Subjective Science

The Science is Vital Letter I Sent to Sir Paul Beresford MP (Mole Valley) on 23rd Sept - and got no reply

2010-10-11T15:36:00.000+01:00

Dear Sir Beresford,

I am contacting you to highlight my support for the Science is Vital
campaign, the details of which are given in their template letter to
MPs below.

I would also like to highlight my own situation to you to make clear
one of the current problems in publicly funded research. I have
recently completed a PhD in high energy physics at Imperial College and
have spent the last 6-9 months searching for postdoctoral research
work. A complete lack of opportunities in the UK means I have been
forced to take up an offer of a post with a US institution and will
emigrate from the UK on 4th October this year. The UK tax payer has
paid for my PhD education through a grant over the last 4-5 years;
however, instead of representing a good investment I am now left with
no option but to leave the UK. Any innovations I may contribute in
future research work will therefore not benefit the UK economy but
instead the USA. I am aware of many peers in my field in the same
situation as me who have also taken the decision to leave the UK.

The current funding squeeze on publicly funded research, likely to get
worse after the CSR settlement to BIS, is therefore not in the best
interests of the UK economy. Note that privately funded research tends
to follow the trend of public investment, not take its place, so there
is a real danger of choking one of the avenues of future economic
growth by significantly reducing the science budget.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Mark Tibbetts

Science is Vital letter to MPs:

I am one of your constituents. I would like you to sign EDM 767, the
Science is Vital petition (here:
http://edmi.parliament.uk/edmi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=41727&SESSION=905),
and attend a lobby in Parliament on 12 October (15.30, Committee Room
10).

The evidence is clear that investing in research brings a range of
economic and social benefits, and that severe cuts at the very moment
that our competitor nations are investing more could jeopardize the
future of UK science:

1. Cuts will harm the economy
2. Cuts will waste the investment already made in facilities and
people
3. Cuts will hurt world-class research, not eliminate waste

The Science is Vital [http://scienceisvital.org.uk/] coalition, along
with the Campaign for Science and Engineering
[http://www.sciencecampaign.org.uk], are calling upon the Government to
set out a supportive strategy, including public investment goals above
or at least in step with economic growth. Without such investment and
commitment the UK risks its international reputation, its market share
of high-tech manufacturing and services, the ability to respond to
urgent and long-term national scientific challenges, and the economic
recovery.

I have signed the petition at
http://scienceisvital.org.uk/sign-the-petition/. I look forward to
hearing from you.

Should researchers sit back and take the cuts in times of austerity?

2010-06-26T15:16:00.008+01:00

As I'm currently external to the UK research field I don't have much of a feel for what researchers expect from the upcoming Treasury comprehensive spending review (CSR). A constant (unsubstantiated) rumour I hear is that the Research Council (RC) allocation is likely to be cut by 10-20% compared with the previous CSR period. Of course these are "times of austerity" so any cut less than 25% is perhaps a sign that an area of spending is still valued by the coalition government; however, this cut will no doubt be a large blow for many research areas in the UK and there is real risk of lost innovations which can potentially drive economic growth. Despite this, I haven't heard anything from members of the research community, or their lobby groups, giving a detailed overview of what the effects of such cuts will be. I understand that not much can be said by the RCs themselves as allocation negotiations with BIS are confidential - of course BIS can only divide up what the Treasury allocates them. But does the silence of the larger research community show an acceptance that they must take a fair share in the overall cuts to government spending? Perhaps they're just waiting to complain after the cuts have been made...

Reply From Alice Humphreys, Liberal Democrat PPC for Mole Valley

2010-05-06T08:57:00.001+01:00

Dear Mark

Thank you for your email below.

Curiosity and enthusiasm for science frequently begins in the early years of schooling. Therefore, it is critical that the education system provides young children with properly funded, high quality science education.

We will expand the TeachFirst programme to get more top graduates in our classrooms, particularly in shortage subjects like physics. Our plans to reform teachers pay and conditions, coupled with our extra investment, will also make it easier for headteachers to attract and retain those who can enthuse and motivate young people to continue with their studies. We will seek to ensure that science at Key Stage 4 and above is taught by appropriately qualified teachers.

We need much more focus on the STEM subjects (Science, Technology, English and Maths).

We will address the underlying weaknesses in our education system by investing a further £2.5bn a year in the education system, directed at the most disadvantaged pupils in the form of a 'pupil premium'. This will improve the quality of maths and science education by reducing class sizes. These additional funds will ensure that young people from all backgrounds have the opportunity to excel in difficult subjects.

