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.
31/176 page 27
![My concern is that the ability within the universities to [develop] instrumentation, to take on students involved with that instrumentation, and even to train undergraduates with that instrumentation, will be impacted by these sorts of capital cuts. It will not only take the students away from having that contact with cutting- edge technology, which is vital to the training that we should be delivering, but the universities themselves are under pressure to deliver on an impact agenda, which becomes increasingly more difficult if we don’t have the in-house capabilities to be developing cutting-edge technologies. It is a double-edged sword in that respect.!” Professor Steve Rawlings, from Oxford University, pointed out to us that these capital reductions would also impact upon the work carried out in universities to follow-up and analyse scientific observations: For example, our theoretical colleagues require high performance computing. That is also counted as a capital expenditure. Of course, without the theoretical part to add to the observational part, we are not doing our full job.’ 69. We are concerned that the reduction in STFC capital grants available to universities over the next four years will mean that vital work in the field of instrumentation R&D, as well as the essential support and follow-up work that requires investment in computing capacity and other supportive equipment, will be neglected. We conclude that the consequence will be a loss in the UK’s prominence in these areas. Accelerator Research and Development 70. The STFC’s submission also stated that reductions in its capital allocations would: potentially have impacts on programmes such as accelerator research and development. [In this area] capital spending will have to be reduced based on the current funding allocation”.'* 71. Some staff at the STFC’s Daresbury laboratory expressed concerns that the capital settlement would mean that the future of a number of projects at the Daresbury site might be under threat, such as the next accelerator based light source prototype machine, ALICE, the EMMA accelerator,!” and the proposed accelerator research centre.'° Appendix D of the STFC’s delivery plan shows funding for accelerator R&D reducing from £7.04 million in 2011/12 to £6.59 million in 2014/15, although the same table also details separate funding for the accelerator centre of £3.82 million in each of the next four years. 72. Professor Mason said that the STFC was currently considering the best way to direct its funds for accelerator R&D and that he hoped there would be “clarity on the direction 106 Q 98 107 Q 97 108 Ey 51, para 5 19 The future of ALICE and EMMA has been in question since the time of the last spending review in 2007. See, HC 215-1 (2007-08), para 62. 0 Ey w12, [Daresbury Laboratory Section of Prospect] 1 STFC, Delivery Plan 2010/11 to 2014/15, December 2010, Appendix D](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b3222204x_0031.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
