EPSRC Review of Mathematical Sciences Infrastructure Review Working Group Professor Alan Champneys, University of Bristol Professor Ken Brown, University of Glasgow Professor Paul Milewski, University of Bath Dr Richard Pinch, GCHQ Professor Sofia Olhede, UCL EPSRC support for the review: Dr Christopher White, Dr Philippa Hemmings, Dr Laura Watkin, Dr Michael Ward, Dr Katharine Moore, Mr David O’Gorman Summary In 2014 a group was set up consisting of a subset of the Mathematical Sciences Theme Strategic Advisory Team and other relevant experts in the area to review the current UK mathematical sciences infrastructure. Throughout the evidence gathering stages of the review the working definition of mathematical sciences infrastructure was given as the following: “Longer-term funding to enable collaboration and development of interconnections of the mathematical sciences community, current existing examples include but are not limited to the Isaac Newton Institute, LMS-Durham Symposium and Taught Course centres. Past examples include the Study Groups with Industry.” The definition was purposefully broad to encourage a broad response to the survey questions. However currently, and over the period of the review, EPSRC funds four activities which are considered infrastructure in this context and form the focus of this review: Isaac Newton Institute International Centre for Mathematical Sciences Durham Symposia Warwick Symposium The main recommendations of the report are: 1. Mathematical infrastructure is fundamentally important for mathematical sciences research and should continue to be supported broadly at the current level. 2. The Isaac Newton Institute and International Centre for Mathematical Sciences are highly regarded and highly important activities which offer a suitable variety of high quality scientific and knowledge exchange activities. 3. We would like the funding for the named symposiums to achieve a more dynamic broader approach and to encourage more flexibility (e.g. length of activity and geographical 1 location). We would encourage more ambition, breadth and diversity, and a well-defined, consistent and well-advertised mechanism for funding these symposia. 4. Aspects of the current models which could be improved include support for the talent pipeline and better engagement with early career researchers, as hinted by the survey. Infrastructure facilities should have the explicit aim of improving diversity in participation, for example the current average female participation rate of 16% should be significantly increased. 5. The balance of longer term and shorter term programmes needs to be considered systemically and be effectively managed at the UK level. 6. If additional funding were available then a retreat in the style of Oberwolfach would be encouraged, but not at the expense of the current infrastructure in the UK. 7. EPSRC should consider options for how mathematical infrastructure is funded in the future whilst taking the above points into consideration. Introduction The review was initiated by a meeting of a sub group of the Strategic Advisory Team in June 2014 to discuss the value of mathematical sciences infrastructure to the UK. It became apparent that there had been no recent review or collective assessment of the mathematical sciences infrastructure in the UK. This meant that there were no specific indicators of the quality, importance and impact of the investment. Without this evidence it would be difficult to make informed strategic decisions on future investments. The review was initiated and the working group’s membership was expanded to better reflect the expertise supported by the Mathematical Sciences Theme, from the initial Strategic Advisory Team members, to include Professor Sofia Olhede. The review was carried out by EPSRC staff across several work streams and the synthesis of these was presented to the working group on the 29th June 2015. The data presented, conclusions and recommendations from this meeting are found within this document and the Annex. Methodology The meeting of the sub group of the Strategic Advisory Team in June 2014 identified four major themes to focus the review. What are the best ways to support connectivity/interactions across the mathematical sciences, and connections between mathematical sciences and other areas of science and engineering? What is the current portfolio/landscape of connectivity/interaction activities in the mathematical sciences in the UK? What models might exist for the longer term benefit of the UK? What does success look like; and how do we measure it? 2 Following this initial meeting EPSRC carried out an options analysis for delivering the review. This was then presented to the Review Working Group, which met for the first time in December 2014. The decision was made to progress to an evidence gathering phase to address questions posed across several strands. The group met again to discuss the findings and make recommendations. The final meeting of the working group was on 29th June 2015 and following this, the draft conclusions and recommendations were shared with the broader Mathematical Sciences Theme Strategic Advisory Team in July 2015. The conclusions and recommendations were agreed; these are published in this document together with supporting data. 3 Explanation of the data and the information supplied to the working group The following describes the different strands of evidence gathering and explains how this was presented to the working group. Open Community Survey The survey opened on 14th April 2015 and closed on 18th May 2015. The link was publicised on the EPSRC website and in addition was circulated directly to the following groups: Review Working Group EPSRC Mathematical Sciences Strategic Advisory Team UK Heads of Department EPSRC Mathematical Sciences Theme Early Career Forum Council for Mathematical Sciences Annex 4 contains a synthesis of the results of the survey. Overall 256 completed responses were received, as well as 111 blank responses, 138 partially completed responses and 7 duplicate responses. Pro Forma The pro-forma was sent to representatives of the following existing components of the mathematical sciences infrastructure on 9th April 2015, with a deadline for completion of 21st May 2015: Isaac Newton Institute International Centre for Mathematical Sciences Durham Symposia Warwick Symposium Study Groups with Industry Completed pro-forma documents were received from all. These confidential responses are not shared as part of this review. However the questions that were asked can be found in Annex 1. Review of Overseas Infrastructure A desk exercise was completed to provide an overview of comparable mathematical infrastructure found in France, Germany, Canada and USA. The results are presented in Annex 3. Summary of Current EPSRC Mathematical Sciences Infrastructure Annex 2 outlines the last 10 years of funding for each component of the EPSRC mathematical sciences infrastructure. It also gives some information regarding which panels considered the more recent grants, and includes a diagram of when the current grants finish. 4 Conclusions and recommendations of the working group Conclusions 1. Mathematical sciences Infrastructure has been shown to be of great importance to UK Mathematics – it acts much like infrastructure features (labs etc) of other disciplines, in that it facilitates the creation of new mathematics & also is a vital mechanism for bringing together mathematical sciences and other disciplines. This is a core mechanism for linking mathematicians across the subfields of mathematical sciences, and also for connecting mathematical scientists with those working in other fields, including government and industry. 2. The EPSRC funded infrastructure is in two clear categories: The International Centre for Mathematical Sciences and the Isaac Newton Institute show clear, broad and deep engagement of and with the community as a whole, and an appropriate framework for broader impact. With regard to the named symposia, Durham and Warwick, the degree of competitive testing of the delivered activities, and the range of potential activities from which they were selected, were not consonant with the level of Research Council funding being committed to them. Future funding for any such activities would benefit from more competitive tensioning against a wider selection of competing bids. 3. The primary aims of the Taught Course Centres relate to training rather than research and so were deemed out of scope for this review. 4. The Study Groups with Industry are not currently EPSRC funded. These are widely recognised as being valuable for industrial engagement with the mathematical sciences and for student training. There is only anecdotal evidence on the value of this activity for the generation of new mathematics and it was felt that more work is required to make the case for the benefits of the Study Groups to the core mathematical sciences community. 5. This review did not cover the Alan Turing Institute nor the Heilbronn Institute. These are considered as important parts of the research infrastructure landscape. 6. Given the challenging funding landscape, the amount of spend is felt to be about right (as a proportion of the budget of mathematical sciences at EPSRC). There are examples of good practice of bringing in matched funding of up to 100%. 7. The current balance of longer to shorter programmes would benefit from careful consideration. There is perhaps a need for more shorter