Previous page

Table of Contents

Next page

Report of Discussion

Tuesday, 19 January 1999. A Discussion was held in the Council Room of the following Reports:

The Report, dated 7 December 1998, of the Council on the construction of a new building for the Computer Laboratory at West Cambridge (p. 237).

Professor A. J. R. G. MILNER:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, as Head of the Computer Laboratory I welcome the generous donation from the William H. Gates III Foundation, which will allow the Computer Laboratory to establish its teaching and research in a new building on the West Cambridge Site. The implications are great for the Computer Laboratory, for the University, and for academic computer science.

First, there is a structural implication. The move will cause a physical separation between the two sides of the Computer Laboratory, namely the University Computing Service and the academic Department (which just for now I shall call the Computer Science Department). The two were born as the same infant, at the time that Maurice Wilkes and his team designed the EDSAC computer fifty years ago, because that was the first fully operational stored-program computer. It was not only a research triumph but was itself the first computing service; people immediately began to use it as a tool of science. But the infant is now two adults: one an essential service to all academics, not only to scientists, and the other representing a new branch of science. They are as independent of each other as are the University Offices on the one hand and the Judge Institute of Management Studies on the other. Certainly the two sides of the Laboratory enjoy a relationship of mutual support and common understanding. But their physical separation will be a symbol of their independence, and nothing to deplore.

I now turn to the implication of the West Cambridge initiative for the Department's research. My argument here is simple. The commercial and industrial importance of computing increases by leaps and bounds; the concomitant expansion of the academic discipline - both in engineering and in scientific terms - demands that the Department grow to maintain its span of the discipline. But it must not divide; in such a volatile subject, a split into (for example) engineering on the one hand and mathematical foundations on the other would lead to stunted and incomplete performance. West Cambridge offers the opportunity for this integral growth; nothing else does.

Let me amplify the argument for integral growth of the Department at West Cambridge. A science is growing up which will underpin software engineering (currently somewhat of a black art). Some of the foundations of this science exist. But consider the huge range of activity enabled by modern computing technology. It includes new and growing applications, techniques, and methodologies such as computer publishing, electronic commerce, co-operative work, embedded systems, robotics, multimedia communication, agent technology, mobile computing, network architecture, neuroscience, object-oriented languages, and so on; the list can be greatly extended. These tremendously diverse engineering activities have one thing in common: software, often millions of lines of it. Industrial experience in these activities feeds back into the science, and even leads us to modify our scientific foundations. I know this at first hand; new directions in mathematical logic, which is the study of formal discourse, arise from the study of interactive computation. I am proud to be leading a Department which, though relatively small, is among the few in the world whose work spans the wide spectrum from hardware design through software systems to mathematical foundations, and which does internationally leading work across the whole span. We are outstandingly well equipped to build a mature science which will underpin the informatic world of the future.

What is the strategy for developing this science? It is experimental; it can only be developed on the basis of engineering experiment. And this experiment has to consist in industrial experience; controlled experiment in the academic laboratory is not enough, because scale is an essential part of the software problem. A key purpose of the West Cambridge initiative is to bring industrial research laboratories into proximity with departments, and this is what is needed to build a robust science of computing. Of course the Computer Laboratory already interacts strongly with industry; it will continue this interaction both with the Microsoft Laboratory and with other companies. I welcome the stimulus which the members of the Microsoft Laboratory - mostly Europeans and many with well-established international reputations - will bring to our research, both in engineering and in theoretical aspects of computing.

The business of industry is products; the business of academia is understanding. Having gained scientific understanding through contact with industrial experience, our job is to publish it; we should also reinforce the scientific advance by feeding it back through industrial collaborators, as this may often be the most rapid means of dissemination.

It is appropriate to say a few words about the relationship with Microsoft, in view of the company's high profile. Their Research Laboratory will share the Department's new building for up to ten years, but their occupancy (20% of the space) will not be a dominant one. The understanding is that specific collaborations with them will be initiated by individual researchers, each collaboration to be negotiated on appropriate terms, as is the normal practice in the University. I must emphasize that my colleagues played an important part in drawing up a framework agreement to reflect this understanding between the University and Microsoft. An early draft was discussed in confidence at a Department meeting, and some important points emerged. I therefore invited three senior colleagues to work on the agreement with Dr Jennings of the Wolfson Industrial Liaison Office, myself, and our lawyers. As a result, we reached a satisfactory conclusion; of course I bear the responsibility for claiming it to be so.

The new building will provide for a phased expansion of the Department which would be the envy of many. Initially, other occupants of the building will be the Centre for Communications Systems Research (CCSR) for five years, and the Microsoft Laboratory for up to ten years. During that period the Department will be able to grow by some 35-40%; on vacation by Microsoft, a further expansion of some 20% becomes possible. Contrast this with our prospects for growth if we were to remain in our present accommodation on the New Museums Site. An offer to establish a new Chair in the Department would create embarrassment; we would have no capacity to house the incumbent, much less the research group that he or she would naturally expect to attract. Even worse, not long ago it was my uncomfortable task to warn colleagues that, because of our stringent space limitation, I may not be able to authorize grant applications seeking to employ more research staff. This is no stimulus to an expanding research programme! At most we might succeed in finding an annexe somewhere in central Cambridge; but the one-site growth that we seek would be unattainable. The West Cambridge opportunity must therefore not be missed; it is unlikely to recur.

I turn now to questions about the West Cambridge Site and what it will be like to work there. Of course the Departments of Physics and Veterinary Medicine, together with the Whittle Laboratory, have been there some time and will have experienced much of what is in store for us. One undeniable disadvantage is that we shall be committed to split-site teaching. We shall teach Part IB and Part II of our Tripos and the postgraduate Diploma course at West Cambridge. But we shall have to teach Part IA of our Tripos in the town centre because it shares with the Natural Sciences Tripos; also the M.Phil. course in Speech and Language Processing shared with the Engineering Department. The Physics Department have a similar situation, which they manage; so did my Edinburgh department for the twenty-two years I worked there. On the other hand the facilities in the new building, including two lecture halls, a smaller lecture room, and many meeting spaces, will make it much easier to interact with students than at present.

