1. Sean J Freeman The University of Manchester
Update from Science Board:
PPAP July 2016
Some reminders and some recent business
Sean J Freeman
The University of Manchester

2. STFC Advisory Structures
STFC COUNCIL
(Chair: Sir Michael Sterling)
INNOVATION ADVISORY BOARD
(Chair: Richard Worswick)
SCIENCE BOARD
(Chair: Sean Freeman*)
SKILLS & ENGAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD
(Chair: Carole Mundell)
Education, Training and Careers Committee
(Chair: Tara Shears)
ADVISORY PANELS
PEER REVIEW PANELS
Advisory Panel for Public Engagement
(Chair: Colin Pulham)
Particle Physics
Grants Panel
(Chair: Jocelyn Monroe
/ Simon Hands)
Particle Physics AP
(Chair: Claire Shepherd-Themistocleous)
Solar System AP
(Chair: Chris Arridge)
Astronomy
Grants Panel
(Chair: Ian Smail)
* = from next Monday!
Several AP chairs and ETCC chair due to rotate.
Particle Astrophysics AP (Chair: Patrick Sutton)
Life Sci. & Soft Matter AP
(Chair: Martin King)
Nuclear Physics
Grants Panel
(Chair: Douglas MacGregor)
Astronomy AP
(Chair: Paul O’Brien)
Physical Sci. & Eng. AP
(Chair: David Lennon)
Projects Peer
Review Panel
(Chair: Victoria Martin)
Computing AP
(Chair: Stephen Fairhurst)
Nuclear Physics AP
(Chair: Andy Boston)
Accelerator
Strategy Board
(Chair: Grahame Blair)

3. Science Board Terms of Reference
Science Board will provide Council and the STFC Executive with a scientific overview and assessment of, and science advice on, the programmes that STFC supports:
Formulates and updates long term science and technology strategies.
Reviews STFC science and technology programmes and investments.
Consults with appropriate communities via advisory panels to ensure the science and technology strategies remain the most viable for the UK.
Agrees and recommends a detailed STFC scientific investment plan.
Provides advice to Council on criteria for selecting projects and areas of science based on their scientific quality.
Provides strategic scientific advice, as required, on STFC’s non-scientific programmes (e.g. campuses).
Provides strategic scientific advice, as required, to UKSA.
Monitors and reviews the operations of, and provides strategic advice and guidance to, peer-review panels.
The abridged version: Scientific overview, assessment and advice

4. July 2016: Science Board Core Membership
Alison Davenport - University of Birmingham (Chair)
Richard Harrison - STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL)
Marco Borghesi - Queen’s University Belfast
Jayne Lawrence – King’s College London
Ken Long - Imperial College and RAL
João Cabral - Imperial College London
Malcolm McMahon - University of Edinburgh
Peter Clarke - University of Edinburgh
Christine Davis - University of Glasgow
Bob Nichol - University of Portsmouth
Rory Duncan - Heriot Watt University
Andy Parker - University of Cambridge
Sean Freeman - University of Manchester (Deputy Chair)
Don Pollacco - University of Warwick
Chick Wilson - University of Bath
Jon Goff - Royal Holloway University of London
Change of ~¼ of the membership for the October meeting with new chair and deputy chair.

5. Science Board Non-Core Members
It is recognised that Science Board may sometimes need access to a wider breadth of knowledge and the mechanism for this is through the college of non-core Science Board experts.
Non-core members may be asked to attend Science Board meetings to provide specific expert input, in the event that core members are unable to attend.
Non-core members, together with advisory panel members, are invited to be members of Science Board ad-hoc sub-panels when needed for specific tasks. For example, provision of science advice to the UK Space Agency.

6. Advisory Panels
Advisory Panels provide critical two-way communication between the communities and SB (and STFC).
Maintain overview of areas; develop roadmaps for science and required technologies; consult and interact with communities; provide specific advice to SB when requested; liaise with other APs as appropriate.
Vitally important to programme planning and evaluation process.
Annual updates to SB from APs important for refreshing science roadmap and horizon scanning.

7. Advisory Panels
Advisory Panels also provide a crucial input in making cases to government. Recent examples include:
BIS Capital Consultation
Nurse Review
Government Green Paper on ‘Higher education: teaching excellence, social mobility and student choice’
Advisory panels have undertaken a number of subject-specific reviews. A recent example: Exoplanets.
Advisory panels will be / have been asked some targeted questions to inform the Balance of Programmes Exercise (see later!)

