Review of UK Physics
A report prepared for Research Councils UK by a panel
chaired by Professor Bill Wakeham
October 2008
Review of UK Physics
Contents
1
Introduction
3
1.1
Purpose of Review
3
1.2
Terms of Reference
3
1.3
Overview of Review Process
3
1.4
Acknowledgement
5
2
Executive Summary
6
2.1
Introduction
6
2.2
Pipeline of Researchers
6
2.3
Economic Impact
6
2.4
Physics Research
7
2.5
Research Facilities
7
2.6
Research Funding
7
3
State of Physics
9
3.1
Research Councils' support of physics
10
3.2
Physics Landscape
12
3.3
Sub-disciplinary Distribution
13
3.4
Ubiquity of Physics and Physicists
16
3.5
Summary
18
4
Education,Training and People
19
4.1
Physics in Schools
19
4.2
From A-levels to Undergraduates
21
4.3
Physics at Undergraduate Level
24
4.4
Physics at Postgraduate Level
25
4.5
Postdoctoral Researchers
27
4.6
Academic Staff
28
4.7
Research Leaders
30
4.8
Summary
30
5
Economic Impact
31
5.1
Flow of physics trained researchers beyond academia
31
5.2
Interaction with industry and business
34
5.3
Examples of collaborative projects and spin-out companies
35
5.4
Summary
36
1
2
Review of UK Physics
6
Physics Research
37
6.1
Excellence and International Standing in Research
37
6.2
Interdisciplinarity
41
6.3
Emerging areas and Opportunities
41
6.4
Specific Issues affecting sub-disciplines
42
6.5
Summary
43
7
Facilities Research
44
7.1
Facility requirements and needs
44
7.2
Sustainability of facilities
45
7.3
High Performance Computing
46
7.4
National Support Facilities
47
7.5
Summary
48
8
The Physics Funding Structure
49
8.1
The Haldane Principle
49
8.2
Haldane and the Research Councils
49
8.3
Research Council resource allocation
50
8.4
The Dual Support System and Physics
52
8.5
Funding of Undergraduate Education in Physics
52
8.6
Research Department Consortia
53
8.7
The Research Assessment Exercise
54
8.8
Timing, consultation and governance
55
8.9
Expenditure of facilities and international subscriptions
56
8.10
Summary
57
9
Conclusions and Recommendations
58
ANNEXES
64
1
Questionnaire sent to Heads of Departments
64
3
Questionnaire for Physics Companies
67
5
Glossary
2
4
6
Questionnaire sent to Vice-Chancellors
66
Participants at Evidence Meetings
68
Publication Outputs Normalised to UK Output
73
References
76
71
Review of UK Physics
3
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose of Review
In December 2007, the Minister of State for Science and Innovation, Ian Pearson MP, invited Professor Ian
Diamond (Chair of the RCUK Executive Group) to commission a review of UK physics research.The review is
intended to be the first in a series that RCUK will commission over the coming years, and will form an integral
resource in the development of an in-depth knowledge of the key academic disciplines supported by the
Research Councils.
This report has been produced specifically for the RCUK Executive Group who, upon receipt, will carefully
consider its recommendations and publish the report alongside its response to the report's recommendations
and advice to the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills.The purpose of the review is to specifically
examine the health of the entire discipline of physics, and the priorities and challenges facing the discipline in the
medium to long-term future. It is understood that the review was commissioned at a time of considerable
concern among a part of the community about funding decisions, but understanding how those concerns arose
and the decision processes have not directly been a part of the review’s remit.
It is important to note that the prescribed timeframe of the review and the breadth of the terms of reference
mean that the report has had to be conducted at a high level. Necessarily then, some of the Panel's conclusions
and recommendations may require further investigation and refinement. Nevertheless, the Panel believes that
this has been a very worthwhile exercise, which for the first time has taken a holistic approach to providing a
comprehensive examination of a broad and vital discipline.Thus, whereas the starting point for the review was
research in physics, it has been necessary to cast rather wider to examine the health of the discipline.
1.2 Terms of Reference
The review's published terms of reference are as follows:
• Consider the priorities for investment across physics as a whole, taking account of the need both to
maintain the health of discipline, and to strengthen its wider, including economic, impact in the future;
• Identify the contribution physics makes to other areas of research and explore how these contributions
can be enhanced, with the view to strengthening the health of the UK research base as a whole;
• Identify options for strengthening research leadership, and enhancing the opportunities in physics for
young researchers;
• With resources coming from more than one funding organisation, examine ways to improve the
coherence of the UK physics programme.
• Examine the provision of physics-based facilities, their application across the science base, and appropriate
means of sustaining their operation;
• Comment on any other issues that have implications for the health of physics in the UK.
1.3 Overview of Review Process
The review was overseen by the RCUK Executive Group (which is made up of the Chief Executives of all seven
UK Research Councils).The Executive Group appointed Professor Bill Wakeham (Vice-Chancellor, University of
Southampton) to chair the review Panel, and working closely with him, determined the membership of the
Panel. Nominations for Panel membership were also invited from the Institute of Physics, Royal Astronomical
Society, Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society.The Panel consists of nine leading academics from
various branches within physics and cognate disciplines:
4
Review of UK Physics
Professor Bill Wakeham (Chair)
Vice Chancellor, University of Southampton
Professor Martin Barstow
University of Leicester
Professor Donal Bradley FRS
Imperial College London
Professor Sir Mike Brady FRS
University of Oxford
Professor Christine Davies
University of Glasgow
Professor Carlos Frenk FRS
University of Durham
Professor Sir Richard Friend FRS
University of Cambridge
Dr Jørgen Kjems
Danish Technical University
Professor Richard Peltier
University of Toronto
The Panel met for the first time in February 2008 to agree upon the review methodology and the evidence that
would be required to address the terms of reference.The Panel met for a second time in May 2008 to review
the evidence gathered to date and to specify additional data that was required, and subsequently in June 2008
as part of the evidence sessions to finalise the principal conclusions that the Panel believed followed from the
evidence presented.
A key decision early in the review was the agreement of what the definition of physics should be. With such a
broad discipline and such necessarily ill-defined boundaries with other fields of physical science, the decision was
taken to utilise the definition of physics already agreed for the 2008 RAE as the working description for the
review.
The Panel has utilised several sources of data during the course of the review, and these can be categorised as
follows:
• A substantial body of data on the demographic profile of staff and students in UK university physics.This
evidence included: information on staff and student numbers and profile; student intake and applications;
post-16 education data; research project income, and; sub-disciplinary profiles.This data is published
separately on the RCUK website at http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
• Research Council information detailing expenditure on physics by Research Council and identifying
support that occurs outside of physics departments, by sub-discipline and category.This data is published
separately on the RCUK website at http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
• The Panel was permitted to receive RA3, RA4 and RA5a data from the 2008 RAE to inform their
assessment.These data were used in confidence, and will not be published until released by the Higher
Education Funding Councils in December 2008
• The results of a large stakeholder survey, including submissions from vice-chancellors, heads of
department, subject groups, learned societies, physics-based companies and research and funding councils.
A summary of the consultation is published separately on the RCUK website at
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm Samples of the questionnaires and lists of respondents
can be found at Annexes 1-4.
• Bibliometric analysis of physics internationally at both an overall subject level and at a sub-discipline level.
The Panel received these data for information purposes and are acutely aware of the limitations of
bibliometric studies used in isolation.These data have therefore been used rather carefully in a relative
manner which takes account of most of their limitations.
• Evidence sessions, whereby the Panel met with witnesses from the UK physics community including heads
of departments, senior management staff, research leaders, interdisciplinary researchers, employers of
physics graduates, physics PhD students and postdoctoral researchers. In total the Panel met with over 60
witnesses and a full list can be found at Annex 4, with summary notes of each evidence session published
separately on the RCUK website at http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
Review of UK Physics
5
1.4 Acknowledgement
The review Panel would like to thank the many people who have contributed to the review, either through the
submission of evidence, attendance at the Panel's evidence sessions or in any other capacity. In particular, the
Panel wishes to thank the Institute of Physics, the Royal Astronomical Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering
and the Royal Society who have provided both valuable support as well as a significant quantity of very useful
additional evidence.
6
Review of UK Physics
2. Executive Summary
2.1 Introduction
Physics is regarded as a vital discipline which underpins both many other academic disciplines and many aspects
of industry.This review takes a medium term view of the entire discipline, examining it from many angles
including the pipeline of new researchers and collaboration with industry, as well as research quality, facilities
provision and funding policy.
Educationally, the discipline faces enormous challenges.The numbers of students taking the subject at school
level have fallen over many years, with A-level numbers a particular cause for concern,The number of physics
departments has also declined over the last 10 years meaning that the discipline is primarily concentrated in the
older traditional research-based universities.The low percentages of female and ethnic minority students are a
worry.
The Panel concludes that physics research in the UK is in a generally good state of health, with departments
performing curiosity-driven research of the highest international quality and having benefited from a significant
increase in research expenditure in recent years.This expenditure has however not kept pace with the increase
in the overall science budget. Much of that increase has been predicated upon advancement in strategic areas
such as health, the environment and energy and physics departments have perhaps not taken adequate
advantage of these possible new income streams.
2.2 Pipeline of Researchers
The Panel has noted that despite levelling off recently, physics A-level numbers have declined over the past
fifteen years and, compared with other sciences, physics has a significantly lower number of female entrants – a
trend that is replicated throughout the academic system.The Panel recommends here to the Department of
Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) that the same successful ideas that were applied to raising mathematics
take-up in schools by improving mathematics teaching be extended to physics. Additionally, that research be
undertaken by RCUK and DCSF to identify factors influencing non-take up of physics in post compulsory
schooling amongst those from a wider social and ethnic background.
The Panel are concerned that funding models for undergraduate teaching of physics are not adequate to ensure
long-term survival in many universities.The Panel considers that the recent provision of an additional £75m over
three years by HEFCE to support teaching in certain high cost subjects including physics has assisted in
underpinning the financial sustainability of physics departments.
A feature of physics research in university departments is that there is a noticeably higher number of
postdoctoral researchers than in other disciplines.This places a greater burden on supervisors to give
appropriate careers advice as to what career path is in their best long-term interest.The Panel therefore
recommends that universities, Funding Councils and Research Councils work together to develop the research
concordat, so that realistic career advice is given to junior researchers, and that mechanisms to ensure early
career opportunities are maximised in strategic areas of the research base.
2.3 Economic Impact
The Panel was presented with direct evidence from employers that physics is a very desirable training to
possess and that physics makes a significant contribution to the economy through the people that it has trained.
As well as traditional roles in the physics and engineering sector, such individuals are also highly desired in the
financial sector.The Panel therefore recommends that physics departments through their own endeavours and
those of the Institute of Physics publicise all activities of physicists after graduation so as to enhance intake.
According to a recent analysis commissioned by the Institute of Physics, the economic activity of physics based
sectors, measured in terms of gross value added (GVA) stood at £70 billion (2005) making up 6.4% of the total
UK economic activity.
Review of UK Physics
7
A specific concern that the Panel heard from a range of academics and industry representatives is the lack of
practical experimentation skills possessed by graduates.The Panel therefore recommends to university
departments that they should consider the position of these practical skills for students – perhaps in conjunction
with the large facilities in the UK and with industry.The Panel was pleased to learn of the recent RCUK initiative
on skills for international competitiveness, and urges RCUK to work with all stakeholders to encourage the
development of transferable skills into the curriculum at all levels of undergraduate and postgraduate training.
In terms of collaboration between academics, the Panel heard from many sources that more encouragement
was needed in this area. It was therefore agreed that DIUS and RCUK should work together to develop
mechanisms which enable the easy flow in both directions between industry and academia (though this point is
not specific to physics).
2.4 Physics Research
The Panel concludes that UK physics research is performing strongly, and this is reinforced by the UK’s strong
performance in research outputs. In their high-level analysis of the international quality of UK physics research
the Panel concur with the findings of the 2005 International Review of Physics and Astronomy, and the relevant
sections of the 2008 International Review of Materials Research.
The Panel argues that whilst the quality and health of physics research is good overall the fact that a similar
focus has been applied by many university departments across sub-disciplines is a source of some concern.
The Panel believes that the funding arrangements for solar terrestrial physics are not optimised to the benefit of
the sub-discipline.The Panel recommend that funding for solar terrestrial physics be transferred from the
Science and Technology Facilities Council to the Natural Environment Research Council.
The Panel recommends that an in-depth review of nuclear physics be undertaken by RCUK to establish future
priorities and where these might be best directed to new opportunities.
2.5 Research Facilities
The Panel found that access to research facilities on local, national and international levels is vital for the
continued competitiveness of UK physics.The Panel argues that there are two distinct types of research facility
from the physics perspective: those that are closely integrated with the discipline in terms of design, operation
and utilisation, and facilities that are utilised by a number of different disciplines.They therefore must be managed
as separate facility types in that they have different user groups and functions.
Additionally, the Panel highlight the importance of High Performance Computing to the physics discipline.The
Panel also feels that there may be a case for greater involvement of universities in the management of STFC
national suppport facilities.
2.6 Research Funding
In its focus on research funding policy, the Panel were convinced that the Haldane Principle is working effectively.
However, confusion exists over whether the government has any form of regional development policy in terms
of where facilities should be located – something that would impinge on the Haldane Principle.The Panel
therefore believes that given this interaction of the science policy with regional development policy, that DIUS
and BERR should consider a restatement of the Haldane Principle for the modern era.The Panel also believes
that the Director General of Science and Research (DGSR) would benefit from the advice of a small, but well
informed advisory group from outside DIUS during the CSR allocation process to ensure there are no
unintended consequences of allocations and to ensure appropriate accountability to the science community.This
does not need to be a large bureaucratic body.
The Panel notes that there is a significant point of confusion with regard to how different disciplines are
supported through the dual support mechanism.This needs to be investigated further for the sake of
transparency.The Panel welcomes the Funding Councils' assessment of teaching resource support but notes that
policies on the development of departmental consortia need to be clear.
8
Review of UK Physics
Finally, the Panel expresses concern at the structure of STFC Council, in terms of the impact it may have on the
Council's ability to engage with the broad community it serves.The Panel recognises the issues STFC has with
regard to fluctuations in the costs of international subscriptions. In view of the strong connection between
facilities and science exploitation in particle physics and astronomy, the Panel recommends that funding for these
two sub-disciplines should remain within STFC but that this funding should be clearly separated from that for
other national facilities managed by STFC.
Review of UK Physics
9
3. State of UK Physics
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of the current state of the discipline of physics in the UK,
in terms of its structure, its role in society and the economy, and the changing environment in which it finds itself
as well as how the subject itself is developing. In order to draw any conclusions concerning the state of UK
physics it is first necessary to consider an answer to the question: 'What is the discipline of physics?'
The Panel found it helpful throughout the review process to think broadly in terms of the discipline and its
boundaries guided in particular by the Institute of Physics'1 interpretation of it pertaining to 'a way of thinking, a
reductionist view of the world where phenomena can be understood in terms of a relatively small number of
physical laws and limited only by the complexity of a system or phenomena'.
This has been coupled, for quantitative analysis, with the more precise and operational definition used for the
Research Assessment Exercise (RAE)2 which articulates physics through a series of component sub-disciplines.
With these broader definitions in mind and through a thorough consideration of all the evidence, the Panel
concludes that physics research in the UK is in an excellent state of health and is performing strongly
internationally. However, the discipline more widely and, in particular, university physics departments face a
number of significant challenges for the future which are explored throughout the remainder of this report.
In reaching its conclusions the Panel were mindful of some headline observations:
A bibliometric analysis was commissioned from CWTS, University of Leiden by the review: further details can
be found at www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm.The analysis considered publications in a defined set of
journals, largely used by the physics community worldwide and looked at total publication numbers and their
citations for a group of comparator countries including the UK. Although no such analysis can be completely
free of systematic error, the application of the same methodology to a group of comparable countries does at
least reduce the effect of the error on the conclusions substantially.The analysis finds that the UK ranks fifth3
amongst comparator countries4 in terms of the total volume of published journal papers in physics and third in
terms of citations per paper. Despite producing fewer outputs than Japan, Germany and France the UK achieves
a higher average rate of citations for each publication. However if output volumes are normalised to population,
the UK comes out in third place. An investigation of ISI data concerning the most highly cited authors
worldwide (i.e. in the top 1%) over the past decade indicates that in physics the UK ranks equal fourth place
with Switzerland (behind USA, Japan and Germany), whilst in space sciences (the category covering astronomy
and astrophysics), it is second and well separated from the following pack. Combining the physics and space
sciences categories places the UK second to the USA, with Germany and Japan not far behind in third and
fourth places respectively.
The Panel notes that in comparison to the rest of the world, physics research performs very strongly – in many areas
behind only the USA. This point is reinforced by the UK's strong performance in terms of outputs and citations. This was
1
Source: Institute of Physics. 'Submissions from Stakeholders' Review Data Pack p.11. Available at
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
2
Source: Research Assessment Exercise definition:Theoretical, computational and experimental studies of: quantum physics;
atomic, molecular and optical physics; plasma physics; particle physics and nuclear physics; surface and interface physics;
condensed matter and soft matter physics; biophysics; semiconductors, nanoscale physics, lasers, optoelectronics and photonics;
magnetism, superconductivity and quantum fluids; fluid dynamics; statistical mechanics, chaotic and non-linear systems; astronomy
and astrophysics, planetary and atmospheric physics; cosmology and relativity; medical physics; applied physics; chemical physics;
instrumentation; pedagogic research in physics.
3
T. van Leeuwen and R Tijssen, 'International Performance of UK Physics Research, Bibliometric Analysis of Research Publication
Output and Citation Impact' CWTS, Leiden University, p.14. Available at http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
4
In this context the comparator countries used for analysis purposes were: Canada, France, Germany, Japan,The Netherlands,
United Kingdom and USA.
10
Review of UK Physics
explicitly recognized in the 2000 and 2005 reports on 'International Perceptions of UK Research in Physics and
Astronomy' and is clearly born out by analyses of research output in relation to publications and citation statistics.
The panel recommends that the UK government should continue to fund research in both basic and applied
physics across a broad spectrum of sub-disciplines, at the level required to retain international
competitiveness.
The number of academic staff and post-doctoral researchers based in UK university physics departments has
remained broadly stable since 2001, at just less than 4000, with almost half of this number (1995) being
postdoctoral researchers5.The number of undergraduate students entering physics degree programmes has
risen slightly over this period (3415 in 2002/03 to 3885 in 2006/07), indicating that the appeal of the subject to
a core group of students is robust.The overall stability in staff and student numbers during a period when many
physics departments have closed has been possible because some of the surviving departments have
compensated for these loses by expanding.
This scale of the university base in physics can be set alongside its very substantial impact on the national
economy. According to a recent analysis commissioned by the Institute of Physics, the economic activity of
physics based sectors, measured in terms of gross value added (GVA) stood at £70 billion (2005) making up
6.4% of the total UK economic activity. GVA per employee in physics based sectors was approximately £69k
about 70% higher than for the UK as a whole6.Thus the physics sector and the academic discipline that
underpins it is of significant importance to the UK.
3.1 Research Councils' support of physics.
In 2001/02 the total UK Science Budget (controlled then by DTI now DIUS) was £1.776 billion and in 2006/07
it was £3.235 billion, an increase of 82%. In this same period, the GDP of the UK increased by 38%.7 Thus, the
proportion of GDP expended by government has increased significantly over this period. In the same period,
total expenditure on physics by the Research Councils (as defined by the RAE definition) has increased by 34%.
Between 2001/02 and 2006/07, studentship funding has increased by 38%8, research funding by 36% and
facilities by 10%.9 Within this figure, STFC expenditure increased by a larger than average amount (45%). Whilst
the Panel also recognises that many physics departments have significantly benefited from SRIF funding in
providing infrastructure upgrades, (something the community is extremely grateful for), nevertheless, it is clear
that the total spending by the Research Councils on physics research has declined as a fraction of the overall
Science Budget and as a fraction of GDP. It has not been possible to acquire the equivalent information for
other comparator countries in the OECD, despite the combined attempts of both the review Panel and DIUS.
Focussing on Research Council support for physics (as defined by the RAE), overall support has increased from
£460 million in 2001/02 to £616.7 million in 2006/0710 In terms of support for sub-disciplines, the following
breakdown (Table 1) provided by Research Councils gives an indication of which areas are growing fastest in
terms of expenditure. It should be noted that nuclear physics transferred to STFC from EPSRC in April 2007, so
all expenditure here relates to EPSRC support. For particle physics and astronomy, expenditure is broken down
into grants and international subscriptions to provide a comparison with other sub-disciplines that do not
involve international facility expenditure.
5
Source: HESA (Heidi). 'Demographic and Statistic Profile of UK Physics' Review Data Pack, p.18. Available at
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
6
Centre for Economics and Business Research Ltd. (2007) 'Physics and the Economy' Institute of Physics p.4.
7
GDP (expenditure approach), Source: OECD
8
The studentship figure does not include EPSRC studentships that are linked to research grants (i.e. project studentships which
then comprise a component of the research funding total).
9
Source: RCUK. 'Research Council Funding Data', Review Data Pack pp. 2-6. Available at:
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
10
Source: RCUK. 'Research Council Funding Data', Review Data Pack p.7. Available at:
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
11
Review of UK Physics
Table 1: Research Council Expenditure on Physics Sub-disciplines
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
Value
(£M)
Value
(£M)
Value
(£M)
Value
(£M)
Value
(£M)
Value
(£M)
01/02 –
06/07
6.7
6.6
6.3
9.1
11.5
13.4
100.0
7.1
5.4
4.4
3.4
5.1
5.8
-18.3
19.9
19.4
19.1
21.3
21.1
22.1
11.1
33.7
27.9
23
22.4
29.9
33
-2.1
2.7
2.9
2.2
20.2
17.8
23
751.9
1.6
1.2
1
1.1
1.3
1.6
0.0
19
16.6
13.7
14.1
17.6
21.2
11.6
Research support
19.6
21.8
22.8
27.9
35.4
35
78.6
International subscriptions (ESO/ESA)
28.7
38.0
58.0
63.5
76.5
75.8
163.6
Total
48.3
59.8
80.8
91.4
111.9
110.8
129.1
Research support
33.1
37.6
40.7
46.6
49.3
54.7
65.3
International subscriptions (CERN)
65.16
66.9
71.54
74.46
79.49
78.67
20.7
Total
98.26
104.5
112.24
121.06
128.79
133.37
35.7
8.3
3.8
3.2
5.8
4.8
6.9
-16.9
3.7
5.9
5.6
6.5
8.2
7.9
113.5
29.5
38.3
40.1
40.5
57.7
50.4
70.8
26.9
29.5
32.6
36
39.9
40.8
51.7
Atomic and Molecular (EPSRC)
Nuclear Physics (EPSRC)
Optical Physics and Lasers (EPSRC)
Physics of Materials, Surfaces and Interfaces (EPSRC)
Plasma Physics (EPSRC)
Statistical and Mathematical Physics (EPSRC)
Superconductivity, Magnetism and Quantum Fluids (EPSRC)
2006/07 % Change
Astronomy (STFC)
Particle Physics (STFC)
Atmospheric physics (NERC)
Geophysics (NERC)
Medical/biophysics (MRC)
Biophysics (BBSRC)
Source: Research Councils. Totals include: responsive mode, directed research, institutes, fellowships, studentships (except for EPSRC and
STFC figures which exclude studentship costs).
In terms of funding trends since 2001/02, plasma physics stands out, although it should be noted that this large
increase is a result of a significant, strategic investment in fusion research at the UKAEA Culham Division.
Comparing the differences with the increase in the Science Budget of 82% described above, the Panel note that
geophysics (NERC), the overall expenditure on astronomy (STFC, due, in part, to a substantial increase in
international subscriptions resulting from the UK joining the European Southern Observatory in 2002), and
atomic and molecular physics (EPSRC) exceed this rate of increase, with the remainder increasing less quickly.
The above data are provided as background information. As we have remarked earlier, it is not possible to state
whether the amount spent now on physics or its sub-disciplines is the correct amount or not.The Panel would
have liked to have compared these figures with expenditure overseas to establish, at the very least, if UK
support in different areas of physics was consistent with that spent in other countries. However, in the
timeframe of the review this task was simply not possible and is likely to prove problematic in any event
because not all countries collate the data in this fashion.The complexity of funding systems in different countries
means that without detailed analysis and research, comparing such data could be extremely misleading.The
Panel therefore suggests that national academies or governments agree better mechanisms of data collection on
the funding of physics (and other disciplines). It is argued that each country would benefit from the ability to
assess whether each discipline it chooses to support is as productive as it is within its principal competitors.
12
Review of UK Physics
3.2 Physics Landscape
The physics landscape is characterised at the university level by a breadth of research and training that spans
physics and non-physics departments, national and international facilities.This reflects the ubiquitous nature of
the discipline. Physicists can be found working in areas of fundamental research pushing forward the heartland of
the discipline, but also in other areas applying their skills and expertise in interdisciplinary teams across science,
engineering and medicine. Often this work is performed outside the environment of a physics department and
it is very important to appreciate that the pursuit of curiosity-driven, fundamental research in physics is not
confined to physics departments or to returns under that heading for the Research Assessment Exercise. What
was once recognised unequivocally as physics may now be carried out under quite a different
subject/department heading.
