An Update on the Report of the. High Energy Physics Advisory Panel

Transcription

1 An Update on the Report of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel University Grants Program Subpanel Homer A. Neal BPA Update November 3,

2 Purpose of Study To examine the state of the NSF and DoE grant programs for university high energy physics research, to document their successes, challenges and promise, and to recommend steps to ensure their continued vitality. 2

3 UGPS Subpanel Membership Thomas Applequist Jonathan Bagger Keith Baker Jim Brau Chip Brock Jordan Goodman Paul Langacker Kevin McFarland Homer Neal, Chair Steve Olsen Ritchie Patterson Natalie Roe Randy Ruchti, ex officio Michael Shaevitz Elizabeth Simmons Wesley Smith, Vice-Chair Chris Stubbs Andy White P.K. Williams, ex officio 3

4 Subpanel Data Collection Processes Eight subpanel meetings across US Two major surveys ( PI survey, Anonymous survey) More than a thousand question-responses received Five Town Hall meetings (DPF Honolulu, MIT, SLAC, CERN, Fermilab) Multiple DPF mailings Interactions with UEC, SLUO, DPF, agency officials, EPP2010 members, CoV s,, etc. Informal reviews from field leaders at universities and national laboratories; and individuals outside field Communications directly received by UGPS members 4

5 The Changing Landscape (or why was a study needed?) Particle physics in the United States stands at a crossroads. it is a time of great opportunity. The LHC and new experiments in astrophysics, cosmology and neutrino physics promise to revolutionize particle physics and quite possibly, our understanding of the universe itself. But when the LHC begins operation and the three U.S. collider programs close, a major focus of U.S. particle physics will move offshore. All of this represents a substantial shift in i the way particle physics is carried out in the United States. This will challenge program management and force a new focus in the particle physics portfolio. In this new portfolio, the balance between large and small groups, old and new ones, infrastructure and research personnel, laboratories and universities must change to match the evolving scientific opportunities. 5

6 Assumed Prioritites EPP2010 addressed why and how the US should maintain leadership in elementary particle physics. It highlighted the compelling science facing the field, together with its role in inspiring young scientists, attracting the best minds from around the world, and helping drive technological innovation in the US. American physicists have played leading roles in advancing the field to the present threshold of discovery. The US program includes fulfilling the potential of the LHC, which includes a luminosity upgrade (SLHC), R&D on the International Linear Collider (ILC), preparation for a bid to host the ILC, and experiments in astrophysics, cosmology and neutrinos, together with a variety of smaller scale experiments. The UGPS Subpanel endorsed these priorities. The opening up of multiple new scientific frontiers is exciting and provides the field with a wealth w of new opportunities to explore. 6

7 HEP DoE University Program Budget History 140 MILLIONS OF AS SPENT DOLLARS (as presented to Subpanel in 9/2006) HEP University Program Funding Fiscal Year * President's Req. * 7

8 NSF EPP Funding History EPP Funding by Fiscal Year Funding Level $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $ Fiscal Year EPP Univ CESR LHC OPs LHC Constr Accel (APPI) RSVP PNA+UNDRGRND Theory 8

9 The PI Survey Link to the online survey was sent out to 180 DOE PIs and 227 NSF PIs on January 2, 2007 Received 129 DOE PI responses (72%) and 139 NSF PI responses (61%) at time of analysis. Overall response rate was 66%. Total of 268 responses received representing 125 different institutions 9

10 Example of Data Collected. What is your general impression of studnet interest in HEP compared to five years ago? Much Lower Somewhat Lower About the Same Survey 2007 Survey Somewhat Higher Much Higher Percent of respondents Rstcdms hmsdqdrs hm GDO g`r hmbqd`rdc rhmbd sdm xd`qr `fn- 10

11 Another Example of PI survey results How has the availability of technical personnel at your institution changed over the past ten years? Much Improved 0.00 Somewhat Improved 0.11 About the Same 0.32 Somewat Reduced 0.31 Much Reduced Percent of Respondents (148 total) 46$ r`x sdbg- odqrnmmdk hr rnl dvg`s nq l tbg qdctbdc- 11

12 Another Example.. What areas(s) of R&D does your group work on currently and what areas do you expect to be working on in 2012? Accelerator R&D Generic Detectors Astrophysics/Cosmology Detectors Neutrino Detectors or Sources 2012 R&D Current R&D LHC Detector Upgrades ILC Detectors Respondents ( out of 141 total) Q%C deenqs hr aqn`ckx chrsqhatsdc `bqnrr `kk ehdkcr- 12

