Chris Lintott’s Universe

I’ve now worked my way through the DIUS select committee report (not with a fine toothcomb, though), and there are some extremely interesting conclusions. You can find the whole thing here, or just trust my reading of it.

The meat starts on p20, which discusses the budget left to STFC from the two councils which preceded it, CCLRC (large facilities) and PPARC (particle physics and astronomy). It is true that neither council had a budget deficit when the merger happened, but the committee remind us that

STFC has been left with a bill for the operating costs of Diamond and ISIS that is £75 million … above the sum that was allocated in its budget following the merger.

Diamond and ISIS are large facilities at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire, which are used by scientists from almost all disciplines (but have very little relevance to astronomy). Where to find the money to pay for these operating costs? Back to the committee

it is the former PPARC programmes that have been cut rather than the former CCLRC programmes. In other words, the former PPARC community is being penalised by the merger with CCLRC. This is a situation that the Government had promised would not come about.

But wait, why didn’t anyone notice? Oh…

This was noted by the National Audit Office in January 2007, and therefore the Government should have known and should have acted upon it. The fact that it did not has had unfortunate consequences. We believe that the Government should ensure that its original commitment to leave no legacy funding issues from the previous Councils is honoured.

Moving on, past headline stuff including a description of the Gemini confusion, we come to the part that resonated most with me. Over to the report again:

Given the anxiety that grant cuts are causing to the physics and astronomy community, we are dismayed that STFC has been attempting to play down the effects of the cuts on the grounds that reductions in future grants are not problematic. We consider cuts to grants that had already been promised a major problem. We urge STFC to take immediate steps to communicate clearly and comprehensively to its research community the impact of its grant cuts.

which echoes what I’ve said before. Those of us in the UK astronomical community are big enough and, god knows, ugly enough to deal with the situation as is if only someone would tell us what was going on.

I wrote earlier about the issue of waiting until the government’s Wakeham review of physics was published in September. The committee were told this was pointless but

We recommend that STFC wait for the results of the Wakeham review before implementing the cuts proposed in the Delivery Plan and that it use this time to consult with its stakeholders.

And that’s it; the conclusion is nasty - calling for substantial changes in the way the STFC is run, and questioning Keith Mason’s ability to carry out these changes. I know that others will jump on these, and who knows, they may be right to do so. It’s a difficult call from my position, but to be honest I don’t care who is in charge. If we can just hang on until the Wakeham review, then the report would have done a great deal of good.

In theory, I’m pleased with the report. It says clearly a lot of things that needed saying, and should help make the picture clearer. But I’m also an hour or so away from the start of my last night on a telescope on Kitt Peak, an observatory I’ve wanted to visit since a trip here helped inspire me to chose an astronomical career, doing excellent science based on the participation of the Galaxy Zoo volunteers. So you’ll forgive me if I stop letting this distract me and get back to what I want to be doing - it is, afterall, what any of us involved in the argument want to be doing.

(Science available at the Galaxy Zoo blog.)

The report by the Science Select committee on funding for STFC is to be released at midnight tonight, BST…more as soon as I’ve had a chance to read it.

Update : Here’s the press release. While the Times focus on the threat to Keith Mason, the head of the STFC, to my mind the Guardian are closer to the mark in concentrating on the reaction to the cuts themselves.

To recap slightly; as part of their reaction to the budget cuts, the government set up the Wakeham review of physics funding. While I think many of us saw this as our saviour, it’s not due to report until later in the year. The most important line in the release, therefore, is the call for no decision on where cuts should be taken to be made until after the Wakeham review reports. That’ll need some extra cash, I imagine, but it offers to my mind the best hope for a way out of this.

More when I’ve finished reading the report itself.

Then can I recommend this ebay listing?

Background story is here.

Edit : Ebay have removed the listing, which was for the Jodrell Bank telescope. If anyone has a screenshot, let me know.

Just got back to the UK - got very little from the observing run (more on which soon) - but Andy’s reporting that the UK is at least temporarily back in Gemini. The release from the board, here says negotiations are underway, but the important thing is that those astronomers who’d put so much effort into getting time for the next few months will get the results from their efforts. Writing observing proposals takes a huge amount of time and effort, and for people to be successful only to see their time whisked away from them was heartbreaking. Obviously, a lot will depend on the outcome of the talks, but this is a good start.

Just a thought, though - the UK flag had been removed from in front of the Gemini HQ in Hawaii. I hope they didn’t burn it…

I’m logged on to Parliament Live trying to watch the select committee inquiry into physics funding. There’s no sound at the minute, although people are still filing in (I’m spending most of my time trying to recognise the members of the public sitting at the back). If sound doesn’t appear, I’ll update this once the transcript comes out.

