the increased focus on KE/outreach is all very well – but the UK doesn’t really need to pay subscriptions to ESO/ESA/etc to reap the attendent modest KE gains – the reason the UK paid these subscriptions was to exploit those facilities for fundamental science.

so where is the focus on science exploitation of all our facilities in the new strategy? i guess it should have been obvious when they forgot to include an “R” (as in Research) in STFC – but science exploitation by the STFC community doesn’t appear to be a priority in the new plan (otherwise why are we cutting back the grants quite so excessively). STFC is simply going to be relegated to being a support organisation for MRC/EPSRC-funded researchers – and that doesn’t seem a sustainable strategy.

i agree that FEC is also eating into the science exploitation budget. there is no downward pressure on costs from the universities – and so as a result these are ballooning. a rough estimate suggests that they soaked up 20% more of the grants line this year than was anticipated – and that’s before we have to apply a 25% cut. so the claim that the number of PDRAs will only drop by ~10% by the end of the CSR is fantasy – its going to be more like ~40% (assuming of course that the 25% cuts get applied in 2009/2010 – and aren’t scaled back when it becomes apparent the damage they’re doing). this will obviously have a very dramatic impact on our ability to lead the exploitation of ESO/ESA/etc – no doubt raising questions at the next CSR of why we’re paying for these facilities if we don’t have anyone to exploit them?

However, one could make the case that it would be healthier if the facilities and labs were clearly distinct from the agency, just as University groups are, and made peer reviewed bids for support. This is certainly one suggestion I will make to the Wakeham review.

As for the Diamond people – now that’s a different matter…