2017 Accelerator Strategic Review. Roadmaps

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "2017 Accelerator Strategic Review. Roadmaps"

Jonas Hutchinson
5 years ago
Views:

1 2017 Accelerator Strategic Review Roadmaps

2 Contents 1. Introduction Page 3 2. Roadmap Questions Page 4 3. Roadmap Guidelines Page 6 Page 2 of 9

3 1. Introduction 1.1 The 2017 Accelerator Strategic Review aims to provide a vision for the development of accelerator science over the next years, considering priorities under the following themes: Neutron Sources Light Sources Frontier and Nuclear Physics Machines Novel Accelerators Industrial, Medical, Defence and Security Applications 1.2 To ensure community engagement during the strategic review process, community led roadmaps will be developed under the themes outlined above. The roadmaps will define appropriate research areas and recommend a timeline for STFC to support those research areas. Roadmap Themes and Coordinators: Neutron Sources Robert McGreevy (ISIS) Peter McIntosh (ASTeC) John Thomason (ASB, ISIS) Light Sources Riccardo Bartolini (ASB, JAI, Diamond) Brian McNeil (Strathclyde) Susan Smith (ASTeC) Frontier and Nuclear Physics Machines Rob Appleby (CI, Manchester) Andrew Boston (Liverpool) Philip Burrows (JAI, Oxford) Ken Long (Imperial College) Dan Watts (Edinburgh) Novel Accelerators Bernhard Hidding (CI, ASB, Strathclyde) Zulfikar Najmudin (JAI, Imperial College) Rajeev Pattathil (CLF) Industrial, Medical, Defence and Security Applications John Allen (Elekta) Anthony Gleeson (ASTeC) Hywel Owen (ASB, CI, Manchester) Frank den Van Heuvel (Oxford) 1.3 Coordinators will answer a common set of questions in development of their roadmaps. The following sections contain the roadmap questions and guidelines for answering the questions. Page 3 of 9

4 2. Questions for the Development of Thematic Roadmaps 1a. Map current, planned and proposed accelerator science and technology activities within this theme against the science priorities (supported by STFC) they will enable over the next: i. 1-5 years ii years iii years 1b. Please comment on the current UK position of each accelerator science and technology activity in the international context? - Please indicate activities towards support of international projects and facilities. - Is the UK world leading or lagging? - Should international capability and capacity be exploited? 2a. What enabling accelerator technologies/capabilities (including computing, vacuum, RF, lasers etc.) are necessary to pursue each accelerator activity? 2b. Please comment on the current UK position of each enabling technology/capability in the international context? - Please indicate activities towards support of international projects and facilities. - Is the UK world leading or lagging? - Should international capability and/or capacity be exploited? 3. Map the necessary enabling technologies/capabilities required for activities within this theme against accelerator activities within the other accelerator themes. 4a. What skills, experience and leadership is necessary to achieve each accelerator science and technology activity? 4b. Please comment on the current UK position regarding the necessary skills, experience, leadership and capacity in the international context. 5. What are the milestones, timescales and indicative costs for pursuing each accelerator science and technology activity? 6a. Map each accelerator science and technology activity and enabling technology/capability against potential impacts to: i. ODA Strategic Objectives 1,2 ii. Industrial Strategy Pillars 3 iii. Other industrial applications and spin-out opportunities 6b. How could STFC support the development of the potential impacts identified? ODA Strategic Objectives: 4/ODA_strategy_final_web_0905.pdf 2 UN Global Goals: 3 Industrial Strategy Pillars: ilding-our-industrial-strategy-green-paper.pdf Page 4 of 9

5 7a. In a reduced funding environment, which accelerator activities would you prioritise within this theme? - What is the minimum activity level required to keep skills alive within this theme over the next years? - What are the wider impacts of maintaining skills within this theme? 7b. In an environment of increased funding, what additional activities, enabling technologies/capabilities - or enhancements to activities, enabling technologies/capabilities already specified - would it be desirable to pursue? - What aspirations exist for investment into nascent areas of research? - How could current, planned or proposed activities be enhanced? Page 5 of 9

6 3. Roadmap Guidelines 3.1 General Points The deadline for submitting the roadmaps is the 25 th August The overall page limit for each thematic roadmap is 25 pages (12pt font), but there is no specified page or word limit for individual questions In addition to answering the roadmap questions, an Executive Summary of the current landscape and future horizon, of up to 2 pages (12pt font), is requested for each thematic roadmap. This is in addition to the 25 page (12pt font) limit for answering the roadmap questions Coordinators are strongly advised to engage with the High Power Targets group in production of their roadmaps Evidence should be provided, where it exists, for all answers; external documents can be referenced. Footnotes should appear at the end of the document, rather than at the bottom of individual pages For questions which solicit statements of judgement, the Accelerator Strategy Board (ASB) will be invited to express their views on answers submitted at the second ASB consultation. Please refer to the project plan for further information regarding the ASB consultations The thematic roadmaps will be published as Annexes to the Review Report and the Strategy document. An overarching roadmap will be published in the Review Report and the Strategy document. However, any commercially sensitive material can be redacted from the publications - if identified as such at the time of submission. Please see the Project Plan for further information regarding the Review Report and the Strategy document. 3.2 Specific Guidelines for Roadmap Questions Question 1a STFC s Corporate Strategy and Delivery Plan identify the high-level science priorities supported by STFC. Additionally, STFC are publicly committed to supporting the European Strategy for Particle Physics. Page 6 of 9

