Title: Developing STFCs Science and Technology strategy
1Developing STFCs Science and Technology strategy
- John Womersley
- Director, Science and Technology Strategy
- November 2007
2Outline
- Introduction to STFCs Science Strategy processes
- UK Large facilities roadmap and consultation
- Technology Strategy and Gateway Centres
- Comprehensive Spending Review 2007
3Who are we?
- The Council was created on April 1, 2007
- It is responsible for
- fundamental research in particle physics, nuclear
physics, astronomy, space - major UK facilities for the physical and life
sciences - synchrotrons, light sources, lasers, neutrons
- national laboratories at RAL, Daresbury, UKATC
- international science projects
- CERN, ESO, ESA, ILL, ESRF
- Over 2000 staff and an annual budget of over 700M
4The Science we Address
- Some examples
- Why is there a universe?
- What is the origin of mass?
- Was there ever life on Mars?
- How are the chemical elements created?
- How can we design better treatments for cancer?
- How do cells work?
- How can we create new materials to store energy?
5(No Transcript)
6 World Class Science
- Fund the best research, working for the UK as a
whole - Adventurous not solid
-
- Doing new things not doing the same thing
with smaller errors -
- Influencing a project not tagging along
-
- Focused on excellence not make sure we are
doing a bit of everything -
7Science strategy
- We are currently engaged in the process of
- Identifying and prioritising the scientific
opportunities likely to arise within the next
fifteen years or so, understanding the scientific
potential, the competitive context, the
technologies required for their success and an
estimate of the cost - Prioritising short to medium-term investment
projects in the context of funds available - Carrying out a programmatic review of current
projects and programmes -
8The strategy must
- Provide the guidebook for the councils detailed
investment plan - Which means it must
- Connect with our research communities and the
other research councils - Be clearly communicated and explained to staff
and stakeholders - Be an international strategy
- Be a people strategy, nurturing our core
competencies and skills - Integrate both science and technology
- Connect with plans for to develop the Harwell and
Daresbury sites as science and innovation
campuses
9In tres partes divisa est
Facilities In-house expertise
Science Strategy Team
Science Committees Peer Review
10Committees and peer review
Council
Science Board
Science Committees
PPAN1
PALS2
AGP
PPRP
ASTAB
GrantsPanels
PPGP
Accelerator Science and Technology Advisory Board
Projects PeerReview Panel(s)
NPGP
1 Particle Physics, Astronomy and Nuclear
Physics 2 Physical and Life Sciences
11STFC Science Board
- Professor Sir Peter Knight, Imperial College
(chair) - Professor Jenny Thomas, UCL (deputy chair)
- Professor Gabriel Aeppli, London Centre for
Nanotechnology - Professor John Ellis, CERN
- Professor Monica Grady, Open University
- Professor Matt Grifffin, University of Cardiff
- Professor Douglas Kell, University of Manchester
- Professor Tony Ryan, University of Sheffield
12PPAN science committee
- Professor Walter Gear, Cardiff (chair)
- Dr. Jordan Nash, IC/CERN (deputy chair)
- Dr. David Barnes, Aberystwyth
- Dr. Iain Bertram, Lancaster
- Professor Michael Bode, LJMU
- Professor Jonathan Butterworth, UCL
- Professor Yvonne Elsworth, Birmingham
- Professor Brian Fulton, York
- Professor Ruth Gregory, Durham
- Professor Sheila Rowan, Glasgow
13PALS science committee
- Professor Tim Wess, Cardiff (chair)
- Professor Chick Wilson, Glasgow (deputy Chair)
- Dr. Katherine Brown, Imperial College
- Professor Carole Goble, Manchester
- Professor Michael Gunn, Birmingham
- Professor Ken McKendrick, Herriott-Watt
- Professor Steven Rose, Imperial College
- Professor Phil Withers, Manchester
- Professor Paul Attfield, Edinburgh
- (vacancy)
14Links to communities
- An essential component
- Role was played in the past by PPARCs advisory
panels, with varying degree of success - PPAN and PALS committees have been charged to
come up with proposed mechanisms - Will try to make use of existing professional
societies and user groups where appropriate - In the meantime, please feel you can talk to us
or to the committee members
15Saying no
- Resources are limited
- We will need to say no to good science
- This is a real shame
- but we cant borrow (or print) money
- And if were going to say no
- Best to say no sooner
- Best to say no to whole projects
16Proteins or protons?
- How to compare projects in very different areas?
