Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, June 15, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Stephen Hawking: ministers' £80m error puts science at risk

by Times Online

Thanks to Joe Byer for the link.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4138240.ece

Stephen Hawking: ministers' £80m error puts science at risk
Leading physicist reveals he turned down knighthood

Jonathan Leake

Britain's most famous scientist, Stephen Hawking, has accused the government of making "disastrous" cuts to research funding that threaten the country's international standing.

Hawking has released correspondence accusing ministers of putting science at risk through basic "bookkeeping errors" that have led to an £80m budget shortfall and warning that several university physics departments may be forced to close.

Separately, it has emerged that he has turned down the offer of a knighthood. "Professor Hawking does not like titles. In fact he dislikes the whole concept of them," said a spokesman.

In the Queen's birthday hon-ours this weekend, three respected but low-profile scientists are awarded knighthoods. The absence of a similar accolade for Hawking has long been one of British science's minor puzzles.

Now Hawking has cleared up the mystery by revealing that he first turned down a title more than a decade ago and since then his resolve has only hardened.

His interventions on matters of public policy have been rare, but he has been angered by the cuts to physics funding that followed the government's attempts to reor-ganise science. Last year ministers decided to merge the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, which funded most of Britain's physics research.

The merged body, the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), was set up with an immediate shortfall of £80m because of mistakes in calculating the running costs of new laboratories. This immediately threatened the jobs of 600 physicists and the closure of facilities such as the Jodrell Bank radio telescope. It could also force Britain to pull out of global projects such as the Gemini telescopes in Hawaii.

British involvement in other major international projects – such as the new particle accelerator at Cern, the physics facility near Geneva – are not believed to be at risk. They do, however, further squeeze the cash available for spending in Britain.

An independent inquiry is under way into the crisis, but this week Ian Pearson, the science minister, is due to publish a report replying to a select committee that was highly critical of the government's actions.

In his letter, Hawking said: "This bookkeeping error has disastrous implications. There is a possibility that very severe cuts will be made in the grants awarded to UK research groups.

"These grants are the lifeblood of our research effort; cutting them will hurt young researchers and cause enormous damage both to British science and to our international reputation. They could well lead to several physics departments closing."

The threat to university physics departments has most angered Hawking and his fellow theoretical physicists. Neil Turok, professor of mathematical physics at Cambridge and a close colleague of Hawking, has already decided to quit Britain to become director of the Perimeter Institute in Ontario, Canada, this autumn.

"Experiments at the cutting edge of physics are designed to test theories, so theory is essential to their interpretation," said Turok. "What the government is doing by cutting theory is consigning the UK to funding but not benefiting from these big experiments. It really is a dumb policy."

Brian Cox, professor of particle physics at Manchester University, who is closely involved with the large hadron collider project at Cern, said he supported Hawking's comments.

"The notion that scientists will make a more valuable contribution to the economic and social wellbeing of the world if their research is closely directed by politicians is the most astonishing piece of nonsense I have had the misfortune to come across in a long time," Cox said.

Pearson has written to Hawking rejecting most such criticisms and has suggested the creation of the STFC has been a success. He said in a statement: "There was no deficit at the time of the merger; nor were there arithmetical errors. I can quite understand how those whose work is not funded may well question those who gave it a lower priority."

For Hawking such battles may soon seem remote. He expects to spend more time abroad in future, partly in California and partly with Turok in Ontario.

Comments 1 - 26 of 26 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #193353 by mordacious1 on June 15, 2008 at 12:40 pm

One has to respect the man.

The U.S. will take all the scientists the UK has to offer. You can keep the cretinist "scientists".

Other Comments by mordacious1

2. Comment #193363 by phil rimmer on June 15, 2008 at 1:06 pm

 avatar
scientists will make a more valuable contribution to the economic and social wellbeing of the world if their research is closely directed by politicians


Fine if they knew what they were doing but, when, in the UK, was the last time we had a scientist or former scientist in the cabinet?

Margret Thatcher! A chemist whose main contribution to the world of knowledge was how to get more air (and less cream) into ice cream.

