DOCSLIB.ORG

Report of the Committee of Visitors

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report of the Committee of Visitors Report of the Committee of Visitors Division of Physics - 2012 I- Introduction The Committee of Visitors (COV) for the Division of Physics of the National Science Foundation met during February 1-3, 2012, with the following charge: to review • The integrity and efficacy of processes used to solicit, review, recommend, and document proposal actions; • The quality and significance of the results of the Division’s programmatic investments; • The relationship between award decisions, program goals, and Foundation- wide programs and strategic goals; • The Division’s balance, priorities, and future directions; • The Division’s response to the prior COV report of 2009; and • Any other issues that the COV feels are relevant to the review. These charges were addressed in much detail, both by the committee at large as well as by the subpanels, comprised of a subset of the committee members and addressing each sub-discipline of the Division. The conclusions are presented in this report, which is divided into sections: I) introduction, II) the review process and the management of the Physics Division, III) some comments about the new programs, IV) societal benefits, V) special focus and IV) cyber infrastructure at the Physics Division, in addition to the required assessment. In addition, the committee has addressed all questions in the required report template that can be found as Appendix A to this report. Finally, the agenda for the three-day meeting, the list of participants, the membership of each panel and the detailed COV charges are presented as Appendices B-E. II. The review process and management of the Physics Division The committee was unanimous in their overall assessment that the management of the Physics Division was excellent. Much of this success was attributed to the leading team of Joe Dehmer and Denise Caldwell. Having two permanent, extremely qualified and committed people in the leadership of the Division makes all the difference. We understand that the NSF is moving towards having a substantial fraction of their officers to be rotators. While we understand the need for fresh blood to avoid stagnation and that the Division has benefited from excellent rotating program managers, NSF management should also recognize the challenge in 1 continually recruiting such high-quality individuals and the advantages provided by having greater continuity and more experienced program managers. 1. Quality and effectiveness of the review process There was consensus among the committee members that the three-tier review process is a critical component of excellence in review. We really like the fact that every program review process involved the request of outside reviews from experts on the respective proposals that was followed by a panel evaluation (which usually took place at the NSF). Finally, program directors made decisions based on these two factors. In addition, for larger proposals in programs such as Nuclear Physics, site visits are conducted by a panel of 3-5 independent reviewers for proposals by larger experimental groups (multi-PI awards of more than $1M). Although most panel conclusions were able to reconcile any differences that existed in the collection of individual reviews, we were particularly satisfied with how program directors were able to make decisions when there was no uniform consensus. They were able to consider all different points of view, take into account the PI funding history, and finally make a case for a final decision. A special review process was established for the Physics Frontier Centers where both external reviews and panel evaluations were much more detailed. Both merit review criteria are always addressed at all levels of evaluation (individual reviews, panel summaries, and program officer analysis). Most of the external reviewers demonstrated knowledge of the review process and the panels played an important role in balancing the importance of the two criteria. Some reviewers, however, had difficulty in properly weighting the “broader impacts” criterion. The level of detail in the postdoctoral mentoring plan varies significantly among proposals. Although much effort has been done in explaining these points to reviewers, we believe that an ongoing effort from the program directors educating the reviewers on both of these points is needed. There were two general recommendations. First, since the program officers’ evaluation makes a careful analysis of the review process and a clear discussion of the funding decision, we felt that this information, after the removal of any confidential data, should be made available to PI’s. This is especially important for PI’s that were close to the funding range and really could use this information in preparing their resubmission. Second, several sub-panels raised concern about award sizes. We feel that, in special cases of really great research, larger awards should be made. We understand that this will come at the expense of reducing the total number of awards. 2. Selection of reviewers There was most support for the quality of the reviewers selected. Some subpanels raised the concern that in some highly specialized areas it was very hard to find sufficient reviewers. Even when difficult, the committee felt that a minimum of 3 ad 2 hoc reviews should be requested for each proposal, and at least 2 ad hoc reviews should be received in each case. In the majority of the cases, the program satisfied these conditions. Some minor concerns about conflict of interest were raised. Although this was not a problem in the majority of the cases, some sub-panels observed several cases where conflicts of interest were not uncovered until the review process was under way. The program directors were able to respond quickly and address these issues in real time. 3. Program Balance Overall the subpanels were very satisfied with the program’s portfolio goals and balance. We were satisfied with the balance of renewals versus new investigators. Details can be found in the subpanel reports. 