seems like, well, a lot of money.

 

==================================

 

I don't know what the state of fundamental science research is in the UK, or near where you live, but I know for sure that here in the U.S. its pretty much getting to the point where its pretty much ignored for the most part (though private firms and other special interest groups are keeping it alive for the time being). It's now to the point, I believe, where if you do ask for a grant to fund fundamental research, they probably won't give it to you simply because, well, because they just don't get it, if you know what I mean.

 

Just don't let it get that way over where you live, because it will happen if nobody does anything.

 

And it looks like US science is under attack too:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=632

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/1218/1

 

Oh, I know all about that. It's not just fundamental research, but also research where there are going to be immediate and benefical effects. Science education is getting much worse too.

[Pangloss]

The one area here where I'll have to disagree with these articles is in the area of NASA. Much of NASA's budget is very worthwhile, in terms of unmanned exploration of various places, and I'm even on-board with long-term manned exploration plans (none of which are currently budgeted). But most of that stuff is relative pennies. And we're only looking at, what, 3 or 4 billion-dollar shuttle launches in 2008? So where the heck is the other, I dunno, call it 10 BILLION DOLLARS going?

 

Very frustrating as a taxpayer. Almost as annoying as the nine THOUSAND last-minute earmarks totalling something like 14 billion dollars that got added in at the last minute, some of which indicating nothing more than a place and an amount! Argh!

 

But I digress. Obviously the point of this thread is that we're not spending enough money on research, and I completely agree. It's just incredibly frustrating to know that we could easily spend many TIMES as much as we currently spend on scientific research and still CUT taxes if it wasn't for all the pork and waste.

 

(How many LHCs would the trillion-dollar war in Iraq pay for, I wonder?)

[ajb]

You can sign a petition here

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Physics-Funding/

[bascule]

How many LHCs would the trillion-dollar war in Iraq pay for, I wonder?

 

It'd pay for approximately 83 Superconducting Supercolliders

[Pangloss]

Or one super-duper-conducting Supercollider?

 

(hehe, sorry)

[Severian]

You can sign a petition here

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Physics-Funding/

 

It is a sad statement about modern politics that we are 29,000 signatures behind the petition to make Jeremy Clarkson Prime Minister.

[Severian]

Here is the latest news story to emerge. The UK will be pulling out of Gemini, leaving us with no top-rank telescopes in the northern hemisphere. It looks like UK Astronomy will be irreperably damaged.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7210342.stm

 

In response, MIST has made some "resolutions":

http://www.mist.ac.uk/mistres.html

[Reaper]

Yikes!

[CDarwin]

People just don't realize how crucial human scientific capital is, and makes science an easy target for spending cuts. Expensive pure research seems esoteric and unnecessary, but beyond its real intrinsic value it attracts the best scientists. Those scientists are the capital that are going to train the next generation of researchers in all fields, both the fundamental and the "practical" and applied.

 

Serbia provides a good example. It used to be a scientific powerhouse, now it's teaching Creation Science in its high schools. It's because all the great scientists left or died and there wasn't another generation to pick up where they left off. The Balkans is a backwater now.

[Pangloss]

Wow, I didn't know that about creationism being taught in Serbia. That's a shame.

 

(No wonder Bush is so popular there!)

[Royston]

I just found this article, although from a research POV the UK is probably to be avoided, it looks as though the government are waking up to education of the sciences in the UK...

 

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2246245,00.html

 

from the article...

 

Teachers who retrain to become maths, physics and chemistry specialists will get a "golden handshake" of £5,000 under new government plans announced today.

 

The new £140m scheme is aimed at increasing the number of science and maths teachers, improving results at GCSE and getting more young people studying science, technology, engineering and maths - Stem - subjects after the age of 16.

 

"The recent revelation that ministers ignored warnings about their cut to physics funding is yet more evidence that they are not equipping us properly for an increasingly competitive future."

It's certainly good news that science education is being encouraged, but not a good strategy for the UK's future in physics...there may be an increase in better teaching, and results et.c in the field, but with the lack of research funding, there's no incentive for young physicists who have received an improved standard of education to stay in the UK.

[Severian]

The physics teachers thing is a bit stupid too. The reason there are no physics teachers is because the government insist that physics should be grouped together with chemistry and biology (as 'science'), and therefore physics teachers have to teach low level chemistry and biology classes. On the other hand they are not allowed to teach maths, which is under a different heading.

 

So most prospective physics teachers will choose to teach maths instead rather than be forced to teach all of science.

[Royston]

Unfortunately, it has been confirmed the UK involvement with the ILC has been withdrawn. It seems as though resistance to the decision fell on deaf ears. Please see the article from physicsworld below...

 

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/32809

 

The physics teachers thing is a bit stupid too. The reason there are no physics teachers is because the government insist that physics should be grouped together with chemistry and biology (as 'science'), and therefore physics teachers have to teach low level chemistry and biology classes.

It is a sad statement about modern politics that we are 29,000 signatures behind the petition to make Jeremy Clarkson Prime Minister.

Strangely enough, after watching Top Gear the other night, Jeremy Clarkson commented that 'the maths and science of this car are incredible', after test driving a Ferrari, the distinction has clearly permeated into popular media.

[ajb]

The STFC response can be found here.

[Severian]

The STFC response can be found here.

 

It is quite amazing how that response is so full of half-truths and outright lies.

 

For example: "The next rolling grants review is in 2009, and will take effect in October 2009, the second year of the CSR period". The rolling grant applications just went in last tuesday, that is the 5th of February, about a week after this reponse, and the result of the applications has not been decided yet - they will come into effect this October.

 

Considering that the rolling grant applications are sent to the STFC directly, you would think they would know this.

 

 

Also, don't they realize that statements like "The development of the Science and Innovation Campuses in collaboration with universities, the private sector and local authorities, will support the entire UK research base" and "The Council re-affirmed the decisions already taken with respect to withdrawal from the International Linear Collider (ILC) project and ground-based Solar-Terrestrial Physics (STP) facilities" are contradictory. How can you "support the entire UK research base" if you cancel large chunks of it? (Or are they only meaning that they are supporting the bits that they are going to support )

 

Then they keep telling us that we are getting more money, but only quote figures "including the impact of Full Economic Costing". Or in other words, the funding appears higher because they have changed their accounting system.

 

I found Sir Peter Knight's comments interesting too. "I am convinced that the resulting programme will ensure the UK remains at the forefront of global research". But research of which topics? Clearly not linear collider physics or solar astronomy.