Archive for the Science Politics Category

The Nolan Case

Posted in Maynooth, Science Politics with tags , , , on June 13, 2024 by telescoper

A couple of weeks ago I posted an item about the sudden departure of Prof. Philip Nolan from his post as Director General of Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) after allegations of misconduct (including bullying). That post included these words:

As an outsider I have no idea what has been going on at SFI, so have no dirt to dish, but it must have been rather serious for Prof. Nolan to have been forced out so quickly.

Despite that clear statement I have received a number of emails from “journalists” asking for gossip. Obviously I didn’t reply to them.

Anyway, it’s not only the sudden decision that led to Prof. Nolan’s dismissal that is striking; there’s also the fact that no formal disciplinary process took place and it was accompanied by immediate termination of his access to emails, etc. Actions so extreme are usually reserved for situations in which a staff member has committed gross misconduct, but that is not the accusation here.

Anyway, just a few days after his apparent departure from SFI, Prof. Nolan went to court and obtained a temporary injunction restraining his dismissal ahead of a further hearing about the case which began on 11th June and has not yet completed. Although no longer fired, Prof. Nolan has not been allowed physically to return to work.

I have no idea how this mess will end. It does seem that there must have been a complete meltdown in SFI that will be very difficult to reverse. Perhaps the best way forward is to hasten the end of SFI and the beginning up of the new entity (Taighde Éireann– Research Ireland) supposed to be formed by the merger of SFI with the Irish Research Council.

I have no idea who is in the wrong at SFI. Perhaps both sides are. However, for the record, I will state that when my Mam died in 2019 Prof. Nolan (who was President of Maynooth University at the time) sought me out and offered his condolences in person. That was a kind gesture that I greatly appreciated at the time, and one which few University managers I have known would have made in the circumstances. Certainly not the current President of Maynooth University.

P.S. I discovered from reading this article about the Nolan Case that the Chairman of the Board of Science Foundation Ireland, Professor Peter Clinch, an economist; presumably no actual scientists were available.

On foot of an Irish idiom

Posted in Irish Language, Science Politics with tags , on May 29, 2024 by telescoper

I noticed the following phrasing in the media in connection with the departure of Philip Nolan from his position at Science Foundation Ireland, e.g.

On foot of the investigation, the board of SFI wrote to the five senior staff members with the findings.

Irish Independent, 29th May 2024

The use of the idiomatic phrase “on foot of” (meaning “as a result of” or “following”, etc, as distinct from “on foot”, meaning “by walking”) seems quite commonplace in Hiberno-English, even in judicial proceedings, but I’ve never encountered it at all outside Ireland. This gives me an excuse to direct your attention to this post from elsewhere about this very matter from which I stole the title of this short post. I suspect the phrase in question may be formed by direct translation from a construction in the Irish language, which would explain why it isn’t used outside Ireland, but I’m happy to be corrected if wrong…

Exit Nolan

Posted in Covid-19, Harassment Bullying etc, Maynooth, Politics, Science Politics with tags , , , , on May 28, 2024 by telescoper
Simon Harris and Philip Nolan at the launch of Research Ireland

I just saw the news that Prof. Philip Nolan has left his post as Director General of Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) after allegations of misconduct (including bullying). Prof. Nolan was the previous President of Maynooth University, a post he left at the end of September 2021; for 18 months while still President he was also chair of the the Epidemiological Modelling as part of National Public Health Emergency Team dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic. He moved to SFI in January 2022 when Simon Harris, who is now Taoiseach, was Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. Prof. Nolan was due to take charge of a new entity (Taighde Éireann– Research Ireland) formed by the merger of SFI with the Irish Research Council when the legislation required to create it it passes through the Oireachtas.

It seems there were no fewer than five serious complaints about Prof. Nolan’s conduct made under protected disclosure legislation, and an investigation found that he had displayed “inappropriate behaviour” towards the staff concerned, which was at the “upper level” in respect of two senior staff.

As an outsider I have no idea what has been going on at SFI, so have no dirt to dish, but it must have been rather serious for Prof. Nolan to have been forced out so quickly. I suppose it is reassuring in a way that SFI – unlike many organizations – takes bullying allegations seriously, but it is not at all good for the science ecosystem in Ireland for its main funding agency to be rocked by a scandal of these dimensions. I hope whoever takes over can steady the ship. It’s not an auspicious situation for the embryonic Research Ireland either. The first question that needs to be answered is whether Prof. Nolan will lead it despite being removed from SFI and, if not, who will?