4. The COV process and response to previous COVs Most of the subpanels have been very satisfied with the responsiveness of the Physics Division handling the requests and recommendations of the previous COV report. Specific details can be found in the subpanel reports. The only major concern raised during the current COV was regarding the subpanel for computational physics. This panel also addressed the topic of cyber infrastructure, which also reviews computational physics. It was composed of members of other subpanels and so its activities caused some disruption to the activities of those subpanels, which were affected by not having their full membership during some deliberations. Other than that, everybody was extremely happy with the format of the COV and with what we were able to accomplish during these three days. III. Program portfolio and balance – creation of new programs. The Physics Division is composed of several science programs covering diverse areas of physics. According to the Division’s master plan, at least 50% of its budget should be allocated to grants to investigators funded by these programs. The actual percentage is slightly larger. Typical awards vary for different programs. Some programs tend to fund more groups of investigators, while other focus on single or few investigator awards. Even with these differences, the subpanels were very satisfied with the overall planning, development and management of the portfolio. The Physics Frontier Centers are allocated no more than 10% of the budget and currently they are using about 8%. The remainder of the budget is used to cover facilities and instrumentation resources, together with some small additional expenses. More recently, additional funds have been saved for the instrumentation program. For more details about this program, please read the report by the subpanel on APPI and the discussion below on Facilities and Instrumentation. 3 The committee paid special attention to the new programs and were clearly satisfied with most of what they have been achieving. The programs in particle and nuclear astrophysics have now been consolidated as the program in Particle Astrophysics and are clearly fulfilling a necessary scientific niche that was missing in the Physics Division portfolio. As can be seen from their subpanel report, this is a well-established program with great scientific achievements. The program in Physics of Living Systems has grown and has provided leadership for this new and interdisciplinary area of physics. We were particularly happy with the evolution of this program, an area of research that could overlap with programs in Biology and DMR Divisions. The program has a set of priorities for POLS that clearly distinguishes this program from work in other Divisions. First, the research must address the physics of living systems, not the use of biomolecules as materials (a purview of DMR). Second, to distinguish this program from BIO, the research must emphasize working on biological systems with a physics approach and must include a theoretical component that allows for quantification and for the development of new ideas. Biological research is, at times, mostly descriptive and cannot be easily generalized to other systems. There were concerns about the goals and breadth of the computational physics program and this concern is clearly raised in the subpanel report. Similarly to the POLS program, we would like to reinforce the need to extend the boundaries between fields that traditionally have not had strong interactions. We were also struck by the high level of relevance of AMO cold atom simulation experiments to significant problems in condensed matter physics, and the close collaborations between some CMP theorists and AMO experimental groups. We agree that this aspect should be encouraged. The AMO subpanel report provides more details on how to improve this connection. There was strong support for the Physics Frontier Centers program. This program clearly fosters major advances at the intellectual frontiers of physics and has been one of the flagships of the Division.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Curriculum Vitae: Sylvester James Gates, Jr
    Curriculum Vitae: Sylvester James Gates, Jr. Personal Information Date of Birth: December 15, 1950 Place of Birth: Tampa, FL, USA Departmental Address: Brown University Department of Physics Box 1843 Providence, RI 02912 USA Webpage: https://sites.brown.edu/sjgates/ Email Address: [email protected] Undergraduate Education: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1969-1973 B.Sc. in Mathematics, M.I.T., June 1, 1973 B.Sc. in Physics, M.I.T., September 12, 1973 Undergraduate Thesis: (Physics) “On the Feasibility of Generating Electricity with a Rijke Tube.” This thesis is an analysis of the acoustical, mechanical, and thermodynamical problems associated with using the Rijke phenomena to generate electricity. Thesis Advisor: Professor K. U. Ingard Graduate Education: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1973-1977, Ph.D. Physics, M.I.T., June 6, 1977. Graduate Thesis: “Symmetry Principles in Selected Problems of Field Theory” Doctoral thesis describes an investigation of the uses of symmetry principles in unified models of the Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions and in supersymmetric models. First Ph.D. thesis at MIT on the topic of supersymmetry. Thesis Advisor: Professor J. E. Young Postdoctoral Experience: Research Fellow, California Institute of Technology, 1980-1982, Junior Fellow. Harvard Society of Fellows, Harvard Univ. 1977-1980. Faculty Positions: Faculty Fellow, Watson Institute for International Studies & Public Affairs, Brown University, March 2019 – present Ford Foundation Professor of Physics, Affiliate Professor
    [Show full text]
  • Ronald E. the African American Presence in Physics
    Editor: Ronald E. The African American Presence in Physics A compilation of materials related to an exhibit prepared by the National Society of Black Physicists as part of its contribution to the American Physical Society's Centennial Celebration. Editor Ronald E. Mickens Historian, The National Society of Black Physicists March 1999 Atlanta, Georgia Copyright 1999 by Ronald E. Mickens The African American Presence in Physics The African American Presence in Physics Acknowledgments The preparation of this document was supported by funds provided by the following foundations and government agencies: The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; Corning, Inc.; NASA - Lewis Research Center; The Dibner Fund; the Office of Naval Research; the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center; and the William H. Gates Foundation. Research and production for this document and the related exhibit and brochure were conducted by Horton Lind Communication, Atlanta. Disclaimer Neither the United States government, the supporting foundations nor the NSBP or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability for responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its 0 does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favoring by the United States Government, the supporting foundations, or the NSBP. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, the supporting foundations, nor the NSBP and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. in The African American Presence in Physics Contents Foreword vi Part I "Can History Predict the Future?" Kenneth R.
