Dear Collaborator, I am sure several of you have received the message from DNP regarding the just appointed NSAC subcommitee that is to assess the impact of the projected budgets for the coming years. For non-DNP members this should be usefull for you to understand what actions is taken by DOE and NSAC in this regard. There are other efforts to revert the budget cuts in the FY06 president budget, but the gloomy budget scenario's that the subcommitee has been presented with is an obvious indicator what the US administration has in mind for the coming years for science budgets, particular Nuclear physics with severe cuts that will effects HI physics in US and the involvement in the LHC program. regards Flemming ---------------------------------------------------------------- Flemming Videbaek Physics Department Brookhaven National Laboratory e-mail: videbaek@bnl.gov phone: 631-344-4106 ----- Original Message ----- From: <dnp@aps.org> To: <VIDEBAEK@BNL.GOV> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:44 AM Subject: APS Division of Nuclear Physics Announcements > Message to members of the American Physical Society's Division > of Nuclear Physics, approved by Ben Gibson, > Secretary/Treasurer of DNP. > **************************************************************** > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > * 3/11 NSAC MEETING REPORT * > > * Don Geesaman, DNP Chair * > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > REPORT of the 11 MARCH MEETING of the NUCLEAR SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE > Donald Geesaman, Chair-Division of Nuclear Physics > > NSAC met in Rockville, Maryland, on 11 March 2005. The agenda for the > meeting is available on the DOE ONP web site at > http://www.sc.doe.gov/henp/np/nsac/agenda31105.html. > The meeting included presentations by Ray Orbach and Dennis Kovar from > the DOE; Michael Turner, Joe Dehmer, and Brad Keister of the NSF; Joel > Parriott of the Office of Management and the Budget; and Michael > Holland of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. > > The primary business of the meeting was to present NSAC with two agency > charges with the NSAC responses due by 30 June 2005. > > The first charge (below) notes the recommendations of the 2002 NSAC > Long Range Plan and observes that the resources needed to implement > the recommended program have not been identified by the agencies. The > FY2006 President's Budget Request for Nuclear Physics is an 8.4% > reduction from the FY2005 Appropriations and this funding level > projected into the future is [according to the charge] not sufficient > to maintain the scope of the present Nuclear Physics program. In light > of these budget stringencies and their implications for the U.S. > Nuclear Physics program, NSAC is being asked how to implement the > highest priority science in the context of available funding and world > wide capabilities. NSAC is asked to provide recommendations on > priorities for an optimized DOE nuclear science program over the next > five years (FY-7-FY11) under the following scenarios: > > * flat-flat funding of $370.4 million actual dollars > > * Constant effort funding (starting with 370.4 million in FY06), > inflated dollars > > * Funding levels needed to restore research capabilities and scientific > programs to mount an optimized program and to address the scientific > opportunities identified in the 2002 Long Range Plan in order of their > priority. > > The full text of the NSAC charge and subcommittee membership should be > available at the DOE ONP web site in a few days. NSAC has appointed a > subcommittee chaired by Robert Tribble of Texas A&M to respond to this > charge. To meet the requested time scale, the subcommittee expects to > meet in early April and again in late April or early May. > > I, as chair of the Division of Nuclear Physics, offered the services of > the Division to provide any help possible to NSAC and the subcommittee. > After considerable discussion, NSAC concluded that, given the nature of > the charge (that this exercise should not change the priorities of the > long range plan) and given the rapid time scale on which the > subcommittee needs to act, DNP-organized town meetings (as is > traditional in long range planning activities) were not appropriate. > NSAC and the subcommittee chair requested that DNP could best help by > making sure the community is informed about the process and this > mailing is a first step. We will also devote considerable time in the > regular DNP town meeting in Tampa on 18 April to the activities of the > subcommittee and actions the community can take to help address the > overall funding situation I encourage each of you to seek ways you can > help the subcommittee in its activity and to contact members of the > subcommittee and the DNP executive committee with your thoughts on the > proper response. > > The 2nd charge was a joint charge to NSAC and HEPAP to form a Neutrino > Scientific Assessment Group (NuSAG) as a joint subcommittee to provide > advice on specific questions concerning the U.S. neutrino program. > They are asked to respond by 30 June on: > > * An expeditiously deployed multidetector reactor experiment with > sensitivity to $\nu_e$ disappearance down to sin^2(\theta_{13}=0.01. > > * A phased program of sensitive searches for neutrino-less nuclear > double beta decay. > > * A timely accelerator experiment with comparable > sin^2(\theta_{13}=0.01 sensitivity and sensitivity to mass-hierarchy > through matter effects. > > The chairs and membership of the NuSAG will be appointed shortly. > > NSAC also heard public presentations by the President