University Research Model Committee -

Key points/issues - Other points/issues - New ideas - “University Model” issues in the report - Findings and Recommendations

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 (LHC…ILC…?). We have discussed erosion of base support, erosion of infrastructure, problems with ILC R&D funding, need for more phenomenologists, etc.

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 -> opportunity.

University Model - key points/issues

- Erosion of infrastructure only tied to specific need?

– 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 ILC in the U.S. – must act NOW to improve participation in detector R&D!

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.

Other points/issues

Base vs. project funding organize this or is this an inevitable feature of the present model? Concern over lack of review of allocation of project funds.

. Is there a better way to - 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?

New ideas

- Talked to many people…common 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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 needed? – realignment of support seems to be the only way to address deficiencies in these areas. Quantitative: how much realignment is

“University Model” issues in the report

- Funding Model and program management community on this issue?

– 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 Enhancing the University role – all of the above!