The physics landscape has seen a number of significant changes over the last 20 years including a number of
physics departmental closures/mergers. A number of factors have contributed to this changing landscape, which
we analyse.They include the change in mission of the former polytechnics, the introduction of and focusing
through the RAE and the reduction in the unit resource for undergraduate teaching of physics.The recent
provision of an additional £75m over three years by HEFCE to support teaching in England in certain high cost
subjects including physics has been particularly welcomed and early signs are that this has assisted in
underpinning the financial sustainability of physics departments.
The Panel noted that many physics departments in universities have organised themselves around specific
themes which themselves had been constructed to provide focus and, in smaller departments, to ensure critical
mass in niche areas as well as to provide differentiation.The Panel also noted a perceived trend towards fewer
but larger departments. Benefits were apparent from membership of regional networks e.g. Scottish Universities
Physics Alliance (SUPA), South East Physics Network (SEPNET) and the Midlands Physics Alliance (MPA) where,
at least in some cases, critical mass and efficiencies such as courses shared between universities using video
conference networks have been accomplished.
The Panel has made a number of observations and come to a number of conclusions concerning key defining
features of the physics landscape.
The percentage of female staff within physics departments is the lowest of all the comparator disciplines
(physical sciences, engineering and biological sciences) but noticeably this proportion has grown over the last six
year period.
The age profile (excluding researchers) of academic staff in physics departments is comparable to that of other
similar disciplines with notable exceptions where physics has the lowest proportion of academic staff in the 2630 year range and the highest proportion at 61 years and over.This is consistent with the fact that physics has
the highest percentage of professors in the physical sciences but the lowest percentage of lecturers and senior
lecturers. Since 2003/04 a small growth has occurred in the number of researchers, professors and other grades,
whilst numbers of senior lecturers have remained static and numbers of lecturers have declined.11 These two
facts suggest that there have been fewer new recruits in the last few years at the lower grades of academic staff
but a growth at the senior grades. Evidently, if this pattern of staffing revealed a lack of academic staff being
recruited into the discipline, there would be a significant problem for the future, and so the Panel has analysed
what may lie behind this pattern. In addition to a strong system of postdoctoral appointments, it would seem
most likely that this pattern of staffing reflects the rather large fraction of young recruits to physics that receive
research fellowships from Research Councils and other bodies such as the Royal Society. Such fellows are often
offered proleptic lectureship appointments and thus are able to concentrate on their research work very early
in their career.This means that by the time that their proleptic appointment is activated, they are already at a
level above that of a lecturer and may not be appointed as such.The same sort of thinking may explain why the
number of professors is quite large, but it is very difficult to be certain of that. In either event, these explanations
seem to assuage the concerns about the current pipeline of academic staff.
11
Source: HESA (Heidi). 'Demographic and Statistic Profile of UK Physics' Review Data Pack, p.18 Available at
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
Review of UK Physics
13
Physics has a comparable percentage of academic staff whose first degree was obtained abroad to that found in
chemistry and the biosciences but a significantly lower percentage than in mathematics and electrical, electronic
and computer engineering.
Finally, and significantly, physics has the highest ratio of academic staff to undergraduate students of all the
comparator disciplines, but the second lowest ratio relative to postgraduate students.12 This reflects the
emphasis placed in physics departments on research and postgraduate training. Whether this is a result of a
deliberate policy of the subject or an indirect consequence of a response to the funding climate, it was not
possible to determine within the timescale of this review, and the shift to research and postgraduate training is
not made explicit in departmental or university submissions. It should be added that it is probably true that
what attracts undergraduate students to physics (as is set out later) is a focus on research, so the research
concentration also has benefits with respect to placement in an undergraduate market.
3.3 Sub-disciplinary Distribution
From the review's survey of vice-chancellors it is clear that around 45% of the institutions submitting an entry in
physics in the 2008 RAE, as well as to the last, have experienced a growth in the volume of their physics
research activities, while 25% have been unchanged and 12% have experienced a significant contraction (the
remaining 18% of respondents did not have a physics department).
Most institutions have significantly consolidated and refocused their programmes so that there are fewer
different groupings submitted by each institution.Table 2 depicts a breakdown of academic staff in physics
departments by physics sub-theme obtained by classifying the research groups reported in the RAE under these
headings. It gives an approximate picture of the changes in submitted academic staff and research fellows
Table 2: Changes in Academic Staff Numbers from RAE Submissions in 2001 and 2008
Theoretical Physics
Nuclear Physics
High Energy and Particle Physics
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Atmospheric Physics
Optics, Photonics and Lasers
Plasma Physics
Condensed Matter13
Instrumentation
Atomic and Molecular Physics
Thermal Physics and Fluid Dynamics
Biophysics
Medical Physics
Other Physics
Total
Number in 2001
Number in 2008
Number +/-
Percentage +/-
227
243.15
16.15
5
45.3
49
3.7
10
213.8
222.25
8.45
5
392.55
443.15
50.6
15
46
35
-11
-25
161.5
178.75
17.25
10
57
47.5
-9.5
-15
439
419.65
-19.35
-5
26.25
28.5
2.25
10
55
54
-1
0
21
19.7
-1.3
-5
14
24
10
70
44
30
-14
-30
12
0
-12
-100
1754.4
1794.65
40.25
2
Source: Research Assessment Exercise returns 2001 and 2008
12
Source: HESA (Heidi). 'Demographic and Statistic Profile of UK Physics' Review Data Pack, p.29 Available at
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
13
Condensed Matter heading includes: nanotechnology, electronics and magnetism, semiconductor physics, materials, chemical
physics as well as condensed matter physics.
14
Review of UK Physics
between RAE2001 and RAE2008. Inevitably there is a degree of ambiguity in this classification under specific
headings, since some groups have a diverse programme and have rebadged themselves over time. For this
reason the percentage increases and decreases have been rounded to the nearest 5%.
The data show that the largest sub-themes within physics departments, as measured by number of academic
staff are, astronomy and astrophysics, condensed matter, theoretical physics and high energy and particle physics
whilst, in contrast, biophysics and medical physics are amongst the smallest.
There has been modest growth in nuclear physics, astronomy and astrophysics, optics, photonics and lasers,
instrumentation and biophysics (this latter area from a very small base). In contrast there have been apparent
declines in atmospheric physics, plasma physics and medical physics.
The changes in these sub-discipline profiles since 2001 reflect a slight increase in the total numbers of RAE
active staff.The large amount of staff effort devoted to the areas of condensed matter, astrophysics, high energy
physics and theoretical physics reflects the continuing interest in these areas of fundamental physics and are
entirely consistent with the notion that physics should be, and is, at the centre of man’s quest for a fundamental
understanding of nature. Although some areas of physics which may be regarded as being towards the more
applied end of the spectrum of the discipline have seen an increase, there is concern that other such areas have
seen a decline. Although there are a number of driving forces for such shifts (which will be discussed below)
there does not appear to be any overriding causal factor.
What the Panel found most surprising is that in the areas where physics interfaces with other disciplines that are
currently exciting, expanding and that offer significant new funding opportunities, there appears to be a
reduction in the number of staff said to be research active in these areas in physics departments.This is despite
the evident importance of the fields and the focus of the Research Councils on them. Of particular note here is
the apparent decline of medical physics and atmospheric physics.This indicates a tendency in physics
departments to be wary of the new areas such as the environment, energy, medical research where funding is
becoming available. Although biophysics has seen a healthy increase (70%), this is from a very small base and it
remains the second smallest sub-discipline using the classification in Table 2. Evidence from the RAE forwardlooks that were made available to the Panel suggests some departments may be planning to expand in
biophysics, and this is welcomed as a move in the right direction.
Following the creation of a specific Research Council in 1994 for particle physics and astronomy (PPARC) there
was a stimulus that encouraged a growth in these areas.The RAE rewarded the growth in fundamental science,
and the availability of internationally funded facilities (sharing the costs which would otherwise fall on individual
institutions) as well as the public and student interest in these areas, each in a small way, contributed to a focus
in these areas.
The issue of rewarding what is deemed fundamental research may also be at play with regard to materials
research.The 2008 report International Perceptions of the UK Materials Research Base notes that there was
'the suggestion that measures of academic merit, such as publication counting and citation indices, were
corralling academics into specific clusters of research activity (in order to ensure sufficient impact to achieve
grant funding); the issue the Panel identified is that these cluster areas do not necessarily match the areas which
would have the maximum economic impact on the UK'14.
There is a natural tendency in physics departments to reduce concentration on areas that demand substantial
investment in local research infrastructure.There has been a noticeable increase in computer based work
(which, of course, costs money but, with the exception of high performance computing, nevertheless costs much
less than running a large experimental facility).This is especially true in small departments in universities where
such an investment would be hard to sustain and has led to a diminution of experimental research carried out
in those departments.
The Panel concludes that much of physics research that lies in the new areas of significance for the world, such
as the environment, health, biology and energy, is being conducted in other departments. In particular, some
areas of physics which are germane to industry based upon physics are now found in other departments or in
multidisciplinary institutes. It is important to note that this was not true in the past when the impact of physics
14
'International Perceptions of the UK Materials Research Base' (2008), EPSRC, IOP, IOM3, Materials UK, RAEng, RSC, pp26-27
Review of UK Physics
15
was often seen to be seminal, for example the development of X-ray crystallography and the birth of the MRC
laboratory of molecular biology out of ‘physics’. As a consequence of this, and coupled with the consolidation of
other areas detailed above, the research base in physics departments is not as broad as it once was across the
country.This is compounded by the Panel's collective view that many departments appear to be specialising in
the same areas; this reduces the overall breadth of physics in the UK collectively. In revising the RAE more
attention needs to be given to recognising the research done outside of the mainstream areas and those that
are relevant to industrial application. Given there is already a very large exercise (the Research Excellence
Framework pilot) being conducted by the Funding Councils, we have not sought to duplicate this investigation
here.
If this hypothesis has any validity then one would expect to find research funding for physics research associated
with other departments of universities. Indeed, we have found that Research Council investments in physics
indicate that some 30% of funds for physics research are invested outside of physics departments. In the case of
BBSRC, MRC and NERC almost 95% of their individual and collective investment in physics is deployed outside
of physics departments. In this context, physics expenditure in BBSRC, NERC and MRC has increased faster
between 2001/02 – 2006/07 in non-physics departments than in physics departments15.This implies that there is
scope for increases in funding to physics departments from MRC, NERC and BBSRC for appropriately targeted
research projects.
From an analysis of the Research Councils’ support to physics departments there is an overall 60:40 split of
support between EPSRC and STFC, but individual departments vary significantly in the ratio of their support
from these two councils. For example, 30% of departments now receive 40% or more of their total income
from STFC (and 28% receive more than 60% from EPSRC)16. In response to a search for an explanation for this
pattern of expenditure on physics, it was reported to the panel that there were barriers to interdisciplinarity.
The most significant is an intellectual argument; physicists that engage outside physics departments are often
providing the tools for the research rather than driving it, or at least this is the perception. Consequently it is not
always seen as the most innovative research in physics and hence may not be included in a physics return to the
RAE (this may explain the low number returned in RAE 2008). It is also possible that it leads to the omission of
these subjects from physics departments.
A consequence of this narrowing of the funding base of the departments is that they become much more
vulnerable to fluctuations in the support they receive from those agencies. For example, whereas the total
research income to biosciences in the UK is more than double that of physics, only 38% of this is derived from
the Research Councils) in comparison to physics where 77% of the total research income is derived from the
Research Councils. Of course it should be noted that the role of charity funding in biosciences is very significant;
34% of funding in this area comes from this source, in particular from the Wellcome Trust, which has no
analogue in the Physical Sciences. However, even in comparison with chemistry, where the total research income
is similar to physics, only 60% of it is drawn from the Research Councils17. Evidently, there are wide variations in
these figures among departments of physics and some are much more reliant on Research Councils and even
just one Research Council than this overall figure. It is therefore not totally surprising that some departments are
very sensitive to the state of funding of particular branches of physics and its fluctuations. It is important to
recognise this in making funding alterations.
It is important to point out here that it is absolutely vital that fundamental, curiosity-driven research continues to
be conducted within all the sciences, engineering, mathematics and medicine. An important observation made
within a variety of different evidence sessions was that there is a clear need to adequately fund core research
within the discipline in order to maintain the capacity to innovate and propel future interdisciplinary activities.
15
Source: RCUK. 'Research Council Funding Data', Review Data Pack p.7. Available at:
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
16
Royal Astronomical Society, (2007) 'Role of Astronomy in Research Funding of UK Physics Departments' available at :
http://www.ras.org.uk//images/stories/ras_pdfs/Policy%20Papers/Role%20of%20Astronomy%20in%20Research%20funding%20of
%20UK%20Physics%20Departments.pdf
17
Source: HESA (Heidi). 'Demographic and Statistic Profile of UK Physics' Review Data Pack, p.61 Available at
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
16
Review of UK Physics
There is a substantial body of evidence that demonstrates that many technical aspects of the modern world
have their origin in fundamental research conducted without any such applications in mind. Demanding and
fundamental challenges can drive developments that then find application in a much wider (and sometimes
radically different) context.The recent report by Lord Sainsbury18 illustrates this vividly and also points out the
long timescale often associated with such developments.Thus, the analysis that is presented above with respect
to physics does not imply a concern that too much fundamental research is being conducted in general; rather it
indicates that the same selective approach to themes has been pursued in many physics departments, some of
which have excluded from their activities some topics that would provide a broader intellectual base and a
broader income base.These departments have therefore rendered themselves vulnerable to the ability of their
major funding source to continue to pay.
The introduction of Full Economic Costing (fEC) will bring benefits to physics departments which have a high
proportion of research funding.This is because we have been told many institutions intend to pass on some of
the fEC income directly to individual physics departments to underpin their local infrastructure and because the
money retained by the institutions for other activities will clearly be associated with the success of physics
departments in attracting Research Council funds. For the reasons indicated earlier, institutions and departments
do not bear the full costs of the infrastructure needed for their research in some (strongly non-local facility
dependent) areas so that this new stream of funding, if retained over the longer term, will add to the QR
funding for such departments helping to secure their long-term financial sustainability.
The Panel concludes that whilst core research areas have been successfully consolidated, the new and developing areas
of physics research concerning environment, medicine and energy appear to have largely transferred out of physics
departments. While this will not directly have affected the undergraduate curriculum in Physics, which is safeguarded by
the work of the Institute of Physics, it will have an indirect impact upon the range of sub-disciplines of physics to which
undergraduates can be exposed in a physics department via research projects in later years for example.
In turn, the selectivity practised by physics departments militates against their ability to work outside the confines of
physics departments, including with large sections of UK industry. This, in turn, further reduces the diversity of funding
sources. The RAE must do more to promote the appreciation of applicable research. The new proposals for REF are
intended to do something about that and we would encourage those designing REF to consider carefully how to
encourage greater account to be taken of applicable research supported by business funding in a manner that ensures
there is an appropriate balance with the funding of curiosity driven research by Research Councils.
The Panel recommends to the Funding Councils that they work closely with Research Councils to ensure
that physics that may be currently conducted outside physics departments and that has application in other
disciplines, and in industry and commerce is fully recognised in the post RAE environment.This also has
important implications for the correct sign-posting (to prospective A-level and Scottish Highers students or
physics undergraduates) of this broader role for physics.
3.4 Ubiquity of Physics and Physicists
Physics, like other physical science disciplines helps to underpin a variety of other fields, principally by providing
an important skills set that includes general problem solving aptitude for mathematical and modelling activities.
Indeed the benchmark statement from the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA)19 for physics
degrees states that 'Ideas and techniques from physics also drive developments in related disciplines, including
chemistry, computing, engineering, materials science, mathematics, medicine, biophysics and the life sciences,
meteorology, oceanography and statistics.'
18
D. Sainsbury (2007) 'The Race to the Top' HM Treasury, available at
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/5/E/sainsbury_review051007.pdf
19
'Physics, Astronomy and Astrophysics' (2008) Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), p.2 Available at
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/statements/Physics08.pdf
Review of UK Physics
17
As reported by the Institute of Physics, it underpins other disciplines via
• Instrumentation which is routinely used by people from cognate disciplines, such as electron microscopes,
scanning probe microscopy, SQUIDS, magnetometers, photon detectors, particle beams, light sources, sensors
(ultrasound, thermal) etc.
• Techniques used by other disciplines: NMR, spectroscopy (e.g. mass spectrometry, optical, infra red etc.)
radioactive dating and tracing and various forms of light manipulation etc.
• The development of technologies such as nuclear fusion, quantum information, atomic beams, photonic
materials, low dimensional structures etc.
Table 3 below illustrates that other disciplines, including engineering, environmental science and mathematics rely
on physics to supply new researchers and expertise.Table 3 takes the total staff currently working in any
university department whose highest qualification is in physics (i.e. those who trained as physicists) and classifies
them by the department they are currently working in. As table 3 shows, only 51.7% of physics trained
researchers are now working in physics departments, with 48.3% now working in other departments – broken
down as follows:
Table 3: Current Departmental Location of Academic Staff with Physics as Highest Qualification
2006/07.
Current Departmental Location (Cost Code)
Physics
Electrical, electronic & computer engineering
Mathematics
Information technology & systems sciences & computer software engineering
Clinical medicine
Earth, marine & environmental sciences
General engineering
Chemistry
Mineral, metallurgy & materials engineering
Mechanical, aero & production engineering
Biosciences
%
51.7
7.8
7.1
4.3
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.4
2.5
2.5
1.7
Source: Higher Education Statistics Agency. Note: Physics and next ten subjects shown only. Current departmental location is illustrated by
Cost Code.
In the particular case of the relationship between physics and engineering, information provided by the Royal
Academy of Engineering illustrates the cross-over. Of current RAEng Research Fellows, 16% of them have at
least a first degree in physics and 35% of current RAEng Research Chairs have a first degree in physics.
Additionally, ten percent of all fellows of the Royal Academy of Engineering are also fellows of the Institute of
Physics.20 From this evidence the Panel concludes that physics training plays a key role in underpinning
engineering research in particular.
Physicists are clearly ubiquitous scientists, being found in engineering, biological sciences and medicine as well as
elsewhere.This ubiquity arises from the fundamental nature of the subject and the problem solving skills/mindset
of those trained in physics.Thus we do need to consider the health of physics itself as it serves this wider
purpose and not just the health of physics departments. Because of this, the Panel believes that the training
issues are vital, in that physics students must be exposed to a broad experience.
20
Source: Royal Academy of Engineering. 'Submissions from Stakeholders' Review Data Pack, p.89. Available at
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
18
Review of UK Physics
Because of the relative absence of the new high priority areas of application of physics from the research
portfolio of physics departments, there is a danger that young physicists may not be exposed to these
disciplines. As a consequence they may not be able to, firstly know what research opportunities are on offer, and
secondly have sufficient knowledge to explore these opportunities.
Notwithstanding the Panel's general comment on the health of UK physics above, concern remains as to the health of
physics departments in terms of the selectivity that all but the largest have exercised with respect to their research
portfolio. For the sake of the future of the discipline it is essential that students continue to be exposed to areas of the
subject which are particularly applicable in the 21st century; such as biophysics/medicine, energy/environment, and
applied physics/engineering. Physicists are poised to play a vital role in tackling some the major problems facing the
nation which require a science-based approach. For this, it is essential that students be exposed to a broad range of
core physics knowledge and taught appropriate skills. To this end the Panel fully endorses the Institute of Physics
degree accreditation process. The Panel suggests that universities should consider the optimal configuration for
delivering a broad-based physics education that takes in non-traditional and newly developing areas, while continuing
to provide a solid training in the core aspects of the subject. The Funding Councils and Research Councils should
consider how they can encourage physics departments to reclaim the intellectual leadership in some of the areas
which they support but which currently lie outside their direct reach.
As a separate point derived from the same information, the observation made earlier that physics is seen as a service
to some of the growth areas of demand for physicists is likely to mean that those fields are failing to take the
maximum possible advantage of the very skills that physicists possess in addressing complex problems with analytical
tools. The Panel believes there is a compelling case for encouraging physics departments to claim intellectual leadership
of some of the areas they have eschewed in order to bring benefits to those fields and broaden the base of their
income. We understand that this will mean a greater degree of coordination among the relevant research councils to
determine how this might be done.
The Panel recommends to the Funding Councils and Research Councils that they work together to consider
how they can encourage physics departments to reclaim the intellectual leadership in the broader spectrum
of physics supported across the full science base.
3.5 Summary
In summary, the Panel conclude that physics in the UK is in a generally good state of health, having benefited
from a significant increase in research expenditure in recent years, stabilising the number of research active
academic staff in departments. We note that this expenditure has not kept pace with the increase in the overall
science budget, but much of that increase has been predicated upon advancement in strategic areas such as
health, the environment and energy.Thus, while UK physics departments are performing curiosity-driven
research of the highest international quality across a selected series of topics, the discipline is perhaps not taking
advantage of new income streams that could be available to it.
Physics is ubiquitous in nature underpinning many other scientific and engineering research fields, through the
provision of instrumentation, techniques, models and analysis, and basic technology. Physicists can be found
working in the heartland of the discipline to advance fundamental knowledge or as part of multidisciplinary
teams in other departments and interdisciplinary centres working on applied physics challenges.
The Panel concludes that the future health of the discipline requires broader, rather than more specialised
departments in which there is an appropriate balance between different sub-disciplines. Overspecialisation
makes departments more dependent upon Research Council funding than other cognate disciplines and, in
some more extreme cases, on a single Research Council. Overspecialisation can have a negative impact upon
the diversity of income and stability of departments, on the breadth of the undergraduate experience and,
ultimately, on the strength of related disciplines that rely upon physicists.
Review of UK Physics
19
4. Education,Training and People
Outside the main remit of an academic discipline to produce a trained workforce with those skills, is the need
for research and the training of the researchers of tomorrow.This remit largely rests with the department
carrying the name of that discipline. Having a good pipeline of young, talented researchers is essential for any
academic discipline to remain healthy and vibrant. And, at the same time it is also extremely desirable to have a
well-structured age profile throughout the academic grade structure of a discipline, to ensure balanced
experience and leadership, without the potentially damaging consequence of a retirement crisis.This chapter
focuses in depth on the training and people issues affecting physics, and covers topics ranging from the teaching
of physics in schools, right through to senior research leadership.
4.1 Physics in Schools
A healthy supply of young people wanting to study the discipline is essential for training the researchers of
tomorrow for the physics-based industrial community, for financial services and many other aspects of the UK.
Physics has suffered over a large number of years from a substantial drop in the numbers of A-level students
that has affected other disciplines. Concentrating on the more recent period, Graph 1 shows that between 2002
and 2007 total A-level entries in physics declined from 31,543 to 27,466 – a decline of 13%.This compares to
an increase in mathematics entrants of 26%, an increase in biology numbers of 4.6% and an increase in chemistry
entries of 10%.21 In the subjects other than physics, the early part of the period shown also saw a decline which
has now been reversed. While there is a glimmer of hope for an increase in physics in the most recent figures, it is
still too early to say if the new trend can be sustained. Given the efforts devoted by government and many other
agencies to reversing the declining trends for other subjects, it is to be hoped that the same will be true of physics.
However, the extent of the problem for physics (and other disciplines) has to be judged in the context that total
A level entries have increased by almost 15% in the same period22. In Scotland the story is of slower decline,
but still a decline. From 2002 to 2007 applications for Highers and Advanced Highers in physics combined have
declined by 9.7%, while applications to all subjects have declined by 0.5%23 over the same time period.The Panel
finds this a deeply worrying trend.
Graph 1:Total A Level Entries across four sample subjects
A-Level Entries to Science and Mathematics 1996-2007
Number of Entries
80000
70000
Physics
60000
Mathematics
50000
Chemistry
40000
Biology
30000
20000
10000
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Year
Source: Joint Council for
Qualifications (JCQ)
21
Source: Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) data with analysis by the Institute of Physics, available at
http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Statistics/Education%20Statistics/page_2620.html
22
Source: Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ)data with analysis by the Institute of Physics, available at
http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Statistics/Education%20Statistics/page_2620.html
23
Source: Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA), 'Demographic and Statistic Profile of UK Physics' Review Data Pack, p.42.
Available at http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
20
Review of UK Physics
Looking more closely at the decline in the study of physics amongst post-16 school children, there is a significant
difference in the numbers of male and female entrants taking the subject at A level. Graph 2 shows a
comparison with other physical science disciplines and provides stark evidence of the gender gap that affects
physics. A similar picture holds for Higher/Advanced Higher entries in Scotland.
Graph 2: 2007 A Level Entries by Subject and Gender
2007 A-Level Entries by Subject by Gender
80000
Female
Number of Entries
70000
Male
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
Physics
Mathematics
Chemistry
Biology
Discipline
Source: Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ).
Between 2002 and 2007 the number of entries from males in A level physics fell by 12% and entries from
females by 16%24.The gender gap has therefore grown in recent years.
This gender gap, as it moves up the system, itself damages the prospects for physics teaching in a vicious circle.
More women go into secondary school teaching than men and so the shortage of teachers is exacerbated.
A child's first exposure to physics is in school and therefore their experience here is an important consideration
for why young people study the discipline. With this in mind it is important that children understand what the
discipline of physics entails and that it is appropriately taught by teachers who are themselves physics-trained.
A recent report commissioned by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation25 suggests that in state schools 41% of upto-16 schools in England have no specialist physics teachers, compared with 11% of up-to-18 schools. Looking at
the specialism of science teachers in up-to-18 schools (i.e. those with sixth forms), physics comes out lowest
with 22.9%, compared to 25.8% for chemistry, and 35.3% for biology (16% have a general science training).
