Frank,
I don't have a plan, but as the consultation seeks the views of the community. I would urge those with views to write to to STFC expressing them, and mention this to their friends/colleagues/students/PI. Although I suspect that the views of people from industry will have more weight than than those of provincial academics, a significant volume of responses expressing the anxiety that we will be under-represented in the new structures should(?) mean the plans are reconsidered. Perhaps, as you seem to suggest, people might also like to make their views public through the BB? This might lessen the activation energy of those intending to write something to STFC. Peter On 24 September 2011 22:32, Peter Moody <pcem1bigfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Could I draw (especially) UK users of STFC facilities (such as Diamond) to > the STFC's proposals and consultation? > http://www.stfc.ac.uk/About+STFC/36187.aspx > > Please note the composition of the Science Board and the research interests > of the members, and with this in mind consider the question of the future of > advisory panels. > > Facility users might remember the recent "Programmatic Review" and need for > our community to fully inform the STFC of the importance of our work. > > I worry that we will be under represented in future discussions about > resources (by "we" I mean macromolecular crystallographers, but this applies > to biological scientists and indeed anyone interested in things smaller than > planets and larger than sub-atomic particles). > > The closing date for the consultation is 14 October > > > best wishes, > Peter Moody, > Leicester > > > (PS don't reply to me at this address, I don't always give it the attention > it deserves!) >
