Comments on: DIUS on a sticky wicket

By: Our day in Court « The e-Astronomer

Our day in Court « The e-Astronomer — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:00:20 +0000

[...] Lintott’s Universe . There are already all sorts of angry comments on earlier posts of mine here and here . STFC have put out a positive news spin on the BBC , but Ken Peach has produced a [...]

By: UK Physics has a brighter future

UK Physics has a brighter future — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:35:47 +0000

To quote Keith Mason from the BBC website:

‘The “doom and gloom” being spread about the state of UK physics and the funding of research is unhelpful and paints an inaccurate picture, says Keith Mason. The chief executive of the Science and Technology Facilities Council claims the likely fallout from its spending settlement has been exaggerated’

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7200456.stm

What world are you living on – still in Holmbury St Mary perhaps?

Look at the redundancies, the high quality research grants that will be rejected, the demoralisation of your own staff in Swindon, and tha appalling situation that has been allowed to develop whilst you were our representative, and the decimation that will occur in many areas of astronomy – whoops … STFC reprioritisation … pardon my incorrect terminology …

It is clear that a clear that a clean out at the top of STFC is the only real way forward now

By: Concerned for the future

Concerned for the future — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:16:47 +0000

But the reality is that Particle Physics and Astronomy remain of great interest to the public, and as has been well stated, are subjects that started many scientists off in their exploration of the subject in the first place

Returning to the focus of this blog (it is getting a bit off track and losing sight of the real issues I’m afraid), to quote Prof Mason … ‘we are in this situation, so lets just get on with it’. Fine, thanks for those great words of support, just what we wanted to hear from you, a great way to marshal your troops around you.

But does there really remain much confidence within the community that the present Senior Management at STFC are the right people to lead Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Astronomy out of the problem. The woeful lack of communication with the community as the crisis developed was dressed up in STFC-speak as being due to the need to act fast, and that it was adequately discussed with Committees. However, this has already been refuted by some members of those same committees (see Paul Crowther’s web page and the Jan 8th Guardian), leaving it difficult to believe anything we are told from STFC now.

Maybe it’s time to stand back from this shambles and to take a fresh look at the future, and also to look inwardly, and outwardly, at who should be brought in to take the community forward. Should the community really seek to change personnel at the top now – should senior Management just be allowed to get on with it? There are arguments for this that they already know something about the system – but there is also so much angry sentiment in the PP, NP and Astronomy communities that enough is enough – and a resignation that we have been left exposed in the present situation by inadequate leadership (however STFC want to dress it up) that did not manage to contain the situation at an early stage in the development of the crisis. Maybe the best way forward now is just to have a clean sweep and regroup. Is this going to happen – well many people are talking about this privately – but everyone is worried that by putting their heads above the parapet, they will be the first to suffer. Perhaps it is time to appeal to the people involved to do the right thing to allow everyone to move forward

By: Anon

Anon — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:29:09 +0000

The goverment is also enthusiastic about science. The problem is the enthusiasm seems to be for medical science and biophysics not astronomy or particle physics. At least thats the impression I got from listening to keith mason and Ian diamond speaking to the select committee. In fact the general impression I have is they only want to fund applied science, not fundamental science like particle physics.

By: Peter Williams

Peter Williams — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:19:47 +0000

“Convince the public and the government of the worth of astronomy …” …and the rest of STFC funded science. Yes, Andy, that’s exactly what us Northern troglodytes are trying to do in the media. It’s not a difficult case to make, Brian has had journalists eating out of his hand. There is a lot of public enthusiasm for science.

By: andyxl

andyxl — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:07:55 +0000

Chris – I have only listened to a small part so far. Michael Rowan-Robinson and Peter Main were very cogent. However, the line taken “this must be a mistake” I think is wrong. Its not a mistake. Its a deliberate act – the Government gave science extra money; but commitments swallowed this up; they could have added some more to stop damage to astronomy; but they chose not to. Keith Mason knows this very well; he is both an astronomer and a loyal servant of DIUS, and so horribly conflicted. So what can be done in the short term ? Some smoothing over money. But what is the real point ? Convince the public and the government of the worth of astronomy …

By: Chris Lintott's Universe >> Next steps to Save Astronomy

Chris Lintott's Universe >> Next steps to Save Astronomy — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:42:08 +0000

Those parts of yesterday’s debate that I could listen to demonstrated STFC’s attempts at denial and buck passing, their lack of vision as to how we get out of the situation, and their acceptance that the Wakeham Review would have no real implications on the current problems of reducndancy, withdrawl from major international facilities, and reductions in Research Grants. How do you propose we recover from, and take ownership of this situation andyxl?

By: Tone

Tone — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:56:27 +0000

I don’t accept that ESA is run by fear and loathing – not on my watch! We have countless consultative committees, public meetings, international reviews, overviews, and recently underviews by RvD – what more do you expect us to do – why criticize us in this way. We listen intently to everything that you think you vant. In the end ve just have to do what is in your best interests. How elze would you expect us to run an Agency! Dankzegging andyxl

By: andyxl

andyxl — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:42:47 +0000

I think somebody once explained to me that ESA works by fear and loathing. Or maybe that was Walmart. Anyhoo.. depends what you mean by “peer review”. Missions like XEUS get discussed many times by many grades of committee with community representatives on, and the agency read the atmosphere .. but genuine competitive-proposal, anonymous-referee, vote-and-choose kinda peer review – indeedy that is done very sparingly.

This is why in the “ad-hoc group” communique, we made a careful statement about “consultation” as opposed to “peer review”.

But this is the way that RAL have always run big facilities like ISIS, CLF etc. They have “user committees” but then, after listening to some opinions, wise management heads decide whats best for people and build it. The way PP and astro has been run in the UK the last two decades – with the community actually feeling like they owned the facilities and made decisions – is the anomaly. Well of course it is the Government’s money, not ours. This in part is why the US guys invented AURA : a consortium of Universities really DOES own the telescopes. Opinions on success of that ?

By: trevor macdonald

trevor macdonald — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:08:27 +0000

XEUS has only ever been peer reviewed once at ESA – for Cosmic Visions 2015-25. Prior to that, it had received many millions of technology development support. If you think STFC is corrupt, try ESA for size – not only do vested interests stay in the room for critical decisions, they often draft the reports!