Earlier research by the same team26 shows that schools which have bucked the national trend in terms of
increasing the number of A level physics students share a number of key features.These include: a critical mass
of able students, good leadership and a culture of success in the school, but also that physics is taught as physics
by enthusiastic specialist teachers. In Scotland teachers are required to have a university education in the subject
to teach it at Standard Grade level (equivalent to GCSE) or above. In addition the three sciences are taught as
separate subjects at this level.These two effects may have prevented the decline in popularity of physics reaching
the same levels as in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, but they have not prevented some decline.
The Panel welcomes the Government's target that, by 2014 25% of science teachers should have a physics
specialism27.The Panel would urge that the notion of specialist training in physics should normally mean holding
at least an undergraduate degree in the subject.
24
Source: JCQ. 'Demographic and Statistic Profile of UK Physics' Review Data Pack, p.36. Available at
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
25
A. Smithers and P. Robinson, (2008) 'Physics in Schools IV: Supply and Retention of Teachers', University of Buckingham p9.
26
A. Smithers and P. Robinson, (2007) 'Physics in Schools III: Bucking the Trend' University of Buckingham p34.
27
HM Treasury, 'Science and Innovation Framework 2004-2014: Next Steps' (2006) HM Treasury p.39
Review of UK Physics
21
We note that in 2007, 22% of students taking physics at A-level studied in independent schools28 which reach
only 7% of the student population.These are schools where physics is more likely to be taught separately pre-16
and to be taught by qualified physics teachers.
In terms of social background, physical sciences are then more likely to attract applicants from these schools to
study the subject at undergraduate level than biological and mathematical sciences. Between 2001 and 2005
48% of physics applicants came from the top two socioeconomic status groups (higher managerial and lower
managerial) compared to 43% and 42% for biological sciences and mathematical sciences respectively29.
The Panel notes with concern the decline in students taking A level physics. The Panel believes that the way physics is
taught in schools needs to be reviewed, and this should mean that the subject is taught by teachers who are physics
trained. Whilst the government has already set targets with regard to this, a physics trained teacher must, in the long
term, mean that he/she has a physics degree. Additionally, there should be more of an opportunity to focus on core
physics skills at GCSE level. Arguments we have adduced earlier suggest that those core skills would have application
in main areas.
Separately the Panel acknowledges the aims of the Institute of Physics' JUNO project, and RCUK's Research Careers
and Diversity Strategy, but feels that the gender gap in particular is so engrained in the discipline of physics that action
is needed from an early stage.
The Panel proposes
a) to DCSF that physics should be taught by those trained in the subject, and the same successful ideas that
were applied to raising mathematics take-up in schools by improving mathematics teaching be extended
to physics; and
b) that research is undertaken by RCUK and DCSF to identify factors influencing non-take up of physics in
post compulsory schooling amongst those from wider social and ethnic backgrounds and from women.
4.2 From A-levels to Undergraduates
Whilst it has been shown above that the number of A level students in physics has declined, this decline is
curiously not reflected in the numbers of applications made to study physics and astronomy at undergraduate
Graph 3: UCAS Applications to Study Biology, Chemistry and Physics at Undergraduate Level 2001
to 2007
UC AS Applications by Discipline (2001 t0 2007)
Number of Applications
6000
Biology
5000
Chemistry
4000
Physics and
Astronomy
3000
2000
1000
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Year
Source: University College Admissions Service (UCAS). Note that physics included both physics and astronomy applications. Number of
applications presented above does not include applications through the clearing process.
28
Source: AQA/Institute of Physics. 'Demographic and Statistic Profile of UK Physics' Review Data Pack, p.41. Available at
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
29
Source: UCAS. Cited in The Royal Society (2008) 'Exploring the relationship between socioeconomic status and participation
and attainment in science education' The Royal Society pp. 19 and 20.
22
Review of UK Physics
level. Graph 3 above shows that with the exception of 2004, applications over the past six years have increased
and are consistently at a higher level than for chemistry. Additionally, whilst physics and astronomy applications
are 19% higher in 2007 than in 2001, applications for biology have actually declined by 12.5%.
The reasons for this difference in behaviour of A level numbers and undergraduate applications are far from
clear.They may well be linked to the cessation of physics as a prerequisite for the study of medicine, removing a
cohort of students from the A level numbers but not affecting the number going on to study physics at
university. What is clear from examining A level combinations in England is that most of the decline has been
taking place with regard to students studying physics without any other STEM subject (4500 in 2002 compared
to 2900 in 2007), whilst the number of those studying both maths and physics has declined less rapidly (18,000
in 2002 compared to 17,400 in 2007)30. As the requirements to study physics (and engineering) at
undergraduate level are A levels in physics and maths, the size of the potential undergraduate cohort is not
reducing as quickly as might be first thought. Nonetheless it is not increasing, and this means that the rise in
student applications is from a slowly diminishing pool.The Panel is concerned at the consequences this might
have, both on the long-term quality of applicants and the sustainability of such increases. In our conversations
with those from the business sector there was a clear feeling that the best students of physics make enormous
contributions across a wide spectrum of subsequent employment, but there was some concern about the
quality in the tail of the distribution.
Another interesting observation that can be made at the transition from A level to undergraduate level is the
lack of ethnic minority students studying the subject beyond the age of 18. Research by the Institute of Physics
and Royal Society of Chemistry31 has examined different ethnic minorities' representation throughout the
education pipeline in both physics and chemistry. Indian and Chinese students are more likely to achieve an
A level in physics than white students. However, beyond A level, among students with the appropriate A level
grades to study physics, all ethnic minorities except Chinese students are underrepresented at undergraduate
level. A number of British Asian students thus leave the discipline at this stage despite evident potential. In
chemistry this appears to be less of an issue, where at A level all ethnic groups except black Caribbean are
more likely than white students to achieve a chemistry A level , and at undergraduate level all groups (again with
the exception of black Caribbean) are overrepresented (as a fraction of the population) in relation to white
students. Whilst the attraction of chemistry at A level for ethnic minorities can in part be explained by its
necessity for the study of medicine, it does mean that, in comparison, physics at undergraduate level is primarily
studied by white men.This is of significant concern to the Panel, as again it severely limits the pool from which
universities can select students.
A very important prerequisite for the study of physics at degree level is good mathematical ability, most often
represented by a high A level grade in the subject. Obviously, physics and mathematics are very closely linked,
and a maths A-level is an essential qualification in the study of physics. It follows that for those wishing to study
physics it is almost obligatory that they should study both mathematics and physics at A level.The high number
in Graph 4 contrasts with the very low number of students who take physics without maths at A level and then
study physics at university (as they have sidestepped normal entry requirements).The Panel's comments on how
physics is taught therefore also apply to mathematics, in that it is essential that a large and high quality cadre of
trained students exist to increase the pool of potential physics undergraduates.This increase obviously needs to
take place at a pre-16 age so that appropriate A levels can be chosen for the study of physics at undergraduate
level. In particular, it means that any policy designed by Government to enhance physics teaching must not be at
the cost of teaching mathematics.
The issue of maths training is particularly relevant to the skills students need once they are studying at
undergraduate level.The Panel obtained evidence, both directly from witnesses and on the basis of written
submissions, that the quality of mathematical skills at university entry had declined over a number of years.
Heads of departments commented that remedial classes and foundation years were now being operated to
build the necessary level of ability and independent thinking.The Panel therefore strongly supports current
30
Source: Institute of Physics. 'Demographic and Statistic Profile of UK Physics' Review Data Pack, pp. 39 to 40. Available at
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
31
P Elias, P Jones, and S McWhinnie (2006) 'Representation of Ethnic Groups in Chemistry and Physics' The Royal Society of
Chemistry and the Institute of Physics.
Review of UK Physics
23
proposals to increase the quality of maths training in schools, such as offering financial incentives to encourage
the recruitment of mathematics teachers, and the development of schemes to fast track careers for outstanding
teachers.
Graph 4 also shows that in each of the ten most popular degree courses for those studying physics and
mathematics at A level there has been a decline of students in between 2005 and 2006.This strongly suggests
that the uptake of Physics is an important A level for a wide range of other disciplines and the health of those
disciplines.
Graph 4:Ten most popular first degree destinations of home students who sat both Physics and
Mathematics A Level 2005-06
2500
Number of Students
2005
2006
2000
1500
1000
500
is
t ry
he
m
ec
ha
ni
ca
l
C
at
ic
s
s
at
he
m
M
M
Ph
ys
ic
En
gi
ne
er
C
in
iv
g
il
En
gi
ne
er
C
in
om
g
pu
te
rS
E
ci
El lec
en
ec tr
ce
o
tri n
ca ic
a
l
Ae
En nd
ro
gi
sp
ne
ac
er
in
e
g
En
gi
ne
Pr
er
ein
cl
g
in
ic
al
m
ed
G
ic
en
in
er
e
al
En
gi
ne
er
in
g
0
First Degree
Source: University College and Admissions Service, with analysis by the Institute of Physics.
As well as examining the numbers of students transferring from A level to undergraduate level and potential
issues affecting that flow, the Panel also sought to understand why students choose to study physics at university.
Throughout the course of its investigation the Panel heard a large amount of anecdotal evidence suggesting that
astronomy is an important factor in attracting undergraduate students to physics - a point made most strongly
by the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS). In a survey of its membership, RAS reports that a number of its
fellows cite that including astronomy elements in a broader degree course makes that course more attractive to
prospective students32. As part of a study looking at the societal benefits of UK research in particle physics by the
Institute of Physics' High Energy Particle Physics Group, 673 first year physics students (20% of the cohort) were
questioned in November 2007 as to which aspect of physics attracted them to the subject. In terms of most
significant interest, fundamental particles, nuclear physics and astrophysics were the most cited, in this order.33
The Panel therefore recognises the importance of these core elements of physics in maintaining current student
numbers. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the GCSE and A level syllabuses themselves reflect this focus.
This point repeats one of the observations made earlier about the selectivity of physics departments in their
research areas. Necessarily, to deliver a curriculum which lives up to the expectations of students attracted by
specific disciplines it is essential that staff be recruited to teach in these areas (most especially to deliver
specialist courses in later years and research projects). Of course, those staff are then under pressure to
perform research at the highest level and so there is a reinforcement of the selection of research topics. In itself
32
Source: Royal Astronomical Society. 'Submissions from Stakeholders' Review Data Pack, p.71. Available at
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
33
P. Allport and M. Lancaster (Eds.) (2008) 'A Study of the Cross-Discipline and Societal Benefits of UK Research in Particle
Physics' Institute of Physics High Energy Physics Group, Unpublished. p. 23
24
Review of UK Physics
this focus is not inappropriate because the training in the methodology of physics undoubtedly remains sound
no matter what topics are used. However, in some departments this could have the unintended consequence of
limiting the exposure of physics undergraduates to the complete spectrum of activities that have physics within
them could become limited. As mentioned elsewhere this may have important consequences for disciplines
outside of physics that depend upon physicists.
4.3 Physics at Undergraduate Level
Physics student numbers (total population) at undergraduate level, in line with the number of applications, has
also increased over the last five years albeit from a diminishing pool of A level entrants. Graph 5 shows that the
total increase in undergraduate student numbers in physics and astronomy between 2002/03 and 2006/07 was
16.8%.The increase in male students is 17.9% and for female students is 12.8%.This larger increase in the
number of male over female students further exacerbates the gender problem.
Graph 5:Total Undergraduate Physics and Astronomy Student Numbers by Gender 2002/03 to
2006/07
Total Undergraduate Physics and Astronomy Student Numbers by Gender
Total Student Numbers (FPE)
14000
Male
12000
Female
10000
Male and Female
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
Years
Source: Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA - Heidi).
In recent years there has been a substantial growth in the MPhys/MSci, a four year qualification (five in Scotland)
that is recommended for the professional physicist, which contains additional skills such as ICT and
communication.The qualification also allows time for a more substantial research project and for a wider range
of advanced courses, some of which fulfil the already mentioned desire to expose undergraduate physicists to
the breadth of opportunities in medical/biological, energy/environment, finance/business, and engineering careers.
The Institute of Physics argues that most observers see graduates of the integrated masters as superior to those
from 1-year stand-alone MSc courses after a bachelors degree. One-year stand-alone masters degrees tend to
be more vocational and specialist, so they do not necessarily assist more general employability. However, an issue
of concern here is whether other countries in Europe will recognise the UK MPhys as being consistent with a
degree of the second cycle as envisaged in the Bologna Process. Some departments of physics are thinking of
introducing a 3 + 2 integrated masters degree to deal with this matter: further guidance from DIUS and/or
Universities UK is needed rapidly on the way forward. A key issue here also concerns finance. At the moment
stand alone masters degrees (MSc or the +2 mentioned above) are not eligible for student loans and the
students have therefore to make an upfront payment of fees from their own resources to be able to enrol on
such courses.This is a deterrent, especially when many students accumulate a debt during the three preceding
years of undergraduate study.The Panel recognises that these issues are not confined to physics but the relative
absence of one-year masters courses in the discipline make it different for the subject.
The Panel endorses the Institute of Physics' efforts in promoting the need to ensure that UK qualifications (the
MPhys/MSci in particular) are consistent with the Bologna process. The Panel fully supports the Bologna process and
recognises the importance of ensuring UK research training does not become decoupled from that of the rest of
Review of UK Physics
25
Europe, since that would significantly impact on the UK's ability to recruit the best young researchers, and for our
graduates to move freely within the European research environment.
The Panel proposes that DIUS works closely with the Institute of Physics and Universities UK to ensure
compatibility of current physics qualifications with the Bologna process.
4.4 Physics at Postgraduate Level
Continuing the trend, the number of students studying the subject at postgraduate level is also increasing. Physics
is especially noteworthy at postgraduate level because departments provide a rather small number of standalone masters degrees relative to comparator disciplines (although physics department staff do participate in the
teaching of interdisciplinary courses with other departments as well).Thus, most postgraduate students are
engaged in research leading to a doctorate. We shall have something further to say about specialist masters
degrees later. Between 2002/03 and 2006/07 the number of physics postgraduate research students increased
by 10% from 3424 to 3765. However, in contrast with the trends highlighted above, the number of male
students increased by 7%, compared with an increase in female numbers of 24%34.
The academic labour market has always been international in nature and the numbers of postgraduate students
coming from outside of the UK has been increasing for many years. Graphs 6 and 7 compare the percentage of
students by domicile at postgraduate research level (i.e. whether the student's first degree was completed in the
UK or outside) and undergraduate level (whether the student was educated in the UK or not). A clear
difference is visible between the percentages of non-UK educated students at postgraduate research level, which
is substantially higher than at undergraduate level, especially for engineering subjects and particularly for
computer science. In comparison with the other disciplines, physics has the highest level of UK-educated
students at postgraduate research level (but broadly comparable with biology and chemistry and little different
from mathematics), and has the third highest percentage of UK-educated students at undergraduate level
(behind chemistry and biology but again broadly comparable to both and little different to mathematics and
computer science).To a very large extent this reflects the fact that in the countries who supply most of the
overseas students to the UK a pure science undergraduate degree does not lead to good employment
prospects in their home country.This is in contrast to the prospects that arise from engineering courses in the
UK or applied science degrees elsewhere.This is somewhat reduced as an inhibition for study at postgraduate
level because academic posts become accessible on return.
This observation adds one more concern for the finances of physics departments because the source of income
from tuition fees for overseas students has been of significance for engineering departments.Thus, there is a
further narrowing of the income streams available to physics departments.
On the one hand some of our correspondents recorded their satisfaction with the influx of overseas
researchers because it was an indicator of the great prestige that UK physics enjoys throughout the world. On
the other hand, other correspondents expressed concern about the long-term implications in terms of whether
overseas researchers will stay in the UK system, and the issue of increased competition for UK-educated
researchers. At the same time the relative lack of UK postgraduate students might also be an indicator of some
difficulty with the quality of UK-trained applicants for academic positions in physics or the availability of more
attractive positions overseas or in sectors of employment outside higher education.This is an area in which
there is little reliable data. In view of its importance to the health of the discipline of Physics and possibly to
other disciplines, we would suggest this is collated.
Looking at what attracts students to study physics at doctoral level, the overwhelming answer appears to be
genuine curiosity in the subject. In 2003 PPARC commissioned a study tracking the destinations of particle
physics and astronomy PhD students whose awards had ended 6-8 years earlier. Of the 181 students that
participated, 76% stated that a key reason for them to study physics at a doctoral level was because of their
love of the research that they were involved with35.This chimes closely with evidence gathered during the
Panel's meeting with a sample of postdoctoral researchers, where for a majority a love of the subject was a
clear motivating factor for studying it.
34
Source: HESA (Heidi). 'Demographic and Statistic Profile of UK Physics'
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
Review Data Pack,
p57. Available at
26
Review of UK Physics
Graph 6: Percentage of Postgraduate Research Students by Domicile 2006/07
Percentage of Postgraduate Research Students by Domicile (2006/07)
100
Number of Entries %
90
80
Non-European Union
70
Other European Union
60
United Kingdom
50
40
30
20
10
M
G
en
er
a
lE
ng
in
ee
r
ne
er
in
al
En
gi
an
ic
ec
h
C
in
g
g
en
ce
ci
ic
s
he
m
at
at
M
om
pu
te
rS
y
Ph
ys
ic
s
an
d
As
tro
no
m
C
he
m
is
t ry
Bi
ol
og
y
0
Discipline
Source: Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA – Heidi)
Graph 7: Percentage of First Year Undergraduate Students by Domicile 2006/07
Percentage of Undergraduate Students by Domicile (2006/07)
100
Number of Entries %
90
80
Non-European Union
70
Other European Union
60
United Kingdom
50
40
30
20
10
rin
g
in
ee
ng
en
er
al
E
G
M
ec
h
an
ic
al
En
g
ci
e
in
ee
rin
g
nc
e
ic
s
C
om
pu
te
rS
at
he
m
at
As
an
d
si
cs
Ph
y
M
tro
no
m
y
t ry
C
he
m
is
Bi
ol
og
y
0
Discipline
Source: Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA - Heidi). Note that data refers to undergraduate students in their first year only
As was mentioned earlier, a difference between physics and many other disciplines is the lack of masters
qualifications. It is, to some extent similar to chemistry in this regard. In 2006/07 385 students obtained a
masters qualification in physics, compared with 410 in chemistry, 750 in biology and 2740 in electronic and
electrical engineering. In part this small number for physics owes its origin to the change in funding of masters
courses by Research Councils. In many scientific disciplines the one-year stand-alone masters course aims to
35
DTZ Pieda Consulting (2003) 'A Study of the Career Paths of PPARC PhD Students' Particle Physics and Astronomy Research
Council p.12
Review of UK Physics
27
provide a more vocationally oriented course on top of a generic undergraduate training. Nuclear physics (that
will be mentioned later) is one pertinent example where there are specialist masters courses available.This
means there is usually a particular industry or government sector that recruits from such masters courses
especially in areas where many such degrees are awarded. In physics the overall business and Government base
is rather broad (broader than that for chemistry for example) and it is difficult to identify large numbers of
specific areas where such master’s programmes attract industry interest and student enrolment. In any event, as
we have noted elsewhere, physics departments have often not retained those direct business facing components
within their selection of themes so that there is neither the interest nor staff to deliver such courses.There are,
of course, exceptions to this generalisation, but the consequence is that yet another potential income stream is
removed from physics departments.
If one looks at the number of PhD qualifications awarded in 2006/07 in the selection of subjects discussed
above, chemistry tops the list with 1040 doctorates awarded, followed by physics with 705, biology with 680,
and electronic and electrical engineering at 670. Physics remains strongly competitive in terms of the numbers of
researchers training at the highest level and reflects the concentration in physics departments upon research.
4.5 Postdoctoral Researchers
Graph 8 shows academic grade profiles by discipline in 2006/07. Physics has the highest percentage of
researchers of all the disciplines shown at almost 52%, closely followed by chemistry (50%) and biosciences
(48.5%), with earth sciences and engineering much lower at 36% and 34.5% respectively36.The Panel notes the
high number of postdoctoral researchers in physics compared with other physical sciences.
Graph 8: Academic Grade Profile (by percentage) 2006/07
Academic Grade Profile by Percentage 2006/07
60
Professors
50
Senior Lecturers
and Researchers
40
Lecturers
%
Researchers
30
Other Grades
20
10
0
Biosciences
Chemistry
Physics
Earth, Marine
Engineering
& Environmental
Science
Discipline
Source: Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA - Heidi)
This would appear to indicate two things: firstly, a sizable dependence on research funding (in order to support
the large number of salaries). Secondly, it would appear to signal a potential difficulty in achieving progression for
younger researchers to academic careers.This point was backed-up by a group of post doctoral researchers
with whom the Panel met. Many such researchers had been on fixed-term projects for some time (even up to
10 years) and a significant proportion had still not managed to obtain academic staff positions. It is a
characteristic of some of the areas of research in physics that the projects have a very long timescale so that
accumulated expertise has an especial value perhaps not quite so important in some other fields.This leads to a
circumstance where there are more staff in physics departments that pursue a lifetime career in research alone,
than is characteristic of disciplines that are otherwise comparable.
36
Source: HESA (Heidi). 'Demographic and Statistic Profile of UK Physics' Review Data Pack, p20. Available at
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
28
Review of UK Physics
This situation partly reflects the special nature of large parts of physics research with its very long timescales and
demand for continuous expertise, and thus may be thought inevitable. However, the difficulty in progression
does cause some concern.There must be a responsibility for a principal investigator(s) not only to the progress
of the science but also to the career development of their junior, postdoctoral colleagues. It is very easy to see
how these two responsibilities can be in conflict.The post doctoral researchers that met with the Panel all
highlighted the divided priorities of the academic mentor in terms of what is best for his/her research project
(i.e. avoidance of having to recruit a specialist position on a research project) against what is best for the
postdoctoral researcher in terms of whether they should pursue an alternative career.The Panel understands
that such a discussion is often very difficult, but urges academic mentors to always consider what is in the best
in long-term interest of the researcher.The Panel notes that this problem exists for all disciplines but is
particularly acute for some branches of physics because of the long-term nature of the projects and the large
number of postdoctoral workers.This issue was also highlighted by the 2008 International Perceptions of the UK
Materials Research Base report.
The Panel's conversation with postdoctoral researchers suggests that many are not fully informed of the likely outcome
of their career track, and often get inappropriate careers advice. This is perhaps of more significance to physics than to
some other disciplines because of the large number of postdoctoral researchers, the duration of research projects, and
the duration of the cycle of fixed term employment. First, their career advice is usually derived from their supervisors
who have, very often, a potentially conflicted position. This observation has been made in other reviews. Secondly, most
begin on the postdoctoral route with an aspiration to be an academic – but a rather small fraction of them can
expect to make it.
The Panel recommends that Universities, Funding Councils and Research Councils work together to develop
the research concordat so that realistic career advice is given to junior scholars and that mechanisms to
ensure early career opportunities are maximised in strategic areas of the research base.
4.6 Academic Staff
The first thing to say about physics academic staff is that in terms of age profile the discipline is in robust good
health. Graph 9 shows that physics compares very favourably with other similar disciplines.The distribution of
age peaks at 41-45 years indicating a young core, and it tails off fairly gently with no late peak that would
indicate a looming retirement crisis.
Graph 9: Age profile by Discipline 2006/07 (excluding researchers)
Age Profile by Discipline 2006/07 (minus researchers)
25
Biosciences
20
Chemistry
Physics
15
%
Earth, Marine and
Environmental
Sciences
10
Engineering
5
Geography
25
ye
ar
s
an
d
un
de
26
r
-3
0
ye
ar
31
s
-3
5
ye
ar
36
s
-4
0
ye
ar
41
s
-4
5
ye
ar
46
s
-5
0
ye
ar
51
s
-5
5
ye
56
ar
s
-6
0
ye
ar
61
s
-6
66
5
ye
ye
ar
ar
s
s
an
d
ov
er
U
nk
no
w
n
0
Age Profiles
Source: Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA - Heidi)
Review of UK Physics
29
In terms of gender, as elsewhere in the physics research pipeline, there is a significant difference between the
numbers of male and female academic staff in university departments. Graph 10 illustrates the percentage of
female academic staff in a sample of disciplines over a period of five years. Whilst moving in the right direction in
terms of gender equality (there would seem to be an increase in the percentage of female new academic
appointments), physics' position at the bottom of the chart remains a cause for concern, especially bearing in
mind what has been discussed above about the size of gender inequality earlier on in the physics research
pipeline.To this end the Panel fully endorses the Institute of Physics' Project Juno, whereby departments who
sign up to become a 'Juno Champion' agree to adhere to five principles designed to support the career
development of female staff and students.
