Particle Physics : CSR 2010 Material

This page is intended for members of the Particle Physics Community. It attempts to highlight a few key arguments for maintaining our investment in Particle Physics which is predominantly through the CERN subscription and gives links to the longer documents and background material. Some of the arguments are more general but where possible we've tried to highlight where Particle Physics is distinctive.

It is not intended to provide a full narrative but key quotes, statistics, factoids that can be used in letters, arguments and outlines some of the consequences of reducing particle physics funding e.g. by withdrawing from CERN. Apologies for repetition and lack of coherence - many of the points/arguments are inter-related !

Please send any other material / brief arguments to Mark Lancaster (markl AT hep.ucl.ac.uk).

We've distilled much of the detailed below into a one-page case in .doc and .pdf and a graphic version here .

For all the latest news, press and articles pertaining to STFC, RCUK and BIS, we whole heartedly recommend Paul Crowther's excellent site. An excellent overview of the general issues and solutions can be found in the recent Royal Society publication: "The Scientific Century - securing our future prosperity" and more general articles on Science Policy, at the CASE (formerly Save British Science) site. The IoP has also recently urged all its members to engage in the campaign to ensure that the voice of physics is heard in the CSR input. All links are in green.

Scientific Prestige

• The UK has been at the forefront of fundamental physics since the 17th century: e.g. Newton, Cavendish, Faraday, Maxwell, Hamilton, Dirac. The Royal Society celebrates its 350th anniversary on Nov 30th 2010 at the very time that the CSR outcomes will be released to RCUK. The view that the UK should continue this strong tradition in fundamental physics is not limited to academic physicists and was articulated strongly by Oxford Instruments (see quote section) in a submission to the Parliamentary Science and Technology Select Committee.
• Withdrawing now from frontier sciences like particle physics, astronomy etc is bidding for the UK to be (at best) a minor player in the second division of science, ending 400 years of enlightenment and progress.
• A withdrawal from the CERN would likely mean we could not participate in the exploitation of the LHC, thereby wasting a a several £100M investment and essentially removing the study of particle physics from UK physics departments. The impact on physics departments and student recruitment is articulated below. International co-operation in research, as embodied in CERN, allows UK physicists and UK industry to stay abreast of developments and tap into a large base of ideas and technology. The innovation capability of a country depends to a significant extent on the degree of co-operation between its firms and their foreign partners.
• A withdrawal from CERN would likely mean that we would become peripheral and have no leadership or influence on future policy. For example at the present time two of the three LHC experiments have co-spokespeople at UK institutes and the present and last head of the accelerator division were UK scientists.

Reverse Brain Drain

• In 2007 47% of UK scientific publications had a non-UK co-author up from 33% in 1999. 50% of the post-docs in Particle Physics in the UK are non-UK. 35% of the Particle Physics personnel in the UK are overseas and this has been particularly true of recent academic appointments. At least 50% of recent (2000-2010) academic appointments have been to overseas physicists. A significant reduction in Particle Physics investment, particularly if we no longer can maintain a leading role in CERN, will likely result in the best people leaving UK Physics Departments.
• "I already know that there are foreigners who aren’t applying for jobs — at all academic levels — who I think would have applied two years ago, because the relative attraction of the UK compared to the US has declined...The trouble is that you don’t see it in the figures until it’s too late"
  Lord Rees The Times May 29 2010.
• The Canadian government has a $190 million initiative that has started to lure elite scientists to Canada. Two UK physicists (previously supported by STFC) have recently been appointed to lead Canadian institutes Nigel Smith at SNO lab and Neil Turok to the Perimeter Institute
  "Science breakthroughs are unpredictable. The only route to keep these breakthroughs coming is to invest in young people who are driven by curiosity and who want to further that curiosity through research."
  Neil Turok