My colleagues in the Department are concerned about other inconveniences, some initial and some longer lasting, which will result from a move. They are to do with being further from a College, with modes of travel to the site (bicycle, car, public transport) and how the development will accommodate them, with where to eat, with common teaching and social facilities. I also hope that the IT Syndicate will look at how the University Computing Service may provide communal computing facilities on the site. The move of Computer Science will be somewhat of a catalyst for solving these problems; the West Cambridge Development Group chaired by the Vice-Chancellor is actively tackling them. In a letter to the Registrary, I have urged the point that a more definite view of life on the West Cambridge site in 2001 will ease the Department's planning greatly, and help it to manage what is bound to be a challenging phase in the Department's life, whatever the long-term gain.

The University has made a determined start on the building project. After a phased competition the architects RMJM Ltd of London were engaged; my Departmental colleagues invested a great deal of effort - for which I heartily commend them - in the selection process; they continue to do so in the design process, which is proceeding well with a high degree of consultation between the architects and staff members. Concurrently, the Department is working with the Development Office in an intensive fund-raising effort to acquire the necessary balance of funds.

In summary, the West Cambridge initiative and the Gates donation together offer an outstanding opportunity for the Department to keep abreast of what is probably the fastest growing science and engineering discipline of the next few decades. The Department will be a trailblazer for the full development of the West Cambridge Site, and will need continued support from the University. In return, I am confident that the Department will consolidate the leading position in computer science that it has established in the last fifty years.

Dr J. K. M. MOODY:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I have been a member of the Computer Laboratory since 1968. I was then a Research Assistant, and I shared an office with two others. It was in 1970 that the Laboratory moved to its current premises, which are now more crowded than the old Laboratory had been before the move. To take an example, about three years ago our research group was discouraged from applying for an EPSRC grant because there would have been no space for the Research Assistant. As it happens, since then the EPSRC has cut the Laboratory's quota of Research Studentships because of the drop in the total value of our EPSRC grants. The Laboratory desperately needs more space. If I look at things selfishly, the building proposed should meet the needs of our research group well, and there is provision for future expansion (in contrast, we're currently negotiating on behalf of a professor who's visiting on sabbatical for his share of a broom cupboard). Members of other groups to whom I've spoken appear to feel much the same confidence in the accommodation suggested for them. I very much hope that the University will act as rapidly as possible to implement the proposals in this Report.

Having said that, I can understand some of the unease that I have heard expressed within the Laboratory. In particular, this is a collegiate University, and the social loss to the community (both staff and students) associated with the move to what is still essentially a green-field site will be significant. I hope that the central authorities of the University will act with urgency to create the planned campus environment in West Cambridge, in place of the teaching and research outstation that has been allowed to stagnate there since the migration of the Cavendish Laboratory.

Dr S. G. PULMAN (read by Dr J. K. M. MOODY):

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I support the proposed move of the Computer Laboratory to West Cambridge for several reasons. Firstly and most obviously, we have no room to expand where we are. Professor Milner has already mentioned that we have to consider carefully, before applying for or accepting research money, whether we will actually be able to house the people to do the research. This is a ludicrous situation. Likewise, for many years now we have been able to accommodate only a very limited number of visitors: far fewer than one would expect for a Department of our standing. The effects of these limitations, both materially and intellectually, will be clear.

A second reason is less tangible, but in my view just as important. Computer Science is a discipline that thrives on the import and export of knowledge and techniques from neighbouring areas, and on a similarly vigorous internal market. This internal market relies on frequent informal contact between people from different sub-groups, and this in turn relies in good measure on the physical properties of a building. Anyone who has visited the Computer Laboratory will recognize that the rabbit-warren of corridors and stairs connecting (or dis-connecting) the different areas of the Laboratory make the kind of contact necessary for sparking off good ideas, or seeing novel connections, a remote prospect. We look enviously at the sensible provision made in places like the Newton Institute for productive informal encounters: you don't need much more than adequate free space and a few white-boards, provided they are in the right place. But if there ever were any such places in the present accommodation they have long since been occupied. It may seem surprising that with such powerful alternative means of communication we feel the lack of provision for face to face meetings (especially remembering that an extrovert computer scientist is defined as one who looks at your shoes instead of his when talking to you). It is nevertheless to many of us the most compelling reason to move.

Dr F. H. KING:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, although I am a member of the Computer Science Syndicate, I am speaking today in a personal capacity.

This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of Cambridge's first electronic computer, prompting people to dust off old copies of the Reporter looking for items relating to the history of the Computer Laboratory.

No doubt, in another fifty years, someone will look into the background of the move of the Department to West Cambridge. For the benefit of future historians I should like to fill in a few details which were omitted from the Council Report. The unexpurgated version of the story involves a shotgun divorce, an arranged marriage, an absence of dowry, and straitened financial circumstances.

The Report proposes that most of the teaching and all of the research should be relocated in West Cambridge in shared accommodation. As one who lives within a stone's throw of this site, whose College grounds are practically contiguous with this site, and who is seriously allergic to shopping, I ought to be welcoming the proposals unreservedly. In truth, along with a number of my colleagues, I find enthusiasm in short supply.

All members of the Computer Laboratory are concerned about the likely lack of infrastructure. Most are alarmed about the increasing signs of budget-cutting measures in the building itself and many continue to be anxious about the outcome of the arranged marriage. A minority would like the entire scheme to be dropped. There is considerable disquiet that the proposals appear to have been driven from without the Department rather than from within.

The opening chapter of the story was published in the Reporter of 30 October 1996 which went into colour to show us plans for the West Cambridge Site. The blue of the lake and the green of the grass conjured up a Utopian image and no one wanted to be distracted by remarks made in the subsequent Discussion (21 January 1997) to the effect that any plan holds good only until the next benefaction. The University proposes: the benefactor disposes.

The plans show Materials Science close to the Cavendish, housing the cognate discipline Physics. There is no sign of Computer Science which was presumably to stay where it is, happily cohabiting with the Computing Service while promiscuously conducting extra-mural affairs of commendable fecundity with numerous other organizations.

Current reality is altogether different. The shotgun divorce forcibly separates Computer Science from the Computing Service and plants it instead next to the Cavendish with which it has no research links at all. Materials Science stays where it is, nowhere near Physics. Extra-mural relations look like being severely curtailed and in-house affairs are to be forbidden altogether. Spare rooms are not to be used by outside partners.

It is instructive to reflect on how this came about. Early on, individuals in the Computer Laboratory were informed, in the strictest confidence, that a mystery benefactor was minded to provide generous funding for a new building in Clarkson Road. A suggestion that developing the Old Music School and Cinema Site would be more sensible was considered briefly but dismissed. The suitor insisted on a green-field site.

Before long the topic was being merrily discussed at High Tables throughout Cambridge, though members of the Computer Laboratory made poor dining companions, being under instructions to say nothing at all. Eventually, the Daily Telegraph came to our rescue by publishing more than most of us knew. Clarkson Road wouldn't do and West Cambridge it had to be. The benefactor disposed.

At no stage was there any real opportunity to debate the pros and cons of the divorce, the proposed marriage, or the site. Proper discussion has been confined to the layout of the marital home and, in a very limited way, to the associated pre-nuptial agreement.

A building committee was set up under Professor Gordon and the outcome was a well-thought-out Architectural Brief together with an invitation to comment. In July 1997 I wrote a six-page response arguing two essential points: the divorce from the Computing Service should be properly costed and consideration should be given to continuing all taught-course teaching in the city centre.

Even the most elementary books on industrial planning stress the importance of undertaking a proper cost-benefit analysis. My response listed fourteen facilities which are currently used by both sides of the Computer Laboratory, most notably Accounts, Building Services, Printing, Reception, and Stores. Of necessity, most of these facilities will be duplicated to a greater or less extent.

My list didn't include the library to which Computing Service staff will no longer have ready access nor did it refer to all the teaching for the Computer Science Tripos which is undertaken by members of the Computing Service. How many journals will have to be double-ordered after the divorce? How many extra academic posts are planned to replace the lost teaching?

This begins to look like an expensive divorce and yet the Report is silent on the cost. Moreover, the smaller sizes of the constituent parts of the Computer Laboratory will merit lower-grade posts for each, a matter of longer-term concern to both sides, particularly in the context of Accounts and Building Services.

Books on industrial planning also stress that great care should be taken in the siting of plant. The manufacture of paper is sometimes used as an illustration: newsprint should be made in the forest and writing paper should be made in the market place. In a University context, research prospers where extraneous distractions are few and a green-field site may be appropriate, if not a forest. Teaching is best taken to the market place, in Cambridge the city centre, where the majority of undergraduates live. If only on environmental grounds, it seems more sensible for one lecturer to cycle to the centre of Cambridge to give a lecture than for 100 undergraduates to cycle the other way along a cycle track which is already full to capacity at peak times.

Computer Science is notorious for attracting very few women applicants and the prospect of having to use rural cycle-ways after dark is hardly an enticing one. The current edition of the Alternative Prospectus clarifies the undergraduate view, noting that the centre of town is handy at the moment but warning that this is not for much longer.

Professor Gordon found my arguments 'compelling'. By taking the teaching to the market place, cavernous spaces which are empty most of the year need not be built, 300 bicycle racks could be dispensed with, and fewer tourists would be inconvenienced on Garret Hostel Bridge. The savings could be translated into higher quality research space and the research could be conducted with minimal distraction.

The arguments were rejected, apparently because of an old UGC formula which continues to dictate the use of space. For each student, one may specify 0.96 sq. m. of teaching space in any new building but this cannot be translated into research space. Even if you don't need it you more or less have to have it.

Early interaction with the architects generated some genuine enthusiasm but the worms quickly started to crawl out of the can. Another enforced requirement is that the entrance to the new building has to be close to the north-west corner, hardly ideal for students arriving from the south-east. We discovered that the space for car parking is less than generous.

Next, the limitations of the budget were exposed. There has to be a flat roof rather than the pitched roof which was provisionally assumed. We are told that it is too costly to provide covered bicycle racks or even to provide open racks contiguous with the building. The University Catering Adviser pointed out that a canteen would not be economically viable, noting that it is very difficult to get people to work out there.

The Report grumbles about the tall and narrow tower of the present building, curiously overlooking the fact that it was the very vertical separation of the upper offices of the tower from the main computer room which motivated the best-known research project in the Laboratory's recent history. I refer to the pioneering transmission of digital images across a network and the world-famous Trojan Room Coffee Pot which at one time boasted more visitors than King's College Chapel.

I have worked in this tower seven days a week for thirty years and, contrary to assertions in the Report, I have never felt depressed there - except when reading Council Reports. Moreover, when I am elsewhere I am very likely to be found enjoying myself in some other tall and narrow tower carrying out my duties as the University Bellringer.

In summary, this appears to be a risky project which is seriously under-resourced. There is little sign in the Report that the University has considered some of the side-effects and no sign at all that it has either the will or the wherewithal to put matters right.

Dr N. A. DODGSON:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, on reading this Report the outsider would expect that we in the Computer Laboratory would view the new building with unalloyed delight. Alas it is not so. Many of the staff express grave reservations about this project. On behalf of my colleagues I would ask the Council to address the following points and to allay our fears.

Looking first at the reasons for needing a new building: it is true that the current teaching and research is spread over two separate buildings; it is true that our tower inhibits easy communication; it is arguably true that our main accommodation, the Arup building, is an architectural monstrosity. However, to say that the Computer Laboratory tower is 'below the standard reasonable for a leading academic Department' moves me to ask: who was responsible for this dreadful construction in the first place? The answer is: the same bodies responsible for the new building. This does not exactly inspire confidence. It is not that there is anything wrong with the hard-working members of these bodies, but it seems that the University's mechanism for designing new buildings does not guarantee that these buildings will be particularly fit for their intended purposes. One could cite Law and Management Studies as recent instances of this, in addition to the well-known Historical case. Perhaps the Council needs to address the building design process in the light of these experiences?