    [Show full text]
  • LARRY GLADNEY Office
    LARRY GLADNEY Office: Residence: David Rittenhouse Laboratory E-mail: [email protected] 209 S. 33rd Street 421 S. 47th St. Philadelphia, PA 19104 Philadelphia, PA 19143 (215)898-4683 (215)476-2436 Birthdate : August 9, 1957 Occupation : Professor in the University of Pennsylvania Physics and As- tronomy Department. Education: 4/85—7/88 Post-Doctoral Student, University of Pennsylvania 6/82—4/85 Ph.D., Physics, Stanford University 9/79—6/82 M.S., Physics, Stanford University 9/75—6/79 B.A., Physics, Northwestern University Academic/Teaching Experience: • Teach undergraduate and graduate physics courses. • Supervise and guide master’s and doctoral students’ thesis work. • Supervised and guided 6 post-doctoral students in their research. • Participated in hiring two computing professionals for departmental computing support. • 8 years of experience with science teaching in outreach programs for Philadelphia and Chesilhurst, NJ public and parochial school students from 7th through 12th grade. Chair Chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, 2009 - 2014 1 Kahn Chair Edmund J. and Louise W. Kahn Professor for Faculty Excel- lence, 2008 - present Professor Secondary Appointment as Professor of Education in the Grad- uate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania Professor University of Pennsylvania, Department of Physics and Astron- omy, 2005 - present Associate Professor University of Pennsylvania, Department of Physics and Astronomy, 1992 - 2005 Assistant Professor University of Pennsylvania, Department of Physics, 1988 - 1992 Research Experience: 9/04—9/09 Co-leader for the Supernovae/Acceleration Probe (SNAP) sim- ulation team preparing studies for the NASA/DOE Joint Dark Energy Mission proposal for the SNAP collaboration.
    [Show full text]
  • Finding Aid to the Historymakers® Video Oral History with Larry Gladney
    Finding Aid to The HistoryMakers® Video Oral History with Larry Gladney Overview of the Collection Repository: The HistoryMakers®1900 S. Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60616 [email protected] www.thehistorymakers.com Creator: Gladney, Larry Title: The HistoryMakers® Video Oral History Interview with Larry Gladney, Dates: September 23, 2006 Bulk Dates: 2006 Physical Description: 6 Betacam SP videocassettes (2:43:43). Abstract: Physicist Larry Gladney (1957 - ) is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania studying theoretical and particle physics. He works with the Collider Detector at Fermilab. Gladney was interviewed by The HistoryMakers® on September 23, 2006, in Chicago, Illinois. This collection is comprised of the original video footage of the interview. Identification: A2006_104 Language: The interview and records are in English. Biographical Note by The HistoryMakers® Research physicist and professor Larry Donnie Gladney was born on August 9, 1957, in Cleveland, Mississippi, to Annie Lee Gladney and Lucius Green Walker. Raised by his mother in East St. Louis, Illinois, Gladney attended Alta Sita Elementary School, Clarke Junior High School, and graduated third in his class from East St. Louis High School in 1975. Keenly interested in the nature of matter, Gladney earned his B.A. degree in physics from Northwestern University in 1979, and went on to Stanford University to earn his M.S. degree, then his Ph.D. in physics in 1985. Gladney pursued post-doctoral studies at the University of Pennsylvania from 1985 to 1988. Gladney, teaching and conducting research at the University of Pennsylvania’s Department of Physics in 1988, developed the third-level tau lepton triggers for the Collider Detector at Fermilab.
    [Show full text]
  • APS News, August 2017, Vol. 26, No. 8
    August/September 2017 • Vol. 26, No. 8 A PUBLICATION OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY Physics Olympiad Results APS.ORG/APSNEWS Page 4 2018 APS Medal for Exceptional Achievement 2017 APS General Election Results in Research Awarded to Eugene Parker By David Voss By David Voss Voting in the 2017 APS General The APS Council Steering Election came to a close on July Committee has voted to award 31, and the results are in: Philip H. the Society’s 2018 Medal for Bucksbaum of Stanford University Exceptional Achievement in has been elected vice president, Research to Eugene Parker, pro- Larry Gladney of University of fessor emeritus at the University Pennsylvania becomes chair-elect of Chicago. Parker, 90, is recog- of the APS Nominating Committee, nized for his “many fundamental Ahmadou Wagué of Dakar Cheikh contributions to space physics, Anta Diop University in Senegal plasma physics, solar physics, will be international councilor, and astrophysics during the past and Vivian F. Incera of the City 60 plus years.” University of New York/College Phil Bucksbaum Larry Gladney “Eugene N. Parker is the dean of Staten Island will become gen- Academy of Sciences and the 2019 and president in 2020. of the field of space and astrophysi- Eugene Parker eral councilor. Their terms begin American Academy of Arts and “I’m honored to be elected, and cal plasma physics,” commented January 1, 2018. Sciences. Within APS he has been I’m looking forward to the oppor- Louis Lanzerotti of the New Jersey planetary magnetic field would be Phil Bucksbaum holds the active in the Division of Atomic, tunity to serve the members and Institute of Technology.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Annual Report American Physical Society N G E E T I S M I C I F T N E I
    AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY TM A L R E N U P O N R A T 2 1 0 2 TM THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY STRIVES TO Be the leading voice for physics and an authoritative source of physics information for the advancement of physics and the benefit of humanity Collaborate with national scientific societies for the advancement of science, science education, and the science community Cooperate with international physics societies to promote physics, to support physicists worldwide, and to foster international collaboration Have an active, engaged, and diverse membership, and support the activities of its units and members. Cover images: top: Real CMS proton-proton collision events in which 4 high energy electrons (green lines and red towers) are observed. The event shows characteristics expected from the decay of a Higgs boson but is also consistent with background Standard Model physics processes [T. McCauley et al., CERN, (2012)] Bottom, left to right, a: Vortices on demand in multicomponent Bose-Einstein condensates [R. Zamora-Zamora, et al., Phys. Rev. A 86, 053624 (2012)] b: Differences between emission patterns and internal modes of optical resonators [S. Creagh et al., Phys. Rev. E 85, 015201 (2012)] c: Magnetic field lines of a pair of Nambu monopoles [R. C. Silvaet al., Phys. Rev. B 87, 014414 (2013)] d: Scaling behavior and beyond equilibrium in the hexagonal manganites [S. M. Griffinet al., Phys. Rev. X 2, 041022 (2012)] Page 2: Effect of solutal Marangoni convection on motion, coarsening, and coalescence of droplets in a monotectic system [F. Wang et al., Phys. Rev. E 86, 066318 (2012)] Page 3: Collective excitations of quasi-two-dimensional trapped dipolar fermions: Transition from collisionless to hydrodynamic regime [M.
    [Show full text]
  • Finding Aid to the Historymakers ® Video Oral History with Larry Gladney
    Finding Aid to The HistoryMakers ® Video Oral History with Larry Gladney Finding Aid to The HistoryMakers ® Video Oral History with Larry Gladney Overview of the Collection Repository: The HistoryMakers®1900 S. Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60616 [email protected] www.thehistorymakers.com Creator: Gladney, Larry Title: The HistoryMakers® Video Oral History Interview with Larry Gladney, Dates: September 23, 2006 Bulk Dates: 2006 Physical Description: 6 Betacam SP videocassettes (2:43:43). Abstract: Physicist Larry Gladney (1957 - ) is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania studying theoretical and particle physics. He works with the Collider Detector at Fermilab. Gladney was interviewed by The HistoryMakers® on September 23, 2006, in Chicago, Illinois. This collection is comprised of the original video footage of the interview. Identification: A2006_104 Language: The interview and records are in English. Biographical Note by The HistoryMakers® Research physicist and professor Larry Donnie Gladney was born on August 9, 1957, in Cleveland, Mississippi, to Annie Lee Gladney and Lucius Green Walker. Raised by his mother in East St. Louis, Illinois, Gladney attended Alta Sita Elementary School, Clarke Junior High School, and graduated third in his class from East St. Louis High School in 1975. Keenly interested in the nature of matter, Gladney earned his B.A. degree in physics from Northwestern University in 1979, and went on to Stanford University to earn his M.S. degree, then his Ph.D. in physics in 1985. Gladney pursued post-doctoral studies at the University of Pennsylvania from 1985 to 1988. Gladney, teaching and conducting research at the University of Pennsylvania’s Department of Physics in 1988, developed the third-level tau lepton triggers for the Collider Detector at Fermilab.