(The Blessed Maggie, generally had a poor record with dairy products, later going on to steal milk off school kids.....Blessed are the Cheese-makers, indeed!)

Other Comments by phil rimmer

3. Comment #193385 by mordacious1 on June 15, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Phil

Maggie was a chemist? Did not know. She quit putting air in ice cream, and went on to put air (hot) into parliment. Nice transition.

edit: I thought she got the title "Iron Lady" from having a strong will, not from the periodic table.

Other Comments by mordacious1

4. Comment #193388 by RightWingAtheist on June 15, 2008 at 1:57 pm

 avatar"PROFESSOR Hawking does not like titles."

What an odd statement.

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

5. Comment #193391 by mordacious1 on June 15, 2008 at 2:01 pm

So, is there any money involved in getting a knighthood? He could always take the dough and hand it over to a research department.

Other Comments by mordacious1

6. Comment #193410 by notsobad on June 15, 2008 at 2:20 pm

 avatar
Separately, it has emerged that he has turned down the offer of a knighthood. "Professor Hawking does not like titles. In fact he dislikes the whole concept of them,"

As if I could respect him any more!
Medieval bullshit needs to go.

Other Comments by notsobad

7. Comment #193412 by Lycosid on June 15, 2008 at 2:27 pm

RightWingAtheist,
Hawking earned the title professor. I'd be willing to bet that if he clarified his statement, he meant it as a slam on titles that were dispensed at the whim of "royalty."

Other Comments by Lycosid

8. Comment #193421 by esuther on June 15, 2008 at 2:59 pm

RightWingAtheist

What a strange reaction. What's your point? That he's a hypocrite?
Professor is a job title that is earned, like Doctor.
It's not an honorific like "Sir Stephen".

Other Comments by esuther

9. Comment #193431 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 15, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Hawking is incredible. I only hope brain research into speech will be advance quickly so he is freed from what must be the agony of being essentially locked in. Hope is a useless emotion but I do hope that happens.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

10. Comment #193438 by Border Collie on June 15, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Just another way to undermine science ... mistake or not.

Other Comments by Border Collie

11. Comment #193439 by TruthByEvidence on June 15, 2008 at 3:45 pm

I agree that those bloody politicians are ruining science if they think that it doesn't deserve more than adequate funding!

I believe that Stephen Hawking and Mr. Turok should leave if they must, yet I do not wish for them to simply GIVE UP!

Highly regarded scientists in the United Kingdom should urge for change through means that can also garner public support in some way.

If this goes unabated, this shall be a tremendous disaster! This issue must be addressed immediately, without delay!

-_- Articles about this asinine behaviour and its dire consequences makes my blood boil. I feel like there isn't enough support for these brilliant minds, for the average person needn't care.

People whom understand such implications need to do something before science is shoved down further on the spectrum of importance!

Richard Dawkins titled his TED talk "An Atheist's Call to Arms" and I completely agree with him, and I believe that it should also imply a subtext for all those in all religious views to be a

"Scientist's Call to Arms".

I can't believe that a government would destroy such an important part of humanity's contributions.

Sickening, truly. Something must be done! If rationalists simply allow such desecrations to progress only upset us, we are allowing to be tread upon.

As a single individual whom knows that ideas of increased progress by spreading knowledge is extremely prudent, I also know that I am not alone in believing such.

I believe that these recent books and outlets are very important because they start a more keen awareness of how things CAN be better, yet not just if we slide along with everything.

If anyone should help start a civil, action-oriented movement to change these misdeeds, it should be founded by Richard Dawkins himself. (Personal selection)

I am sincerely frightened by the direction some of these events lead my mind to, and the conclusion that it may hinder.

If there are groups that have even made a dent in the overall political/societal system, let me know by sending me a message.

I know of the 'Rational Response' peoples, yet I'm looking for someone that most everyone can stand by without feeling like these ideas are scary. No yelling, just a very large dose of strong emotion that can make someone see the misdeeds of the religious and the ignorant leaders of countries leading this world into a dark dwelling.