- Viki Weisskopfs diagram Physics Today, May
1967 - Good proposals lie at (or beyond) the boundary
- Goal is to push the boundary upwards and to the
right -
Intrinsic interest or Science Impact Longer term
payoff
1
2
4
3
External impact Short term payoff
17-
- Letter to The Times, August 27, 2007
-
- Sir, Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, says
the best science more and more depends on
international collaborations. No single nation
can stand alone successfully in its science
policy. (letters, August, 23). I couldnt agree
more. - What I would disagree with is his assertion that
UK policymakers are being driven by short-term
political concerns. The Government fully
recognises the importance of international
collaboration on scientific research. In fact,
recent figures show that nearly 40 per cent of UK
scientific output over the past five years
involved international collaboration a 50 per
cent increase compared with the previous five
years. - Britain has a proud tradition of excellence in
science and we must ensure that continues. We
need to be world class at both basic research and
translating the outcomes of that research.
However, there should be no suggestion that basic
research will suffer as a result of the drive to
achieve the more effective use of research for
Britain. That the Government has doubled science
spending in real terms in the last decade serves
as testament to our commitment to scientific
research. -
- JOHN DENHAM Secretary of State for Innovation,
Universities and Skills
18STFC criteria
- Scientific impact and timeliness
- Does it offer the potential for breakthroughs in
its area? - Economic impact
- Societal impact
- Education, outreach, training/skills, public
policy priorities - Level of UK leadership or UK impact
- Breadth of community served
- Risk
- Match with the views of other research councils
and communities - Coherence and synergy across programme
- does it enhance and/or exploit existing
facilities or subscriptions - does it exploit our unique capabilities and/or
skills base - match to DSIC/HSIC campus developments
- The European context, ESFRI
- The global context, US, India/China
19Large Facilities Roadmap
- Update on 2005 roadmap
- To include any projects that we may wish to fund
through the Large Facilities Capital Fund (as
before) - But also to include major projects funded through
the Councils base level of support,
subscriptions etc. - ? A broad view of research infrastructures
-
20STFC Projects
Diamond phase 3
Materials Innovation Institute
Sapphire
ISIS TS2 phase 3
21STFC Projects
4GLS
ESRF upgrade
Hartree Centre Computational Science
22STFC Projects
HIPER
ELI
Future neutron sources ESS/MW neutron source ILL
20/20 upgrade
DIPOLE laser
23STFC Projects
European ELT
Next generation Gravitational wave observatory
FAIR
SKA
24STFC Projects
International Linear Collider
LHC upgrades
Underground science Neutrinos, dark matter
Neutrino factory
25How did we get this list?
- Drawn from
- ESFRI roadmap
- Roadmaps of the European particle physics,
astronomy and particle astrophysics communities - PPARC and CCLRC roadmaps
- Facility user communities, UK nuclear physics
community
26Guiding principles
- Facilities should match our core businesses and
benefit from our technology or skills base - Should be large
- i.e. capital contribution of order 25M or more
- Should have significant UK community interest
27Community input
- Roadmap consultation period started early
November - The roadmap and invitation for input are at
- http//www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/resinfra/lfroadmap
.htm - Comments are solicited both on the projects in
the draft roadmap and those that the community
might wish to see added - Deadline is mid January, but sooner is better
28Large Facilities Capital Fund
- UK government funding mechanism for large
capital-intensive facilities - 100M/year
- Research councils are to agree their priorities
and present them to government by end of year - Financial flexibility is limited until 2010,
but the CSR07 settlement mentions the possibility
of significant increase in the fund if the
quality of projects merits it
29UK Light Source Review
- International review committee to give strategic
advice on future provision of light sources and
high power lasers - Murray Gibson (ANL, Chair), Jerry Hastings
(SLAC), Yves Petroff, Wolfgang Sandner (Max Born
Inst.) - Met in London July 17-18
- Presentations from broad spectrum of the user
community and from project proponents - Diamond and Sapphire
- CLF and upgrade plans
- XFEL and FLASH
- ESRF and upgrade plans
- 4GLS, ERLP and SRS
- Thoughtful committee, very useful discussions
30Recommendations
- In the Panels view in many respects the UK is in
excellent shape - a strong record in light source science
- a strong diverse research community
- many innovative accelerator and detector
concepts - Diamond is demonstrating enormous potential
- The Panel expressed very serious reservations
about the 4GLS and Sapphire projects as currently
proposed - However the Panel clearly stated that if we
harness our expertise in the field there is a
real opportunity for the UK to develop a
world-class facility and to propel us to
European leadership
31Next Steps
- We are not putting forward either 4GLS or
Sapphire projects to the Large Facilities Capital
Fund instead, we are pressing the reset button - We are instituting a new project to deliver a
proposal for a Next Light Source - Project needs to be focused on the key science
drivers start by identifying these science
drivers and how to address them, in conjunction
with the community - We want a proposal ready for consideration by
late summer 2009 - We are taking this forward within a new Photon