We will ensure a better balance between academic and vocational education by enabling young people to study at a college from age 14 if their school does not offer the course they want to take. This will enable all children to choose to study, for example, separate sciences or modern languages at GCSE, or a vocational subject. We will introduce a new General Diploma that places vocational qualifications on an equal footing with academic subjects whilst ensuring basic levels of literacy and numeracy.

The UK has an excellent track record of generating innovative new ideas but frequently fails to develop these to the point of commercial production. Commercialisation of new ideas is a risky business, more suited to being financed by equity than debt but existing UK markets do not serve small innovative businesses well.

Liberal Democrats will create new mechanisms to provide smaller businesses with access to equity by connecting investors with businesses in their own region:

· Local Enterprise Funds - tax efficient investment vehicles to provide seed capital to start-up/early stage businesses as they commercialise their ideas
· Regional Stock Exchanges - regional platforms matching local investors with growing SMEs. They will provide SMEs with cost effective access to equity through a simple operating model that meets the needs of smaller companies

Local Enterprise Funds and Regional Stock Exchanges will greatly increase the equity finance available to fund investment in the development of innovative new ideas, and provide vital stepping stones for smaller business as they grow.

Investing in research and development also means investing in our future. Scientific research will be at the forefront of our thinking as we continue to grapple with the black hole in the nation's finances. We are also sensitive to the need for consistency and reliability in scientific funding so we are committed to ensuring stable and well managed funding for research which helps scientists develop new technologies and medicines.

We will ensure that funding is allocated according to broad priorities, not distorted by narrow impact assessments and that science not politics is the deciding factor in decisions. This underpins our commitment to the principle of policy based on independent evidence.

We are committed to increasing science literacy within schools and ensuring that schools have adequate facilities in place to achieve this. We have made a manifesto commitment to ensure that science is taught by appropriately qualified teachers at key stage 4 and above, and to enabling students to take separate sciences at GCSE and we will give 14-19 year-olds the right to take up a course at college, rather than at school, if it suits them better. This will enable all children to choose to study, for example, separate sciences at GCSE.

We will scrap university tuition fees so that access to higher education is based on an individual's ability, not their bank balance. We will reform the existing bursary system for university students so that bursaries are awarded on the basis of studying strategic subjects (such as sciences and mathematics) as well as financial hardship. This will promote the supply of skilled scientists that we need.

We expect science and engineering to play an ever greater role in determining the success of our economy. There is no clearer example of this than the scale of change required transition to a low carbon economy.

Liberal Democrats have committed to delivering a 40% reduction in UK greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 with 40% of UK electricity to come from clean sources, and by 2050 a zero-carbon Britain.

The science and engineering challenges to deliver on the necessary alternative sources of energy are clear. The UK currently has pockets of world leading technology in areas such as marine tidal energy which offers a predictable and consistent source of power but has a long way to go in developing the necessary alternative energy sources. We recognise the need for government to play a role in establishing new sectors that the market perceives as too risky. That's why the Liberal Democrats will invest £400 million in refurbishing and adapting UK ports so they can be used to develop renewable energy solutions.

In the longer term we will create a UK Infrastructure Bank to support investment in infrastructure, including world class renewables. A UK Infrastructure Bank will provide a new route to provide capital, guarantees and equity to major infrastructure projects, including those required for the transition to a low carbon economy.

I hope that I have set out the Liberal Democrats' position on the important issues you have raised. Thanks again for taking the time to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Alice

Reply From Paul Beresford, Conservative PPC for Mole Valley

2010-04-15T15:46:00.001+01:00

NB. This reply was in postal form so I have had to transcribe it here. I have tried to be completely faithful to the text of the letter I received but there is a small chance I may have made some errors in my transcription. Paul Beresford is the incumbent candidate in Mole Valley.

Dear Dr. Tibbetts,

Thank you for your emailed letter. Conservatives believe that protecting and promoting science is crucial to Britain's future economic success. Our researchers, academics, private companies, universities and research institutes will have a major role to play in creating future economic growth and improving quality of life.

Unfortunately, science and research are already being hit hard by Labour's spending cuts. In March, around half of all universities were told their grant funding had been cut for this year. Smaller, specialist institutes have been particularly affected, with some institutions seeing their grant funding cut by more than 10 per cent. While we have been completely honest about the fact cuts are going to be needed in many areas. However, the Conservatives are determined to do everything we possibly can to sustain Britain's research base during these difficult times. We have set out a number of policies aimed at achieving this.

Firstly, we have announced that a Conservative Government will allocate a multi-year Science Budget which would be ring-fenced over the next spending period. This would ensure stability and allow Research Councils to make long-term investments to fund PhDs or commit to major international research collaborations. We have also pledged real-term rises in the NHS budget, from which significant scientific research and training are funded.

