Meeting of DOE’s High Energy Physics Advisory Panel
In the wake of the 1993 cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider, DOE’s High Energy Physics program has been guided by the 1994 report of its High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP), “Vision for the Future of High-Energy Physics,” commonly known as the Drell report. Now, a new HEPAP Subpanel, chaired by Fred Gilman, has completed its review of the status of the U.S. high energy physics (HEP) program and produced a draft report making recommendations for the next decade of the program. The Gilman Subpanel’s draft report, “Planning for the Future of U.S. High Energy Physics,” was discussed and accepted by the full Advisory Panel during a February 18-19 meeting in Maryland, and will be transmitted to DOE’s Director of Energy Research, Martha Krebs.
Krebs spoke at the February HEPAP meeting, outlining her priorities for the Office of Energy Research. Within High Energy Physics, Krebs cited efforts to get the new facilities at Fermilab and SLAC (the Main Injector and the B-Factory, respectively) “ready to be productive” as critical elements the Department should focus on “in the next year or two.” Another crucial element, she said, is participation in the LHC, and “making sure we have the management systems in place...to be able to demonstrate that we know how to manage” the U.S. portion of the project. Krebs cautioned that House Appropriations Chairman Bob Livingston (R-LA) had identified the $30.0 million increase requested for LHC participation in FY 1999 as questionable, although she added, “I don’t know why.” A total of $65.0 million has been requested for the LHC for FY 1999, an increase of $30.0 million over the FY 1998 appropriation of $35.0 million. The budget request also specifies a future funding profile for the project: DOE plans to request $70.0 million in each of the subsequent three years.
Krebs said she did not know what the prospects were for legislation (S. 1305) to double research funding over the next decade, but she felt that initiatives to strengthen science funding represented “the basis of a real consensus between the President and Congress.” She also had favorable comments about the President’s intentions to nominate Neal Lane to head OSTP and Rita Colwell to take Lane’s place as the new NSF director.
John O’Fallon, Director of DOE’s High Energy Physics Division, discussed the FY 1999 HEP request of $691.0 million, a 1.9 percent increase above current-year funding of $677.9 million. Key program elements for FY 1999, he said, included producing physics results, commissioning and operation of the Fermi Main Injector and the SLAC B-Factory, completing most HEP research using the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron, increasing by about 5 percent the support for university-based programs, completing the CDF and D0 upgrades, performing technology R&D to prepare for new initiatives, and continuing participation in the LHC.
Speaking later in the meeting, directors or other representatives from DOE labs with HEP programs emphasized how funding has not kept pace with inflation in recent years, forcing layoffs of technical staff, underutilization of facilities, and poor morale. “It’s like a strait jacket that’s being tightened,” one said. “We feel like we’re hanging on by our fingertips,” added another. HEPAP Chairman Michael Witherell commented, “I’m glad it’s not as bad as it was in the past few years, but there are still places where it has ill effects.” Areas specifically cited were underutilization of existing facilities and the decline in the strength of university-based HEP programs. “The need to complete major construction projects in an era of flat budgets” resulted in cuts to the university programs, according to panel member Abraham Seiden. “The university-based program has experienced an increasingly serious funding squeeze over the past five years,” he said, resulting in a 22 percent reduction in buying power.
The Subpanel draft report was introduced by Chairman Fred Gilman. The panel placed its highest priority on “optimum utilization of the forefront facilities nearing completion.” Other important recommendations included maintaining the agreed-upon funding levels for the LHC, continuing or enhancing R&D for future accelerator facilities, strengthening the non-accelerator program, and increasing the operating funds for the university program by 10 percent above inflation over a two-year period. The panel formed its recommendations based upon constant-level- of-effort funding, and then considered changes that would be necessary based on a modest increase or decrease in funding. The major recommendations will be detailed in FYI #34 .
Members of the full HEPAP and the lab directors present praised the report with such words as “balanced,” “thoughtful,” “workable,” and “a good follow-on to the Drell panel.” There will be no substantive changes made before the report is transmitted to Krebs.