I now turn to the deal with Microsoft Research Limited. There are rumours going round our Laboratory that this deal is 'exclusive'. By this I mean that no other commercial organization will be permitted to rent space, however small, in the new Computer Laboratory building for the duration of Microsoft's tenancy. I reiterate that these are rumours and I ask the Council to squash them. It would be reassuring to be told that other companies will also be welcome to rent space in the new building, if such space can be found.

More disturbing to us than these rumours is the effect that the Microsoft deal will have on our other collaborators. The Report says that 'the Computer Laboratory…will continue to collaborate independently with other companies'. Our fear is that no other companies will want to collaborate with us so long as Microsoft is sharing our building. The Report is fairly clear in stating that any collaboration with Microsoft will be carefully protected by various agreements, and so, in theory, other companies should be happy to collaborate with us, but I am afraid that the general perception in the computer industry will be that it is too risky to collaborate with the Cambridge Computer Laboratory while Microsoft is in house. We are already hearing comments to this effect from our current collaborators. I suggest that they will become more uneasy as the day of the move draws nearer. I expect that there is nothing that the Council can say to allay our fears on this score.

I move on to consider the new site. The West Cambridge Site will, in the fullness of time, we are told, have centralized facilities. (Although 'centralized' is hardly the appropriate word for facilities over a mile from the University's heart!) Until then the question arises: where does one purchase lunch? Our current site has no central facilities and so my Research Students and Research Assistants purchase their lunches from a variety of outlets in the nearby city centre. They add some small extra income to the vast revenues obtained by these outlets from tourists and shoppers. We do not expect to see many tourists out in West Cambridge and so the University must provide some sort of catering facility. Our prospective neighbour, the Cavendish, has a subsidized canteen - but this is already running at capacity. The Veterinary School has, I am told, a small facility that would be swamped if the Computer Laboratory decided to use it. I am also told that our Laboratory is too small to support any sort of sensible independent catering operation. So what is to be done? The University Catering Adviser, who knows about this sort of thing, has seriously suggested that the new building's catering facilities consist of three vending machines: one for hot drinks, one for canned drinks, and one for confectionery. Listen: if my Research Students cannot purchase decent, nutritious food on site, then they will simply work from home - which will totally negate the point of building a new building. Can the Council assure us that centralized facilities will be built to coincide with the completion of the new Computer Laboratory building?

The alternative is to wait for the next Department to move out to West Cambridge, or perhaps the one after that, or maybe it will be the sixth, seventh, or eighth Department that moves to West Cambridge that will trigger the Council into building centralized facilities. Without centralized facilities on site, each Department that moves out to West Cambridge will have to build its own lecture theatres and its own catering facilities into its new building. I can only assume that this is tremendously more expensive than building one set of central lecture theatres and central catering facilities. I suggest to the Council that there will never be an ideal time to build centralized facilities, but that building them now will save money in every subsequent development on the West Cambridge Site. I ask the Council to find the necessary resources and to make an investment for the future.

Finally, I turn to the cost of the building. Twenty million pounds sounds like a lot of money to me but our architects, who are excellent people, repeatedly tell us that we are cutting it very fine with this building. For twenty million pounds they are able to design us an 'adequate' building. You get what you pay for. A cheap building is not necessarily a good building. I suggest that putting an extra three or four million pounds in now will save nine or ten million pounds in the future (we could consider the necessary remedial work on the Sidgwick Site buildings as a warning). And, let us be frank, should a 5* Department really be moving to a building that is just 'adequate'? Could the Council please explain why the budget has been set so low?

To compound the problem of the low budget for the building, three important items of expenditure have been omitted from the Report. These are: the cost of the split from the Computing Service, the cost of refurbishing the vacated building, and the sum set aside for infrastructure work.

The split from the Computing Service inevitably necessitates the creation of new Assistant Staff posts. There is a rumour that there will be four such posts. It seems most unlikely that this will be sufficient to cover Reception, Accounts, and Stores, never mind the servicing of a 10,000 sq. m. building. The cost of these new posts will be at least £100,000 a year. Could the Council comment on the source of the funding for these posts?

Secondly, by explicitly declaring that the vacated space is 'below the standard reasonable for a leading academic Department', the Report has presented the Head of any incoming Department with an irrefutable case for expensive refurbishment. What limits will the Council put on this expenditure?

Thirdly, infrastructure will be costly. In addition to the already-mentioned central lecture theatres and catering facilities, there is a requirement for a cash point, a much improved cycle path, some sort of shuttle bus, and covered cycle racks. We asked the architects whether covered cycle racks could be included in the cost of the new building, but they said that the allocated budget would not stretch to cover them; this indicates how limited the budget really is. Could the Council report on the budget for and timing of the infrastructure work?

The Council will obviously need to find funds for these three extra headings. Regular readers of the Reporter will have read the Annual Report of the Council for 1997-98 and will have noted that the Council has agreed 'a modest savings exercise' and that 'a significant part of the savings requirement will be achieved through the suppression of staff posts'. No doubt members of other Departments will be interested to know how much suppression of staff posts is required to provide for an inadequately funded new building in West Cambridge.

To summarize, you can see that we are worried about the quality of the new building, worried about the effect of Microsoft on our other collaborators, worried about whether the building will actually do what it is intended to do, worried about the currently non-existent site infrastructure, and worried that the consequences of various decisions have not been thought through carefully enough. Back when all this was first mooted, someone commented that 'you only get to sell your soul once, so you'd better be certain that it's worth it'. Some of us feel that the University has sold the Laboratory's soul. Does the Council think that it has been worth it?

I look forward to the Council's response to this and my other questions.