Attracting Students to study Physics

• The number of students taking undergraduate physics has essentially not changed for 10-15 years. There are two plots: neither of them ideal but the updated information is not free or easy to get. This figure has the number of students graduating per year by subject from 1994-2006. In this time-period the number of STEM graduates has increased by 35% but this is driven by medicine, biological sciences, psychology and computer science. The number of UK-domiciled people graduating with a Physics degree (excluding OU) in 2005/6 was 2143 vs 2398 in 1994/5. The only up to date figures to 2008/9 are the total number of F/T undergraduates studying physics. This integrates over the whole 3 or 4-year undergraduate cohort and shows an increase when the 4-year degree courses were introduced. In 1996 18,081 students studied Psychology and 9,980 Physics. Now 44,945 study Psychology and 10,995 Physics. Physics peaked in 2000/1 with 12,030 students. (As an aside in a recent CBI survey asking which A-levels does business value most: only 2% stated Psychology. Physics/Chemistry was 9%.) The number of Physics graduates per year has remained static at 2200 +/- 200 for a decade or so. See here for the total number of students taking Physics and Chemistry from 1996 to 2008. Engineering like Physics and Chemistry has remained static/declined. So while the IoP often draws attention to increases in the number of students studying physics - this is at the level of a 100 or so students per year when if Physics had a pro-rata increase in students commensurate with the rest of the university sector then the increases would be at the level of a thousand students. These changes at the level of 100 students should be contrasted with the estimated shortfall of specialist Physics and Chemistry teachers (see later) which is at the level of 2100.
• Particle Physics (and Astronomy and Nuclear Physics) are cited by students as the main subjects in which they had a "significant interest" in terms of attracting them to take a Physics degree. The full survey is here (and can be referenced to the IoP publication: "Particle Physics - It Matters"). Highlights:
  • The three most popular subject areas that 1st year undergraduate students cited as being of “significant interest” in terms of attracting them to study physics are: Fundamental Particles & Quantum Phenomena (72%), Nuclear Physics (61%) and Astrophysics (53%); 90% of students expressed a significant interest in at least one of these three areas.
  • 89% of 4th year students expressed some or significant interest in Particle Physics with similarly high percentages in Astrophysics/Cosmology (73%) and Nuclear Physics (82%).
  • Only 11% of students expressed no interest in Particle Physics, the lowest “no-interest” fraction of all subject areas.
• Particle Physics has been particularly successful in attracting more woman into physics departments. Particle Physics (and Astronomy) compared to the other branches of Physics have x1.95 more female fellowship appointments. See table-4(page 11).
• At the PhD level Particle Physics (and Astronomy) are particular strong recruiters, typically receiving up to 10 applicants per place with a strong interest from non-UK students. While many of these students stay in the field a large fraction continue in high value-added sector jobs in the UK or if they return home they maintain strong research/network connections with the UK which mutually enhances capability. See 2003 : A Fifteen Year Longitudinal Career Path Study of PPARC PhD Students and A Study of the Career Paths of PPARC/STFC Funded PhD Students (2010). A briefer summary is here and there are also two sets of career profiles here and here.
• Why should we care if physics UG numbers decline ?
  • The Finances of physics departments.
    This is covered in this publication to 2006 and this through to 2010. Overseas students account for 6.6% of physics department income ie approx. £20M/pa and they would likely be deterred from coming to the UK if investment in departments was not maintained. This is particularly true for Chinese students who already view the US more favourably. 93% of research income is from public sources and in total 89% of departmental income is from public funds. The average deficit for the physics departments in the IoP survey was 18%. Departments receive £8,673 per student - so a total of approx. £80M. The total research money as reported to the RAE (2006/7) was approx. £304M (this includes that given to researchers to use at central facilities). A deficit of 18% is thus about £70M across the sector. If one excludes the central facility money then the research money is approx. £150M and so the deficit is £40M. A reduction in student numbers and research income would exacerbate this deficit and would likely result in major investments in teaching facilities (particularly undergraduate labs) being put-on-hold thereby further diminishing international competitiveness. Commitments to investment (both in intellectual capital and laboratory/teaching infrastructure) will require constant or increasing student numbers. This will be exacerbated by demographics since there will be a reduction in the 17-18 age-group in the next 10 years.
  • The vicious circle of A-level/UG physics take-up and the number of specialist physics teachers.
    It is well documented (see IoP report) that one of the most significant factors as to whether a student takes A-level or degree physics is the quality of the teaching and in particular whether the physics teacher has a degree in physics (as opposed to biological sciences). This issue has recently been highlighted by a Parliamentary EDM and recent statistics from the IoP that for instance highlight that only 5 people are studying A-level physics in Blackpool and there are no A-level teachers with a physics degree in the town.
    It is estimated however that the UK would need more than 700 new physics teachers every year just to stand still. Fewer than 400 are recruited, and half have left after four years in the profession. To recruit 700 teachers a year would require 25% of all physics graduates to become teachers and so can only likely be achieved by a significant increase in physics undergraduates which requires more qualified physics teachers ...,...,.... The shortfall in Maths and Science teachers (Royal Society Report : "The Scientific Century") is shown here. Given the relative numbers of chemistry/physics vs biology/biological sciences graduates then the shortfall is presumably all in physics and chemistry and stands at 2105 and increasing. Assuming 50% of this is Physics it would then require 50% of a years physics graduates to plug this gap...and then 25% per year to retain the status quo.
    "The initiative that would help most would be to place an excellent physics teacher in every state secondary school."
    Stephen Bold, managing director, Sharp Laboratories of Europe
    
