Think again on British Antarctic Survey merger say Science and Technology Committee

Parochial stuff: I reported before that Axing the British Antarctic Survey would mean the end of Scott’s legacy?, but it looks like MPs say No:

Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, Andrew Miller MP, said:

My Committee has considered the process undertaken to merge British Antarctic Survey and the National Oceanography Centre. What we have concluded is that NERC have not made a proper case for it nor demonstrated political nous on the strong non-science related issues surrounding BAS.

Which is either Hooray for BAS! or Boo for political interference in science! depending on your viewpoint.

I'm not sure whether the committee has a veto or not. But it would be a brave head of NERC who proceeded after this.

[Update: Its all off. Quietly, NERC are now even more pissed off with BAS than they were before.]


* British Antarctic Survey to Keep Its Identity - Science.

More like this

Says the Graun. If you agree you can sign the petition. The issue is that "On June 7th 2012, the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) announced that there is a strong strategic case for the merger of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and the National Oceanography Centre (NOC) to take place…
We've talked about deep-diving seals here before. Now it appears oceanography is being outsourced to Antarctica. Grad students beware, seals are the latest species to steal deep-sea jobs away from hard-working americans! The Sunday Times UK reports:"SCIENTISTS are uncovering the deepest secrets of…
Exciting BAS press release... The first direct evidence linking human activity to the collapse of Antarctic ice shelves is published this week in the Journal of Climate. Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, University College London,…
ATTP has a post on this, from which I've nicked most of my links. But he also has 50+ comments, so I abandoned my original plan to put some observations there, where they'd get lost, and have written this. I'm not going to pretend my opinion - for that is all that this is - is definitive. I worked…

Good to see that someone has seen through the megalomania...

By James Annan (not verified) on 01 Nov 2012 #permalink

The plot thickens.

Research boss Wingham in trouble over British Antarctic Survey claim
"The committee also noted that Wingham had claimed the current interim head of the survey, Professor Ed Hill, was not appointed until the previous director, his deputy and the head of corporate services had left. In fact, Hill was appointed before then. Andrew Miller, chair of the select committee, has demanded Wingham explain this inconsistency. "The committee would like to better understand the events by which Professor Hill was appointed, particularly why he was a better choice than the deputy director," states Miller in a letter sent to Wingham on Friday."

[I wouldn't worry about that, unless there is some obvious evil behind it. Just forgetting in what sequence people got appointed is hardly a crime. FWIW, I'm trying to get the sequence of directors set out at There seems to be an implication, above, that Ed Hill was preferred over the deputy for nefarious reasons? Not sure why -W]

He was presumably thought a better choice as he was more likely to support "restructuring" and "rightsizing".

By James Annan (not verified) on 04 Nov 2012 #permalink


By Vinny Burgoo (not verified) on 05 Nov 2012 #permalink