Dr A. C. NORMAN:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the Computer Laboratory will be moving to West Cambridge as a result of a generous donation from the William H. Gates III Foundation to the University Development Office in the United States. A further but unrelated part of the funding for the new building is being raised by renting about 2,000 sq. m. of the new Laboratory to Microsoft Research Ltd (MRL). The 'framework agreement' documenting the disposition of Intellectual Propery Rights (IPR) that arises from projects involving collaboration between Laboratory and Microsoft staff is now in force: it apparently contains a clause colloquially known as the 'coffee room clause' to explain what happens to IPR that arises in casual conversation rather than in pre-planned activity. The precise details of this agreement are naturally and properly confidential. However when companies other than Microsoft wish to support work within the Laboratory or otherwise collaborate with us they may naturally seek a clear and definitive statement as to what they can be certain will not become available to Microsoft under the terms of the framework. The University lawyers have, of course, made sure that there is specific provision for non-Microsoft research within the new Computer Laboratory: what I request here is that the University prepares and makes available an official document that we are permitted to show to potential or current collaborators that will explain these issues in sufficient detail that the legal departments of even Microsoft's competitors will accept that continuing to work with us is still safe.

I note that normally remarks made at Discussions are later reprinted in the Reporter. I should remind the University Press that my remark here refers to some aspect of the framework agreement and so although I am permitted to speak here in a non-public forum, MRL's written permission is required before my observations can be given public exposure. I hope that in this case my request is straightforward enough that MRL will be prepared to provide the necessary clearance.

Dr A. MYCROFT:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, although I am a member of the Computer Science Syndicate, I am speaking today in a personal capacity.

In recent years the University has paid considerable attention to fostering external relations with alumni and other potential benefactors. The remarks on this Report which we have been hearing suggest that less sensitivity has been exercised in handling relationships closer to home.

The Report proposes to sever the historical relationship between Computer Science and the Computing Service and put into jeopardy the growing relationship between Computer Science and the Engineering Department - these are intra-University relationships.

I wish to focus on another, crucial, relationship: that between the University and the Colleges (the federal University which is so critical to QAA approval) because the strains on this relationship have a bearing on the infrastructure difficulties referred to by other speakers.

We must surely all agree that the current cycle path to West Cambridge is too narrow for the increase in traffic which our building will cause. I would hope that the City planners (if necessary stiffened in their resolve by public input from members of the Regent House) will require cycle access to be substantially improved.

It is my understanding that widening the path would require some College land to be leased or bought. Historically, Colleges have often been altruistic in making this kind of provision on generous terms. On this occasion, it seems that University negotiators have found less such altruism than they hoped for.

We should not be surprised. Repeatedly, the University acts without regard for its actions on Colleges and appears specifically to have targeted supervising and direction of studies by declaring that such work cannot be taken into account when considering promotions. Be clear that this really means that it counts negatively since it is always possible to write one more paper instead of doing small-group teaching.

Our recently retired Pro-Vice-Chancellor strongly discouraged Computer Laboratory staff from doing any College work and, with just one exception in the most recent round, promotions have been awarded solely to staff who have eschewed College teaching. Such a policy makes finding willing Directors of Studies difficult and naturally leads Colleges to feel less altruistic towards the University.

I would urge a return to an age of greater co-operation within the federal University - in which College teaching is regarded as being of benefit to the University and in which Colleges feel able to regard the University as a partner. Otherwise Colleges will see no reason to be generous to the research University and projects such as widening the cycle path to West Cambridge will be expensive or impossible.

The only hint of good news for Colleges in this Report is the likely lack of infrastructure - since this will make working in College an agreeable alternative to working in a canteenless outpost.

Dr P. ROBINSON:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, although I am a member of the Computer Science Syndicate, I am speaking today in a personal capacity.

You might be puzzled why three members of the Regent House have prefixed their remarks on this Report with that phrase. I should explain that we are all three newly elected to that Syndicate, and so have not been part of its deliberations leading to this proposal.

Naturally the prospect of a new building for the Computer Laboratory is extremely attractive. However, we should not let our judgement of the details become clouded in all the excitement

I understand that the normal form for a building proposal is for the Council to publish a Report that endorses a proposal arising from a Faculty Board or similar. For example, the Report on the development of the Island Site at Addenbrooke's Hospital, which is due to be discussed later this afternoon, is an endorsement of proposals by the Faculty Board of Clinical Medicine.

The responsible body in the present case is the Computer Science Syndicate and the minutes of that Syndicate reveal that this topic was first discussed in October 1996, two and a half years ago. The relevant Minute indicated the possibility (and no more) of a gift from Microsoft of £8.5m, being half the cost of a building to be erected on the Clarkson Road Site to 'accommodate the Teaching and Research side of the Computer Laboratory, together with the Centre for Communications Systems Research and a small presence of the University Computing Service.'

There was no mention of an embedded laboratory although one of the conditions concerned the 'naming' of the building. There was also a proposal to ask the Council to make this a Key Initiative to unlock development funds.

I am not aware of any subsequent discussion at the Syndicate except the occasional verbal report. In particular, the Syndicate does not appear to have endorsed the current proposals.

This is unfortunate because the proposals have changed radically in the intervening period. The commercial Microsoft Research Laboratory is to be embedded in the Computer Laboratory's new building. Of course, it is vital for a technological department to collaborate closely with industry. Indeed, I currently have joint research projects with two local commercial laboratories and have enjoyed other such relations in the past. However, it is equally important that the precise boundaries for intellectual property are clear to all the parties involved. Our other partners want to collaborate with the University and not with one of their commercial competitors. That is easily achieved when there is an associated physical boundary. It is not so clear when a privileged competitor shares the University building.

Perhaps an example would make this clear. The Microsoft Research Laboratory in Cambridge was established a year ago and we already enjoy valuable interactions. Tomorrow morning I hope to attend a seminar in their building and tomorrow afternoon one of their research staff will speak about his work at a meeting of my research group. In the morning, they will unlock their doors for half an hour, making abundantly clear that nothing proprietary will be discussed. In the afternoon, we will meet in the Computer Laboratory where it will be equally clear that nothing confidential should be revealed. The position will be crystal clear. That would not be the case if our premises were shared.

