Our Day in Court : Part two

Yesterday was the second session of the IUS Select Committee investigation into the Science Budget Allocations, with the comittee grilling the Science Minister Ian Pearson, and Research Council Supremo Keith O’Nions. You can listen to the live recording of the proceedings. I reported on the first session here, and you can find the transcript here.

Pearson and O’Nions were completely truthful throughout, but placed shall we say a certain gloss on matters. Likewise, in places they were interestingly helpful, and in others were careful to silently drive round certain holes in the road. Lets have a go at summarising/paraphrasing some of the key statements made by Pearson and O’Nions, and reversing back over the potholes.

Crisis ? What Crisis ? Its all over blown. Everything is fine.

I know this will have annoyed a lot of people, but lets not waste time on it. Politicians can’t agree there is a crisis in public. They never do. Would you ?

No grants cuts. There is an impression abroad of swingeing cuts, but actually they are staying broadly level.

Andrew King nailed this one in his piece in Research Fortnight the other day. First, it is true that in 2006 and 2007 astronomy grant awards went up; so the size of cut depends on what baseline you compare to. Second, grants last several years; O’Nions was quoting RAs in place, which will take about three years to show the full effect. This round, according to Andrew K, 88 RAs are leaving and 82 RAs are arriving. Those 88 however mostly come from the 2005 low year; if the awards stay at 82, then the un-replaced fraction will be going up over the next two years. After three years, the effect on RAs in place will be pretty much the 25% cut that STFC in December asked every University in the country to be ready for.

There is more money for Universities. Including FEC, money for astronomy grants is going up 67% over the CSR, and 43% for Particle Physics.

Absolutely correct. Don’t just shout at Keith Mason and Keith O’Nions. Get inside your University committee system and find out where the money is going. This is related to the next point : O’Nions was asked “so who is that extra money being taken away from” ?

Inappropriate unfunded research. FEC is not a shift from QR. Its real extra money. What was happening in the past was that Universities were doing underfunded research, and taking the money effectively from teaching and from not fixing the roof etc. This is what FEC is for.

Absolutely correct. However, as I said last time, watching the pea under the cup is tricky; its not clear enough extra money has been allocated to the Research Councils for this purpose, unless they cut grant volume.

This is only part of Physics. Not every area of Physics is damaged, or complaining. Some people are indifferent.

This was in fact a subtle but important understatement by O’Nions. My condensed matter and photonics colleagues (some of whom I know read this blog) are not just shrugging their shoulders and saying “nothing to with us”. They believe that any day now they will have to close down beamlines and so on because of problems originating in Particle Physics and Astronomy – uncontrollable subscriptions, huge project commitments, grants that had been going up. And they were made very nervous by STFC announcing that they would make £120M cuts to solve an £80M problem. Finally, they get annoyed by us guys referring to “core physics” and behaving as if STFC were the same thing as PPARC but gone a bit wrong. Even finally-er, they score points on KT and we don’t. (I know thats wrong in a deep way, but thats the way it looks).

Think on this hard as we come up to Wakeham. Is its remit “to look at the health of particle physics, astronomy, and nuclear physics” ? Nope. Its “to look at the health of physics.” Firm voices will be heard to argue as follows :

The essential problem is that university physics departments rely too much on astronomy and particle physics. For twenty years, universities have been hiring astronomers because it gets bums on seats; the number of academic astronomers has grown considerably. That army of astronomers of course demands more RAs and more telescopes, insisting that RC funding follow the same trend. But this is in the opposite direction to government policy towards more practical and economically focused research. This has to stop. Universities cannot blackmail the government in this way.

Answers on a postcard please.

STFC did not inherit any problems from the merger.
The budget of the merged council was the same as the sum of the two. An NAO report before the merger did due diligence and did not find either PPARC or CCLRC to have any deficits.

This really was economical with the actuality. The merger happened just in time before the deficits hit CCLRC. This is unambiguously stated in the NAO report and the later proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee. By 2003, the Diamond and ISIS-2 teams had correctly estimated the predicted operating costs, but the CCLRC projected budget did not have enough to cover these costs. This is what the NAO report says about CCLRC :

The anticipated total increase in its operating costs is in the region of £25 million per annum at 2006-07 prices or around 12 per cent of the Council’s current annual operating expenditure. If the Council does not secure additional resources, this degree of cost growth could exacerbate existing constraints….

That last bit means “they would have to shut down ISIS and Diamond half the year”. Now you see why our condensed matter chums are worried.

The STFC budget was increased. On the basis of flat-cash plus FEC, STFC had the second largest increase, after MRC. The net increase was 3.2%. NERC was 2%; EPSRC and AHRC were -1%.

This is very useful and fascinating in various ways. First, EPSRC and AHRC are probably worst off because they are completely dominated by grants, whereas NERC and STFC have a significant fraction of facilities costs. Second, it does indeed look like FEC has been slightly underfunded. Third, STFC, did indeed get a perfectly decent settlement. So what went wrong ? The answer is bleedin’ obvious, and is contained in the section above. Everything would have been fine if it wasn’t for the fact that STFC inherited from CCLRC an unfunded overcommitment of £25M/yr.

I can fine tune this a little. A colleague of mine recently got someone pretty knowledgeable in The Machine to say privately that “the CCLRC overcommitment is about 70% of the problem”. OK, so STFC got net 3% over three years, i.e. 1% per year, so an extra 6M/yr-ish. Thats about a quarter of of 25M/yr.

So in round terms, three quarters of our problem is inherited Harwell campus overcommitment, and one quarter is other stuff – loss of subscription protection etc. Keep repeating this mantra.

Daresbury has a healthy future.
We are absolutely committed to building up Daresbury as a Science and Innovation Campus. Every day new companies are signing up.

