AAnn UUpdpdaattee oonn tthhee RReeppoorrtt ooff tthhee

HHigighh EEnnerergygy PPhhyysisiccss AAddvvisisoorryy PPaannelel

UUnniivverersisittyy GGrraannttss PPrrooggrraamm SuSubbppaannelel

Homer A. Neal BPA Update November 3, 2007

1 PPuurrpposeose ooff SSttuudydy

l TToo eexaxammiinnee tthhee ssttaattee ofof tthhee NNSSFF aanndd DoEDoE ggraranntt pprrooggrarammss ffoorr uunniivveerrssiittyy hhiigghh eenneerrggyy pphyhyssiicscs rreesseeararcchh,, ttoo ddooccuummeenntt tthheeiirr ssuucccceessssees,s, cchhaalllleennggeess aanndd pprroommiissee,, aanndd ttoo rreeccoommmmeenndd sstteeppss ttoo eennssuurree tthheeiirr ccoonnttiinnuueedd vviittaalitlity.y.

2 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 UGUGPSPS SSuubpbpaannelel MemMembbersershhipip l Thomas Applequist l Steve Olsen l Ritchie Patterson l Jonathan Bagger l Natalie Roe l Keith Baker l Randy Ruchti, ex officio l Jim Brau l Michael Shaevitz l Chip Brock l Elizabeth Simmons l Jordan Goodman l Wesley Smith, Vice-Chair l Chris Stubbs l Paul Langacker l Andy White l Kevin McFarland l P.K. Williams, ex officio l , Chair 3 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 SSuubbppaannelel DDaattaa CCoollellectctiioonn PPrroocceesssseses l Eight subpanel meetings across US l Two major surveys ( PI survey, Anonymous survey) l More than a thousand question-responses received l Five Town Hall meetings (DPF Honolulu, MIT, SLAC, CERN, ) l Multiple DPF mailings l Interactions with UEC, SLUO, DPF, agency officials, EPP2010 members, CoV’s, etc. l Informal reviews from field leaders at universities and national laboratories; and individuals outside field l Communications directly received by UGPS members

4 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 TThhee CChhaannggiinngg LLaannddssccaapepe (or why was a study needed?) l 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. l 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 the way particle physics is carried out in the United States. l 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 5 opportunities. H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 AssAssuumemedd PPrriioriorittiitteses l 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. l 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 of new 6 opportunities to explore. H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 HHEEPP DDoEoE UUnniivveerrssiittyy PPrrooggrramam——BBuudgdgetet HHiissttoorryy (as presented to Subpanel in 9/2006)

HEP University Program Funding MILLIONS OF AS SPENT DOLLARS

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 * Fiscal Year * President's Req.

7 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 NNSSFF EEPPPP FFunundidinngg HHiissttoryory

EPP Funding by Fiscal Year

$30,000,000

$25,000,000 EPP Univ CESR l e v $20,000,000 LHC OPs e L LHC Constr g $15,000,000 n i Accel (APPI) d n u $10,000,000 RSVP F PNA+UNDRGRND $5,000,000 Theory $0 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Fiscal Year

8 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 TThhee PPII SSuurrvveyey l Link to the online survey was sent out to 180 DOE PIs and 227 NSF PIs on January 2, 2007 l Received 129 DOE PI responses (72%) and 139 NSF PI responses (61%) at time of analysis. Overall response rate was 66%. l Total of 268 responses received representing 125 different institutions

9 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 Example of Data Collected ….

What is your general impression of studnet interest in HEP compared to five years ago?

0.03 Much Lower 0.02

0.47 Somewhat Lower 0.23

0.33 1997 Survey About the Same 0.45 2007 Survey

0.16 Somewhat Higher 0.24

0.01 Much Higher 0.06

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 Percent of respondents

10 Rstcdms hmsdqdrs hm GDO g`r hmbqd`rdc rhmbd sdm xd`qr `fn- Another Example of PI survey results …

How has the availability of technical personnel at your institution changed over the past ten years?

Much Impro0ved.00

Somewhat Improved 0.11

About the Same 0.32

Somewat Reduced 0.31

Much Reduced 0.26

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 Percent of Respondents (148 total)

46$ r`x sdbg- odqrnmmdk hr rnldvg`s nq ltbg qdctbdc- 11 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 2012 R&D Current R&D Neutrino Detectors or Sources

LHC Detector Upgrades

ILC Detectors

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Respondents ( out of 141 total) Q%C deenqs hr aqn`ckx chrsqhatsdc `bqnrr `kk ehdkcr- 12 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 Research Effort in FTE - Current and Estimated in 2012

Other

Astrophysics & Cosmology

Underground physics

Neutrino physics

Estimated Research Effort in 2012 Current Research Effort B and C physics

ILC

LHC

Tevatron

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 FTEs

KGB deenqs vhkk `klnrs cntakd hm mdws ehud xd`qr- 13 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 OOpenpen EEnnddeded SSuurrvveeyy l12381238 rreessppononssees.s.

14 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 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 of these important resources. 72 responses.

l Near unanimous concern about the drift of funds away from technical infrastructure.

“The technical support and infrastructure arecritical elements in maintaining the creative strength of the Universitiesbut despite recommendations from previous University panels the situation is very precarious. Theproblem we have, and I'm sure it's a common one, is that the support of ourmechanical 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 withbridging funds between projects” 15 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 iinnffrraassttruruccttureure,, cconont.t. l 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 infrastructureat 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 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 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. lThe use of TA support was discussed by many. lThe vast majority of theory respondents suggest partial or full time TA support is the norm, enhanced over previous years. lA few noted that experimental students are being asked to teach at an increased rate. lMany noted that teaching puts HEP at a competitive disadvantage and lengthens the time to degree. lSome noted that their degree programs require some teaching but others noted departments which forbid TA support of research students. lAll regret a shrinking RA budget, especially with an increased interest in HEP with LHC coming.

