Dear Chairman
(1) After to-day's meeting of the Atlas Computer Committee I feel that I must communicate to you the great concern that emerges from this meeting. We discussed the future of the Laboratory and I think it will be best if I follow a logical rather a chronological order of our discussion.
(2) We are all, of course, agreed that the need for an Atlas Computer Laboratory must be established by the users - rather than by the Laboratory. By its constitution the ACL had a sufficient representation both from the subject committees within SRC and from outside SRC to communicate their feelings quite clearly. The background of all our discussions must, of course, be the increasing provision of computer facilities to universities and research institutions through the Computer Board. In the light of this development it is clear, as has been said for several years, that the future role of ACL cannot be the same as when it was originally established. The enormous problems that arise in virtually every facet of university life will be dealt with by the computers located at universities or shared by groups of them. Naturally the demand will increase and there is every reason to expect that this overall demand for the multivarious tasks that arise in many universities will be more or less met by university facilities. However, there are considerable pieces of the subject matter of many of the sciences and engineering department whose very existence depends on getting massive amounts of computing done competently and expeditiously. This requires dedicated facilities of a kind it is almost impossible to provide within the university environment and where a national facility is the only feasible solution. Lacking such a facility would simply imply that these subjects could not be pursued in the United Kingdom with any hope of attaining international standards. As far as can be foreseen an institution like ACL will be needed to fulfil these needs and no other way of satisfying can readily be appreciated. I want to stress very strongly that this was the clear common feature of the reports from members of this Committee familiar with grass roots feeling in the committees and boards within SRC.
(3) As regards other users we have, as you know, a representative of NERC who stressed forcibly the essential and probably irreplaceable part that ACL plays in NERC's programmes and potentialities. Reference was also made to the likely growth of demand in polytechnics, a demand that it was difficult to quantify in a reasonable forecast but the suggestion of which did not form part of the Computer Board's share.
(4) A national facility has to be supported on a scale commensurate with its task. The scene is set by the provision of facilities for universities and regional centres through the Computer Board. The rate of expenditure by the Computer Board runs now at many millions of pounds per year. Naturally this is centred rather unevenly through the many university institutions in the country, but quite clearly a national facility could never fulfil its purpose if the scale of provision needed were not markedly superior to the average provision made by the Computer Board to universities. I want to stress the deep and universal concern felt in the Committee with the delay that has occurred in focusing on the future hardware needs of this Laboratory. A delay caused very understandably by many factors, including that of the future location of the Laboratory, but a delay that is hard to endure in a world that is not standing still. Future provision for this Laboratory began to be discussed three year's ago and in this period the facilities at universities have been increased by tens of millions of pounds. It is urgently necessary to come to decisions on what the future facilities of this Laboratory should be and to reserve money firmly for this purpose. Otherwise the ability of this Laboratory to fulfil the needs of the particular subjects in question will be compromised because a diffusion of effort in these fields will be disadvantageous to every user and a diffusion could well be forced in the not too distant future by an insufficiency of provision at this Laboratory.
(5) Another point on which views were expressed extremely forcibly and absolutely unanimously was the need for the independence of the Laboratory to be safeguarded. This independence is essential not only in fact but in appearance. We have to work in the world as it is and the reluctance of potential users to make use of facilities whose independence is not manifest is a point repeatedly and forcibly made.
(6) In coming now to the question of the future location of the Laboratory I must stress that although this is an issue on which many people feel deeply it is not in the same class of importance as the independence, real and patent, of the Laboratory and its possession of adequate capital facilities. The issue of location is therefore strictly a secondary issue and the advantages and disadvantages of the move can only be appreciated in the context of whether a move would delay or accelerate the provision of capital facilities and would compromise or not compromise the patent independence of the Laboratory.
(7) What is certainly important is that our resources, human and material, should not be scattered. Much stress has been put in the past and continues to be put on the desirability of SRC having as few computer centres as is possible. A single one is certainly the ideal. Two is less favourable but tolerable. More than two establishments is regarded by the Committee here as so unwise as to put in question the justification of a national centre at all. This, like independence, is an issue that must be paramount in the discussion of location.
(8) Recent papers by Daresbury and ACL have worked hard to identify the savings and costs that would arise from a move of ACL to Daresbury. There is no question in our minds that a saving of 30-50 posts would be a very significant matter in the scale that we are discussing and is a factor that must weigh heavily in the balance. However, we feel that two questions have not so far been looked at in any detail:
(9) We do not feel qualified in the absence of (a) and (b) above to pronounce formally on the manpower savings that would or would not result from a move to Daresbury. The feeling has ever been expressed that the difficulty of fitting into accommodation at Daresbury, not purpose built for ACL, would have quite significant disadvantages unless that could be mitigated in due course by an appropriate programme of adaptation.
(10) To sum up, there is clearly conveyed evidence of the need for a national facility owned by SRC. This facility must be hardware equipped so as to compare reasonably with provision at universities and regional centres and then that the necessary human resources can fulfil the need of the particular fields of research requiring such dedicated facilities. These fields it is thought are likely to wither in the absence of such a facility. To fulfil this task the Laboratory needs real and manifest independence and urgent decisions on its future. The question of location is of prime importance only in so far as it relates to these interests. If material savings would result the move would be acceptable in spite of unavoidable disruption. What is not acceptable is that consideration of the move could delay decisions on future provision in the Laboratory.
Yours sincerely
Professor Sir Hermann Bondi Chairman, ACC