Here’s a picture - that’s Michael Rowan Robinson, RAS president talking (front row, right). In the first row of green seats, second from the left is Keith Mason, the head of STFC. No luck with the sound - I can hear what’s happening in the main House of Commons chamber, so I don’t think it’s my system that’s at fault.

Update : I’ll be writing this up once the transcript is released on the committee’s website.

Today sees the House of Commons Innovation, Universities and Skills select committee undertaking an investigation into what’s gone wrong with the STFC budget. The fun begins at 4.15pm UT, and can be watched live on Parliament TV. It comes with a promise from the committee’s chairman, Phil Willis, that

“ .. my committee’s going to examine .. who is responsible, where the fault lies, and indeed what can be done to save physics and particle physics in the UK ” so should be worth watching.

I’ll provide a commentary here if I can, but as background the Royal Society, and the Royal Astronomical Society and Institute of Physics have issued statements.

Speaking of the funding crisis in British astronomy, it’s time for an update on the situation. First, a quick recap; the body which is responsible for funding all of British astronomy and astrophysics, the STFC, announced an £80 million shortfall in its budget. While initially I (and many others) blamed the non-astronomical bits of STFC, the situation seems to be more complicated. Full details are given on Paul Crowther’s website for those who don’t mind the gory details, but the essential point is that the crisis is not being caused by profligate astronomers, but by exchange rates and other things out of our control.

The list of facilities affected or potentially affected by the cuts is horrifying, and much worse than that is the general cut to all grants which will directly hit the number of PhD places and postdocs available.

So what can be done? Andy reports that documents released by the freedom of information act reveal that the government knew in advance what effect their proposed budget would have; these seem to be deliberate cuts, not an accident or an oversight. This means that it’s even more important that we pressure the government to change their minds. The Save Astronomy website contains a guide to writing to your mp, which you can do from the comfort of your computer. These letters are having an effect; Stuart rounds up mentions in parliament here and there was also a brief debate on the issue.

The next step is a hearing run by the relevant parliamentary committee on Monday. The more MPs we write to, the more attention that’ll get.

Sadly, my laptop is out of commission, so now review of 2007 just yet. But in the meantime, you should all read Steve Eales’ article on why we should fund astronomy, as published in this month’s Prospect. He ends by arguing that the correct level of funding is one which sees the number of foreign scientists working in the UK increasing. I’m not sure this is quite right - that just ensures things are better here than elsewhere - but it’s an interesting thought. I wonder how to calculate if this is currently the case or not?

Anyone reading this blog last week would have heard about the doom and gloom that’s enfolding UK astronomy. There are two things you could do to help us; the first is to sign the petition that’s up here. If we’re to save the situation, though, we need as many people as possible to write to their MPs - Save Astronomy has details of how to do that. Please, please, please help us!

STFC have just released their plan based on currently available funding. It doesn’t make pretty reading so let’s start with the good news.

Safe
1. Our membership of ESO, which provides for access to the VLT, VISTA and, in the future, ALMA.

2. Long term planning for the next generation of telescopes, an Extremely Large (optical) Telescope and the Square Kilometer Radio array.

3. The JCMT. I’m surprised at this, and very, very happy.

4. Exomars, the European Mars lander, although participation in future missions is to be reviewed. We will be working with NASA directly on a joint program of robotic exploration of the Moon.

Under threat or being reviewed

1. As reported on this blog earlier this morning, UKIRT.

2. MERLIN, the radio network based on Jodrell Bank which is about to complete an expensive upgrade.

3. The Liverpool Telescope.

4. UK participation in Dark Energy Survey.

5. We’re remaining members of ESA (no-one ever thought otherwise) but the support offered post-launch is going to be cut by 30%. This means fewer scientists to actually reap the benefits of our participation.

6. Anything on the border of astronomy and particle physics, including the Boulby Mine dark matter experiments, CLOVER (the CMB experiment), and the detection of gravitational waves.

Going

1. We already knew about Gemini.
Update As Andrew notes, the plan includes the aim of retaining some access to Gemini North, which appears to be a change from the previous announcement.

2. Confirmed rundown of our commitment to the telescopes on La Palma, primarily the Issac Newton group of telescopes. That’s more northern hemisphere telescopes gone; have we decided we’re only going to look at half the sky?

3. Any ground based studies of the interaction between the Sun and the Earth’s atmosphere

4. High-energy gamma-ray astronomy.

Comments? For purely personal reasons I’m really pleased the JCMT survives. As for the rest, I think a lot will depend on which way the reviewed items swing; UKIRT and MERLIN, among others, have just had expensive new instruments/upgrades and it seems crazy to abandon them now. The post-launch support for ESA is troubling, as this suggests we might be moving to a situation where we build but don’t get the best out of space probes.

Update : According to Stuart (who also has a transcript of the Today interviews), UKIRT, the LT and MERLIN were up for review anyway.