Reply to: And the decline continues

[Protagoras]

"This is how we did radio astronomy with bits of redundant battleship and old radar sets from WWII".

As an aside, for anyone interesting in old radar tech, I'd recommend a visit to https://www.radarmuseum.co.uk notwithstanding that the location is a bit remote!

It's an example of 'this is how we did defence' when defence spending was considered important.

[jamesbrown]

Thanks. I think it's just such an iconic site with amazing history, and has been maintained to remain current with evolving technology, that to face its closure feels like an own goal on the international science stage.

Yes, it's all of those things and it is, indeed, quite sad.

[ladymuck]

Thanks. I think it's just such an iconic site with amazing history, and has been maintained to remain current with evolving technology, that to face its closure feels like an own goal on the international science stage.

[DoctorStrangelove]

That's unnecessary, they already have more advanced technology!

It could form yet another UK 'heritage' attraction.

We've got plenty of sites showing 'this is how we did industry, defence, transport etc' ... this could be another 'this is how we did science' one.

"This is how we did radio astronomy with bits of redundant battleship and old radar sets from WWII".

I'm not sure anyone else used the same approach: it's Proper Engineering, is that, built like a brick tuliphouse except it's all in steel.

[jamesbrown]

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.

In the end, it's the same calculation. There's a funding envelope and hence an amount that need to be saved. The potential savings are enumerated and evaluated as part of a prioritisation strategy and a project is not cut simply because costs are escalating, rather that the costs have become too high for the benefits accrued, relative to other investments. There are always critical priorities and it just depends how challenging the funding envelope might be as to whether some of those are endangered, but clearly e-MERLIN (Jodrell Bank) was not a sufficiently high priority. It doesn't mean it wasn't valuable, even very valuable. An important part of the decision making is the international research context and whether a given investment helps our profile internationally and doesn't duplicate work that other institutes are better positioned to undertake. The prioritisation process that underpins this decision (e-MERLIN) can be found here:

https://www.ukri.org/publications/ex...-2026-to-2030/

[Protagoras]

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

That's unnecessary, they already have more advanced technology!

It could form yet another UK 'heritage' attraction.

We've got plenty of sites showing 'this is how we did industry, defence, transport etc' ... this could be another 'this is how we did science' one.

[DoctorStrangelove]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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