Report of the Report of the

High Energy Physics Advisory High Energy Physics Advisory PanelPanel

University Grants Program University Grants Program

SubpanelSubpanel

Homer A. NealHomer A. NealWashington, D.C.Washington, D.C.

July 13, 2007July 13, 2007

Purpose (abridged)Purpose (abridged)

• To examine the state of the NSF and To examine the state of the NSF and DoE grant programs for university DoE grant programs for university high energy physics research, to high energy physics research, to document their successes, document their successes, challenges and promise, and to challenges and promise, and to recommend steps to ensure their recommend steps to ensure their continued vitality.continued vitality.

UGPS Subpanel UGPS Subpanel MembershipMembership

• Thomas ApplequistThomas Applequist• Jonathan BaggerJonathan Bagger• Keith BakerKeith Baker• Jim BrauJim Brau• Chip BrockChip Brock• Jordan GoodmanJordan Goodman• Paul Langacker Paul Langacker • Kevin McFarlandKevin McFarland• Homer Neal, ChairHomer Neal, Chair

• Steve OlsenSteve Olsen• Ritchie PattersonRitchie Patterson• Natalie RoeNatalie Roe• Randy Ruchti, ex officioRandy Ruchti, ex officio• Michael ShaevitzMichael Shaevitz• Elizabeth SimmonsElizabeth Simmons• Wesley Smith, Vice-Wesley Smith, Vice-

ChairChair• Chris StubbsChris Stubbs• Andy WhiteAndy White• P.K. Williams, ex officioP.K. Williams, ex officio

Process: Subcommittee Process: Subcommittee AssignmentsAssignments• Writing groupWriting group

– W. Smith, R. Patterson, M. Shaevitz, T. Appelquist, J. BaggerW. Smith, R. Patterson, M. Shaevitz, T. Appelquist, J. Bagger

• University modelUniversity model– A. White, K. Baker, J. Goodman, J. Brau, P. LangackerA. White, K. Baker, J. Goodman, J. Brau, P. Langacker

• Program administrationProgram administration– K. McFarland, C. Brock, J. Bagger, N. RoeK. McFarland, C. Brock, J. Bagger, N. Roe

• Data collectionData collection– N. Roe, J. Brau, S. Olsen, C. Brock, W. SmithN. Roe, J. Brau, S. Olsen, C. Brock, W. Smith

• Findings and RecommendationsFindings and Recommendations– R. Patterson, E. Simmons, C. StubbsR. Patterson, E. Simmons, C. Stubbs

Subpanel Data CollectionSubpanel Data Collection• Two major surveys ( PI survey, Anonymous survey)Two major surveys ( PI survey, Anonymous survey)• More than a thousandMore than a thousand question-responses question-responses

receivedreceived• Five Town Hall meetings (DPF, MIT, SLAC, CERN, Five Town Hall meetings (DPF, MIT, SLAC, CERN,

Fermilab)Fermilab)• Multiple DPF mailingsMultiple DPF mailings• Interactions with UEC, SLUO, DPF, agency officials, Interactions with UEC, SLUO, DPF, agency officials,

EPP2010 members, CoV’s, etc.EPP2010 members, CoV’s, etc.• Informal reviews from field leaders at universities Informal reviews from field leaders at universities

and national laboratories; and individuals outside and national laboratories; and individuals outside fieldfield

• Communications directly received by UGPS Communications directly received by UGPS membersmembers

The Changing LandscapeThe Changing Landscape

• Particle physics in the United States stands at a crossroads. … it Particle physics in the United States stands at a crossroads. … it is a time of great opportunity. The LHC and new experiments in is a time of great opportunity. The LHC and new experiments in astrophysics, cosmology and neutrino physics promise to astrophysics, cosmology and neutrino physics promise to revolutionize particle physics and quite possibly, our revolutionize particle physics and quite possibly, our understanding of the universe itself. understanding of the universe itself.

• When the LHC begins operation and the three U.S. collider When the LHC begins operation and the three U.S. collider programs close, a major focus of U.S. particle physics will move programs close, a major focus of U.S. particle physics will move offshore. All of this represents a substantial shift in the way offshore. All of this represents a substantial shift in the way particle physics is carried out in the United States. particle physics is carried out in the United States.

• This will challenge program management and force a new focus This will challenge program management and force a new focus in the particle physics portfolio. In this new portfolio, the balance in the particle physics portfolio. In this new portfolio, the balance between large and small groups, old and new ones, between large and small groups, old and new ones, infrastructure and research personnel, laboratories and infrastructure and research personnel, laboratories and universities must change to match the evolving scientific universities must change to match the evolving scientific opportunities.opportunities.

The Field is Extraordinarily The Field is Extraordinarily ImportantImportant

• Particle physics is a vital component of the national Particle physics is a vital component of the national scientific program. It addresses important and scientific program. It addresses important and challenging questions, ranging from the nature of challenging questions, ranging from the nature of matter at the smallest imaginable scales to the matter at the smallest imaginable scales to the structure and composition of the universe. In recent structure and composition of the universe. In recent decades, particle physicists have made dramatic decades, particle physicists have made dramatic advances, identifying basic constituents of the advances, identifying basic constituents of the subatomic world, together with the laws governing subatomic world, together with the laws governing their interactions. Today, we are exploring the their interactions. Today, we are exploring the frontier of the Quantum Universe, seeking the origin frontier of the Quantum Universe, seeking the origin of mass for the elementary particles, the identity of of mass for the elementary particles, the identity of the missing mass in the cosmos, and the nature of the the missing mass in the cosmos, and the nature of the dark energy that dominates the universe.dark energy that dominates the universe.

Assumed PriorititesAssumed Prioritites• EPP2010 addressed why and how the US should maintain EPP2010 addressed why and how the US should maintain

leadership in elementary particle physics. It highlighted the leadership in elementary particle physics. It highlighted the compelling science facing the field, together with its role in compelling science facing the field, together with its role in inspiring young scientists, attracting the best minds from inspiring young scientists, attracting the best minds from around the world, and helping drive technological innovation in around the world, and helping drive technological innovation in the US. the US.

• American physicists have played leading roles in advancing the American physicists have played leading roles in advancing the field to the present threshold of discovery. The US program field to the present threshold of discovery. The US program includes fulfilling the potential of the LHC, which includes a includes fulfilling the potential of the LHC, which includes a luminosity upgrade (SLHC), R&D on the International Linear luminosity upgrade (SLHC), R&D on the International Linear Collider (ILC), preparation for a bid to host the ILC, and Collider (ILC), preparation for a bid to host the ILC, and experiments in astrophysics, cosmology and neutrinos, together experiments in astrophysics, cosmology and neutrinos, together with a variety of smaller scale experiments. with a variety of smaller scale experiments.

The UGPS Subpanel endorses these priorities. The The UGPS Subpanel endorses these priorities. The opening up of multiple new scientific frontiers is opening up of multiple new scientific frontiers is exciting and provides the field with a wealth of new exciting and provides the field with a wealth of new opportunities to explore. opportunities to explore.

Major Players in the U.S. Major Players in the U.S. Successful HEP ProgramSuccessful HEP Program

• This program requires investments, both in the This program requires investments, both in the national laboratories and the universities. They are national laboratories and the universities. They are each vital components of a robust investment each vital components of a robust investment portfolio in which the combined human and facility portfolio in which the combined human and facility resources are necessary to advance the science. resources are necessary to advance the science. Current examples of this partnership include Current examples of this partnership include collaboration on the LHC and ILC programs, as well collaboration on the LHC and ILC programs, as well as collaborative work towards developing the US as collaborative work towards developing the US program in astrophysics, cosmology, and neutrinos. program in astrophysics, cosmology, and neutrinos. This partnership between the laboratories and the This partnership between the laboratories and the universities is the backbone of the success of the US universities is the backbone of the success of the US high-energy physics program.high-energy physics program.

Major FindingsMajor Findings• The EPP2010 report articulated the scientific priorities for The EPP2010 report articulated the scientific priorities for

the coming decade. Realizing that vision requires a the coming decade. Realizing that vision requires a partnership between the universities and the national partnership between the universities and the national laboratories. They are each components of a robust laboratories. They are each components of a robust investment portfolio in particle physics. investment portfolio in particle physics.

• University groups make theoretical breakthroughs, University groups make theoretical breakthroughs, develop innovative detector technologies and initiate develop innovative detector technologies and initiate novel experimental approaches. In addition, they perform novel experimental approaches. In addition, they perform most of the analysis of the data from high-energy physics most of the analysis of the data from high-energy physics experiments. These university strengths draw experiments. These university strengths draw undergraduates to science and bring some of the world’s undergraduates to science and bring some of the world’s best minds to our graduate programs.best minds to our graduate programs.

• A thriving university research program advances science A thriving university research program advances science and nourishes the technical strength of our nation.and nourishes the technical strength of our nation.

Major Findings (cont’d)Major Findings (cont’d)• University groups are sources of innovation. They are University groups are sources of innovation. They are

competitive and entrepreneurial, and diverse in their competitive and entrepreneurial, and diverse in their strengths, their students, and their science. Successful strengths, their students, and their science. Successful groups require:groups require:

– Compelling scientific questionsCompelling scientific questions– Outstanding personnelOutstanding personnel– Freedom to innovateFreedom to innovate– Sufficient infrastructureSufficient infrastructure– A clear and timely review path A clear and timely review path

• University researchers are helping lead the LHC, University researchers are helping lead the LHC, developing the SLHC and ILC detectors, initiating new developing the SLHC and ILC detectors, initiating new experiments in astrophysics, cosmology and neutrino experiments in astrophysics, cosmology and neutrino research, and inventing new strategies for exploring research, and inventing new strategies for exploring particle physics. Many of these experiments expand particle physics. Many of these experiments expand the boundaries of the field.the boundaries of the field.

Major RecommendationsMajor Recommendations

The university program must be The university program must be strengthened in order to achieve strengthened in order to achieve the goals of the national high-the goals of the national high-energy physics program as energy physics program as articulated by EPP2010. This articulated by EPP2010. This requires increased investment and requires increased investment and careful attention to building and careful attention to building and sustaining the levels of personnel sustaining the levels of personnel and infrastructure necessary for and infrastructure necessary for successful university research successful university research groups.groups.

Commentary on Previous Commentary on Previous Funding RecommendationFunding Recommendation

• While this strengthening does require some additional While this strengthening does require some additional funding, as documented in this report, the scale of funding, as documented in this report, the scale of this funding is at about a percent of the HEP budget. this funding is at about a percent of the HEP budget.

• This sum should be accessible from a part of the re-This sum should be accessible from a part of the re-directions when the labs cease operating their directions when the labs cease operating their colliders. colliders.

• When the US HEP program was mostly centered at the When the US HEP program was mostly centered at the US national labs, support of these labs was the highest US national labs, support of these labs was the highest priority for support by the US programpriority for support by the US program

• Now that the landscape of particle physics is evolving Now that the landscape of particle physics is evolving that strategy needs to evolve as well. that strategy needs to evolve as well.

Major Recommendations Major Recommendations (cont’d)(cont’d)

• Group sizes should be sustained, and increased Group sizes should be sustained, and increased where appropriate and supported by peer review. where appropriate and supported by peer review. The agencies should make a special effort to support The agencies should make a special effort to support long-term research scientists as an integral part of long-term research scientists as an integral part of this group structure, particularly when they provide this group structure, particularly when they provide expertise essential to the experimental program or expertise essential to the experimental program or leadership at a remote laboratory.leadership at a remote laboratory.

• A higher priority in the overall HEP program should A higher priority in the overall HEP program should be given to funding directed at university-based be given to funding directed at university-based theoretical particle physics for the purpose of theoretical particle physics for the purpose of increasing the number of HEP-grant supported increasing the number of HEP-grant supported graduate students. Support for students and graduate students. Support for students and postdocs doing calculations related to upcoming postdocs doing calculations related to upcoming experiments is particularly urgent.experiments is particularly urgent.

Major Recommendations Major Recommendations (cont’d)(cont’d)

• University-based technical development should University-based technical development should be funded at a level commensurate with its be funded at a level commensurate with its great importance. The investment should be great importance. The investment should be adequate to provide the necessary equipment adequate to provide the necessary equipment and technical and engineering support.and technical and engineering support.

• The university grants program should fund the The university grants program should fund the development and mounting of small and mid-development and mounting of small and mid-scale university-based experiments that are scale university-based experiments that are highly rated by peer-review, and where highly rated by peer-review, and where appropriate, by the SAGs and P5. This may appropriate, by the SAGs and P5. This may require supplements to the university grants require supplements to the university grants program.program.

Major Recommendations Major Recommendations (cont’d)(cont’d)

A University Grants Program A University Grants Program Committee (UGPC) should be formed to Committee (UGPC) should be formed to consult with university program consult with university program managers of both agencies on the managers of both agencies on the issues facing the university program. issues facing the university program. The chair of this committee should be The chair of this committee should be chosen cooperatively by both agencies chosen cooperatively by both agencies and the chairs of HEPAP, DPF and DPB, and the chairs of HEPAP, DPF and DPB, and should serve as a spokesperson for and should serve as a spokesperson for the university community.the university community.

Major Recommendations Major Recommendations (cont’d)(cont’d)

• The Scientific Assessment Groups (SAGs) should regularize The Scientific Assessment Groups (SAGs) should regularize their role in reviewing projects.their role in reviewing projects.

– Each SAG should actively monitor and prioritize the experiments Each SAG should actively monitor and prioritize the experiments and R&D in its area. It should evaluate both physics goals and and R&D in its area. It should evaluate both physics goals and technical design. technical design.

– The SAGs should report to P5, timing their reports so that they are The SAGs should report to P5, timing their reports so that they are available to P5 when needed.available to P5 when needed.

– The SAGs should review all experiments with expected construction The SAGs should review all experiments with expected construction costs above $5M, and smaller ones seeking review. This includes costs above $5M, and smaller ones seeking review. This includes both experiments that are affiliated with a U.S. laboratory and both experiments that are affiliated with a U.S. laboratory and those that are not. Additional SAGs should be created as needed those that are not. Additional SAGs should be created as needed (taking care to avoid proliferation) to cover all areas.(taking care to avoid proliferation) to cover all areas.

– HEPAP should establish mechanisms for prioritizing experiments HEPAP should establish mechanisms for prioritizing experiments whose cost is above $5M but below the P5 threshold. The whose cost is above $5M but below the P5 threshold. The prioritization process should take advantage of input from the SAGs prioritization process should take advantage of input from the SAGs and should reflect the breadth of the field.and should reflect the breadth of the field.

Major Recommendations Major Recommendations (cont’d)(cont’d)

• We applaud the COV process and endorse its We applaud the COV process and endorse its continuation. Among the issues that future COVs continuation. Among the issues that future COVs should address are:should address are:

– Mechanisms for the consistent review of lab- and university-Mechanisms for the consistent review of lab- and university-based researchersbased researchers

– The competitive review of proposals, though panels or other The competitive review of proposals, though panels or other means, within the university programmeans, within the university program

– The work-load of university grant program staffThe work-load of university grant program staff– Implementation of a database by the DOE comparable to that Implementation of a database by the DOE comparable to that

of the NSF that makes institutional, funding, demographic and of the NSF that makes institutional, funding, demographic and programmatic information readily available.programmatic information readily available.

• As much as possible, universities should be funded As much as possible, universities should be funded through merit-based peer-reviewed proposals, rather through merit-based peer-reviewed proposals, rather than through specific project-based funds.than through specific project-based funds.

Major Recommendations Major Recommendations (cont’d)(cont’d)

• The agencies should support university The agencies should support university technical infrastructure as part of grants technical infrastructure as part of grants including hardware development. In addition, including hardware development. In addition, project managers should utilize university project managers should utilize university resources because they are economical and resources because they are economical and effective, and they should report on this effective, and they should report on this optimization at major project reviews.optimization at major project reviews.

• The agencies should continue their efforts to The agencies should continue their efforts to ensure that the vision for LHC computing is ensure that the vision for LHC computing is realized. This includes working across and realized. This includes working across and within agencies to ensure sufficient network within agencies to ensure sufficient network and computing capacity.and computing capacity.

Major Recommendations Major Recommendations (cont’d)(cont’d)

• The agencies should support efforts The agencies should support efforts to ensure that both U.S. sites and key to ensure that both U.S. sites and key sites abroad are equipped with sites abroad are equipped with remote conferencing that is reliable, remote conferencing that is reliable, robust and readily available.robust and readily available.

• The agencies should foster outreach The agencies should foster outreach by, for example, funding new by, for example, funding new positions dedicated to facilitating positions dedicated to facilitating and coordinating university outreach and coordinating university outreach efforts.efforts.

Major Recommendations Major Recommendations (cont’d)(cont’d)

• Additional support should be made Additional support should be made available to enable undergraduates available to enable undergraduates and high school teachers to and high school teachers to participate in experiments offshore. participate in experiments offshore. In addition, support should be In addition, support should be continued for an REU program at continued for an REU program at CERN following discussion of its CERN following discussion of its structure with representatives of structure with representatives of interested university groups.interested university groups.

Subpanel Response to Subpanel Response to Charge: GoalsCharge: Goals

• In broad terms, what should be our goals In broad terms, what should be our goals and objectives in supporting the university and objectives in supporting the university grant program? Is there an overall grant program? Is there an overall consensus on these goals that is consensus on these goals that is communicated to and well understood by communicated to and well understood by all stakeholders?all stakeholders?

• The goals and objectives presented in EPP2010 The goals and objectives presented in EPP2010 are fully endorsed by the subpanel. The broad are fully endorsed by the subpanel. The broad consensus within the community that these are consensus within the community that these are the shared aspirations of the field was used as the shared aspirations of the field was used as the basis for the subpanel deliberations. the basis for the subpanel deliberations.

Subpanel Response to Subpanel Response to Charge: ScopeCharge: Scope

• What considerations apply that would What considerations apply that would serve to define the scope of the serve to define the scope of the university program?university program?

• The scope of the program should The scope of the program should ultimately be determined by the ultimately be determined by the quality and scope of the existing quality and scope of the existing research base, the scientific research base, the scientific opportunities, and the national will to opportunities, and the national will to play a leadership role within the field.play a leadership role within the field.

Subpanel Response to Subpanel Response to Charge: QualityCharge: Quality

• Appraise the scientific and technical Appraise the scientific and technical quality of the work being supported by quality of the work being supported by the university programthe university program..

• Based on the rigorous nature of proposal Based on the rigorous nature of proposal reviews, the work of the Committee of Visitors reviews, the work of the Committee of Visitors for both agencies, the involvements of US for both agencies, the involvements of US researchers in pathbreaking research, and the researchers in pathbreaking research, and the leadership positions held by US particle leadership positions held by US particle physicists in the major international physicists in the major international collaborations, we judge that the U.S. collaborations, we judge that the U.S. university high energy physics program is of university high energy physics program is of exceptionally high quality.exceptionally high quality.

Subpanel Response to Charge: Subpanel Response to Charge: RelevanceRelevance

• Assess the impact of the university program on the Assess the impact of the university program on the national and worldwide high-energy physics efforts. national and worldwide high-energy physics efforts. Are there areas that are overemphasized, Are there areas that are overemphasized, significantly under-supported, or missing significantly under-supported, or missing altogether?altogether?

• The impact of the U.S. university high energy physics The impact of the U.S. university high energy physics program on the worldwide high energy physics effort is program on the worldwide high energy physics effort is enormous. Relevant evidence is seen from our participation enormous. Relevant evidence is seen from our participation and leadership in numerous major projects. We find no and leadership in numerous major projects. We find no areas in which emphasis is judged to be excessive. We note areas in which emphasis is judged to be excessive. We note that increased investments in small-to-medium scale that increased investments in small-to-medium scale experiments may yield significant benefits. We also note experiments may yield significant benefits. We also note that phenomenology and the support of theory graduate that phenomenology and the support of theory graduate students needs attention. We further note that insufficient students needs attention. We further note that insufficient funding has been provided to support researchers working funding has been provided to support researchers working at offshore sites.at offshore sites.

Subpanel Response to Subpanel Response to Charge: Human ResourcesCharge: Human Resources

• Does the university program have the correct number Does the university program have the correct number and distribution of university researchers at all levels and distribution of university researchers at all levels to meet program objectives, including faculty, senior to meet program objectives, including faculty, senior research staff, postdocs, graduate students, arid research staff, postdocs, graduate students, arid professional staff for the near-, mid- and longer- term.professional staff for the near-, mid- and longer- term.

• Carrying out the program articulated in EPP2010 will Carrying out the program articulated in EPP2010 will not be possible in an environment where university not be possible in an environment where university groups receive in their base programs a continually groups receive in their base programs a continually declining level of constant-effort support, as has been declining level of constant-effort support, as has been the case for the past decade. We believe that if the the case for the past decade. We believe that if the nation is committed to sustaining a leading role in nation is committed to sustaining a leading role in high energy physics and preparing for the hosting of high energy physics and preparing for the hosting of the ILC, this situation should be addressed. (See the ILC, this situation should be addressed. (See section on Funding Models)section on Funding Models)

Subpanel Response to Charge: Overall Subpanel Response to Charge: Overall ResourcesResources

• Does the university program have the correct amount and Does the university program have the correct amount and distribution of resources to carry out its program scope? Include distribution of resources to carry out its program scope? Include an assessment of the relevant contributions from allied an assessment of the relevant contributions from allied programs in DOE, NSF and elsewhere. How should the program programs in DOE, NSF and elsewhere. How should the program respond in the event of an increase or a decrease in available respond in the event of an increase or a decrease in available resources? In addition to financial resources, consider the need resources? In addition to financial resources, consider the need and availability of technical infrastructure at the universities.and availability of technical infrastructure at the universities.

• The current resource allocation profile does not allow for the The current resource allocation profile does not allow for the optimum engagement of university groups in the program optimum engagement of university groups in the program articulated in EPP2010. There is a shortage of resources needed articulated in EPP2010. There is a shortage of resources needed to support LHC participation, ILC R/D, LHC upgrade R/D, small to support LHC participation, ILC R/D, LHC upgrade R/D, small and mid-scale experiments. The result is a loss of scientific and mid-scale experiments. The result is a loss of scientific opportunities, and the potential loss of bright young people who opportunities, and the potential loss of bright young people who would opt to pursue work in the field. (See section on Funding would opt to pursue work in the field. (See section on Funding Models) Increased support would permit the addressing of the Models) Increased support would permit the addressing of the deficiencies identified in this report. Decreases in support would deficiencies identified in this report. Decreases in support would result in further loss of scientific productivity.result in further loss of scientific productivity.

Subpanel Response to Subpanel Response to Charge: Funding ModelCharge: Funding Model

• Do we have the right model of university Do we have the right model of university funding, or do we need to revise or create funding, or do we need to revise or create new models for university research activity new models for university research activity and support?and support?

• The subpanel believes that the current model The subpanel believes that the current model for university involvement in high energy for university involvement in high energy physics research is the most appropriate one physics research is the most appropriate one for the present period. The model simply for the present period. The model simply needs to be properly supported.needs to be properly supported.

Subpanel Response to Subpanel Response to Charge: Program Charge: Program

ManagementManagement• Examine how the programs are managed and Examine how the programs are managed and

overseen. How is the performance of the overseen. How is the performance of the program optimized with respect to the overall program optimized with respect to the overall goals and priorities? Suggest how management goals and priorities? Suggest how management and performance might be improved, if and performance might be improved, if appropriate.appropriate.

• Considerable attention was directed to the Considerable attention was directed to the management of the UGP program. We concluded that management of the UGP program. We concluded that the cognizant program offices are making the cognizant program offices are making commendable efforts to manage these complex commendable efforts to manage these complex programs under difficult conditions. We have provided programs under difficult conditions. We have provided advice on how improvements could be made, including advice on how improvements could be made, including the adoption of new advisory structures to help with the adoption of new advisory structures to help with the setting of program priorities, and to continually the setting of program priorities, and to continually assess the vitality of the university grants program.assess the vitality of the university grants program.

Subpanel Response to Subpanel Response to Charge: Broader ImpactsCharge: Broader Impacts

• Consider the impact of program reach to the Consider the impact of program reach to the broader community - to other research disciplines, broader community - to other research disciplines, the public and private sector in research and the public and private sector in research and education and in workforce development.education and in workforce development.

• University high energy physicists have made very University high energy physicists have made very important contributions to scientific outreach. important contributions to scientific outreach. They have spawned important programs such as They have spawned important programs such as QuarkNet, Research Experiences for QuarkNet, Research Experiences for Undergraduates. Significant programs have also Undergraduates. Significant programs have also been created to enhance scientific literacy in the been created to enhance scientific literacy in the general public and to interest young students in general public and to interest young students in scientific exploration. scientific exploration.

SummarySummary• We are approaching a very different era in U.S. We are approaching a very different era in U.S.

high energy physics research in our universities high energy physics research in our universities – one that is full of promise as well as potential – one that is full of promise as well as potential risksrisks

• Actions are required to address funding needs, Actions are required to address funding needs, organizational issues, and pipeline issuesorganizational issues, and pipeline issues

• Continuing our role as a leader in high energy Continuing our role as a leader in high energy physics should be stressed as a national priorityphysics should be stressed as a national priority

• All parties should recognize the critical role All parties should recognize the critical role universities play in driving the field and in universities play in driving the field and in insuring its future. insuring its future.