Signatures 296 total
-
1
Name: Hazel Cox on Jul 10, 2008Comments: This National Service is a vital resource to UK chemists; the decision not to fund it is a catastrophic oversight and is without any strategic thought or justification. It not only provides much need facilities and resource but offers training in the software. The expertise of the NSCCS team is invaluable and with their friendly accessible approach has helped the UK to remain at the forefront of global research in the field. Please save the NSCCS!Flag
-
2
Name: Professor David Clary on Jul 10, 2008Comments:Flag
-
3
Name: David J Cooke on Jul 10, 2008Comments:Flag
-
4
Name: Sarah Harris on Jul 10, 2008Comments: This is an excellent service that forms an important part of the UK scientific infrastructure.Flag
-
5
Name: Peter Watts on Jul 10, 2008Comments: This is a national service of strategic significance. To disband it is ludicrous - what will replace it How will current programmes continue What about the teaching commitmentsFlag
-
6
Name: Dan Rathbone on Jul 10, 2008Comments: The UK National Service for Computational Chemistry Software (NSCCS) is a vital resource both in terms of hardware and also training. It allows the smaller / early stage researchers and groups to make progress in theoretical and computational chemistry without having to be part of an institution blessed with supercomputer facilities. Given the number of research projects and groups it supports it is very good value for money. Please consider reinstating the NSCCS.Flag
-
7
Name: Dr Chris-Kriton Skylaris on Jul 10, 2008Comments:Flag
-
8
Name: Christo Christov on Jul 10, 2008Comments: NSCCS prvides a wonderful opportunity for my computational work and also excellent training support I am convinced that NSCCS should be financed as strategicaly important for the UK scienceFlag
-
9
Name: Calvin Davidson on Jul 10, 2008Comments: A very short-sighted decision, but not really a surprising one. There's no profit in the advancement of understanding and so the un-enlightenment continues unabated.Flag
-
10
Name: Nick Greeves on Jul 10, 2008Comments:Flag
-
11
Name: Jonathan Hirst on Jul 10, 2008Comments:Flag
-
12
Name: Bruce Alexander on Jul 10, 2008Comments: The loss of access to software, the hardware resources, but most of all, the support and expertise of the NSCCS will be invaluable to many across a wide range of disciplines.Flag
-
13
Name: Anthony Stone on Jul 10, 2008Comments: NSCCS is an important national resource and should be reviewed on a much longer timescale than is appropriate for responsive mode.Flag
-
14
Name: Richard Bonar-law on Jul 10, 2008Comments: The excellent NSCCS occupies a unique niche - its hard to think of a more cost effective use of public funds in terms of student training, advice, access to software etc. The funding model clearly needs to be rethought.Flag
-
15
Name: Jeremy Maris on Jul 10, 2008Comments:Flag
-
16
Name: Hans Martin Senn on Jul 10, 2008Comments:Flag
-
17
Name: Prof Philip Mountford on Jul 11, 2008Comments: I am not a primary user of this service but it is evidently of great importance to UK science. Also we need more robust approaches to supporting nationally important facilities.Flag
-
18
Name: Alan Spivey on Jul 11, 2008Comments:Flag
-
19
Name: Penny Chaloner on Jul 11, 2008Comments:Flag
-
20
Name: Anonymous on Jul 11, 2008Comments: a vital service that should continue to be supportedFlag
-
21
Name: Richard Henchman on Jul 11, 2008Comments: Could the EPSRC please explain how it believes computational chemistry should be resourced if not through the NSCCS Surely it's not advocating a fragmented, inefficient, inaccessibile and unidisciplinary research community!Flag
-
22
Name: Ali Alavi on Jul 11, 2008Comments:Flag
-
23
Name: Mike Hill on Jul 11, 2008Comments:Flag
-
24
Name: M J Pilling on Jul 11, 2008Comments:Flag
-
25
Name: Robert A Jackson on Jul 11, 2008Comments:Flag
-
26
Name: Paul Lickiss on Jul 11, 2008Comments: The training provided to me by this service was very helpful and gave me a start in this area that I would not have made on my own.Flag
-
27
Name: Richard Winpenny on Jul 11, 2008Comments: The way this renewal has been handled by EPSRC is deplorable. Putting this service, which is of great strategic importance, into a "responsive mode" round where only £2 million pounds was available, was designed to get the NSCCS closed down. Clearly the NSCCS renewal should be reconsidered in the next "programme" round - where it will probably do very well.Flag
-
28
Name: Dr Steve Liddle on Jul 11, 2008Comments: I strongly support this petition and the NSCCS. The NSCCS is a strategic, nationally important service which if terminated will certainly hamstring UK science in many areas and debilitate our capacity to deliver world class science.Flag
-
29
