Staring into the abyss

Abstract

It appears inevitable that less money for science means less science, but it is by no means a linear trend. Clever use of existing instruments and datamining can keep things going for quite some time. The result is that a small drop in funding can have little obvious effect, but greater economies bring far greater costs. There is a tipping point at which the true cost of cuts becomes apparent. A hidden but potentially extremely damaging example of this is in the employment of the skilled technical staff needed to support observatories, spacecraft and instruments, ocean drilling vessels and so on. If the limited money available is focused on fewer space launches, or the building of instruments becomes intermittent, or the principal drilling ship stays in harbour for half the year, it is difficult to fund the specialist staff needed to work on these projects. This limits the useful scientific yield from future projects just as much as having fewer projects in the first place does. Experienced staff leave, making the operation of these facilities less efficient and therefore costlier when we can afford to use them. Once we hit that tipping point – and we are very close in the running of some major facilities – we will lose a lot, very quickly. Our international leadership roles, our participation in major research projects and, of course, our position as the second most successful astronomy research nation are all at risk. The scientific stars, innovators and leaders of the future will vote with their feet and move to countries where the research environment is rosier. We have shown that we can get a lot of good science for the diminishing money. Perhaps we have been too good at this; it is not clear how much longer we can continue to make do and mend. Editorial NEws