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.]

Refs

* British Antarctic Survey to Keep Its Identity – Science.

Comments

  1. #1 James Annan
    2012/11/01

    Good to see that someone has seen through the megalomania…

  2. #2 P. Lewis
    2012/11/02
  3. #3 J Bowers
    2012/11/04

    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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Antarctic_Survey#Directors. There seems to be an implication, above, that Ed Hill was preferred over the deputy for nefarious reasons? Not sure why -W]

  4. #4 James Annan
    2012/11/05

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

  5. [...] 2012/10/31: Stoat: Think again on British Antarctic Survey merger say Science and Technology Committ… [...]

  6. #6 Vinny Burgoo
    2012/11/05

    ‘Bas’?