    [Show full text]
  • Biographical Description for the Historymakers® Video Oral History with Larry Gladney
    Biographical Description for The HistoryMakers® Video Oral History with Larry Gladney PERSON Gladney, Larry, 1957- Alternative Names: Larry Gladney; Life Dates: August 9, 1957- Place of Birth: Cleveland, Mississippi, USA Residence: New Haven, CT Work: New Haven, CT Occupations: Physicist Biographical Note Research physicist and professor Larry Donnie Gladney was born on August 9, 1957, in Cleveland, Mississippi, to Annie Lee Gladney and Lucius Green Walker. Raised by his mother in East St. Louis, Illinois, Gladney attended Alta Sita Elementary School, Clarke Junior High School, and graduated third in his class from East St. Louis High School in 1975. Keenly interested in the nature of matter, Gladney earned his B.A. degree in physics from Gladney earned his B.A. degree in physics from Northwestern University in 1979, and went on to Stanford University to earn his M.S. degree, then his Ph.D. in physics in 1985. Gladney pursued post- doctoral studies at the University of Pennsylvania from 1985 to 1988. Gladney, teaching and conducting research at the University of Pennsylvania’s Department of Physics in 1988, developed the third-level tau lepton triggers for the Collider Detector at Fermilab. From 1989 to 1994, Gladney served as a Presidential Young Investigator for the National Science Foundation. He was awarded a Lilly Teaching Fellowship in 1990, and by 1992 Gladney made the first observation of an exclusive B meson decay in the hadron collider environment. In 1997, Gladney received the coveted Edward A. Bouchet Award from the American Physical Society, and the Martin Luther King, Jr., Lecturer Award from Wayne State University.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Committee of Visitors to the Physics Division, Which Met February 4-6, 2009
    LSST Corporation, 933 N. Cherry Ave., Tucson, AZ 85721 (520) 881-2626, Fax (520) 881-2627 www.lsst.org March 6, 2009 Dr. Iain M. Johnstone Department of Statistics Stanford University 450 Serra Mall Stanford, CA 94305-2070 Dear Dr. Johnstone: Enclosed please find the report of the Committee of Visitors to the Physics Division, which met February 4-6, 2009. The report includes: 1. The COV’s consensus assessment of the physics program 2. Individual reports from the 10 subpanels 3. The agenda 4. The membership of the COV 5. The charge to the panel 6. The completed report template The COV came away with a renewed appreciation of the quality of both the physics research program supported by the NSF and of the staff that manages the program so well. On behalf of the COV, Sidney C. Wolff Chair, 2009 COV Report of the Committee of Visitors Physics--2009 The Committee of Visitors (COV) for the Division of Physics met for three days, February 4-6, 2009 in order to, as described in the charge, provide NSF with an assessment of the quality and integrity of the program operations pertaining to proposal decision; and to comment on how the results generated by awardees have contributed to the attainments of NSF’s mission and strategic outcome goals. The agenda for the meeting and the members of the sub-panels are provided in Appendices A and B. The charge to the panel is in Appendix C. This overview portion of the report is divided into five sections: 1) an analysis of the proposal review process, with the overall assessment detailed in the Report Template, which is included as Appendix D; 2) comments on program balance; 3) some issues and questions that arose during our meeting and merit further review by physics division staff; 4) some program highlights that illustrate the contribution of physics to NSF’s goals; and 5) suggestions for improving the COV process.
