University Research Model Committee

1
University Research Model Committee

• Key points/issues
• Other points/issues
• New ideas
• University Model issues in the report
• Findings and Recommendations

2
University Model - key points/issues
The model has already changed! Old/base
faculty (summer) students postdoc(s) with
flat or slow growth but still valid and in need
of support. New project funding, e.g. ATLAS
CMS project funding is on same scale as whole
university program. The project funding can last
several (many?) years, but is transient. Is this
the new model we want (LHCILC?). We have
discussed erosion of base support, erosion of
infrastructure, problems with ILC RD funding,
need for more phenomenologists, etc.
3
University Model - key points/issues

• Fixing any or all of these problems within the
  context of a flat (or worse) budget implies
  realignment of funds.
• - Simply recommending an increase in funding for
  HEP has been tried several times by other groups
  (Gilman 98, Treiman 88) with limited success.
  We have to focus on how to best use the existing
  funding resources, while taking into account the
  fluidity of the project funds.
• This requires looking at the field as a whole in
  order to be able to suggest changes in the
  University Program extends scope of this group!
• - Winding down current U.S.-based accelerator
  program/changing nature of Labs -gt opportunity.

4
University Model - key points/issues

• Erosion of infrastructure fewer groups
  involved in detector work. Should we recommend a
  specific program to re-establish university
  infrastructure and/or a dedicated source of
  support? Should this be generic or only tied to
  specific need?
• ILC in the U.S. must act NOW to improve
  participation in detector RD!
• Large number of HEP groups strength in
  diversity of people/ideas vs. funding spread
  thin. Efficiency? Do we need to justify the size
  of the program vs. activity? Ensuring support for
  the individual(s) with a bright idea.
• - Self organization e.g. Tier 2 computing
  centers for LHC extend to multi-group
  collaborative efforts.

5
Other points/issues

• Base vs. project funding. Is there a better way
  to organize this or is this an inevitable feature
  of the present model? Concern over lack of review
  of allocation of project funds.
• Relation of theory and experiment need for
  expanded phenomenology program. Distribution of
  people?
• Planning changes before we know the LHC results.
  HEP phase change driven by LHC results?

6
New ideas

• Talked to many peoplecommon sense of this
  exercise being an opportunity to change the
  model.
• However, on reflection, the present basic model
  seems to work well and should be supported and
  strengthened.
• Possible changes considered
• - Fewer groups more efficient
  program?
• - Handing greater
  educational/training roles to national labs.
• - Forming more data/analysis
  centers
• - Certainly need better ways to work remotely
  true internationally, but also beneficial
  intra-nationally.

7
New ideas

• - Expanded support for university program from
  program(s) ending at lab(s) vs. sustaining size
  of lab programs overall.
• Targeted revitalization of university
  infrastructure, and strengthening of base program
  using realigned funds.
• The focused physics/computing efforts of Tier 2
  centers and the Fermilab LPC seem to be starting
  to work well. Should we encourage more such
  enterprises, perhaps with funding specifically
  designated for their support? E.g. Centers of
  specific physics/detector expertise?

8
Findings and recommendations
Findings

1. The existing (old) model of a university HEP
   group is still valid and essential to maintain
   the creativity and diversity of the field.
2. Erosion of base support for people and
   infrastructure has limited the effectiveness of
   university groups.
3. Project funding is playing an increasing role in
   the support of university groups. However, it is
   managed rather than being pier reviewed.
4. Previous recommendations for funding increases
   have met with limited success. A new approach is
   needed.

9
Findings and recommendations
Findings (cont.)
5) There is a need to have more phenomenologists
working in university groups, particularly for
analysis and interpretation of imminent LHC
data. 6) The self-organization of groups in
relation to e.g. Tier 2 LHC computing centers is
a useful concept and appears to be working.
10
Findings and recommendations
Recommendations

1. The university base program and university HEP
   infrastructure should be strengthened.
2. Part of the funding to be released by the ending
   of the Tevatron and Babar programs should be used
   to strengthen the university base program and its
   infrastructure.
3. The strengthened university base program should
   include an increased number of phenomenologists
   to work with experimentalists on data analysis
   and interpretation.

11
Findings and recommendations
Recommendations (cont.)
4) Further self-organization of university (and
lab) groups in terms of computing and analysis
centers should be encouraged and supported.
12
University Model issues in the report

• University program contributions scope,
  quality, relevance is the size of the present
  program well matched to the scope? Do we need to
  re-scope? How could the quality be enhanced?
• University program manpower, resources,
  infrastructure realignment of support seems to
  be the only way to address deficiencies in these
  areas. Quantitative how much realignment is
  needed?

13
University Model issues in the report

• Funding Model and program management
  recommending an increase in support is obvious
  realignment of support may be more realistic. How
  do we achieve a consensus in the U.S. HEP
  community on this issue?
• Enhancing the University role all of the above!