Secondly, we have said that we will postpone the Government's new Research Excellence Framework - the system used to allocate grants to universities - for up to two years because academics have expressed fears that it would undermine their research. We would work with academics to develop an alternative system which would ensure that scientific research which does not necessarily generate an immediate economic benefit is not sacrificed in pursuit of short-term industrial policy.

Thirdly, with the public finances under pressure, we are working hard to identify alternative sources of funding for university research, for example by promoting philanthropy and partnerships with business and by helping universities build up endowments on the US model. We already have pledged to introduce an early repayment discount on student loans, encouraging graduates to repay outstanding debts sooner rather than later, which would inject around £300m of funding into universities without adding to the deficit.

Fourthly, we have announced a series of policies aimed at helping Britain's technology-based businesses remain at the cutting edge of international innovation. We have pledged to keep and improve research and development tax credits, increasing their focus on hi-tech companies, small businesses and new start-ups. We are keen to develop stronger links between business and academia so that private funding can be used to support academic research and successful innovations can be brought to market more quickly.

Our recent Technology Manifesto includes details of proposals to help science-based business and is available to download at http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Technology.aspx.

Fifthly, we want to raise the status of science and engineering in the UK and provide more support for the sector. A few weeks ago David Cameron announced the publication of a major report into the way that science and engineering are promoted in Britain. Led by Sir James Dyson, the review made a large number of recommendations aimed at building a new, innovation-based model for economic growth, including establishing a major national prize scheme for engineering and providing scholarships to encourage young people to study science subjects. You can read the report at http://www.Conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/Ingenious%20Britain.ashx?dl=true.

Finally, we believe that if the future success of British scientific research is to be assured, it is vital that we improve the way it is taught in our schools. To attract top graduates into teaching, a Conservative government would offer every graduate with a first or upper second-class degree in maths or a rigorous science subject from a good university the chance to have their student loan paid off in its entirety if they opt to go into teaching. We will also create 'Teach Now', a new programme to provide an elite route into teaching for the brightest and best graduates already in successful career roles and looking for a career change. Our plans to open a new generation of good, small schools with small classes will drive up standards everywhere; while our plans for a targeted 'Pupil Premium' will ensure that children from disadvantaged backgrounds get the extra help they need.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Beresford
Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for Mole Valley.

Reply From Leigh Jones, UKIP PPC for Mole Valley

2010-04-15T09:27:00.000+01:00

Dear Mark,

Sorry for the delay in replying to you. UKIP policies and my views are that science is a major factor in the development of our country and is covered in many areas of our policy. I have includes several extracts from the UKIP manifesto relating to your questions. We do not have exact policies for each of your questions. The below answer the bulk of them and will give you a feel about UKIP positive attitude towards the education and investigation into science. I have attached the short version of the manifesto which again gives our feel for the need of good science for the future of this country. I have fed your questions back to the central office and asked for specific policies to be considered in the future. As you can imagine it is going to be very difficult for me to get more comprehensive answers as everyone is flat out on election duties. I trust the attached reflects our positive attitude toward the scientific community.

Science Education:-

Independence of universities & FE colleges: the Citizen's Voucher

On the supply side of Education and Training, it is UKIP‟s view that the single most effective way of increasing responsiveness in both the Further and Higher Education sectors is to put the power of the purse into the hands of the individual student. We propose therefore to introduce a citizen's voucher for post- school education and training, which can be spent on any validated course. An annual voucher would be redeemable by the Treasury at one of four values, dependent on the course the student is accepted on to, subject to acceptable progress reports. The voucher would be available to every citizen over 18 and renewable for a maximum of 3 years, but valid at any time in an individual's life (over the age of 18). The total cost of the vouchers would be controlled at a sum equal to the grants paid to English universities by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and by the Learning and Skills Funding Council (LSCFE) to colleges in England in the year preceding the start of the scheme with an allowance for inflation in future years. The two funding Councils and the Office for Fair Admissions to universities (OFFA) would be abolished. A shrunk-down Department of Business, Innovation and Skills would retain oversight of the Patent Office and the Government Laboratories, but its grant-awarding and contract monitoring roles would pass to the PECs (see 9.2 below). It would have role in university and further education funding as result of the Education and Training voucher system. The universities would thus become independent, governed by their charters and individual councils(Ref 20). The Further Education Colleges will likewise be liberated from government control. They will need charters and councils solely responsible to their staff and students,

and thus be fully able to respond to the skills needs of their local economies.

Independence of qualifications-awarding bodies

The basic feature of all qualifications is that they should be from chartered bodies and administered by the people from the industries chiefly concerned, completely independent of the government of the day. Thus as now the universities as chartered bodies will continue to issue degrees, but also be responsible for a single national school examination system at 16 and 18. The existing exam boards will be abolished. UKIP proposes that the long-established teaching and qualifications-awarding institutions in other fields, the City and Guilds, the London CC Institutes, the Royal Society of Arts (RSA), the 40 or so Engineering and Science Institutions be encouraged to extend their range to

cover every single occupation in the economy, so that literally everyone will obtain a certificate to practise in one or more occupations during their lifetime.

Introduce ‘Production Enterprise Centres’ (PECs) across the UK to support companies in research, design, prototyping and marketing. These would provide small and medium-sized enterprises with the skills they need to enter domestic and export markets from which they are currently excluded · Denationalise universities and further education (FE) colleges by replacing the present complex systems of grants and loans with ‘Student Vouchers’ and ‘Training Vouchers’ to be issued to every citizen at the age of 18. These vouchers will be paid by the student to the college or university and equal ‘Basic Cash Benefit’ (See Welfare & Social Security, below). Individuals will be able to use the vouchers at any time in their adult life. Universities and FE colleges will function as independent charities, responsible only for their curricula and performance, and accountable only to their students

Long term Science projects to encourage education and growth of science in the UK economy:-

1) A 10-year enhanced defence equipment programme with an additional £4 billion p.a. on top of the currently-budgeted £8 billion p.a.

2) A 25-year programme of building nuclear power stations that will provide Britain with 50% of its future electricity demand. This will cost on average of £3.5 billion p.a.

3) A comprehensive programme of flood protection and coastal defences to cost £30 billion over 10 years. Some 25% of this money would be spent on highly-exportable pump valves and control equipment

4) A transport investment programme centred on high-speed rail lines, reopened railways, new bypasses, road improvements and port

Global Warming

Establish a Royal Commission under a High Court Judge that will allow scientists to reach a conclusion about the facts and economic implications of global warming

In addition to your Party questions my personal views on the following are:

1) Do you agree that independent scientific advisors should be expected to maintain positions of mutual trust with ministers?

It is essential that we all trust the information from experts in every field. Science in particular is important to allow for sound decisions to be made about the future as well as the present. We also need the scientific community to monitor the release of information to ensure it has been fully substantiated.

2) Would you back reforming the libel laws to protect free academic debate?

Yes, libel laws need reform in all areas as we can see from the number of overseas cases brought in the UK.

3) What is your position on global warming?

I believe we need to protect our environment as we have limited resources, I am not convinced it is caused by man and agree with our policy to ask the Royal Commission to work with scientist to give a full report. There has been too much gain by those in power (Gore/governments) for people to trust the motives for taxation on green issues. It is reported the earth has its lowest co2 levels for 300 million years, I would like to see that confirmed or not. I am not convinced some of the technologies are helping, for example wind farms as their cradle to grave costs do not add up to real benefits and the energy production is spasmodic.

4) What do you believe the role of nuclear power to be in meeting Britain's 21st century energy needs?

Investment in nuclear energy is essential for cheap and clean power. This investment needs to be made soon in order to avoid power outs due to older fossil fuel plants shutting. I am in favour of smaller strategically positioned plants to service the countries needs.

I have no objection to you publishing my replies. Please ask if you need anything clarified.

Best regards

Leigh

Reply From Rob Sedgwick, Green PPC for Mole Valley

2010-04-08T09:18:00.004+01:00

Hi Mark, science is very important to me being a Physics graduate. I still regard myself very much as a scientist and try to keep up to date with developments in science as far as my work and other commitments go.

I believe that science is at the heart of our policies. Our country and most of the world at the moment is too skewed towards economics and not enough towards science. It's essential to recognise the limitations of the environment that we live in and try and live within our means.

The green party's policy is to move gradually to smaller class sizes by spending a further £500million on 15,000 more teachers to get classes down to an average of 20 pupils by the end of the Parliament. I believe that by placing science at the heart of our policies we'd go towards achieving the objectives you have set out.

We also want to introduce free higher education, abolishing student fees. This would allow the best minds to get into universities regardless of their background. Fees and lack of proper grants have cut off higher education to too many poorer people under recent governments.

With the emphasis away from research which will have short-term economic advantages I believe that there would be a greater role for true learning and science for science's sake under the kind of world the green party envisage. As I am sure you would agree many areas which have been researched for no other reason than their academic interest have subsequently proved useful, often in another discipline many years later. I believe there is too much emphasis at the moment on the short term value of science rather than what it would contribute towards what we do not know or understand.