  • Shortage of STEM qualified graduates in industry.
    This is much documented e.g. this speech from Vince Cable and this report from the CBI that estimates that by 2014 there will be unmet demand for 775,000 roles requiring higher level science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) and that around 60% of businesses expect problems recruiting staff with STEM skills over the next three years.
    
    

Public vs Private Investment

• As already remarked 89% of Physics department income (93% of research income) comes from public sources. There is a myth that if public research spending is reduced then this will be compensated by increased spending in the private sector. Not withstanding the chronic shortfall of STEM graduates required by the private sector, the evidence doesn't support this. This figure from the RS report shows that when public R&D declines then at best private R&D remains constant such that the total R&D volume decreases and if anything private sector R&D increases follow public sector increases. It is also noteworthy that the 7% of research in physics departments funded from the private-sector runs at a loss to the department since it invariably comes without overheads.
• A recent report states that: "there is strong evidence of market sector spillovers from public R&D spend on research councils, and (c) no evidence of market sector spillovers from public spending on civil or defence R&D. Our findings tentatively suggest that for maximum market sector productivity impact government innovation policy should focus on direct spending on research councils."

Physics and Industry

• The economic activity of physics-based sectors, measured in terms of gross value added (GVA), stood at £70 billion in 2005 — making up 6.4% of the total UK economic activity.See here (2007) and this update for 2010.

Our International Competitors

• The UK presently ranks 24th (below the EU-27 and OECD average) for public R&D spend per GDP. The low public R&D number for the US is however compensated by the US having a significantly larger industrial R&D spend than the UK. The total R&D spend (public (which is both HEI and government) + industrial) is shown here. In this the UK languishes below: Japan, Germany, France, USA, Canada and is likely to be overtaken shortly by China.
  As an aside, it was remarked by the last Science Minister that our more rapidly falling GDP may move us up some of these tables in 2010 !
• The fraction of public R&D money has moved away from internal government R&D to HEIs. See here. We can perhaps encourage this trend to continue on two fronts. (1) The Conservatives wish to move away from "Big-Government" to "Big-Society" (whatever that means) {although this is then tied in with the endless government reviews of procurement efficiency - the latest being led by Philip Green...}; (2). That spending on R&D via research councils (ostensibly to HEIs) has been very effective - more so than for example R&D tax credits as highlighted above.
• The UK produces 120,000 STEM graduates per year of which physics accounts for approx. 2,500. India is presently graduating 2.5M new STEM graduates per year. India is in the process of building 5 new institutes of science,education and research. Only 22% of UK students graduate in STEM subjects. 16 countries graduate a higher fraction e.g. China is 47%, Korea 37%. Other comparison statistics can be found here.
• Our competitors who are already ahead in terms of public-sector R&D/GDP are increasing the gap and increasing their investment in science and universities. France announced an extra €35 billion for research. Germany will spend an extra €12 billion on education and science by 2013, while China has been raising budgets by 20 per cent a year for a decade. President Obama’s stimulus package included more than $100 billion for science, and while his most recent budget freezes overall spending for three years, science funding increases by 5.9% a year. Canada has invested $190M to lure scientists to Canada and has seen its number of overseas PhD students double between 1998 and 2006 (see here). See here for a comparison of stimulus investments as a percentage of GDP. The UK is at zero ! These are typically at the level of 0.1% of GDP in science and innovation. The UK investment in Particle Physics (approx. £150M/pa) is 0.01% of GDP.
• The speech by Sarkozy at ICHEP highlighted in particular the contributions that Particle Physics can make:
  "To the malcontents, and there are some, who claim that your research is divorced from the life-and-death issues facing our planet – disease, poverty, lack of development – I say that the pressing issues of the moment must not and must never be allowed to compromise the future. To see the two realities – the short- and the long-term exigencies – as conflicting with each other is to miss the point. Knowledge is indivisible. The surprises that the seemingly most gratuitous basic research holds in store for us have generated some of the most beneficial innovations affecting our daily lives. Your work and the equipment it requires have spawned cutting-edge technologies - including the World Wide Web, which was invented at CERN, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research."
  
