Response to Issues Raised in the Report of the 2003 Division of Physics
Committee of Visitors

John B. Hunt

Acting Assistant Director

Mathematical and Physical Sciences

## INTRODUCTION

This document responds to the Report of the 2003 Committee of Visitors
(COV) for the Division of Physics (PHY), which met on 26-28 February
2003. and submitted their report to the Chair of the Advisory Committee
for the Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPSAC) on 17
March 2003. This response was drafted by the Division of Physics and
then edited by me to provide an MPS, rather than simply a Division,
perspective.

I am pleased that the COV gave the Division high marks for performance,
based on its in depth examination all aspects of the operation of the
division, including review procedures, decisions and decision process,
portfolio balance, quality of outcomes, strategic vision, priorities,
etc. However, the COV also identified and commented on a range of issues
for consideration by MPSAC, MPS, and PHY in the interest of further
improving the performance of the division. The present response focuses
on those issues, provides some initial feedback, and indicates what
actions are planned to address each issue.

**[ISSUE 1: Use of Criterion 2]{.underline}**

The COV found that there had been clear improvement in the use of
Criterion 2 in the proposal and review processes, although it had not
yet become fully ingrained in the culture of the PHY community. Panel
reviewers addressed broader impacts better than proposal writers and ad
hoc reviewers as a result of direct encouragement by program directors;
and program directors consistently addressed Criterion 2 in their review
analysis and decision process. Requirements built into FastLane that
proposal writers address Criterion 2 in the proposal summary and that a
reviewer place something in a box devoted to Criterion 2 were found to
help, and PHY does include emphasis on Criterion 2 in its annual
notification of the target dates. But the COV recommended that PHY take
stronger action to improve the community's understanding of the value
and nature of Criterion 2. Further, the AMOP COV subpanel emphasized the
need to "quantify the impact of the program more systematically. In
particular, data about intellectual property (e.g., patents, licensing
agreements, invention disclosures, etc.) should be made available by PIs
and Centers in their annual reports."

**Action:** PHY will post on the PHY web site a "Dear Colleague" letter
discussing the meaning and importance of Criterion 2. This letter will
contain examples of different types of broader impacts. It will
emphasize that greater appreciation of broader impacts will add value to
and strengthen public support for basic research and that this will not
detract in any way from the importance of intellectual merit in
evaluating proposals. This letter will also be offered for publication
in [APS News]{.underline}, the monthly newsletter sent to all members of
the American Physical Society, and it will be sent electronically to
members of all divisions of the APS, and all PIs and reviewers.
Regarding the need to document societal impact of work supported by PHY,
we will encourage grantees to address this in their annual reports and
highlights in a more systematic way.

**[ISSUE 2: Physics Frontiers Centers]{.underline}**

The COV gave the Physics Frontiers Centers Program high marks as a new
part of the PHY portfolio, but also made three specific
comments/recommendations. They stressed the need for PFCs to clearly
demonstrate two attributes in order to justify the level of investment.
They need to demonstrate synergy or value added, relative to the
equivalent amount of individual PI support; and they need to demonstrate
that they are attempting important activities with a higher risk than
that typically borne by the individual PI. The second recommendation is
to review the performance of the existing PFCs against these criteria
before the next competition, which will begin in August 2005. The third
recommendation is for PHY to communicate more with the community
regarding the PFC program to improve the general understanding of this
new activity.

**Response and Action:** MPS concurs that synergy and added value are
important considerations in evaluating PFC candidates, and also in
evaluating PFC performance. In fact, synergy or value added is already
an explicit criterion for the evaluation of proposals. Risk is
emphasized indirectly by stating in the program announcement that PFCs
are "supported to enable research at the frontiers of physics of a scope
and complexity that would not be feasible with standard individual
investigator or small group support." In future competitions we will
explicitly state that reviewers will consider whether the proposed
research is of a scope and complexity beyond what could be undertaken by
individual investigators or small groups.

