DOCSLIB.ORG

RCUK REVIEW of E-SCIENCE in the UNITED KINGDOM

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
RCUK REVIEW of E-SCIENCE in the UNITED KINGDOM RCUK Review of e-Science 2009 Section 1 Information for the Panel Overview: Funding of Science and Innovation in the UK RCUK REVIEW OF e-SCIENCE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM EVIDENCE TO THE PANEL NOVEMBER 2009 Research Councils UK (RCUK) Polaris House, North Star Avenue Swindon, SN2 1ET Wiltshire, UK http://www.rcuk.ac.uk RCUK Review of e-Science 2009 Section 1 Information for the Panel Overview: Funding of Science and Innovation in the UK Contents 1. Preface and Summary 1.1 Table of acronyms 1.2 Review of e-Science evidence framework 2. Current UK Science and Innovation Policy and Research Funding Overview 2.1 Setting the scene 2.2 How funding for science is secured 2.3 Funding for research 3. An Introduction to e-Science Research in the UK 3.1 Overview 3.2 Background and introduction 3.3 Funding for e-Science research in the UK 3.4 Bibliometric evidence 3.5 International engagement 3.6 Support for people 3.7 Knowledge Transfer 3.8 Further related funding 4. The Institution Perspective 4.1 Invited institutions evidence 4.2 Other institutes evidence RCUK Review of e-Science 2009 Section 1 Information for the Panel Overview: Funding of Science and Innovation in the UK 1. Preface and Summary This document has been produced in preparation for the 2009 RCUK Review of e-Science. The review is being organised by EPSRC, on behalf of RCUK and aims to inform stakeholders about the quality and impact of the UK science base. The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of research in e-Science in the UK in terms of its people, funding, organisation and policy. This should inform the Review Panel’s deliberations as it addresses the issues raised in the evidence framework. A variety of background data has been used and sources are acknowledged. The data has been provided for use by the Review Panel and will be published on the RCUK web site on completion of the Review (documentation provided in confidence will not be published). No data from this document may be quoted or used publicly without written permission from EPSRC. Evidence in this document has been compiled from the Research Councils’ management records and the UK e-Science research community. Note that due to the variety of sources some data is more up to date than others. However, wherever possible dates of the financial years 2001 to 2008 has been taken (UK financial years run from 1 April to 31 March). Additionally panel members should note that the Research Council data in this document refers to the ‘e-Science Programme’, and the ‘e-Science Core Programme’ which now no longer exist. It must be remembered when reading this document that no inferences or conclusions have been made from the data by the writers. It is not the purpose of this document to steer the opinion of the Panel in any way but merely to present the Panel with information it may interpret as it sees fit. Authors: Jo Garrad and Sarah Fulford Contributors: David Robey, AHRC Michael Ball and David McAllister, BBSRC Susie Douglas, EPSRC Suzanne Mills, ESRC Ghada Zoubiane, MRC Michelle Truman, NERC Trish Mullins and Malcolm Booy, STFC The e-Science research community 1 RCUK Review of e-Science 2009 Section 1 Information for the Panel Overview: Funding of Science and Innovation in the UK 1.1. Table of acronyms AHM All Hands Meeting AHRC Arts and Humanities Research Council BBSRC Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BEP Bioinformatics E-Science Programme Referred to as BEP1 and BEP2 BERR Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory In 2009, BERR merged with Reform another Government department (DIUS) to form BIS (dept. for Business Innovation and Skills) BIS Business, Innovation and Skills Department (established Formerly DIUS and BERR 2009) CCLRC Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Merged with PPARC to Councils become STFC (Science and Technology Facilities Council) CERN European Organisation for Nuclear Research Co-I Co-investigator CSA Chief Scientific Advisor CSR Comprehensive Spending Review DELNI Department of Education and Learning in Northern Ireland DGSI Director General of Science and Innovation DIUS Department of Innovation Universities and Skills Formerly OSI. In 2009, DIUS merged with another Government dept. (BERR) to form BIS (dept. for Business