Graph 10: Percentage of Female Academic Staff by Discipline (excluding researchers) 2001/02 to
2006/07
Percentage of Female Academic Staff by Discipline (minus researchers)
% of Female Academic Staff
40
35
Biosciences
30
Chemistry
25
Physics
20
Earth, Marine and
Environmental
Sciences
15
10
Engineering
5
0
Geography
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
Years
Source: Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA - Heidi)
Whilst numbers of lecturers, senior lecturers and professors have remained broadly stable, this has occurred at a
time of concentration of physics department numbers. Since 1995, 28 physics departments have either closed
or merged, with 19 of these in post-1992 universities.37 As a consequence, physics departments are now
overwhelmingly concentrated in research-based, pre-1992 universities. Of the 43 institutions that submitted to
Unit of Assessment 19 (physics) in the 2008 RAE, only five of these (11.6%) are post-1992 institutions. Many of
the departments (Brunel, Bradford, Aston etc.) that have now closed had a strong applied emphasis to their
research. Many other departments were also teaching-led. For the reasons discussed earlier, the external
environment created by the RAE, the selectivity of research funding, the lack of demand for undergraduate
programmes create a financial model in which it is difficult, indeed impossible, to operate physics departments in
either an applied-led or a teaching-led mode. A research intensive mode is the only one that is currently seen as
viable if applied to physics as a unit within a university. An indirect consequence of these circumstances is
revealed by a recent Institute of Physics survey of 409 first degree students who graduated in 2006.This survey
suggests that 72.9% of graduates in physics came from the highest three socio-economic backgrounds.The loss
of physics in many post-1992 universities can only exacerbate this social divide.
It is worth emphasising the fact that it is not financially viable to run a teaching-led activity in a subject such as
physics.The Institute of Physics argue that the HEFCE banding profile for funding undergraduate teaching (band
B) undervalues physics by around 20%. Coupled with the fact that larger departments are taking more students
to secure their own financial viability on the basis of economies of scale (of the 46 departments offering physics
degrees in the UK, 10 of them provide almost half of the full-time equivalent places), then it is possible to see
that smaller departments were squeezed quite significantly in terms of teaching income and indeed not
37
Source: Institute of Physics, 'Demographic and Statistic Profile of UK Physics' Review Data Pack, p34. Available at
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
30
Review of UK Physics
financially viable. Of course, it is entirely possible that if a broader definition of physics were encouraged through
the RAE, a broader spectrum of income could sustain the discipline of physics in an institution even if not
narrowly confined to a department.
4.7 Research Leaders
Taking the issue of physics being a research-led discipline further, one is able to note the high level of staff in
physics departments who are professors when compared to other disciplines. Graph 8 on page 27 shows that
of the sample of disciplines presented, physics has the highest percentage of professors (15.2%) compared with
12.2% for chemistry, and 10% for the biosciences. However, in terms of the percentages of lecturers and senior
lecturers, physics comes out lowest on both counts.This would appear to indicate that physics is fairly top-heavy
in terms of its grade profile, although not in its age profile.The subject also has a lower proportion of more
junior academic positions. We speculated earlier on the reasons for this situation and even though we cannot be
certain in that regard, it does further emphasise the difficulty of postdoctoral researchers in obtaining academic
positions.
4.8 Summary
In summary, the Panel's principal concerns going forward are with regard to the reduction of A-level and
equivalent student numbers and the effects this will have on the long-term health of the discipline. Whilst the
overall numbers and age profile of the academic discipline appear to be robust, the absence of a large female
cohort remains a cause for concern and indications are that change will take time. For postdoctoral researchers,
the Panel felt that attention is also required to ensure that they achieve appropriate careers advice so that their
full potential is realised.
Review of UK Physics
31
5. Economic Impact
This chapter examines the impact physics makes beyond university physics departments. Four key issues are
discussed: the flow of trained researchers beyond academia; the interaction between physics departments and
industry and business; the emphasis (or lack of it) on applicable research in departments compared to that done
overseas, and; the success of university spin-out companies from physics departments. In its analysis of these issues,
case-studies form the primary evidence base, as well as additional analysis commissioned by the Institute of Physics.
5.1 Flow of physics trained researchers beyond academia
As alluded to in chapter four, the flow of physics-trained undergraduates, but particularly researchers from
academia represents a significant contribution both to the economy and society. From a variety of sources, the
Panel heard many examples of the value of physics-trained graduates.The best of these people are highly
numerate, adept at logical problem solving, with an aptitude for addressing complex problems and well suited to
a variety of jobs in many sectors including: IT, finance, engineering (e.g. aerospace, communications, electronics,
etc.), environmental science, petroleum/mining industry, energy industry, defence industry and medical physics. All
the evidence the Panel has seen suggests that physics is a highly relevant training. From the Institute of Physics'
2006 tracking of UK physics students38 78% of respondents found their physics background either quite useful
or very useful to their current occupation, whatever that was.The Undergraduate Physics Inquiry39 highlighted
that physicists find employment in a wide range of sectors, often far from what would conventionally be thought
of as physics.This is of course consistent with the Panel’s finding that physicists are ubiquitous graduates within
the narrower confines of research and academia.
In terms of graduates who do not continue in education, the most significant proportion goes into industry and
work in finance, electronics/IT, construction, high-tech industries, transport and aerospace.40 Of course physics
impacts on a wider area than just the physics-based sector in terms of human resources. Indeed, this is one of
the greatest difficulties that the Panel encountered because it is rather difficult to identify even the list of sectors
in which one might seek physics graduates yet alone identify them within their sector.The Panel was able to
meet with a broad sample of employers of physics graduates41.There was general consensus that physicists offer
pragmatic approaches to complex problems. It was commented that they are good at picking problems apart,
challenging assumptions, working flexibly, teamwork and communication. Experimental physicists were particularly
valued for their skill at the assessment of the robustness of data prior to theoretical modelling, rather than
simply accepting data at face value.These skills were held in particularly high regard by the finance sector who
value both graduates and postdoctoral researchers. In many cases physicists were preferred by the financial
sector to graduates from business studies, economics and mathematics because of their communication skills,
team working experience and ability to pick apart problems.
Investment bankers to whom the Panel spoke stated that each big bank could probably accommodate close to
300 physicists in the 25-30 age range.
In trying to compare the value attached by and demand from business and/or society to graduates from different
disciplines it is difficult to employ any other measure than salary level.Table 4 presents the mean salaries of
graduates by discipline three and a half years after graduation. Physics graduates perform strongly and come 8th
out of the 26 disciplines listed below. We recognise that average salaries do not tell the whole story but there is
no evidence that the variance for physics graduates is greater than that from those in other disciplines.
38
QUAD Research 'Tracking the Careers of UK Physics Students – 2006 Follow-up Study' (2006) Institute of Physics p15.
39
Source: Institute of Physics. 'Undergraduate Physics Inquiry 2001' Available at
www.iop.org/activity/policy/Projects/Archive/page_6337.html
40
QUAD Research 'Tracking the Careers of UK Physics Students – 2006 Follow-up Study' (2006) Institute of Physics p10.
41
A full list of companies and representatives can be found at Annex 4.
32
Review of UK Physics
Table 4: Current Mean Salaries of Graduates at three and a half years after graduation
Subject
Mean Salary
Medicine
40,078
Pharmacy and pharmacology
Architecture, building and planning
Modern Foreign languages
Engineering
Mathematical sciences
ITS and computer software engineering
Physics and astronomy
Finance and accounting
Health studies
Humanities and language based studies
Nursing
Business and management
Sports science
Other physical sciences
Sociology, social policy and anthropology
Anatomy and physiology
Education
Combined
Geography
Chemistry
Design and creative arts
Land based studies
Psychology
Biosciences
Media Studies
28,683
26,873
26,823
26,006
25,757
25,631
24,759
24,673
24,357
23,979
23,749
23,552
23,220
23,055
23,050
22,973
22,963
22,912
22,667
22,512
21,788
21,615
21,391
21,382
21,187
Source: Higher Education Funding Councils for England (HEFCE)
Whilst the Panel believes there are very many things to be positive about in relation to physics' contribution to
society in terms of trained personnel, there are issues that still need to be addressed. Several employers (both in
evidence sessions and through the survey) commented on the progressive decline of the practical skills of
graduates in physics.There is a feeling that undergraduate syllabuses contain too much 'theory', while the word
'practical' often means only the application of computer modelling or the conduct of a simulation project.This
point is also emphasised by the regional development agencies and Royal Academy of Engineering in their
responses who add that physics should not be taught in universities just for students who intend to pursue an
academic career which is the perception of some employers currently. Reasons for lack of practical skills were, in
part, felt to flow from the way the subject is taught in schools and associated with the perceived health and
safety risks of experimentation.The maintenance of undergraduate physics laboratories, filled with up-to date
equipment in a safe condition, has proved very difficult to achieve with the level of funding available from band B
funding from the HE Funding Councils. Additionally, because in many institutions departments are charged by the
space their buildings occupy, the large footprints of practical laboratories can attract significant costs.This is a
disincentive to provide the space that practical work requires.
Review of UK Physics
33
Three approaches need to be followed to overcome this difficulty. Firstly, the Institute of Physics should
encourage an appropriate amount of experimental work in physics curricula (at least for degrees not badged as
theoretical physics) through their accreditation process, although the Panel commends the work the Institute of
Physics is already doing here. Secondly, the Higher Education Funding Councils should complete their review of
the costs of teaching disciplines through TRAC for teaching (T) so as to inform new units of resource for
teaching in a number of subjects that are more appropriate to the costs.The Panel welcomes the assurance it
has received from HEFCE that the interim additional amount set aside for vulnerable subjects will be maintained
until the implications of the TRAC (T) study are implemented. Finally, experimentation within all sciences should
be encouraged within secondary schools and the Science Learning Centres (a joint venture between the
Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Wellcome Trust) have made an important start on this.
Concerns were expressed by some engineering companies that the practical skills of physics graduates and even those
with doctorates had deteriorated. It would seem that this can be traced back to the unit of resource provided for
undergraduate teaching in physics because the number of practical activities that many undergraduates in physics
experience, as well as the nature of them has diminished. This is a point that has been understood by the Funding
Councils and they have provided additional funding for student support in physics and a few other subjects including
chemistry and chemical engineering to attempt to address the underfunding of band B students for a fixed period. It is
understood that this problem is not confined to physics but applies more generally to other laboratory-based
disciplines, but we have no remit to examine them.
The Panel recommends to university physics departments that they should re-consider the provision of
practical skills for their students perhaps in conjunction with the large facilities in the UK and perhaps with
industry.The Panel was pleased to learn of the recent RCUK initiative on skills for international
competitiveness, and urges RCUK to work with all stakeholders to encourage the development of
transferable practical skills into the curriculum at all levels of undergraduate and postgraduate training.
A further point to make here is that much more needs to be done to promote the value of physics training both to the scientific sector, but perhaps more importantly to the non-scientific sector such as financial services.
As argued above, a physics degree is regarded as a valuable commodity. Whilst the Panel encountered some views
that it was damaging to the long-term health of the academic discipline that so many physicists were choosing to
work in the private non-scientific sector, the overwhelming opinion of the witnesses met by the Panel was that it
was a positive trend.This was expressed both in terms of attracting more people to study physics in the first
place, and the contribution made by physics to the economy and society. Efforts therefore need to be made
through career advisory services in schools to promote the value of physics in terms of a subject to study for
young people, and its varied potential career options. Additionally, companies who value physics-trained graduates
need to be more proactive in extolling their virtues, so as to encourage more young people to take the discipline.
The Panel suggests that consideration be given to the notion of masters courses aimed at specialising general
physics graduates for specific private sector operations including those in the financial world. In turn this might
offer the prospect for masters courses delivered in collaboration with the financial sector by universities.
The Panel heard numerous examples of the value of physics trained researchers to industry, and in particular to the
finance sector. The Panel recommends that more work is done (by universities, companies and school careers advisors)
to promote the value of a physics training, and to better publicise the contribution that physics trained individuals make
to the economy and society.
The Panel recommends that:
a) physics departments through their own endeavours and those of the Institute of Physics continue
their valuable work to publicise all activities of physicists after graduation so as to enhance intake.
Companies that employ physicists need to promote the value of a physics training, and this should be
reflected in schools career advice.
b) universities, Funding Councils and Research Councils should seek to develop, with the finance sector,
masters courses that exploit the synergy between these apparently disparate areas.The possibility
should also be explored of running joint masters courses between universities and the financial sector
that exploit the particular skills that physicists have that are germane to finance in areas where such
training is not currently available.
34
Review of UK Physics
5.2 Interaction with industry and business
Moving on from people as an output, this section looks more closely at the exchange of ideas and knowledge
between academic departments and industry/business. Focusing initially on the process of knowledge transfer,
the general consensus from companies (both those that the Panel met and from the survey conducted) as well
as from academic staff themselves, is that more needs to be done to encourage interaction and collaborative
working. Companies we met pointed to increased barriers such as Intellectual Property control by university
legal departments that leads to companies preferring to develop ideas themselves. Other reviews have also
recognised this problem but compared UK favourably to many other countries. Companies often feel that ideas
within physics departments are at such an early stage of gestation that collaboration is not worth their while,
and a perception does exist that engineering departments are better acquainted than physicists with nonacademic approaches, and more inclined to consider the application and commercial potential of their work.
Academics themselves often do not have the opportunity in the confines of a physics department to develop
proof-of-concept devices. Additionally, the point was made that following the introduction of fEC, the costs to
industry of working with universities had increased sharply and this was acting as a deterrent to collaborative
working. In terms of this latter point, the Panel consider that there is still some work to do in order to ensure
that the concepts of cost and price for research work are full understood in the academic community.The price
of research is determined locally, informed by cost and in the context of the complete economy of each
academic unit. However, none of these elements of concern are new nor specific or disproportionate for physics
as a subject and so we do not follow this line of enquiry here, recognising that it has been examined elsewhere
(including the Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration, and Lord Sainsbury's Race to the Top).
From the perspective of academic staff in physics, it was argued by several witnesses and included in responses
that a significant barrier to industrial collaboration is the Research Assessment Exercise. It is the Panel's
considered view that this is much more a perception than a reality.The seven years between an RAE should
allow plenty of time to prepare submissions to satisfy an RAE focused on one aspect of research and that this
should not completely negate spending time on collaborating with industry across the complete discipline.The
Panel therefore recommends to those responsible for the successor to the RAE that greater effort is made to
communicate to academic staff that industrial collaboration is a legitimate activity.This should not be taken to
imply that it is only from directly applicable research that economically important ideas and inventions emerge.
Quite the reverse is true as has been pointed out elsewhere. However, the financial viability of departments of
physics does require a broadening of the income base to provide stability against inevitable fluctuations in one
or other of the limited set of sources they draw on today. Further collaborations with business, whether through
masters courses or research work, offer two such opportunities.The inclusion in physics departments of areas of
research that attract funding from other sources including other Research Councils is obviously another.
Work is also required to ensure university departments themselves are focused on this important area.The
Panel was told that of forty two departments entered for the 2008 RAE only eight received more than 5% of
their income over the period 2001 to 2008 from industry.The Panel further noted that very few departments
have industrial advisory boards in contrast with many other disciplines. Research Councils themselves have put
significant effort into knowledge transfer activities and this work is complemented by the Technology Strategy
Board.These activities include Knowledge Transfer Networks, Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, follow-on funds,
collaborative research training (e.g. CASE), advice to companies about current research activities and research
collaborations.There are also a number of defence related schemes e.g. SEAS-DTC (Defence Technology
Centre). Another mechanism is the EPSRC Integrated Knowledge Centre programme, as well as the Basic
Technology Programme and its Translation Grant follow-on scheme.Various partnerships exist with regional
development agencies (such as between STFC and SEEDA and NWDA) to develop the Harwell and Daresbury
Science and Innovation Campuses respectively. Learned Societies also do significant work in this area.The
Institute of Physics runs subject-driven conferences (e.g. the Industry Technology Programme) that promote
collaborative opportunities between researchers and industrial bodies, and regional branches engage directly
with physics departments and surrounding businesses. Noting the issues raised above, the Panel felt that these
activities were very important and certainly should be developed further. Companies who responded to our
survey often stated that they often do not know where to look in terms of finding relevant research teams to
discuss potential collaborative projects, particularly with respect to problems to which physics can contribute, so
an increased and joined-up emphasis on research brokerage by all parties would very much be welcomed by
the Panel.
Review of UK Physics
35
The Panel heard from many sources that more needs to be done to encourage university-based physicists to work
more closely with industry. Several factors were raised in relation to this including: the need for the RAE to be more
proactive in welcoming applied work; the need for greater access to students by companies to encourage recruitment:
and the costs of working with universities since the introduction of Full Economic Costing. We found that much of the
research work in physics that was of direct interest to business was being performed in departments other than
physics in the university sector. This has the effect of reducing the number and size of the income streams to physics
departments and making them seem unviable, despite the probable sustainability of the overall physics effort in the
university.
The Panel recommends:
a) that universities consider their internal funding models and structures to make sure they consider
physics broadly than simply at the level of the department of that name, and encourage working
between departments.They should also be careful to distinguish between cost and price in working
with business, particularly perhaps in physics where the business base of applicability is wide; and
b) that DIUS and RCUK work together to develop mechanisms which enable the easy flow in both
directions between industry and academia (though this point is not specific to physics).
In addition to direct collaboration between researchers and companies, spin-out companies are also good
examples of how academic work can be utilised in the commercial sector. Contrary to some views conveyed to
the Panel, we found many examples and we cite just a few of them, together with industrial research
collaborations merely to illustrate the variety of interactions that can exist.The list is not intended to be
comprehensive of course.
5.3 Examples of Collaborative Projects and Spin-out Companies
Physics-based research has been responsible for significant numbers of key technological developments over
many years, including fibre optics, lasers, LCD technology, MRI, the World Wide Web, nuclear power, computer
circuits, radar, GPS and compact magnetic data storage enabling products such as the i-pod.These and many
other examples come from fundamental research driven by curiosity alone and with no applied objective in
mind. Whilst these developments have made a significant contribution to the economy and society, they have
taken many years of development and subsequent research to achieve that impact (for example fibre optics has
its roots in John Tyndall’s demonstration that light follows the curve of a stream of water in 1870, and lasers
stem from Einstein's concept of 'stimulated emission' in 1917). In many cases, whilst the initial ideas have come
from physics research, it has been necessary to engage with engineers to take the concept/proof of principle
demonstration through to a product suitable for commercial application.The Panel argue that it is important
when looking at the impact of physics research to bear these two points in mind.This is especially the case
when looking at the short-term outputs of research grants.
Evidence gathered by the Panel cited a number of modes by which research users realised economic impact
from academic research including the sponsorship of CASE and Industrial CASE, provision of research topics,
provision of specialised instrumentation, manpower and equipment and project placements for students. Almost
all users noted that access to a pool of highly qualified and well trained employees is a key advantage of
maintaining links with academia.
Two-thirds of industrial respondents to the review questionnaire, who had collaborated with UK physics
researchers in the last three years, cited access to basic, fundamental research as the main reason for
collaboration. One respondent stated that their company 'would not exist and will not expand its activities
without deep and mutually beneficial collaboration with academic physicists. Our growth is constrained by how
non-physicists adopt what has been developed'. Another described their collaborations as positive, but stressed
the importance of working with people who had 'the right attitude as well as the right technology'. All
companies we have encountered have expressed support for the conduct of fundamental, curiosity-driven
research in universities supported by government which is underpinned by the comment that only government
will support that kind of research.That, in itself of course does not prescribe in what areas that fundamental
research should be undertaken.
36
Review of UK Physics
As mentioned above, a good deal of the examples of impact of physics research whether from collaborative
projects or spin-out companies involve instrumentation. Both astronomy and particle physics can legitimately
claim economic benefits from their activity which are indirect but are no less important for that.These byproducts of the research that are developed to allow the investigation to take place can be very valuable.
Examples here include:
Lens Production
Lens and mirror production for use in cameras and solar energy plants that were developed originally for
astronomical telescopes
Security Cameras
Terahertz -ray cameras that were developed so that astronomers can make observations through dust and
clouds, but have now been applied to enable security services to see weapons hidden by clothes.
Other examples of impact relate more closely to the actual technique that is being researched or developed.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
The ability of MRI scanners to produce images of the human body is due to a fundamental property of nuclei:
that they respond to magnetic fields. Isidor Rabi first observed the phenomenon that we now call NMR in the
1940s.The ability to generate images was developed by Paul Lauterbur (1972), Richard Ernst (1973) and Peter
Mansfield (who actually developed echo-planar imaging and developed the first clinical images).This allowed
different types of tissue to be distinguished, leading to detailed images of organs such as the brain and the ability
to distinguish between healthy and cancerous tissue.
Climate Change Modelling
Physicists play a vital role in underpinning climate change modelling, by applying their quantitative skills and
abilities to translate physical knowledge into sophisticated computer models.These important models enable
scientists to keep track and forecast changes in the climate throughout the world, which supports the
development of strategic carbon abatement policies, such as the Kyoto Protocol.
In terms of estimating the impact of physics research, in 2005 approximately five percent of all UK jobs were
dependent on physics-based technologies or expertise, so clearly this is a significant area for the UK economy.
Institute of Physics commissioned research42 concludes that physics-based sectors (as defined by the ONS
Annual Business Inquiry) are typically more productive relative to the UK average, although long-term the sector
appears to be growing less quickly than the rest of the UK economy. It is estimated that in terms of gross value
added (GVA), the physics-based sector contributed £70 billion - making up 6.4% of the total economic activity43.
In 2005 there were just over a million employee jobs in sectors where the use of physics-based technologies or
expertise was critical to the existence of the sector, accounting for 5% of all jobs in the UK among 32,000
registered businesses (2%).
The Institute of Physics is currently working in collaboration with EPSRC and STFC to support a research
project to investigate this issue in much more detail.The Panel therefore recommends that this report be
considered before taking actions on any recommendations in this area.
5.4 Summary
In summary the Panel concludes that physics training is a valuable qualification to possess, with physicists as
people making a significant contribution to many aspects of society and the economy.The Panel also wishes to
highlight the collaboration between physics departments and industry and the underlying importance of basic
fundamental research for industry.The Panel recommends that these interactions are developed further, but also
better publicised so that young people especially are aware of the value of studying the discipline.
42
Centre for Economics and Business Research Ltd. (2007) 'Physics and the Economy', Institute of Physics p.4.
43
Centre for Economics and Business Research Ltd. (2007) 'Physics and the Economy', Institute of Physics p.4
Review of UK Physics
37
6. Physics Research
In assessing the health of UK physics we need to consider a number of factors relating to the delivery of
outcomes that are important to the UK.These include outcomes that are important to the economy, to society
more generally and to individual citizens in the form of school children, students, and employers and employees
in a diverse range of settings. Some of these outcomes can be delivered by the output of people with good
mathematical and communication skills and a well-honed problem solving ability, attributes that are much
appreciated and widely associated with physicists, whilst others require a more specific knowledge to support
knowledge transfer and translation, to underpin interdisciplinary and thematic initiatives and to ensure that the
UK can, as necessary, be a well-informed purchaser of skills and technology.
One key question in assessing the health of physics as an academic discipline is: how do we judge the
international standing of UK physics in as objective and critical a way as possible? This is clearly the focus of the
Research Assessment Exercise and many other governmental and policy institute studies of UK innovation,
competitiveness, efficiency and skills. It is also the focus of university league tables, media stories and common
room debate. In the end it is a very fraught subject and one that we recognise to be exceptionally difficult to
get right in its finest detail. Nevertheless there is a substantial database on which one may draw in order to
obtain a reasonable measure and on the basis of which other observations can then be made.
6.1 Excellence and International Standing in Research
We have specifically made use of the 2000 and 2005 EPSRC, PPARC, IOP and RAS commissioned reports on
the ‘International Perceptions of UK Research in Physics and Astronomy’, together with a variety of bibliometric
analyses including one commissioned by the review from CWTS, University of Leiden. We have also considered
the corresponding 2008 reports for UK Materials Science (‘International perceptions of the UK materials
research base’ commissioned by EPSRC, IOP, IOM3, Materials UK, RAEng and RSC) and Chemistry (‘Chemistry
at the Centre: An international assessment of university research in chemistry in the UK’ commissioned by
EPSRC and RSC).
The general conclusion is that UK physics performs well against international benchmarks but that there are
peaks and troughs in this performance, with some important areas not sufficiently addressed within the research
portfolios of physics departments.
In summary, the 2005 International Review identified that the UK enjoyed a high standing in astrophysics, solar
system physics, and particle physics, with these areas having a healthy participation in large international projects.
The atomic, molecular and optical physics communities were responding well, particularly in the areas of cold
atoms, but they still needed to recover a leadership position, and strengths existed in quantum
information/computational theory, laser physics, non-linear optics and photonics.The International Review Panel
noted a concern in condensed matter physics which despite evident strengths fell below a standard of
international leadership in some important fields. In particular UK activity in nanoscience was deemed to lack
coherence and visibility and related aspects of surface science were considered to suffer from patchy coverage.
In contrast, applied research in materials and electronic devices was deemed distinguished, especially in the area
of polymeric materials and polymer electronics where unquestioned world leadership was evident.
In the area of soft matter and biophysics the International Review Panel observed that experimental and
theoretical soft matter physics is a vibrant area of research in the UK at a time when, internationally, the field is
quite small, with UK international prominence in the study of colloids, polymers and surfactants. Conversely, the
majority of internationally visible biophysics research in the UK is not conducted in physics departments.They
also commented that physics students in many departments get regrettably little exposure, if any, to modern soft
matter physics and biophysics.This comment echoes some of the points made earlier in this review about the
selectivity in UK physics departments.
38
Review of UK Physics
In relation to those areas of physics covered by the 2008 ‘International perceptions of the UK materials research
base’ report two topics are recorded as particular strengths, namely glass fibre optics and photonic devices and
organic (plastic) electronics.
