1. Jim Siegrist, Associate Director of Science for High Energy Physics 13 June 2012 Fermilab User’s Meeting or Program Development in HEP: DOE Perspective FNAL Users Meeting 2012 1

2. Outline FNAL Users Meeting 2012 2 Background information What is needed Past performance Future plans

3. Accelerators The Energy Frontier Origins of Mass Dark energy Cosmic Particles The Cosmic Frontier Neutrino Physics Proton Decay The Intensity Frontier HEP Program Physics Frontiers 3 Dark matter Matter/Anti-matter Asymmetry Origin of Universe Unification of Forces New Physics Beyond the Standard Model Experiment Detectors Simulation Along Three Paths Theory Computing Enabled by Advanced Technologies

4. Stakeholders and Their Roles FNAL Users Meeting 2012 4 HEP science community Develop and articulate the science case, make discoveries DOE’s Office of High Energy Physics (w/NSF) Provide oversight & plans; manage budget execution Communities’ formal link to the other stakeholders Office of Science Management (Brinkman, Dehmer,+) Execute stewardship, oversight, budget submission Office of Management and Budget Balance priorities across the administration’s budget Office of Science and Technology Policy Advise on Interagency and science portfolio issues Congress (four corners) Authority to appropriate budget, all the above + oversight Others: Other science agencies, State Department, Foreign countries/collaborators, Industry, General Public, retirees, groupies, etc. etc.

5. Budget Process Issues & Constraints FNAL Users Meeting 2012 5 Role of compelling science/scientific standards in our community; continuous science output Role of flawless execution Role of community opinion Role of broader impacts on society Role of portfolio balance Research, operations, advanced technology, construction Other constraints: DOE leadership [DOE is a Mission Agency] Unique DOE contributions Foreign collaborations Stakeholder attention spans Etc., etc.

6. DOE is Mission Oriented 6 We do experiments and build projects/facilities that can make significant advances in our science areas.  Small contributions to many little efforts and/or ones that belong to other agencies/countries doesn’t help us to build the case for increases the HEP program. The model is for scientists to come together in a collaboration to ensure the major advances.  The model that other fields have is different – we need to be able to articulate why ours is best for our field. When proposing a project/plan up the chain, in addition to the science case we need to be able to explain:  That we have a leadership or visible role for which the HEP program will get credit  What our community bringing to the table that won’t get done otherwise.  We have a credible team/lab that can execute the project; Note that there is a long memory in the government – need to have a history of successfully managing and completing projects – it’s not just the people on the team but the infrastructure of the labs behind it.

7. 7 Budget Formulation, Defense, and Execution Three Years of Budgets are Underway at Any Time

8. What Is Needed FNAL Users Meeting 2012 8 Coherent science case from and by the community Keep to high standards; must be diversified approach Explanations have to be carefully thought out and of course oversimplified Must layout timeline for when answers to our questions are likely. ‘We are doing experiments to see what we find’ not adequate Emphasize unity of our field in the process Emphasize broader impacts – real impacts and opportunities for impacts

9. Past Performance in Planning FNAL Users Meeting 2012 9 P5 Plan and Impact Scientific Diversity Embraced by Stakeholders Clear priorities set Realistic budgets, although we are at/below the lower limit by now Very, very positive impact on all our stakeholders. Broader Impacts Accelerator stewardship plans moving forward. Begin program in FY14 Need to lay the foundation to update P5 plan as the next step. Need more details. ‘You guys have great questions, but what about answers?’ Look at what other parts of Office of Science have done – Basic Energy Sciences (BES)

10.  Science for National Needs  Science for Discovery BES Strategic Planning: Charting New Directions & Opportunities  National Scientific User Facilities, the 21 st century tools of science Systems Complex 10

11. Taking a long view in program planning and execution (BES Budget Request vs. Appropriation) 11 The EFRCs were established based on ~ 10 years of workshop planning and after three budget cycles of requests. HEWD SEWD NNI (2001-2002) and the NSRCs (2002-2007) were realized based on extensive community input. EFRC (2009) NNI (2001 - 2002 ) NSRC (2002 - 2007 ) HFI (2005) SC was added to HFI due to the BRN workshop.

12. Planning and Managing Projects is a Major Challenge 12

13. HEP Portfolio Development: Issues by Frontier FNAL Users Meeting 2012 13 Intensity Frontier: how to best articulate our goals. What are the critical experiments we need: In the neutrino sector? K, mu, …rare decays? in the hidden sector? How many protons do we need at FNAL to carry all this out? Do we need a neutrino factory in the long run? Cosmic Frontier: how do we develop a program that improves our understanding continuously? Dark Energy: How far can we get with the ground based program? Dark Matter: How does LHC impact our thinking and investment strategy? What is the right balance of direct and indirect searches? Particle Astrophysics: what are the crucial experiments after the current round, and what will be their impact on the HEP program? Energy Frontier: What is the LHC science case post 14 TeV cm energy and Higgs discovery? Are there other viable options (LC Higgs Factory? Muon Collider?...)

14. Future Plans for Portfolio Development FNAL Users Meeting 2012 14 DPF Planning process – frontier oriented In partnership with OHEP, supported by all the labs Must develop more project ideas than we can afford + more affordable ideas SCIENCE CASE FIRST! Then worry about experiments. Remember we need continuous science output Snowmass is NOT a shootout. It is not a love fest either. We must be critical about science goals & think out of the box Consider novel ideas for packaging our programs (BES used EFRC’s, Hubs, etc.) Will a critical mass of program elements, industrial participation, ASCR/computing, materials, technologies, etc. make a difference to how fast we can move on our science or in broader impacts? Compelling ideas have the potential to raise the budget and expand our scope and impact if we have the patience and skill to develop them!

15. Program Planning Goals 15 The DOE HEP program will have a coherent program plan for each of our frontiers: Cosmic, Energy, and Intensity – plus accelerator research, theory, etc. Then it needs to be integrated into 1 overall, coherent, coordinated plan, and prioritized. The plan doesn’t need to be a consensus; rather it can show the range of options available. The plan will show the current science reach and potential future science reach that can be achieved by experiments in the HEP program to make significant advances in the coming years.

16. Why a Process? 16 Two reasons for process: -bringing the community together to get all the ideas on the table -give everyone a voice so that they will be part of the process and support the overall program. If there’s too much “noise” in the system our case won’t be clear.  Community has to work hand-in-hand with OHEP + NSF on this – we can’t do it alone.

17. Using the Plan 17 The program plan will be valuable in helping to describe, plan, defend and execute our program, both internally at DOE and with other government offices and the community. Even if we have funds available and all project-related requirements met, we still have to “sell” projects up the chain at DOE. We also have to articulate and defend our program to all the stakeholders We’re in competition with other SC offices, so we need to be able to have a strong case for why HEP project/facility/plan is important to our field A clear plan leads to support within DOE and other government offices. Selling the plan takes time – all bases need to be covered. This is a continuing process Plans have a shelf-life. We try to push through what we can at the time. A few years later, the plans may need to be updated due to a changing landscape of activity, new discoveries, geo-politics, etc. Take the DPF planning process seriously, and participate!