To: Prof. Michael Sterling, Chair, STFC Council

CC:
Keith Mason
Richard Wade
John Womersley
Jenny Thomas
Jordan Nash



Dear Prof. Sterling,

We are writing as Chairs of the Advisory Panels to PPAN concerning the  
outcome of the Programmatic Review. The outcome has caused significant  
pain and uncertainty within the Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics,  
Particle Astrophysics, Astronomy and Space Science communities.

PPAN were clearly put in an impossible situation with a budget  
decreasing by £28M over the next 3 years, which will leave some of our  
communities in a barely sustainable position. Whilst the set of  
supported projects is broadly consistent with the priorities expressed  
by the community via the Advisory Panel roadmap reports, there are  
some clear exceptions on which each Panel plans to seek clarification.  
However, the outcome of the Review is, due to the financial  
constraints, a programme that has been severely narrowed in its  
coverage of the major scientific questions in Particle Physics,  
Nuclear Physics and Astronomy and which:

* wastes much of the significant prior investment made by the UK in  
forefront science;

* results in termination of UK leadership in a number of significant  
areas;

* leaves almost no room for developing future UK strategic  
opportunities for advancing the scientific frontier, with relevant KE  
impact, 10-20 years from now;

* sends a very negative message to bright young people (through  
significant cuts in studentships, fellowships and grants) about the  
importance the UK places in cutting-edge, fundamental science, and the  
career opportunities that follow from training in these areas. We urge  
PPAN and Science Board to revisit the decision on studentships and  
fellowships, even within the present financial constraints.


We urge you to seek every opportunity to gain additional resources for  
the science programme so that the damage can at least be reduced  
relative to the current outcome. Lord Drayson has recently made  
statements that recognise this dire situation and expressed a desire  
to ameliorate it.

We welcome the statements made by John Womersley at the briefing  
meeting for Advisory Panels on December 18th. John outlined a clear  
need for further community input via the Advisory Panels on the  
crucially important details of the implementation plan - there is  
clearly still some head-room for the scientific damage caused by the  
cuts and 'managed withdrawals' to be further limited. However, we  
would like to understand better the timescale, procedure and mechanism  
by which we can provide this input.

The Advisory Panels acknowledge the community support and input into  
their summer 2009 consultation exercises, which formed the basis of  
our roadmap reports and advice to PPAN in October 2009. We intend to  
continue working with our communities to optimise, as far as possible,  
the details of a terrible outcome.

Sincerely,

Philip Burrows (PPAP)
Michele Dougherty (NUAP)
Martin Freer (NPAP)
Philip Mauskopf (PAAP)
Bob Nichol (FUAP)