13 Research Effort in FTE - Current and Estimated in 2012 Other Astrophysics & Cosmology Underground physics Neutrino physics B and C physics Estimated Research Effort in 2012 Current Research Effort ILC LHC Tevatron FTEs KGB deenqs vhkk `klnrs cntakd hm mdws ehud xd`qr- 13

14 Open Ended Survey 1238 responses. 14

15 8. Please share any additional comments or concerns you may have regarding the technical infrastructure at HEP universities, including policies and practices for supporting infrastructure by the funding agencies, and any suggestions you have to preserve, strengthen and make the best use u of these important resources. 72 responses. Near unanimous concern about the drift of funds away from technical infrastructure. The technical support and infrastructure are critical elements in maintaining the creative strength of the Universities but despite recommendations from previous University panels the situation is very precarious. The problem we have, and I'm sure it's a common one, is that the support of our mechanical engineer and our electronics engineer/physicist is partly from the base and partly from project funds but there is no continuity commitment to preserve the capabilities and personnel between projects and little coordination between base and project. Providing that the contributions are clear and excellent there should be at least a multi year commitment with bridging funds between projects 15

16 infrastructure, cont. Respondents almost immediately go to laboratory university comparisons. Obviously, support for research infrastructure at universities is under severe pressure. I'm very concerned that efforts to keep funding up at every national lab is crippling university research support. The DOE should continue to support the technical infrastructure at HEP universities. Universities provide several advantages over, e.g., national laboratories: the availability of graduate and undergraduate students, the dedication of junior faculty working hard to establish a track record in their quest to attain tenure, and the efforts of senior faculty who have tenure and thus are free to apply all their creativity to a problem, perhaps finding an unconventional solution. It is no accident that many advances in particle physics (both detector and analysis methods) have come from researchers working at Universities. 16

17 10. Please share any additional comments or concerns you may have regarding undergraduate and graduate students in HEP university groups. In particular, we are interested in the relative use of TA's and RA's to support students in experiment and theory, and how this may have changed over the past ten years. 95 responses. The use of TA support was discussed by many. The vast majority of theory respondents suggest partial or full time TA support is the norm, enhanced over previous years. A few noted that experimental students are being asked to teach at an increased rate. Many noted that teaching puts HEP at a competitive disadvantage and lengthens the time to degree. Some noted that their degree programs require some teaching but others noted departments which forbid TA support of research students. All regret a shrinking RA budget, especially with an increased interest in HEP with LHC coming. 17

18 13. Please provide any further comments or suggestions on the peer review process for university grant management by DOE and/or NSF. Be sure to indicate to which agency your comment refers. 75 responses. Split between the satisfied and the very unhappy. Many noted that grants from both agencies seem to be based on incremental adjustments of the previous years amount. Most who had negative comments noted difficulty correlating positive reviews with positive action by the agencies but that any non-spectacular review would result in negative action. 18

19 Do you think that HEP is well served by our particular two- agency arrangement? ---cont cont d of those who said their support was from: NSF:: 21 respondents, only 1 said yes, well served No. We know that DOE gives more funding per faculty member than NSF does. My NSF-funded institution is therefore at a distinct disadvantage in terms of what we can accomplish. DOE:: 64 respondents, all but one said yes I I think it is very useful to have two independent funding agencies es supporting research in HEP

20 two agencies, cont. There were criticisms which seemed beyond just a single personal bad experience: a number wished for more cooperation Given the realities of the Federal funding cycle, it is probably a good thing to have two agencies involved. It would be better if there was more direct cooperation and coordination, and if DOE were driven more by current circumstances rather than historical funding patterns and institutional prestige. Territorialism between the agencies does not serve the field or the taxpayer. 20

21 18. Please generally characterize the slope of your group's funding over the last decade in buying power. Is it rising? falling? stayed the t same? If it has changed, has it increased due to new faculty hires? Has it decreased due to faculty retirement or departures? Important: Can C you correlate funding adjustments (up or down) directly to productivity ity changes? Be sure to indicate to which agency your comment refers responses. The comments are mostly all falling and say basically the same thing, variations on the following: erosion through buying power (dominant), erosion in $/faculty member with hiring, or just erosion through cuts. We have lost about 25% to 35% buying power during the last decade and have terminated three full time persons. You do great work, you are cut up to 5%! Falling at the rate of about 3% per year, while our productivity has gone up -- we are doing more things for less. 21

