Dear Fellow,

I am writing to give you an update on the current UK funding situation, specifically STFC's. I hope non-professional astronomers and overseas based fellows will understand why, at this time, I need to focus on this topic. However, the underlying issue is the future of basic (or curiosity driven) research which will, I think, concern all Fellows.

On my first working day as President back in May, I met the Science Minister for an hour and began the process of trying to understand how astronomy and related basic research are valued and are funded in the UK. The process is not yet complete for me, especially as the Science Minister and other key people have since changed. We have had to become rapidly more politically aware and the process of political engagement was well initiated under my predecessor, Michael Rowan-Robinson.

Everyone reading this letter will surely be aware of the shocks felt through our community on learning almost a year ago of a significant deficit in the funding for pure science within the newly formed STFC, following last year's governmental CSR. I don't wish to rehearse all the angry debate that lasted for many months until the final Programmatic Review seemed to bring the situation in terms of facilities almost back to where we started. Some significant programmes have been lost and there are still angry and bewildered scientists around. Our international partners must now view us with suspicion or at least question our reliability. Some talented young people have decided against a career in astronomy.

The situation now is that the remaining £25 million hole in grants funding is partly alleviated by £9 million, which although only a partial solution (and the wording is unclear as to exactly how it will be spent), is nevertheless very welcome. As far as I know, there have been no new programmes started over this time; the community is holding its collective breath.

During this time we have been hectored and lectured by the STFC executive that their masters, the DIUS, the Treasury and ultimately the Prime Minister are measuring our worth in terms of economic impact. Quite what this means seems to depend on who you talk to, but phrases such as a `knowledge society' and `spinoffs' are often used. I can see how that applies to such within the Facilities part of STFC but it becomes difficult when applied to the former PPARC areas. The curiously-driven research which underlies most of what astronomers do does contribute significant knowledge to our society, and inspires and educated young people and indeed a wide range of people to take an interest in science. There are material spinoffs but they tend to be long term and indirect. These are all valuable aspects of what we do, but are not the reasons that most of us do it in the first place. I share the belief of Professor Sir Christopher Llewellyn-Smith that the main reason to study astronomy is cultural (see his article 'Whats the use of basic science'). The best compromise may be talk of `economical and societal impact'.

One RAS area with a more direct connection with economic impact is Solar and Terrestrial Physics (STP), which in the simplest sense is how the Sun affects the Earth through the Solar Wind and related phenomena. Satellities and power grids can be badly affected when the Sun is very active. The STP area has however fared poorly within STFC over the ast year and provides no evidence that having economic impact in simple terms helps.

The RAS reported to the Wakeham Review on the Health of Physics and also to the current Organisational Review of STFC. For both we have had valuable input from Council and Fellows. I was, with David Elliott (Executive Secretary of RAS) and Robert Massey (Press Officer RAS), at the final presentation of the Wakeham Review and the Institute of Physics on 31/10/08. (We had had a private outline of the report just before it was published a month ago). Physics overall was pronounced to be in rude health and STFC needs time to settle down. It may be telling that they recommend that the Director-General of Science and Research at DIUS, who makes the final allocations to the Research Councils, should have a panel of senior scientists to advise him of the consequences of his decision at the next CSR, before they are finalised.

There are many problems with the structure and working of STFC, which we detail in our report to the Organisational Review, which was circulated to you. One minor example is that they never widely advertised the existence of this review and the possibility to contribute via a web-form back in July! Communication between the science stakeholders (or whatever we call ourselves) and the executive of STFC, to whom all the boards and panels of STFC provide advice, is improving considerably and we note a new willingness for dialogue, which we are engaging with. STFC Chief Executive Keith Mason had an hour-long discussion with Council back in June and we are now being consulted on Strategy.

Perhaps what we can do best is a blend of positive direction and pragmatism. Astronomy is more expensive now than it has ever been, but the UK should and must participate. As a subject it continues to produce many fascinating discoveries both local and distant, with, from the evidence on the web and in the media, considerable public interest. The UK is number two after the US in terms of the obvious scientific publication metrics in astronomy, publication number and citations, despite spending only a European average on astronomy and space science. Mistakes made now could push us out of this spot and it would be difficult to regain it. Skilled and motivated people are our best asset and it is these that tend to get ignored in the deliberations of STFC.

Turning, finally, to the RAS itself, I see it as healthy with a broad and interested Fellowship. Council is thinking of ways to make it more attractive to more professional scientists in our disciplines in the UK. I would like all such professionals, and students, to automatically want to be Fellows. At the same time we are endeavouring to engage more with our overseas based members. For example, we are investigating ways to improve how we web-cast our meetings more readily so that they are more accessible to everyone. The quality of the talks is very high and it is a pity that more people don't hear them.

Back in May, I was told that we live in interesting times. With an economic downturn it has become even more 'interesting'

Kind Regards

Andy Fabian

(President RAS)