05/11/08 Research Fortnight - View from the top
Brian Foster
The crisis at the Science and Technology Facilities Council that roared into the headlines last December may be dwarfed by the current crisis of capitalism but it still rumbles on. We now await the outcome of the resulting review of STFC's organisation, from an external panel appointed by the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, which was due to be published by the end of October, but has yet to appear.
The astronomy, nuclear and particle physics communities are suffering greatly as the measures foreshadowed in December begin to bite. Most damaging is the cancellation of previously awarded grants and the rewriting of the rolling grants on which the continuity of these subjects rests.
In my own community, particle physics, this has hit particularly hard. For example, my group in Oxford was asked to hand back £1.6 million in already awarded grants; a prodigious sum that causes me sleepless nights and that makes our careful planning nugatory.
Although hard negotiation with a constructive STFC management has now reduced the sum to be returned by 10 per cent, the request itself is unprecedented and represents a breach in the trust between research council and university that is essential to the operation of the UK's research paradigm.
Such action is causing concern in both the Russell and 1994 groups of universities. Amid these tribulations, what is the task facing the STFC as it moves into its next phase, presumably with the results of the external panel's review firmly on its agenda by then?
There is no doubt that the STFC's research programme, even after the 2007 round of cuts, is vibrant and world class. It is based on university groups, many of whom are the world leaders in their subjects, who have, over many years, built up irreplaceable expertise in their technical and engineering staff.
All this is being put at risk, in particular by the additional 25 per cent cuts to university grants that the STFC plans.
While news early last month from the council that it had reassessed its risk provision and found £9m to mitigate these cuts is pleasing, it is not yet clear how this money will be used. For us, the money will not reduce the sum we must return to the council; we can only hope that it will reduce the planned cut of 25 per cent in grants funding.
The STFC must put this money into the normal grants system where it can be tensioned properly against all other requests for STFC support, not frittered away as often in the past in ‘special schemes ’ that by definition limit the competition for funds. The STFC's short-term priority must be to limit the damage threatened to the UK's long-term research capability. The council should reiterate to government the threats posed by the current financial envelope.
The advent of Paul Drayson as Science Minister gives science an advocate within the government of similar conviction and influence as David Sainsbury; and he has indicated that his imagination is stirred by the STFC's science. Thus, the council needs to convince him that a very small extra injection of money into the STFC, funded perhaps from underspends at other research councils, could avert severe damage to the university infrastructure threatened by the 25 per cent cut.
With regard to challenges in the longer term, I have long sought a solution to the inexorable growth of subscriptions to international organisations relative to the domestic funding available to exploit them. It makes no sense that as the UK's wealth has increased relative to our partners, which has increased our international subscriptions, UK science should be impoverished. The Treasury and the STFC need to come up with imaginative solutions.
Also, the council must put its own house in order. The uniquely introverted structure of the STFC's governing council, with its strong block of executives as full members, has been tested in the current crisis and found wanting. Although a welcome addition of two scientific members has been announced, the structural problems have not been addressed.
The STFC Council should become similar to the other research councils. As a former member of the governing council of the old Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, I know how difficult it is for scientists to contest successfully the plans of a forceful chief executive. The current STFC Council entrenches that executive power and makes it almost unassailable. Reform is urgent; I have yet to hear any arguments, other than inertia, against it.
With reform at the top and a renewal of leadership, the STFC will be able to take on the significant challenge of rebuilding trust with the universities. The disastrous nature of the STFC's external relations and communications have been remarked upon already, most trenchantly by the House of Commons Science Select Committee. Again, reform is urgent and overdue.
Finally, the STFC needs to rebuild trust with its international partners; trust damaged by intemperate statements and bullying behaviour. While British diplomacy may be renowned for its suavity, effectiveness and discretion, these qualities are signally lacking in its scientific service; a willingness to listen would do wonders for our effectiveness.
The STFC experiment, which began with the merger of PPARC and the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils in April 2007, is in its early days. It can build on a glorious tradition in the subjects in its remit. There are signs that the tensions inherent in running large facilities and exploiting and commissioning pure science can be overcome.
There is no future for particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics within “silos ”, or small individual research councils. The links between particle physics and astronomy are too intimate and growing stronger all the time; particle and nuclear physics grew from the same tree and draw strength from each other at their interfaces.
If we can reform the STFC and make it work better, then I have no doubt that the UK can continue to lead the world in the subjects that it is the STFC's duty to advance.
Brian Foster is professor of experimental physics at the University of Oxford, professorial fellow of Balliol College, Head of Particle Physics and European Director of the Global Design Effort for the International Linear Collider. Since 2005, with Jack Liebeck, he has highlighted Einstein's love of the violin through lectures and recitals all over the world, in schools, theatres, science clubs and other venues.