Профиль

Juxtaposition of these two stories in my timeline seems highly ironic. If the UK can’t afford (or doesn’t want to) properly operate big facilities like Diamond which clearly support our industrial strategy, how can we even contemplate a multi billion share of a new particle accelerator?

After particle physics and astronomy, STFC's large facilities are next at risk for cuts: www.theguardian.com/education/20...

Maybe subscriptions were a foreign office responsibility at the time?

Maybe - I think it was more that PPARC science had big fixed costs in facilities like the royal observatories, ING and Hawaii telescopes, particle physics at RAL, and international subscriptions. EPSRC wanted none of this, just to run a grants programme using peer review panels and a lean staff.

There is absolutely no reason to transfer PPAN grants to EPSRC - especially right now, as the funding associated with any transfer would undoubtedly be at the planned reduced level and hence too low to sustain them properly. It would simply move the problem from one council to another within UKRI.

it certainly does "feel" like there has been an increase in vibes-based thinking over the last 5 years or so - some would blame social media for this, some would blame Covid. But maybe what's really happened is just that the particular "vibe" of trust-the-scientists has fallen out of favour?

Thanks Mike - and yes I have shared a copy with the Commons SITC @chionwurah.bsky.social

This is important and timely. It's easy to say "make decisions based on evidence not on vibes" but it's actually very hard to do. Agreeing with your friends' and colleagues' positions is a deep rooted human instinct; challenging them over lack of evidence isn't natural at all.

What is the "Drayson Partition", why was it created, and what was it guaranteeing? 👉@johnwomersley.bsky.social makes it clear to UKRI and STFC after they seem to have abandoned it. ⏪In case you missed it: particle physics, astronomy, and nuclear physics research are facing huge cuts in the UK...

#STFC @astroroyalscot.bsky.social @lucienheurtier.bsky.social

I just sent this letter to the Science Minister and the CEO of UKRI concerning STFC's budgets

Interesting, good to see - I'd be interested to know how its success will be evaluated and whether the messaging really addresses the "disconnect" problem

Bureaucracies have no reverse gear. UKRI spent the last year behind closed doors convincing themselves that while this is all terribly regrettable, there is no alternative. Now when asked to find another solution, they can only waffle in public - while digging their heels in behind the scenes.

Yes. Not one person, from the minister on down, has said that this is what they want to see happen. But no one seems to be willing or able to actually do anything about it.

Great book! I read it cover to cover in one day on the beach in Greece in 1986

but instead, we are told that this was not a strategic choice at all. Instead these research areas simply have the bad luck to be funded by a part of UKRI which is chronically unable to balance its budget - in completely different parts of its portfolio - and needs to learn to do so.

UKRI has a mandate to set strategic priorities, for sure. If anyone at UKRI had had the cojones to stand up and say that they were deprioritising particle physics and astronomy to allow spending in other areas to grow, they would have earned respect

No, apparently you just need to shut up and suck it up, because UKRI is “directionally correct:” bsky.app/profile/john...

I agree - US English doesn't make the distinction clear. From my experience people tend to say 'which' when in British English they should say 'that,' at least in science writing, perhaps because it sounds more educated

It helps me! To be honest, I don't remember ever being taught this in school. In the US the tendency is to over-use 'which' because it sounds more highbrow, so when I moved back to the UK I had to re-train myself in the correct British English usage