I can't answer all your questions directly because our policies do not always go into that level of detail and I do not have the information to hand to provide a direct answer to you.

1) Do you agree that independent scientific advisors should be expected to maintain positions of mutual trust with ministers?

I think that science advisors should be critically important to government policy and listened to rather than consulted and then largely ignored!

2) Would you back reforming the libel laws to protect free academic debate?

I believe that academic debate should be free. I do not know enough about the libel laws in this area to say whether they should be reformed.

3) What is your position on global warming?

It's something which we must put at the heart of our future policy. It's a sign that we have got things desperately wrong and we need to listen to our scientific advisers more than those shouting for continued economic growth in a finite world.

4) What do you believe the role of nuclear power to be in meeting Britain's 21st century energy needs?

The green party is opposed to nuclear power. It takes a very long time to build a nuclear power station and get it fully operational and there is the problem of disposing of the waste. First of all we should try and reduce demand for energy, then we should try and use reneweables as much as possible. We are also leaving research into a replacement for oil too much at the whim of the private sector. I have always felt that if we made it a top research priority we could come up with a clean energy solution which is superior to nuclear fission. The problem is that oil is so cheap that there is still little fiscal motivation for the private sector to do so.

Hope that helps you make a decision!

Rob

Reply From James Dove, Labour PPC for Mole Valley

2010-04-08T09:14:00.005+01:00

Dear Prof Tibbetts,

With regards to policy it is probably best I refer you to the Labour party website:

http://www.labour.org.uk/policies/science-and-innovation

I understand the importance of ensuring we have a steady flow of highly qualified science graduates and the need to adequately fund scientific research and innovation. I therefore would advocate and support policies that will achieve those objectives.

In response to your questions about my personal views.

1) I am was concerned by the resignation of Prof Nutt and other members of ACMD. I believe that it is important that scientific advisors retain their independence.

2) The current libel laws in this country are concerning and urgently need to be reviewed to ensure they do not suppress scientific debate.

3) I believe that the evidence points to Global Warming being a major threat to our planet and that every effort should be made by Government, business and citizens to reduce carbon emissions.

4) I am in favour of nuclear energy to the extent that it would appear to be a method of reducing carbon emissions, however, I support further research and investment into sources of renewable energy.

I hope the above goes someway to answering your queries.

Kind regards,

James

Letter to Prospective Parliamentary Candidates

2010-04-04T16:35:00.018+01:00

Dear CANDIDATE,

I am writing to you as a registered voter in the constituency of Mole Valley where you are standing as a prospective parliamentary candidate for PARTY in the forthcoming general election. I have no party political affiliation but have been following the campaign to make science an election issue.

Science is increasingly important in the 21st century; it can provide the foundation for a diverse and internationally competitive economy. Science research, both basic and applied, will continue to provide innovative breakthroughs which improve our quality of life and help us meet challenges such as future energy security. Please can you provide me with your party policy and your personal views on how that policy will be effective in the following areas:

Science Education

How will you attract and retain the best science graduates into teaching?

How will you provide professional development for science teachers, keeping them up to date with the latest research developments which inspire young people to follow scientific careers?

What pledges can you make to guarantee state of the art laboratory facilities in all schools?

How will you ensure an inclusive curriculum which distinguishes the individual science disciplines?

How will you encourage more school leavers to take up degrees in science disciplines?

Science Research

Do you support ring-fencing the overall science spend and protecting it against cuts?

Given the likely pressures on public spending in the next parliament, how do you intend to keep UK universities internationally competitive?

How will you protect the long term investment needed for curiosity driven research against potential short term pressures such as exchange rate fluctuations in subscriptions to international facilities?

Can you guarantee continued UK involvement in international research facilities such as CERN and ESO?

Given the recent withdrawal from a large number of international collaborations due to funding pressures on the Science and Technology Facilities Council, how will you ensure the UK is viewed as a reliable partner in international research?

What support can you pledge for postgraduate and early career researchers to maintain a research skills base in the UK?

Do you agree that scientific research should be funded across a broad base with grants allocated on scientific excellence in accordance with the Haldane principle?

Science Innovation

How do you intend to support innovation in science research and its translation into UK based high-technology businesses?

Can you pledge tax credit and grant regimes to keep innovative companies from relocating outside the UK?

What plans do you have to increase the collaboration between industry and universities?

How will you harvest future innovations from research carried out within our universities so that they benefit the UK economy?