Innovation and Skills) DTA Doctoral Training Account DTC Doctoral Training Centre DTI Department of Trade and Industry (Abolished 2007) When the DTI closed many of its functions were transferred to BERR EPSRC Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council ESRC Economic and Social Research Council EU European Union fEC Full Economic Costing FTE Full-Time Equivalent HE / HEI Higher Education / Higher Education Institution HECToR High End Computing Terascale Resources HEFCE Higher Education Funding Council for England HEFCW Higher Education Funding Council for Wales HESA Higher Education Statistics Agency HPC High Performance Computing ICT Information & Communications Technology ILL Institut Laue-Langevin (France) IP/IPR Intellectual Property / Intellectual Property Rights JISC Joint Information Systems Committee KT/KTN Knowledge Transfer / Knowledge Transfer Network KTP Knowledge Transfer Partnership LHC Large Hadron Collider MOD Ministry of Defence MRC Medical Research Council NCeSS National Centre for e-Social Science NERC Natural Environment Research Council NSF National Science Foundation (US counterpart to UK Research Councils) 2 RCUK Review of e-Science 2009 Section 1 Information for the Panel Overview: Funding of Science and Innovation in the UK OSI Office of Science and Innovation OSI was a Government department which was formerly known as OST (Office of Science and Technology), and became DIUS (Dept. for Innovation University and Skills) OST Office of Science and Technology OST was established in 2007 and then became the OSI PI Principal Investigator PPARC Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council Merged with CCLRC to form STFC (Science and Technology Facility Council) R&D Research and Development RA Research Assistant RAE Research Assessment Exercise RAL Rutherford Appleton Laboratory RCUK Research Councils United Kingdom RDA Regional Development Agency SFC Scottish Funding Council SME Small / Medium sized Enterprise SR Spending Review SRIF Science Research Investment Fund STFC Science and Technology Facilities Council Formerly PPARC and CCLRC 1.1.1 Shown below is a diagram of the structural changes to the Government departments that support research. Figure 1 Structural changes to Government departments that support research Department for Pre 2007 Trade and Industry (DTI) Office for Science and Innovation Department for Research Department for 2007 Innovation and Councils Business Enterprise & Skills (DIUS) Regulatory Reform (BERR) Technology Strategy Board Technology Government Department for Strategy Board 2008 Business Innovation Agency of Government and Skills (BIS) Research Councils 3 RCUK Review of e-Science 2009 Section 1 Information for the Panel Overview: Funding of Science and Innovation in the UK 1.2 Review of e-Science evidence framework A framework is provided to assist the Panel during the Review week. The use of a standard framework is important in order to ensure coverage of all relevant strategic issues. The framework is not intended to restrict the panel; additional issues can be addressed as they arise. However, it is deemed helpful to have a framework for reference during the information-gathering and particularly in formulating conclusions and recommendations. The questions below were used for the public consultation exercise, which can be found in section 4. These questions have also been formulated in the ‘Panel Member diaries’, which are part of your panel pack. A. Did the UK e-Science Programme build a Platform which enables e-Science tools, infrastructure and practises to become incorporated into mainstream research in the UK? Did the Programme create a critical mass of capability in developing and exploiting e-Science tools and techniques? Is this capacity being sustained? To what extent have the e-Science technologies developed through the Programme changed the way researchers in other disciplines work? Are there new areas of research that have been enabled by the e-Science Programme? What can be done to increase this happening? Are the present infrastructure and communication channels sufficient? To what extent did the e-Science Programme contribute to and benefit from multi-disciplinary research? What barriers to such research did the Programme overcome and what opportunities did it enable? How effective is the education/training of e-Science practises and techniques at ensuring sufficient take up and adoption? What barriers to effective knowledge exchange and information flow remain and how can they be overcome? What are the barriers to the uptake of these tools and techniques? B. How does UK e-Science activity compare globally? How developed is the global e-Science Platform, and what has been UK e-Science Programme contribution? To what extent did the research undertaken through the Programme engage in “best with best” science-driven international interactions? In which areas of e-Science is the UK the international leader? What has contributed to UK strengths and what are the recommendations for continued strength? In which areas is the UK less strong and what are the recommendations for improvement? Are there sufficient numbers of research leaders of international stature evident in the UK, in comparison to other countries? If not, which areas have
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ISIS Annual Review 2012
    Pulsed Neutron and Muon Source Review of the Year 2012 ISIS 2012 ISIS 2012 was produced for the ISIS Facility, STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QX, UK ISIS Director, Prof Robert McGreevy 01235 445599 ISIS User Office 01235 445592 ISIS Facility Web pages http://www.isis.stfc.ac.uk ISIS 2012 production team: David Clements, Felix Fernandez-Alonso, Hanna Fikremariam, Tatiana Guidi, Philip King, Anders Markvardsen, Stewart Parker, Rob Washington. Design and layout: Ampersand Design Ltd, Wantage. September 2012 © Science and Technology Facilities Council 2012 Enquiries about copyright, reproduction and requests for additional copies of this report should be addressed to: STFC Library and Information Services, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QX email: [email protected] Neither the Council nor the Laboratory accept any responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of information contained in any of their reports or in any communication about their tests or investigations. ISIS PULSED NEUTRON AND MUON SOURCE ISIS 2012 ISIS provides world-class facilities for neutron and muon investigations of materials across a diverse range of science disciplines. ISIS 2012 details the work of the facility over the past year, including accounts of science highlights, descriptions of major instrument and accelerator developments and the facility’s publications for the past year. CONTENTS 3 Foreword 6 Science highlights 8 Soft Matter and Biomolecular
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Template (Double-Sided)
    CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY Yiarayong Klangboonkrong Modes of knowledge production: Articulating coexistence in UK academic science School of Management PhD Academic Year: 2014-2015 Supervisor: Professor Mark Jenkins July 2015 CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY School of Management PhD Thesis Academic Year 2014-2015 Yiarayong Klangboonkrong Modes of knowledge production: Articulating coexistence in UK academic science Supervisor: Professor Mark Jenkins July 2015 © Cranfield University 2015. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of the copyright owner. ABSTRACT The notion of Mode 2, as a shift from Mode 1 science-as-we-know-it, depicts science as practically relevant, socially distributed and democratic. Debates remain over the empirical substantiation of Mode 2. In particular, our understanding has been impeded by the mutually exclusive framing of Mode 1/Mode 2. Looking at how academic science is justified to diverse institutional interests – a situation associated with Mode 2 – it is asked, “What happens to Mode 1 where Mode 2 is in demand?” This study comprises two sequential phases. It combines interviews with 18 university spinout founders as micro-level Mode 2 exemplars, and macro-level policy narratives from 72 expert witnesses examined by select committees. An interpretive scheme (Greenwood and Hinings, 1988) is applied to capture the internal means-ends structure of each mode, where the end is to satisfy demand constituents, both in academia (Mode 1) and beyond (Mode 2). Results indicate Mode 1’s enduring influence even where non-academic demands are concerned, thus refuting that means and ends necessarily operate together as a stable mode. The causal ambiguity inherent in scientific advances necessitates (i) Mode 1 peer review as the only quality control regime systematically applicable ex ante, and (ii) Mode 1 means of knowledge production as essential for the health and diversity of the science base.
    [Show full text]
  • Doornkop, May 1900
    Second Doornkop, May 1900 Four years later the British were back at Doornkop. That is, if one presumes the Rhodesian raiders, acting in the private interest of Rhodes and his fellow conspirators to overthrow the ZAR government, were “British”; and if one assumes a rather loose definition of the battlefield to be described. Fig 62: Boers in the field, this group at Spioenkop in the Natal Colony. Fig 63: British troops take aim, this photo taken at Colesberg in the Cape Colony. Pics: ABWM. May 1900 was towards the end of the first year of war. The South African War, also known as the Second or Anglo Boer War had started badly for Britain with a series of setbacks in October and November 1899 that saw British forces besieged at Ladysmith, Kimberley as well as Mafekeng and followed by Black Week, a series of calamities in the Cape and Natal during December 1899: Stormberg (10 December), Magersfontein (11 December) and Colenso (15 December). Over the New Year the British had recovered their posture and early in the year they had launched a general counter-offensive in both the Cape and Natal. By March Bloemfontein had fallen and Imperial forces were poised to move on the ZAR, which they reached in May. “Second Doornkop”, is a controversial battle, one which several writers have condemned as unnecessary. Field Marshal Lord Michael Carver writes in The National Army Museum Book of the Boer War that Lt Gen Ian Hamilton “engaged in what many thought a needlessly direct frontal attack. 95 ” Pakenham goes further saying the attack, when made, took some of its observers aback: “Then to the surprise of one of the brigadiers, (Maj Gen Hutton) and one of the correspondents (Churchill), Hamilton launched his two infantry brigades on a four mile wide frontal attack on the ridge.” 96 Both statements need interrogation; suffice to say the attack forms an integral part of the greater battle of Johannesburg that took place over two days in late May 1900.
    [Show full text]
  • February 2009
    THE BUTTERCROSS BULLETIN The new lifts and bridge at Chippenham Railway Station URGENT MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN – see page 7 Issue No 159 FEBRUARY 2016 In this issue: From the Editor Westinghouse Book Review Report on the Christmas Event A tribute to Jeremy Shaw Membership matters Urgent message from the Chairman Planning Matters Plans for the Langley Park site Our Facebook page What’s in a name? The January talk The Story behind Tugela Road Social programme Deadline for next issue Chairman Isabel Blackburn Astley House 255 London Road Chippenham SN15 3AR Tel: 01249 460049 Email: [email protected] Secretary Vacancy - To be appointed Treasurer Membership Secretary Colin Lynes Marilyn Stone 11 Bolts Croft 26 Awdry Close Chippenham Chippenham SN15 3GQ SN14 0TQ Tel: 01249 448599 Tel: 01249 446385 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 2 From the Editor A Happy New Year to all our readers and welcome to the first Bulletin of 2016 which will be my last as Editor. Hopefully it will not be the last of the Buttercross Bulletins – please read and respond positively to the Chairman’s urgent request on page 7 – ‘Your Society Needs You’. Looking back since 2008 when I began editing the Bulletin, it is good to see the continuing mix of articles and news. Thank you again to those who contribute so we can cover both the history and the culture of Chippenham past and the wealth of activities and energy devoted to ensuring a vibrant modern town. Once again it is that time of year when we look forward to the Conservation and Environment Awards evening in May.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Annual Report and Accounts 2010-2011
    Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRCANNUAL EPSRCREPORT AND EPSRC ACCOUNTS EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC2010 -EPSRC 2011 EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC EPSRC ENGINEERING AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS 2010-2011 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Science and Technology Act 1965 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 24 November 2011 HC 1614 London: The Stationery Office £20.50 © Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (2011) The text of this document (this excludes, where present, the Royal Arms and all departmental and agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council copyright and the document title specified. Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: [email protected]. This publication is available for download at www.official-documents.gov.uk.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Sciences Research
    sip SPRING 2013 4/2/13 12:22 Page 1 SCIENCE IN PARLIAMENT Chemical engineering – a vital part of the 21st Century jigsaw sip SPRING 2013 The Journal of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee www.scienceinparliament.org.uk sip SPRING 2013 4/2/13 12:22 Page 2 Source: Deloitte The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council The Council for the Mathematical Sciences (CMS) (EPSRC) is the UK’s main agency for funding research in provides an authoritative and objective body that exists to engineering and physical sciences. EPSRC invests around develop, influence and respond to UK policy issues that £800 million a year in research and postgraduate training, affect the mathematical sciences in higher education and to help the nation handle the next generation of research, and therefore the UK economy and society in technological change. The areas covered range from general. Speaking with one voice for five learned information technology to structural engineering, and societies, the CMS represents the Institute of mathematics to materials science. This research forms the Mathematics and its Applications, the London basis for future economic development in the UK and Mathematical Society, the Royal Statistical Society, the improvements for everyone’s health, lifestyle and culture. Edinburgh Mathematical Society and the Operational EPSRC works alongside other Research Councils, working Research Society. collectively on issues of common concern via Research Councils UK. The full report is available at http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Publications/reports/DeloitteMeasuringTheEconomicsBenefits OfMathematicalScienceResearchUKNov2012.pdf sip SPRING 2013 4/2/13 12:22 Page 3 Surely nobody can have failed to notice that “Science” is SCIENCE IN PARLIAMENT everywhere these days? We had (Sir) Tim Berners Lee to help open the Olympics.
