大象传媒

Much as Jodrell Bank was the icon of British science in the days of the space race (aka the Cold War taken somewhere less dangerous), once the government had decided to scrap rocket development, and before Concorde and micro-electronics arrived on the scene, it hasn't been for a long time now. It would be a shame if it had to close (does it cost so much and attract so few students?) but the subjects that pull people into science now, and will have huge benefits for much of humanity in a very short term, are computer programming, and around genomics, for which the Wellcome Trust funded Sanger Centre near Cambridge is truly in the highest echelons. There's just not quite so much to see as that huge dish in the flat Cheshire countryside, but the careful scientific work, pushing forward the cutting edge and rigorously reported is vastly greater in quantity that the huge body done in its field by the radio telescope. Climate related science, including non-carbon power and atmospheric carbon retrieval will be a huge too, soon, and we need money to be available, and brains of the scientific bent, ready for that.

Its such a shame that, whilst in Jodrell Bank's time, the media put out dramas full of excitement at what might be found in the skies, genetics, computing and the environment have mostly been given stupid scary tales of evil clones, computer viruses and paedophile users, superstition, nuclear meltdown and mad scientists - none of them something to attract the right students to science. Indeed with so much societal concentration on celebrities (which scientists can rarely ever be, having too much work to do) and appearance, the derision fostered by those stupid images from third-rate dramatists and journalists is highly counter-productive.

Newsnight's economics panel gets another outing? A second gig for Lawson this week? Another chance for him to "sell us short"? Does anyone on Newsnight realise how money can be made by the wealthy from promoting economic melt-down that hurts everyone else? Did anyone there read about the traders who sold RBS/Halifax short and sucked hundreds of millions into their pockets from pension funds and similar investors in a few days? Don't you realise that can be done on a wider scale by talking down currencies or whole economies? Why are you helping with that?

Oh, and could you ask your moderators not to make us look foolish by putting up multiple copies of comments when we are having so much difficulty getting anything past the '502 Error' fault in your system, which sometimes means a comment got through, but mostly means it didn't. Let's see how this one fares.

Does Rupert Murdoch not have enough outlets for his views without you inviting his spokesman on to talk about economics so often?

On tonight's program Newsnight's "in-house financial expert" claimed that a 5% chance of a major bank going bust was 20/1 in betting terms. In fact it is 10/1, assuming 50% is evens in betting terms.

Why not have a truly alternative view of the source of the troubles and potential solutions. To introduce Irwin Steltzer as a champion of the free market is a joke. The same could be said for any economist that sees a central bank as having a positive role to play in the economic landscape. I propose Newsnight interviews a proponent of the Austrian school of economics to receive some insight on how central banks actually distort free markets and represent a form of central planning. They could then go on to explain how the central banks create currency from thin air thus devaluing each and every one of our hard earned savings. Indeed this creation of money is the source of inflation. I've just touched on two insights that the Austrian perspective can shed on modern economics. If you read further into it I would expect many to experience something akin to a light bulb being switched on above one's head!

I attended the STFC community meeting in Belfast and am pleased Susan Watts has chosen to focus attention on John Womersley's inadequate response to the aspiring physics student. In addition to this gaff about scientists not going into science for the money, the subsequent panel member described exciting projects planned in 10 to 15 years time and told the young man to 'work to make a name for himself' so as to be able to join in these experiments. These replies are not only patronizing, they completely miss the point of the student's question.

Students entering a career in physics or astronomy today know too well that they will earn far less for their unique skills in academia than they would in industry. They know they face the personal and professional strain of securing a string of 2 to 3 year postdoctoral positions, and will be expected to move around the country or around the world to do so. And they know that, regardless of their devotion to science research, only 1 in 4 PhD scientists in their field can hope to obtain a permanent academic research post in the UK.

Over the last six months, STFC, in response to the Government's budget, have decided to discontinue previously agreed funding lines which support major research facilities and projects. At the same time, they are reducing the number of early-career postdoctoral positions which can be offered in the UK. These sudden cuts to the UK research programme were not portrayed by the panel in Belfast as an organizational blunder but rather as regrettable but inevitable consequences of business as usual.