Another possible measure of UK physics visibility concerns international staff recruitment where there is
evidence of a growing presence of staff within physics departments who have come to the UK from other
countries.That this ‘internationalisation’ of staff is widely seen as a positive trend can be inferred from the large
number of programmes being launched within other countries that specifically target the recruitment of
overseas staff as a measure to improve their research standing. In the last few years such schemes have, for
example, been launched in Ireland (SFI Walton Professorships), China (‘111’ Brain Gain programme), Korea
(World Class Universities programme), and Japan (Centre of Excellence (COE) programme). It should also be
noted that the International Review of Chemistry strongly encouraged the UK chemistry community to look to
increase the number of international staff in chemistry departments.
In greater detail, we note that the CWTS analysis considered publications in a defined set of ‘physics’ journals
identified by the IOP (following consultation with the UK academic community) as the most frequently used
within the physics sub-disciplines for dissemination of research results.The analysis looked at the total publication
numbers for these journals over the period 1997-2006 and their citations (over the same period) for a group of
seven comparator countries (Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, UK and USA). All articles within the
selected journals were considered and each comparator country was allocated a number of ‘publication points’
per article corresponding to the number of separate institutions (the number of authors per institution was not
considered) within that country (identified from the author address list).The full citation count for each article
was similarly allocated to each comparator country for each separate institution within that country.The CWTS
analysis finds that UK ranks fifth (behind USA, Japan, Germany and (marginally) France) amongst comparator
countries in terms of the total volume of published journal papers, but third in terms of average citation per
paper (behind the USA and Netherlands). However if output volumes are normalised to population, the UK
comes out in third place.
Evidence Ltd has produced a number of related bibliometric analyses. A key point identified in their 2006 report
'How good is the UK research base?'44 is that averages hide a considerable amount of information in relation to
citations. Interpretation of the average with the sub-conscious assumption of a normal distribution misses several
important features in the real data. A large percentage of journal articles remain uncited after a decade and
many more lie below the world average. Most important in ensuring that the UK average exceeds the world
average, are those (few in number) articles that have many times the world average number of citations. It
should be emphasised that this type of distribution is also typical of data for other comparator countries and
other disciplines.The difference in average citation impacts for the research publications of different countries
and disciplines is then most dependent on the high citation tail of each distribution.
Evidence Ltd notes that another useful measure to consider in assessing the high impact component of journal
published research outputs is the 'ISI highly cited scientists' database45 which lists those researchers who are
among the 1% most cited authors in the world over the last decade.This measure is more backwards looking in
time than some others in that it considers citations to all publications irrespective of publication date. We have
undertaken an analysis of the researchers within this database in terms of their country and present the results
in Table 5. We have not included the biological sciences in this analysis since the ISI categories make it difficult to
disentangle medical science and other biological areas.The most striking feature of this table is the dominance of
the USA. In physics the UK ranks equal fourth with Switzerland (behind the USA, Japan and Germany), whilst in
Space Sciences (the ISI category covering astronomy and astrophysics), it is second to the USA and well
separated from the following pack. Combining the physics and space sciences categories, the UK is then placed
second to the USA with Germany and Japan not far behind in third and fourth places respectively.
44
J. Adams, (2006) 'How Good is the UK Research Base' Higher Education Policy Institute available at
http://www.hepi.ac.uk/downloads/24HowgoodistheUKresearchbase.pdf
45
Source:Thomson Scientific ISIHighlyCited.com. Available at http://hcr3.isiknowledge.com/home.cgi
39
Review of UK Physics
Table 5: National percentages of ISI highly cited scientists in a range of disciplines 1998-2008.
Physics
Space Sciences
Mathematics
Chemistry
Engineering
Physics and Space Sciences
USA
UK
Japan
Germany
France
Switzerland
Netherlands
Canada
54
6
8.3
8.3
1.8
6
0.3
0.9
63
8.8
3
3.9
0.6
2
2.6
2.8
62
7.2
1.4
2.9
6.6
0.8
1.1
1.7
54
8.3
6.4
10.2
1.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
68
4.4
3.2
3.9
1.6
2.7
0
5.9
59
7.5
5.6
6
1.2
3.9
1.5
1.9
Source: Thomson Scientific, ISIHighlyCited.com.
N.B. the Space Sciences category covers astronomy and astrophysics.
The CWTS analysis also addressed the issue of the highest impact journal outputs, confirming that the UK
performs well in terms of its share of the top 1% most cited articles (with citations counted over a four year
window from publication), reaching ~ 1.6% for articles published in the period 1997 to 2003.This number
suggests a lower UK representation in the highest cited category than the ISI highly cited researchers data but as
already noted there are differences in the analyses that make direct comparison difficult – the CWTS data may
be indicative of more immediate impact.
A separate issue is how UK physics compares in its international performance in relation to other disciplines. A
recent 'Comment' in 'Chemistry World'46 authored by staff from Evidence Ltd suggests that physics has
improved its position markedly since the early 1990s and does well in comparison with mathematics, chemistry
and molecular biology in terms of average impact.The CWTS analysis on the country-to-country distribution of
top 1% most cited articles comes to a similar conclusion in a comparison of physics with chemistry, biology and
geology. Our own analysis of ISI highly cited researchers ( table 5) shows a performance comparable to
mathematics and chemistry but somewhat ahead of engineering.The difference relative to chemistry in our
analysis is not wholly consistent with the conclusions of the 'Chemistry World Comment' but as already noted
the ISI highly cited measure tends to be more backwards looking in summing citations within a ten-year window
for all papers irrespective of publication date.These discipline-to-discipline comparisons are not meant to be
judgmental but do, we believe, help to support the conclusion that physics is in general terms performing well.
We should emphasise that the other disciplines are also performing well in relation to comparator nations and
in a variety of measures in the UK also ranks second to the USA, though in all cases the gap between UK and
USA is large.
Going beyond the discipline as a whole and focusing on sub-disciplines (recognising the usual caveats around
sub-discipline definition, variations in publication and citation culture and so on) leads to the conclusion that two
broad areas of UK physics are more strongly represented in the highest impact journal article categories. A
closer scrutiny of the ISI physics category shows that the majority of UK highly cited researchers in this category
work within the particle physics area (14 of 19) with a small contingent in condensed matter (3 of 19) and lone
representatives for quantum optics (1 of 19) and chaos and nonlinear dynamics (1 of 19). Considering the data
for Space Sciences (with 31 of 351 ISI highly cited researchers in that category from the UK) then suggests that
astronomy/astrophysics is strongest amongst physics sub-disciplines in high citation impact journal articles
followed by particle physics (14) but there is little or no representation of other areas. On a similar subdiscipline basis, the CWTS data concurs with our analysis of the ISI highly cited researcher data showing
astronomy/astrophysics and particle physics as amongst the highest journal article impact sub-disciplines.The
major UK investment in these research areas has clearly been used to good effect in securing a very prominent
position within the global community.
It is possible to discern one distinct pattern among the outputs of sub-disciplines in physics when normalised to
the UK output in each particular discipline.The ratio of outputs is roughly constant across the complete
46K.
Gurney and J.Adams (2008) 'Comment: How Good is UK Chemistry' in 'Chemistry World', Royal Society of Chemistry available
at: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2008/January/Comment.asp
40
Review of UK Physics
spectrum of sub-disciplines (see Annex 6).This indicates that the pattern of outputs from the various subdisciplines of physics is roughly the same in every one of the comparator countries.This is not likely to be an
artefact of the bibliometric analysis. Instead, unless one advocates radically different rates of productivity of
scientists in one country relative to another in the same discipline, then the pattern of overall support for
research is broadly comparable in all these countries.Thus, we infer that the UK’s relative efforts in the various
sub-disciplines of physics research are consistent with those elsewhere. It follows that the UK should do nothing
to jeopardise the position which has secured it a high ranking in each discipline. We can infer that the pattern of
spending between different sub-disciplines of physics is appropriate and that if any further investment in physics
is to be made it should be done in such a way as to preserve the current balance between sub-disciplines.The
Panel appreciates that this deduction is a long way from the ideal it set out to achieve of quantifying what each
comparator country spends in each sub-discipline, but it is the best that it is able to do in the absence of any
other hard information.
In all of the above, the discussion has focused solely on outputs without any explicit consideration of the input
of people, infrastructure, equipment and maintenance, and associated costs. Consistent and accurate numbers
for total expenditure on physics research in the UK relative to comparator nations are seemingly not available,
either in aggregate or by sub-discipline (‘physical sciences’ seems to be the smallest sub-division reported). We
have, however, an expectation that a reliable ‘output per input’ analysis would further help to demonstrate the
strength of UK performance. One indication that this may well be the case comes from the DTI/OSI
commissioned March 2007 Evidence Ltd report 'PSA target metrics for the UK research base'47 covering all UK
research.The summary to this document notes that
'the report confirms the UK’s strong relative international performance in terms of achievement, productivity and
efficiency. The UK continues to sustain a more consistent performance than most countries across fields of research
and is strongest overall in the natural sciences. …….. The UK’s strong international excellence has been achieved with
lower investment compared to its competitors. On available OECD data, the UK has a relatively sparse density of
people with research training. However, this has led to a high level of research productivity, in regard to both research
publications and trained people.'
Conflating the statement made in the Evidence Ltd report concerning natural sciences with the other
bibliometric data we have considered above (in which physics performs well in comparison to other natural
sciences) strongly suggests that our expectation is valid. However, a firm statement cannot be made on this basis
and the Panel would, therefore, very much like to see efforts made by government and national academies to
secure more fine-grained data of this type so that future analyses of physics (and other disciplines) can provide
more definite conclusions in this regard. It might also be interesting to undertake a similar output per input
analysis in relation to sub-disciplines but care will need to be taken to do this in a satisfactory and meaningful
way.
Finally, we note that the above discussion has largely focused on bibliometric (journal article) data.This obviously
represents a very limited consideration of outputs, especially in relation to the wider interests of the UK
economy. Discussion of other important outputs of physics research can be found in the previous section
(chapter 5) on economic impact. Similar considerations appear in the 2008 ‘International perceptions of the UK
materials research base’ report which notes 'Beyond publications and citations, which can measure excellence in
science, metrics that measure ‘innovation’ also need to be evolved, monitored and used for improvement of the
overall outputs'48.
The Panel notes that using the results of the previous international reviews of UK physics research and bibliometric
analysis, UK physics research performs very strongly in comparison to the rest of the world, in many areas behind only
the USA, albeit by some distance. The discipline also performs strongly in comparison with other science disciplines.
47
Evidence Ltd. (2007) 'PSA Target Metrics for the UK Research Base' Department of Trade and Industry available at
http://www.evidence.co.uk/downloads/OSIPSATargetMetrics070326.pdf
48
'International Perceptions of the UK Materials Research Base' (2008), EPSRC, IOP, IOM3, Materials UK, RAEng, RSC. p36
Review of UK Physics
41
6.2 Interdisciplinarity
The Panel observes a willingness of physicists to undertake interdisciplinary research and as reported through
the value of physics in Chapter 3, it is clear that the discipline has a vital contribution to make through
instrumentation, techniques, modelling, computation and technology to the major societal and public policy
challenges, such as healthcare and ageing, energy, crime and security, transport and climate change.
Interdisciplinarity takes many forms within physics and the Panel identified several models for its support. In
fundamental research themes such as particle physics, collaborations with other disciplines tend to be the use of
state-of-the-art engineering and computing to build apparatus and carry out experiments or spin-outs of the
instrumentation and technology, for example, in the development of linear accelerators to administer radiation
therapy in hospitals or in the diagnostic tool positron emission tomography (PET).
In recent years numerous university based Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations (IRCs) have been set-up
nationwide, where physicists are making integral contributions to projects as part of multi-disciplinary teams and
in collaboration with academic colleagues drawn from a range of other disciplines.
IRCs49 have been established in the following areas:
• Quantum Information Processing
• Bionanotechnology
• iMIAS – From Medical Images and Signals to Clinical Information
• Superconductivity
• Biomedical materials
• Nanotechnology
• Polymers
• Ultrafast Photonics
The Panel identified a number of models in support of interdisciplinarity within the university landscape: (i)
Interdisciplinary centres such as those listed above and aligned against a specific interdisciplinary theme and
usually established in response to a funding initiative (IRC, Science and Innovation Awards, Integrated Knowledge
Centres, etc) or benefaction (such as the Grantham Institute for Climate Change), (ii) Physicists embedded in
other departments such as the environmental science activity at the University of East Anglia or the
meteorology department at Reading University and (iii) Embedded centres within physics departments such as
the MRI Centre at the University of Nottingham, and the Laser Consortium at Imperial College London.
As discussed in Chapter 3, the Panel observe that a significant proportion of interdisciplinary research that
involves physics takes place outside of physics departments and that physics departments have increasingly been
selective in their coverage of the discipline. Departments have to broaden themselves to take advantage of
money being directed into new funding streams especially from cross Research Council research themes.The
fact that this is not occurring can in part explain comments the Panel received through submissions and
witnesses that some Research Council funding (notably from EPSRC) was too directive at the expense of
responsive mode research.
6.3 Emerging areas & Opportunities
A high number of respondents to the stakeholder survey highlighted opportunity and encouragement to engage
in interdisciplinary research and numerous examples were offered where specific design has sought to bring
together physicists with researchers from a wide variety of sciences e.g. medical, bio-physical, engineering, earth,
mathematical, computing, photonics and imaging.
49
For more information please see the EPSRC website at:
www.esprc.ac.uk/ResearchFunding/Opportunities/Capacity/IRCs/default.htm
42
Review of UK Physics
Specific opportunities at the bio and medical interfaces include development of new physiological measurement
devices which combine basic physics with medical physics and the development and use of imaging bio-markers
with potential in diagnosis, drug development and treatment monitoring.
Significant new opportunities also exist in taking forward more fundamental aspects of interdisciplinary research
in physics, such as the emergent area of astrobiology where for example, in astronomy, researchers increasingly
need to consider the astrobiological implications (zones of habitability around stars, signals for life on newly
discovered planets etc.).
Within the heartland of the current discipline major opportunities exist in the area of particle physics with the
initiation of the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC).The LHC promises to revolutionise our view of the
universe and its evolution as well as giving us a more profound understanding into the structure of matter.
Terahertz radiation which lies between infra red and microwave offers tremendous opportunity. Several UK
university groups continue to work at the forefront of terahertz technology, exploring new laser schemes based
on sophisticated semiconductor quantum structures and more exotic electronic materials. Novel systems for
guiding the waves and modulating their intensity are also being developed, as well as new detectors.
6.4 Specific Issues affecting sub-disciplines
The Panel offered to hear specific evidence from nuclear physics and solar-terrestrial groups.These two groups
had both experienced unique changes in their funding arrangements following the establishment of the Science
and Technology Research Council in April 2007. In the case of nuclear physics, this was due to its migration from
EPSRC to STFC, and for solar terrestrial physics explicitly a reduction in funding from STFC.
The Panel received evidence that solar terrestrial physics remains an important scientific discipline, which has
great relevance for mankind, e.g. via studies of space weather impacts on technological systems, ionospheric
effects on communications and global positioning, energy coupling between the upper and lower atmosphere
and solar influences on long-term global change.The Panel heard from a range of sources concerning historical
UK strengths in the area of solar terrestrial physics.The UK has played a key role in developing, deploying and
running instruments in conjunction with EISCAT50 facilities and in output terms 411 of the 1311 EISCAT papers
have been led by the UK, far in excess of any other country.
The Panel heard however that responsibility for solar terrestrial physics in the UK has been divided
unsatisfactorily between NERC and STFC based on the distinction between the upper and lower atmosphere.
Both scientifically and in funding terms this distinction is difficult and the boundaries seem to be both artificial
and confusing, potentially damaging the UK presence in this research area.The influence of the sun on the
Earth’s climate system, and studies of the Earth’s upper atmosphere are particularly relevant to NERC. STFC
and NERC should discuss a more appropriate way of identifying the solar terrestrial physics research relevant to
their respective missions.
The influence of the sun on the Earth’s climate system, and studies of the Earth’s upper atmosphere are particularly
relevant to NERC. It would seem advantageous that the activities of particular relevance to the NERC mission should
become the responsibility of NERC.
The Panel recommends that responsibility be transferred to the Natural Environment Research Council for
those parts of solar terrestrial physics research which are most relevant to the NERC mission.That transfer
should be accompanied by sufficient funds to enable NERC to administer and support the current level of
research.
The 2005 International Review of Physics and Astronomy identified an internationally leading position in well
chosen niche areas for UK nuclear physics and nuclear theory.This is particularly interesting because nuclear
physics was the one area of physics that transferred its funding from EPSRC to STFC when the latter was
formed.The Panel understands this was done because it was thought that the timescales for projects within
STFC were more compatible with those of the nuclear physics community than were those of EPSRC.The
50
European Incoherent SCATter Scientific Organisation
Review of UK Physics
43
Panel is not convinced of this argument since EPSRC has experience of long term projects, not least with its
funding of JET at Culham as well as its desire to see longer projects in its remaining portfolio, but the transfer
has been made.
The Panel notes after receiving input from the nuclear physics community that training within nuclear physics is a
vital strategic imperative for the UK as we seek to decommission old nuclear power plant, build and commission
new plant, dispose of and monitor waste and expand the range of application of nuclear beams and accelerators
in medicine among other fields.There is therefore a need for a nuclear physics base to deliver the training
required in a university context. Given that many UK departments of physics have withdrawn from nuclear
physics, those that remain have an important purpose to provide this training at both undergraduate level and
through specialist masters training. For example, the University of Birmingham has a new MSc in the physics and
technology of nuclear reactors funded by EPSRC and industry. It is not supposed that the majority of nuclear
physics training will lie in the areas of nuclear power that will largely be the province of engineering, but there
are increasing numbers of other applications of ionising radiation that will require these skills.
It seems likely that in the medium term the need for trained radiation physicists will increase rather than
decrease. Given that an education of this kind can only be delivered in a university environment that maintains
contact with the frontiers of the discipline it is vital that UK universities retain a research activity that falls under
the general heading of nuclear physics.The Panel does not feel it has either the expertise or the time to
determine the nature of that research except to say that it does not expect it to lie in the areas necessary for
power plant design or operation. All of the physics required for that purpose is well known. However, there are
possible applications of nuclear physics in the development of new instrumentation for therapeutic delivery of
treatment for cancer and analytical methodology that could provide challenging and important research
objectives.
The Panel concludes that the growing interest in these application areas, coming at a time when there is the
potential of further ongoing reductions in grant support, is potentially damaging to the UK skills base in nuclear
science. An in-depth review needs to be established by RCUK to determine the national priorities in this area.
The Panel proposes that there be a careful examination of the research portfolio in nuclear physics and its impact on
skills in nuclear science in the UK by an appropriately selected review group established by RCUK. The UK has reduced
its expenditure on nuclear physics relative to some other countries. The country should determine what its nuclear
physicists should concentrate upon in the future and then properly fund that work.
The Panel recommends that RCUK develop a review of the priorities in nuclear physics research to ensure
they best match the needs of the UK.
6.5 Summary
In summary the Panel concludes that UK physics research is performing strongly, a view reinforced by the UK’s
strong performance in research outputs. In their high-level analysis of the international quality of UK physics
research the Panel concur with the findings of the 2005 International Review of Physics and Astronomy, and the
relevant sections of the 2008 International Review of Materials Research.
The Panel concludes that whilst the quality and health of physics research is good overall, the fact that a similar
focus has been applied by many university departments across sub-disciplines is a source of some concern.
The Panel concludes that the funding arrangements for solar terrestrial physics are not optimised to the benefit
of the sub-discipline.The Panel recommend that funding for solar terrestrial physics be transferred from STFC to
NERC.
Finally, the Panel recommends that an in-depth review of nuclear physics be undertaken by RCUK to establish
future priorities and where these might be best directed to new opportunities.
44
Review of UK Physics
7. Research Facilities
For physics, especially, the provision of high quality facilities is obviously an essential prerequisite to enable the
necessary research to take place. Physics is inherently an experimental and observational discipline with a close
inter-relationship with physical instrumentation.This section focuses on three areas of facility provision: the
requirements and needs of different parts of physics; the sustainability of facilities, and; the management of
national facilities.
7.1 Facility requirements and needs
As with any discipline, the necessary environment and infrastructure has to exist for the research to be
undertaken.The difference in the case of physics, particularly those areas that dominate university academic
research, is that the facilities required are often much larger, considerably more expensive, and need to be
maintained and developed over a long period of time. Because physics is such a broad discipline, the range of
facilities needed also has a similarly wide spectrum.The Panel has identified two differences in the type of
physics requirements, which in turn relate to different types of facilities. In what one might categorise as 'EPSRC
funded work' (even if it is not all funded by EPSRC), such as optics, materials, electronics and mathematical
physics, facility provision tends to be based in local facilities housed in universities.These may then be
supplemented with access to national facilities as required by the specific research project. Such national facilities
include: the Diamond Light Source, ISIS, the Central Laser Facility and the HECToR supercomputer.The facilities
used by these physics sub-areas tend to be quite general, in that they are often also used by other disciplines.
For example, the ISIS pulsed neutron and muon source is used by a scientific community that includes biologists,
engineers, chemists, earth scientists, as well as physicists. As a consequence, the planning of (and funding of
access to) such facilities is much broader than for other areas such as astronomy and particle physics, for the
simple reason that the user community is much larger and broader and spans several Research Councils.
The physics research supported by the former PPARC, now STFC, stands in contrast to this because it consists
overwhelmingly of particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics.These sub-disciplines depend much more on
high cost apparatus and observational equipment that is provided both nationally and, predominantly
internationally. As a consequence, the focus of these areas is more on infrastructure outside of university
departments – simply because of the expense of developing and operating such facilities. Another difference
that is characteristic of such facilities is that they tend to be more focused on the specific sub-discipline in
question. For astronomy this includes the use of telescopes and observatories, such as the Gemini telescopes,
the European Southern Observatory, the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes, or the e-Merlin network of
facilities. Because of the exclusivity of facility use within these sub-disciplines, it is much more beneficial and
important for these to be closely tied in with the research that is being funded.
Another issue related to this refers to how these facilities are designed and constructed. Because of the relative
exclusivity outlined above and the specialised nature of their purpose, the design of such facilities is integral to
the research project. As such, a fundamental part of astronomy and particle physics research is the design and
construction of instrumentation, and when the facility is in operation, the researchers' skills are crucial in its
operations. For these reasons it is therefore very important that research grants and their allocation are closely
aligned with the planning and development of the facilities.
These differences are clearly represented in the way in which STFC currently organises and plans facilities
provision, and was clearly visible in the way facilities for particle physics and astronomy were provided by
PPARC and the remainder by CCLRC. STFC has two panels: PPAN which plans facilities for particle physics,
astronomy and nuclear physics, and PALS which develops facilities more broadly for the physical and life sciences.
Initial troubles appear to have been overcome with respect to facilities planning and provision within STFC, with
greater use being made of peer review and consultation. Nevertheless, the Panel reminds Research Councils of
a point that was made several times in evidence submitted to the review.This is that the timescale of facilities is
Review of UK Physics
45
very long and that changes need to occur slowly, either in expansion or contraction, to allow the research base
to adapt accordingly.The Panel fully recognises that difficult decisions have to be made and that as new facilities
are opened old facilities should be closed if they are no longer underpinning the cutting edge of scientific
research. Changes should however be made over a period commensurate with the duration of projects to
facilitate a smooth transition.
The Panel believes that within the current Research Council set-up, there should be greater clarity in how relative
priorities and budgets are set between facilities used by researchers funded by a variety of sources, and those that are
operated by STFC for the exclusive use of the community to whom they provided grant funding. Whilst no evidence was
found that the facilities operated for the predominant use of other communities had directly impinged upon the STFC
research grant budget, the perception that there is a potential conflict needs to be addressed.
The Panel recommends to RCUK that in developing large facilities and their scientific priorities,
consideration should be given to distinguish between those that serve a range of Councils, and those which
are germane to a single Council.
7.2 Sustainability of facilities
Some facilities required for physics research cost a large amount of money because of their size, complexity and
operation costs. For particle physics and astronomy alone STFC spent £154.42 million in 2006/07 on
international subscriptions51.
With costs of this magnitude, it is essential that the UK fully utilises such facilities. From a consideration of just
two subscriptions shows significant variations. Looking at UK usage of ILL and comparing it with other disciplines
and other countries, physics performs strongly, with UK physics being the largest user in 2006/07 and the second
largest user in 2004/05 and 2005/06 behind French physics. In terms of usage of the ESRF, UK physics performs
less well, behind UK biology in disciplinary terms (which is not surprising given the nature of the facility), but falls
behind France and Germany internationally52. With the UK spending significant (and fixed) sums of money on
international subscriptions it is imperative that sufficient grant funding be available for the facilities (and
associated data that are generated) to be fully exploited.
Focusing more on capacity, a change in the allocation of facilities needs to be explained. Until 2003/04 funding
for the use of some facilities through Research Council grants was allocated via a ticket system. In this system,
the full costs of using the desired facilities was made clear at the application stage so that it could be considered
by referees and applicants alike. It also enabled the costs of facilities to be directly attributed to the Research
Council that funded the research.The downside of this process was that it curtailed demand and led to a
pattern of UK usage of facilities that the 2000 International Perceptions of UK Research in Physics and
Astronomy review called 'not optimal'53.