In addition to the general policy questions above I would like to know your personal views on the following:

1) Do you agree that independent scientific advisors should be expected to maintain positions of mutual trust with ministers?

2) Would you back reforming the libel laws to protect free academic debate?

3) What is your position on global warming?

4) What do you believe the role of nuclear power to be in meeting Britain's 21st century energy needs?

My decision on which candidate to support in the general election will be based on party policies for the role of science in the UK as well as your response to the above questions. The prominence of science policy in your party election manifesto will also be an important factor in my choice.

If you would like further information on the importance of science policy for the future of Britain I recommend reading the Royal Society publication “The Scientific Century: securing our future prosperity” which can be downloaded here:

http://royalsociety.org/The-scientific-century/

I would also suggest reading the Institute of Physics manifesto for the UK general election of 2010 which can be accessed here:

http://www.iop.org/aboutus/news_39016.html

Finally please let me know if you have objections to my making any response you provide publicly available online.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Mark Tibbetts

The Physics Funding Problem

2009-12-17T11:09:00.004Z

The Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) announced yesterday the unilateral withdrawal from 24 international physics collaborations, a 25% combined cut in PhD studentships and postdoctoral research fellowships, and a 10% cut in the grant allocations of surviving research programs. Their aim is to save something like £105M as they don't have the cash available to sustain the current research program. These are some pretty drastic measures but hang on, isn't the economy screwed? Aren't there cuts everywhere? Why should fundamental physics research be a special case?

Yesterdays bloodbath predates the credit crunch, its origins date back to the formation of STFC and the tension of research grants against the cost of running large facilities. At the time of formation it was short changed about £80M by the government and so, from its three year settlement, borrowed heavily against the final year to fund the preceding two. Well that third year is now and there's nothing left to borrow and what's already been borrowed must be paid back. In fact amazingly the situation could have been even worse! Exchange rate fluctuations have pushed up the cost of international subscriptions (priced in euros) which the government has effectively had to pay on top of the existing funding settlement. Even more depressing than that is STFC had to be bailed out by the other research councils just to continue funding the new size zero program.

It's true that everyone both privately and publicly are feeling the pinch in the UK right now. In fact in the pre budget report a bullet point in a subsection headed "...low priority..." singled out higher education (student loans and research council funding) as an area where £600M must be saved over the next three years. Things might get worse still.

So why should research be a special case? The short answer is because it drives the economy. This statement is not confined to areas where the fruits of research have good commercial applications and to simplify the argument to that level is extremely naive (this kind of direct commercial research would still no doubt be funded by industry regardless of public investment in universities). The point is that university research has a massive impact on inspiring young people into higher education. It is this scientifically educated population a country needs to prosper economically. The recent Wakeham Review commissioned by the government claimed around 6.4% of UK GDP comes from industries requiring a high level of physics training. It's a blinkered view which doesn't recognise the link between funding research projects to answer fundamental questions about the universe (such as space missions, astronomy or investigating the limits of relativistic quantum mechanics at the LHC) - regardless of their direct commercial spin-offs - and the increased uptake in physics at A level and undergraduate degree level. Cutting fundamental programs is a dangerous game which risks undermining this link.

Finally the most concerning cut announced yesterday is the cut in PhD studentships. Fundamental physics study at PhD level is an incredibly unique opportunity which no other subject can provide. During my last four years in such a position I have worked in a large international collaboration, used sophisticated statistical data analysis techniques, worked with complex hardware and software systems, had to learn advanced levels of material physics and all that to produce a PhD describing the decay of one obscure short lived meson to a particular final state! Many people I know who have gone through similar training now have high end city jobs, driving the economy, and repeatedly emphasise the importance of their PhD training to their subsequent success.

Fraud?!

2009-12-04T10:38:00.002Z

Strange email I got about climategate including my dismissive reply!

I would suggest you wait until the results of the independent inquiry into this case before drawing conclusions about "fraud." Please do not email me again on this matter.

-Mark
________________________________________
From: hal lewis [hlewis26@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 7:24 AM
To: Tibbetts, Mark
Subject: scientific misbehavior

Dear fellow member of the American Physical Society:

This is a matter of great importance to the integrity of the Society. It is being sent to a random fraction of the membership, so we hope you will pass it on.

By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership. For those who have missed the news we recommend the excellent summary article by Richard Lindzen in the November 30 edition of the Wall Street journal, entitled "The Climate Science isn't Settled," for a balanced account of the situation. It was written by a scientist of unquestioned authority and integrity. A copy can be found among the items at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u, and a visit to http://www.ClimateDepot.com can fill in the details of the scandal, while adding spice.