17 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 13. Please provide any further comments or suggestions on the peer review process for university grant management by DODOE and/or NSF. Be sure to indicate to which agency your comment refers. 75 responses. lSplit between the satisfied and the very unhappy. lMany noted that grants from both agencies seem to be based on incremental adjustments of the previous years’amount. lMost 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 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 Do you think that HEP is well served by our particular two- agency arrangement? ---cont’d lof those who said their support was from:

lNSF: 21 respondents, only 1 said yes, well served lNo. We know that DOE gives more funding per faculty member than NNSFSF does. My NSF-funded institution is therefore at a distinct disadvantage in terms of what we can accomplish.

lDOE: 64 respondents, all but one said yes lI think it is very useful to have two independent funding agencies supporting research in HEP. 19

19 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 twtwoo aagengencciieess,, cconont.t.

lThere were criticisms which seemed beyond just a single personal bad experience:

la number wished for more cooperation

“Given the realities of the Federal funding cycle, it is probablya good thing to have two agencies involved. It would bebetter 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 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 18. Please generally characterize the slope of your group's funding over the last decade in buying power. Is it rising? falling? stayed the same? If it has changed, has it increased due to new faculty hires? Has it decreased due to faculty retirement or departures? Important: Can you correlate funding adjustments (up or down) directly to productivity changes? Be sure to indicate to which agency your comment refers. 107 responses.

lThe comments are mostly all “falling”and say basically the same thing, variations on the following: lerosion through buying power (dominant), lerosion in $/faculty member with hiring, or ljust 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 productivityhas gone up --we are doing more things for less.”

21 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 MMaajjoror FFiinnddiinngsgs l 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. l 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 best minds to our graduate programs. l A thriving university research program advances science and nourishes the technical strength of our 22 nation. H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 MMaajjoorr FFiinnddininggss ((cocontnt’’d)d) l University groups are sources of innovation. They are competitive and entrepreneurial, and diverse in their strengths, their students, and their science. Successful groups require:

l Compelling scientific questions l Outstanding personnel l Freedom to innovate l Sufficient infrastructure l A clear and timely review path l 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 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 MMaajjoror RReeccoommmemennddaattioionsns

· 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 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 ComCommmeennttaarryy onon PPrreevviioouuss FFuunnddiinngg RReeccoommmmeennddaattiionon

l 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. l This sum should be accessible from a part of the re- directions when the labs cease operating their colliders. l 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 l Now that the landscape of particle physics is evolving that strategy needs to evolve as well. 25 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 MMaajjoror RReeccoommmemennddaattioionnss ((ccoontnt’’d)d) l 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. l 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 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 MMaajjoror RReeccoommmemennddaattioionnss ((ccoontnt’’d)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 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 MMaajjoror RReeccoommmemennddaattioionnss ((ccoontnt’’d)d) l 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. l 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 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 MMaajjoror RReeccoommmemennddaattioionnss ((ccoontnt’’d)d) l 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. l The agencies should foster outreach by, for example, funding new positions dedicated to facilitating and coordinating university outreach efforts.

29 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 MMaajjoror RReeccoommmemennddaattioionnss ((ccoontnt’’d)d) l AAddddiittiioonnaall ssuuppppoorrtt sshhooululdd bebe mmadadee aavvaaililaabbllee ttoo eennaabbllee ununddeergradrgraduuaatteess aanndd hihigghh sscchhooooll tteeaachcheerrss ttoo parpartticiicipapattee inin eexxppeerriimmeennttss ooffffsshhoorree.. IInn addaddiittiioonn,, ssuuppppoorrtt sshhooululdd bbee ccoonnttiinunueedd ffoorr aann RREEUU prproogragramm aatt CCEERRNN ffoolllloowwiinngg ddiissccuussssiioonn ooff iittss ssttrruuccttuurree wwiitthh rreeprpreesseennttaattiivevess ooff inintteerreesstteedd uuninivveerrssiittyy grgroouupps.s.

30 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 WWiithth thethe PPrreessentent PPrrooffililee –– CCaann wewe ssttaaffff thethe IILLCC effeffoorrt?t?

31 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 A Better Profile – Though Probably Still Not Optimum

32 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 AA GGrraapphhicalical SSuummmmaaryry

Closure of Challenges of Concern about long domestic remote term student Changing Lab Declining programs participation interest missions ILC uncertainty – budgets when, where, etc. Declining Research Infrastructure scientists

Concern about representation Review of small experiments

Collaborative tools shortcomings University HEP; Pressures and Opportunities

Exciting physics prospects Merging of foci ? ? ? of small, ? ? medium and large expts 33 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 SSuummmmaaryry l 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 l Actions are required to address funding needs, organizational issues, and pipeline issues l Continuing our role as a leader in high energy physics should be stressed as a national priority l All parties should recognize the critical role universities play in driving the field and in insuring its future.

34 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007 PPososttssccririptpt l HEPAP is engaged and is working toward the implementation of the subpanel recommendations l P5 has acknowledged the importance of the University Grants Program and plans to offer its assessment of budgetary needs in an upcoming meeting l Meetings have been held with Users Executive Committees at Fermilab and SLAC to interpret findings and recommendations l Panel discussion planned at Aspen Winter Workshop to deliberate on the findings and recommendations l Concern about management changes within DoE HEP and the possible delay in implementing the report’s recommendations

35 H. Neal, BPA, 3 November 2007