22 Major Findings The EPP2010 report articulated the scientific priorities for the coming decade. Realizing that vision requires a partnership between the universities and the national laboratories. They are each components of a robust investment portfolio in particle physics. University groups make theoretical breakthroughs, develop innovative detector technologies and initiate novel experimental approaches. In addition, they perform most of the analysis of the data from high- energy physics experiments. These university strengths draw undergraduates to science and bring some of the world s s best minds to our graduate programs. A thriving university research program advances science and nourishes the technical strength of our nation. 22

23 Major Findings (cont d) University groups are sources of innovation. They are competitive and entrepreneurial, and diverse in their strengths, their students, and their science. Successful groups require: Compelling scientific questions Outstanding personnel Freedom to innovate Sufficient infrastructure A clear and timely review path University researchers are helping lead the LHC, developing the SLHC and ILC detectors, initiating new experiments in astrophysics, cosmology and neutrino research, and inventing new strategies for exploring particle physics. Many of these experiments expand the boundaries of the field. 23

24 Major Recommendations The university program must be strengthened in order to achieve the goals of the national high-energy physics program as articulated by EPP2010. This requires increased investment and careful attention to building and sustaining the levels of personnel and infrastructure necessary for successful university research groups. 24

25 Commentary on Previous Funding Recommendation While this strengthening does require some additional funding, as documented in this report, the scale of this funding is at about a percent of the HEP budget. This sum should be accessible from a part of the re- directions when the labs cease operating their colliders. When the US HEP program was mostly centered at the US national labs, support of these labs was the highest priority for support by the US program Now that the landscape of particle physics is evolving that strategy needs to evolve as well. 25

26 Major Recommendations (cont d) Group sizes should be sustained, and increased where appropriate and supported by peer review. The agencies should make a special effort to support long- term research scientists as an integral part of this group structure, particularly when they provide expertise essential to the experimental program or leadership at a remote laboratory. A higher priority in the overall HEP program should be given to funding directed at university-based theoretical particle physics for the purpose of increasing the number of HEP-grant supported graduate students. Support for students and postdocs doing calculations related to upcoming experiments is particularly urgent. 26

27 Major Recommendations (cont d) A University Grants Program Committee (UGPC) should be formed to consult with university program managers of both agencies on the issues facing the university program. The chair of this committee should be chosen cooperatively by both agencies and the chairs of HEPAP, DPF and DPB, and should serve as a spokesperson for the university community. 27

28 Major Recommendations (cont d) The agencies should support university technical infrastructure as part of grants including hardware development. In addition, project managers should utilize university resources because they are economical and effective, and they should report on this optimization at major project reviews. The agencies should continue their efforts to ensure that the vision for LHC computing is realized. This includes working across and within agencies to ensure sufficient network and computing capacity. 28

29 Major Recommendations (cont d) The agencies should support efforts to ensure that both U.S. sites and key sites abroad are equipped with remote conferencing that is reliable, robust and readily available. The agencies should foster outreach by, for example, funding new positions dedicated to facilitating and coordinating university outreach efforts. 29

30 Major Recommendations (cont d) Additional support should be made available to enable undergraduates and high school teachers to participate in experiments offshore. In addition, support should be continued for an REU program at CERN following discussion of its structure with representatives of interested university groups. 30

31 With the Present Profile Can we staff the ILC effort? 31

32 A Better Profile Though Probably Still Not Optimum 32

33 Concern about representation Declining Infrastructure Declining budgets A Graphical Summary Closure of Challenges of Concern about long domestic remote term student Changing Lab programs participation interest missions ILC uncertainty when, where, etc. Research scientists Review of small experiments University HEP; Pressures and Opportunities Collaborative tools shortcomings Exciting physics prospects?? Merging of foci of small, medium and large expts??? 33

34 Summary We are approaching a very different era in U.S. high energy physics research in our universities one that is full of promise as well as potential risks Actions are required to address funding needs, organizational issues, and pipeline issues Continuing our role as a leader in high energy physics should be stressed as a national priority All parties should recognize the critical role universities play in driving the field and in insuring its future. 34

35 Postscript HEPAP is engaged and is working toward the implementation of the subpanel recommendations P5 has acknowledged the importance of the University Grants Program and plans to offer its assessment of budgetary needs in an upcoming meeting Meetings have been held with Users Executive Committees at Fermilab and SLAC to interpret findings and recommendations Panel discussion planned at Aspen Winter Workshop to deliberate on the findings and recommendations Concern about management changes within DoE HEP and the possible delay in implementing the report s recommendations 35