Unfortunately it is not practical to review the existing PFCs before the
next competition in order to evaluate their effectiveness is a good one.
Two of the new PFCs will begin operation only in mid-FY 2003, and the
next competition will begin in mid FY-2005, so the track record of some
of the newer ones will be very short. Further, the effort involved in a
separate review of all of the PFCs would be substantial for both PFC and
NSF staff. Instead, the overall effectiveness of the PFCs and the
performance of individual centers will be evaluated in the following
way: All PFCs are scheduled to be reviewed by a site visit with an
external panel after three years, in order to determine if they should
be encouraged to recompete during the next cycle or if they should be
notified that they will be phased out. In addition, all renewals are
made only as a result of an open competition with all other proposals
for new and renewed PFCs. Each of these reviews will look for evidence
of synergy, value added, and scope and complexity beyond that expected
from equivalent support of individual PIs. In addition, the
effectiveness of the PFC program as a whole will be a special focus of
the 2006 COV, with that COV constituted to have the breadth and
perspective to address this important and complex issue. Finally, PHY
will communicate more effectively with the community regarding the PFC
Program, including a "Dear Colleague" letter on the web, visits to or
communication with the divisions of the APS, and other venues.

**[ISSUE 3: Diversity]{.underline}**

The strategic goal of increasing diversity in the science community
received much attention by the COV. Progress was noted, including new
PIs from underrepresented groups, a PFC at Hampton, new activities at a
Hispanic serving university, policy of revisiting/reversing borderline
declines from underrepresented PIs (new procedure instituted after
discussions with the 2000 COV), etc. However, the COV drew attention to
the poor net progress, and called for establishment of goals and
assessment as a means to improve long-term progress.

**Response and Action:** MPS concurs that the progress of the Physics in
improving diversity in its awards portfolio has been poor, as shown by
statistics for the period FY 1999 to FY 2002, over which the number of
women PIs and minority PIs are approximately flat at averages of 54 and
27, respectively, out of an average total of 627. To address this, PHY
is setting the goal of increasing the numbers of female PIs by at least
two and the number of minority PIs by one each year over the next 10
years, thus increasing both categories by 37%. The division will reserve
\$300K each year to invest toward the goal of making 2+1 new awards.
Further, in order to document progress in increasing diversity, PHY will
begin in FY 2003 to track new PIs, continuing PIs, postdocs, graduate
students, undergraduate students, and K-12 teachers and students from
underrepresented groups either supported or impacted by PHY support.
This is not straightforward, because providing gender or racial data is
voluntary; however, a plan will be made to acquire reliable data to
track progress.

**[ISSUE 4: CAREER Program and Young Investigators]{.underline}**

Both the 2000 and 2003 PHY COVs focused on the CAREER program itself,
how CAREER proposals have been handled by PHY, and the impacts of both
on the careers of young investigators. Several concerns were expressed
about the design of the CAREER program itself. First, the 50% weight
given to educational activities was regarded as too high for beginning
faculty. Second, the emphasis on novel educational activities was
considered inappropriate to someone just beginning their academic
career. Allowance for employing proven strategies should be included as
an acceptable option. Several reasons were given for this, and specific
changes in the program announcement were suggested in the COV report.
Third, the rigid minimum award amounts were detrimental to young
investigators applying to programs with average grant size up to a
factor of two lower than the minimum award. Fourth, it is not permitted
to make a regular award to a PI whose CAREER proposal is declined, even
if the review panel believes that this is appropriate. The existing
practice in PHY is to review the CAREER awards in the program panels
along with the other proposals submitted to the program. These panels do
not occur until several months after the CAREER deadline, so that there
is not an opportunity for unsuccessful CAREER proposals to be followed
by regular proposals the same year, resulting in a serious setback for
the most promising young investigators. Additionally, the proposal
processing time is thereby made much longer than the NSF goal of 6
months. Finally, the high priority and enhanced awards involved with the
CAREER program has led to universities considering a CAREER award a
national prize, thus increasing the importance of success in this
competition to the young investigators tenure case, rather than putting
emphasis to educational activities. All things considered, the COV
expressed deep concern about the efficacy of the CAREER program.

**Response and Action:** The concerns of the COV will be transmitted to
the NSF working group for CAREER. CAREER is an NSF-wide program with
rules that were adopted after very careful consideration revised
somewhat after the first few years. Further, CAREER is considered a very
successful program for several other disciplines within MPS, where
panels believe that bright young investigators should be given a fast
start, even if this means providing larger grants than most senior
investigators. The Assistant Director agrees that failure of some of the
brightest young investigators to secure funding from the NSF at a
critical time in their career is an unacceptable outcome. As a partial
solution to the problem, PHY will hold a special CAREER panel as soon as
possible after the deadline, so that decisions can be made in time for
unsuccessful candidates to submit their projects as regular proposals in
the same fiscal year. This approach will hopefully encourage panels to
focus on the two NSF review criteria, rather than the CAREER award size,
in setting priorities among the proposals.

