From B. R. FULTON
In his recent article (Talking Point, 12 October) Sir David Phillips
has spelt out what he believes to be the responsibilities of the research
councils and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils (ABRC). I am pleased
that Sir David has taken the trouble to make this information available
to the scientific community. However, I very much doubt that he can clear
up the ‘misconceptions’ he feels I may have. I have learnt too much over
the past year about the undemocratic way in which the SERC and ABRC operate
to place much trust in such statements.
I was particularly interested in Sir David’s remark that ‘it is the
ABRC’s responsibility to monitor the effectiveness with which the research
councils are making these hard choices’ (the decisions on priority among
research programmes). Perhaps I might ask how effective the ABRC feels the
SERC has been in this regard. To take but one example, the decision to close
the Nuclear Structure Facility first, and then set up a review later (the
‘shoot first and ask questions later policy’, Physics World, June 1991),
seems a particularly inappropriate way to go about the business of setting
scientific priorities.
I was disappointed to see that, in the whole of his article on the responsibilities
of the ABRC, Sir David makes no mention of a role in arguing for an increase
in the funding of science. I would imagine many other scientists would share
with me a feeling of sadness that the main bodies responsible for supporting
research in Britain appear to be so preoccupied with other matters that
they seem to have forgotten this vital role. If the ABRC does not afford
this matter priority, then who else will?
B. R. Fulton University of Birmingham
Advertisement