What has this to do with APS? In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on global warming (also reproduced at the tinyurl site mentioned above) that was based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted. (The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.)

We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 Statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.

None of us would use corrupted science in our own work, nor would we sign off on a thesis by a student who did so. This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake. That is why we are taking the unusual step of communicating directly with at least a fraction of the membership.

If you believe that the APS should withdraw a Policy Statement that is based on admittedly corrupted science, and should then undertake to clarify the real state of the art in the best tradition of a learned society, please send a note to the incoming President of the APS ccallan@princeton.edu, with the single word YES in the subject line. That will make it easier for him to count.

Bob Austin, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Hal Lewis, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford
Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil

Some Funding Figures

2009-12-01T16:54:00.004Z

With STFC set to announce the results of it's prioritisation consultation on 16th December and rumours of £40M cuts, the debate about funding curiosity based research is about to come back with avengence so here are some figures to think about...

The near cash allocation (what it can spend on research) to STFC for 2008/09 was £461M
The STFC budget for 2009/10 was £491M (I don't know from the press release if this is only near cash or near cash and non cash)
The total near cash allocation to STFC from CSR07 which covers 2008/09-2010/11 was £1,294M which averages £431M per year
The total allocation to STFC from CSR07 including near cash, non cash and capital was £1,906M which averages £635M per year
The total science budget for CSR07 was £11,240M which averages £3,747M per year
The total government spend for 2010/11 is set to be £678,000M

The total UK research budget is ~0.5% of total government spend.

Exciting times at CERN

2009-11-23T11:31:00.002Z

This weekend protons were injected in both directions around the LHC, first collisions are expected in a few weeks. Here are some beam splash events from the ATLAS and CMS online event displays:

ATLAS

CMS

Edit: Collisions in all 4 experiments have now been reported by CERN, congratulations to all involved!

This Week on Twitter

2009-11-06T22:30:00.008Z

Here are some of the most interesting science related links I've come across in the last 7 days on twitter:

Professor Brian Cox's Horizon program on time getting the Harry Hill treatment last year.

Shockingly bad Daily Mail piece by AN Wilson describing scientists as "arrogant gods of certainty." This article originally had a picture of Hitler along side it which was later taken down, but the text itself is unchanged as far as I'm aware.

Ex Home Secretary Charles Clarke's letter providing some much needed context for the Prof. Nutt sacking by current Home Sec. Alan Johnson

Fascinating article about a study on the brains response to religious thought. Still no news on who's right though...

New Scientist interview with sci-fi author Terry Pratchett.

The Science and Technology Select Committee get involved in the Prof. Nutt affair.

Shocking story about the selling of pseudo-scientific dowsing rods to Iraq security services for explosive detection.

The amazing Richard Feynman on the inconceivable nature of nature.

Nature editorial on relationship between politics and science in light of Prof. Nutt sacking.

The CERN side of the story on a baguette sabotaging the LHC!

Great photos of what has to be the best spider in the world!

The Nutt affair again, Lord Drayson the science minister speaks to the press.

Pay for the data but not the results!

2009-11-04T20:26:00.015Z

Since early 2006 as part of my PhD studies I have been a member of the BaBar Collaboration. This group of high energy physicists analyse electron-positron collision data collected between 1999-2008 in an attempt to explain the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe. In fact the work from this experiment directly contributed to the award of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physics (see my blog post here for details). Interestingly at about the same time that the Nobel committee were finalising their decision, the UK physics funding research council STFC decided to pull the plug on all UK involvement in the experiment. On the face of it this may have appeared a reasonable decision; the US federal Department of Energy had just announced that the recording of further collision data was to be prematurely abandoned and the STFC was faced with a significant funding shortfall from a UK government which had just formed it through merging two previously existing research councils. Withdrawing from an experiment that's been switched off seems a straight forward saving. However this really misses the point - once such an experiment is switched off all that is complete is the production of raw data to analyse. It is true many results are initially published on a subset of the data as it continues to accumulate, but those are eventually superseded by results which use the full dataset. Typically the analysis of one physics process (there are 100s which can be examined in BaBar data) takes two years from start to finish. This means that many of the final results will be published throughout 2010/11 just as the last UK authors are removed from the collaboration list (the UK officially withdrew in summer 2009 and our names stay on publications for a further year). Furthermore the number of those final analyses actually carried out by UK researchers will be minute. UK investment helped pay for the building and running of the experiment, but in years to come when we look back to see what the experiment actually measured the names of UK researchers and institutions will often be missing.