In the 1950's, progress was seemed imminent, positivity about the future was much more present(so I'm told and can see;The World's Fair etcetera)... and now we have so much convenience, many people seem to be too comfortable with their isolated lives, secluding themselves from actual problems that can hurt us all.

I'm sure that my feelings are not alone here, and I do not advocate violence or radical implementation by utilising negativity in its many forms.

I feel like the world is teetering and I read these articles, perhaps a bit sensationalised, yet nonetheless unsettling.

HELP!

Thank you to anyone who has actually read all of this rant. I sincerely would like to know if there is such a 'campaign' to make this world better composed of atheists and logical thinkers. We need more of those and they are being made by open communication like the internet, yet can some of these problems be fixed in time?

I say yes. Let me know.



(This should probably be on the message boards or something...I apologise for the length)

Other Comments by TruthByEvidence

12. Comment #193446 by RightWingAtheist on June 15, 2008 at 3:55 pm

 avataresuther:

It's just ironic as it stands. That's the only point. Obviously I am not criticizing Hawking, because he didn't say it.

Other Comments by RightWingAtheist

13. Comment #193461 by Nova on June 15, 2008 at 4:22 pm

mordacious1:
The U.S. will take all the scientists the UK has to offer. You can keep the cretinist "scientists".


This is an odd statement to make since your losing scientists to us and other countries that aren't so infected with religion that they don't allow stem cell research on government property.

Other Comments by Nova

14. Comment #193463 by glenister_m on June 15, 2008 at 4:24 pm

If memory serves, in one of Carl Sagan's books he is complimentary toward Margaret Thatcher because of her stance on the ozone layer. Most politicians were caving under pressure from business, but being a chemist Thatcher knew that the scientists warning about CFC's destroying the ozone layer had their chemistry right. She refused to back down and I believe was the first major power to ban them. I apologize for any minor inaccuracies.

Other Comments by glenister_m

15. Comment #193469 by mdowe on June 15, 2008 at 4:35 pm

 avatarNeil Turok will certainly be welcomed, and will be a great asset to Canada, but I hope he isn't leaving Cambridge on the assumption science will be more appreciated by the government in Canada. The current Canadian Conservative ruling party represents by far the most anti-science government to exist in my lifetime. What is the term that is so popular in these forums? Hmm .. ah yes ... I think 'fucktards' fits rather well.

Other Comments by mdowe

16. Comment #193481 by mordacious1 on June 15, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Nova

We do support stem cell research in CA.

How many U.S. scientists in the UK? Sure seems a lot of them at american universities with british accents.

Other Comments by mordacious1

17. Comment #193485 by Lemniscate on June 15, 2008 at 5:23 pm

 avatarThis really upsets me. The current government have been trying to apply an ultra-narrow business ethic to all spheres - the NHS and science for example. Making science purely utilitarian will end in ruin. The point about science is that you can't predict what new ideas will be useful. Cutting physics funding is just an expression of this lack of respect for science for its own sake.

Has everyone had a meeting and decided science doesn't matter as much anymore?

Other Comments by Lemniscate

18. Comment #193541 by Saerain on June 15, 2008 at 7:49 pm

 avatar
17. Comment #193485 by Lemniscate on June 15, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Has everyone had a meeting and decided science doesn't matter as much anymore?
But of course. We're all so comfortable and tired of the world moving around us oh-so-dizzyingly. Who cares about the future?

Other Comments by Saerain

19. Comment #193542 by dragonfirematrix on June 15, 2008 at 7:53 pm

 avatarDr. Stephen Hawking has certainly has my respect.

Science rocks!

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

20. Comment #193739 by Barry Pearson on June 16, 2008 at 1:35 am

 avatar
Lemniscate said: This really upsets me. The current government have been trying to apply an ultra-narrow business ethic to all spheres - the NHS and science for example. Making science purely utilitarian will end in ruin. The point about science is that you can't predict what new ideas will be useful. Cutting physics funding is just an expression of this lack of respect for science for its own sake.

Has everyone had a meeting and decided science doesn't matter as much anymore?
This UK government has favoured centralisation of decision-making from the start. An example is undermining self-provision of pensions, then trying to replace them with ever-more complicated schemes for government hand-outs.

