Comments and Letters
This page contains general Comments, and Letters and Responses to representatives and decision makers – and can also be used to suggest/coordinate further actions.
- IoP: The Sunday Times, CERN and STFC (05 October 2009)
- Response to Science and Technology Facilities Council 2009-10 Budget, Dr Robert Kirkby-Harris, IoP Chief Executive (25 June 2009)
- Letter from Prof Des McMorrow to Chair of STFC Council (25 June 2009)
- Letter from FAP Chairs to Chair of STFC Council (10 June 2009)
October 5, 2009 at 10:22 am |
Bonjour,
I’m a French scientist working at the ILL (Institut Laue-Langevin) in Grenoble, France. I’m pleased to learn that an additional 30 days of ISIS beamtime has been made possible — this measure will help assure continuity in the European neutron user base during the long ILL shutdown (6 months until next June).
I had been very surprised before to learn that only a relatively “small” funding increase of a few percent for the operations budget would have been needed to increase dramatically the amount of beamtime, and therefore scientific production, of ISIS. Such a situation went contrary to my experience, since I usually observed high-level funding decision makers to “jump at the chance” of spending only a little more money in order to receive much more production in return. In French we say “c’est un manque a gagner!”.
Bien cordialement,
– Henry Fischer
February 9, 2010 at 9:54 am |
It is ironic that after the Institute of Physics’ condemnation of the STFC’s lack of consultation http://www.iop.org/Media/Press%20Releases/2008/press_29588.html we now see their recent recommendations to Lord Drayson’s which I am informed was written by only ~ three people, none of whom were from the neutron or X-ray communities. Although I am sure that the people who wrote it were well intentioned they clearly do not understand the needs of the users of the central facilities. Apart from anything else separating the ILL and ESRF from their partner organisations ISIS and Diamond makes little sense.
The recent IOP survey shows that the large majority of the physics community in the UK is working on condensed matter in one form or another, and it is about time that the IOP wakes up to this reality and begins to consult and represent the UK physics community properly. I know for a fact that it will have lost members and reviewers over this incident and risks making the Institution even less representative then it is currently.
Jimmy
February 9, 2010 at 11:39 am |
[...] Comment [...]