1. Sean Freeman The University of Manchester
Update from Science Board
Nuclear Physics Town Meeting
IoP Meeting April 2018
A brief update on recent activities since
Birmingham Town Meeting in April 2017.
Sean Freeman
The University of Manchester

2. Science Board Core Membership
The abridged version: Scientific overview, assessment and advice
Science Board Core Membership
Stewart Boogert, Royal Holloway
Sean Freeman (Chair) University of Manchester
João Cabral, Imperial College London
Chris Hawes, Oxford Brooks
Bill Chaplin, University of Birmingham
Ofer Lahav, University College London
Peter Clarke, University of Edinburgh
Jayne Lawrence (Deputy Chair) University of Manchester
Bill David, University of Oxford and RAL
Paul McKenna, Strathclyde
Christine Davies, University of Glasgow
Andy Parker, University of Cambridge
Rory Duncan, Heriot Watt University
Don Pollacco, University of Warwick
Karen Edler, University of Bath
Tara Shears, University of Liverpool
STFC Office: Trish Mullins
Colleagues from the non-Core SB membership, from Advisory Panels and from the communities have helped with a variety of tasks including project reviews, Programmatic Reviews and Balance of Programmes.

3. Environment:
CSR-2016 (relative calibration) – pretty good compared to other areas of Government.
CSR-2016 (absolute calibration) – continuing flat cash for the core of the Science Budget, indicative budgets for the last two years.
Growth in Science Budget has ODA requirements – Newton and Global Research Challenges Fund (GCRF).
Autumn Statement 2016: further growth in Science Budget has industrial requirements – Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (ISCF)
Turbulence – BREXIT. – Changes in Government; new minister. – Welcome to the first week of UKRI!
Some good news – Some extra resource funding £5M p.a. to protect international commitments and early R&D.
– Likely extra £10M DiRAC and £4M p.a. e-Infrastructure expected.

4. What has Science Board discussed since last year?
We do talk across the whole of STFC scientific activities including astronomy, space science, nuclear physics, neutron facilities, light sources, laser facilities……
Some common threads in SB discussions have been:
Excellence of the science that is being done across the whole PPAN programme and the facilities.
Increasing importance of computing (HPC, HTP, data analytics…) in many areas.
Extreme difficulties of flat cash – lack of resource is really biting – the programme feels impressive in quality, but narrow.
How to balance an already very focussed programme and make sure that new scientific opportunities are realised and also new technologies are developed.
Stark contrast between an unprecedented increase in the Science Budget and RCUK Core Programmes under unprecedented financial pressure.
Concern and uncertainty over BREXIT.
…but here concentrate on specific topics relevant to NP.

5. Advisory Panel
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.
Concerns raised by the NPAP:
any potential growth in CDT mechanisms at the expense of funding for quota studentships, which are felt to better suit PPAN research culture.
the low level of academic time awarded on the recent consolidated grants might prejudice views of the discipline in universities.
the impact of the loss of Project R&D support.
All APs participated with SB members in a workshop in January to begin the process of updating the PPAN Science Challenge Questions – followed up with a meeting of AP Chairs and SB in Feb. The process of revision should be completed by late spring.
APs also gave input to the Skills Balance of Programmes, which should be published imminently.

6. 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.

7. 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.
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 carry risks that were noted by SB – and that much high-quality science remains unfunded.
Thank you to the NPGP for their extremely difficult work.

8. Projects and SoI’s Opportunities
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 new SoIs at the December meeting as the first stage in a project peer review process. The following projects will continue through peer review as part of the Nuclear Physics Programme Evaluation:
AGATA – Precision Spectroscopy of Exotic Nuclei
– The Advanced Charged Particle Array at ELI-NP
DRACULA – Direct Reaction Array for the Core Understanding of Light Nuclei
Opportunities
STFC 2018 Capital Equipment Call – includes capital to underpin PPAN programme (closes 12th June 2018).
UKRI Future Leaders Fellowships – expressions of interest (closes 7th June 2018).

9. PPAN Balance of Programmes and Programme Evaluations
Aim: “to look at the portfolio and science strategy to define a balanced programme of excellent science within a realistic financial planning envelope for each scientific discipline”
Programme Evaluations
Balance of Programmes
2016, 2019, …
Computing
Q4 2017
Astroparticle
Q1 2018
Nuclear
Q2 2018
Particle
Q3 2018
Astrophysics
Accelerators
Q4 2018

10. ~ 6 months for each evaluation Chairs from SB to help with continuity
Paul Alexander
Andreas Juettner
Ofer Lahav (chair)
Victoria Martin
Andrew McNab
Jacky Pallas
Andrew Sansum
Debra Sijacki
First meeting 22/1/18
Richard Battye
Garret Cotter
Giles Hammond
Alex Murphy
Tara Shears (chair)
Morgan Wascko
First meeting 1/3/18
Computing
Q4 2017
Astroparticle
Q1 2018
Nuclear
Q2 2018
Particle
Q3 2018
Astrophysics
Accelerators
Q4 2018
Ofer Lahav (chair)
To be appointed
First meeting tba
Mike Bentley
Maria Borge
Jon Billowes
Alison Bruce
Jordi Jose
Peter Jones
Don Pollacco (chair)
Paul Stevenson
First meeting 23/3/18
~ 6 months for each evaluation
Chairs from SB to help with continuity

11. Specific tasks:
Rank projects/experiments and outline scientific priorities within the area.
Provide advice on the shape of the programme.
Examine funding levels for new ideas and technology development.
Consider how to best ensure appropriate support for exploitation and return on investment for STFC-funded projects.
Consider consequences of flat cash and ±10% funding over the next 5 years.
Consider whether each project sits within the appropriate research area for future budgetary tensioning.
Input from advisory panels, experiment and project PIs, but make use of relevant up to date material and trying not to overburden community with requests
The outcome of the programme evaluations will be published and available to the community.
More information:

12. Some final thoughts…
ALL STFC PPAN Programmes are still making a strong impact: excellent publications, strong leadership, important non-academic “impact”. For example, UK A, PP and NP all in the top 4 for field-normalized citations in period (Impact Report 2017).
Core of the Science Budget is still flat cash – utterly toxic for core programme.
Careful arguments – flat cash for seven years, but still world leading?
– money for science has unprecedented increases?
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 aren’t a replacement for core science funding.
There’s a lot going on – but need to keep doing excellent science, the essential part of any argument at any level whether to a funding agency or to Government.