    [Show full text]
  • Order Paper for Tue 5 Jun 2018
    Tuesday 5 June 2018 Order Paper No.144: Part 1 SUMMARY AGENDA: CHAMBER 11.30am Prayers Afterwards Oral Questions: Justice 12.30pm Urgent Questions, Ministerial Statements (if any) Up to 20 minutes Ten Minute Rule Motion: DiGeorge Syndrome (Review and National Health Service Duty) (David Duguid) Up to three hours Emergency Debate: Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Until 7.00pm Non-Domestic Rating (Nursery Grounds) Bill: Second Reading Followed by Motion without separate debate: Programme Until 7.00pm General Debate: NATO No debate Statutory Instruments (Motions for approval) No debate after Digital Economy, Registration Service and Statistics and 7.00pm Registration (Motion) No debate Presentation of Public Petitions Until 7.30pm or for Adjournment Debate: Future of Princess Alexandra Hospital in half an hour Harlow (Robert Halfon) WESTMINSTER HALL 9.30am Polish anti-defamation law 11.00am Potholes and road maintenance (The sitting will be suspended from 11.30am to 2.30pm.) 2.30pm Public sector pay policy 4.00pm Conflict in South Sudan 4.30pm Proposed road alterations around Stonehenge 2 Tuesday 5 June 2018 OP No.144: Part 1 CONTENTS CONTENTS PART 1: BUSINESS TODAY 3 Chamber 8 Westminster Hall 9 Written Statements 10 Committees meeting today 14 Committee reports published today 15 Announcements 16 Further Information PART 2: FUTURE BUSINESS 18 A. Calendar of Business 41 B. Remaining Orders and Notices Notes: Item marked [R] indicates that a member has declared a relevant interest. Tuesday 5 June 2018 OP No.144: Part 1 BUSINESS Today: CHAMBER 3 BUSINESS TODAY: CHAMBER 11.30am Prayers Followed by QUESTIONS Oral Questions to the Secretary of State for Justice 1 Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) What assessment he has made of the potential merits of introducing a prison service parliamentary scheme.
