FOR anyone interested in Britain鈥檚 strategic science future, the annual
reports of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council are essential
reading because they outline the nitty-gritty about our involvement in major
astronomy projects. Earlier this year the government stubbornly refused to
release the 拢30 million needed for Britain to become a member of the
European Southern Observatory (ESO) project (快猫短视频, 4 March, p
49). PPARC, ever-realistic, now makes clear in its 1999/2000 report that the
government鈥檚 proposals allow all its current and planned astronomy programmes to
be finished, but within a budget that grows at a rate somewhat more slowly than
the European Space Agency鈥檚 inflation indices.
Britain is spending 拢30 million on its part in ESO鈥檚 拢300 million
Atacama Large Millimetre Array (ALMA), a giant interferometric telescope to be
placed in the Atacama Desert in Chile. According to PPARC, that鈥檚 in line with
what it calls 鈥渞elative GNP鈥�. ALMA will be able to detect and study the most
distant galaxies. But without doubt, the highlight of the year was Britain鈥檚
Astronomy Technology Centre鈥檚 successful bid to manage the Visible and Infrared
Survey Telescope for Astronomy (VISTA), the Southern Hemisphere survey telescope
(www.roe.ac.uk/atc/ projects/vista/). When completed, this will provide a
dedicated 4-metre-wide optical/infrared survey facility at the ESO Very Large
Telescope on Cerro Paranal, a mountain also in Chile鈥檚 Atacama Desert.
When I asked Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, for his assessment, he
replied that 鈥渢he VISTA survey telescope is already funded through the Joint
Infrastructure Fund for special research facilities. The decision to locate it
on the ESO site in Chile was motivated by the hope that it could carry out joint
programmes with our European partners鈥攁nd perhaps even be regarded as part
of Britain鈥檚 entry fee to ESO activities.鈥� He adds: 鈥淚 think the prospects for
Britain鈥檚 membership of ESO now look reasonably bright.鈥�
Advertisement
In the final analysis, everything will hinge on getting extra funds. Let鈥檚
hope that PPARC does better than it did at the last spending review.
I WAS pleased that John Krebs addressed the recent annual general meeting of
the Association of Public Analysts in London. He heads the new Food Standards
Agency, so his presence can only augur well for cooperation with local authority
analysts crucial in the battle for food safety.
One of the recommendations of the APA鈥檚 1998 Report on the Review of
Public Analyst Arrangements in England and Wales is that information
systems relating to food should be developed, operated and coordinated
centrally. They should support and use the output from all sampling programmes
as a matter of priority to improve the protection of consignors across Britain.
This would create a national database which would be available free of charge,
to food authorities and their public analysts to help planning and follow-up
action.
I gather the government accepts that a national database offers real benefits
and plans to implement one in consultation with the food authorities. Ministers
also accept the public analysts鈥� recommendation that surveillance work by the
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should continue to be offered by
open tender. Moreover, information derived from such work should be included in
the proposed national database. And ministers also agree that food authorities
should re-examine screening laboratories more closely. This way they could
ensure that the laboratories achieve genuine cost-effectiveness with reliable
sample documentation, accreditation and quality assurance, and a clear
understanding of any analytical or legal uncertainties in the results.