Sciences Department in STFC
32XFEL
- Project launched on 5th June
- This means DESY is now authorised to spend
- XFEL GmbH to be set up by end of year
- Our goal is to maximise our in-kind contributions
within the 30M already allocated in LFCF - Pixel detector, streak camera
33Technology strategy
34STFC and Technology
- STFCs facilities and science programmes drive
the development of cutting edge technologies - Sensors and instrumentation
- Advanced materials
- Computing
- Engineering and space technology
- STFCs capabilities enable technology
development by industry and HEI researchers - Imaging
- Simulation and modelling
- Access to facilities
- Campuses as focal points for collaboration with
industry and HEIs
35- STFC spends gt 20M per year on technology
development -
- Generates gt 100M per year in industrial
technology spending - We plan to work with the Technology Strategy
Board - to strengthen ties to industry
- to apply our technology base to major challenges
36Applications of STFCs capabilities
37Applications of STFCs capabilities
Space technology centre
Work with TSB - e.g. Innovation Platforms
programme Expand technology partnerships programme
38Technology Gateway Centres
- Joint Institute for Materials Design
integrating materials innovation with advanced
characterization - Imaging Solutions Centre transforming
facilities access into solutions access - Detector Systems Centre - delivering advanced
detector technology - Hartree Centre a step-change in simulation and
modelling capabilities for strategic research - Space centre a new space centre for the UK
- Serve as focal points for collaboration, linking
laboratories, universities and industry - Technology Strategy Board, other RCs and RDAs
39Accelerators
- Accelerator technology is a key enabler across a
large fraction of our research - Particle and nuclear physics
- Synchrotrons and free electron light sources
- Neutron sources
- Accelerator Science and Technology Advisory Board
- set up by CCLRC, will continue to advise STFC
- International membership, chair Steve Myers
(CERN) - Gives advice on strategic direction
- Meeting in October and December 2007
- Cockcroft and John Adams Institutes
40Comprehensive Spending Review 2007
412007 Spending Review
- At its meeting on 2 November STFC Council
considered its CSR07 settlement. The settlement
contained an increase for full economic cost and
support for the costs associated with the closure
of the SRS, otherwise it represented an
essentially flat cash allocation. - While the settlement will enable the Council to
pursue much of our planned programme, the costs
of running the STFC will increase not just with
inflation but also due to the increased costs of
operating some new major facilities. The
consequence is that with other minor adjustments
the STFC is looking at a deficit of about 80m in
its existing programme over the CSR period.
42- In moving forward the Council reaffirmed that its
strategy will continue to be guided by four key
principles which it believes are at the heart of
its mission and the rationale for creating the
Council. They are - the highest quality science and technology
- a healthy and vibrant university community
- international impact and credibility
- increased economic impact particularly through
the development of the Harwell and Daresbury
Science and Innovation Campuses
43- Council also reaffirmed that a major
restructuring of its activities is necessary - Given the settlement this process of
restructuring will now be accelerated. Some tough
decisions will have to be made and in some cases
relatively quickly. The Council has asked the
executive to come forward with detailed plans in
consultation with its Science Board and the PALS
and PPAN Committees. - Council recognises that the restructuring of our
activities will impact on both our research
community and our staff but believes it will put
us on a stronger footing for the future. - We will aim to reach decisions and remove
uncertainty as soon as is possible.
44- At its meeting on November 21, Council considered
such a plan - Details are presently embargoed
- Some free advice
- Fasten your seatbelts, turbulence ahead
- Wait till you see the whole picture before
reacting - When the wagons are circled, remember to shoot
outwards
45Closing remarks
46Per ardua
- Our long-term ability to generate more support
depends on more than just good science. We must
also show that - we can plan
- we can prioritise
- we can deliver
- we can stop things (even when they are good)
- we can be imaginative
- we can do more
- we are relevant (economic impact, society,
education) - This is what the Science and Technology
Strategywill aim to do
47 ad astra
- The future is not short of challenges
- If they are to be addressed, we will need to
harness - science
- technology
- innovation
- and the enthusiasm and dedication of people like
you - More ambition, more excellence
- Lets see just how good we can be
48- Questions, comments?
- Your input is welcome
- john.womersley_at_stfc.ac.uk
- 01793 442622
49Keith Mason presentation to SUPA
- We are ambitious to foster a new generation of
research leaders who can increase our science
impact - We are ambitious to increase substantially our
RD investment consistent with our strategy and
priorities (the scale of this investment and rate
of ramp-up will depend on CSR07) - We are looking for opportunities to base more
European capability in the UK. - What is the best model for us to engage with
Scottish universities, Scottish Enterprise and
the SFC on the Knowledge Exchange agenda? Could
a tripole form an element of such a model?
UK ATC
Daresbury
Campus Dipole
Campus Tripole?
Harwell