LISA adopted by ESA

Posted in Science Politics, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , on January 25, 2024 by telescoper

I have some good news for gravitational-wave physicists to pass on. The European Space Agency (ESA) has formally “adopted” the Laser Interferometric Space Experiment (LISA) – a gravitational wave experiment in space. This follows the detection of gravitational waves using the ground-based experiment Advanced LIGO and the success of a space-based technology demonstrator mission called Lisa Pathfinder. LISA was actually selected as a potential mission in 2017 – see here – but “adoption” means that the mission concept and technology required are now both sufficiently advanced that it can proceed in 2025, once contractors are found to actually build it.

LISA consists of a flotilla of three spacecraft in orbit around the Sun forming the arms of an interferometer with baselines of the order of 2.5 million kilometres, much longer than the ~1km arms of Advanced LIGO. These larger dimensions make LISA much more sensitive to long-period signals. Each of the LISA spacecraft contains two telescopes, two lasers and two test masses, arranged in two optical assemblies pointed at the other two spacecraft. This forms Michelson-like interferometers, each centred on one of the spacecraft, with the platinum-gold test masses defining the ends of the arms.

Here’s an artist’s impression of LISA:

This is excellent news for the gravitational waves community, especially since LISA was threatened with the chop when NASA pulled out in 2011. Space experiments are huge projects – and LISA is more complicated than most – so it will take some time before it actually happens. The first I heard of the LISA concept was back in the mid-1990s and at the moment LISA is pencilled in for launch in 2035, so it will be forty years in the development.

Ireland is a full member of ESA so let’s hope the Irish Government finds a way of funding participation in the LISA mission. Although Ireland joined ESA nearly fifty years ago, and is paying  into the mandatory science programme which includes LISA (and, for example, Euclid), there is no funding programme in Ireland dedicated to the scientific exploitation of ESA projects. Let’s hope the Irish scientists involved in LISA – including those at Maynooth – are able to play a full part in this exciting project.

Signatories of DORA

Posted in Maynooth, Open Access, Science Politics with tags , on November 22, 2023 by telescoper

Following on from comments on a number of previous posts I just wanted to encourage anyone involved in research of any kind who hasn’t done so already to sign the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) as an individual and if your institution hasn’t done so yet please encourage them to do so. You can check whether your organization has signed it here.

The Number One recommendation of DORA is:

Do not use journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, as a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles, to assess an individual scientist’s contributions, or in hiring, promotion, or funding decisions.

San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment

You can read the other recommendations for funders, publishers, institutions, and researchers, here.

I am well aware that some institutions have signed DORA but don’t really pay attention to it in their internal processes. Maynooth University is a signatory and certainly does take it into consideration when dealing with, e.g., recruitment and promotion but it, along with other signatories, has to deal with inconsistencies in the outside world. One of these is that, while Science Foundation Ireland and the Irish Research Council are both signatories of DORA, the Irish Government itself is not, so the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science is not bound by it. That makes no sense to me at all!

Ireland, CERN and Science

Posted in Science Politics, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , on November 15, 2023 by telescoper

And lo! it came to pass that Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science Simon Harris TD has today secured Government approval to submit Ireland’s formal application to join the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) as an Associate Member.

I have posted about this before, for example here. Currently Ireland is in the anomalous position of not having any form of association agreement with CERN; the list of Full and Associate Member states can be found here.

There is an important point about CERN membership, however, which I hope is not sidelined. The case for joining CERN made at political levels is largely about the return in terms of the potential in contracts to technology companies based in Ireland from instrumentation and other infrastructure investments. This was also the case for Ireland’s membership of the European Southern Observatory, which Ireland joined about five years ago. The same thing is true for involvement in the European Space Agency, which Ireland joined in 1975. These benefits are of course real and valuable and it is entirely right that arguments should involve them.

Looking at CERN membership from a scientific point of view, however, the return to Ireland will be negligible unless there is a funding to support scientific exploitation of the facility. That would include funding for academic staff time, and for postgraduate and postdoctoral researchers to build up an active community as well as, e.g., computing facilities. This need not be expensive even relative to the modest cost of associate membership (approximately  €1.9M). I would estimate a figure of around half that would be needed to support CERN-based science.

The problem is that research funding for fundamental science (such as particle physics) in Ireland is so limited as to be virtually non-existent by a matter of policy at Science Foundation Ireland, which basically only funds applied research. Even if it were decided to target funding for CERN exploitation, unless there is extra funding that would just lead to the jam being spread even more thinly elsewhere.

As I have mentioned before, Ireland’s membership of ESO provides a cautionary tale. The Irish astronomical community was very happy about the decision to join ESO, but that decision was not accompanied by significant funding to exploit the telescopes. Few astronomers have therefore been able to benefit from ESO membership. While there are other benefits of course, the return to science has been extremely limited. The phrase “to spoil a ship for a ha’porth of tar” springs to mind.

