Sunday, 14 February 2010
Celebrity Nuclear Physicist
Since this is a nuclear physics blog, I think it's definitely on-topic to mention that Jim Al-Khalili, theoretical nuclear physicist and colleague of mine at the University of Surrey, was the guest on Desert Island Discs this morning. If you missed it, you can still listen for the next twelve days. He talks a bit about his personal life, and a bit about science, but the most controversial thing he said was that no good music came from the 1980s. I've pointed out this basic error in his thinking before, so I don't know why he would repeat it on Radio 4 ;-)
Monday, 1 February 2010
Labour's ambitions
A recent article in Policy Review by David Lammy makes uncomfortable reading for the future of Science funding in particular, and UK universities in general.
I don't think it's a misinterpretation of the article to conclude that the minister's position is that
I wish it were a misinterpretation, though.
I don't think it's a misinterpretation of the article to conclude that the minister's position is that
- Britain's position in the world is declining. The standard of its universities is linked to its position in the world. Its universities are currently disproportionately good and should be less good.
- Expensive-to-run courses (specifically "medicine, engineering and the natural sciences") will be cut by many universities, because they need too much money to run, and no-one wants to fund them, including the government.
- The ambition of most universities is too lofty - to be universal in what subjects they offer, and doing blue-skies research that does not directly attract private funding is not commensurate with the government ambition for UK universities.
I wish it were a misinterpretation, though.
Monday, 25 January 2010
Missing the "subcritical" point
The Ion Report warned that further cuts in STFC's support for nuclear physics could make it "subcritical." According to a report in today's Research Day (needs a subscription) Lord Drayson said that this point was dismissed because international collaborations are independent of each other and "withdrawing from some does not adversely affect the others."
That is missing the point of what the Ion report said. Without the critical mass in size of UK community, we are not able to provide the broad student training, to run summer schools, the national conference, the vibrant MSc and specialist undergraduate programmes or the specialist training and advice to industry, to law, to journalists and the media. Without adequate funding, people are lost, and along with them the bright PhDs who go off to work in nuclear engineering and industry. Yes, the projects STFC have pulled out of will largely continue, albeit without some UK expertise, but the survival of the nuclear physics community in the UK, which is small by international standards, but packs quite a punch, risks falling apart, and with it, all the added value that it brings to our moderately ambitious country.
That is missing the point of what the Ion report said. Without the critical mass in size of UK community, we are not able to provide the broad student training, to run summer schools, the national conference, the vibrant MSc and specialist undergraduate programmes or the specialist training and advice to industry, to law, to journalists and the media. Without adequate funding, people are lost, and along with them the bright PhDs who go off to work in nuclear engineering and industry. Yes, the projects STFC have pulled out of will largely continue, albeit without some UK expertise, but the survival of the nuclear physics community in the UK, which is small by international standards, but packs quite a punch, risks falling apart, and with it, all the added value that it brings to our moderately ambitious country.
Thursday, 14 January 2010
Doomsday update
Sometimes, when people ask what I do and I tell them that I'm a nuclear physicist, they look a bit amazed and ask me if I make weapons. It's not terribly surprising since, of all the many uses that nuclear physics has been used to, weapons are the one that has made most impact on culture. Though there are lots of other interesting (and more positive uses) of nuclear physics, weapons will probably always be the most iconic one, and by association, I will have to get used to being vaguely associated with them.
I sort of feel that I came to nuclear physics too late to really be associated with weapons, and I sometimes forget what a powerful influence the threat of nuclear war and nuclear weapons had on the generation before mine. I even spent my first postdoc in Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which was built for the atom bomb project, and visited the museums... but I've never really felt too associated with weapons, though I find the history fascinating. One of the almost romantic hangovers from the cold war era is the Doomsday clock. It was set up by a group of nuclear scientists worried about the problems of the weapons that they created. It perpetually points at a time close to midnight to represent the danger the world is under from threats so serious (originally and particularly nuclear war) that it could spell "doomsday". The clock still exists, and today it was moved back one minute to be 6 minutes from midnight, reflecting an improvement in the global situation, as judged by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. I guess that's good news... and the announcement, which mentions climate change in conjunction with nuclear proliferation, suggests that the era of nuclear war as the primary (perceived) threat to civilisation is over, and we have a new enemy.
I sort of feel that I came to nuclear physics too late to really be associated with weapons, and I sometimes forget what a powerful influence the threat of nuclear war and nuclear weapons had on the generation before mine. I even spent my first postdoc in Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which was built for the atom bomb project, and visited the museums... but I've never really felt too associated with weapons, though I find the history fascinating. One of the almost romantic hangovers from the cold war era is the Doomsday clock. It was set up by a group of nuclear scientists worried about the problems of the weapons that they created. It perpetually points at a time close to midnight to represent the danger the world is under from threats so serious (originally and particularly nuclear war) that it could spell "doomsday". The clock still exists, and today it was moved back one minute to be 6 minutes from midnight, reflecting an improvement in the global situation, as judged by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. I guess that's good news... and the announcement, which mentions climate change in conjunction with nuclear proliferation, suggests that the era of nuclear war as the primary (perceived) threat to civilisation is over, and we have a new enemy.