Now that the ticket system has been abandoned, UK facilities and associated access to international
subscriptions are now all free at the point of use, subject to peer review by the particular facility.The 2005
International Perceptions of UK Research in Physics and Astronomy report points out that although competitive,
the ability of UK researchers to access facilities was considered to be good.This point was also made during the
Panel's own discussions with UK physicists, and by the Institute of Physics who state that overall, the current
provision of research facilities is suitable and has until now been adequate to provide and update the range of
facilities critical to maintain and enhance the UK's position in physics research. Looking at the multi-user UK
facilities, physics performs strongly against other disciplines. At the Central Laser Facility physics utilised 49% of
last year's scheduled user time compared to chemistry at 22% and biochemistry at 21%. At the Diamond Light
51
Source: RCUK. 'Research Council Funding Data', Review Data Pack p23. Available at:
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
52
Source: RCUK. 'Research Council Funding Data', Review Data Pack pp. 19-22. Available at:
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
53
'International Perceptions of UK Research in Physics and Astronomy' (2000) EPSRC, PPARC, Institute of Physics, Royal
Astronomical Society. p.24.
46
Review of UK Physics
Source, the science programme split for successful proposals to date puts physics at 36% compared with 20%
for materials, 17% for biology and 16% for chemistry54.
The ongoing costs of facilities are large in terms of capital and also subscription costs.The latter point has been
the subject of much concern recently because of rising GDP levels that affect contribution levels and currency
fluctuations which can have a substantial impact on budget planning.These issues are covered in more depth in
section 8.
As with any scientific discipline the cost of providing facilities at a local level in a university is significant.The Panel
believes it is essential that institutions maintain these facilities by appropriate use of the appropriate income
streams.The Panel has not been able to investigate this in detail at the level of each institution, but it is
important that fEC streams are used to support facilities as well as buildings. It is hoped that the current RCUK
review of the implementation of fEC will provide further insight.
7.3 High Performance Computing
High Performance Computing (HPC) plays a major, and growing, role in physics research across the entire
spectrum of sub-disciplines, from the most abstract such as cosmology to the most applied, such as combustion
engines. In many of these areas HPC has become an essential tool for the advancement of research.The report
of the 2005 International Review of Research using HPC in the UK found that '... research using HPC in many
areas is of the highest standing and competitive at the international level. However, in a dynamically changing and
rapidly evolving field..., one cannot afford to stand still...'55 The report identified groups in the UK working in
mineral physics, cosmology, particle physics and turbulence as 'playing a leading role in setting international
standards.'56 However, the report, and the Panel, recognizes that HPC is less well developed in the UK than in
comparable countries and that this reduces the competitiveness of the country in major research areas.
Currently, most physics research using HPC in the UK uses a single supercomputer centre, HECToR (High End
Computing Terascale Resource), a £113 million facility based at the University of Edinburgh. HECToR is managed
by EPSRC on behalf of BBSRC, NERC and EPSRC and supports research across a variety of topics including
aeronautics, materials science, atomic physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biophysics, medicine, epidemiology,
oceanography, meteorology and nanoscience, amongst others. STFC is not formally a partner in HECToR;
particle physicists and astrophysicists concluded that their HPC needs are better served by smaller, dedicated
supercomputers which can be tailored to specific programmes in a cost effective way.They are currently
awaiting the implementation of a much delayed HPC programme.
The Panel is concerned about the relatively low levels of investment in HPC dedicated to scientific research in
the UK compared to other countries such as the USA and Germany, as evidenced, for example, by the 'Top
500' list of the most powerful computers in the world. Although facilities such as HECToR are competitive, they
are insufficient to satisfy demand.The Panel is also concerned by the lack of access to the largest machines by
STFC scientists and by the apparent absence of a coherent policy for HPC across the Research Councils,
particularly STFC. It is too early to comment on the impact on physics that the recently announced HPC facility
at the Hartree Centre in the Daresbury Science and Innovation Campus will have.
The Panel recommends that RCUK should promote the use of HPC in physics, and more generally by:
(a) continuing a programme of sustained investment in HPC facilities and
(b) co-ordinating activity across all the Research Councils that support both physics and other disciplines,
taking account of the needs and aspirations of the various constituent communities.The Panel
endorses EPSRC's efforts to develop a strategy for replacing HECToR in a timely fashion. STFC
should, as a matter of urgency, likewise develop and implement a long-term, sustainable policy for HPC
for its community within the overall context and strategy of RCUK.
54
Source: RCUK. 'Research Council Funding Data', Review Data Pack pp. 103-107. Available at:
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
55
'International Review of Research Using HPC in the UK' (2005) EPSRC and DFG p.1
56'International
Review of Research Using HPC in the UK' (2005) EPSRC and DFG p.6
Review of UK Physics
47
7.4 National Support Facilities
In addition to facilities that are utilised by researchers, STFC also provides national support capabilities through
departments based at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratories at Harwell, Oxfordshire, the Daresbury
Laboratories in Cheshire, at the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, and at Boulby Mine in North Yorkshire.These
include a range of different subject areas:
The Nuclear Physics Department:
which provides scientific, technical and engineering expertise to the support STFC's programme of nuclear
research. Most of its projects are collaborative ventures with university groups.
The Accelerator Science and Technology Centre (ASTeC):
This comprised much of the design team for the Diamond Light Source. It is a member of the Cockroft Institute
along with the universities of Manchester, Liverpool and Lancaster
The UK Astronomy Technology Centre:
is co-sited with the University of Edinburgh and its main role is the design and production of state of the art
telescopes and instrumentation for observatories
The Technology Department:
provides technology, engineering and support for STFC facilities and programmes. It is a major supplier to
universities of microelectronics design tools and has been involved in the effective exploitation of many STFC
facilities and programmes.
The Particle Physics Department:
designs and builds experiments at accelerators and elsewhere, analyses data and performs research and
development in particle physics detectors and techniques.
The Space Science and Technology Department:
conducts research and development across a wide range of space programmes. Whilst the main part of the
SSTD's remit is the development of space instrumentation, around 10% of the FTE employed in the department
are research focused
The Computational Science Engineering Department:
has three principal activities that include research, application development and support, and services to facilities
and users. Its research is divided into two areas – that which is characterised by scientific discipline and that
which is characterised by high-end computing.
The e-Science Centre:
its goals include bringing about rapid advances in computing technology, supporting new innovations in ICT, and
providing state of the art ICT infrastructure for researchers.
Boulby Mine, North Yorkshire: hosted by Cleveland Potash Limited, the Palmer Laboratory in Boulby mine
provides underground low-background laboratory facilities used by the UK Dark Matter Consortium,
(hosted by Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, University of Edinburgh University of Sheffield, Imperial College
London) and others.
The UK Dark Matter Collaboration is a consortium of astrophysicists and particle physicists, conducting
experiments with the ultimate goal of detecting rare scattering events which would occur if the Galactic dark
matter consists largely of a new heavy neutral particle.
Many of these institutes have the dual role of both supporting STFC programme work, but also of undertaking
additional basic research in the areas of specialism. In many cases these institutes are in receipt of STFC research
funding and are therefore in direct competition with university departments (although the Panel notes that this
situation is handled by making the in-house researchers pass through the same grants process as university
researchers). However, as alluded to above, many of the institutes are already operating in partnership with
university departments.The Panel believes that STFC should consider whether there might be more scope for
universities taking on the management of these institutes and facilities. Such a development would have the
advantage of sharing expertise further and foster increased collaboration with universities, as well as offer
48
Review of UK Physics
different management techniques from organisations that are used to managing similar structures. Additionally,
the Panel notes that greater involvement of universities will reduce the potential for conflict of interest inherent
in STFC institutes bidding for money from its own Council.
7.5 Summary
The Panel concludes that there are two distinct types of research facility from the physics perspective: those that
are closely integrated with the discipline in terms of design, operation and utilisation, and facilities that are
utilised by a number of different disciplines.They therefore must be managed as separate facility types in that
they have different user groups and functions.
The Panel highlight the importance of High Performance Computing to the physics discipline. Additionally the
Panel feels that there may be a case for greater involvement of universities in the management of STFC national
support facilities.
Review of UK Physics
49
8. The Physics Funding Structure
This section looks specifically at how physics research in universities is funded in the UK. Starting with how
money is allocated to the discipline by the government, the chapter then examines both sides of the dual
support system, analysing funding and support from both the Funding Councils and Research Councils.
8.1 The Haldane Principle
Since the Haldane Report was published in 1918 and it was adopted as government policy, the Haldane
Principle has remained central to science funding policy. It states that decisions on general research should be
made by researchers, free from political and administrative pressures.Though it has been challenged in various
ways over the years, the autonomous Research Councils, as recommended by Haldane, still remain today and
these are the principal public funders of general research in the UK.
The Panel notes that the current government has invested generously in Science funding in recent years, and
commends this policy initiative which has resulted across the board in real increases in research volume, quality
and diversity. Physics is no exception to this general rule, and the discipline has benefited greatly in recent years
from increased expenditure on facilities, research and studentships (as will be discussed in greater depth in what
follows), although as noted in chapter 3, physics funding has not increased as fast as the Science Budget overall.
8.2 Haldane and the Research Councils
Under current arrangements at each spending review, the Science Budget is allocated as a whole to the
Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills.This budget is then primarily allocated to the seven Research
Councils (as well as smaller amounts to other organisations such as the Royal Society and British Academy).The
process of allocation is agreed by the Director General of Science and Research (a position held by Professor
Sir Keith O'Nions until March 2008, and from September 2008 by Professor Adrian Smith). After taking
evidence from each Research Council, the Director General allocates each Council's budget for the next three
years from the total allocated to Research Councils.This process is properly influenced by Government
priorities and reflects their view of societal needs and economic imperatives.
The amount that is then allocated to specific disciplines, cross-disciplinary themes or initiatives is left entirely to
each Research Council and to consortia composed of them when appropriate.The Panel has examined in detail
with the Research Council Chief Executives the extent to which government has intervened in the business of
the allocation within research councils and is satisfied that the Haldane principle remains firmly intact.
Because most disciplines are predominantly based in a single Research Council, the decision as to how much is
allocated to them is a matter for each Council – independent of government. Physics, however is spread over
predominantly two - STFC and EPSRC (but in total five – MRC, NERC and BBSRC as well) different Research
Councils. Furthermore, because STFC is responsible for grants to just three (although large in the academic
departments) sub-disciplines of physics (astronomy, particle physics and nuclear physics), the Director General of
Science and Research actually has to make a judgement on the size of these research areas when allocating to
Councils and so it can be argued that there is some political involvement in determining the relative proportions
of different types of physics that are carried out.This is less a breakdown of the Haldane principle than it is a
result of the makeup chosen for one such Council by virtue of the scale and type of the activity.
The Panel considered this issue in substantial depth, in part because of its special nature and partly because of
the difficulties that arose in 2007.The Panel first recognised that the current structure of the Research Councils
had been in place only just over a year and that the creation of STFC had been the subject of a wide-ranging
consultation with the science community and others before it was adopted.The Panel has had no time or
resources to conduct a similar consultation again. However, it has explored within its members and with the
Chief Executives of Research Councils and with some members of the science community possible alternative
structures.
50
Review of UK Physics
One possibility that has been considered is to place the science grant awarding component of STFC within
EPSRC so as to ensure that all kinds of physics grant funding are tensioned together through a common peer
review system.This would avoid the perception of political involvement with just three components of physics as
opposed to others.The Panel rejects this proposal at present for one very important reason.The need for
tensioning research facilities with research grant budgets makes it essential that strong linkages are made
between future research direction and aspirations, and the associated research facilities that underpin these.This
notion is explored in more depth in the previous chapter, so it suffices to say here that particle physics and
astronomy are closely dependent on their facilities and international subscriptions, and the researchers
themselves are closely involved in the design, construction and operation of these facilities. Funds therefore need
to be appropriately tensioned to ensure that on one hand sufficient facilities are provided for the funded
research to take place, and on the other hand that those facilities are fully utilised by researchers.The Panel
believes that this co-ordination is best undertaken in one Research Council.
Of course that one Research Council could be EPSRC, but to combine its current activities with the facilities
and grants of STFC would be to add a greater layer of complexity and a diversity of mission that would be
difficult.Thus, the Panel strongly reject this option.
The Panel therefore believes that there is no structural reason for the current structure involving STFC not to
operate effectively. As will be explained below, the Panel found no evidence of facilities money being withdrawn
from the research budget because of any overspend of capital costs on former CCLRC facilities. It also
considers that it is premature to conclude that an entire structure upon which there was an extensive
consultation should be abandoned on the basis of what may turn out to be teething troubles.Therefore, the
Panel suggests that STFC continues operating in its current structure, with one important modification. At a
suitable point, informed by the current review of STFC management currently being conducted by Dr David
Grant, the Panel recommends that a review of current operations should be undertaken by DIUS, and a
decision taken at that time as to its performance in adequately supporting research facilities and UK astronomy,
nuclear and particle physics. Should that examination reveal that the structure is not fit for its purpose, other
alternatives should be examined.
The one important modification the Panel recommends to the current funding arrangements is that STFC be
required to identify how much of its allocation it intends to devote to the construction and maintenance of
facilities for the former PPARC activity and how much it would devote to grant funding in the same areas.This
mechanism should allow the open and transparent protection of agreed allocations for these areas of work
independently of other demands upon STFC.
For this reason the Panel recommends that the current division of physics funding between Research Councils remains.
Whilst recognising recent difficulties, the Panel believes that it is important that facilities provided for particle physics
and astronomy researchers be directly tensioned with the budget for the research that will utilise those facilities. The
current structure provides this tension in part of its remit. However, the panel believes that adding to this tension a
further dimension of national facilities and a government Science and Innovation Campuses is just too much.
The Panel recommends that:
a) the STFC be required at each CSR to bid for and allocate specific funds to former PPARC facilities
and grant funding together.This would avoid the undesired tensioning of these grants and facilities
support against national facilities and the project for the development of science and innovation
campuses.
b) the existing structure should be allowed time to develop, given it was founded on the basis of
extensive positive consultation. However, at an appropriate point following the review of STFC
management currently being conducted by Dr David Grant, DIUS should commission a review to
examine STFC operations.
8.3 Research Council resource allocation
At the higher level in terms of government involvement in Research Council expenditure, the Panel are content
with the current system.The review heard from all Research Councils who support physics, and whilst it was
noted that they were encouraged by government to invest in the five cross-Council priorities, it is important to
Review of UK Physics
51
stress that these priorities came from RCUK themselves. Research Councils felt quite comfortable with the
current situation and considered that they were free to invest money where they and the community felt is
most appropriate.
Focussing again on the process of allocation to Research Councils, whilst the Panel considered the Director
General of Science and Research (DGSR) to have done the best job he could, there was concern at the
pressure and legitimacy of a single person taking such an important decision, and without sufficient explicit and
required input from the wider scientific community. As was argued earlier, for physics this is a very important
decision, which is effectively deciding the size of three physics sub-disciplines. For this reason, the Panel suggest
that an independent group of experts be established to advise the DGSR.The Panel fully understands that the
final decision has to be taken by the DGSR (and ultimately the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities
and Skills) and therefore is not suggesting a return to the Advisory Board for the Research Councils (ABRC)
which would make these decisions. Such a structure will always tend to be bureaucratic and also presents a
difficulty in terms of representatives arguing solely for their own scientific area. Instead, what is proposed by the
Panel is a small group that could provide independent scientific advice to the DGSR to enable a more
considered and informed decision to be made mindful of any unintended consequences and with the added
benefit of greater transparency.
A further complicating factor here concerns the interaction between national science policy, the allocations of
the Research Councils and regional development policy largely expressed through its economic component. It is
understood that there is no current or impending regional science policy but for physics in particular, these
three elements come together in an awkward manner.This is because most of the very large scale facilities that
are constructed in the UK (and elsewhere) are largely concerned with fundamental research in physics or with
applications that use physics-based facilities. When a national facility is built, it obviously has to be located
somewhere; hence there is a regional aspect.This, of course, generates economic activity in the surrounding area
directly through the construction and operation of the facility and also indirectly through the businesses that the
facility attracts to operate it or use it. Necessarily, the regional economy has advocates who will strongly support
location of the facility in one region or another in a fashion that may be incompatible with the national scientific
driver.
It is not the purpose of this Review to devise solutions to particular examples of this kind, such as the future
development of Daresbury. However, the Panel does wish to point out to DIUS that such cases inevitably
threaten the Haldane principle because there will necessarily be political pressure for a regional location that
may be at odds with the optimum scientific judgement by a Research Council.The Panel believes the
government should clarify the situation by seeking to restate the Haldane principle in a context where either
there is a regional economic strategy or stating clearly how any regional development policy should, or should
not, impact on science policy.
The Panel was convinced that at the highest level the Haldane Principle was working effectively. The CSR process did
allow government to determine the allocations of the Science Budget into broad areas of science (represented by
Research Councils) in a manner that reflected government priorities. The Research Councils were convincing that there
was no political involvement directly at any other level. However, the panel were concerned about the interaction
between the Haldane principle and regional development policy. Almost uniquely to physics, large scale facilities sites
needs to be placed somewhere in the UK, and these are sufficiently large to generate employment and attract clusters
of economic activity around them. This is indeed government policy. It is therefore inevitable that associated with the
location of the facilities there will be regional and political lobbies that could influence the Ministerial team in reaching
a conclusion on location and that some choices will impact upon the science, even if only through its effect upon the
formation of critical mass.
The Panel recommends:
a) that given this interaction of the science policy with regional development policy that DIUS and BERR
should consider a restatement of the Haldane Principle for the modern era; and
b) that the Director General of Science and Research (DGSR) would benefit from advice from a small,
but well informed advisory group from outside DIUS during the CSR allocation process to ensure
there are no unintended consequences of allocations and to ensure appropriate accountability to the
science community.This does not need to be a large bureaucratic body.
52
Review of UK Physics
8.4 The Dual Support System and Physics
In the most recent form of dual support system, the stated purpose of Funding Council research money, QR, is
to support the basic research infrastructure, including most of the salaries of permanent academic staff,
premises, libraries and central computing costs. QR can also therefore be used to facilitate investment in
curiosity driven 'blue skies' research.These funds are spent at institutions' discretion to develop research areas,
and may or may not be passed on in an earmarked fashion to the Department responsible for generating the
QR. For most science disciplines this funding has to deal with construction of new buildings, the maintenance of
the estate including the buildings, most of the large scale generic laboratory equipment - for example fume
cupboards, clean rooms and other fixed facilities that enable basic research experimentation to be conducted.
Now that Full Economic Costing has been introduced, up to 80% of the full costs of research projects can be
met from grants provided by Research Councils.The nature of the project specific costs that can be charged
against Research Councils grants are prescribed and are intended to be uniform in kind across the Councils.
These costs include the time of technical staff and academic staff and the costs of access to some special
facilities within the institution.To this set of income streams has been added a third, a research capital fund,
which will, it is said, mean that research projects cover 90% of their specific project costs.
However, a few areas of science, largely, but not exclusively physics have a further source of income for their
infrastructure and that is those branches of science where the essential equipment, its maintenance and
operation are paid for directly by a Research Council or indirectly through an international subscription. In this
case the largest single component of the non-project specific costs for the work including the capital component
are met by the Research Council but the home institution of the principal investigator still receives both the fEC
component and the QR funding through the staff component of the Funding Council formula.
There must be a basic question about whether the QR element of funding that is received for non-project
infrastructure should still be paid to institutions when most of the costs of that infrastructure (but not all) fall
elsewhere and are met by another source of funding.This is not just the case for facilities associated with STFC
but also arises for other large facilities, of course, such as the research vessels and aircraft operated by NERC.
The Panel asks for clarity on these issues from RCUK and DIUS now that, at least in the case of the latter, both
sides of the dual support system originate in one Ministry.
The Panel believes there is a potential distortion of the dual support system implied by the provision of much of the
infrastructure for a minority of sub-branches of physics relative to all other physical sciences. It is made by a Research
Council through the provision of national facilities and not by the Funding Councils through QR. It is not clear this is
either fully understood or indeed that its magnitude is known. The Panel has tried to examine this with DIUS but it has
not been possible in the time available to investigate it thoroughly.
The Panel recommends that an investigation into balance between QR and Research Council funding in
supporting physics infrastructure should be completed so that it is clear to the entire community what
amounts are being spent in total on which branches of science.The Panel does not advocate a redistribution
of the funding (as noted in the report, there are logical reasons for this), merely transparency.
8.5 Funding of undergraduate education in Physics
Picking up a point made earlier in the report, the Institute of Physics has argued that physics teaching is
underfunded by 22%57.This assumption is based on the examination of finances in a sample of eight physics
departments in England 2003/04 whereby the total cost of publicly funded teaching (in fEC terms) was
compared with the actual income received for that teaching. It is argued that the fixed costs of delivering an
undergraduate physics programme in servicing and maintaining laboratory facilities are significant, and therefore
place a much greater importance on attracting high student numbers58. In submissions to the Panel, several vicechancellors admitted that their physics departments had been running at a loss for some time, and had been
57
N. Brown (2006) 'Study of the Finances of Physics Departments in English Universities' Institute of Physics p. 10
58
N. Brown (2006) 'Study of the Finances of Physics Departments in English Universities' Institute of Physics p. 1
Review of UK Physics
53
sustained only through strategic use of cross-subsidies from other departments. A solution to this problem
would be to re-evaluate the system whereby Funding Councils' allocate a blanket weighting of laboratory-based
(band B) subject teaching costs, and replace it with a variable weighting that more accurately reflects the cost of
physics teaching (and possibly other disciplines).The caveat here is that all teaching costs are allocated to
institutions as a block-grant. It is likely, therefore, that other subjects would suffer as a consequence. Of course
another tacit admission of the fact that teaching costs in physics are higher than that allocated to them is the
fact that in recent years physics has received a additional income through a programme of support for
'Strategically Important Subjects'. Over a three year period from 2007/08, the HEFCE teaching grant will
increase for physics, and other subjects including chemistry and chemical engineering by 20%.
HEFCE is currently developing TRAC methodology to assess teaching costs, and this will inform a review of its
price groups.The timeframe of this is uncertain and the outcome may not be implemented until 2011/12.The
Panel endorses this development which will hopefully result in more sustainable support for physics teaching in
English universities. As discussed above, the Panel welcomes the assurance it has received from HEFCE that
additional support will continue until TRAC for teaching is fully implemented. Other funding agencies should also
seek to ensure that their support for physics teaching matches the costs.
8.6 Physics department consortia
An interesting development recently has been the establishment of regional consortia of physics departments.
Although not confined to physics as a discipline, physics has certainly been prominent in the development of
consortia.This has been an initiative led by the Funding Councils but appears to have different origins and aims
depending on the scheme.The first consortium was founded in Scotland – Scottish Universities Physics Alliance
– which was established in 2005. £6.9million support from the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) and further
assistance from DIUS was provided to the Alliance which includes the Universities of Dundee, Edinburgh,
Glasgow, Heriot-Watt, St Andrews, Strathclyde and West of Scotland (formally Paisley).The aim of SUPA is the
development of a critical mass in specific areas of physics, enabled through the pooling of resources and
expertise in departments, some of which would otherwise be too small to support a significant breadth of
research.This model is underpinned by a Scottish Graduate School in physics that is able to offer a high quality
and broad-based training experience, again by pooling resources. Similar consortia have now been set up in
Scotland in a wide range of subjects. SUPA is currently seeking a further tranche of funding to build upon the
undoubted success it has had to date and to develop research in new strategic areas within physics.
More recently additional schemes have developed in England.The Midlands Physics Alliance (MPA)59 was
awarded £3.9million, and South East Physics Network (SEPNET)60 has been awarded £12.17 million from
HEFCE to 'advance and protect physics as a strategically important subject for the UK economy and its science
base'.The genesis of SEPNET lay in the notion that several of the physics departments of the South East were
vulnerable owing to the decline in demand for undergraduate courses.The intention was therefore to strengthen
the departments and the discipline in the South East by additional outreach to attract extra students into
physics courses.The network now envisages the development of a joint graduate school, outreach and increased
research co-operation, and SEPNET includes provision for additional research through the appointment of new
staff.The Panel welcomes any attempt to strengthen physics as a discipline at both undergraduate and research
level. However, the Panel would urge the Funding Councils to ensure that proposed strategic developments are
sustainable, and do not lead to an expansion of staff in an area where research funding may, at best, be stable.
The Panel also noted that funding had been allocated to physics by a Funding Council for research outside of
the normal quality regime of the RAE.The precedent set by such actions needs to be considered carefully.This
review has offered several alternative methods of enhancing the sustainability of physics departments.
The Panel believes that the HEFCE should consider very carefully the purposes and consequences of its actions before
encouraging further consortia to develop in physics. There is considerable evidence that the Scottish experience with
59
The Midland Physics Alliance (MPA) consists of the Universities of Birmingham, Nottingham and Warwick.
60
The South East Physics Network (SEPNET) includes the Universities of Kent, Royal Holloway, Queen Mary, Southampton,
Surrey and Sussex.Two further institutions (the Universities of Oxford and Portsmouth) are associate members of SEPNET and
are involved in the astrophysics research theme.
54
Review of UK Physics
SUPA successfully brought together several physics departments with perhaps less than critical mass to form a
strategic consortium that is focussing on strategically directed research in physics as a group. The genesis of similar
schemes in England has been different but the outcome has still been a growth in research activity and staff.
The Panel recommends to the HEFCE that it should consider the long term implications of this strategic
support for funding consortia of physics departments in more detail, and that clear criteria be developed for
measuring and ensuring quality and sustainability in all the different components of consortia.
