ControllingControlling thethe QuantumQuantum WorldWorld :: The Science of Atoms, Molecules and Photons Lessons Learned AMO2010 – A Decadal Assessment and Outlook Report on Atomic, Molecular and Optical Science (Part of Physics 2010) Philip Bucksbaum, Co-Chair BPA – Irvine – November 4th 2006 Entangled photons amo2010: from parametric conversion Motivation for our Report Ø There is an explosion of interest in AMO science: • Quantum-degenerate gases • High-field physics • Quantum information science • X-ray lasers • Attosecond pulses • Quantum control • Nobel prizes in ’97, ’99, ’01, and ’05 Ø A decade has passed since the last comprehensive assessments of the field and related areas – the “FAMOS” report in 1994 and the “COSE” report in 1998. Ø Scope of this study and proposal developed by CAMOS through a series of meetings, including mini-symposia on key forefront areas. Ø CAMOS suggested a forward-looking study framed in terms of compelling questions that express in simple ways the intellectual drivers for the field. Ø DOE and NSF agreed to fund the study as part of the Physics 2010 series. 2 Atom laser amo2010 Quantum degenerate gases Charge to the Committee Ø Review the field of AMO science, emphasize recent accomplishments, and identify new opportunities and compelling scientific questions.[Hit the high points, don’t try to be comprehensive.] Ø Identify the impact of AMO science on other scientific fields, emerging technologies, and national needs. [Remember the Physics 2010 Context] Ø Identify future workforce, societal and educational needs for AMO science. Ø Make recommendations on how the US research enterprise might realize the full potential of AMO science. [Don’t forget that this costs money.] Ø Prepare an interim report for BPA and the sponsors. 3 amo2010 Committee Membership: Breadth and Diversity Philip H. Bucksbaum, Co-chair Wolfgang Ketterle, Massachusetts Institute of University of Michigan/Stanford University Technology Robert Eisenstein, Co-chair Kate Kirby, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Gordon A. Baym, University of Illinois Pierre Meystre, University of Arizona C. Lewis Cocke, Kansas State University Christopher Monroe, University of Michigan Eric A. Cornell, University of Colorado / JILA Margaret M. Murnane, University of Colorado / E. Norval Fortson, University of Washington JILA Keith Hodgson, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation William D. Phillips, National Institute of Standards Laboratory and Technology Anthony M. Johnson, University of Maryland Stephen T. Pratt, Argonne National Laboratory Baltimore County K. Birgitta Whaley, University of California, Steven Kahn, Stanford University Berkeley Mark A. Kasevich, Stanford University Consultants: Neal F. Lane, Rice University Neil Calder, SLAC 4 Cavity-enhanced amo2010 atom-photon interactions Six Compelling Research Questions For AMO Science [Lead with Science] Ø What is the nature of physical law? Ø What happens at the lowest temperatures in the Universe? Ø What happens at the highest temperatures in the Universe? Ø Can we control the inner workings of a molecule? Ø How will we control and exploit the nanoworld? Ø What is the future of quantum information science? 5 Medical imaging amo2010 via optical pumping and spin-exchange Project Timeline [Short!] Ø Committee formed beginning of 2005 Ø First meeting – Washington DC – April 4/5, 2005 Ø Data requested from Federal agencies – August, 2005 Ø Interim Report – November, 2005 Ø Report finalized and review begun – March, 2005 Ø Briefing in Washington – July 10, 2006 Ø Report (prepublication) release – July 24, 2006 Ø Print version release – Early 2007 6 amo2010 Make the timeline work: Ø First meeting: Ø Find out what Big Brother Wants: talks from the sponsors, agencies, OSTP, Congress Ø Blackboard exercise to find the science boundaries and major accomplishments for our field. Ø Divide into data gathering and draft writing subgroups, with definite length and breadth assignments, and a responsible leader Ø Community input requested right away: Ø Website Ø Town meetings at APS and OSA conferences Ø Agency data requested (grant sizes, history, demographics) Ø Teleconferences with substance Ø Each writing subgroup held frequent teleconferences. Ø Leaders were responsible for turning in a draft Ø Interim Report Ø Like a preliminary executive summary. Ø Discussed in excruciating minute detail by the committee. Ø Distribute it widely, listen to feedback, tweak the message to make it more clear and powerful 7 amo2010 Structuring the main report Ø Structure of the main report Ø Central chapters organized around our Science conclusions Ø Funding and human resources in a separate chapter at the end Ø Three tiers (see below) Ø Re-align writing groups into chapters for a “three-tier” document Ø Changes based on who can write, who has time, expertise Ø Very tight requirements on style Ø Chapter 1 becomes extended Exec Summary, a condensation of the doc, or “Micropedia.” Ø Conclusions, Findings, and Recommendations Ø In science prioritization, picking winners is far more important than identifying losers. Ø Tell the government what the field needs, rather than how the agencies should do their jobs. Ø Final push Ø Create a “gang of 4,” the best writers. Ø Meet together for a marathon week of final rewrites 8 amo2010 Short summary of Conclusions • Three conclusions praise the balance, breadth, variety, and payoffs of the AMO programs. • Two conclusions tie AMO research and education to national economy and security. • Three conclusions point to budget shortfalls: Science costs are rising but budgets are flat; Theory, astro, and plasma AMO in particular are inadequately funded. • Two conclusions concern manpower: We need more US students to chose science careeers, and training and retaining the best foreign students is vital. 9 amo2010 Short summary of Recommendations • Improve education in the physical sciences. • Support AMO across multiple disciplines and agencies. • Reverse declines in 6.1 funding at DOD. • Review and rebalance budgets to strenghten theory and instrumentation (2 recs). • Implement incentives for US students to study physical science and take up careers in the field. Attract the best foreign students to study in the US, and encourage them to stay. 10 amo2010 Making a big splash: Ø Pre-publication briefing Ø Go to Washington two weeks before release of the doc Ø Pull out your big guns. (Nobelists and similar types on the committee have special credibility) Ø Speak to everyone you can: NSF, DOE, DOD, NIST, NASA, OSTP, OMB, Congressional committee staffs. Ø Press release Ø Have one. This is not automatic for NRC reports. Ø Write the draft yourself, and review the NRC rewrite carefully well in advance. Trust me on this one. 11 amo2010 So, how did it go? Ø We’ve had lots of good feedback from the physics community (cheers from a friendly crowd, of course.) Ø FYI article Ø Mentions in The Economist, PT, Physics World, and so on. Ø Some favorable comments from agencies Ø amo2010 figured prominently in a recent BESAC “grand challenges” presentation. Ø Affect on science policy? Ø Too early to tell… 12 amo2010 That’s the end of my presentation on “lessons learned.” The rest of the viewgraphs are excerpts from our Washington pre- release briefings. --Phil Bucksbaum Co-Chair, AMO 2010 13 amo2010 AMO Science and National Policy: Conclusions – I • Given the budget and programmatic constraints, generally the federal agencies questioned in this study have managed the research profile of their programs well in response to the opportunities in AMO science. In doing so the agencies have developed a combination of modalities (large groups; centers and facilities; and expanded single- investigator programs). Much of the funding increase that has taken place at DOE, NIST, and NSF has been to benefit activities at research centers. The overall balance of the modalities for support of the field has led to outstanding scientific payoffs. • The breadth of AMO science and of the agencies that support it is very important to future progress in the field and has been a key factor in its success so far • Since all of the agencies report that they receive many more proposals of excellent quality than they are able to fund, it is clear that AMO science remains rich with promise for outstanding future progress. AMO science will continue to make exceptional advances in science and in technology for many years to come. • In view of its tremendous importance to the national well being, broadly defined—that is to our nation’s economic strength, health care, defense, education, and domestic security— an investment program in research and education in physical science is critical and such a program will improve America’s ability to capture the benefits of AMO science. 14 amo2010 AMO Science and National Policy: Conclusions – II • Historically, support for basic research has been a vital component of the nation’s defense strategy. Therefore, the recent decline in funding for research, particularly in basic research, at the defense-related agencies is troubling. • The extremely rapid increase in technical capabilities and the associated increase in the cost of scientific instrumentation have led to very significant added pressures (over and above the usual Consumer Price Index inflationary pressures) on research group budgets. In addition, not only has the cost of instrumentation increased, but also the complexity and challenge of the science makes investigation much more expensive. This “science inflator” effect means that while