Research Fortnight 10 Sep 08 - Cover Story

King questions place of particle physics

King, who advised the government on science from 2000 to 2007, called for a serious debate on the funding of particle physics. `The funding of Cern is probably equivalent to [UK] government funding of medical research', he told Research Fortnight. `If that is justified, you have to ask what is the level of funding for particle physics that wouldn't be justified?'

The former science adviser, now head of the Smith School of Enterprise and Environment at the University of Oxford, said that the government's investment in research needs to be more strongly focused on global challenges such as climate change. The need for this change was a central theme of a presidential address that King delivered to the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Liverpool on 8 September.

King also suggested to Research Fortnight that the high level and consistent funding for projects such as Cern has resulted in many of the most talented scientists working in particle physics and cosmology, possibly at the expense of other fields. `Can we as a global population continue to afford seeing those brilliant people working on those problems', he asked, `or should we try and attract them into finding the renewable energy sources of the future?'

King added that particle physics has been getting progressively more expensive over the years and that there had to be a point where research agencies conclude that the intellectual and economic return on their investment is getting too small. `In my view we might well have reached that point', he said, anticipating the criticism that this position will attract. `It's very difficult because the scientist who says that is going to have the opprobrium of a very large part of the scientific community aimed at them'. In 2007-08, the Science and Technology Facilities Council paid a total of £77.8 million for access to Cern, its most expensive project by far.

King stressed that he isn't against blue skies research per se, pointing to his continued involvement in basic science at the University of Cambridge, where he continues to run a research group in physical chemistry, and his support for projects such as the European Southern Observatory's planned large array telescope.

But King said that the right balance must be struck between the pursuit of fundamental research and its cost.` I think the large scale Southern Observatory is worth it, but we need to examine the cost of the post-LHC accelerator. There's an automatic assumption that we just go on and on', he said.

He was dismissive of the argument that basic science projects can be justified on the basis of the spin-out opportunities that they create. `Supposing Tim Berners-Lee had been attracted into solar energy instead, somebody that brilliant probably would have spun out the web anyway', he said of Cern's most famous by-product.

On the whole, King said, UK government and the research councils are getting this balance about right. He welcomed the research councils' recent mission statement, for instance, which formalises for the first time the expectation that research must contribute to the UK's economic competitiveness and societal wellbeing.

King added that he is highly supportive of the Technology Strategy Board, which was created to fund research with an economic impact and to strengthen interactions between academia and industry. He suggested that the board's remit be expanded: `I think their budget should be built up slowly or else they'll throw it around', he said. `But in my view it needs to be of the order of £1 billion a year.'