What the student in Belfast was asking, I believe, was how, given the complete lack of accountability evidenced by the STFC and Government response to this crisis, an aspiring scientist could judge that the known sacrifices of an academic career were worth the risk.

How dare Susan Watt refere to Jodrell Bank as "near Manchester". Jodrell Bank, one of the prides of CHESHIRE, is in the heart of CHESHIRE and as close to Chester - our capital city - as it is to Manchester in Lancashire. Does Susan Watt need a lesson in geography or is Cheshire below mention?

i worked as a consultant to the Particle Physics Research Council in the late 90s and discovered something very important about this area of scientific education that goes beyond the exact field of astronomy or physics. The range of skills and analysis that those involved with this area of science have as second nature, is highly desired to so many sectors of our economy. These are the rocket scientists that the City, industry and the public sector so heavily court with great potential salaries. These are the elite in terms of leading thinking, of owning the future of economic development and being trained to understand the complexities of the world we live in.
The best physicists and astronomers stay in the sector at lowish pay for their skills, loving the world that they are in, those who are good but not the best go into 6 figure salaried jobs in the City. This is an area of science that it totally transferable and it is crazy to do anything but support it to the full.
It is not just the literal science sometimes that matters - it is the training of the analysis and the training of curiosity that matters. Why therefore is he cutting any funding to this exciting and world class field of science. We currently excel in this field and can build a core of highly educated, highly motivated and highly valuable contributors to our economy.
We need more investment not less...

Laura Sandys
Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for South Thanet

Why is it that the secretary of state for science and innovation has a degree in PPE and that no-one at the 大象传媒 seems to have questioned this? Sensible,far reaching decisions on science funding are not going to happen in this situation, and make the current TV adverts for physics teachers a little bit of a waste of time.

Support your local observatories too!

Unfortunately I feel that Jenny's comments display a certain lack of understanding. Jodrell Bank is still at the forefront of radio astronomy, it's not some sort of ancient monument to a better time but a scientific outpost still pushing forward the boundaries of our knowledge. The choice made by an international consortium to base the headquarters for the square kilometre array there, is an excellent demonstration of this.

I do agree with her comments about the media, perhaps if more results were published from Jodrell Bank, or if Astronomers were given a wider field for outreach then she wouldn't see it as such a pointless project.

For thousands of primary school children who live nearby, the dish of the Lovell telescope is the one obvious symbol of British science around and the one most likely to fire their imaginations. I speak here from experience. Even if they never study astronomy but still find an interest in science is this not the important thing?

The funding crisis isn't just about Jodrell Bank. It's about losing 18 other projects and the people who work on them. These people won't automatically re-train to a more immediately useful science, this is what they love doing! They'll just go and work elsewhere in the world. There are many scientific projects in all areas which deserve funding, and although astronomy doesn't seem to give immediate benefits there are numerous examples where it has. Perhaps scientists should be supporting one another, instead of putting everyone else's subject areas down in favour of their own.

Unfortunately for this Government and the quango that funds physical science, it is very difficult to predict which line of pure research will result in future economic benefit to the country. Naturally as scientists we must demonstrate that the avenues we pursue are worthy of attention, not on the grounds of economic merit but instead on that of good science. Such a process is peer reviewed, but it is also essential that the public (who ultimately pay for this work) understand the merits of such lines of research. As a community engaged in pure blue skies research we must demonstrate through past successes and future possibilities why our activities are essential ingredients for this country鈥檚 future standing on the world stage.

Of course not all major discoveries will have an economic impact on their own. For example the discoveries of the W and Z boson or top quark are all fundamental to understanding the structure of the universe and yet one cannot easily claim of any direct economic benefit from knowing the mass or existence of these particles. However the pursuit of these particles, necessitated scientists to create a means of communication to transfer data known as the world wide web, which is now set to dominate commerce and advertising in the 21st century. Alternatively when Bose and Einstein pointed out that light can be amplified through quantum mechanical effects, little attention was paid to their remarks. Even 40 years later, when the LASER was first realised in the lab, it was described as a device looking for an application. Yet now the LASER industry is valued in the billions with countless applications.