Alan Johnson's Irritated Nutt Sack

2009-11-02T14:28:00.002Z

There's been a lot in the news recently about the sacking of Prof. David Nutt so for what it's worth here are my two cents...

On first seeing the news last Friday I was astonished that the Home Secretary Alan Johnson had sacked Prof. Nutt from his position as chair of the ACMD and felt very strongly this was a political mistake. This initial feeling was I admit an emotional reaction not and entirely rational. There are on reflection two main issues I was concerned about; the general role of science in advising government policy and the particular issue of illegal drug classification. It's fair to say that if the sacked adviser had chaired a farming advisory committee and been dismissed under similar circumstances then this would probably have passed me by. But this case does highlight an interesting point concerning the relation between politics and science.

Let's deal with the drugs first, although due to misspent youth I can hardly claim to be impartial on this issue. Prohibition is generally agreed to be the best policy for limiting use of substances which when consumed can potentially cause personal and social harm. However many who already use recreational drugs (therefore implicitly disagreeing with prohibition laws) feel this stance is hypocritical as long as tobacco and alcohol are legally available. The only difference between these legal substances and those which are prohibited is perceived as a matter of history. The defense therefore of consuming illegal drugs is the very nature of their illegality is arbitrary. Whether you agree with this or not ultimately everyone should accept that scientific study can give some impartial indications on the effects of different recreational drugs, regardless of legality, to both the long and short term health of users. Such studies should be properly peer reviewed and indeed this represents an active and dynamic area of research. Peer reviewed science is not the same as the views of individual scientists; MMR was not banned because of Andrew Wakefield and the LHC was not halted because of Walter Wagner. Instead it aids the formation of a community consensus which can always change if new convincing evidence not previously considered comes to light. However it is important to bare in mind that medical studies can make no comment on the morals of drug consumption; buying drugs on the black market can fund organised crime and indirectly the user is responsible for murder and suffering which occurs as a result of drug distribution networks. This applies to both illegal drugs and smuggled alcohol and tobacco. The morals are an issue for politicians in forming prohibition and duty laws. From the scientific point of view the interest is in the ability to compare the relative harm of different drugs. On the face of it this is not a simple task, use of different substances can have very different consequences on both physical and mental health so a weighted system reflecting the relative importance of different types of harm must be constructed. Whether a particular system is the correct one to apply is of course debatable.

The classification system introduced by the misuse of drugs act in the 1970s is not a purely scientific system and we shouldn't pretend it is. These classifications drive the criminal penalties of illegal drug use and reflect not only the health risks but the moral dimension and social consequences. It is therefore a political construct. Politicians are elected for their moral and social views but are generally not scientifically trained and so cannot themselves empirically judge the health risk of different drugs. This is one of the reasons advisory panels such as the ACMD exist. The job of Prof. Nutt was to report the collective views of the ACMD to the Home Office. The ACMD are not civil servants or paid Whitehall advisers, they are an independent body working in their own time to advise the government. Comments Prof. Nutt might make in his day job capacity as an academic do not compromise the ACMDs work even if they are politically weighted, which I don't believe they were. In fact the comments of concern were made in both a scientific journal and public lecture in Nutt's position as a Professor at Imperial College. By sacking him Alan Johnson has to me shown a naivety in his understanding of scientific debate. If Nutt's comments are incorrect or misleading then it is peer review within the scientific community which should hold him to account, indeed there are those scientists who do not share his views. However by taking this course of action Johnson has, whether he intended it or not, directly interfered with this process and shown at worst contempt and at best naivety of how science works.

The statement which most disappointed me from Alan Johnson was, "I cannot have public confusion between scientific advice and policy and have therefore lost confidence in your ability to advise me as chair of the ACMD." The only way there can be public confusion between scientific advice and policy is if the government has not sufficiently explained why it has rejected scientific advice or assigned less importance to scientific advice over other considerations such as the moral dimension. Governments are entitled to reject advice they receive but if they do a clear justification must be provided. This is the Home Secretary's job and by sacking Nutt he gives the impression of avoiding the debate and passing the buck. In subsequent interviews Johnson has claimed to respect Nutt's views but disagree with them while failing to explain why. I fail to see how this makes Nutt's position as chair of the ACMD untenable. I must be missing something.

Edit: I have read the Hansard transcript of the debate on this issue and see nothing reassuring in Alan Johnson' s words. Dr. Evan Harris MP should be commended as usual for standing up for scientific debate. Also it seems the Science Minister Lord Drayson recognised the concerns such action would raise in the scientific community. I commend him for raising these issues albeit in private until the emails he sent were leaked. If only I could admire his and the governments handling of STFC funding but I'll save that one for another day!