Although Ireland joined ESA almost fifty years ago, the same issue applies there. ESA member countries pay into a mandatory science programme which includes, for example, Euclid. However, did not put any resources on the table to allow full participation in the Euclid Consortium. There is Irish involvement in other ESA projects (such as JWST) but this is somewhat piecemeal. There is no funding programme in Ireland dedicated to the scientific exploitation of ESA projects.

Under current arrangements the best bet in Ireland for funding for ESA, ESO or CERN exploitation is via the European Research Council but to get a grant from that one has to compete with much better developed communities in those areas.

A significant shake-up of research funding in Ireland is in view, with Science Foundation Ireland and the Irish Research Council set to merge into a single entity called Research Ireland. If I had any say in the new structure I would set up a pot of money specifically for the purposes I’ve described above. Funding applications would have to be competitive, of course, and I would argue for a panel with significant international representation to make the decisions. But for this to work the overall level of public sector research funding will have to increase dramatically from its current level, well below the OECD average. Ireland is currently running a huge Government surplus which is projected to continue growing until at least 2026. Only a small fraction of that surplus would be needed to build viable research communities not only in fundamental science but also across a much wider range of disciplines. Failure to invest now would be a wasted opportunity.

Nobel Prize for Physics Speculation

Posted in Science Politics, The Universe and Stuff with tags , on October 2, 2023 by telescoper

Just  to mention that tomorrow morning (Tuesday, October 3rd 2023) will see the announcement of this year’s Nobel Prize for Physics. I must remember to make sure my mobile phone is fully charged so I can be easily reached.

Of course this is just one of the announcements. This morning, for example, there is the announcement of the Prize for Physiology or Medicine, and on Wednesday is the Prize for Chemistry: both of these sometimes go to physicists too. You can find links to all the announcements here.

I do, of course, already have a Nobel Prize Medal of my own already, dating from 2006, when I was lucky enough to attend the prize-giving ceremony and banquet.

I was, however, a guest of the Nobel Foundation rather than a prizewinner, so my medal is made of chocolate rather than gold. I think after 17 years the chocolate is now inedible, but it serves as a souvenir of a very nice weekend in Stockholm!

Regular readers of this blog, Sid and Doris Bonkers, may recall that I called it correctly last year when Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger won. I had however predicted them every year for many years until they won, and they won’t win it again, so I can’t follow my usual strategy. I’ll suggest that there’s an outside chance for Michael Berry and Yakir Aharonov for their work on the geometric phase, although if they were going to win they probably would have done so by now. Feel free to make your predictions through the comments box below.

To find out you’ll have to wait for the announcement, around about 10.45 (UK/Irish time) tomorrow morning. I’ll update this post when the wavefunction has collapsed.

UPDATE: The 2023 Nobel Prize for Physics goes to:

Pierre Agostini
The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA

Ferenc Krausz
Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics, Garching and Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany

Anne L’Huillier
Lund University, Sweden

“for experimental methods that generate attosecond pulses of light for the study of electron dynamics in matter”

Congratulations to them! The full press release containing the citation can be found here.

Anyway, for the record, I’ll reiterate my opinion that while the Nobel Prize is flawed in many ways, particularly because it no longer really reflects how physics research is done, it does at least have the effect of getting people talking about physics. Surely that at least is a good thing?

P.S. My own claim for the 2023 Physics Nobel Prize is based on the discovery of the Coles Law.

Enquiring into UK Astronomy

Posted in Science Politics, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , on September 14, 2023 by telescoper

Apparently I still have a few readers in the UK, so I thought I’d share a bit of news aimed at them.

It seems the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee of the House of Commons has initiated an inquiry into ” how well placed the UK astronomy sector is to showcase the UK as a science superpower and maximise its leadership in international programmes”. Apparently this will examine the status of the UK’s astronomical research base and assets, UK access to international astronomical facilities and contribution to international programmes. It will also explore astronomy’s potential contribution to the UK economy and what considerations should inform the Science and Technology Facilities Council’s next Strategic Delivery Plan, due in 2026. 

I don’t know why STFC doesn’t just use ChatGPT to write its strategic plan like everyone else, but there you go.

Anyway, the Committee welcomes submissions addressing any or all of the following:

  • The strengths and weaknesses of UK astronomy and how these compare to other nations
  • The opportunities and challenges facing UK astronomy and whether it is receiving sufficient support
  • What the aims and focus of UK astronomy should be
  • The extent to which UK astronomy contributes to the UK’s status as a science superpower
  • Whether the UK is maximising the contribution that astronomy can make to the wider UK economy
  • What role astronomy is playing in encouraging greater diversity and inclusion in STEM and public interest in science

To find out more information and/or submit a submission go here. The deadline is 27th October.

Have fun!

