Scientists go to war with their funding council

A war broke out between researchers and executives of the main body donor who decides to support projects - and how

If you thought scientists were quiet guys who threw their coats over their heads at the first whiff of confrontation, try saying aloud five letters at a university near you this summer - EPSRC. The main chemical, physical and mathematical are at war with its main sponsor, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. They accuse the council of being disconnected from reality and experience arrogant, ignorant of science and promote science poor.

With public spending review is expected next year, and academics near Westminster warning that science can not be expected that the cushioning was given in Resolution 2010, rebellion is the origin of gravity waves. Ministers are said to be exasperated that exploded on the public scene and influential personalities, including Nobel laureate Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, fighting behind the scenes to encourage resolution.

The rector of the university research summarizes the wrath of a sector: .. "The EPSRC is a disaster, it is quite reasonable to have to take measures to cope with reduced funding is a concern, but much broader than lost contact with scientists. Aware of several examples Board staff saying that something is too important to be left to academics. "

It is not small. The advice given about 950 million pounds of funding for basic research chemists, physicists, mathematicians and engineers per year, becoming the biggest player in this field in the United Kingdom.

In the center of the controversy is the EPSRC development capacity ", which aims to redirect budget council in areas of excellence and national importance. In total, 14 of the 113 subjects of municipal funds were characterized by reduced funding, including synthetic organic chemistry and mathematical physics, with 17 areas marked for growth.

community was quick to mobilize their big guns when the first cuts were announced last summer. David Cameron has received a letter of 25 famous mathematicians slamming the "quango irresponsible", followed closely by other major names of 100 chemicals. In May this year, a group of academics from a hearse parked outside of parliament, to mourn the death of science in the hands of the EPSRC. And more protests on the cards.

However, they insist that it is not simple flouncing with reduced budgets.

Professor Tony Barrett, head of synthetic chemistry at Imperial College London and the head of the protest group science for the future, said that "unqualified" servants exercising Swindon business advice too much power. He is angry that no scientific societies adequately consulted on policy changes. "People who are happy to tell you that evaluators working for bureaucrats generally EPSRC seconds," he added.

Professor Tom Simpson, a senior chemist at the University of Bristol, agrees: "My feeling is that the board does not have much of an understanding of what actually happens at Research Why Why not ask the scientists.? have this term, "we informed the community." This means that "we have made a decision and then told everyone." It is not that consultation. "

Meanwhile, the head of a major university EPSRC describes how the staff tried to tell scientists very high level of what can be done in your search. "This is ridiculous, because they have no experience"

• Nurse, 2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, is more diplomatic than many of his peers have on society EPSRC. But he agrees that the body needs to prove that he is really listening to the researchers. "Valuing individual scientists in the coal mine is how to deliver what the public needs. Overall, I think you should leave the decisions on what to fund scientific practice rather than officials or senior people, like me, you've found it quite beyond. "
• Until now, there has been very little in the way of reconciliation EPSRC public. However, it is hoped that the new president, former Chief Executive Paul Golby energy company, may have a serious chance to unite the divided parts. Although sources close to Golby said he had no idea of ??how the conflict was cut when he accepted the position, sleeves rolled up and get stuck in.

As David Delpy, chief executive of the embattled board Golby said that a certain amount of pain was inevitable. "We are in a very difficult economic situation," he said, "and some people will always be resistant to change." But he said the board has done all things well. And was quietly going according to his key people - including some of the most vocal critics of the Council -. Trying to understand the problems in the laboratory

"You do not get to that level of noise without a few questions you need to watch," he said. "That original misunderstanding or problem is that I'm find out. "

a bone of contention is the Council's request that all scientists must demonstrate the potential impact of their research funding. While the research councils are theoretically independent of politicians, this follows a strong bull Treasury, which wants evidence of value for money. Gordon Brown urged the administration of this program is and is not canceled by the coalition.

Professor Christopher Moody, a chemical that leads to the University of Nottingham, said: "I have no problem with being held accountable, but we are asked to look into a crystal ball and say what the impact of this will be in 50 years. "It is not only reasonable. I worry about how much weight is on the actual quality of the science proposed against the declarations of national and economic impact."
Barrett is more explicit: "The impact obsession lead EPSRC to fund things that are weak and progressive, because you can not predict the outcome of basic research Either that or it will lead some scientists . simply telling lies. "

Find best price for : --Christopher----Golby----Swindon----College----Imperial----Tony----David----EPSRC----Nobel----Westminster--