8. Environment: CSR-2016, UKRI and BREXIT.
Very briefly – with the expectation that these are likely to be picked up by Grahame
CSR-2016 (relative calibration) – pretty good compared to other areas of Government.
CSR-2016 (absolute calibration) – disappointing, core of Science Budget essentially flat cash for four years, with only indicative budgets for last two years.
Growth in Science Budget has ODA requirements – Newton and Global Research Challenges Fund (GCRF).
Turbulence – BREXIT Referendum. – Changes in Government; albeit same minister. – Changes in the landscape with UKRI.
Financial constraints are very tough – need to thoroughly understand the implications.
Careful strategic planning ensure strong consistent messages and direction
during a period of change.

9. PP Grants
PPGP(T) 2016 round considered by SB in July for funding period Oct 2017 to Sept 2020 – progressing through necessary authorisation processes.
Included review of funding for IPPP for period Oct 2018 to Sept 2020 – tensioned with PPGP(T) grants to help ensure optimal balance of programme within the available funding.
With a non-indexed flat cash budget, it will not be possible to maintain a constant volume of research – despite a strong programme of proposed work with high international calibre.
Announcements to PI’s expected in September.

10. PP and PAP Projects Significant funding recommended in 2015:
Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA).
Lux Zeplin.
Further projects considered recently in 2016:
ATLAS Phase-2 Upgrade (Bridging).
ProtoDUNE.
Gravitational Waves Programme.
Unfortunately unable to support other recently proposed projects; some extremely difficult decisions have had to be made by STFC.

11. Relevant Reviews
Science Board has recently considered a number of reviews and reports (in case you missed them in April):
STFC Computing Strategic Review.
Review of Particle Physics Phenomenology (recommendations included in PPGP(T) round).
Report from the Accelerator Strategy Board
Science Board will consider (once completed):
Strategic Plan for RAL Particle Physics Department.
Review of John Adams and Cockcroft Institutes (along with ASB).
Long Baseline Neutrino Review.
LHC Phase II Upgrade Review.
Balance of Programme Exercise.

12. Review of John Adams and Cockcroft Institutes
Strategic importance, timeliness and impact of John Adams and Cockcroft Institutes.
Identify unique strengths of each institute and synergies between the two.
Advise on funding levels for next 4-year period.
Review outcomes considered by both ASB and SB.

13. Long Baseline Neutrino Experiments Strategic Review
Strategic importance, timeliness and impact of DUNE and Hyper-K.
Consider the level to which both DUNE and Hyper-K can be funded in the post-CSR funding envelope.
Is there need to retain flexibility in the Neutrino area?
Make recommendations on the level of participation in and support for DUNE and Hyper-K.
Panel of relevant experts from SB, PPRP, PPGP, relevant Oversight Committees and non-UK.
Meeting in October – with presentations from collaborations.
Report to Science Board for the December meeting.

14. LHC Detector Phase II Upgrade Review
Strategic importance, timeliness and impact of CMS and ATLAS Phase II Upgrades.
Consider the level to which both upgrades can be funded in the post-CSR funding envelope.
Is there need to retain flexibility in the Energy Frontier area?
Make recommendations on the level of participation in and support for CMS and ATLAS Phase II Upgrades.
Panel of relevant experts from SB, PPRP, PPGP, relevant Oversight Committees and non-UK, ensuring continuity with 2014 LHC Review.
Meeting in September – with presentations from collaborations.
Report to Science Board for the October/December meeting.

15. Balance of Progammes Exercise (BOP)
“Not the Programmatic Review”
What is the appropriate balance between STFC’s key research areas: astronomy, nuclear physics, particle physics, particle astrophysics, accelerators and computing for these areas?
Ensure there is appropriate breadth within each area, with development for future opportunities and scale of projects.
Identify the appropriate balance between R&D, construction and scientific exploitation across the programme and in each area.
Consider policies for funding academic time within each area.
Likely to need to delve to the depth of energy frontier, flavour physics, neutrinos, theory… – but not at the project level.

16. Balance of Progammes Exercise
Advisory Panel advice sought on potential future programme:
Developments to the most recent roadmap e.g. changes and new opportunities.
Comments on the breadth of programmes and balance between R&D construction and exploitation.
Effects of small changes from flat-cash funding.
Critical technologies.
Skills, experience and leadership.
Computing requirements.
Meetings over the summer SB sub-panel chaired by Professor Richard Harrison (RAL Space) composed of SB core and non-core members.
Interim findings discussed with Science Board,
and final report by early 2017.

17. “Interesting times”
Financial boundary conditions are extremely challenging:
increased need to thoroughly understand the implications before making recommendations.
Robust strategy and planning:
ensure strong consistent messages and direction are presented during a period of change.
Need to stress the special aspects of STFC-supported science and facilities to ensure that new structures are fit for purpose:
“uniquely” international, “uniquely” collaborative, “uniquely” long time scales.

18. THE END