    [Show full text]
  • Sunday 13 July Industrial Biotechnology from Fundamentals to Practice (Acib Session)
    New Biotechnology · Volume 31S · July 2014 SUNDAY 13 JULY INDUSTRIAL BIOTECHNOLOGY FROM FUNDAMENTALS TO PRACTICE (ACIB SESSION) Orals Sunday 13 July References Industrial biotechnology from fundamentals [1].Tsuji Y, Fujihara T. Chem Commun 2012;48:2365. [2].Glueck SM, Gümüs S, Fabian WMF, Faber K. Chem Soc Rev to practice (ACIB Session) 2010;39:313. [3].Matsui T, Yoshida T, Yoshimura T, Nagasawa T. Appl Microbiol Bio- ACIB-1 technol 2006;73:95. [4].Lindsey AS, Jeskey H. Chem Rev 1957;57:583. Two promising biocatalytic tools: regioselective car- [5].Wuensch C, Gross J, Steinkellner G, Lyskowski A, Gruber K, Glueck boxylation of aromatics and asymmetric hydration of SM, Faber K. RSC Adv 2014;4:9673. alkenes [6].Wuensch C, Gross J, Steinkellner G, Gruber K, Glueck SM, Faber K. Angew Chem Int Ed 2013;52:2293. Silvia M. Glueck 1,∗ , Christiane Wuensch 1, Tamara Reiter 1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2014.05.1615 Johannes Gross 1, Georg Steinkellner 1, Andrzej Lyskowski 1, Karl Gruber 2, Kurt Faber 2 1 ACIB GmbH c/o University of Graz, Department of Chemistry, Austria ACIB-2 2 University of Graz, Austria Unconventional substrates for enzymatic reduction: car- Due to the growing demand for alternative carbon sources, boxylates and nitriles the development of CO2-fixation strategies for the production M. Winkler 1,∗ K. Napora-Wijata 1 B. Wilding 1 N. Klempier 2 of valuable chemicals is a current challenge in synthetic organic , , , chemistry [1]. The enzymatic carboxylation of aromatic com- 1 ACIB GmbH, Petersgasse 14/III, 8010 Graz, Austria 2 pounds [2,3] catalyzed by various decarboxylases represents a Institute of Organic Chemistry, Graz University of Technology, Stremayrgasse promising ‘green’ alternative to the classic Kolbe-Schmitt reaction 9, 8010 Graz, Austria [4] which requires harsh reaction conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer Newsletter 2013
    The World Community SUMMER for Christian Meditation 2013 in the UK 32 Hamilton Road, London W5 2EH The community is registered in the UK as “The Christian Meditation Trust (UK)’ reg charity no. 1101900 020 8280 0049 [email protected] www.christianmeditation.org.uk LOOKING FOR A ONE AND THE MANY NEWSLETTER EDITOR! UNITY OF FAITH – I am hoping that this little article will speak to a DIVERSITY OF BELIEF member of our community. David Simpson has been Christian Meditation Conference our newsletter editor for some time, offering his time 14 – 16 June 2013 to bring together all the wonderful articles you send in Chris Culwick each quarter. David has taken a sabbatical and I hope you will enjoy reading his article in this issue. This was my first Conference and I wasn’t quite sure If you have just two days each quarter to give what to expect so I was a little anxious. I arrived your time and talents, please do contact me. There are with a friend and apart from him, I only knew one two wonderful volunteers who will support you: Dee other person attending. The greeting we received was who proofs the newsletter and Pia who collates the most welcoming and friendly and we settled into our events pages. I sign off the copy and it goes to our respective rooms. Although having been christened as printers. What we need is someone who is able to use a child, I have only of recent years attended church, the newsletter template to populate the articles and a local Anglican church, spasmodically, but meditate photos.