7 3.2.2 All current, planned and proposed science and technology activities relevant to each theme should be included in answer to this question, regardless of size. Please also include potential future activities and international collaborations such the Synchrotron-Light for Experimental Science and Applications, or Sesame. The status of each activity (i.e. current, planned or proposed) should be stated A mapping table (example provided below in Figure 1.) is suggested in answer to this question. Additional text is also expected. Figure 1. Example of a mapping table Science and Technology Activity A Science and Technology Activity B Science and Technology Activity C Science Priority X x x Science Priority Y x Science Priority Z x Question 1b For the first sub-point of Question 1b, Please indicate activities towards support of international projects and facilities, coordinators are asked to include activities that directly or indirectly support international subscriptions (i.e. CERN, ESO, ESRF, ESS, ILL etc.) For the second and third sub-point of Question 1b. Is the UK world leading or lagging? and Should international capability and capacity be exploited? evidence in the form of journal publication impact factors etc. can be submitted. The existence of and comparisons between centres of expertise/excellence can also be included as evidence. Question 2a This question is concerned with the enabling technologies/capabilities that are required to deliver the science and technology activities outlined in answer to Question 1. These technologies can be thought of as aspects of, or components of accelerator science and technology activities, such as computing, vacuum, RF and lasers etc. A mapping table is suggested in answer to this question, additional text is also expected. Question 2b For the first sub-point of Question 2b, Please indicate activities towards support of international projects and facilities, coordinators are asked to include activities that directly or indirectly support international subscriptions (i.e. CERN, ESO, ESRF, ESS, ILL etc.). Page 7 of 9

8 3.2.8 For the third and fourth sub-point of Question 2b. Is the UK world leading or lagging? and Should international capability and capacity be exploited? Evidence in the form of journal publication impact factors etc. can be submitted. The existence of and comparisons between centres of expertise/excellence can also be included as evidence. Question Identifying synergies across the roadmaps, particularly for enabling technologies, is essential for developing an understanding of where investment and resource should be targeted, particularly in an era of flat cash. This work falls primarily on the Review Panel in producing an overarching roadmap. However, it would be useful if coordinators could indicate, to the best of their knowledge, how enabling technologies/capabilities required for activities within their themes may map across other themes. Coordinators are encouraged to discuss across themes to answer this question. Question 4a This question is concerned with the UK communities involved in and/or required for delivery of the accelerator science and technology activities outlined in answer to Question 1a. and the enabling technologies/capabilities outlined in answer to Question 2a. In answer to this question, both a gap analysis of current communities, and identification of needs for development of additional/nascent communities is requested. Question 4b Coordinators are asked to answer to the best of their knowledge regarding international comparisons. Evidence in the form of journal publication impact factors etc. can be submitted. The existence of and comparisons between centres of expertise/excellence can also be included as evidence. Question A single integrated Gannt chart for each thematic roadmap is requested in answer to this question. Additional text is also expected. Question 6a This question is intended to provide an indication of where opportunities lie to access additional funds outside of STFC s standard budget. Links are provided to documents which specify areas of concern for Official Development Assistance (ODA) and the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (ISCF). Coordinators are asked to answer to the best of their knowledge in regards to potential impacts, references to impact documents can also be provided as evidence. Mapping tables are suggested in answer to this question, additional text is also expected The third sub-point is included to capture industrial applications and spin-out opportunities more generally that do not necessarily map onto areas of interest for ODA or ISCF. Question 6b. Page 8 of 9

9 Answers to this question could include investment into specific spin-out opportunities, specific collaborative R&D programmes, hubs or Centres for Doctoral Training, or the development of user facilities. Question 7a This question is intended to provide an understanding of the minimum viable investment required to keep skills alive in each thematic area. There are no limitations placed on the activities that can be specified here; activities could include the development of new facilities or components of new facilities. Question 7b To provide a balance to Question 7a, this question is intended to highlight where additional funding could be targeted, either by enhancing current, planned or proposed investments or by exploring nascent fields. Page 9 of 9

UK High-Field NMR Funding and the UKRI Infrastructure Roadmap

UK High-Field NMR Funding and the UKRI Infrastructure Roadmap Tony Chapman, EPSRC UK NMR Manager s Meeting University of Warwick 20 th June 2018 Topics to be covered today Part 1- An overview of UK investment