There has been some suggestion this afternoon of an agreement with Microsoft which may circumscribe the working practices of members of the Laboratory, even though they have not signed the agreement or even been issued with copies. This contrasts with the explicit, voluntary agreements which members of the Laboratory currently make with other commercial organizations.

We all welcome the possibility of a new building for the Laboratory. The exercise of avoiding bicycles on the Coton footpath while walking in and out to give lectures and supervisions in the centre of town, and indeed a safe separation from the temptation of College lunches, might even prove beneficial for our physical well-being. However, we need to be absolutely sure that the arrangements will also prove beneficial for our academic well-being. Would the Council assure us that any agreement with Microsoft has the approval of the Computer Science Syndicate, and will not affect individuals in the Computer Laboratory who choose not to submit themselves to it?

Better still, why not avoid special agreements altogether? Why not invite commercial partners (preferably more than one) to lease land next to the proposed building and to construct their separate research laboratories at the same time as the new Computer Laboratory is being built? Incidentally, this would seem closer to the University's own plan for West Cambridge.

In summary: would the Council reassure us that the Computer Science Syndicate has secured the best possible terms from all parties involved in this project, and would the Council signal its approval by releasing additional development funds?

Dr S. W. MOORE:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am enthusiastic about the concept of a new building for the Computer Laboratory. The collection of buildings we currently occupy restricts communication between groups and prohibits growth. However, the great advantage of our current central location is ease of access to most Colleges and a good transport infrastructure to surrounding areas.

An increasing number of staff live in surrounding villages and cycle or use public transport to get to work. Most of those who use public transport will have an extra leg added to their journey. Furthermore, undergraduates will have considerably further to travel. It is, therefore, vital that facilities to the West of Cambridge be improved in order to meet the new demand.

Diverting the Madingley Road park-and-ride shuttle bus via the site would make inroads into the public transport problem. However, it is questionable if the capacity could be increased sufficiently to meet demands at lecture rush times.

No doubt bicycles will be relied upon to shuttle the majority of undergraduates, Ph.D. students, and staff. However, an assumption that they will all cycle along the Coton footpath would be rash for two reasons. Firstly, the Coton footpath and associated paths (e.g. Burrell's Walk and Garret Hostel Lane) are already congested. Secondly, a good many undergraduates come up to Cambridge these days never having ridden a bicycle. Similarly we have quite a number of staff who currently walk to work and do not cycle. So an efficient bus service will be vital.

To make the west side of Cambridge more cycle friendly the Coton footpath must be widened. To reduce the impact on inner Cambridge paths, a new north-south path could be built to link the site with Barton Road. To improve routes north of the city, the path through Astronomy could also be widened.

Good cycle parking must be provided at the new building. We currently have a ramshackle collection of cycle sheds and racks dotted throughout the site. However, most are covered, are lit, and are monitored by security cameras. I fear that arrangements for the new building will be inferior since the architects have stated that budgetary constraints make covered cycle parking appear as 'a luxury'.

Can the Council assure us that sufficient funds will be found to ensure that the West Cambridge transport infrastructure will be in place in time for the opening of the new building?

Mr R. J. STIBBS:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I speak personally this afternoon as a member of the Computer Laboratory and not as a member of a Board or a Syndicate. The second sentence of the Report is the first official announcement of a velvet divorce between the Teaching and Research (T&R) component of the Computer Laboratory and the University Computing Service (CS). Given the necessity of the Computing Service to stay on its central site because of both the existing investment in plant and proximity to the user community, the move of T&R to West Cambridge makes the divorce inevitable. It is therefore an appropriate time to reflect on the thirty-year marriage, the success of which is a tribute to successive Heads of the Department - Maurice Wilkes, Roger Needham, and Robin Milner - and to the Directors of the Computing Service - David Hartley and Mike Sayers. The very founding of the Computing Service in the early 1970s as part of the Computer Laboratory rather than as a separate department went against the orthodox thinking in the universities of that time, but that decision has been fully justified.

My colleague Dr King has already mentioned the shared services - the printroom, accounts, building services, stores, reception, telephonist, the common room, and the library - which split into two departments would have been and will be in future more costly and will attract less-qualified assistant staff, but there have been many other less tangible benefits. Computer Service staff continue to lecture for the Computer Science Tripos (CST) and Diploma, and many CS staff serve as Directors of Studies and as supervisors. The Computing Service has been able to liaise closely with T&R in the provision of hardware and software for the CST, and has worked with Dr King and Miss Northeast to ensure the success of T&R service teaching commitments (especially for the Natural Sciences Tripos, Part IA). Exposure to T&R research projects has given CS staff early introductions to new technologies (two examples of which are the Internet Protocols and Ethernet technology) and the informed and constructive criticism from T&R of CS systems continues to be a helpful spur to excellence. Many generations of T&R research students were exposed to practical aspects of their science by being employed as Programming Advisers (the precursor of the Help Desk) and as demonstrators for CS courses. The members of the engineering staff of the Computer Laboratory who started the period providing services to research projects have developed their skills within the Laboratory to provide the highly regarded hardware maintenance service to the University.

I now turn to the rest of the Report that has clearly generated much unease in the Computer Laboratory, especially with respect to the plans for an embedded research laboratory. This unease might be dispelled if the Council were to make a clearer statement about the current proposals. I would be grateful if the Council could confirm the following:

I would conclude by remarking that I have been involved with technology transfer from the University since the late 1960s and I share with the Vice-Chancellor the view that the University's survival as a world-class university in the next century depends on strong links with industry. It is therefore essential that such links are to the clear benefit of the University and that they are supported whole-heartedly by the staff on which they depend for their success.