The government is extremely naive if it thinks it can decide what research will ultimately have a major economic impact or demand that this be demonstrated. Such interference is a major motivation for excellent scientists to leave the UK for greener pastures. The Government and STFC have completely missed the issue that lies at the heart of this fiasco, which is confidence. Why should I or any of my contemporaries consider the UK as a location to host future research programmes if they would be at the whim of a quango who have little idea of the merits of the research. John Womersley鈥檚 answer to an excellent question was not only patronising but it completely missed the point. This question was not about personal fiscal reward from research, but instead whether the research area would even exist after completing the PhD. If the STFC fails to see the loss in confidence by the science community, then the resulting migration of talented people out of the UK will prove to be a much greater economic catastrophe than the 拢80 million short fall.

Jenny, the 502 error fault is the "Big Issue" of the day. I too wish they would sort it out. Quite a few of my postings have ended up either multiple or in the "internet ether". I Give up on most days. Newsnight either has a "comment board" or it does not.

Every bit as bad as Terminal 5!!!??? Get it sorted.
It's just done it again!!!! so you won't get this message or it will be deja-vu if read?

Bill Bradbury - do you think they let through your posting through twice just to take the proverbial?

I used to comment here, but now all I do is read the comments, as I grew tired of '502' messages and repeat postings

Sometimes I hurl invective at the computer screen. This is about as effective a means of communication with the poster as the Newsnight blog with its '502' messages.

Come on Newsnight - as the person above said, you've either got a blog or you don't. This is absurd.

(About to press 'post' and ever-so eagerly awaiting the '502' message...)

2nd try...

Bill Bradbury - do you think they let through your posting through twice just to take the proverbial?

I used to comment here, but now all I do is read the comments, as I grew tired of '502' messages and repeat postings

Sometimes I hurl invective at the computer screen. This is about as effective a means of communication with the poster as the Newsnight blog with its '502' messages.

Come on Newsnight - as the person above said, you've either got a blog or you don't. This is absurd.

(About to press 'post' and ever-so eagerly awaiting the '502' message...)

2nd try...

Third... (I kid you not)

Fourth...

Fifth and final - I wonder how many times this will appear, if at all.

I am surprised that Jeremy didn't ask the killer question to the three distinquished economic 'experts' last night, like 'you guys have been around for years lecturing us all on economics yet here we have the biggest collapse in recent history and you said nothing about the looming credit crunch which even my Aunt's cat knew was coming so why should listen to any of you Domeheads? At least it would make for an interesting response. Also I stopped listening to Susan Watts since she dissed the 6.06 guy on the today programme

AM-
"The biggest collapse in recent history". Yes you are referring to the 502 error message?
The 502 is now in my Room 101 together with IKEA. Jeremy can your economic experts sort it out?
I now press "post" and pray for a miracle.

Hello. I think the economic slow down in UK is due the government wanting to introduce the Euro into britain within the next couple of years. It all to do with going down in history.

Laura Sandys, please become a science minister in the next government.
Note, I want a "Science" minister, not
"Innovation, Universities and Skills".

Unmatched levels of the numerate, analytical skills are indeed nurtured and developed in the former PPARC domain and industries, financial, consulting, IT
and others have voraciously consumed the hordes of excellent post-graduates leaving the field as the numbers making
it through to each successive level of seniority fall. If South Thanet don't
want you Edinburgh does. Good luck.

Even more worrying is Keith Mason in the same article.

"It's quite clear to us," he went on, "that we do need to get better
economic impact from the stuff that we invest in. It's taxpayers' money,
and taxpayers have a right to a return from it. You won't have innovation
without the science - but equally people have to face the fact that you
won't get pure science unless you also get the value out of it and get the
innovation, too."

This guy is supposed to be reminding the government and people of our nation, on our behalf, that UK particle physicists invented the WWW used to post the article and created the new economy. The taxpayers got their damn return, and some!

While he is clearly to spineless to openly criticise the CSR, why is he not at very least saying *this* to the media and at insinuating STFC deserves increased funding because:

"....need to farm the knowledge that we get more effectively so that we can afford to do more of it
because, ultimately, the amount of astronomy and particle physics and pure science we can do depends
ultimately on how well our economy is doing - and we should be contributing to that, too."

He is deliberately ignoring the enormous
impact that has been made, both WWW and
human talent and is simply behaving as
a Quisling making the government's
misguided case for them.

Peter