Today, Tuesday, is not going to be a good day for astronomers in the UK unless I’m very much mistaken. Particularly for post-docs whose contracts run out in the near future (like me). We already know that we’re going to lose access to the Gemini Observatory. But the real picture is almost certainly much worse than that. Andy is reporting informal discussions of cuts at the 25-40% level. As the Royal Astronomical Society point out, what’s worse is that these cuts are being made ‘with no briefing or consultation of the community during the decision making process’.
The reasons for the cuts aren’t officially clear. There are several factors at work, but among them is the need to bear the costs for new facilities being provided at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, in particular the Diamond Light source. Before last year, this would have had nothing to do with the astronomy budget, but now we’ve been merged with the research council that used to run RAL it’s our problem too. I went back to the parliamentary record to see what had been said about the launch of the new Science and Technologies Facilities Council, and found Lord Truscott, a Labour peer, introducing the new council in the House of Lords. He said, just under a year ago In essence, I can confirm again that this is not a cost-saving measure. . In which case why are astronomers now paying for other’s projects?
Of course, it may be that the pessimists have got there first, and the announcement will bring good news to all. I doubt it, though. Hold on tight – it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
Update: A pretty good BBC story here, although you should note that as far as I understand it, STFC didn’t get things wrong, CCLRC did. (CCLRC was the council merged with the particle physics and astronomy research council to form STFC – ie it wasn’t us!). those from beyond particle physics and astronomy did. (Update per comment below).
Update : Excellent interview on the Today programme today with the minister which seems to announce a review. It’s at about 7.22. I’ll get a transcript up later.
Philip on December 11, 2007
It seems astronomy and atmospheric physics are being brought closer together by the new research council… Just before PPARC became Swindon Town Football Club sweeping cuts were made to ionosonde and radar budgets. A little was subsequently clawed back through other sources of finance but the upshot was the UK losing most of its ground-based facilities and pulling out of most of its international obligations, which sent them (or is currently in the process of sending them) to the wall too. So much for for an era of climatic and environmental concern when the UK closes its eyes to the upper atmosphere.
The reason given at the time was savings had to be found to cover an overspend in the government department PPARC lived in, and the research councils were considered expedient enough to take the costs. Following no real terms budget increase, it was a cut after the fact (chancellor announces new funding for physics, awards the lowest funding that would agree with his words, then later claws back the money).
The Anonymous Physicist on December 11, 2007
I don’t think you’re right about CCLRC getting things wrong pre-merger. The DIAMOND project was not allowed to have any contingency by (the then) OST, which is typically 10-15% of the total budget (c. 253M capital). The construction costs stayed within the 10% envelope, despite the increased costs of steel which is one of the things you have contingency for. DIAMOND is a private company, and is now saying it wants 46M from STFC instead of the 24M it was originally budgeted for. Perhaps we should be asking why DIAMOND needs all that money – 25% of the 80M shortfall.
chrislintott on December 11, 2007
I agree that the construction costs were well within contingency whcih is an amazing acheivement, and that it’s the operating costs which were underestimated. There are other factors too (FEC, for example, plus the link between subscriptions and GDP) but there is no doubt a large chunk of the problems are coming from beyond astronomy and particle physics community.
The Anonymous Physicist on December 11, 2007
The bit I don’t understand is the FEC contribution, and whether the Gov has been clever in basically clawing back money via the universities whilst being able to blame STFC for not asking for sufficient funding to cover FEC increase in the grants. Looked at like this it’s a problem for everyone, not PPARC vs. CCLRC. STFC is also caught in the middle with DIAMOND too. STFC has to fund 80% of DIAMOND, and doesn’t get much choice in how much comes out because it’s so high-profile.
A cynic might argue that all this was planned from the beginning.
The Anonymous Physicist on December 11, 2007
An interesting point in the Public Accounts Committee session: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmsctech/1079/7102302.htm
Q13 Dr Turner: ‘The Annual Review announced that 80% of full economic costs were going to be borne by research councils. This is a long-standing issue and, as you will remember, at one time the research councils were not bearing any of the full economic costs. Is there a possibility, however, that by picking up this level of economic costs it will actually swallow up most of the growth in research allocations?’
Ian Pearson: ‘There is certainly no doubt that the implication of full economic costing and funding at 80% plus the additional capital investment, which is what we are proposing to do, does have an impact on budgets…’
chrislintott on December 11, 2007
The situation as I see it is that the councils are funding the full FEC increase (correct me if that’s not true), so that’s not the cause of the budget gap. This is excellent, obviously, but it allows the situation we’re in now where the minister can go on the Today programme and talk about increases in funding without us actually seeing any increase.
If any of the non-academic readers of the blog are still with us and wondering what FEC is, then trust me you don’t want to know.
chrislintott on December 11, 2007
And I’m afraid I do see it at least partly as CCLRC vs PPARC. Yes, the STFC is caught in the middle with Diamond, as you say, but PPARC wasn’t/wouldn’t have been – CCLRC was/would have been. So you’ll have to forgive our resentment slightly that ‘our’ budget is being affected so drastically. Put it another way – we never had the chance to argue about what proportion of the STFC budget should be spent on Diamond. Perhaps we would have lost that argument and been in the situation we are now, but at least that would have been a decision based in some sense on scientific merit, and not on contracts.
notorp on December 15, 2007
Interesting that PPARC are blaming CCLRC and CCLRC are blaming PPARC. It is also interesting that everyone is focusing on the Physics side of things. STFC isn’t just physics.
Comments made by KM in regards the additional cost of Diamond “not over budget” I won’t comment on but is that a PIG flying?
Diamond and Isis TS2 look like they will survive, RAL based sites, hmmmmmm. Also what about the £10.5K VAT cockup made by Diamond which is now coming out of the STFC budget that wasn’t over spend was it?
Don’t think physics has been harmed, think UK science has been harmed. It shouldn’t have happened both Councils weren’t in the healthiest of states before the merger and it is not surprising that two holes don’t make a whole!
Finally in the time it has taken me to write this it has cost you £0.0013M in terms of £46M DLS running costs per year. Also please don’t say that DLS is part of STFC as your comments above said DLS (Diamond Light Source Ltd) is a private company who cares not for the history of the SRS (other than where it can pretend it has done the work) nor does it consider STFC its masters in anyway. You can tell by the recent Light sources review and the sapphire chaos which seemed almost to be a completive bid against STFC’s 4GLS project?
Timothy Minger on January 19, 2009
The reasons for the cuts aren’t officially clear. There are several factors at work, but among them is the need to bear the costs for new facilities being provided at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, in particular the Diamond Light source. Before last year, this would have had nothing to do with the astronomy budget, but now we’ve been merged with the research council that used to run RAL it’s our problem too. I went back to the parliamentary record to see what had been said about the launch of the new Science and Technologies Facilities Council, and found Lord Truscott, a Labour peer, introducing the new council in the House of Lords. He said, just under a year ago In essence, I can confirm again that this is not a cost-saving measure. . In which case why are astronomers now paying for other’s projects?
nice blog
Regards
Timothy
http://doctor-work-australia.com