1. Sean Freeman The University of Manchester
Update from Science Board
Nuclear Physics Town Meeting January 2018
Some reminders and a brief update on recent activities.
Jenny will overlap on some things – here concentrate on higher level messages.
Sean Freeman
The University of Manchester

2. STFC Advisory Structures
UKRI – new Council and new Executive Chair.
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: Seb Oliver)
ADVISORY PANELS
PEER REVIEW PANELS
Advisory Panel for Public Engagement
(Chair: Colin Pulham)
Particle Physics
Grants Panel
(Chair: Jocelyn Monroe
/ Nick Evans)
Particle Physics AP
(Chair: Claire Shepherd-Themistocleous)
Solar System AP
(Chair: Huw Morgan)
Astronomy
Grants Panel
(Chair: Jim Wild)
Particle Astrophysics AP (Chair: Chamkaur Ghag)
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: Howard Stone)
Projects Peer
Review Panel
(Chair: Julian Osbourne)
Computing AP
(Chair: David Colling)
Nuclear Physics AP
(Chair: Andy Boston)
Accelerator
Strategy Board
(Chair: Andy Wolski)

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. Science Board Core Membership
Stewart Boogert, Royal Holloway
Chris Hawes, Oxford Brooks
João Cabral, Imperial College London
Ofer Lahav, University College London
Bill Chaplin, University of Birmingham
Jayne Lawrence (Deputy Chair) University of Manchester
Peter Clarke, University of Edinburgh
Paul McKenna, Strathclyde
Bill David, University of Oxford and RAL
Andy Parker, University of Cambridge
Christine Davies, University of Glasgow
Don Pollacco, University of Warwick
Rory Duncan, Heriot Watt University
Tara Shears, University of Liverpool
Sean Freeman (Chair) University of Manchester
STFC Office: Trish Mullins
Colleagues from the NP community who have helped with a variety of tasks including project reviews, Programmatic Reviews and Balance of Programmes.
Currently, Brian Fulton and Paddy Regan are part of the Non-Core College.

5. Environment: CSR-2016, AS-2016, UKRI and BREXIT.
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, continuing the situation for a total of seven, with still only indicative budgets for last two years.
Growth in Science Budget has ODA requirements – Newton and Global Research Challenges Fund (GCRF).
Further growth in Science Budget in the Autumn Statement 2016 has industrial requirements – Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (ISCF).
Turbulence – BREXIT Referendum 2016: still very little certainty on anything very much, although “Future Partnership Paper on Science and Innovation” Sept 2017 not discouraging? – Election 2017; albeit still the same minister but spilt over two depts. – Changes in the funding landscape with UKRI.
Pockets of good news: extra funds for DiRAC in 17/18, funding for impact acceleration accounts and compensation for foreign exchange fluctuations on subscriptions.
Financial constraints progressively tougher – need to thoroughly understand the implications.
Careful strategic planning: ensure strong consistent messages and direction during a period of change.

6. What has Science Board considered last year?
We do talk across the whole of STFC activities including astronomy, space science, nuclear and particle physics, neutron facilities, light sources…
Some common threads in SB discussions have been:
Excellence of the science that is being done across the whole programme.
The increasing importance of computing (HPC, HTP, data analytics…) in most areas.
Extreme difficulties of flat cash – lack of resource is really biting.
Worries about maintaining an already very focussed programme and making sure that new opportunities are realised.
Stark contrast between an unprecedented increase in the Science Budget and RCUK Core Programmes which remain under unprecedented financial pressure.
Concern and uncertainty over BREXIT.
…but here concentrate on topics relevant to nuclear physics.

7. Advisory Panel Studentships
In December, Andrew Boston, Chair of the NPAP, discussed with SB recent activities of the AP, various aspects of the STFC NP programme and some wider associated issues. He has also collated and contributed community inputs to the SB sub-group working on the PPAN Balance of Programmes, the Skills Balance of Programmes, computing review, etc.
Studentships
Although strictly under the remit of SEAB and ETCC, the additional CDT studentships funded by the industrial strategy funds announced in AS-2016 will be of benefit to the PPAN research programme.