  "Basic research does not focus on concrete applications, but a country that fails to give it priority is making a historic blunder. The scientific edifice must be comprehensive: there can be no applications without basic research or breakthroughs without its results. Electricity was not discovered by attempting to improve the candle".
  
  " In the current economic downturn, many countries have chosen to curtail their research budgets. As you know, we chose not to cut ours. Instead, we increased it...But we in France took the opposite tack, considering that higher education and research are the solution to the recession. The economic downturn should not prompt us to postpone investment in science, but rather to bring it forward and consolidate it. This is not digging ourselves deeper into a hole; this is common sense. We cannot afford to fall back on obsolete certainties. We must unremittingly strive to find new solutions and to steadily create the new knowledge that will be our best weapon in fighting the recession."
  
  " So my message to the French scientific community is this: “Be ambitious; put forward unconventional projects; submit innovative proposals; and overcome the divisions in your organisational structure. Push the envelope, and keep pushing it!"
  
  "Let me give you one example among many - the CERN Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, the world’s most powerful particle accelerator, inaugurated two years ago. The first collisions have provided important results, which are to be announced – so I am told – at your conference. In addition to collecting new data, the facility is developing new technologies. The CERN accelerator has spawned a host of technological innovations in such fields as medical imaging and hadron-therapy to treat cancer. And to process the vast quantity of data collected in the large colliders, you have built computing power that opens up a broad range of promising scientific calculation applications. This one example suffices to demonstrate the vital need to invest in large facilities. But no single country or even small group of countries can now afford the investment required - hence the need for broad cooperation among States. I can assure you that France will be attentive to promoting such international cooperation and to contributing its proper share to it."

Cultural Impact of PP/Basic Science

• Around 25% of New Scientist/Scientific American covers feature particle physics/cosmology (see here for a pastiche). Circulation figures are increased for these issues. We believe the circulation increase is 15% but would need to pay ABC £1,500 to get this number ! The average circulation for New Scientist in the UK is 88,020 (2009).
• The viewing figures for "Wonders of the Solar System" were very high: ranging from 2.5M to a peak of 3M, the latter representing 11.3% of viewers. A new series "Wonders of the Universe" is in production.
• Coverage in the popular press - see for example the two page center-page spread on the LHC in The Sun (21st July 2010).
• Sir Norman Foster lists the LHC and Saint-Pierre, Firminy, France (Le Corbusier) as his choice for the most significant works of architecture created so far in the 21st century in a recent survey in Vanity Fair. See also a this previous VF article.
• ....

STFC Funding and its affect on Physics Departments' Finances

The research income (not to mention overseas PhD recruitment) of Physics departments depends heavily on STFC. We have studied the finances of all departments with > 30 FTE in the 2006 RAE which account for approximately 80% of the physics RAE money.