    [Show full text]
  • Inside Pages
    The Parliamentary and Scientific Committee Annual Report 2010 THE PARLIAMENTARY AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE (An Associate Parliamentary Group including Members of the Associate Parliamentary Engineering Group) Established 1939 The Parliamentary and Scientific Committee is a primary focus for scientific and technological issues providing a long-term liaison between Parliamentarians and scientific and engineering bodies, science-based industry, academia and organisations representing those significantly affected by science. The main aim is to focus on those issues where science and politics meet, informing Members of both Houses of Parliament by indicating the relevance of scientific and technological developments to matters of public interest and to the development of policy. The Committee meets once a month when Parliament is sitting to debate a scientific or engineering topic and its relationship with political issues. These debates take place in the Palace of Westminster, starting at 5.30pm and are usually followed by informal receptions. Attendance is typically 60 –80. Most debates are followed by a working dinner where the informal atmosphere facilitates open and wide-ranging discussion between interested Parliamentarians and those most closely concerned with the evening’s topic. The Committee arranges visits to industrial and scientific establishments. Typically a party of a dozen or so will include two or three Parliamentarians who will thereby have an in-depth introduction to some aspect of the real world of science and technology. Cover photograph Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament. Foreword by the President The Rt Hon the Lord Jenkin of Roding The President’s Foreword to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee Annual Report is an opportunity to reflect upon current issues and future opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules of Play
    RULES OF PLAY OVERVIEW Redvers' Reverse is a solitaire boardgame portraying the Battle of Colenso, fought on the 15th of December 1899 during the Second Anglo-Boer War. 16,700 British troops attempted to cross the Tugela River, defended by 4,500 Boers, hidden in emplacements and on high ground, to try and relieve the siege of Ladysmith. The game puts the player in the same position as the British commander Redvers Buller, with the same constraints of time, poor knowledge of Boer deployment, unknown locations of drifts and the added problem of subordinates not acting as instructed. An introductory scenario based on the historical situation is presented. Additional scenarios may be created allowing the player to set unique situations for each game. LEGION WARGAMES, LLC ©2016 SECTION TITLE PAGE SECTION TITLE PAGE 1. PLAYING PIECES .......................................... ..... 2 7. RIFLE FIRE PHASE ................................................ 7 1.1 British Army Counters 7.1 British Rifle Fire Segment 1.2 Boer Army Counters 7.2 British Recovery Segment 2. GAME SET UP ............................................. ..... 3 7.3 Boer Rifle Fire Segment 2.1 Draw Cups 8. STATUS PHASE ................................................... 7 2.2 General Markers 8.1 Boer Shaken Segment 2.3 Drift Markers 8.2 Victory Segment 2.4 Armies 9. BRITISH FIRE PROCEDURE .................................. 8 2.5 Game Start 9.1 British Targeting 3. SCENARIOS .................................................. ..... 4 9.2 British Firing 3.1 Buller Version 9.3 Boer Losses 3.2 Optional Variants 9.4 Boer Morale 4. ORDERS PHASE .......................................... ..... 4 9.5 British Status 4.1 British Event Segment 10. BOER FIRE PROCEDURE....................................... 8 4.2 British Command Points Segment 10.1 Boer Targeting 4.3 British Send Orders Segment 10.2 Boer Firing 4.4 British Receive Orders Segment 10.3 British Losses TABLEOF CONTENTS 10.4 British Leaders 4.5 British Emergency Withdrawal Segment 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Campus Planning Strengthening Residential Life
    MiddlesexSpring 2013 Campus Planning Strengthening Residential Life MIDDLESEX SPRING 2013 i From the Head of School Hope in the Aftermath For the past several weeks, while our attention become the leaders. When we work on lead- here at school has returned to the prom and ership at Middlesex, we begin with the ideas games and school elections and upcoming that a leader is someone who sees himself exams, we all continue to live with the Boston or herself in the context of his or her group; Marathon bombing and the stories of the who chooses to see the needs of that group victims, the first responders, the perpetrators. and regard those needs as a top priority; and We had students, alumni, parents, faculty, and who chooses to act in such a manner as to staff in the vicinity of the explosions, and par- meet the needs of the group and advance its ents who responded in law enforcement or in interests, even at the expense of his or her medical support. Luckily, no one among them own. It is an anti-narcissist definition of lead- was hurt. The random and senseless nature ership, and it requires a certain level of matu- of the violence is unnerving, and even as we rity, in terms of being able to delay one’s own revert to our comfortable and comforting gratification. This work should help us all to routines, we go back changed and continue look for the helpers and to be the helpers as to attend to each other, more certain than we continue to navigate how to make sense ever that it is the connections between us of these tragedies and how to repair and that sustain us.
    [Show full text]