Thursday, 7 January 2010
Funding cuts - update
So, as mentioned before Christmas, nuclear physicists were awaiting news of potential funding cuts that would come as a result of a shortage of money at the funding counil, STFC. We were worried that, of all the areas STFC fund, nuclear physics would face disproportionately higher cuts. We were right. I could have (perhaps should have) been blogging about this daily - it's too late to do a complete summary now, but my colleague Niels at Manchester has set up an excellent website summarising much of the information about the cuts and the response to it, and I suggest looking there for more comprehensive information.
This afternoon, I happened to look at a Twitter feed not long after STFC tweeted that their director of science programs had just had an op-ed published in New Scientist. It was something that deserved comment - and it's got it. Take a look (my comment is by user "drpdstevenson" since I logged in with my AIM credentials)
This afternoon, I happened to look at a Twitter feed not long after STFC tweeted that their director of science programs had just had an op-ed published in New Scientist. It was something that deserved comment - and it's got it. Take a look (my comment is by user "drpdstevenson" since I logged in with my AIM credentials)
Friday, 18 December 2009
Dark Matter - Detected?
Stealing a march on the LHC, it seems that groups looking for Dark Matter in a low-background experiment in a copper mine in the States may be about to announce the detection of dark matter. I noticed the story a day too late to put it in my particle physics course...
Monday, 14 December 2009
Interesting days ahead
It can't have escaped many people's attention that there is a serious worldwide financial crisis going on. There have been innumerable reports in the news about forthcoming cuts, even before the recent pre-budget report.
It would be nice to try to place the financial responsibility of recovering from the crisis on the banking sector, which was largely responsible for the problems, but the time for that is long past. They have been bailed out and the City shown up as not the contributor to tax revenue it has liked to claim but a drain of historic proportions. This leaves the rest of the economy to figure out how to keep going. Whole countries are at peril of defaulting; Iceland a few months ago, and Greece in the news today.
Now it's the task of the rest of the UK economy to recover from the debts we've incurred. Science funding will take its part alongside everything else, as it must. I'm a nuclear physicist (hence the purpose of this blog) and nuclear physics will no-doubt be part of the cuts, of course. There is a fear in the nuclear physics community that (university) nuclear physics may be cut from the budget outright. A recent story in the Guardian quoting my colleague Jim Al-Khalili highlights some of the issues. You might well expect me, as a nuclear physicist, to say that funding in academic nuclear physics should be increased, rather than cut, because my job depends on it. In truth, my job doesn't - at least I hope the University of Surrey would give me support and a little time to make headway into other research areas - or if not, the skills that working in nuclear physics have given me would make me pretty employable. But the UK funding of Nuclear Physics is embarrassingly small by the standards of competitor countries, yet it was just judged in an independent review as high quality despite at a scale below OECD norms. It really is at such a low level that to cut it a bit is to essentially get rid of it. It may be that we can do without it, despite having plans to increase nuclear power to counter global warming. We can always buy the expertise in from elsewhere if we think that's right for the UK, but I can't really believe that cutting science that we'll then have to buy from outside can be cost-effective. I rather fear we'll find out pretty soon.
Expect announcements in the next few days.
It would be nice to try to place the financial responsibility of recovering from the crisis on the banking sector, which was largely responsible for the problems, but the time for that is long past. They have been bailed out and the City shown up as not the contributor to tax revenue it has liked to claim but a drain of historic proportions. This leaves the rest of the economy to figure out how to keep going. Whole countries are at peril of defaulting; Iceland a few months ago, and Greece in the news today.
Now it's the task of the rest of the UK economy to recover from the debts we've incurred. Science funding will take its part alongside everything else, as it must. I'm a nuclear physicist (hence the purpose of this blog) and nuclear physics will no-doubt be part of the cuts, of course. There is a fear in the nuclear physics community that (university) nuclear physics may be cut from the budget outright. A recent story in the Guardian quoting my colleague Jim Al-Khalili highlights some of the issues. You might well expect me, as a nuclear physicist, to say that funding in academic nuclear physics should be increased, rather than cut, because my job depends on it. In truth, my job doesn't - at least I hope the University of Surrey would give me support and a little time to make headway into other research areas - or if not, the skills that working in nuclear physics have given me would make me pretty employable. But the UK funding of Nuclear Physics is embarrassingly small by the standards of competitor countries, yet it was just judged in an independent review as high quality despite at a scale below OECD norms. It really is at such a low level that to cut it a bit is to essentially get rid of it. It may be that we can do without it, despite having plans to increase nuclear power to counter global warming. We can always buy the expertise in from elsewhere if we think that's right for the UK, but I can't really believe that cutting science that we'll then have to buy from outside can be cost-effective. I rather fear we'll find out pretty soon.
Expect announcements in the next few days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)