Volume 2

The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council : fourth report / Science and Technology Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology.
Date:
1996
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council : fourth report / Science and Technology Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    15/196 (page 5)
    enn nner reser serene SS SSS 21 February 1996 ] [ Continued IN SUMMARY (1) It is essential for the UK to participate in “big science” projects like the LHC and selected space missions—these are the main vehicles for progress in our subjects. (2) UK particle physicists are exceptionally well organised to exploit such collaborative facilities, we have positions of considerable influence in their definition and operation. In the end we must, however, be adequately supported financially or we will lose it all. (3) There has been a marked improvement in the management of CERN since the recommendation of the Abragam Committee. The CERN Council and its advisory bodies (Finance Committee and Scientific Policy Committee) should be able, if national representatives play a full part, to guide the direction of CERN. The detailed management must be left to the Director General. (4) Some aspects of PPARC structure could be improved. The main problem however is the fact that there are inadequate resources for any future, cost effective domestic programme. Decision making between different parts of the programme is like making a choice as to whether to cut off a leg or an arm. It is irrational to expect a Council dedicated to promoting a healthy programme of high excellence to do this. If slightly more resources were available, then with the modifications I have indicated in the body of my letter, the Council is reasonably constituted. I hope that these remarks will be of help to the deliberations of the Committee. I would be quite prepared to give oral evidence to expand on any of the above points or any other areas should the Committee wish. Memorandum from Professor Sir Martin Rees (29.12.95) INTRODUCTION This paper offers an individual perspective on some of the issues the Select Committee will be addressing. I write as a member of the PPARC council and a researcher in the sciences it covers. The formal memorandum already submitted by PPARC highlights—I think quite fairly and cogently— the opportunities and problems facing this new Research Council. Sections 7 and 8 of that memorandum highlight some general concerns which I would strongly endorse. The Council has been fortunate in its Chief Executive, its Chairman, and its key staff, whose shared goals are to foster excellence and originality, and to optimise PPARC’s distinctive contribution to UK science, technology and education. If we could plan autonomously and from scratch, we would probably apportion our resources differently among the research areas PPARC covers. We would certainly not choose to tie up more than half our total budget (as it now is) in two international subscriptions over which we have limited leverage, leaving too little “free money” to properly benefit from them, and even less for supporting, even on a modest scale, outstanding UK initiatives within our remit. Even if PPARC’s scientific fields (the so-called “big sciences”) were attracting the same fraction of the Science Vote as in the 1980’s, readjustments would be severely constrained by several decades of history, by our membership of international partnerships, and by the inherently long-term nature of some scientific projects. Because the fraction of the budget allocated to the “big sciences” has fallen, PPARC has even less freedom of manouvre. Despite PPARC’s best efforts, its programme risks “seizing up” in a suboptimal state, where we live off the investment of the 1980’s rather than being able to exploit the amazing new opportunities that advanced instrumentation and computers are opening up. “Cosmic” discoveries are now an undoubted highlight of the physical sciences—and the UK has recently been second only to the US in the standing of its scientists in this field. THE INFRASTRUCTURE The science covered by PPARC divides into three broad areas; associated with each is an infrastructure of shared facilities which constitute the first charge on our budget: Particle physics—the CERN subscription may exceed £70 million next year because of the rise of the Swiss Franc. Space science—the part of the ESA subscription falling on PPARC amounts to about £40 million. Ground based telescopes—These are shared with international partners, but via ad hoc arrangements more under PPARC control; annual cost of operating our national observatories (including the two overseas sites in Hawaii and La Palma) is about £15 million.