Research Matters

Posted in Science Politics, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , on September 10, 2023 by telescoper

One of the things that happened last week while I was preoccupied with ITP2023 is that, finally, the UK Government has decided to re-join the European Union’s Horizon 2020 project. I’m very happy about this, and can’t understand why it has taken so long to reach an agreement. I know many researchers in the UK who will be mightily relieved too. Of course things won’t immediately get back to normal. It’s not just that the UK contributions will start in January 2024 so there will have to be some sort of transitional arrangement. More importantly it remains to be seen how long it takes to repair the damage done to goodwill by all the political shenanigans.

While I’m on about research I should also mention that there was a short talk at ITP2023 by a particle physicist by the name of Ronan McNulty who is based at University College Dublin. The topic of that talk was the history of Ireland’s non-membership of CERN; I have blogged about this before, for example here. Currently Ireland is in the anomalous position of not having any form of association agreement with CERN; the list of Full and Associate Member states can be found here. It does seem, however, that Ireland is at last about to lodge an application for Associate Membership, perhaps as early as January 2024.

Ronan made a particularly important point about membership, which I hope is not sidelined in the discussions. The case for joining CERN made at political levels is largely about the return in terms of the potential in contracts to technology companies based in Ireland from instrumentation and other infrastructure investments. This was also the case for Ireland’s membership of the European Southern Observatory, which Ireland joined about five years ago. The same thing is true for involvement in the European Space Agency, which Ireland joined in 1975. These benefits are of course real and valuable and it is entirely right that arguments should involve them.

Looking at CERN membership from a scientific point of view, however, the return to Ireland will be negligible unless there is a funding to support scientific exploitation of the facility. That would include funding for academic staff time, and for postgraduate and postdoctoral researchers to build up an active community as well as, e.g., computing facilities. This need not be expensive even relative to the modest cost of associate membership (approximately  €1.5M). I would estimate a figure of around half that would be needed to support CERN-based science.

The problem is that research funding for fundamental science (such as particle physics) in Ireland is so limited as to be virtually non-existent by a matter of policy at Science Foundation Ireland, which basically only funds applied research. Even if it were decided to target funding for CERN exploitation, unless there is extra funding that would just lead to the jam being spread even more thinly elsewhere.

As I have mentioned before, Ireland’s membership of ESO provides a cautionary tale. The Irish astronomical community was very happy about the decision to join ESO, but it was not accompanied by significant funding to exploit the telescopes. Few astronomers have therefore been able to benefit from ESO membership. While there are other benefits of course, the return to science has been extremely limited. The phrase “to spoil a ship for a ha’porth of tar” springs to mind.

Although Ireland joined ESA almost fifty years ago, the same issue applies there. ESA member countries pay into a mandatory science programme which includes, for example, Euclid. However, did not put any resources on the table to allow full participation in the Euclid Consortium. There is Irish involvement in other ESA projects (such as JWST) but this is somewhat piecemeal. There is no funding programme in Ireland dedicated to the scientific exploitation of ESA projects.

Under current arrangements the best bet in Ireland for funding for ESA, ESO or CERN exploitation is via the European Research Council but to get a grant from that one has to compete with much better developed communities in those areas.

A significant shake-up of research funding in Ireland is in view, with Science Foundation Ireland and the Irish Research Council set to merge into a single entity. If I had any say in the new structure I would set up a pot of money specifically for the purposes I’ve described above. Funding applications would have to be competitive, of course, and I would argue for a panel with significant international representation to make the decisions. But for this to work the overall level of public sector research funding will have to increase dramatically from its current level, well below the OECD average. Ireland is currently running a huge Government surplus which is projected to continue growing until at least 2026.

Only a small fraction of that surplus would be needed to build viable research communities not only in fundamental science but also across a much wider range of disciplines. Failure to invest now would be a wasted opportunity.

Calling out Entitlement

Posted in Harassment Bullying etc, Science Politics with tags , , , on July 4, 2023 by telescoper

Looking around for topical material beyond Euclid to include in tomorrow’s plenary presentation at the National Astronomy Meeting in Cardiff in the session on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in Astronomy and Geophysics I came across a story about Nobel Laureate Kurt Wüthrich.

Professor Kurt Wüthrich gave a talk at the Lindau Meeting last week during which he claimed there was anti-male discrimination in modern science. I have uncovered further relevant evidence. Here is a picture of four old white men from the same meeting being discriminated against by being forced to participate in a panel consisting entirely of old white men:

Setting aside Kurt Wüthrich’s ridiculously elevated sense of entitlement, the really serious issue is that it was a (female) early career researcher that called him out. One point that I want to make tomorrow is that those of us who are old white men have a vitally important role to play in calling out this sort of nonsense. More generally, whatever your scientific status it is important for you to ask yourself “what can I do to make the research environment as good as possible for people who are not like me?”.