Comments on: Crisis, What Crisis?

By: Paul Crowther

Paul Crowther — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 21:38:50 +0000

Having listened again to the session, I have clarified a number of claims made at the NAM STFC Community forum at:

http://pacrowther.staff.shef.ac.uk/gemini_clarification.html

Drop me a line if you have robust evidence contradicting other claims. All I will add here is that for a research council head to blame Gemini Board (astronomers and representatives of funding agencies in US/Canada/Australia etc.) in public for the Gemini debacle, rather than admit their own failings in communciation, is disrespectful and ill-advised. Anyone who has served upon a telescope Board (I have) acts in the best interests of that observatory. Had I served on the Gemini Board and been in their position, I would have reached the same decision (to eject the UK) given the “untenable” position of STFC. It was the change in the UK position that led to the final outcome, which was welcome, but at the expense of our international reputation, not that of US/Canada/Australia.

By: Admin

Admin — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:02:05 +0000

Thanks to Robert Evans for the heads up: you can listen to the audio at http://tinyurl.com/6l55j8

By: Robert Ryans

Robert Ryans — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:57:32 +0000

Anyone who was not in Belfast (for shame!) can now download an MP3 of the entire STFC session from the NAM08 website.

By: Anna

Anna — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:46:14 +0000

It’s true that most of us are in science because we prefer to have interesting jobs, and so in that sense yes, we are not worried about earning lots of money. However nor should we have to worry about money - and having no job security adds another level of stress to what is already a precarious career path. I am sick and tired of hearing the more senior members of the profession make such patronising comments. We are highly educated professionals who have spent years training to be in this career - and to be told that I should not expect to be paid reasonably is frankly pitiful.

By: dave

dave — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:22:21 +0000

fEC is not new money, lets be entirely clear about this. fEC is the first stage in a process which ends up with complete separation (transparency) of funds for teaching and research. In which, if you have no fEC percentage you have no research time. In which if you have no research time, you have to fund your salary from July to September by teaching vocational courses. Apologies to those who do this already.

By: Chris Lintott’s Universe » NAM Final day : Distant Galaxies and plenty more interviews

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:36:24 +0000

[…] the funding crisis but wasn’t able to get to the meeting yesterday, then you’ll want this link to my report. For everyone else, there are plenty more news stories and interviews at the NAM […]

By: Rob Simpson

Rob Simpson — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:35:06 +0000

The comment about the student caring about money and being in science is a bit ridiculous. Why shouldn’t astronomy students and post docs ask such questions when we would quite possibly get paid more, with more security, in another job?

Scientists do need money, and so does science, as this whole session proves quite nicely.

Great post, sorry I couldn’t be there.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:14:24 +0000

I would like to straighten out one misconception that has been perpetuated here. Even with level cash funding, it is not true to say that we would have been in the same situation if the forced marriage between PPARC and CCLRC had not occurred. For one thing, CCLRC brought with it a “negative dowry” of costs that had not been fully budgeted under CCLRC, and remained so after the merger, creating a major strain on the new organization’s budget before it even started. For another, the new organization has many more fixed costs that are very difficult to reduce in the short term. Salaries for its thousands of employees, for example, cannot be easily reduced without going through the complex process of redundancy, which actually costs money in the short term. Such financial inertia will always make the only source of uncommitted funding, grants, the obvious target, and this problem is clearly exacerbated given the greater inertia of the new larger organization. It doesn’t take a PhD in rocket science to figure out that a 25% cut in grants is not in proportion to a £25M annual shortfall on a £500M budget.

However, I think it would be hopelessly counterproductive to start arguing that we should go back to PPARC. We would look like a bunch of whinging conservative scientists who argue against change and for the “good old days.” If you read the politicians take on the consultation about forming STFC, they believe (rightly or wrongly) that it was strongly supported by the community, and we would completely lack credibility to seek to reverse things. Also, the politicians are never going to make such a public 180 degree about face with the opposition mocking them every step of the way in the run up to an election. We need to look forward, not backward, but whatever structure we end up pushing for we need to make sure that it does not allow this imbalance between facilities and exploitation to persist.