8.7 The Research Assessment Exercise
In most, if not all academic subjects, mention of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) provokes endless
debate on its pros and cons. Physics is no exception. Whilst it is argued that the RAE has increased academic
standards and certainly academic productivity in terms of publications, the Panel were made aware through its
consultation of two key issues with the RAE in terms of its impact on physics.The first point relates to the purity
of what is physics - picking up the point made in sections 3 and 4 that discusses breadth of research in physics
departments.The particular casualty with regard to this purity issue has been applied physics. It is argued that
the RAE simply does not reward applied work at the same level as core academic work, as evidenced by the
substantial closure of physics departments in post-1992 universities which tended to specialise in this type of
physics.
A second point is linked to this and involves the issue first raised in section 5.This is that academics ability to
collaborate with industrial partners is compromised because of the pressure of needing to publish as a result of
RAE requirements.The Panel found these issues hard to quantify, and was unable to judge the extent to which
the RAE is solely or only partly responsible. Nevertheless the development of the Research Excellence
Framework (REF) provides an excellent opportunity to consider these issues closely and ensure that the
successor to the RAE rewards industrial impact appropriately and positively.To that end, the Panel recommends
that HEFCE consults closely with the Research Councils so that the impact agenda which is promoted by RCUK
is appropriately rewarded by the REF. Physics departments will wish to address their adopted strategy with
respect to concentration of funding channels.
Finally, as is demonstrated in Graph 11 below, there has been an increase in the sizes of research groups in
physics departments reported to the RAE in 2008 compared to 2001.
Graph 1: Sizes of groups reported to Unit of Assessment 19 (Physics) in 2001 and 2008 Research
Assessment Exercises
100
80
Number of Groups
RAE 2008
RAE 2001 from
depts in RAE 2008
60
RAE 2001 from depts
not in RAE 2008
40
20
0
1-4
5-8
9-12
Size of Groups
13-16
>16
Source: 2001 and 2008 Research
Assessment Exercise
Review of UK Physics
55
8.8 Timing, consultation and governance
A key feature of physics research (especially fundamental work) is that it is long-term and carried out as part of
international programmes. Projects, both in terms of problem solving and in constructing research apparatus
often take many years to plan, develop and complete. Logically, this process is therefore reflected in the
Research Council's funding schemes – especially in particle physics and astronomy, for which STFC offers rolling
grants whereby five-year support is offered subject to review after a three-year interval. With this in mind it is
essential that any decision regarding funding amounts (be it an increase or decrease) be phased in slowly over a
time period consistent with the typical duration of projects and the lifetime of the infrastructure.The Panel
heard this issue being raised several times and would plead that funders take note so that the community can
plan effectively. Research teams often take many years to establish, so any sudden change of direction in terms
of funding support can be both frustrating and damaging to UK science and its international reputation.
The Panel was informed that STFC is funding academic staff time on its grants on a different basis to that which
is employed by other Research Councils in order to enable its total amount of fEC funding determined in the
CSR 2007 to ‘go further’.This entails STFC making an assessment of the research time that it believes to be
justified and funding only that time, usually less than the time requested. STFC does this because the amount of
research time requested is typically large. Most other councils fund fully the amount of time that was requested
if the grant as a whole is funded. Making funds go further has apparently been needed because of the large
demands placed on the fEC funding by current and future grant proposals.The Panel notes, however, that the
STFC had in the past been asked to indicate how much fEC they would need for current volumes of research
and had been allocated the amount they asked for.
It is obviously important that Research Councils engage effectively with their scientific community. Without
addressing specifically the recent issues regarding the STFC funding allocation (which, as we have noted are not
within the remit of this review), the Panel feels that in moving forward it is essential that the community has
confidence in the performance of its Research Council.The STFC consultation structure that elicits the priorities
of its community has been revised and this is endorsed by the Panel: however this structure's guidance must be
implemented.The Panel do, however, note that regardless of whether the community served by STFC had
legitimate concerns about the recent funding allocations, the furore created was not beneficial to the
international perception of UK physics research.
The Panel was immediately drawn to the different governance structure that exists in STFC in comparison with
other Research Councils, notably a reduced Council membership of 10 individuals, four of whom are not
university-based academics, and a further three of whom are from the STFC executive.The Panel was told by
STFC that this different structure was deliberately selected to deal with the multiple purposes assigned to STFC.
The provision and maintenance of large scale facilities for science in the UK and elsewhere, the provision of
grant funding for three sub-disciplines of physics and the planning, operation and development of a Science and
Innovation campuses at Daresbury and Harwell. Its small size was designed by DIUS to make it dynamic and to
facilitate regular meetings. However, when compared to other Research Councils, which have Councils made up
of approximately 11 to 17 members representing broad scientific interests from the community operating at its
highest level, STFC does stand out for the relative lack of members of the scientific community at the highest
level.The structure has not best served the community in several branches of science whose input is one level
below Council.The Panel therefore recommends that the DIUS should broaden the membership of STFC
Council to include more stakeholders in the science activity, and that the balance between executive presence
and non-executive oversight should be redressed. It is argued that this adjustment can be made without
detracting from the executive activity in developing the Science and Innovation Campuses.
The Panel believes that significant damage has been done to the UK's international reputation in some areas of the
discipline of physics following the furore that was generated by the manner, timescale of changes and announcement
of recent STFC funding decisions.
The Panel were very concerned at the make-up of the STFC Council, both in terms of the over representation of the
executive and the lack of representation of the community it serves in comparison with other Research Councils. It is
understood that this structure was deliberately adopted to deal with the distinct features of STFC that arose because
of its multiple missions. However, this has not best served the scientific community in some branches of science whose
input was at one level below the Council. This is in sharp distinction to the practice of other Research Councils.
56
Review of UK Physics
The Panel recommends to DIUS that the membership of STFC’s Council be broadened to include more of
the stakeholders in the science activity at the highest level, and to redress the balance between executive
presence and non-executive oversight.
8.9 Expenditure on facilities and international subscriptions
A final, important aspect of the funding of research concerns the funding of research facilities and especially
those located overseas where the annual costs to the UK, met in most cases by STFC are subject to exchange
rate and Net National Income fluctuations that are not predictable with any accuracy many years in advance.
The funding is therefore fluctuating on a timescale short compared with the lifetime of most projects which
makes planning at the individual Research Council level difficult.
STFC currently participates in five international subscriptions on behalf of the UK government: CERN European Organisation for Nuclear Research (£78.67million in 2006/07), European Space Agency and European
Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere (£75.75 million collectively), ILL (£8.18
million), and European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (£2.81 million).There are two issues that cause instability
here; firstly the fact that the subscriptions are paid in either Euros or Swiss Francs means that STFC is subject to
exchange rate fluctuations – an acute problem recently. STFC argues that an increase of 1% above the initially
planned exchange rate can add an additional £2.2million to the cost,61 which represents 2% of the grants line
onto which this cost then falls. Secondly, each country's share of the overall budget for the international
subscriptions listed above is determined using Net National Income (NNI) in relation to the other participant
countries. Recent increases in NNI have also impacted on total costs to STFC. Until recently, individual research
councils have been responsible for meeting all of the fluctuations imposed by these factors from within their
own budgets.This is a very difficult task to manage in the current circumstances without having significant effects
on the amount of science that can be funded.
From April 2008, the current policy is that individual research councils including STFC are responsible for
exchange rate/NNI variations up to £6 million in their costs. Over this figure, the balance is absorbed by
Research Councils collectively. Since this leads to a reduction in the amount of research every council can
support this is not a popular or satisfactory solution for them, although the Panel recognise that it would also
not be satisfactory for astronomers and particle physicists to be penalised through exchange rates and
economic growth which are beyond their control.
In the longer-term it would be desirable to find a solution that does not impact negatively on any research
community. Only two have occurred or been suggested to the Panel and they both have uncertainties and some
disadvantages.
Firstly it has been argued to the panel that the costs of these fluctuations over and above expectations built into
the Comprehensive Spending Review should be met centrally by the Treasury; it has been said that many other
countries operate in this way. Since the Treasury would evidently and reasonably define this expenditure as a
part of the Science Budget it seems likely that whenever the fluctuations went in one direction the Science
Budget would be reduced across all the Research Councils in a similar but slightly more drastic fashion than is
now the case. It should be added that evidence from DIUS suggests that not all countries do in fact pay their
subscriptions directly from a central account outside the Science Budget.
Secondly the Panel have asked the question of DIUS of why can the subscriptions for science facilities due in
Euros or Swiss Francs not be paid out of receipts due to the UK in these currencies without the need for
intervening conversions? This would eliminate the fluctuations from the exchange rate at, least, even if the NNI
issue remained. Upward changes in NNI, in itself, have other benefits from which, arguably, the Science Budget
should benefit. Issues of whether Government financial rules would permit such a proposal require further
investigation by DIUS.
61
Source: RCUK. 'Research Council Funding Data', Review Data Pack p23. Available at:
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/review/physics/default.htm
Review of UK Physics
57
8.10 Summary
In conclusion the Panel believes that the Haldane Principle is operating effectively.The Panel examined in detail
the case for combining physics research under one Research Council, but several factors discouraged this,
notably the need to tension research grants with the closely dependent research facilities.
Focussing on the allocation of funding, the Panel believes that the Director General of Science and Research
would benefit from independent advice to ensure no unintended ramifications stem from the allocation to
Research Councils.
The Panel notes that there is a significant point of confusion with regard to how different disciplines and subdisciplines are supported through the dual support mechanism.This needs to be investigated further for the
sake of transparency.The Panel welcomes the Funding Councils' assessment of teaching resource support but
notes that policies on the development of departmental consortia need to be clear.
Finally, the Panel expresses concern at the structure of STFC Council, in relation to the impact has on the
Council's ability to engage with the broad community it serves.The Panel recognises the issues STFC has with
regard to fluctuations in the costs of international subscriptions.
58
Review of UK Physics
9. Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the evidence and analysis presented above, the Review Panel draw the following conclusions and
associated recommendations:
1. Physics research is performing strongly internationally.
The Panel notes that in comparison to the rest of the world, physics research performs very strongly – in many areas
behind only the USA. This point is reinforced by the UK's strong performance in terms of outputs and citations. This was
explicitly recognized in the 2000 and 2005 reports on 'International Perceptions of UK Research in Physics and
Astronomy' and is clearly born out by analyses of research output in relation to publications and citation statistics.
The Panel recommends that the UK Government should continue to fund research in both basic and applied
physics across a broad spectrum of sub-disciplines, at the level required to retain international
competitiveness.
2. The Panel concludes where physics interfaces with other disciplines that are currently exciting, expanding and
that offer significant new funding opportunities, such as health, the environment and energy, physics
departments have perhaps not taken adequate advantage of these possible new income streams.
Notwithstanding the Panel's general comment on the health of UK physics above, concern remains as to the health of
physics departments in terms of the selectivity that all but the largest have exercised with respect to their research
portfolio. For the sake of the future of the discipline it is essential that students continue to be exposed to areas of the
subject which are particularly applicable in the 21st century; such as biophysics/medicine, energy/environment, and
applied physics/engineering. Physicists are poised to play a vital role in tackling some the major problems facing the
nation which require a science-based approach. For this, it is essential that students be exposed to a broad range of
core physics knowledge and taught appropriate skills. To this end the Panel fully endorses the Institute of Physics
degree accreditation process. The Panel suggests that universities should consider the optimal configuration for
delivering a broad-based physics education that takes in non-traditional and newly developing areas, while continuing
to provide a solid training in the core aspects of the subject.The Funding Councils and Research Councils should
consider how they can encourage physics departments to reclaim the intellectual leadership in some of the areas
which they support but which currently lie outside their direct reach.
As a separate point derived from the same information, the observation made earlier that physics is seen as a service
to some of the growth areas of demand for physicists is likely to mean that those fields are failing to take the
maximum possible advantage of the very skills that physicists possess in addressing complex problems with analytical
tools. The panel believes there is a compelling case for encouraging physics departments to claim intellectual
leadership of some of the areas they have eschewed in order to bring benefits to those fields and broaden the base of
their income. We understand that this will mean a greater degree of coordination among the relevant research councils
to determine how this might be done.
The Panel recommends to the Funding Councils and Research Councils that they work together to consider
how they can encourage physics departments to reclaim the intellectual leadership in the broader spectrum
of physics supported across the full science base.
3. Physicists are ubiquitous scientists, being found in engineering, biological sciences and medicine as well as
elsewhere. However, the Panel believes that a similar selective approach to themes has been pursued in
many physics departments, some of which have excluded from their activities some topics that would
provide a broader intellectual base and a broader income base.These departments have therefore rendered
themselves vulnerable to the ability of their major funding source to continue to pay.
Review of UK Physics
59
The Panel concludes that whilst core research areas have been successfully consolidated, the new and developing areas
of physics research concerning environment, medicine and energy appear to have largely transferred out of physics
departments. While this will not directly have affected the undergraduate curriculum in Physics, which is safeguarded by
the work of the Institute of Physics, it will have an indirect impact upon the range of sub-disciplines of physics to which
undergraduates can be exposed in a physics department via research projects in later years for example.
In turn, the selectivity practised by physics departments militates against their ability to work outside the confines of
physics departments, including with large sections of UK industry. This, in turn, further reduces the diversity of funding
sources. The RAE must do more to promote the appreciation of applicable research. The new proposals for REF are
intended to do something about that and we would encourage those designing REF to consider carefully how to
encourage greater account to be taken of applicable research supported by business funding in a manner that ensures
there is an appropriate balance with the funding of curiosity driven research by Research Councils.
The Panel recommends to the Funding Councils that they work closely with Research Councils to ensure
that physics that may be currently conducted outside physics departments and that has application in other
disciplines, and in industry and commerce is fully recognised in the post-RAE environment.This also has
important implications for the correct sign-posting (to prospective A level and Scottish Highers students or
physics undergraduates) of this broader role for physics.
4. There has been a significant decline in recent years of the number of students taking physics at A level.
Significant proportions of students who go on to study physics at undergraduate level are white, male and
were independently educated.
The Panel notes with concern the decline in students taking A level physics. The Panel believes that the way physics is
taught in schools needs to be reviewed, and this should mean that the subject is taught by teachers who are physics
trained. Whilst the government has already set targets with regard to this, a physics trained teacher must, in the long
term, mean that he/she has a physics degree. Additionally, there should be more of an opportunity to focus on core
physics skills at GCSE level. Arguments we have adduced earlier suggest that those core skills would have application
in main areas.
Separately the Panel acknowledges the aims of the Institute of Physics' JUNO project, and RCUK's Research
Careers and Diversity Strategy, but feels that the gender gap in particular is so engrained in the discipline of
physics that action is needed from an early age.
The Panel proposes
a) to DCSF that physics should be taught by those trained in the subject, and the same successful ideas
that were applied to raising mathematics take-up in schools by improving mathematics teaching be
extended to physics; and
b) that research is undertaken by RCUK and DCSF to identify factors influencing non-take up of physics
in post-compulsory schooling amongst those from wider social and ethnic backgrounds and from
women.
5. There is concern over whether other countries in Europe will recognise the UK MPhys as being consistent
with a degree of the second cycle as envisaged in the Bologna Process.
The Panel endorses the Institute of Physics' efforts in promoting the need to ensure that UK qualifications (the
MPhys/Msc in particular) are consistent with the Bologna process. The Panel fully supports the Bologna process and
recognises the importance of ensuring UK research training does not become decoupled from that of the rest of
Europe, since that would significantly impact on the UK's ability to recruit the best young researchers, and for our
graduates to move freely within the European research environment.
The Panel proposes that DIUS works closely with the Institute of Physics and Universities UK to ensure
compatibility of current physics qualifications with the Bologna process.
60
Review of UK Physics
6. There is a need to ensure that there is coherence of planning of physics facilities and the allocation of physics
research grants, so that research needs are closely aligned with facility provision. For that reason it is not
desirable to separate former PPARC-like physics from the funding of its facilities.
For this reason the Panel recommends that the current division of physics funding between Research Councils remains.
Whilst recognising recent difficulties, the Panel believes that it is important that facilities provided for particle physics
and astronomy researchers be directly tensioned with the budget for the research that will utilise those facilities. The
current structure provides this tension in part of its remit. However, the panel believes that adding to this tension a
further dimension of national facilities and a government Science and Innovation Campuses is just too much.
The Panel recommends that:
a) the STFC be required at each CSR to bid for and allocate specific funds to former PPARC facilities
and grant funding together.This would avoid the undesired tensioning of these grants and facilities
support against national facilities and the project for the development of science and innovation
campuses.
b) the existing structure should be allowed time to develop, given it was founded on the basis of
extensive positive consultation. However, at an appropriate point following the review of STFC
management currently being conducted by Dr David Grant, DIUS should commission a review to
examine STFC operations.
7. The STFC's governance structure must be representative of the community it serves in order to gain
stakeholders' confidence going forward.
The Panel believes that significant damage has been done to the UK's international reputation in some areas of the
discipline of physics following the furore that was generated by the manner, timescale of changes and announcement
of recent STFC funding decisions.
The Panel were very concerned at the make-up of the STFC Council, both in terms of the over representation of the
executive and the lack of representation of the community it serves in comparison with other Research Councils. It is
understood that this structure was deliberately adopted to deal with the distinct features of STFC that arose because
of its multiple missions. However, this has not best served the scientific community in some branches of science whose
input was at one level below the Council. This is in sharp distinction to the practice of other Research Councils.
The Panel recommends to DIUS that the membership of STFC’s Council be broadened to include more of
the stakeholders in the science activity at the highest level, and to redress the balance between executive
presence and non-executive oversight.
8. There is a difference between facilities operated by STFC for the community for which it provides grants and
those facilities that are utilised by a range of disciplines (e.g. the Diamond light source) where funding for use
may come from a variety of sources.The Panel takes the view that this should be reflected in the planning
and management of the two different kinds of facility.
The Panel believes that within the current Research Council set-up, there should be greater clarity in how relative
priorities and budgets are set between facilities used by researchers funded by a variety of sources, and those that are
operated by STFC for the exclusive use of the community to whom they provided grant funding. Whilst no evidence was
found that the facilities operated for the predominant use of other communities had directly impinged upon the STFC
research grant budget, the perception that there is a potential conflict needs to be addressed.
The Panel recommends to RCUK that in developing large facilities and their scientific priorities,
consideration should be given to distinguish between those that serve a range of Councils, and those which
are germane to a single Council.
9. The Haldane Principle appears to be working effectively, with little interference from government on how
the money allocated to each Research Council is spent.
Review of UK Physics
61
The Panel was convinced that at the highest level the Haldane Principle was working effectively. The CSR process did
allow government to determine the allocations of the Science Budget into broad areas of Science (represented by
Research Councils) in a manner that reflected government priorities. The Research Councils were convincing that there
was no political involvement directly at any other level. However, the panel were concerned about the interaction
between the Haldane principle and regional development policy. Almost uniquely to physics, large scale facilities sites
needs to be placed somewhere in the UK, and these are sufficiently large to generate employment and attract clusters
of economic activity around them. This is indeed government policy. It is therefore inevitable that associated with the
location of the facilities there will be regional and political lobbies that could influence the Ministerial team in reaching
a conclusion on location and that some choices will impact upon the science, even if only through its effect upon the
formation of critical mass.
The Panel recommends:
a) that given this interaction of the science policy with regional development policy that DIUS and BERR
should consider a restatement of the Haldane Principle for the modern era; and
b) that the Director General of Science and Research (DGSR) would benefit from advice from a small,
but well informed advisory group from outside DIUS during the CSR allocation process to ensure
there are no unintended consequences of allocations and to ensure appropriate accountability to the
science community.This does not need to be a large bureaucratic body.
10. Physics has significant impact on the economy and society. We have found its graduates to be the most
ubiquitous of scientists. Possibly, the most valuable contribution appears to be physics trained graduates
(including BSc, MPhys/Msci, MSc and PhD), who are highly sought after in many sectors of the economy.
The Panel heard numerous examples of the value of physics trained researchers to industry, and in particular to the
finance sector. The Panel recommends that more work is done (by universities, companies and school careers advisors)
to promote the value of a physics training, and to better publicise the contribution that physics trained individuals make
to the economy and society.
The Panel recommends that:
a) physics departments through their own endeavours and those of the Institute of Physics continue
their valuable work to publicise all activities of physicists after graduation so as to enhance intake.
Companies that employ physicists need to promote the value of a physics training, and this should be
reflected in schools career advice.
b) universities, Funding Councils and Research Councils should seek to develop, with the finance sector,
masters courses that exploit the synergy between these apparently disparate areas.The possibility
should also be explored of running joint masters courses between universities and the financial sector
that exploit the particular skills that physicists have that are germane to finance in areas where such
training is not currently available.
Concerns were expressed by some engineering companies that the practical skills of physics graduates and even those
with doctorates had deteriorated. It would seem that this can be traced back to the unit of resource provided for
undergraduate teaching in physics because the number of practical activities that many undergraduates in physics
experience, as well as the nature of them has diminished. This is a point that has been understood by the Funding
Councils and they have provided additional funding for student support in physics and a few other subjects including
chemistry and chemical engineering to attempt to address the underfunding of band B students for a fixed period. It is
understood that this problem is not confined to physics but applies more generally to other laboratory-based
disciplines, but we have no remit to examine them.
c) The Panel recommends to university physics departments that they should re-consider the provision
of practical skills for their students perhaps in conjunction with the large facilities in the UK and
perhaps with industry.The Panel was pleased to learn of the recent RCUK initiative on skills for
international competitiveness, and urges RCUK to work with all stakeholders to encourage the
development of transferable practical skills into the curriculum at all levels of undergraduate and
postgraduate training.
62
Review of UK Physics
11. Interaction between university-based academics and industry could be improved.
The Panel heard from many sources that more needs to be done to encourage university-based physicists to work
more closely with industry. Several factors were raised in relation to this including: the need for the RAE to be more
proactive in welcoming applied work; the need for greater access to students by companies to encourage recruitment:
and the costs of working with universities since the introduction of Full Economic Costing. We found that much of the
research work in physics that was of direct interest to business was being performed in departments other than
physics in the university sector. This has the effect of reducing the number and size of the income streams to physics
departments and making them seem unviable, despite the probable sustainability of the overall physics effort in the
university.
The Panel recommends:
a) that universities consider their internal funding models and structures to make sure they consider
physics broadly than simply at the level of the department of that name, and encourage working
between departments.They should also be careful to distinguish between cost and price in working
with business, particularly perhaps in physics where the business base of applicability is wide; and
b) that DIUS and RCUK work together to develop mechanisms which enable the easy flow in both
directions between industry and academia (though this point is not specific to physics).
12. Solar-Terrestrial based observation funding should be transferred to the Natural Environment Research
Council.
The influence of the sun on the Earth’s climate system, and studies of the Earth’s upper atmosphere are particularly
relevant to NERC. It would seem advantageous that the activities of particular relevance to the NERC mission should
become the responsibility of NERC.
The Panel recommends that responsibility be transferred to the Natural Environment Research Council for
those parts of solar terrestrial physics research which are most relevant to the NERC mission.That transfer
should be accompanied by sufficient funds to enable NERC to administer and support the current level of
research.
13. The support of physics through the dual support system is not fully understood and should be investigated
further.
The Panel believes there is a potential distortion of the dual support system implied by the provision of much of the
infrastructure for a minority of sub-branches of physics relative to all other physical sciences. It is made by a Research
Council through the provision of national facilities and not by the Funding Councils through QR. It is not clear this is
either fully understood or indeed that its magnitude is known. The Panel has tried to examine this with DIUS but it has
not been possible in the time available to investigate it thoroughly.
The Panel recommends that an investigation into balance between QR and Research Council funding in
supporting physics infrastructure should be completed so that it is clear to the entire community what
amounts are being spent in total on which branches of science.The Panel does not advocate a redistribution
of the funding (as noted in the report, there are logical reasons for this), merely transparency.
14. Funding Councils need to consider the long-term objectives of encouraging universities to develop consortia
in physics.
The Panel believes that the HEFCE should consider very carefully the purposes and consequences of its actions before
encouraging further consortia to develop in physics. There is considerable evidence that the Scottish experience with
SUPA successfully brought together several physics departments with perhaps less than critical mass to form a
strategic consortium that is focussing on strategically directed research in physics as a group. The genesis of similar
schemes in England has been different but the outcome has still been a growth in research activity and staff.
Review of UK Physics
63
The Panel recommends to the HEFCE that it should consider the long term implications of strategic support
for funding consortia of physics departments in more detail, and that clear criteria be developed for
measuring and ensuring quality and sustainability in all the different components of consortia.
15. An in-depth review needs to be established by RCUK of nuclear physics to determine the national priorities
in this sub-discipline.
The Panel proposes that there be a careful examination of the research portfolio in nuclear physics and its impact on
skills in nuclear science in the UK by an appropriately selected review group established by RCUK. The UK has reduced
its expenditure on nuclear physics relative to some other countries. The country should determine what its nuclear
physicists should concentrate upon in the future and then properly fund that work.
The Panel recommends that RCUK develop a review of the priorities in nuclear physics research to ensure
they best match the needs of the UK.
16. Supervisors need to deliver appropriate and realistic career advice to postdoctoral researchers.
The Panel's conversation with postdoctoral researchers suggests that many are not fully informed of the likely outcome
of their career track, and often get inappropriate careers advice. This is perhaps of more significance to physics than to
some other disciplines because of the large number of postdoctoral researchers, the duration of research projects, and
the duration of the cycle of fixed term employment. First, their career advice is usually derived from their supervisors
who have, very often, a potentially conflicted position. This observation has been made in other reviews. Secondly, most
begin on the postdoctoral route with an aspiration to be an academic – but a rather small fraction of them can
expect to make it.
The Panel recommends that Universities, Funding Councils and Research Councils work together to develop
the research concordat so that realistic career advice is given to junior scholars and that mechanisms to
ensure early career opportunities are maximised in strategic areas of the research base.
17. The Panel is concerned about the relatively low levels of investment in High Performance Computing for
physics research in the UK compared to other countries such as the USA and Germany, as evidenced, for
example, by the 'Top 500' list of the most powerful computers in the world.
Although facilities such as HECToR are competitive, they are insufficient to satisfy demand. The Panel is also concerned
by the lack of access to the largest machines by STFC scientists and by the apparent absence of a coherent policy for
HPC within the Research Councils, particularly STFC. It is too early to comment on the impact on physics that the
recently announced HPC facility at the Hartree Centre in the Daresbury Science and Innovation Campus will have.
The Panel recommends that RCUK should promote the use of HPC in physics, and more generally by:
(a) continuing a programme of sustained investment in HPC facilities and
(b) co-ordinating activity across all the Research Councils that support both physics and other disciplines,
taking account of the needs and aspirations of the various constituent communities.The Panel
endorses EPSRC's efforts to develop a strategy for replacing HECToR in a timely fashion. STFC
should, as a matter of urgency, likewise develop and implement a long-term, sustainable policy for HPC
for its community within the overall context and strategy of RCUK.
64
Review of UK Physics
ANNEXES
Annex 1 Questionnaire sent to Head of Departments
We would be very grateful if you could supply the following information which will form part of an information
pack to be presented to the Review Panel.
1.
a. Name of institution and department
b. Number of FTE staff in department
2.
Please list and describe 5 non-academic impacts and collaborations that have stemmed from research
carried out by members of your department over the past 5 years. (max. 100 words each) For the
purpose of this exercise, impact refers to a situation where you have evidence that a research outcome has
been considered by a third party. Economic impacts range from those that are readily quantifiable, in terms
of greater wealth, cheaper prices and more revenue, to those less easily quantifiable, such as effects on the
environment, public health and quality of life.
3.
Please describe your approach to achieving research impact i.e. infrastructure and guidance for promoting
research in your department. (max. 200 words)
4.
Please describe examples of interdisciplinary research (with collaborators in other departments) that has
been conducted in your department over the past five years. (max. 200 words)
5.
a. In your 2008 RAE return, did your department's return to Unit of Assessment 19 include staff from
another entity in your university?
5.
b. If so which disciplines were involved?
5.
c. Please comment upon any special effects you observe of the RAE on the discipline of physics. (max. 200
words)
6.
Outline your programme for research training at PhD and postdoctoral level, and how you review
development and performance at these stages. Give examples of skills training courses offered and levels of
attendance at them? (max. 300 words)
7.
Describe areas of strength in UK physics research, as well as any notable weaknesses that you feel currently
exist. How do you feel UK physics research compares with the rest of the world? (max. 300 words)
8.
What facilities does your department make use of? Do you think adequate facilities are provided with the
right mix of central/departmental facilities? (max. 200 words)
9.
a. Do you feel the current funding structure for UK physics is effective in supporting the discipline as a
whole and in fostering interdisciplinarity?
9.
b. If not how could it be improved? (max. 200 words)
Review of UK Physics
65
10. a. For the final full financial year of the recent RAE return (06-07) give the Research Council income
(spend) for your department broken down by research council.
10. b. Are you satisfied with the support that you receive from each council? (max. 150 words)
11. Please comment on the pattern of undergraduate recruitment into your department and its impact upon
your educational provision and research profile (max. 400 words)
12. Please detail the number of staff in your department that have received senior management training.
13. Please list any issues or comments not covered above that you would like the Panel to be aware of. (max.
400 words)
66
Review of UK Physics
Annex 2 Questionnaire for Vice-Chancellors
1.
Please provide an overview concerning the establishment and evolution of the physics department in your
institution (if you have one) or of the discipline in your institution if you do not have a designated
department. (max 500 words).
2.
Please describe the measures in place for supporting and sustaining physics at your university. Does the
university see a long-term future for the physics department? If you feel there are threats to its
sustainability, please explain them. (max 300 words)
3.
Has the focus of research in physics within your physics department had to be adjusted in order to attract
students and ensure long-term viability of the department? If so, please explain how. (max 300 words)
4.
Please set out the interaction between undergraduate recruitment into your physics department (if you
have one) and research activity in the discipline. (max 300 words)
5.
If you have no physics department but do employ physics-trained staff, how do your physicists contribute to
undergraduate education? (c. 300 words)
6.
What measures does the university employ to maximise the exploitation of research in physics conducted
within your institution beyond academia? (c. 400 words)
7.
As a Vice-Chancellor, what are your principle concerns as to funding policy for physics in the UK in ensuring
the subject's long-term viability? (c. 200 words)
8.
Please detail the measures employed by the university to foster interdisciplinarity that involves physics? (c.
200 words)
9.
Please detail any other points that you feel it would be useful for the review Panel to consider (400 words
max).
Review of UK Physics
67
Annex 3 Questionnaires for Physics Companies
Organisation Overview
1.
a Name of organisation.
1.
b Please provide a brief description of the company's role.
2.
Roughly what percentage of current employees who work for the organisation have a physics background
(i.e. first degree, masters or PhD in physics)? If it is also possible to identify whether their current role
makes explicit use of that background that would be very helpful.
Knowledge Transfer
3.
Describe any support the organisation gives to physics academics or government scientists in achieving
economic impact and wider user engagement. Note - economic impacts range from those that are readily
quantifiable, in terms of greater wealth, cheaper prices and more revenue, to those less easily quantifiable,
such as effects on the environment, public health and quality of life.
4.
a Thinking specifically about physics, does more need to be done to foster interaction between academia
and industrial application of research?
4.
b If so please provide examples of how this might be achieved.
5.
a Are you able to identify any differences between physics researchers' willingness to collaborate with nonacademic research users, and researchers from other disciplines?
5.
b If yes, what are the differences, and are they positive or negative?
6.a Has your organisation has collaborated with UK physics researchers in the last three years? If no, please go
to question 7.
6.b What are the reasons for this collaboration?
i) To inform policy decisions
ii) To inform policy ideas
iii) Product development
iv) Basic research
6.c Please detail the value you feel the collaboration has had on your organisation.
Importance of UK Physics
7.
How valuable do you feel academic physics research is to the UK (consider both skills/education at
undergraduate level and research)?
68
Review of UK Physics
Annex 4 Participants at Evidence Meetings (23-25 June 2008)
Research Council Representatives
Professor Ian Diamond (Chief Executive, ESRC and Chair of RCUK Executive Group)
Professor David Delpy (Chief Executive, EPSRC)
Professor Keith Mason (Chief Executive, STFC)
Dr Lesley Thompson (Director of Research Base, EPSRC)
Dr Colin Miles (Science and Technology Group, BBSRC)
Professor Nigel Brown (Director of Science and Technology BBSRC)
Dr Frances Rawle (Strategy Liaison Group, MRC)
Professor Alan Thorpe (Chief Executive, NERC)
Professor Richard Holdaway (Director of Space Science and Technology Department, STFC)
Heads of Department
Professor John
Durell (University of Manchester)
Professor Bob Evans (University of Bristol)
Professor Mike Gunn (University of Birmingham)
Professor Roger Davies (University of Oxford)
Professor Richard Abram (University of Durham)
Professor Walter Gear (Cardiff University)
Professor Andy Lawrence (University of Edinburgh)
Professor Gordon Bromage (University of Central Lancashire)
Professor Tim Naylor (University of Exeter)
Professor Peter Haynes (University of Cambridge)
Research Leaders
Professor Athene Donald (University of Cambridge)
Professor Brian Foster
Professor Ofer
Lahav
(University of Oxford)
(University College London)
Professor Mark Lester (University of Leicester)
Professor Dennis Loveday (University of Loughborough)
Professor SN Ekkanath Madathil (University of Sheffield)
Dr Andrew Huxley (University of Edinburgh)
Professor Miles Padgett (University of Glasgow)
Professor Steve Cowley (UKAEA Culham Division)
Professor Vlatko Vedral (University of Leeds)
Review of UK Physics
Interdisciplinary Research Leaders
Professor Paul O'Shea (University of Nottingham)
Professor Douglas Paul (University of Glasgow)
Professor Farideh Honary (University of Lancaster)
Professor Paul
Monks (University of Leicester)
Professor Martin Dawson (University of Strathclyde)
PhD Students
Miss Sue Kirk (University of Cambridge)
Miss Samantha
Shaw (University of Surrey)
Ms Gemma Attrill (University College London)
Postdoctoral Researchers
Dr Gareth Edwards (Cardiff University)
Dr Chamkaur Ghag (University of Edinburgh)
Dr Avon Huxor (University of Bristol)
Dr Roberto Trotta (University of Oxford)
Dr Ross Hatton (University of Warwick)
Dr Amanda Wright (University of Strathclyde)
Dr Martin Hardcastle (University of Hertfordshire)
Employers of Postgraduate Physicists
Dr Jessica James (Citigroup)
Mr Chris Chaloner (SEA)
Mr Ralph Cordey (Astrium)
Mr Graham Allatt (Lloyds TSB)
Dr Alison Hodge (QinetiQ)
Dr Thomas Keller (GlasxoSmithKlein)
Dr David Townsend (BAE Systems)
Mr David Cairncross (CBI)
Dr Jonathan Flint (Oxford Instruments)
Dr Paul Fewster (PanAlytical)
Mr Stuart Evans (Plastic Logic)
69
70
Review of UK Physics
Learned Societies
Dr Robert Kirby-Brown (Chief Executive, Institute of Physics)
Professor Peter Main (Education and Science, Institute of Physics)
Mr John Brindley (Membership and Business, Institute of Physics)
Mr Tajinder Panesor (Science Policy, Institute of Physics)
Professor Andy Fabian (President, Royal Astronomical Society)
Professor Michael Rowan-Robinson (Former President, Royal Astronomical Society)
Professor Jim Hough (Higher Education Committee, Royal Astronomical Society)
Lord Rees of Ludlow (President of the Royal Society)
Professor Martin Taylor (Vice-President and Physical Secretary, Royal Society)
Dr Peter Cotgreave (Director, Public Affairs, Royal Society)
Dr Nick Green (Acting Head of Policy Section, Royal Society)
Mr Philip Greenish (Chief Executive, Royal Academy of Engineering)
Mr Keith Davies (Royal Academy of Engineering)
Mr Matthew Harrison (Royal Academy of Engineering)
Other Representatives
Professor Ian Halliday (Chief Executive, Scottish Universities Physics Alliance (SUPA))
Professor Paul Nolan (University of Liverpool)
Professor Brian Fulton (University of York)
Dr Paddy Regan (University of Surrey)
Professor David Eastwood (Chief Executive, Higher Education Funding Council for England)
Review of UK Physics
71
Annex 5 Glossary
ABRC
Advisory Board of the Research Councils
BBSRC
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
BERR
Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
CASE
Collaborative Awards in Science and Engineering (collaborative PhD studentship awards between
universities and industry)
CCLRC
Council of the Central Laboratories of the Research Council (merged with PPARC to form STFC in
April 2007)
CERN
European Organisation for Nuclear Research (or European Laboratory for Particle Research)
CSR
Comprehensive Spending Review
DCSF
Department of Children, Schools and Families
DELNI
Department for Education and Learning, Northern Ireland
DGSR
Director General of Science and Research
Diamond
Diamond Light Source
DIUS
Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills
EISCAT
European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Organisation
EPSRC
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
ESA
European Space Agency
ESO
European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere
ESRC
Economic and Social Research Council
ESRF
European Synchrotron Radiation Facility
fEC
Full Economic Costing
HE
Higher Education
HEFCE
Higher Education Funding Council for England
HEFCW
Higher Education Funding Council for Wales
HESA
Higher Education Statistics Agency
ICT
Information and Communication Technologies
ILL
Institut Laue-Langevin (neutron science facility based in Grenoble)
IoP
Institute of Physics
IRCs
Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations
ISIS
Pulsed Neutron and Muon Source
JET
Joint European Torus, based at UKAEA Culham
JIF
Joint Investment Framework
LCD
Liquid Crystal Display
LHC
Large Hadron Collider
MPA
Midlands Physics Alliance
MPhys
Master of physics (a four year qualification that incorporates BSc and a masters qualification)
MRI
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
NERC
Natural Environment Research Council
72
Review of UK Physics
NMR
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
NNI
Net National Income
NWDA
North West Development Agency
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-ordination and Development
PALS
Physical and Life Sciences STFC Science Committee
PPAN
Particle Physics, Astronomy and Nuclear STFC Science Committee
PPARC
Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (merged with CCLRC to form STFC in April
2007)
QR
Quality-Rated Research Income
RAE
Research Assessment Exercise
RAEng
Royal Academy of Engineering
RAL
Rutherford Appleton Laboratories (managed by STFC at Harwell, Oxfordshire)
RAS
Royal Astronomical Society
RCUK
Research Councils UK (strategic partnership of the UK's seven Research Councils)
REF
Research Excellence Framework (potential successor to RAE)
RS
Royal Society
SEEDA
South East of England Development Agency
SEPNET
South East Physics Network
SFC
Scottish Funding Council
SQUIDS
Superconducting Quantum Interference Device
SRIF
Science Research Investment Fund
STFC
Science and Technology Facilities Council
SUPA
Scottish Universities University Alliance
TRAC (T) Transparent Research Accounting for Teaching (potential successor to university teaching allocations)
UCAS
University and College Admissions Service
Review of UK Physics
73
Annex 6: Output Normalised to UK Output
The following table takes the proportion of publications output per country in a sample of physics sub-discipline
areas, and then normalises it in relation to the UK figure (which is represented as 1 in each case). It therefore
shows which country has a higher proportion of outputs in relation to the UK.
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005 2006
Canada
0.53
0.55
0.46
0.32
0.46
0.36
0.39
0.64
0.57
0.74
France
0.92
1.29
0.68
0.80
1.10
0.85
0.66
1.06
0.94
0.95
Germany
1.29
1.78
1.05
1.15
1.63
1.35
1.19
1.66
1.41
1.42
Japan
1.73
1.93
1.41
1.27
2.14
1.44
1.51
2.32
1.63
1.58
The Netherlands
0.26
0.33
0.31
0.27
0.31
0.29
0.34
0.32
0.24
0.37
UK
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
USA
5.14
6.64
4.35
3.86
5.39
4.64
5.17
6.47
5.52
5.31
Accelerators. beams & electromagnetism
Astrophysics & astroparticles
Canada
0.34
0.31
0.37
0.36
0.34
0.37
0.40
0.36
0.41
0.41
France
0.82
0.67
0.62
0.61
0.64
0.63
0.65
0.65
0.66
0.64
Germany
1.46
1.26
1.08
1.23
1.20
1.05
1.21
1.01
1.16
1.15
Japan
0.81
0.98
1.07
1.06
1.13
0.92
1.22
1.07
0.88
1.04
The Netherlands
0.28
0.23
0.21
0.21
0.23
0.21
0.22
0.20
0.20
0.23
UK
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
USA
4.23
4.03
4.54
4.24
4.34
4.31
4.63
4.26
4.17
4.26
Canada
0.43
0.38
0.33
0.34
0.30
0.35
0.38
0.40
0.41
0.41
France
1.01
1.14
0.99
1.01
1.06
0.97
1.08
0.94
0.96
0.93
Germany
1.40
2.15
1.79
1.81
1.62
1.72
1.83
1.57
1.59
1.52
Japan
1.24
1.18
1.08
1.08
1.01
1.22
1.17
1.13
1.10
1.03
The Netherlands
0.24
0.14
0.16
0.17
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.12
0.13
0.15
UK
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
USA
5.54
5.03
4.10
4.17
3.89
4.07
4.08
4.19
4.20
4.11
Canada
0.35
0.25
0.34
0.32
0.28
0.31
0.32
0.29
0.35
0.40
France
0.65
0.34
0.37
0.37
0.35
0.36
0.35
0.38
0.41
0.41
Germany
1.15
0.78
0.78
0.74
0.78
0.68
0.74
0.66
0.74
0.73
Japan
0.54
0.53
0.64
0.66
0.67
0.56
0.67
0.63
0.63
0.60
The Netherlands
0.24
0.14
0.16
0.17
0.16
0.12
0.14
0.12
0.13
0.15
UK
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
USA
3.89
3.38
4.29
3.88
4.03
3.76
3.86
3.80
3.93
3.93
Fluid dynamics
Gravitation & cosmology
74
Review of UK Physics
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005 2006
Canada
0.46
0.37
0.40
0.37
0.42
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.54
0.50
France
1.15
0.91
0.96
0.92
1.06
1.07
0.98
0.98
1.03
1.00
Germany
1.79
1.49
1.57
1.46
1.63
1.67
1.62
1.53
1.58
1.48
Japan
1.64
1.44
1.49
1.41
1.68
1.75
1.67
1.64
1.53
1.42
The Netherlands
0.34
0.24
0.25
0.24
0.29
0.28
0.27
0.29
0.27
0.27
UK
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
USA
5.57
4.73
5.16
4.68
5.34
5.48
5.43
5.63
5.36
5.12
Optics. quantum optics & lasers
Particle physics & field theory
Canada
0.36
0.34
0.38
0.32
0.34
0.38
0.41
0.39
0.51
0.50
France
0.88
0.93
0.81
0.77
0.86
0.88
0.81
0.94
0.94
0.86
Germany
1.42
1.55
1.29
1.27
1.42
1.36
1.44
1.42
1.51
1.45
Japan
1.20
1.37
1.35
1.21
1.49
1.28
1.54
1.58
1.32
1.59
The Netherlands
0.24
0.27
0.23
0.22
0.25
0.27
0.31
0.27
0.31
0.30
UK
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
USA
4.31
4.34
3.99
3.60
4.01
4.05
4.38
4.48
4.49
4.42
Canada
0.52
0.46
0.38
0.35
0.33
0.38
0.40
0.47
0.45
0.46
France
1.13
1.25
1.07
1.02
1.11
1.03
1.12
1.00
1.05
1.02
Germany
1.81
2.27
1.92
1.80
1.79
1.80
1.96
1.71
1.79
1.64
Japan
2.56
2.21
1.87
1.69
1.79
1.84
1.98
1.86
1.71
1.64
The Netherlands
0.37
0.29
0.28
0.25
0.27
0.28
0.33
0.29
0.29
0.30
UK
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
USA
6.56
6.31
5.23
4.97
4.78
4.93
5.14
5.26
5.24
5.04
Plasma physics
Soft matter, liquids & polymers
Canada
0.50
0.52
0.43
0.42
0.39
0.43
0.49
0.48
0.52
0.52
France
1.10
1.34
1.09
1.04
1.14
1.07
1.13
1.03
1.11
1.02
Germany
1.34
1.92
1.68
1.57
1.56
1.63
1.73
1.55
1.61
1.59
Japan
1.49
1.62
1.46
1.33
1.34
1.46
1.48
1.42
1.39
1.38
The Netherlands
0.37
0.34
0.33
0.32
0.30
0.32
0.38
0.36
0.35
0.33
UK
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
USA
4.78
5.00
4.38
4.17
4.20
4.24
4.57
4.55
4.74
4.62
Review of UK Physics
75
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005 2006
Canada
0.44
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.39
0.43
0.44
0.47
0.47
0.50
France
1.27
1.04
1.03
1.01
1.19
1.18
1.08
1.10
1.08
1.10
Germany
1.78
1.49
1.50
1.42
1.69
1.69
1.61
1.61
1.60
1.57
Japan
1.83
1.68
1.63
1.63
1.85
1.89
1.84
1.85
1.60
1.62
The Netherlands
0.37
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.31
0.29
0.29
UK
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
USA
4.79
4.13
4.36
3.95
4.74
4.85
4.87
5.10
4.82
4.93
Condensed matter: electrical, magnetic & optical
Condensed matter: structural, mechanical & thermal
Canada
0.43
0.39
0.37
0.36
0.37
0.41
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.48
France
0.99
0.91
0.89
0.91
0.95
0.94
0.91
0.90
0.96
0.91
Germany
1.49
1.43
1.39
1.39
1.44
1.44
1.46
1.40
1.48
1.40
Japan
1.49
1.47
1.43
1.48
1.49
1.54
1.59
1.57
1.45
1.37
The Netherlands
0.29
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.28
0.27
0.27
UK
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
USA
4.56
4.17
4.28
4.06
4.33
4.44
4.57
4.66
4.67
4.54
Source: Thomson Scientific/CWTS Leiden University/RCUK Analysis
76
Review of UK Physics
References
Sainsbury, D. (2007) 'The Race to the Top: A Review of the Government's Science and Innovation Policies' HM
Treasury, London. Available at
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/5/E/sainsbury_review051007.pdf
The Royal Society (2006) 'A Degree of Concern? UK First Degrees in Science,Technology and Mathematics' The
Royal Society, London. Available at
http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=23118
The Royal Society (2008) ' A Higher Degree of Concern' The Royal Society, London. Available at
http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=28988
Centre for Economics and Business Research Ltd. (2007) 'Physics and the UK Economy' Institute of Physics,
London. Available at
http://www.iop.org/activity/business/Business_and_Innovation_Policy/Publications/economy file_26914.pdf
Institute of Physics (2005) 'Survey of Academic Appointments in Physics 1999-2004 United Kingdom and
Ireland' Institute of Physics, London. Available at
http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Publications/file_4148.pdf
Elias, P and Jones, P (2006) 'Representation of Ethnic Groups in Chemistry and Physics' The Royal Society of
Chemistry and the Institute of Physics, London. Available at
http://www.rsc.org/images/Ethnic%20Web_tcm18-53629.pdf
Institute of Physics (2007) 'Salary Survey 2007' Institute of Physics, London
Royal Astronomical Society (2007) 'Role of Astronomy in Research Funding of UK Physics Departments' Royal
Astronomical Society, London. Available at
http://www.ras.org.uk//images/stories/ras_pdfs/Policy%20Papers/Role%20of%20Astronomy%
20in%20Research%20 funding%20of%20UK%20Physics%20Departments.pdf
Smithers, A., and Robinson, P. (2007) 'Physics in Schools III: Bucking the Trend' University of Buckingham. Available at
http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/education/research/ceer/pdfs/bktrend.pdf
Smithers, A., and Robinson, P. (2008) 'Physics in Schools IV: Supply and Retention of Teachers', University of
Buckingham. Available at
http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/education/research/ceer/pdfs/physics-teachers.pdf
Allport, P. and Lancaster, M. (Eds.) 'A Study of the Cross-Discipline and Societal Benefits of UK Research in
Particle Physics' Institute of Physics High Energy Physics Group Unpublished.
DTZ Pieda Consulting (2003) 'A Study of the Career Paths of PPARC PhD Students' Particle Physics and
Astronomy Research Council Swindon. Available at
http://www.so.stfc.ac.uk/publications/pdf/PiedaOldCohort.pdf
QUAD Research (2006) 'Tracking the Careers of UK Physics Students – 2006 Follow-up Study' Institute of
Physics, London.
Brown, N. (2006) 'Study of the Finances of Physics Departments in English Universities' Institute of Physics,
London. Available at
http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Publications/file_21216.pdf
Review of UK Physics
77
The Royal Society (2007) 'The UK's Science and Mathematics Teaching Workforce' The Royal Society, London
The Royal Society (2008) 'Exploring the Relationship Between Socioeconomic Status and Participation and
Attainment in Science Education' The Royal Society, London
Lambert, R. (2003) 'Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration' HM Treasury, London. Available at
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/9/0/lambert_review_final_450.pdf
HM Treasury, (2006)'Science and Innovation Framework 2004-2014: Next Steps' HM Treasury, London. Available at
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/7/8/bud06_science_332v1.pdf
Smith, A. (2004) 'Making Mathematics Count:The Report of Professor Adrian Smith's Inquiry into Post-14
Mathematics Education' Training and Development Agency for Schools, London. Available at
http://www.tda.gov.uk/upload/resources/pdf/m/mathsinquiry_finalreport.pdf
'International Perceptions of UK Research in Physics and Astronomy' (2000) EPSRC, PPARC, Institute of Physics,
Royal Astronomical Society. Available at
http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/CMSWeb/Downloads/Publications/Other/International%20 Review%20of%20Physics.pdf
'International Perceptions of UK Research in Physics and Astronomy' (2005) EPSRC, PPARC, Institute of Physics,
Royal Astronomical Society. Available at
http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/CMSWeb/Downloads/Publications/Other/PhysicsInternationalReview.pdf
'International Perceptions of the UK Materials Research Base' (2008), EPSRC, IOP, IOM3, Materials UK, RAEng, RSC.
Available at http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/CMSWeb/Downloads/Other/MaterialsInternationalReview2008.pdf
'Chemistry at the Centre: An International Assessment of University Research in Chemistry in the UK' (2002)
EPSRC and RSC. Available at
http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/CMSWeb/Downloads/Publications/Other/International%20Review%20of%20Chemistry.pdf
'International Review of Research Using HPC in the UK' (2005) EPSRC and DFG. Available at
http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/CMSWeb/Downloads/Other/HPCInternationalReviewReport.pdf
78
Review of UK Physics
www.rcuk.ac.uk
[email protected]
Designed and produced by JRS Document Solutions
Research Councils UK
Polaris House, North Star Avenue
Swindon, Wiltshire SN2 1ET
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1793 444420
Fax: +44 (0) 1793 444409