    [Show full text]
  • A Long Range Plan for U.S. High Energy Physics
    A Long Range Plan for U.S. High Energy Physics HEPAP Subpanel on Long Range Planning Jonathan Bagger NSAC Meeting November 1, 2002 Subpanel Membership Jonathan Bagger - Johns Hopkins University (Co-Chair) Barry Barish - California Institute of Technology (Co-Chair) Paul Avery - University of Florida Jay Marx - Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Janet Conrad - Columbia University Kevin McFarland - University of Rochester Persis Drell - Cornell University Hitoshi Murayama - Univ of Calif, Berkeley Glennys Farrar - New York University Yorikiyo Nagashima - Osaka University Larry Gladney - Univ of Pennsylvania Rene Ong - Univ of Calif, Los Angeles Don Hartill - Cornell University Tor Raubenheimer - SLAC Norbert Holtkamp - Oak Ridge National Lab Abraham Seiden - Univ of Calif, Santa Cruz George Kalmus - Rutherford Appleton Lab Melvyn Shochet - University of Chicago Rocky Kolb - Fermilab William Willis - Columbia University Joseph Lykken - Fermilab Fred Gilman (Ex-Officio) - Carnegie Mellon William Marciano - Brookhaven Natl Lab Glen Crawford (Executive Secretary) - DOE John Marriner - Fermilab Our report was the result of an extensive one-year process, involving the U.S. and international communities 1-Nov-02 NSAC 2 The Goal of our Subpanel To Create a Vision for the Field for the Next 20 Years The questions we posed for ourselves • What is our role in society and education? • What is high energy physics? • What are our goals and paths to accomplish them? • How have we been doing? • What do we expect in the near term? • What opportunities do we
    [Show full text]
  • A Twenty Year Roadmap for Particle Physics
    A Twenty Year Roadmap for Particle Physics Report on HEPAP Sub-Panel Rene Ong UCLA December 5, 2001 Caveats 1. Presentation represents collective work of numerous people (much borrowed). Some obligatory material. 2. Talk and emphasis being given by one person. 3. Little on accelerator details. 4. Planning for future is ongoing. 05-Dec-01 LRP Subpanel – UCLA 2 Subpanel Membership Jonathan Bagger - Johns Hopkins University (Co-Chair) Barry Barish - California Institute of Technology (Co-Chair) Paul Avery - University of Florida Jay Marx - Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Janet Conrad - Columbia University Kevin McFarland - University of Rochester Persis Drell - Cornell University Hitoshi Murayama - Univ of Calif, Berkeley Glennys Farrar - New York University Yorikiyo Nagashima - Osaka University Larry Gladney - Univ of Pennsylvania Rene Ong - Univ of Calif, Los Angeles Don Hartill - Cornell University Tor Raubenheimer - SLAC Norbert Holtkamp - Oak Ridge National Abraham Seiden - Univ of Calif, Santa Cruz Lab Melvyn Shochet - University of Chicago George Kalmus - Rutherford Appleton Lab William Willis - Columbia University Rocky Kolb - Fermilab Fred Gilman (Ex-Officio) - Carnegie Mellon Joseph Lykken - Fermilab Glen Crawford (Executive Secretary) - DOE William Marciano - Brookhaven Natl Lab John Marriner - Fermilab 05-Dec-01 LRP Subpanel – UCLA 3 The Subpanel’s Approach • We opened up our process and consulted broadly !! – We offered the community many opportunities for input. • Held Public Town Meetings. • Invited private meetings at Snowmass by signup. • Posed questions to the community. • Received > 100 individual letters. • Heard from major figures in the field. – We solicited input broadly from government officials. • Consulted extensively with NSF & DOE HEP. • Consulted with OMB, State Department, and Congressional staff.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 AAPT Summer Meeting
    2012 AAPT Summer Meeting Welcome to Philadelphia ...................... 3 Meeting Information ............................. 4 First Time at a Meeting? ........................ 6 About Philadelphia ............................... 8 Meeting at a Glance .............................. 11 Special Events ....................................... 16 Committee Meetings............................. 17 AAPT Awards ......................................... 18 Philadelphia, PA Plenaries ............................................... 21 Commercial Workshops ......................... 23 July 28–August 1, 2012 Exhibitor Information ............................ 24 Sessions Schedule Charts ...................... 27 University of Pennsylvania Workshop Abstracts .............................. 30 Session Abstracts .................................. 39 Sunday ............................................... 39 Monday .............................................. 43 Tuesday ............................................. 85 Wednesday ......................................... 123 Our Donors ............................................ 148 Participants’ Index ................................. 149 American Association of Physics Teachers Advertiser Index .................................... 152 One Physics Ellipse Maps ..................................................... 153 College Park, MD 20740 Restaurants ........................................... 159 301-209-3333 www.aapt.org Session Sponsors ................................... 160 Welcome to Philadelphia!
    [Show full text]