**[ISSUE 5: Future COV Procedures]{.underline}**

The COV made six suggestions for improving the efficiency and efficacy
of the COV process. The following set of bullets is taken directly from
the COV report (pp 7-8):

-   We needed more time for the discussion of Division level issues.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   We needed more time for reading jackets and felt that less time
    could have been spent on the presentations the first day.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The teleconference the week in advance of our meeting was very
    helpful and future COVs might consider emulating that.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   We would have appreciated copies of some of the national planning
    documents (e.g. Quarks to the Cosmos) available.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   We would have appreciated some 10-year trend statistics, ideally in
    advance of the meeting. Some obvious examples are funding trends,
    ratios of award to request by program, fraction of proposals from
    underrepresented minorities, etc.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Finally we felt that the process might have more continuity if there
    was a bit more overlap with previous COVs and in particular if the
    chair of the COV had participated in a previous panel.

**Action:** These are excellent suggestions, which **PHY** plans to
implement before the 2006 COV.

**[ISSUE 6: Impact of Facilities on Portfolio Balance]{.underline}**

The COV expressed deep concern about the impact of operating expenses
for facilities on the portfolio, in particular on the support for
individual PIs. This was acute in FY 2002, when LIGO completed
commissioning activities and began full operations and when the upgraded
nuclear physics facility at the National Superconducting Cyclotron
Laboratory began operations. Funding the operating needs of these new or
upgraded facilities caused a large cut in the core disciplinary programs
that fund individual PIs. The COV stressed the importance of avoiding
such impacts in the future, as LHC and RSVP operations start. Quoting
from the COV report: "We felt that there needs to be an agency wide plan
to support the operations of these large facilities." Further, "We note
that construction funding for LHC-related projects ceases in FY 2003. We
wish therefore to call attention to the need for operations funding
beyond 2003 if the EPP Program is to reap the benefit of its (MREFC)
considerable investment in the LHC. Operations funding is a
Foundation-wide issue that looms large for several projects and must be
addressed."

**Response:** The planning for and funding of operations of facilities
is under active discussion, as the NSF enhances its procedures for the
planning, management, and operation of large facilities. The current
policy for the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction
(MREFC) account states that the requesting directorate is responsible
for providing operating funds for facilities constructed by the MREFC
account. This policy has the purpose to encourage more careful planning.
It is expected that in cases in which the added expenses of new facility
operation cannot be met through overall budget increases, the needed
funds will come from reduction in funding of lower priority activities.
Estimates of operating costs are made at the time of the MREFC request,
to provide time for planning to cover these expenses, e.g., through the
phasing out of older facilities. PHY has closed one mature facility and
has scheduled the phase out of another in order to evolve with the
changing needs of frontier research; however, this process has not kept
up with the needs for advanced facilities over the last 10 years.

The very substantial increase in the PHY FY03 budget will help to
alleviate the pressure on the core disciplinary programs. It should be
noted, however, that despite the effects of facilities operations on the
core programs, PHY has maintained the highest success rates for
competitive proposals of any MPS division. For the period FY2000-2002
PHY funded over 45% of proposals reviewed, significantly higher than any
other MPS division.

**[ISSUE 7: PHY Staffing]{.underline}**

The COV noted that the increase in PHY programs and NSF-wide programs,
together with the need for adequate oversight of facilities requires
more program director staff in order to discharge the growing
responsibilities, while maintaining the quality of PHY processes and
outcomes, and to be able to recruit and retain staff of the quality of
the current staff. The COV also noted that PHY should continue to
support research and other professional activities by program directors,
as this benefits PHY and the community in multiple ways. The COV
observed that the present workload required heroic dedication by the
program directors and that the present situation is not sustainable
without loss of quality of work, outcomes, and staffing. Particular
examples were noted, including inadequate staffing for facility
oversight, expansion of PHY programs without concomitant staff
increases, increasing effort devoted to NSF-wide activities, the
reduction of staffing for the Education and Interdisciplinary Research
Program, recommendation to provide a dedicated second program director
for nuclear physics, etc.