• 40% of the departmental research income is from STFC. On average 1/3 of this is PP and 2/3 Astronomy/Space Science. The PP investment (IPPP,accelerators,PPGP,RAL,PPRP/PRD, students) is approx. £50M/annum compared with the CERN subscription of approx. £80M/annum.
• From 2004-2008 there was an increase of 66% in PP academic appointments (80 new staff) of which approximately 50% were non-UK. PP accounts for 15% of all staff in physics departments.
• In the context of the finances of Chemistry and Physics departments it is worth noting that subscriptions in CERN/ESO etc mean that a substantial fraction of lab-space that would be within universities resides at the site of the international subscription and as such generally results in smaller deficits in Physics departments compared to Chemistry departments. Re-aligning research in Physics departments away from international facilities would likely place Physics departments further in the red.
• In terms of cost per Academic at the university level (factoring out subscriptions) the cost for PP is very similar to Chemistry and EPSRC physics and cheaper than bio-medicine.
• In the RAE QR research funding is allocated by excellence. In terms of Physics sub-disciplines Astronomy and Particle Physics rank the highest on citation/excellence metrics. This is cited in the Wakeham Review of Physics:
  "scrutiny of the ISI physics category shows that the majority of UK highly cited researchers in this category work within the particle physics area (14 of 19) with a small contingent in condensed matter (3 of 19) and lone representatives for quantum optics (1 of 19) and chaos and nonlinear dynamics (1 of 19). Considering the data for Space Sciences (with 31 of 351 ISI highly cited researchers in that category from the UK) then suggests that astronomy/astrophysics is strongest amongst physics sub-disciplines in high citation impact journal articles followed by particle physics (14) but there is little or no representation of other areas. On a similar subdiscipline basis, the CWTS data concurs with our analysis of the ISI highly cited researcher data showing astronomy/astrophysics and particle physics as amongst the highest journal article impact sub-disciplines.The major UK investment in these research areas has clearly been used to good effect in securing a very prominent position within the global community."
• Physics department closures (1994-2003 the # of physics departments dropped from 79 to 51. Since 1997 21 departments have closed or merged and now only 46 offer undergraduate physics with only 42 submitting Physics in the 2006 RAE - see here). The Treasury may argue (see here) that if Physics Departments close then student numbers may not suffer since students can study elsewhere. This now has its limitations in that many departments are at capacity in terms of undergraduate lab-space (and in a climate of Physics departments closing new lab-space is unlikely to be invested in). The average distance between home and university is 60 miles ie most students attend their regional university. There are already significant regions (East Anglia, North-East, Northern Ireland) in the UK without Physics departments and closures would exacerbate this and likely force numbers down - students will choose a regional university and take a different subject.
• The Birmngham VC has recently backed "basic science"
  "From Radar to rockets, without basic science there would have been no progress. Discovery, in time, finds its application. So when the Vice-Chancellor told me that the Higgs boson would have to wait, I disagreed. There are urgent challenges, and we in universities are meeting them, many here at Birmingham. But discovery can’t wait, and the Higgs boson can’t wait. Why? Because you never know."

Industrial Return from PP Investment

The return from economic PP comes in two forms. (1) Contracts placed directly with UK companies; (2) The enhanced capability and exposure to new markets/networks as a result of PP contracts. (2) is difficult to estimate but the work of Salter et al suggests it is likely the largest component.

This 2003 study of CERN's procurement activity based on input from 154 companies actively involved in technology development with CERN with contracts totalling 400M€ has the following highlights:

• 38% : developed new products as a direct result of the supplier project
• 13% : started new R&D teams because of the CERN project
• 14% : started a new business unit
• 17% : opened a new market
• 42% : increased their international exposure
• 44% : indicated technological learning
• 36% : indicated market learning
• 52% : would have had poorer sales performance without CERN
• 21% : would have had lower employment growth without CERN
• 41% : would have had poorer technological performance
• 26% : would have had poorer performance in valuation growth.

Two less quantitative studies: Knowledge creation and management in the five LHC experiments at CERN: implications for technology innovation and transfer and Entrepreneurial Behaviour Of Researchers in a Basic Research Center: the example of CERN have also recently been published.

In addition to the web, one excellent example of a technology innovation produced at CERN to solve an accelerator information problem (like the web) was touch-screen devices now at the heart of most smart-phones. See here for more information.

