Astronomy and particle physics : report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence.
- Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology
- Date:
- 2011
Licence: Open Government Licence
Credit: Astronomy and particle physics : report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. Source: Wellcome Collection.
20/176 page 16
![the position advocated by [the STFC] is not incorporated in subsequent strategy documents (for example, the 2005-2008 delivery plan). [The] UK astronomical community has made more than double the savings identified as needed in order to join ESO. [The] statement of the STFC Chief Executive does not correctly reflect the clear strategic position developed with regard to the non-ESO telescopes at the time of ESO accession. [The] idea that this process might be overturned by a single sentence [as quoted by the STFC] in a paper developed by the PPARC Executive is hardly credible, unless one favours the sort of decoupled decision-making that has been strongly criticised as an undesirable trait of the early days of STFC.® Conclusions 32. Given the evidence and documentation presented to us, we accept that there was a stated long-term intention to withdraw from some facilities following ESO accession. We note and welcome the clarification by the STFC that this was a financial rather than scientific strategy. 33. However, while ESO accession required some strategic restructuring of UK investments, as set out in the 2001 PPARC papers, the strategic decision does not provide cover for all future reductions in spending on astronomy. We find it inexplicable that the planned withdrawals detailed in the 2001 PPARC papers were not incorporated into all subsequent PPARC and STFC policy documents. This would have given the UK astronomical community the opportunity to challenge this policy in more detail, particularly as it was suggested to us that more than double the savings had been made than were required to join ESO. Unfortunately, this failure by STFC to communicate is chronic and typical and is the reason why its client communities have such a low opinion of it. 34. For the benefit of transparency, we recommend that the STFC make publicly available all PPARC and STFC council minutes and strategy documents which discuss UK spending on, and involvement in, ground-based astronomical facilities over the last ten years. Withdrawal from ground-based astronomical facilities 35. The extent of the UK’s future withdrawal from non-ESO facilities increased two years ago following the STFC’s 2009 prioritisation programmes (as described in paragraph 5), and the consequences of this are apparent in some of the reduction in astronomy spending over the next four years shown in the Table 2 at paragraph 13. Following the prioritisation programme, the STFC announced* it would be withdrawing from facilities including Gemini (from 2012), the ING telescopes (from 2012), the Liverpool telescope, the JCMT (from 2012) and the UKIRT.” The STFC told us in January that following withdrawal “ Ev 101 [Professor John Peacock; co-signed by Professor Mike Bode, Professor Roger Davies, Professor Rob Kennicutt and Professor Steve Rawlings] “' Science Programme Prioritisation 2010-2015”, STFC Press Release, 16 December 2009 “ Support for the UKIRT has been extends to 2013, while there is also a “limited extension” to support for the JCMT (Ev 52, para 12 [Science and Technology Facilities Council]).](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b3222204x_0020.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