I think much of this comes down to lack of trust. This government, especially Gordon Brown, simply doesn't trust citizens or institutions to make the right decisions. Hence repeated complaints of "the nanny state". Instead of encouraging charities by trusting them, ditto schools, ditto police, the government assumes it has to micro-manage them.

I think the logic may be something like "left to themselves people and organisations will only get it right at most 80% of the time; so we need mechanisms to cause them to get it right 100% of the time". Needless to say, the government is incapable to getting anywhere that 80%, however much money they throw at the problem. 80% may actually be the best that society can achieve. (There are obvious parallels with how natural selection makes do with what it has available, and the concept of perfect design is inapplicable).

The government fails to realise that much of what drives people and organisations is motivation based on the belief they they have the personal power to make a difference. Take away "initiative", and motivation and the possibility of innovative solutions dissipates.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

21. Comment #193809 by clatz on June 16, 2008 at 4:25 am

 avatarThis say's it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2CdB9-JUQk

Legend.

Other Comments by clatz

22. Comment #193824 by nalfeshnee on June 16, 2008 at 5:08 am

Minor point: "Professor" is only ever a temporary title.

Richard Dawkins will relinquish his current Professorship this year, for example.

So I think there is no discrepancy between what Stephen Hawking maintains and the fact that he is, currently, the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University.

A "Sir" on the other hand -- whether merited or not - is for life (and it used to be even longer what with hereditary titles).

Interesting factoid on the Lucasian Chair:


One of the stipulations in Lucas' will was that the holder of the professorship should not be active in the church. Isaac Newton later appealed to King Charles II that this requirement excused him from taking holy orders, which was compulsory for most Fellows of the University at that time (some Fellowships were exempt). The King supported Newton, and excused all holders of the professorship, in perpetuity, from the requirement to take holy orders.


Source: Wikipedia

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

23. Comment #193867 by Cromwell on June 16, 2008 at 7:10 am

Ian Pearson (BA Hons Philosophy, Politics and Economics) points out to Stephen Hawking (Lucasian Professor of Mathematics) that there were no arithmetical errors. Who do we trust to do the sums?

Other Comments by Cromwell

24. Comment #194015 by Lemniscate on June 16, 2008 at 9:34 am

 avatarRE: Barry Pearson

I completely agree with your analysis. It seems the public sector has become a bureaucratic nightmare that's led by farcical government initiatives. It also seems to be the worst kind of micro-management, the ignorant and incompetent type. For example, my father works in the NHS, and his team of nurses and doctors is smaller than the team that manages them, who get paid more and have no specific subject knowledge.

Britain's major public institutions - universities, schools, the NHS, the police, social care - need to claim back some of their autonomy and let the people who know what they're doing to get on and do it.

Other Comments by Lemniscate

25. Comment #194036 by hungarianelephant on June 16, 2008 at 10:00 am

 avatarLemniscate - Funnily enough, I received a letter this morning telling me that Oxford University is trying to raise £1.25 billion (and asking me to provide some of it).

And why? To enable it to maintain its independence.

When the great universities essentially pass a declaration of independence from government, that ought to tell us something.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

26. Comment #199917 by Nova on June 26, 2008 at 1:47 pm

mordacious1:
How many U.S. scientists in the UK? Sure seems a lot of them at american universities with british accents.


Or maybe you are just bumping into them a lot or imagining them: completely anecdotal!

mordacious1:
We do support stem cell research in CA.


As for CA, well you are recanting on your previous comment: "The U.S. will take all the scientists the UK has to offer." means all the US. In addition, CA is massively restricted in it's application of stem cell research because it cannot do it on federal government property even within it's own borders - that means most universities. In the article on this site that described CA's endorsement of stem cell research, it mentioned the restriction of CA not being able to use government property forces it to waste money on new facilities when perfectly fine ones are already available. There was a power cut and one of these facilities lost years of research: if they had done it in a university the backup generator would have spared it.

In conclusion, one state has a bound and expensive attempt at stem cell research endorsement, while the rest of the country is stagnant. The whole of the UK endorses stem cell research entirely.

Other Comments by Nova
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: