High Energy Physics
Associate Director of the Office of Science for High Energy Physics
SC-22/Germantown Building
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585-1290
http://www.science.doe.gov/hep/index.shtm
General Goal 5, World Class Scientific Research Capacity: Provide world-class scientific research capacity needed to: ensure the success of Department missions in national and energy security; advance the frontiers of knowledge in physical sciences and areas of biological, medical, environmental, and computational sciences, or provide world-class research facilities for the Nation’s science enterprise.
Mission: The mission of the High Energy Physics (HEP) program is to explore and to discover the laws of nature as they apply to the basic constituents of matter, and the forces between them. The core of the mission centers on investigations of elementary particles and their interactions, thereby underpinning and advancing DOE missions and objectives through the development of key cutting-edge technologies and trained manpower that provide unique support to these missions.
Program Goal 05.19.00.00: Explore the Fundamental Interactions of Energy, Matter, Time and Space - Understand the unification of fundamental particles and forces and the mysterious forms of unseen energy and matter that dominate the universe; search for possible new dimensions of space; and investigate the nature of time itself.
At the core of this science program, and underpinning all of our objectives, is a fundamental quest for knowledge. Our program history provides a compelling story of how this knowledge has shaped the world around us, and the future appears even more promising as we focus on such questions as:
Can we realize Einstein’s dream - a unified description of fundamental particles and forces in the universe?
Where is the fundamental particle that endows all other particles with their masses?
Are there additional or “hidden” dimensions of space-time?
What are the masses of the neutrinos, and what is their role in the universe?
Why is there more matter than anti-matter in the universe?
What are dark matter and the dark energy, which together make up more than 95% of the universe?
Below are the main objectives for High Energy Physics. Complementing this stand-alone Program Plan, and providing additional details of our program objectives are the Office of Science Strategic Plan (February 2004), the Facilities for the Future of Science: A Twenty Year Outlook (November 2003), as well as the most recent Office of Science budget.
Objectives:
Explore Unification: Explore phenomena related to the unification of fundamental particles and forces.
Understand the cosmos: Understand the cosmos with emphasis on dark energy, dark matter, the matter/antimatter puzzle, the cosmic role of neutrinos, and high energy astrophysics.
Develop Enabling Technologies: Develop new and better ways to accelerate and detect particles and observe astrophysical phenomena, enabling more effective pursuit of our mission.
An accompanying timeline (Road Maps) provides a roadmap for these objectives, including our planned future facilities, performance targets, and the primary connections and program interdependencies. Two important caveats, described below, must be observed when viewing the timeline.
The Objectives, Performance Targets and schedules identified on the timeline are for planning purposes only and do not constitute financial or contractual commitments by the Federal government. More often than not, there are significant discrepancies between planning levels and subsequent, enacted budgets. It is reasonable to anticipate that resources may not be available to fully support every performance target, including but not limited to the schedule for performance. Subsequent annual updates of this plan will reflect and adjust for those fiscal constraints based on the latest available information.
Additionally, there are many more connections (lines) and interdependencies (footnotes in red) than are displayed on the actual timelines. The very nature of science is multi-disciplinary and interdependent. Consequently, those relationships that are depicted are only illustrative, although they are believed to largely representative of the primary relationships.
The HEP program conducts frequent and comprehensive evaluations of every component of the program. Progress against established plans is evaluated by periodic internal and external performance reviews. These reviews provide an opportunity to verify and validate performance. Quarterly, semiannual, and annual reviews consistent with specific program management plans are held to ensure technical progress, cost and schedule adherence, and responsiveness to program requirements.
All on-going projects undergo regular (every three to five years) peer review and merit evaluation based on procedures set down in 10 CFR 605 for the extramural grant program, and under a similar process for the laboratory programs and scientific user facilities. Results of these evaluations are used to modify program management as appropriate. Additionally, all new projects are also selected through peer review and merit evaluation.
The High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP), consisting of leading members of the high energy physics community, provides advice to the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation on a continuing basis regarding the direction and management of the national high energy physics research program. HEPAP regularly meets to advise the agencies on their research programs, assess their scientific productivity, and evaluate the scientific case for new facilities. HEPAP also undertakes special studies and planning exercises in response to specific charges from the funding agencies.
The HEP program has also instituted a formal “committee of visitors” that will provide an independent review of its responses to proposals and research management process, as well as an evaluation of the quality, performance and relevance of the research portfolio and an assessment of its breadth and balance. The first such review occurred in March 2004 and the report is available on the HEP website at:
http://www.science.doe.gov/hep/HEPAPCOVReportfinal.pdf
Change control and off-ramps:
Science changes rapidly and breakthroughs in knowledge by our science programs, other agencies, industry and the international science community create a constant state of flux. Although there are long-term research themes and lengthy horizons for new cutting-edge tools, basic research must be constantly revisited in a context of new discoveries and the most promising current opportunities.
Additionally, basic research is, by its nature, unpredictable. Results that appear to mark a failed experiment are often much more significant to progress in the field than a “successful” result. This is the reason that expert review will be used to assess progress toward our objectives. It is critical that all evaluations take this unique aspect of research into account so that success will be judged as advancing the field rather than meeting the specifics of an objective or target.
Underpinning the Office of Science change control process and our off-ramps are a strong dependence on our program advisory committees, for us the HEPAP. Our program and our advisory committee are driven by the following three major criteria for evaluating change and possible off-ramps: Quality, Relevance, and Performance. These criteria are also the criteria that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) applies to basic research.
As part of the Office of Science Strategic Planning process, our advisory committee is consulted on the actual Objectives for the program. A broader array of stakeholders from government, industry, and academia are also consulted. Such input helps form the basis for a new focus or direction at this more aggregate level, and the current objectives for this program were the result of a recently completed cycle and preparation of a new Office of Science Strategic Plan. The objectives from the Strategic Plan form the basis for this Program Plan.
Key Targets were also developed in consultation with HEPAP as part of OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process. Progress reviews for these key targets will be conducted by HEPAP every three years. These reviews will allow us to assess progress so that the program can continue, redirect or discontinue the efforts that support those targets.
Ultimately, all decisions on focus, emphasis, resources, and possible shifts are vetted at the appropriate levels within our program - from the researchers to the program managers, and often to the level of the Associate Director. Depending on the scope of the issue and the venue, the Director of the Office of Science may be involved. For major off-ramps, the Director of the Office of Science is always involved and assumes final responsibility.
The HEP program in fundamental science is closely coordinated with the activities of other federal agencies [e.g., National Science Foundation (NSF), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)]. HEP also promotes the transfer of the results of its basic research to contribute to DOE missions in areas of nuclear physics research and facilities; basic energy sciences facilities, contributing to research in materials science, molecular biology, physical chemistry, and environmental sciences; and mathematical and computational sciences.
The HEP program has many connections with other organizations, and is dependent on their planning needs, identified challenges, information, scientific data sharing, and more. Some of the key external factors for the HEP program, include: the SC-wide SciDAC effort, a broad range of international collaborations including, with NSF, participation in the construction and operation of the LHC at CERN, interdependencies with NASA regarding space based observation systems such as JDEM, and complementary research with the Office of Nuclear Physics on fundamental physics which underpins both research programs .
External factors that affect the programs and performance include: (1) mission needs as described by the DOE and SC mission statements and strategic plans; (2) evolving scientific opportunities, which sometimes emerge in a way that revolutionizes disciplines; (3) results of external program reviews and international benchmarking activities of entire fields or subfields, such as those performed by the National Academy of Sciences; (4) unanticipated failures, for example, in the evaluation of new computer architectures for science, that cannot be mitigated in a timely manner; (5) strategic and programmatic decisions made by other (non-DOE) Federal agencies and by international entities; and (6) the evolution of the commercial market for high performance computing and networking hardware and software.