Questions lodged with John Denham Web-Chat

• How does the government intend to repair the growing damage to the physics base of the country given that, in the first 6 months of DIUS,the mismanagement of research funding by DIUS and RCUK is now reversing rapidly the huge benefits of the new investment in the UK science in the last decade under his predecessors? Having become one of the best placesin the world to do science - physics - since autumn 2007, government and research council ineptitude has been such that talented people now no longer wish to come to the UK to work, and young people in the UK are now again turning away from physics. I know for sure that they are because I am losing staff who find what is now happening as no reason to stay, and certainly good reason to no longer contemplate coming.
  John Dainton
• Given the Government's often-stated position on the apparent bright future of Daresbury Laboraory, and the excellent work being undertaken there by the Accelerator Science and Technology Centre on the ERLP/ALICE prototype 4th generation particle accelerator light source, what comments will the Minister make on the abject lack of funding available from the STFC to even complete this facility. Furthermore, how can Government and the STFC continue to claim that the Cockcroft Institute model is a success when neither party appears prepared to commit the funds required to permit any form of long-standing prosperity at Daresbury through the completion and exploitation of the ERLP/ALICE facility, or to guarantee the long-term future of Daresbury Laboratory as the centre-piece of the Science & Innovation Campus by guaranteeing that the UK's Next Generation Light Source Facility will be built there, where the expertise to design and operate electron accelerators has resided for the last 45 years ?
  Lee Jones
• In July 2007 you wrote a letter to the Times to emphasise that basic research should not suffer as a result of the drive to achieve a more effective use of research for the UK. However, fundamental physics is most definitely suffering as a result of the STFC settlement for CSR2007 - including an inherited legacy problem of £40m from CCLRC (referred to in STFC Council minutes from July 07) despite assurances to the contrary by the previous science minister Malcolm Wicks - which has led to (a) the volume of astronomy exploitation grants planned for 2008-2010 represent a cut of 25% with respect to the current spending round (246 postdocs in astronomy versus 329 postdocs at present); (b) hasty management decisions to withdraw from long-term international projects, damaging our international credibility and representing poor value for money from the UK taxpayer's investment (e.g. AstroGrid and e-MERLIN are at risk before they have even been released to the astronomy community). This outcome contradicts the governments attempt to support strategically important subjects such a physics through HEFCE. If this outcome was not intended, why do the community have to wait 6 months until Wakeham has reported and who is to blame for the crisis? During Science and Engineering Week it is ironic that such cuts are being implemented in astronomy since it plays a leading role in attracting students into science, and physics in particular. Last week I received the following email from a local physics teacher after giving an astronomy talk to triple science Y11 GCSE students: "The students were very appreciative of the fact that you didn't 'dumb it down'. Many of them intend to study physics at AS and further, and seeing someone local having succeeded in that field was a great boost for them."
  Paul Crowther
• As a post-doctoral researcher of physics who graduated two years ago I am still in the early stages of my scientific career with many options and opportunities available to me. With regard to the current STFC funding situation and the generally low priority that politicians of all colours now seem to assign to basic research, how much of a future do you honestly think there is for fundamental physics in the UK? My current research contract expires in two years - can you convince me that I should not be considering a move abroad while I still can?
  James Monk
• Much of the headline increase of 13.6% in the STFC's budget is in non-cash covering depreciation costs and the uplift in the actual spendable science budget (near-cash) is only 8% - the lowest of any research council. In a recent survey of 1st year physics undergraduates, 90% cited STFC science areas (particle physics, astronomy, nuclear physics) as having a significant impact on their choice of degree. The government's intention is to create a high-skilled workforce; yet the 8.3% (not 13.6%!!) settlement to STFC settlement will reduce the number of astronomy RAs by 25% in the next 3 years. (Yes it is true that the number is unchanged this year !)
  
  Is it the government's intention to stifle the areas of blue sky research that have revolutionised the modern world and which provide the future flow of (post)-graduate physics talent to the wider economy?
  
  Does the Secretary of State believe that a flash-cash settlement is appropriate given that the gross added value from physics sectors accounts for 6.4% of UK economic activity ?
  
  What steps is DIUS taking with its colleagues in the Treasury to convince them of what many see as obvious - the country should further increase science spending not stagnate with flat cash settlements ? The Treasury can find money for Northern Rock, why cannot it not find money for science ? Science is arguably as important to the country's future as a stable financial market.
  
  The government and the research councils have re-iterated that all is well since the additional money that fEC provides can be used to maintain the science volume. This would appear contrary to the original motivation for fEC. Within the current flat cash settlement fEC can either be used, as intended, to provide the infrastructure costs of research or be used by universities to re-hire post-doctoral staff made redundant by the recent flat-cash settlements but NOT both. Given the choice of diverting fEC to maintain constant science volume or spending fEC as intended (and thus reducing scinece volume) - what does the Secretary of State advocate ?
  Mark Lancaster
• There are indications that the STFC executive failed to present a balanced case for funding to the government (including the full impact on key university departments) prior to the recent disastrous CSR settlement. This is partly based on documents from STFC that the community is having to obtain through a continuing series of formal requests under the Freedom of Information Act...a situation that is damning in itself. To exacerbate the situation, following the settlement, rather than working with the community to preserve as much of the programme as possible in a fair and transparent manner, the STFC executive first unilaterally declared a number of important research areas dead in termsof future investment. These hasty decisions are having to be tweaked or revoked as we speak, though the damage they have already caused both internationally and within the community has been considerable. Further, the specific reasoning used to rank projects in a "Programmatic Review" which is to be used as the basis for the elimination of ongoing projects that represent significant UK scientific investment is still being kept secret. We do not believe any of this is what the government intended. The government has spoken on many occasions of its desire for better communication with and involvement from the scientific community, which we wholeheartedly believe. Indeed, the scientific community would like nothing better. Yet there is clearly a systemic failure in communication in both directions from STFC. Could the minister suggest whether a more direct route might be established to better connect the scientific community with the government so as to avoid such breakdowns in future?
  Steve Biller, Oxford