The only quantitative study of economic return from CERN was performed in the 1980s: Economic Utility resulting from CERN Contracts (1984) : Bianchi-Streit et al and Quantification of CERN's economic spin-offL Bianci-Streit et al (1986).
The CERN conclusion is very similar to that reached by studies done by the MRC and ESA ie that every £1 invested in a company returns approximately £3 to the company in terms of new contracts and enhanced capabilities. The companies engaged with ESA mostly enhanced their market share in the space industry whilst companies engaged with CERN predominantly enhanced their market share in sectors outside of Particle Physics. In terms of a pure profit to UK PLC one then needs to start factoring in the additional funds beyond the £1 going to industry that are utilised in running and maintaining CERN. I believe the return is still then 20% per annum.

In terms of contracts in the UK from the LHC. We have the following information:

• During the construction of the LHC the UK experimental collaborations have placed ~£46M worth of orders with industry, the majority of this in the UK. A further ~£20M of contracts was placed with UK industry by CERN on behalf of the collaborations.
• The experimental collaborations are free to place their own contracts but some are handled through CERN purchasing department. In a 10 year period (from 1999 to 2008) CERN placed 765 MCHF of orders on behalf of the Visiting Research Teams and Collaborations associated with the LHC experiments, of this 43.6 MCHF was placed with UK companies (~£19.8M based on the average exchange rate over that period of 2.2 CHF/£).
• The UK collaborations used funds from the construction grants to place orders for the production of the deliverables supplied by the UK for the experiments. This amounted to ~£25M (£12M ATLAS, £5M CMS, £8M LHCb, £0.5M ALICE) most of this was spent with UK companies. A further £15M has been spent on hardware by GridPP. The companies involved were: Hamamatsu UK (ATLAS sensors), TM Engineering (CMS ECAL mechanics), Qudos (CMS clean room), Micron (LHCb sensors), CEMcraft (ALICE electronics), Boston/SuperMicro (GridPP).
• In addition funds totalling more than £6M were also spent on infrastructure at the universities. The largest of these was £3.1M spent on the Liverpool Semiconductor Detector Centre, which was constructed in 2003 to enable ATLAS SCT and LHCb construction, all of this new infrastructure was sourced within the UK. A further £1.5M has been spent on this facility since that date.
• GridPP spent £15m on hardware in the UK up to 2009. This spend was via UK-based subsidiaries/companies providing computing hardware. The repeated sponsorship of GridPP Collaboration meetings by Boston/Supermicro who supply parts to many of the vendors with whom we deal, shows that they are a valuable client and that there is a knock-on benefit contained within the UK. Over the period 2005-09 the institutes have also invested in Tier-2 sites, and scaling to the total resource delivered, this can be estimated at £10.7M spent providing/refurbishing machine rooms and other infrastructure. The electricity costs are estimated to be ~£2.5M
• 534 STFC funded students started in the 2008 and 2009 academic years, of these 73 have projects related to LHC experiments (51 to ATLAS, 5 to CMS, 15 LHCb, 2 ALICE)

List of UK companies engaged in PP Work

The technological advances made by Particle Physics are only possible through the close interaction between physicists and engineers at universities and national centres with industry. Listed here are the UK companies or companies that have a UK base that have or are engaged in active collaboration with Particle Physics researchers. Companies directly spun-out of Particle Physics Research are marked with "s". Companies utilising technology pioneered in Particle Physics are marked with "p".

In terms of quotes from companies we only have a few at present which are in the quotes section. It would be very useful to get more via personal contacts from the listed companies and to encourage them to write personal letters.

Defining Economic Impact

For those wishing to better understand the limitations of defining an economic impact then the following sources (mostly written by academic economists) are recommended. In particular:

• The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review : Salter et al, Research Policy 30 509 (2001).
  was commissioned by the UK government. It identifies many of the issues in trying to define an "economic impact" i.e. that many of the less direct economic benefits e.g. developing competencies, techniques, instruments, networks and the ability to solve complex problems are not readily quantifiable BUT are as important as the direct "spin-off". Particle physics clearly scores highly in these areas. Based on this the report concludes:
  "There is extensive evidence that basic research does lead to considerable economic benefits, both direct and indirect".
• The Welfare Analysis of Product Innovations, with an Application to Computed Tomography Scanners
  A demonstration of an economic technique that is becoming standard that attempts to quantify impact through product cost reduction and enhanced capability/utility. In this study CT scanners are studied to quantify "value".
• University research and the location of business R&D
  Demonstrates the influence that the presence of a world-class university has on the location of industrial R&D centres, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry.
• Measuring the Impact of Knowledge Transfer from Public Research Organizations: A Comparison of Metrics Used Around the World, P. Gardner et al (June 2007).
• Also mentioned above: Public Support for Innovation, Intangible Investment and Productivity Growth in the UK Market Sector
  "strong evidence of market sector spillovers from public R&D spend on research councils, and (c) no evidence of market sector spillovers from public spending on civil or defence R&D. Our findings tentatively suggest that for maximum market sector productivity impact government innovation policy should focus on direct spending on research councils."
• Public Support to R&D programmes: An Integrated Assessment Scheme: Henri Capron.

Particle Physics Applications

Modern particle physics has its origins in discoveries and theoretical developments that shaped the modern world and now underpin much of modern science. Many advances in chemistry, molecular biology, genetics and materials science were predicated on the discovery of the electron and quantum theory, and by analytical probes such as X-rays and nuclear-based techniques. Addressing questions at the microscopic scale and beyond has always required innovation. Particle-physics experiments are extremely demanding in terms of equipment design, and they generate novel technical approaches which ultimately benefit society:

• accelerators for medical diagnosis, therapies, food-treatment, micro-electronics production and energy-generation;
• radiation and imaging detectors for use in pharmaceutical, biological and materials sciences, medical and security equipment;
• high-field magnets for medical imaging; ␣radio-frequency power generation;
• advanced software for information-sharing (the World Wide Web), distributed grid- computing and radiation-exposure simulations for space and medical technologies.

Many details are in the following sources:

• Fundamental Impacts : A Study of the Cross-Discipline and Societal Benefits of UK Research in Particle Physics : IoP [HEP Group] (May 2008). This is the long report that informed the glossy (below) : Particle Physics : It Matters
• Particle Physics : It Matters (May 2009) A4(hi-res),A5(lo-res)[suitable for printing].
• Particle physics benefits: Adding it up: E. Clements (Symmetry Magazine).
• The use of basic science: Benefits of basic science: C.H. Llewellyn Smith

Most of these sources and much of the above is brought together in these talks:

• The Societal Benefits of Particle Physics. Mark Lancaster : June 2010 at the EuroScience Open Forum (ESOF) Turin.
• Selling Particle Physics to The Treasury. Mark Lancaster: Feb 2009 at the Institute of Physics.
• Selling Particle Physics to The Treasury. Mark Lancaster: Apr 2009 at the Annual IoP HEP Conference

Statements from Key Politicians

• "Let's start with investing in our science base and making sure great universities like this [Birmingham] are producing the scientists and entrepreneurs of the future."
  David Cameron in the 29 Apr 2010 Leaders' Debate
  
  
• "I, too, once questioned the use of public spending on science and wondered whether we should target more on applied rather than fundamental science. The reason I concluded this would not be a good idea was that I was unconvinced that government machinery would be efficient in its targeting at the level of academic research and I was not comfortable in downgrading “curiosity” research for the simple reason that, by definition, we could not tell in which beneficial direction it might take us."
  Peter Mandelson's letter to Financial Times (July 30 2010)
  
  
• "Margaret Thatcher was more circumspect when she wrong-footed sceptical Cabinet colleagues with her defence of public spending on the Large Hadron Collider. "Yes, but isn't it interesting?" was enough to stifle their objections. And her interest in the work at CERN was rewarded by Tim Berners-Lee establishing the groundwork for the World Wide Web. I've seen the original computer server with a note from Tim attached, instructing fellow scientists not to switch it off. Our lives have truly been revolutionised by his inventiveness."
  David Willetts at the Royal Institution (July 9 2010)

Quotes

The help of Anna Barth and Theo Hobson from Camden Girls School Sixth Form in preparing statistics etc is much appreciated. They certainly believe particle physics should be funded ! .

Last Updated : 24 Oct 2010 at 11:32:43