Presentation to Fermilab Annual Users

1
Presentation to Fermilab Annual Users Meeting

• Dr. Robin Staffin
• Associate Director, Office of High Energy Physics
• June 8, 2005

2
Outline of Talk

• Good news
• Other news
• Two ways in which we need your help
• Hopefully, time for discussion at end

3
Good News

• The present program is a great one
• World class experiments with potential for major
  discoveries
• We appreciate this and your efforts in Washington
• Here at Fermilab to focus on just a subset
• The Tevatron collider
• Has potential forbig discoveries
• miniBooNE
• Has potential to totally revise
  ourunderstanding of neutrinos
• CDMS
• Most sensitive searches for dark matter
• Great to see so many results from these and other
  experiments beingpresented at this meeting

4
Good news, continued

• Here at Fermilab
• MINOS just starting
• Auger completion soon
• Poised to take a strong role in the discoveries
  at LHC
• Key part of a strong and broad national program
• B-factory, CLEO-c, GLAST, particle astrophysics
  initiatives, accelerator RD, Theory,

5
State of Fermilab

• Some excerpts from closeout of this years DOE
  Annual review
• Quality of physics program outstanding priority
  and balance appropriate
• Ongoing operations runs like a well oiled
  machine
• Impression that mood is generally upbeat and
  morale is high
• Solid foundation for future initiatives
• Strategic plan for the future developed over last
  few years is now being sharpened, focused, and
  well articulated.
• Result of a tremendous amount of hard work and
  effort from the laboratory staff at all levels
  and from the user community
• Something you can and should be proud of
  laboratory and users.

6
We do not lack for opportunities

• Linear collider
• GDE now established Barry Barish report at this
  meeting
• FALC developing a plan of international
  governance.
• Support for Fermilab as a site
• The ILC is getting peoples attention a
  necessary (though not sufficient) condition
• Neutrino physics
• APS Study
• NUSAG now up and running
• Now looking at reactor experiment, neutrinoless
  double ? decay and off-axis ?e appearance
  experiments
• Next will consider high intensity neutrino beam
• Dark matter searches
• Dark energy measurements
• Dark Energy Task Force set up
• etc

7
Other news

• Resources for the HEP program have been highly
  constrained and will likely continue to be for
  at least the next few years
• Our priorities
• Running the Tevatron, B-factory, neutrino program
• Strong participation in LHC
• Maintain core research program including
  university support

8
We need your help - 1

• The sum of present and future opportunities
  exceeds our present (or likely future) budget
• Resources to pursue new opportunities will only
  become available through redirection
• We need your help in understanding how to
  maximize the scientific returns when and where
  would the resources best be invested

9
Opportunities
?
opportunity
Very Approximate!
10
Questions for P5

• We plan to run the Tevatron collider through
  FY09, and for PEP-II running to stop by the end
  of FY08.
• We are asking for P5s help
• What factors or considerations might lead to
  stopping B-factory operations one year, or two
  years earlier than planned? When would we be in
  a position to make such a determination and what
  information would be needed?
• Similarly, for the Tevatron collider, what
  factors or considerations might lead to stopping
  operations one year, or two years earlier than
  now planned? What might lead to running longer
  than now planned? Again, when would we be in a
  position to make such a determination and what
  information would be needed?
• Note changes from earlier draft on basis of input
  received

11
P5 Charge Context

• Consider within international context
• whats planned at KEK-B and LHC
• Assume a constant funding level for overall US
  HEP program
• Do not assume that geographic and programmatic
  distribution of the funds must remain as now.
• Assume that making funds available through
  redirection will
• Likely strongly impact our ability to carry out
  smaller initiatives within the roadmap (neutrino,
  dark energy, dark matter)
• Likely only weakly impact the start date for ILC
  construction, since it will largely be
  determined by other factors

12
We need your help 2

• We need you to help us make the case for High
  Energy Physics
• Must be a strong, science-led case
• Need to show we can work together and set
  priorities
• P5, NUSAG
• Arguments need to be ones that resonate outside
  our community
• Hence the EPP2010 panel
• You can help
• Fermilab UEC visit to Washington
• Be proactive - in your universities (e.g.
  colloquia)
• And in your communities (e.g. local newspapers)
• The best way to make the case through
  discoveries leading to excitement and rediscovery
• Pretty sure this will happen at LHC
• But wouldnt it be better if it happened sooner
• for example here at Fermilab in the next few
  years?

13
Concluding remarks

• We have an exciting and challenging time ahead.
• The Laboratory's strategic plan for the future is
  getting a very positive reception as a well
  thought out and impressive plan.
• My office will keep working with laboratory
  management to overcome budget difficulties, to
  keep the Fermilab program healthy, and to make
  this plan a reality.
• We will all have to work together to be efficient
  and focused in our use of resources, targeting
  the right areas in the near term, and laying the
  foundations for eventual growth this will
  enable us to maintain a world class program at
  Fermilab now and into the future.

14

• Now happy to entertain questions, comments from
  the audience

15

• Backup

16
Advisory Committee Flow Chart
DOE-NP
DOE-HEP
NSF
Other agencies
EPP 2010
HEPAP
NSAC
Other panels
Tactics ?? Strategy
Agencies
P5
future
NuSAG
Other SAGs
17
HEPAP Charge Review of Accelerator RD Program

• Importance of Accelerator RD program for our
  future
• Needs no further elaboration
• Total support for accelerator RD, including ILC
  RD and LARP (LHC Accelerator Research Program)
  68M in FY05
• HEPAP to conduct a comprehensive review of all
  aspect of the accelerator RD programs supported
  by DOE-HEP and NSF-EPP
• Excluding ILC RD and LARP
• ILC RD coordinated by the GDE Director with own
  set of reviews
• LARP well defined scope with own set of agency
  reviews
• But committee should understand and comment on
  overall balance, interfaces and relationship with
  ILC RD and LARP

18
Review of Accelerator RD Program- specific
charges

• National Goals Describe the needs and goals
  required for a rich and productive future program
  in accelerator based particle physics
• Scope Description of current program
• Quality
• Appraisal of scientific and technical quality of
  work being supported
• How US effort rates relative to worldwide effort
• Relevance
• How well the work being supported matches the
  needs and goals of HEP program
• Missing items? Over-emphasized or under supported
  areas?
• Resources
• Does the program have adequate resources to carry
  out the scope?
• Does the program make most efficient use of
  available resources?
• Management
• How well program is managed both in the field and
  in the agencies
• Setting goals, priorities, resource allocations,
  program balance reporting
• Training Is Training of future accelerator work
  force adequately addressed?

19
Review of Accelerator RD Program - deadlines

• Draft report by end of October 2005
• Final report by end of December 2005