OK, we believe you. But as various committee members stressed, this policy may fail if there is negligible core science there. The SRS has gone and they didn’t get Diamond. ILC work has gone out the window. The future of the 4GLS concept is uncertain. They have a vague promise of 50M for a supercomputer centre (the Hartree centre) but does that make sense now ?

Pearson and O’Nions got lots of hard questions along these lines, and persistent pressure on whether there should be a policy of regional development. Mutter Mutter Haldane. By contrast, the discussion of ATC took ninety seconds. Blah Blah understand useful discussions going on about closer links with University etc etc. Wasn’t sure what to think about this. Keep my head down or climb up and wave the Scottish Banner ? Somewhere in between maybe.

Lessons learned in communication. The fuss made by certain parts of the physics community has been unfortunate, and obviously orchestrated. We must think about how to handle this better next time. There has been a lot of criticism of the STFC advisory process. It did not look anomalous from where we were sitting, but obviously this is something we can look at.

By Civil Service standards, this was actually quite strong stuff. “My underlings screwed this up. But I want you to understand it wasn’t my fault.”

That’ll do for now. Watch out for news from Council Feb 28th, and the Science Board Town Meeting on March 3rd. That is when the blood-fest starts.

7 Responses to Our Day in Court : Part two

  1. postcard says:

    The bums on the seats are the students who are the future of physics in this country. Universities promote astronomy because they have found that it is important for physics recruitment. Universities are not stupid. This is what we have to get our VCs to say to Wakeham.

  2. Very Anonymous Physicist says:

    Yes, ATC should have got more than 90 seconds, t’was unfair.
    Perhaps I might humbly suggest ATC needs to shout blue murder like we do at Daresbury!

  3. ian smail says:


    as you said – it is not true that grants are level funded – EVEN accounting for the variations in the numbers awarded due to the size of the groups in each round (and their activities) there has been a significant cut this round. so looking at the astronomy side only – in april 2002 there were roughly ~80 PDRAs awarded; for the 2003 cycle the number was ~85; in 2004, 93; 2005: 85; 2006: 102; 2007: 135 and in 2008: ~82 PDRA.

    so there was a spike after the last CSR as we used extra money to hire RAs – and hence we might be naturally seen as returning to the long-term average with the latest award (2008 versus 2005). however, these numbers mask both the significant increase in the number of co-applicants on the grants (ie the growth in the number of new academics you mention) – this is definitely in the ~20% range and could be higher (its hard to quantify) – AND an increase in the number and scope of the rolling grant activities in this current round. the latter was triggered by the widely held view (started by a rumor which was claimed to originate with the CEO?) that standard grants were for the chop – so a whole bunch of people whose research is supported from SGs chose to try to roll those activities in this round (maybe producing another 10-20% increase in the number of applicants). this resulted in a larger-than-usual request for support this round (which should have been reflected in moving money from the next two rounds to track the shift in applicants, but i don’t believe this has been done). it may well be that both of these effects were exacerbated by inflation in FEC – where the system appears to lack any mechanism for negative feedback – but the current claim is that we are not spending money for RAs on FEC.

    i agree that there is a mismatch in the system between the physics departments recruiting astronomers and the RC money going where the government wants it to go. this could simply be because there is no mechanism to class PP and astro as “loss-leaders” for physics and so siphon some money to these areas to ensure that all those new lecturers have some toys to use. or we could decide that there will be research active and teaching faculty and cut out some fraction of the community from funding based on that. this is close to what is happening anyway as the FEC awards for some staff this round (on rollers – which typical encompass most of a co-I’s research interests) is far below the level you’d expect for a research active academic: as low as 10% (they were capped at 35% round even for our “world-class” applicants – because of the lack of money).

    all in all its a mess and not good for younger researchers or our graduate students…

  4. andyxl says:

    Coo Ian what a lot of detail – fascinating. I would be interested to know how academic staff numbers have increased over a longer timescale – twenty years say – because my suspicion is that this more like a factor of two.

  5. ian smail says:

    …that’s been the problem with this whole mess – too little quantitative information and too much spin.

    this is compounded by the fact that the “baseline” funding level for the grants has evolved on a ❤ year timescale – even ignoring increasing academic staff numbers – as market pressure has brought more people into the rolling grant pool (where we effectively are required to lock in commitment for their RA support).

    i think there is a case to bring money which is in the STFC model for funding new grants in 2009/2010 to the current round to cover some of the shortfall produced by the equivalent movement in standard grant applicants into the current round. *i have to admit to a conflict on this suggestion as the durham RGs were in this round*

    with the current recommendations – i think the “average” of the ~20 astronomy rolling grant awarded for april 2008 will have ~2.5 RAs on it – which is hardly a viable level of funding.

  6. Paul Crowther says:

    There _was_ a sizeable growth in the number of astro academics during the 1990s (SERC/PPARC days). Quantitatively, an increase from 362 academics in 1992 according to the RAE survey data to 450
    in 2001 from the SCAP survey of Mike Bode (albeit no doubt hindered by a difference in definitions).

    The only survey in which common criteria have been used is the PPARC/STFC studentship quota exercise, which has seen a steady increase from 2003 (484) to 2007 (545). Historically, academics have received PDRA support close to the 0.6 PDRAs/academic for 2007. The 25% volume reduction in support between now and 2011 will either lead to 0.45 PDRAs/academic if one optimistically assumes a flat number of academics, or more likely stay close to 0.6/academic as a result of retirements not being replaced plus new hires being made in areas other than STFC.

  7. […] can listen to the recording, and check out my spin on Part One and Part Two. This time the session came in two halves. In Fit the First we had operations guys from behind the […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: