Hello UK skeptics folk!
[I searched but could not find a posting on the current UK funding crisis for physics, so thought I'd sign up and SHOUT! thinking it would reside here more appropriately than on JREF...]
As you may have heard in the news there is currently a funding crisis for physics. Among the consequences are a 25% cut of university astrophysics and particle physics research, and the UK withdrawal from major international research programmes. Not only will this severely impede world leading research, it sends a rather negative message to the much needed prospective physics students.
Further details can be found at the following links:Telegraph
Guardian
Recent MP debate
If you also think physics is a worthy cause please, please sign the following petition (by 18th February) to hopefully influence the government into reconsidering the STFC budget, pass the link on to anyone else you think may be interested, and write to your MP / local newspaper / etc.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Physics-Funding/
Many thanks,
rats.
We need t-shirts with "Save the Physicist" on.
Its not just physics feeling the pinch - the government have had their sticky fingers in the funding pot for all sciences....
How else do we fund the Olympics
A combination of reduced funding, more expensive science, and full-economic costing is killing everyone at the moment. A colleague of mine submitted 9 research grants last year and won 1. This person is a world leader in his field and has numerous publications in the top journals (including Nature Neuroscience & Science, etc). Nonetheless, he only won one grant and that was a small one for a piece of equipment.
I find this rather illogical, especially from a physicist. If there are cuts in funding, then clearly we don't need prospective physics students.Originally Posted by rats
As a physicist myself, I was appalled to learn that, for example, the University of Leeds has introduced a physics degree course for students with no qualifications in maths. Exactly what kind of physicists is that going to produce, and why do we need them?
Sorry, rats, but there are plenty of people in other fields who think that physics, particularly "big" physics and astronomy, has had far more than its fair share of funding over the years and that this move is just a sensible restructuring. The Higgs boson, dark matter etc., if they exist, are not going to go away and a few more years of more modest theoretical work might save us taxpayers huge bills on more vast pieces of equipment. There are more pressing needs, like world hunger, climate change etc. that are far cheaper to address than the next hypothetical fundamental particle. It's a bangs for bucks issue.
[Posted in the firm confidence that I will be roasted alive by most other posters. But someone's got to say it.]
Not quite a roasting but do you think it's right that long term studies should be put aside for the latest hot topic and would you be confident that they would be picked up again at a later date?
We have some solutions to world hunger, effective birth control and GM crops are two that spring directly to mind, both are resisted by a variety of groups, (who never have to worry about where their next meal is coming from). Instead we go to Organic food which is far less efficient in terms of yield and many nations are suffering from an obesity 'epidemic'
Global warming? I seem to see more of the oversized tanks 4x4s on the road everyday and how many of us twitch the thermostat up when the cold snaps hit?
Whilst I don't disagree that these things do need continuing work most people seem to be looking for a magic pill solution. They want some boffin to shout "A-ha!" and wave a magic wand to make the problem disappear rather than inconvenience themselves to change their lifestyle.
Except that Britain has very little to do with "big" physics anyway. Most of the things being canceled are much more relevant to everyone. For example, both proposals for the next light source have been turned down, and those would have been primarily for medical and life sciences research, as Diamond is now. Most university work has nothing to do with "big" physics either. It's about things like superconductors, fuel cells and various things that matter now. In addition, even ignoring any actual research, physics graduates are some of the most popular around for any job.
Finally, what exactly do you think your taxes are doing about world hunger anyway? The money taken from physics isn't going to help starving children or save the planet, it's going to help fund a few wars, and quite possibly to an utterly pointless manned space program. There is no "sensible restructuring" going on. It's simply taking money from useful research and throwing into big holes like Iraq.
I agree, Cuddles, that a much larger proportion of GDP needs to be spent on science and R&D in general - whatever happened to the Lisbon target of 5%? - and that incompetence like Iraq, farm subsidies and Northern Rock should not be allowed to divert funds away. I thought Diamond had just opened for business, so we don't need another one yet do we? I think my main gripe is with the super-duper-colliders, JRC facilities and similar large bits of kit which syphon off money before it even reaches the Research Councils.
These things don't get built in a day. The planning stages for Diamond would have started very soon after the SRS became operational, and it has only been built just as the SRS is being decommissioned. The same will be true for the next one. Diamond has a 25 lifetime (although admitedly these do tend to get extended), and it is likely to take at least 20 years to design and build its successor. Even if that weren't the case, why not have two light sources? They wouldn't be the same, so they would both be useful for different research. Also, light sources cost a lot less than the running costs would imply. Commercial and foreign users have to pay for their use, and academic users would have to pay if it weren't a public resource, so a lot of the cost is offset either by people paying or by other institutions not having to use up their own funding.
Which could be a reasonable argument except that, as I pointed out, very little money was going towards that sort of project anyway. The only thing in that category was the ILC. While it's a shame to pull out, I can't really complain because it looks likely that the whole project will be canceled anyway.I think my main gripe is with the super-duper-colliders, JRC facilities and similar large bits of kit which syphon off money before it even reaches the Research Councils.
In any case, you have to take the longer term view. I liked how someone on the JREF forum described it. Pure science is like a baby. It takes a lot of time and money and gives absolutely nothing in return. But then it grows up to be a productive member of society and pays back even more than was put in in the first place. Synchrotron light sources are a perfect example. Synchrotrons were invented solely for pure science, probing the structure of matter. Now, however, they are one of the most useful tools available in many different areas of science, and virtually every country with a serious science program has at least one. Sure, we don't know what projects like the LHC or ILC will grow up to be, but given that pretty much every baby has grown up to be something useful, it seems very odd to assume that the babies we have now will remain babies forever.
Which makes it seem all the sadder to me when the initial investment is made and then the plug is pulled just at the point when returns might be expected. I don't really know the implications of THIS, but it sounds like a complete misjudgement in funding decision-making to me.
The Olympics is going to kill a lot of funding over the coming years......watch out for it
So why not make physics an Olympic event?The Olympics is going to kill a lot of funding over the coming years......watch out for it
Like I said above (much earlier) - it's not just physics suffering.....
I may well be biased, but think physicists are useful and sought after in a very wide range of careers. Another point is the necessity of physics research itself.I find this rather illogical, especially from a physicist. If there are cuts in funding, then clearly we don't need prospective physics students.
As a physicist myself, I was appalled to learn that, for example, the University of Leeds has introduced a physics degree course for students with no qualifications in maths. Exactly what kind of physicists is that going to produce, and why do we need them?
I agree with your concerns with regard physics education, although perhaps Leeds is trying to attract more students in to their physics courses (to prevent department down-size, or even closure), and have accepted the extra maths tuition they will require.
Anyway, lots is happening on the STFC thing, though I doubt there will be serious changes - except perhaps better communication with the community.
Apologies for not returning sooner, I'm a bit rushed as stated in my 'welcome' post...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks