1. The final sentence of Minute 19 was amended to read.
"The scale of the allocation of computing resources to a single applicant could justify the provision of terminal facilities. Where this was not so, the size of the combined allocations awarded to users at the same institution would be important in assessing the need for terminal facilities. The manner of providing them would also have to be explored."
The Minutes of the Fourth Meeting were otherwise confirmed.
2. Dr Howlett commented on Minute 2. The paper for the new microfilm recorder had been presented to the Science Board on 5 December 1973. The Board had asked that a panel consisting of Professors Mason, Mitchell, and Coles, together with representatives as necessary of the other Boards, should visit the Laboratory to assess the scientific case for the equipment. The cuts in expenditure imposed by the Government in December 1973 caused the microfilm recorder to be removed from the 1974/75 estimate and the visit of the panel had therefore been delayed. Financial provision was being included in 1975/76.
3. Mr Davies asked whether it was pertinent to look once again at the device produced by Laserscan. Dr Howlett commented that the equipment had been examined but seemed to have a different purpose from the microfilm recorder. It was a high precision instrument for producing charts and diagrams having microfilm and microfiche facilities. Mr Seddon said that investigations by NERC also confirmed that the two instruments were very different in character and price.
4. Dr Howlett, referring to Minute 5, reported that he had spoken to the technical people of ICL concerning their vector processing equipment. It was a large assembly of physically small fast parallel processors with a limited range of instructions. It had features of outlook similar to ILLIAC IV. ICL proposed to produce the equipment as a peripheral attachable to their New Range machines or to the ICL 1900 range. ICL were currently talking to various customers about its potential.
5. With regard to Minute 11, Dr Howlett said that he was extremely anxious that the NERC unit be set up at Chilton to assist with the computational activity of NERC on the SRC facilities. Mr Seddon commented that NERC had been experiencing difficulty with recruitment and wished now to discuss with Dr Howlett the possibility of seconding staff from the NERC institutes to Chilton. Dr Howlett said that he would be happy to discuss this with NERC at any time.
6. Dr Howlett, referring to Minute 34, said that the VAT had not been included. The paper was submitted to Science Board on 5 December 1973 and at the same time a small additional item was included to allow the GEC 2050 lineprinter to be used on the GEC 4080 during the early stages of program development. The total expenditure of £22,022 was approved. The GEC 4080 had been ordered and was due to be delivered in August 1974.
7. Turning to Minute 47, Dr Howlett reported that the steering committee for the pilot "Meeting House" project had met and as a result the Laboratory had now written to arrange a meeting with possible collaborators. The Committee recorded its sorrow on learning of Professor Coulson's death. He would have contributed very considerably to the general direction of the project.
8. Taking up Minute 51, Dr Howlett said that a provisional booking had been made at Queen's College Oxford in mid-April 1975 for a symposium on "The Computer Simulation in the Theory of Liquids". Preliminary talks had been held with Dr K Singer of Royal Holloway College and Dr P Schofield of the group working in this field at AERE Harwell. Mrs Paton said that the Science Board had considered the proposal and had sought the advice of its Chemistry, Enzyme Chemistry and Technology and Physics Committees. The Committees would now report to the Science Board; some doubts had been expressed about the timeliness of the symposium and the Committee had drawn attention to several meetings on related topics at about the same time.
9. The Chairman introduced the papers by saying that the Council had looked briefly at the proposal at its January meeting. At that stage only preliminary reactions had been voiced. The Council wished to have a full discussion on the proposal at its meeting in March and he wished to report, as fully as possible, the views of the Atlas Computer Committee to the Council at that meeting. The paper SRC 1-74 was in his view cogently argued. The Council would be considering it in the light of all Council's activities and not solely with respect to the Atlas Laboratory. He recognised that the Atlas Laboratory was a major asset of the Council and that the Council should not act without a full knowledge of the reaction to the proposal by the Atlas Computer Committee and by the Director of the Atlas Laboratory.
10. Mr Fossey said that Dr Thomas had spoken to him on the telephone the previous day, expressing wholehearted support for the proposals put by Professors Bransden and Burke. He was convinced that there was a need for central large scale computing facilities for computational science. He was also certain that a very considerable strength of the Laboratory was its independence from the pressures imposed by the dominance of a major scientific programme.
11. Mr Seddon said the question of the Laboratory's independence was an important matter of principle. He reminded the Committee that in previous discussions on the future of the Laboratory the Committee had touched on the relationship of the Rutherford Laboratory and the Atlas Laboratory and had not been in favour of the merging of the two Laboratories. The present proposal contained no details of management structure and seemed therefore to be suggesting an arrangement at Daresbury similar to that previously suggested for the merging of the Atlas Laboratory within the Rutherford Laboratory.
12. Mr Taylor said that DTI considered the Atlas Laboratory an important national asset. The lack of dominance from a particular scientific discipline was the feature of independence which characterised the Laboratory's activity. He feared that any discussion on the merits of one-centre rather than two-centre operation might ignore the important question of independence.
13. Dr Reddish said that an independent Laboratory providing central computing facilities could be responsive to changes in scientific demand over a number of years. He felt that the flexibility with which the facilities could be disposed would be reduced if they were closely tied to another laboratory's scientific programme.
14. Professor Barron emphasized that for the Universities the strength of the Atlas Laboratory lay in its not being allied to any particular science and that its reputation and expertise were respected for this reason.
15. Professor Burke said that there was no intrinsic advantage in one site rather than another but the location of the international airport in the UK at London was an important factor in deciding on the choice of the site for powerful centralised computing facilities. Mr Seddon said that an advantage of the Chilton site lay in its proximity to London thus allowing for visits of half a day.
16. The Chairman said that the Committee should be mindful of the governmental regional policy which favoured location of facilities away from the south east of England.
17. Professor Bransden said that the choice of site for a computing laboratory must be governed by scientific considerations. He drew attention to the criteria enumerated in paragraph 5 of his paper with Professor Burke. It was important that the site should be chosen so that provision within the country of world-class computing facilities was possible. There were other considerations affecting the choice of site but this Committee should look principally at the scientific considerations.
18. The Chairman commented that the Committee should distinguish transient from permanent effects. Whether staff would move in sufficient numbers and whether the service to users would continue without serious disruption were examples of transient effects. Even if the problems associated with transient effects could be overcome, there would be permanent problems concerning the accommodation and the access by the Universities to the relocated facilities.
19. Professor Burke said that the Council proposal involved the setting up of two major computing facilities: one based at the Rutherford Laboratory and the other Daresbury. He was not in favour of two-centre operation. At a time of financial stringency, both would compete for funds from the Council budget. He and Professor Bransden had proposed a single-centre operation. This could be sited anywhere, were not existing buildings and expert staff to be taken into account. Moreover, a single computing facility could take on all but the dedicated on line computing load of the establishments. Much of the computational load arising in high energy physics could be undertaken wherever suitable computing facilities existed.
20. Mr Seddon said that the proposal to Council had not dealt in particular with the interests of the other Research Councils. NERC had been following a policy of providing links to the Chilton facilities. In the event of the proposal going through, NERC might well need to duplicate its access to Chilton at the Daresbury site.
21. Dr Reddish said that he could not accept that the economic argument was really a major component of the case. The savings ensuing from moving the Atlas Laboratory to Daresbury might be illusory. The Chairman commented that there were undoubtedly real economies to be gained in concentrating the high energy physics programme at the Rutherford Laboratory. The difficulty the Council faced was running down a northern laboratory at the same time as enhancing the activities of a southern laboratory.
22. Professor Dalitz reminded the Committee that a consequence of concentrating the high energy physics activity at the Rutherford Laboratory would be a growth in demand for computing facilities by high energy physics on the IBM 370/195.
23. The Chairman said that the Committee had identified three categories of computing need within Council:
24. Professor Burke commented that with the right management categories (ii) and (iii) could be combined with benefits of economy and of giving smaller users the opportunity and stimulus of working alongside big users. The Chairman agreed that hardware economy was undeniable, but was less certain of the case for software economy. Dr Howlett drew attention to the advantage in the sharing of knowledge and expertise gained through the wide exploitation of sophisticated software techniques.
25. In allaying fears that a centre undertaking the computing of categories (ii) and (iii) might not be independent, Professor Bransden pointed out that the Atlas Laboratory was making full use of the 20% share of the Rutherford Laboratory IBM 370/195. It had full control of the distribution of these facilities. A Director responsible to a Committee representing all kinds of users could under the directives of Council always maintain the scientific independence of the Laboratory.
26. The Chairman invited the Committee to discuss the short term problems associated with a move to Daresbury. He thought there was an absolute need for adequate buildings and an absolute need for the period of two site working to be as short as possible. The Committee felt that the matters had been adequately dealt with in the Director's paper.
27. Mrs Paton said that the Science Board had discussed the proposal. It had been concerned about the change in emphasis which would arise if it were to be responsible for the Nuclear Structure Facility with the consequent greater concentration on physics. It had been concerned that the proposals had been very broad and without much quantitative justification. It felt that the figures should be produced and examined in much more detail. The Board saw some advantage in the package as a whole and accepted the regrouping in principle but expressed its concern lest the new arrangements should detract from the research grant expenditure or the Atlas Laboratory service. It hoped that the proposals would be more explicitly quantified with regard to their advantages, disadvantages, and costs.
28. She drew attention to a small error of fact in the Director's paper at the end of paragraph 4.4. The Science Board, noting that the Council had set aside money for a new large scale computer, had decided not to provide funds additionally for the purpose. Professor Burke said that the computing needs within all Boards of categories (ii) and (iii) should be a Council responsibility.
29. Dr Howlett paid tribute to the seriousness with which his colleagues at the Laboratory had thought about the proposals. If the move to Daresbury were decided on, a significant number of staff might not be able to move, even with the appropriate conditions. It would be a major challenge to ensure that the relocated Laboratory maintained its identity and services in the transitional stages.
30. The Chairman summarised the discussion as follows:-
31. The Chairman said that the figures in the tables did not reflect expenditure consequent upon any move to Daresbury. Dr Howlett explained that the tables had been prepared before the issue of the paper containing the proposals to relocate the Atlas Laboratory at Daresbury.
32. Mrs Paton said that the tables had been presented for the information of the Committee. They had already been considered by the Science Board and would be dealt with in greater detail by the Science Board at its meeting at the end of March. Some changes had already been incorporated. Provision for the microfilm recorder had been included in 1975/76 together with an amount for its enhancement in 1976/77. Also the provision for the new main computer and associated expenditure on buildings had been removed. The Science Board had instructed that the sums to cover provision of terminals should be reduced to £20,000 per annum.
33. The Chairman said that provision of terminals should preferably be linked to the work of approved applicants. Mrs Paton commented that the grant announcement could always contain special conditions pertaining to the provision and ownership of equipment.
34. Mrs Paton said that the Science Board had included the whole ACL Five Year Forward Look with the changes indicated in its own main line estimate which depended on a 2½% growth rate for the Council as a whole. If the growth were not achieved, then ACL in common with the rest of the Board's activities would suffer reduction.
35. The Chairman said that this paper was essentially for the information of the Committee. Mr Fossey drew the attention of the Committee to the full commitment of the 20% share of the IBH 370/195 resources. The proposed pilot project of the "Meeting House" activity would require an amount of time of between 1 and 2 hours per week. It seemed likely that the allocations to the various committees would have to be curtailed. The Committee noted the position.
36. Dr Howlett said that the basis of the work on the GEC 4080 involved close collaboration with the Rutherford Laboratory and all the work was undertaken with an eye to the development of the University Data Communication Network. The Laboratory was not formally involved in the Computer Board's working party on networks.
37. Miss Bowell said that the report was prepared over a year ago. Its recommendations failed to take account of the more recent findings of the Computer Board's network working party, the SRC Network Panel, and of the Computer Review Panel. Mr Davies commented. that the SRC Network Panel had been concerned more with research into network problems than with the provision of services.
38. The Chairman said that the Laboratory should forge closer links with the working parties on networks to keep abreast of developments. Dr Howlett undertook to summarise the work in progress and to prepare a report for the Committee.
39. Dr Howlett said that the Committee was being asked to approve. the expenditure of up to £12,500 to provide a number of terminal facilities both outside and inside the Laboratory. Mrs Paton commented that there was a point of principle for the Office to settle concerning the provision of funds for the purchase of terminals, namely whether these should come from the research grant funding or the Atlas Laboratory's funds.
40. The Chairman said that if a grant justified the provision of a terminal it would still need the agreement of the Director that he could provide access to the Laboratory's facilities. If this were agreed, the control of the terminal would come under the Committee, although it would not be able to withdraw the terminal during the currency of the grant. The source of funding for the purchase of terminals was a matter for the Office.
41. Dr Howlett said that there was a need to provide terminals in the Laboratory's offices since this was now a standard way of using computing facilities. Mr Davies said that he supported the need for this manner of operation. It was extremely important and in his experience the computer could be used extensively in the Laboratory's office practice.
42. The Committee approved the expenditure outlined in the paper.