Professor D. E. NEWLAND:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I have not been involved in any of the discussions about the proposed collaboration with Microsoft or the plans for the Computer Laboratory, so I am not qualified to speak about the detailed concerns of members of that Department. But the terms of the proposed collaboration between the University and Microsoft are important and they naturally interest a wide constituency, including the Engineering Department which I represent.

Within my Department we have collaborative arrangements with many different industrial research laboratories and companies and the good health of these relationships is extremely important for the Department. I believe that industrial collaboration, properly managed, is in the University's and the national interest. For too long this country has been slow to develop its creative ideas to successful use, and it is right that we should consider how our track record in the development and exploitation of intellectual property can be improved. There are various ways of doing this. Collaboration with research laboratories outside the University is one step in the process.

However, having the correct organizational structure is important. Currently there are various different arrangements within the University and I believe that it is important to recognize and adopt good practice, both to encourage new relationships to be forged and to protect the parties to these relationships.

I suggest that the following basic principles apply.

I shall be surprised if the Council cannot endorse these principles. But action is needed, particularly on some of them, and further work is required before staff will be wholly reassured.

Subject to proper safeguards being in place, I hope that the University will endorse appropriate collaborations between its Departments and industrial and other research partners. The formidable management problems that arise should not discourage us from strengthening our links with the outside world. These links are important. We in the Engineering Department greatly value and benefit from our extensive collaborations with a wide range of engineering companies in this country and overseas.

Turning to the development of the University's West Cambridge Site, the Engineering Department has had its Whittle Laboratory for Turbomachinery and its Schofield Geotechnical Centrifuge Centre at West Cambridge for many years. Currently we are seeking support from the Joint Infrastructure Fund to make important extensions to the Centrifuge Centre, and to put up major new buildings for our Institute for Manufacturing and for a new Centre for Advanced Electronics and Photonics. We have also proposed, jointly with the Cavendish Laboratory, a new state- of-the-art inter-departmental Nanotechnology Laboratory, to be built at West Cambridge if JIF support can be obtained. And, finally, the Engineering Department has proposed that a new building for an Entrepreneurship Centre for the University should be built near the Institute for Manufacturing at West Cambridge. It would be impossible to accommodate these major developments on land presently available to the University closer to the centre of the city.

Many details of the best arrangement and design of individual buildings at West Cambridge remain to be worked out, but it is essential to provide the opportunity for growth. Therefore, the appropriate and timely development of this important site is an essential part of the Engineering Department's strategic research plan. Without using West Cambridge where, after all, the Cavendish Laboratory has lived happily for many years now, I do not see how our objectives can possibly be achieved.

Professor R. H. FRIEND:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I welcome the proposed move of the Computer Laboratory to West Cambridge. The Cavendish Laboratory has thrived there over the past twenty-five years, and I have no doubt that others moving west will enjoy similar advantages. West Cambridge is the one site available to the University where there is space available to build to modern requirements for science and engineering activities, as is proposed for the Computer Science building.

To have sufficient space is very important for the development of new research directions within a busy Department. It is a freedom necessary for the generation of new ideas and research activities, particularly for the laboratory-based sciences. Over the time that the Cavendish has occupied its new buildings, research activity has grown and has moved in many new directions. Several of these have arisen from rapid development of small projects which were not initially identified as being of long-term strategic value, but they grew because there was space to do so. It is vital that other science Departments be able to develop as we have done.

I welcome the benefaction from the William H. Gates III Foundation which has made this development possible. Many of the important developments in the University have resulted from gifts of this type. I also welcome the arrival of the Microsoft Research Laboratory in Cambridge, and its association with the University. There will be many opportunities for creative and constructive contact between Microsoft and the University. At the same time, I have every confidence that Computer Science will preserve its freedom to do research in areas of its own choosing. This freedom is best safeguarded by a plurality of funding sources, both governmental and industrial. Industrial funding has often provided for projects which did not initially appear on Research Council priority lists.

The move to West Cambridge of the Physical Sciences and Engineering Departments is a prerequisite for the long-term strength of these activities in the University. We in the Cavendish look forward to increased contact with our new neighbours.

Dr I. M. HUTCHINGS:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I speak briefly, as Deputy Head of the Department, on behalf of the Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy.

Materials Science, like Computer Science and like Engineering, is an applied subject: close partnerships with industry are an integral part of our academic discipline and necessary for its excellence. There can be no successful materials science department in the world which does not have such partnerships. They are our life-blood. Currently my Department is housed in five buildings, two of which are Victorian, on a cramped city centre site. The West Cambridge development should provide us with the opportunity to move into more modern buildings, as well as with space to accommodate the expansion necessary to respond to the growing significance of our subject. We support it most strongly.

Dr. M. D. SAYERS:

Mr Deputy Vice Chancellor, I speak as Director of the University Computing Service. Having been spawned by the Computer Laboratory, we have enjoyed a happy and fruitful relationship for more than a quarter of a century. During this time, many inventions of the Teaching and Research (T&R) side of the Laboratory have been turned into successful user services by the Computing Service, and valuable ideas on both sides have been born during informal conversations in our shared tea room. As Director, I have had instant access to the Heads of the Laboratory, Professor Needham and Professor Milner, and I have benefited greatly from their wise counsel.

When the Computer Scientists move to West Cambridge, we shall lose these benefits of geographical proximity. Modern electronic communications overcome geography to some extent but are not yet a perfect substitute for sitting round the same table. We shall miss the nearness of our colleagues. However, it is plain that the growth of the Computer Laboratory is severely impeded by space constraints and that the potential for further expansion on the New Museums Site is negligible. The University has forward-looking plans to develop in West Cambridge and the Teaching and Research side of the Computer Laboratory are fortunate to have the financial support to be able to contemplate the benefits of a modern, purpose-designed laboratory there. I have to admit that I hope to be able to ease some of the Computing Service's accommodation problems as a consequence of the move of T&R, but I do genuinely wish them well in their project.