of the Society > of Nuclear Medicine and the American College of Nuclear Physicians in > support of the funding of the DOE Medical Applications Program, whose > support for research with radionuclides in nuclear medicine is also > slated for a significant cut in the FY06 President's Budget Request. > > > > > > %==================== First Charge to NSAC =======================% > Professor Richard F. Casten > Chairman > DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee > A.W. Wright Nuclear Structure Laboratory > Yale University > New Haven, CT 06520 > > Dear Professor Casten: > > In 2002, the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC) completed work > on a Long Range Plan for nuclear science for the decade. This plan > recommended, with highest priority, the exploitation of the > opportunities for scientific discoveries made possible by recent > investments - especially at the new facilities, the Relativistic Heavy > Ion Collider (RHIC), Continuous Electron Beam Facility (CEBAF) and > National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory (NSCL). Funding above > the FY 2001 constant-effort level (+15%) was identified as needed to > effectively utilize the program's facilities and mount strong > university and theory programs. In addition, the plan recommended the > development of new research capabilities that required funding above > this funding level. These included construction of a world-class Rare > Isotope Accelerator (RIA) facility, construction of the world's > deepest underground laboratory and the upgrade of CEBAF to 12 GeV. > > Since the issuance of the Long Range Plan, the resources needed to > implement the recommended program have not been identified by the > agencies. In the FY 2002-2005 period, funding for the Department of > Energy (DOE) Nuclear Physics program has been at a near > constant-effort level. The FY 2006 President's Budget Request for > Nuclear Physics of $370.4 million is an 8.4% reduction from FY 2005 > Appropriations ($404.8 million). At this funding level, the Nuclear > Physics user facilities will operate at ~65% of optimum operations > and there will be a ~10% reduction in the number of researchers and > graduate students supported by the program. This funding level, > projected into the outyears, is not sufficient to maintain the scope > of the present Nuclear Physics program and, in particular, to > continue operations of the program's two major facilities, RHIC and > CEBAF, as they are presently conducted. The major initiatives > recommended in the Long Range Plan, such as RIA, are not accommodated. > In light of these projected budgetary stringencies and their > implications for the U.S. Nuclear Physics program, the priorities and > recommendations of the 2002 Long Range Plan need to be revisited. A > strategic plan on how to implement the highest priority science in > the context of available funding and world-wide capabilities needs to > be developed. > > In FY 2005 the DOE Nuclear Physics program has world-leading research > efforts in the major areas of nuclear science. NSAC should examine > the existing research capabilities and scientific efforts, assess > their role and potential for scientific advancements in the context > of international efforts and determine the time and resources (the > facilities, researchers, R&D and capital investments) needed to > achieve the planned programs. NSAC should then identify and evaluate > the scientific opportunities and options that can be pursued at > different funding levels for mounting a world-class, productive > national nuclear science program. > > Your report should provide recommendations on the priorities for an > optimized DOE nuclear science program over the next five years (FY > 2007-2011), under the following scenarios: > > * Flat-flat funding at $370.4 million, actual dollars > * Constant effort funding (starting with $370.4 million in FY 2006), > inflated dollars > * Funding levels needed to restore research capabilities and > scientific programs to mount an optimized program and to address the > scientific opportunities identified in the 2002 Long Range Plan in > order of their priority. > > The report should discuss what scientific opportunities will be > addressed, and what facilities and instrumentation capabilities will > be used and developed by the DOE Nuclear Physics program, including > those supported by the National Science Foundation and outside the > United States, in mounting a productive, forefront program at each > of the funding scenarios. For each funding scenario, the report > should articulate what scientific opportunities and capabilities can > and cannot be pursued, the impacts on training nuclear scientists, > and how major initiatives such as RIA should be viewed. > > NSAC should submit the report by the end of June 2005. We are aware > that this is a difficult task. However, the involvement and input of > the research community is essential for decisions that would > restructure the nuclear physics portfolio in times of fiscal > constraint. Your report will provide critical guidance as we go > forward. > > Sincerely, > > > > Raymond L. Orbach > Director > > cc: Bradley D. Keister, NSF > Joseph Dehmer, NSF > > > To remove yourself from all unit email lists, click on the link below. > http://apps.aps.org/cgi-bin/scrconf.pl?MID=60007362&UNIT=dnp&ACTION=-1 > _______________________________________________ Brahms-l mailing list Brahms-l@lists.bnl.gov http://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/brahms-lReceived on Tue Mar 15 10:24:39 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 15 2005 - 10:24:48 EST