**Response:** The need for increased staff is appreciated by MPS and
NSF. The workload problem identified by the COV is common to most NSF
divisions. NSF staffing is closely controlled through the budget
process, and solution of the NSF-wide staffing needs requires continued
work within the context of the budget process to achieve broad consensus
leading to the solution of this growing problem. COV reports are an
important source of independent assessment of such issues.

**[ISSUE 8: Review Process]{.underline}**

The COV noted that PHY had not yet achieved the NSF goal of making
decisions on 70% of its proposals in 6 months and encouraged the
division to find ways to improve its dwell-time, e.g., by timing its
target date so that budget information would be available in a timely
fashion.

**Action:** The reasons most commonly cited for this is the use of a
system of mail reviews followed by panel reviews to achieve the best
review, together with delays in receiving final budget numbers until
half way through the year. However, there are many other NSF divisions
that use the same process, yet achieve the dwell time goal. Since the
COV found the combined mail review/panel review to be an extremely
effective means to develop both in-depth, expert review and a broad
perspective across all of the proposals under consideration, PHY will
continue using this process. Much discussion went into selecting the
third week of September as the PHY target date. However, the delay in
obtaining the final budget for the Division may cause the Division to
reconsider this target date. PHY will revisit this issue and consider an
adjustment for FY 2005 (the FY 2004 date has already been set.).

**[ISSUE 9: Balance and Award Size]{.underline}**

Quoting from the COV report: "A final issue that the COV wished to raise
is that we anticipate that the Physics Division, along with the entire
NSF, may be poised to see significant budget growth in the coming years.
We believe that such an investment, particularly in the physical
sciences, is long overdue. The strong conviction of the COV is that as
the Division budget expands, it is imperative that the highest priority
be given to nourishing the base investigator program which has been
consistently eroding for over a decade. Most investigator grants are
funded at levels inadequate to accomplish their scientific and societal
goals efficiently and effectively. Notable examples are the inadequate
level of graduate student or postdoc support per PI, the inadequate
level of support for technical infrastructure, and the need for
investigators to pursue multiple grants to accomplish their research. We
consistently agreed that, given current funding levels, appropriate
choices are being made in thresholds for funding and not funding grants,
but in reading through the folders, we noted excellent opportunities
that remained unfunded at the decision borderline." In the FY 2003
Report Template for NSF COVs, the only unsatisfactory grade was in
section A.4, where the COV answered the question "Are awards appropriate
in size and duration for the scope of the projects?" with "Not
Appropriate."

**Action:** MPS agrees with this analysis and the importance attached to
this issue by the COV. Priority will be given to PI support and to grant
size. In FY 2003, PHY received a substantial budget increase, and
strengthening the core disciplinary programs was given top priority.
Investment in the support of individual PIs and small groups will
continue to be treated with high priority in allocating future budgets.
Particular attention will be paid to ensuring that graduate student and
postdoctoral support is adequate.

**[ISSUE 10: Instrumentation and Mid-scale Facilities]{.underline}**

The COV heard of future plans for a program to support mid-scale
instrumentation in the \$2M-\$100M range that falls between the MRI and
MREFC limits. The COV commented: "This new program would include R&D in
accelerator science. We felt that this new program would target an
essential need in the community and we support it strongly. We do
however see a window of opportunity in the range between \$100K and \$2M
for a program to support equipment for individual investigators as
equipment gets more expensive." In particular, it was noted that the MRI
program addressed the needs of groups of investigators, but not the
needs of individual PIs.

**Action:** Indeed, PHY has plans to establish a separate program to
consider proposals for mid-scale instrumentation, including
instrumentation for laboratory experiments, R&D for large instruments
like future accelerators, and facilities that fall below the threshold
for MREFC consideration (10% of the MPS budget, currently \~\$100M). In
response to the COV recommendations, PHY will extend the lower limit of
the mid-scale instrumentation to be considered down to the lower limit
of the MRI program, in order to accommodate those needs not met by the
MRI program requirements. The new program would provide a means of
leveraging the start-up package for new faculty on a competitive basis,
thereby helping address a growing problem..

**[ISSUE 11: Core Program Budget Cuts in FY 2002]{.underline}**

The COV addressed the significant cuts in FY 2002 to the core
disciplinary programs in PHY and the impacts of those cuts, as
summarized by the following quote: "The danger of not having a plan to
manage the operations of large facilities on a foundation wide basis was
evident in FY 2002 which was the first year that LIGO operations funding
was needed. Significant damage was done to the individual investigator
program problem, partially as a result of the need to support LIGO
operations from the base. The community lost some confidence in the NSF
as a result of the severe measures that had to be taken. We support the
draconian choices that the Division had to make in FY 2002, but feel it
is imperative to ensure that such a situation does not arise again."

**Response and Action:** This issue has been largely answered in the
response to Issue 6. Part of the problem in FY2002 was the result of
costs of the new PFCs established in FY 2001. MPS applauds the
willingness of the PHY DD to make such tradeoffs to fund promising new
things. In the meantime, PHY has made a commitment to reverse the trend
in PI support, and this has begun with a 5% increase in FY 2003 to all
core programs that support individual PIs. The budget increase in FY
2003 made this easy in FY 2003, but it is the intention of PHY to
continue this growth with high priority.

**[ISSUE 12: Stewardship of Emerging Activities]{.underline}**

The COV found the need for more stewardship of emerging activities,
particularly biological physics and physics education research. Although
applauding the formation of a new program in Biological Physics, as
suggested by the 2000 COV, the COV did not find evidence of increased
emphasis on physics education research (PER), also noted by the 2000
COV. Moreover, one of the two PER proposals was found to have been
reviewed by reviewers who were not expert in this type of activity.
Suggestions included holding workshops to help define and extend the
scope of emerging areas, expand the reviewer base in order to obtain
reviews from people more expert in the emerging fields, and make sure
that there is enough staff time available to cultivate emerging areas.

**PHY Action:** PHY will pursue each of the suggestions and report
progress to the 2006 COV. In fact MPS as a directorate is already
engaged in planning for emerging areas, including biology and education
related ones.

**[ISSUE 13: Educational Programs and Staffing]{.underline}**

The COV subpanel on Educational and Interdisciplinary Research (EIR)
Program noted that the staffing for EIR had been reduced to half an FTE,
and that the current incumbent was located off site. Further, the
subpanel stressed the need for expanded effort in PER research,
extending the groups impacted by the REU program to younger students,
teachers, underrepresented groups, etc., and increased investment in
EIR.

**Action:** Reduction of the staffing level for EIR was made in response
to the increasing demands of new programs, related to the general
staffing issues noted above. The incumbent did such an excellent job
while an IPA here in FY 2002 that PHY decided to continue the
arrangement after his return to his home institution. There have been
drawbacks to the remote arrangement, resulting purely from the off-site
arrangement. This will be taken into account in future appointments. PHY
will undertake a review of EIR educational activities with an eye on
program balance, scope, and funding levels, within the context of the
whole PHY portfolio, with a report due in time for the 2006 COV.

**[ISSUE 14: Advisory Mechanisms]{.underline}**

The COV noted the valuable advice available from the Nuclear Science
Advisory Committee (NSAC) and the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel
(HEPAP), which provide NSF and DOE with advice in nuclear physics and
particle physics, respectively; and they noted the MPSAC as a source of
advice with a much broader perspective. The COV expressed concern about
a mechanism for advice of the other programs of the division, since the
divisional advisory committees were eliminated in the early 1990's.

**Response:** PHY is responsible for a very broad portfolio and receives
extensive advice on many parts of it. The sources of advice include
NSAC, HEPAP, NRC reports, ad hoc workshops, SAGENAP, NAAAC, interagency
working groups, executive committees of APS divisions, etc. While PHY
does not have its own advisory committee, it does have the benefit of
advice by the triennial PHY COV, which reviews all aspects of the
division in fair depth. PHY considers the above cited advisory
mechanisms adequate for most purposes. In addition, targeted workshops
and reviews, such as those suggested by the COV, will be used to fill in
gaps in the advisory infrastructure.

**[ISSUE 15: Plasma Physics]{.underline}**

The COV subpanel on the Atomic Molecular and Optical Physics Program
noted the following: "This year a programmatic decision at ONR has
reduced the Navy's funding of basic plasma science to zero. This is a
very serious blow (1/3 of the total funding) and in the short term makes
matters very difficult. The DOE-NSF program is the only source of
support for plasma science and it is imperative that the NSF addresses
the ONR shortfall in its future funding profile."

**Action:** MPS and PHY are aware of the importance of basic plasma
science, the ubiquity of plasmas in nature, and the neglect of basic
plasma physics research in universities brought about by the emphasis of
government on fusion energy and stockpile stewardship. While the
division cannot simply address the programmatic decision of another
agency, it is doing several things to address the needs of and
opportunities for the plasma science community as so convincingly stated
by recent NRC reports and workshops. PHY is committed to the DOE-NSF
partnership in plasma science, as is DOE-OFES. PHY is about to support a
PFC in plasma science with cofunding of national laboratory components
of the work by DOE-OFES. In addition, the interagency working group on
the physics of the universe, which is a result of the NRC report "From
Quarks to the Cosmos," is addressing this issue on an interagency basis.
PHY shares stewardship responsibilities for plasma science, particularly
on campus, and through the activities cited above, will attempt to bring
this field into a healthier state. The progress will be reviewed by the
2006 COV.

**[ISSUE 16: Goals and Outcomes for Educational Grants]{.underline}**

The COV reiterated the general call to establish clearer goals for and
assessment of programs in cases where this is appropriate. As mentioned
above, increasing diversity in the science community is one such case.
Another is educational programs, where an attempt to set appropriate
goals and perform assessments is encouraged by the COV.

**Action:** Assessment/evaluation is particularly important for
educational projects. A great deal of expertise in the evaluation of
educational programs and projects exists in the EHR Directorate. MPS
will consult with appropriate individuals in that Directorate on this
issue.

**[ISSUE 17: Assessment of Large Group Grants]{.underline}**

The COV subpanel for EPP suggested that "Writers of umbrella proposals
should be instructed to state clearly the contribution of each member of
the proposal and reviewers should be asked to draw attention to
proposals that fail to do so."

**Action:** MPS and PHY are in complete agreement that all researchers
in group awards should be critically reviewed during the review of any
proposal for a group grant. Review panels are now all instructed to
review the contributions of individual members of a group proposal.
Actions such as eliminating support for one individual in a group grant
have resulted. However, proposals do not uniformly provide the
information needed to address this issue, and PHY will work to improve
the compliance with this need through interactions between PIs and
program directors and, possibly, some written form of communication,
e.g., Dear Colleague letter or letters to PIs of group awards. This
topic is important and will be revisited at the next COV.

**[ISSUE 18: Management of Large Facilities]{.underline}**

The COV noted "The LHC project involves management and coordination that
is international, interagency, and interdivisional in scope. We do not
see the necessary resources in the Division to continue to accomplish
this effectively as other large projects (for example, RSVP) are
initiated."

**PHY Action:** PHY is in agreement with this observation and notes that
the general policy to have a full time NSF program director provide
oversight to all MREFC and other major facilities is not satisfied at
this time. The implementation of NSF goals for facility oversight is
under active review, and PHY will keep MPS management fully informed
concerning the division's staffing needs.

This format lends itself to tracking and assessment by PHY, MPS, MPSAC
and the 2006 COV. In addition, this response will be sent to the 2003
COV to provide feedback and proposed actions resulting from their
report.

**[APPENDIX: Acronyms]{.underline}**

AMOP Atomic, Molecular, Optical, and Plasma Physics Program

APS American Physical Society

BE Biocomplexity and the Environment

CAREER Faculty Early Career Development

COV Committee of Visitors

DOE Department of Energy

EHR Directorate for Education and Human Resources

EIR Education and Interdisciplinary Research

EPP Elementary Particle Physics Program

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act

FTE Full Time Equivalent

HEPAP High Energy Physics Advisory Panel

IPA Intergovernmental Personnel Act

ITR Information Technology Research

LHC Large Hadron Collider

LIGO Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory

MPS Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences

MPSAC MPS Advisory Committee

MREFC Major Research Equipment and Facility Construction

MRI Major Research Instrumentation

NAAAC National Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee

NSAC Nuclear Science Advisory Committee

NSCL National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory

OFES Office of Fusion Energy Sciences

OMA Office of Multidisciplinary Activities

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ONR Office of Naval Research

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

PER Physics Education Research

PFC Physics Frontier Centers

PHY Division of Physics

PI Principal Investigator

REU Research Experiences

RSVP Rare Symmetry Violating Processes

SAGENAP Science Advisory Group for Experiments in Non-Accelerator
Physics