I look forward also to being able to provide some common centrally-managed University IT facilities and perhaps a staff presence on the expanded West Cambridge Site. Professor Milner has spoken of the need for these and has suggested where they might be accommodated. It would be foolish to be too specific about what will be needed this far in advance but the University Computing Service would certainly be happy to install and manage such facilities, providing that the necessary resources can be found.

Dr K. I. B. SPARCK JONES:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the decision to move the Cavendish to the then uncharted wastes of West Cambridge must have been very tough. But the case for enough space for the Department to function effectively was overwhelming. The Computer Laboratory is in precisely the same position. Our present space is very limited and totally inconvenient. It is inhibiting research, impeding teaching, and, most importantly, preventing that interaction between people which is the life blood of a flourishing university. Though moving to West Cambridge has some negative features, it is essential if the Laboratory is to maintain its leading position in a rapidly developing and expanding field.

Professor I. LESLIE:

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am aware of the sensitivities of discussing the terms of a confidential agreement. I will however allude to what has become known as the Rashid Principle, publicly espoused by Rick Rashid of Microsoft, which guided much of the framework agreement which is in place. Put simply, the principle states that any member of the Laboratory who does not wish to collaborate with Microsoft is entirely free to ignore its presence and in particular to carry on or establish collaboration with any organization they choose.

Rick Rashid first stated this in an address to the Laboratory in 1997. (Are those who suggest that members of the Laboratory were not aware of the issue of an embedded Microsoft Laboratory until recently also suggesting that those members were asleep during meetings with architects over the past eighteen months?)

The framework does make members aware of the considerations of intellectual property, the need for confidentiality in some circumstances, and the laws of joint ownership of IPR. Beyond this, the agreement says very little about IPR; it is an agreement to attempt to agree.

Clearly the University cannot make claim to the intellectual property of its employees simply by making an agreement with a third party. The continued ambiguity in ownership of IPR between the University and its employees is thankfully left fully intact. The agreement only describes a framework in which the University will act in attempting to exploit any of its interests in jointly held IPR.

We should examine why this agreement is in place. It is linked to a lease which Microsoft will be taking to occupy space within the building. This arrangement allows us to build a larger building than we otherwise could, so that in ten years' time we shall once again have space to grow, but this time without a major disruption. This future flexibility is of enormous value to the Laboratory.

By providing the framework agreement, we have given Microsoft some degree of comfort in leasing space in the new building in the sense of being able to mix freely with members of the Laboratory in common space. The agreement will not prevent IPR disputes, rather it highlights the possibility of such disputes arising and asserts some intent to resolve them.

A condition of the agreement with Microsoft is that no other commercial organization will be able to take a lease on portions of the building. Microsoft's motivation here is clear. It has taken some sixteen months to negotiate the agreement that is now in place between the University and Microsoft. Any new tenant would have to enter into similar agreements in order to preserve the hoped-for openness of the new Laboratory. It would clearly be a more complex situation to manage.

Some have been concerned about this exclusivity. I would make three points. Firstly, it is likely that any other commercial organization would have similar concerns. It may well be that there is only one lease to grant. Secondly, the building will have planning permission for academic research, not for general commercial activities, and in particular not for product development. Any organization wishing to lease space would have to be able to make a very strong case that it was engaged in academic research. There are a limited number of such commercial organizations. Finally, the Centre for Communications Systems Research, which will also be a tenant of the building, although not a commercial organization, is funded solely by industry and will continue to have industrial Fellows on the premises.

A primary aim of the Computer Laboratory is to acquire a new building and to provide a mechanism to allow the Laboratory the flexibility of expanding again in ten years' time. A secondary but important aim of the Computer Laboratory is to attract world-class researchers in Computer Science to the Cambridge area with whom to collaborate.

The gift from the Gates Foundation goes some way to producing a new building; the initial tenancy of Microsoft Research provides us with the mechanism for future expansion if required, and it fulfils part of the aspiration to attract world-class researchers to Cambridge.

Of course, the arrival of Microsoft on the scene brings concerns. The primary concern of the Computer Laboratory was to ensure that its members were in no way obligated to work with Microsoft and to ensure that their intellectual property rights, and the associated rights of the University, were in no way compromised by the presence of Microsoft. This was not therefore a negotiation about selling future IPR to Microsoft. This was a negotiation about establishing a framework in which Microsoft and the Laboratory would negotiate about IPR at market value, as and when intellectual property was jointly developed. The negotiators were content that the Laboratory and its members could operate on a case by case basis in the belief that the value produced by the Laboratory would, in the long term, be greater than that which could be assumed by any predefined agreement.

We were particularly anxious to maintain the independence of the Laboratory and to avoid entering arrangements with Microsoft which would bind our hands when issues of the exploitation of IPR arose. In this we have succeeded. I, like many, have heard rumours that all IPR originating in the Computer Laboratory will belong to Microsoft. This is totally untrue, but it seems that many have failed to understand this.

In short we have a way forward for the Computer Laboratory to develop which does not compromise its independence. Obtaining more consideration from Microsoft could only have put our independence, or perception thereof, at risk. I do not believe anyone would wish the Laboratory to take that risk.

No remarks were made on the following Reports:

The Report, dated 7 December 1998, of the Council on the construction of a building for the BP Institute at Madingley Rise (p. 236).

The Second Report of the Council, dated 7 December 1998, on the development of the Island Site at Addenbrooke's Hospital (p. 239).

The Second Report of the Council, dated 7 December 1998, on alterations to the Raised Faculty Building (p. 241).

The Report, dated 2 December 1998, of the General Board on the establishment of a Professorship of Medical Materials (p. 242).

The Report, dated 2 December 1998, of the General Board on the establishment of a Schlumberger Professorship of Complex Physical Systems (p. 242).

The discussion of the Annual Reports of the Council and the General Board (Special No. 8), and of the Abstract of Accounts for the year ended 31 July 1998 (Special No. 9) was adjourned to Tuesday, 26 January. The remarks made will be published in the Reporter on 3 February.

Previous page

Table of Contents

Next page

Cambridge University Reporter, 27 January 1999
Copyright © 1999 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.