8. PPAN Balance of Programmes
SB sub-panel chaired by Professor Richard Harrison (RAL Space) composed of SB core and non-core members. Discussed with Science Board at various points during
Excellent world-leading science across the whole of the PPAN programme.
Exploitation funding a priority in all areas.
Critically small level of support for NP.
Concern over the level of PDRA positions in NP exploitation – expressed desire to move back to levels of CG 2011.
Review of the benefits of FAIR membership as part of the programme evaluation, in light of delays to FAIR.
Full report is available on the STFC website.

9. Consolidated Grants Chaired by Jayne Lawrence SB Deputy Chair!
Douglas Macgregor gave an overview of the NPGP consolidated grants process, review and outcomes.
SB noted the continuing effects of flat-cash funding when the community had grown and noted the high-quality science exemplified by science highlights in the presentation – all features common with other PPAN science areas.
The critical level of funding becomes clear when determining funding for the high priority science – an increased scenario was required to give a solution consistent with the BoP recommendations concerning PDRA levels, by taking advantage of some flexibility to reallocate funds (~£700k) from development to exploitation. Note: PDRA’s vary in length and continuity lost in some themes.
But achieved with a low level of academic time and reduced support for cross-community core expertise, both very worrisome and risks that were noted by SB – and that much high-quality science remains unfunded.
Thank you to the NPGP for their extremely difficult work!

10. Projects and SoI’s
Completion of the current NP development projects (ISOL-SRS, ALICE Upgrade and J-Lab Upgrade) allows room for new project funding in financial planning for 19/20 to 22/23, subject to spending reviews etc. Science Board considered four SoIs at the December meeting as the first stage in a project peer review process that will continue as part of the Nuclear Physics Programme Evaluation. Feedback will be given to the proponents soon – it was the week before Xmas!

11. Discipline Evaluations
The new approach to reviewing and evaluating the STFC PPAN Programme consists of a series of specific discipline evaluations followed by a look at the balance in the programme every three years.
The BoP was the initial step towards this – three years since the Programmatic Review and financial pressures had grown, necessitating the BoP.
Over the next 12 months, the following PPAN areas will be considered in detail – particle physics, astronomy, nuclear physics, accelerators and PPAN computing
The details of the evaluation plan covered by Jenny, but more in-depth information to be gathered to:
establish the strengths and opportunities in each specific fields.
the size and balance of funding within each area.
outline the requirements for future projects to allow decisions regarding tensioning.
The evaluations will be designed to enable standardised information from the various scientific disciplines to be used together with the Programme Evaluation report to inform the next Balance of Programmes exercise.

12. = doing great science! 2013 Astro PP NP 2555 1379 496 3 4 7 17.80
No. of publications
2555
1379
496
UK position 3 4 7
Citation impact (CI)
17.80
14.90
15.40 1
Normalised CI
1.48
1.73
3.10 2
“Our latest publication and citation analysis, conducted by Thomson Reuters, shows the UK is ranked first in the world for astronomy, particle physics and nuclear physics when the Citations Impact and Normalised Citation Impact are measured and averaged over the period “
= doing great science!

13. Some final thoughts…
ALL STFC PPAN Programmes are making a strong impact: excellent publications, strong international leadership, and important non-academic “impact”.
Core of the Science Budget is still flat cash – utterly toxic.
Government’s “Keep them lean – keep them mean” (intentional or not) is not sustainable.
Careful arguments – overall money for science has unprecedented increases. Issues with Core Programme are being highlighted.
STFC-supported science and facilities: “uniquely” international, “uniquely” collaborative, “uniquely” long time scales. This needs emphasis within UKRI.
Lots of strings with ISCF and GCRF – needs creative thinking to access them, but they are just NOT a replacement for core science funding!
There’s a lot going on – keep doing excellent science. That is the essential part of any strong funding argument whether to a call, a funding agency or a government.