And the decline continues

[ladymuck]

Maybe the UK has better capabilities at other sites, and this is all hyperbole. On the face of it, it looks to me like further evidence that the UK is eroding its place as a centre of excellence for science.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y6r9rdxygo

The Jodrell Bank Observatory, which has housed the UK's largest telescope for nearly 70 years, has lost its funding and could now close, the BBC understands.

The observatory and its network of telescopes have been pivotal to the country's study of distant galaxies and training future astronomers. Scientists have described the decision as "heartbreaking" and "scientifically misguided".

All scientific observations at Jodrell are expected to cease on the 1 April 2028 unless alternative funding can be found.

The funding body, the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) agency, said it had to focus investment on projects that deliver "the greatest long-term impact".
...

[malvolio]

Unbelievable. Another quango forgetting its raison d'etre..

[jamesbrown]

I would bear in mind that these funding priorities are set by domain experts (i.e., career academics/researchers from the relevant domains), so it's more about the overall funding envelope (lack thereof) than any particular decision being made in an arbitrary way by some "forgetful quango". That said, there's sometimes an element of politics to these decisions - selected/visible funding cuts can bring public attention, which may be helpful for the overall funding envelope in future. Tbh, though, it's quite likely that this project simply isn't delivering enough for the funding available when compared to other projects/priorities. The decline is a more general one in that regard, i.e., insufficient funding of scientific research more generally.

[malvolio]

I would bear in mind that these funding priorities are set by domain experts (i.e., career academics/researchers from the relevant domains), so it's more about the overall funding envelope (lack thereof) than any particular decision being made in an arbitrary way by some "forgetful quango". That said, there's sometimes an element of politics to these decisions - selected/visible funding cuts can bring public attention, which may be helpful for the overall funding envelope in future. Tbh, though, it's quite likely that this project simply isn't delivering enough for the funding available when compared to other projects/priorities. The decline is a more general one in that regard, i.e., insufficient funding of scientific research more generally.

But this is equally likely a case of costing the direct research done by Jodrell Bank in radio astronomy and disregarding the positive impact the presence of such a famous facility has in attracting generations of scientists working in the field.

And the monetary savings from this cancellation are minuscule - £2.8m out of he agency's £10bn budget, a shade over 10% of the agency's overall planned cuts pf £27m (or 2.7% of its total budget).

It's the old cost vs value argument once more.

[jamesbrown]

But this is equally likely a case of costing the direct research done by Jodrell Bank in radio astronomy and disregarding the positive impact the presence of such a famous facility has in attracting generations of scientists working in the field.

And the monetary savings from this cancellation are minuscule - £2.8m out of he agency's £10bn budget, a shade over 10% of the agency's overall planned cuts pf £27m (or 2.7% of its total budget).

It's the old cost vs value argument once more.

It isn't £2.8m out of £10bn, the £10bn is the total funding across all research areas/councils in 2029/30 (UKRI is composed of many research councils), but this is within one funding area/council and the £2.8m is the current operating cost (which is increasing). Details aside, my point here is that the people who decide which things to cut are (representative of) the best people to make those decisions, they are not "faceless quangocrats", they are domain experts that weigh the value of this research against other research, given the funding envelope imposed and the constraints on what they can consider. They are not politicians.

The problem stems from the lack of research funding more generally, so it is fair to question the gov't (successive govt's, actually) about research funding. I sympathise with your argument about the real value vs. the narrow value, but these bureaucracies (UKRI and the councils who distribute funds in specific subject areas) are given a fixed funding envelope and a mandate for distributing funds based on the research value of that funding, that is their remit, so you cannot seriously blame the quango, except on the specific details (which you don't have) about how this stacks up against other priorities in the same funded area.

[jamesbrown]

Oh, and you could perhaps blame them for either being ignorant of the political consequences of funding choices or perhaps "clever" about those political realities. I have been involved in these sort of funding decisions in my own area of research and, while decisions are based on cost vs. outcomes, you can have a side eye on exposing the realities of funding choices.

[malvolio]

It isn't £2.8m out of £10bn, the £10bn is the total funding across all research areas/councils in 2029/30 (UKRI is composed of many research councils), but this is within one funding area/council and the £2.8m is the current operating cost (which is increasing). Details aside, my point here is that the people who decide which things to cut are (representative of) the best people to make those decisions, they are not "faceless quangocrats", they are domain experts that weigh the value of this research against other research, given the funding envelope imposed and the constraints on what they can consider. They are not politicians.

The problem stems from the lack of research funding more generally, so it is fair to question the gov't (successive govt's, actually) about research funding. I sympathise with your argument about the real value vs. the narrow value, but these bureaucracies (UKRI and the councils who distribute funds in specific subject areas) are given a fixed funding envelope and a mandate for distributing funds based on the research value of that funding, that is their remit, so you cannot seriously blame the quango, except on the specific details (which you don't have) about how this stacks up against other priorities in the same funded area.

Interesting insight, thanks.

But as you say the problem is further up the chain of command. Ultimately it will rest with the Minister and how effectively they challenge HMT for money across their Departmental remit. Given we seem to have given up having any kind of expertise at Ministerial* level for several years now, it's not surprising such poor decisions get made.




*From my own experience, several Ministers for Health have awarded pay rises to Doctors and Nurses. Nothing even remotely the same level has gone to the clinical services without which doctors and nurses could function, and many of whom are at least as clinically experienced and qualified as most consultants. Their pay is a fraction of the people they support. I have never heard a Minister talk about them - the NHS only contains doctors or nurses as far as they are concerned.

[jamesbrown]

Yes, further up the chain. The extent to which the relevant MoS is made aware of specific decisions like this is a grey area, although it is implausible that the MoS would not have been aware in this particular instance via a "red risk" register, since this is a prominent landmark and UNESCO World Heritage site. It's possible that someone dropped a ball in the transition with the recent reshuffle, but doubtful. They would generally be given a heads up about decisions that are considered likely to generate political controversy, as a courtesy, but the actual decisions are operational decisions, made by the funding body without political oversight, just largely dictated by the funding envelope and their mandate. Such decisions do not happen overnight, they are based on weeks, even months of deliberation.

[ladymuck]

I have now read similar stories across the Guardian and Torygraph, commenting on the closure of this and withdrawal of other funding for science research. Apparently the high cost of electricity, exchange rates for international collaboration (such as CERN), and other rising costs are to blame.

So it's not that there's something better but more that something has to go to balance the books. Absolutely gutting really.

[DoctorStrangelove]

Can we sell it to the Chinese? Askin' for a friend. .