Name: Prof. T. G. WRIGHT on Jul 11, 2008Comments: The EPSRC should consider two points: (i) that world-leading research is produced by users of the NSCCS, in particular many experimental groups (funded by the EPSRC) use the service to ensure they have state-of-the-art theoretical support to their work; and (ii) the cost in time and money to provide an equivalent service at all UK institutions who currently use the NSCCS - there would have to be machines powerful enough to compete with the US, Europe and Japan, but also staff and funding to ensure software is installed, running and up-to-date. The drain this would cause in experimenters' time would seriously detract from the time they could spend on experimental research and the cost for the machines and software would be astronomical. The NSCCS supports research across Inorganic, Organic, Physical, Biological, Theoretical and Materials Science - surely an ideal target for EPSRC fundingFlag
-
30
Name: N J Mason on Jul 11, 2008Comments: The need for a strategic approach to such a facility is obvious and examples in other research councils such as NERC Atmospheric data facility etc show that this is a valid approach. It is also one that is adopted internationally !Flag
-
31
Name: Dr Keith Izod on Jul 11, 2008Comments:Flag
-
32
Name: Professor Nik Kaltsoyannis on Jul 11, 2008Comments: As a long-term user of this important service, I am disturbed by its planned closure, and urge the epsrc to reconsider its position.Flag
-
33
Name: Stuart Mackenzie on Jul 11, 2008Comments: This service has provided invaluable help and support to groups wishing to explore new computational tranches to their research. The Research Council must recognise the soft benefits that this provision generates in terms of enhancing reserach programs and producing more rounded researchers.Flag
-
34
Name: Professor Alexander J. Blake on Jul 11, 2008Comments:Flag
-
35
Name: Amy Langmead on Jul 11, 2008Comments:Flag
-
36
Name: Jamie Platts on Jul 11, 2008Comments:Flag
-
37
Name: Corey Evans on Jul 11, 2008Comments: The termination of the NSCCS by the EPSRC is completely incomprehensible. The NSCCS is the lifeblood of many researchers and its termination will just make the UK fall behind other nations in the field of computational chemistry.Flag
-
38
Name: Dr. Brendan Howlin on Jul 11, 2008Comments: This is a vital facility for UK researchersFlag
-
39
Name: David Rankin on Jul 11, 2008Comments:Flag
-
40
Name: David Rankin on Jul 11, 2008Comments: This service was vital in allowing us to combine experimental and computational data. It would be equally vital to future generations of chemists. It is efficient and cost-effective.Flag
-
41
Name: Simon Coles on Jul 11, 2008Comments:Flag
-
42
Name: Samantha Tang on Jul 11, 2008Comments:Flag
-
43
Name: Dr Randolf Kohn on Jul 11, 2008Comments: I am shocked by this unexpected closure decision for a very successful National Service. We are a primarily synthetic research group and have been able to access computational methods on our own by this fantastic service and we are just starting to see the benefits of this direct access. I strongly believe that a computational service is the ideal area of a national service in general as it can be easily used remotely, requires constant up-dating and servicing and the availability of training. Apart from this, the closure decision makes little economic sense. A consequence must be that the 100+ users will apply for their own computational requirements (software, computers, training courses,..) which will in total become much more expensive at a much lower quality of results due to limited software and lack of expert consultation. At the current level of research funding many of those grant applications may fail resulting in a loss of research output. In summary I very much support this petition to reconsider the EPSRC decision at the earliest possible time.Flag
-
44
Name: Dr Randolf Kohn on Jul 11, 2008Comments: I am shocked by this unexpected closure decision for a very successful National Service. We are a primarily synthetic research group and have been able to access computational methods on our own by this fantastic service and we are just starting to see the benefits of this direct access. I strongly believe that a computational service is the ideal area of a national service in general as it can be easily used remotely, requires constant up-dating and servicing and the availability of training. Apart from this, the closure decision makes little economic sense. A consequence must be that the 100+ users will apply for their own computational requirements (software, computers, training courses,..) which will in total become much more expensive at a much lower quality of results due to limited software and lack of expert consultation. At the current level of research funding many of those grant applications may fail resulting in a loss of research output. In summary I very much support this petition to reconsider the EPSRC decision at the earliest possible time.Flag
-
45
Name: Stephen Rushton on Jul 11, 2008Comments:Flag
-
46
Name: Professor Peter Sarre on Jul 11, 2008Comments:Flag
-
47
Name: Dr. Peter Slater on Jul 11, 2008Comments: Computational chemistry is becoming an increasingly important tool in understanding materials properties, and so it is vital to UK science to maintain this serviceFlag
-
48
Name: Caroline Norris on Jul 11, 2008Comments:Flag
-
49
Name: Sam De Visser on Jul 11, 2008Comments:Flag
-
50
Name: Anonymous on Jul 11, 2008Comments:Flag