Researchers are in uproar after a recently established quango unveiled a series of cuts and abandoned some projects altogether because of an estimated £80m funding shortfall. Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, argues that Britain will pay a far higher price if it scraps vital projects now
Scientists involved in physics and space research - and I'm one of them - are fortunate people. Their work is stimulating; it's the basis for most of the technologies that modern life depends on; and its research frontiers - from atoms to the cosmos - interest a wide public.
But in recent months, physics has been making less happy news. There have been angry complaints from professional bodies and from vice-chancellors. More than 10,000 scientists have signed petitions and young physicists are anxious about their future.
The problems stem from a recently established quango, the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), which is said to have a shortfall of £80 million over the next three years and is balancing the books by pulling out of some projects and slashing its support for university physics departments.
The STFC has a varied remit. It runs Britain's large public science laboratories (where a central facility serves scientists from all over the country).
It also pays the UK's subscription to the European Space Agency and the CERN laboratory in Geneva: the UK belongs to these consortia because they provide access to facilities that no single European nation can afford.
The STFC also supports the research of university teachers who study astronomy and particle physics.
When the Government announced further increases in the research budget last autumn, on top of eight previous annual rises, nobody imagined that a few weeks later the research community would be angrily complaining about cuts.
Overall, STFC did only marginally worse than other areas of science. It ran into problems because most expenditure is on big, long-term items. There is a commitment to maintain the splendid Diamond Laboratory near Oxford and our subscriptions to international consortia have also gone up.
Consequently, there is a severe squeeze threatened on items that can be cut quickly - in particular, on grants to universities which support research in space science, astronomy and particle physics.
Most young scientists in universities are supported on such grants, many of which seem likely to be axed.
It is also proposed to withdraw from the partnership that funds the Gemini telescope in Hawaii, and from the global consortium that is planning a follow-up to the particle accelerator at CERN.
But having invested in world-class facilities, it is short-sighted to waive the benefits. Indeed, we owe it to the taxpayer to seek at least our share of the scientific credit from all our international partnerships.
Moreover, these announcements have sent an embarrassing signal to the rest of the world that we are hard up, confused about our priorities, and potentially unreliable partners.
Many people ask why it matters whether we can do research in these arcane subjects. Until we have found a cure for cancer, how can we justify spending large sums of public money on staring into space or identifying mind-numbingly tiny particles?
But there are many good, practical reasons for doing so, quite apart from our natural desire to understand the world we live in and the universe within which that world sits.
Five years ago Sir Peter Mansfield won the Nobel Prize for Medicine for his discoveries concerning magnetic resonance imagining, which is a powerful way of identifying some cancers.
But although Sir Peter's research has had this application, he is a physicist whose work would never have been possible without funding for basic physics.
This country has an outstanding record in scientific research. We are second only to the US by many criteria - and well ahead of the Americans in terms of the cost-effectiveness of our effort.
We're also the only other country competing in the premier league of the world's universities. Those of us who become university teachers are attracted to the role (despite poor salaries) by the prospect, without undue hassle, of gaining basic funding for the research we choose to do.
This is what's on offer in the leading US universities; we need to be competitive if we are to sustain the respect in which UK science is held internationally.
Twelve per cent of all the world's foreign students come to the UK. Not only do their fees help us bring in welcome revenue, but they forge long-term links with those who will eventually hold key positions in their own country.
Without the requisite research funds, this status is threatened. Furthermore, our strong universities make us a magnet for global investment in science and innovation. There are similarities with the way the injection of resources allowed London to surge ahead as a global financial centre: success breeds success; talent attracts talent.
Conversely, cutbacks lead to falling morale, loss of talent, and a reduction in top-grade science disproportionately larger than the money saved.
Scientific expertise is needed if we are to meet the challenges of energy, the environment and health that will confront the world in the coming decades.
Government educational initiatives are turning around the earlier decline in the number of pupils choosing to study physics A-level, and I have become hopeful that we can reinvigorate the UK's traditional strength in the physical sciences.
The last thing the universities need now is a setback caused by a sudden, unexpected and undeserved cut in funding.
Problems like those at the STFC are symptoms of the fact that, despite positive trends over the last decade, the UK is far from the top of the league in terms of science support from the public purse.
In biomedical sciences, Government funding is generously supplemented by the Wellcome Trust and other medical charities; but there are no such sources for the physical sciences to draw on.
It is crucial, especially when funds are tight, to optimise how they are spent. The setting of broad strategic goals is, rightly, the prerogative of government - but scientists themselves should be engaged as fully as possible in setting priorities.
Academic scientists stake much of their working lives, and their reputations, on choosing the most fruitful lines of research. They have as much incentive as anyone to stretch finite funds to produce maximum scientific outputs.
Unfortunately, the tendency has been for funds to be more tightly micromanaged from the centre. To get the maximum benefit from the taxpayers' money they are investing in science and innovation, the Government needs to involve the scientific community more widely.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly emphasised the goal of making the UK one of the best places in the world to do science. It would be a shame if the suboptimal management of STFC did anything to scupper this aim.
•Martin Rees is President of the Royal Society and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge
THE DOOMED PROJECTS... AND WHAT HAPPENS NEXT...
Which projects will be hit by cuts?
The twin eight-metre Gemini telescopes in Chile and Hawaii.
The International Linear Collider (ILC), a planned £3.5 billion particle smasher.
High-energy gamma-ray astronomy and ground-based studies of the Sun's effect on the Earth.
Reduction of around 25 per cent in all physics research grants.
What else might be affected?
The United Kingdom Infra-Red Telescope on Mauna Kea, Hawaii.
The Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes on the Canary Islands.
MERLIN, the network of radio telescopes centred on Jodrell Bank.
The Liverpool Telescope in the Canary Islands, the world's largest research robotic telescope.
A US-led dark energy survey.
Astrogrid, the UK's contribution to a global virtual observatory.
Experiments for the direct detection of gravitational waves, notably GEO600 and Advanced LIGO.
Experiments to detect dark matter, using sensitive detectors beneath the North Yorkshire moors.
CLOVER, an experiment to find echoes of the Big Bang in background microwave radiation
Reduction in the use of ISIS, a world-leading source of neutron particles.
What is the next move?
Today there will be a Westminster Hall debate on the cuts, and the House of Commons Select Committee on Innovation, Universities and Skills will hold an inquiry on Monday.
WHO SAYS WHAT?
"Until December last year, fundamental physics seemed to be a field with a dazzling future, and strongly supported by Government. In only a few weeks, someone somewhere has managed to demoralise a generation of young scientists." James Jackson of the University of Bristol, who organised a letter of protest from 550 young scientists
"We believe that it is scientific vandalism." Prof Brian Foster of Oxford University
"This is the death of ground-based solar-terrestrial physics in the UK." Dr Jim Wild of Lancaster University, on cuts to studies of the Northern Lights
"Somebody, by accident, design or just sheer incompetence, has managed to set the image of our wonderful, inspiring subject back years." Dr Brian Cox of the University of Manchester
"Our international colleagues are amazed at how shoddily we have been treated." Prof Stan Cowley of the University of Leicester
"I cannot reconcile the rhetoric of the Labour government about a knowledge-based society and importance of science with what I see." Prof Carlos Frenk of Durham University
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by alphaman
The west isnt hungry for exploration, development and sucess anymore. We are fat, lasy, ignorant and if anything require effort its not worth it(just look at how few enroll into science and engineering programs at universities and colleges nowdays compared to just 20-30 years ago).
