US Physics in trouble too

Two excellent web pages are collecting information on the STFC funding crisis. The first, centred on Astronomy, is Paul Crowther’s page. The second, centred on Particle Physics, is Mark Lancaster’s page. They are both full of reliable and sane information, so do check them out if you haven’t already. Looking at Mark’s page tonight I picked up that the US Science Budget is in trouble too; and minutes later I got an email from an alarmed US chum…

There are news articles here at New Scientist, and here at Cosmic Log. These articles are about the plug being pulled on the International Linear Collider, but its actually much wider than this. There are good summaries at the American Institute of Physics, and on the Unofficial ITER Fan Club page.

The overall science budget increase was 2.6%, i.e. flat cash, and this is the story across most areas. But, within the DOE budget, High Energy Physics was actually CUT – $696M next year versus $752M this year; and ILC was given $15M versus a $60M request. At the same time, BaBar is closing six months early, and 200 staff are being laid off at SLAC.

Astronomy funding comes from both NSF and NASA. The story on NSF overall looks bad – up 1.2% i.e. losing spending power, but its not clear yet what the effect is on key astronomy programs – NOAO, NRAO, Gemini, LSST, my old chums at NVO, and so forth. Probably more news will come out during the current AAS meeting in Texas.

For NASA the news is confusing. They get 3.1%, but there are various commitments and strings attached. For example, they are instructed to spend more on SIM than they planned. A recent post by the Bad Astronomer describes a talk by NASA Administrator Griffin, in which he seems to warn obliquely that there isn’t enough money to do everything. And of course Mars gets LOADSAMONEY.

3 Responses to US Physics in trouble too

  1. Rob says:

    what do you make of the private eye article on mark lancaster’s page, andy? and can you explain why STFC cannot levy a simple but fair charge for use of Diamond as part of their efforts to recoup £80M?

  2. andyxl says:

    The Private Eye thing is completely daft. Diamond being a company is just an artificial device. It’s really part of Rutherford Lab. Its a short walk from Diamond to the RAL canteen. Burnett, Wade etc being Board members is the least I would expect, and expecting them to list this on the register of interests would be plain silly.

    Re user fees etc : I haven’t heard anybody say they can’t do this. It wasn’t the way things were set up, but I hope this is being explored. The other Research Councils might have a natural resistance to this; and for example demand extra in their budgets if they have to do this etc; so although its probably good in the long term it won’t help in the long term

  3. Another anonymous physicist says:

    Diamond is NOT part of RAL. In fact, there is resentment on the RAL side. For instance the accelerator people at diamond get paid more and have just had a 4.9% rise (above the public sector limits) because it’s a PLC. The accelerator people on ISIS get paid less and have not had ANY rise, even though they do virtually the same job. The fact that diamond is private means they get away with murder.
    If you ask me it’s a disgrace.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: