The sound of silence

It’s the uncertainty that is so depressing. Out of the blue, on 15 November, UK astronomers found out that the Science and Technology Facilities Council intended to withdraw from the Gemini Observatory (two eight-metre optical telescopes, one in Hawaii and the other in Chile). It was a huge shock. No warning, no consultation.

The council’s website informed us that “[STFC’s governing] Council will approve its overall investment strategy at its meeting on 21 November”. Not “debate”, but “approve”.

Quickly, letters of protest to Council members were organised from the eight-metre users committee, and the Gemini time allocation committee. We waited for news from the meeting ... and waited ... and nothing. STFC will not comment.

The STFC’s Delivery Plan has been presented to the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, and will be published on 11 December. Until then, the vacuum is being filled by rumour and speculation. Everyone is asking the same question: what’s next for the chop?

I am an observational astronomer. I use Gemini to study white dwarfs, stars that were once like our own Sun. I’m especially interested in finding evidence for planets around white dwarfs, and even directly imaging them, to find out about the future of our own solar system.

Directly imaging planets around other stars is tough to do, but the field is about to get a major boost with the installation of second generation instruments on Gemini, such as the Near-Infrared Coronagraphic Imager. The UK, led by Hugh Jones, professor of astronomy at the University of Hertfordshire, is also a strong partner in an instrument for Gemini called the Precision Radial Velocity Spectrograph, which will be able to detect planets of Earth’s size around nearby red dwarf stars. Our use of these exciting instruments is now in danger.

The loss of Gemini would be a grievous blow to my research. Of course, we would still have access to the European Southern Observatory’s four Very Large Telescopes, but these are all on one site in the southern hemisphere. In case the Swindon bean counters haven’t figured it out yet, the Earth is round and you can’t see the northern sky from Chile!

But I don’t just use the large eight-metre class telescopes. I also make lots of use of smaller facilities such as the four-metre William Herschel Telescope on La Palma in the Canaries and data from the UK Infrared Deep Sky Survey being carried out on the UK infrared telescope on Hawaii. This is the deepest survey of the infrared sky ever undertaken, and is giving UK astronomers a world lead in this wavelength.

My immediate thought on hearing the bad news last month was that if STFC can pull out of a leading modern facility like Gemini, will they have no second thoughts axing these smaller, older facilities?

All of the astronomers in the UK are having similar thoughts, whether they are observers, radio or X-ray specialists, theoreticians, instrument builders or space scientists. Is their favourite facility next? Most of all, the fear is for the grants line. If postdocs are axed in large numbers, what will be the impact on young careers and the prospects for PhD students?

STFC grants make up a significant part of the income of many university physics departments. How will cuts affect them? Astronomy courses help to attract undergraduates to study physics. Will the news of severe cutbacks impact on recruitment, also reducing departmental income? Is my job in danger?

The lack of consultation and the silence that has followed seem deliberately designed to stifle dissent. It leaves me with little confidence in those managing the budget for UK astronomy. This current crisis has its roots in the sudden decision last year to merge the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council into the much larger new “facilities” council. That move was also made with minimal consultation, a fait accompli.

Many of us objected, but we hoped against hope that things would pan out fine. Instead, our worst fears appear to be being realised. PPARC was our council, but we are a minor part of STFC. I simply don’t understand why astronomy has to pick up the bill for the overspend on Diamond and other facilities that have nothing to do with our science.

I hope that my worst fears are not justified and that my paranoia, fuelled by this silence from Swindon, is unnecessary. I hope STFC’s Council has presented the minister with a plan that has a minimal impact on astronomy, and retains some UK access to Gemini.

Just a final thought that helps me to put this crisis into perspective. Northern Rock has now borrowed £25 billion of taxpayers’ money. The Chancellor promises us that it will all be returned though, like many others, I am sceptical. The cost of operating the Gemini telescopes is £4 million a year. I’m going for a beer before I weep.

CSR Update

Apologies to those of you who came on Tuesday evening looking for our CSR update. We were here writing (and got the news out to subscribers yesterday afternoon in the Research Day UK email), but ran into technical difficulties with our blog hosts, TypePad. These are now resolved, so on with the show.

We've now got the press release from DIUS and responses from RCUK and CASE.

Stephen Cox at the Royal Society put this out: “The government have put down a clear marker in support of science. They are determined to see science play a key role in the economy and in improving the general health and welfare of people in the UK and beyond. The UK already has a world leading position in research excellence. Today’s announcement will allow the current volume of research to be properly funded, the scientific infrastructure to be maintained and the UK to keep its leading position.”

Science at the top

Science and innovation was given a fairly high profile in today's announcement of the 2007 Pre-Budget Report and Comprehensive Spending Review. After outlining spending on defence and law and order, science came next. Although those devoted to basic research may be slightly concerned about the Chancellor's choice of words.

"I can confirm investment in science and university research will rise to over £6 billion a year in three years time, helping ensure British research and industry are brought closer together to develop the new products and services the world wants to buy," he said.

He also promised to fully fund the recommendations in the Cooksey Review, giving OSCHR £1.7bn by 2010. A new Environmental Transformation Fund will get £1.2bn over three years to develop new energy technologies.

And although Alistair Darling "borrowed" several ideas from the Tories, including a green levy on air travel and reforms to inheritance tax, he steered clear of their plans to improve the R&D tax credit, which he failed to mention in either the science and innovation, or tax sections of his speech.

You can read his speech for yourself here. And, if you're a real glutton for punishment, the full PBR and CSR is here.

Carving up the pie

DIUS will be announcing each research council's allocation of funding and other spending for the science budget after the chancellor's speech this afternoon.

Coming soon

Alistair Darling will announce the outcome of the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review and the Pre-Budget Report at 3.30pm today. Check here for up-to-the-minute coverage.

As the dust settles

Overall, the tone of the reaction today - emphasised off the record - is that most readers have found the review worthy but dull. I seem to find it more interesting than most (see Sainsbury's new ideology), but am also more sceptical about the likelihood of the important bits being implemented.

I started the day wondering how it would compare with Ian Taylor's task force report for the Conservatives. The answer is, it's a dead heat: they've both come up with a headline promising £1bn for their preferred hi-tech funding agency, the Technology Strategy Board in Labour's case and the Innovative Products Agency in Taylor's.

Universities I think will be most directly interested in the HEIF language. We've known for a long time that a switch from competition to formula was coming, but now we have a political steer on the kind of formula to expect.

The review invents a new category of institution, the "business-facing university". No vice-chancellor these days is going to accept that theirs is anything but a BFU, and Universities UK has politely pointed this out already. But the language is still significant. Basically, I think it means that the cap limiting how much the Russell Group can get will remain, ensuring that smaller but increasingly respected places such as Hertfordshire, De Montfort and Manchester Met will get strong support. HEIF will remain a broad church with around 75 per cent of institutions getting significant funding. My bet is that the Comprehensive Spending Review on Tuesday will push HEIF's budget to around £150m by year three.

I'm extremely dubious about the schools agenda, and find it depressing to see the BBC and other media going with the flakiest part of the whole thing. Action's needed no doubt, but I don't think the government has the teachers or schools to do it. I'd like to see a survey of timetables in one or two inner city areas this year to see how many actually are offering the triple science option ministers have promised to any of their pupils.

I hope you've found Day 1 of our blog interesting. Check back next week for the big spending decisions, and reports from Laura Hood at the big Lisbon conference on the European Research Area. Meanwhile, why not add your own thoughts on the whole thing using the Comment option below?