# Presentation: 819786

## Presentation to Fermilab Annual Users’ Meeting

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

## Outline of Talk

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

## 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 for****big discoveries**
**miniBooNE**
**Has potential to ****totally revise our****understanding of neutrinos**
**CDMS**
**Most sensitive searches for ****dark matter**
**Great to see so many results from these and other experiments being****presented at this meeting**

## 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 R&D, Theory, ...**

## State of Fermilab

**State of Fermilab**

**Some excerpts from closeout of this year’s 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.**

## 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 people’s 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...**

## 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**

## 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 **

## Opportunities

- opportunity

- Very Approximate!

**?**

## 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 P5’s 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**

## Consider within international context
what’s 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

**what’s 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**

**P5 Charge: Context**

## 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 wouldn’t it be better if it happened sooner **
**for example here at Fermilab – in the next few years?**

## 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.**

## 

Now happy to entertain questions, comments from the audience

**Now happy to entertain questions, comments from the audience**

## 

Backup

**Backup**

## Advisory Committee Flow Chart

**Advisory Committee Flow Chart**

- HEPAP

- P5

- NuSAG

- NSAC

- DOE-NP

- DOE-HEP

- NSF

-  Other SAG’s

- Other agencies

- Other panels

- future

-    Tactics               Strategy            Agencies

- EPP
- 2010

## HEPAP Charge: Review of Accelerator R&D Program

**Importance of Accelerator R&D program for our future **
**Needs no further elaboration **
**Total support for accelerator R&D, including ILC R&D and LARP (LHC Accelerator Research Program): ~$68M in FY05 **
**HEPAP to conduct a comprehensive review of all aspect of the accelerator R&D programs supported by DOE-HEP and NSF-EPP**
**Excluding ILC R&D and LARP**
**ILC R&D: 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 R&D and LARP**

## Review of Accelerator R&D 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?**

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

**Final report by end of December 2005**

**Review of Accelerator R&D Program ***- deadlines*