1. Sean Freeman The University of Manchester
Update from Science Board
Particle Physics Town Meeting April 2017
Some reminders and a brief update on recent activities.
Sean Freeman
The University of Manchester

2. STFC Advisory Structures
STFC COUNCIL
(Chair: Sir Michael Sterling)
INNOVATION ADVISORY BOARD
(Chair: Richard Worswick)
SCIENCE BOARD
(Chair: Sean Freeman)
SKILLS & ENGAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD
(Chair: Carole Mundell)
Education, Training and Careers Committee
(Chair: Seb Oliver)
ADVISORY PANELS
PEER REVIEW PANELS
Advisory Panel for Public Engagement
(Chair: Colin Pulham)
Particle Physics
Grants Panel
(Chair: Jocelyn Monroe
/ Simon Hands)
Particle Physics AP
(Chair: Claire Shepherd-Themistocleous)
Solar System AP
(Chair: Chris Arridge)
Astronomy
Grants Panel
(Chair: Jim Wild)
Particle Astrophysics AP (Chair: Chamkaur Ghag)
Life Sci. & Soft Matter AP
(Chair: Martin King)
Nuclear Physics
Grants Panel
(Chair: Douglas MacGregor)
Astronomy AP
(Chair: Paul O’Brien)
Physical Sci. & Eng. AP
(Chair: David Lennon)
Projects Peer
Review Panel
(Chair: Victoria Martin)
Computing AP
(Chair: Stephen Fairhurst)
Nuclear Physics AP
(Chair: Andy Boston)
Accelerator
Strategy Board
(Chair: Andy Wolski)

3. Science Board Terms of Reference
Science Board will provide Council and the STFC Executive with a scientific overview and assessment of, and science advice on, the programmes that STFC supports:
Formulates and updates long term science and technology strategies.
Reviews STFC science and technology programmes and investments.
Consults with appropriate communities via advisory panels to ensure the science and technology strategies remain the most viable for the UK.
Agrees and recommends a detailed STFC scientific investment plan.
Provides advice to Council on criteria for selecting projects and areas of science based on their scientific quality.
Provides strategic scientific advice, as required, on STFC’s non-scientific programmes (e.g. campuses).
Provides strategic scientific advice, as required, to UKSA.
Monitors and reviews the operations of, and provides strategic advice and guidance to, peer-review panels.
The abridged version: Scientific overview, assessment and advice

4. Science Board Core Membership
Marco Borghesi, Queen’s University Belfast
Chris Hawes, Oxford Brooks
João Cabral, Imperial College London
Ofer Lahav, University College London
Peter Clarke, University of Edinburgh
Jayne Lawrence (Deputy Chair) King’s College London
Bill David, University of Oxford and RAL
Andy Parker, University of Cambridge
Christine Davies, University of Glasgow
Don Pollacco, University of Warwick
Rory Duncan, Heriot Watt University
Tara Shears, University of Liverpool
Sean Freeman (Chair) University of Manchester
Jon Goff, Royal Holloway University of London
Chick Wilson, University of Bath
Richard Harrison, STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL)
STFC Office Contact for Science Board: Trish Mullins

5. Science Board Non-Core Members
Science Board may sometimes need access to a wider breadth of knowledge via the college of non-core Science Board experts.
Non-core members may be asked to attend Science Board meetings to provide specific expert input in the event that core members are unable to attend.
Non-core members are often invited to be members of Science Board ad-hoc sub-panels when needed for specific tasks.
Includes several colleagues from the PP and PA communities who have helped with a variety of tasks including project reviews, Programmatic Reviews and Balance of Programmes.

6. Advisory Panels
Advisory Panels provide a path for critical communication between science communities and SB/STFC.
Maintain overview of areas; roadmaps for science and technologies; consult and interact with communities; provide specific advice to SB.
Vitally important to programme planning and evaluation process.
AP input in Balance of Programmes was critical in identifying emerging opportunities and developing issues.
PPAP- Particle Physics Advisory Panel
NPAP - Nuclear Physics Advisory Panel
PAAP - Particle Astrophysics Advisory Panel
AAP- Astronomy Advisory Panel
SSAP- Solar System Advisory Panel
CAP – Computing Advisory Panel
LSSMAP - Life Sciences and Soft Materials Advisory Panel
PSEAP - Physical Sciences and Engineering Advisory Panel

7. Advisory Panel Discussions and Input
SB discussed recent AP activities with: Patrick Sutton, Chair of the Particle Astrophysics AP Claire Shepherd-Themistocleous, Chair of the Particle Physics AP, Stephen Fairhurst, Chair for the Computing AP. They discussed aspects of the associated programmes, emerging opportunities and issues. They also contributed community inputs to the SB sub-group working on the Balance of Programmes.

8. Reviews LHC Detector Phase II Upgrade Tensioning Review:
Strategic importance, timeliness and impact of ATLAS and CMS Phase II Upgrades.
Both ATLAS and CMS Phase II Upgrade proposals should proceed to Projects Peer Review Panel (PPRP) in 2017 at indicative planning lines previously determined.
SB noted that the evolving financial landscape may require revision of these plans in the future.
Long Baseline Neutrino Experiments Strategic Review:
Strategic importance, timeliness and impact of DUNE and Hyper-K.
Recommended that both “pre-construction” phases proceed through Project Peer Review in 2017.
SB noted that decisions on construction phases will be needed in 2019 – a further review may be needed in 2018.
SB noted that these two areas had commitment from large fractions of the particle-physics community, but these plans would reduce the flexibility of the programme to invest in new development projects over the next five years.

9. Reviews Updates Review of Accelerator Institutes:
Strategic importance, timeliness and impact of John Adams and Cockcroft Institutes.
Identified the unique strengths of each institute and synergies between the two.
High-Level Strategy for RAL Particle Physics Department:
SB received a report on the high-level strategy for PPD, presented at the December meeting by David Wark (Director of PPD) - SB passed on comments and suggestions.
Updates
SB are regularly updated and kept well informed about the status of projects and facilities. In addition, SB received specific updates this year on HPC/HTC, status of the MICE experiment, the work of the Accelerator Strategy Board and UK industrial engagement at CERN.

10. Grants Theoretical Particle Physics Consolidated Grants:
PPGP(T) 2016 round considered by SB in July for funding period Oct 2017 to Sept 2020 – now announced.
Included review of funding for IPPP for period Oct 2018 to Sept 2020 – tensioned with PPGP(T) grants to help ensure optimal balance of programme within the available funding.
With a non-indexed flat cash budget, it would not be possible to maintain a constant volume of research – despite a strong programme of proposed work with high international calibre.
Gravitational Waves Consolidated Grants:
SB considered the peer review report on GW in July.
Reconfirmed the excellence of the science and noted the essential UK contributions to the recent discoveries.
The outcome tried to preserve world-leading elements, but planning line at the level of the PR2013 Programmatic Review (less than flat cash) – SB was particularly uncomfortable and recommended careful consideration in the Balance of Programmes.

11. Project Peer Review Projects reviewed during 2016:
ATLAS Phase II Upgrade (Bridging).
ProtoDUNE.
Currently proceeding through project review:
DUNE.
Hyper-K.
ATLAS Phase II Upgrade.
CMS Phase II Upgrade – considered SoI last week.
Unfortunately unable to support other recently proposed projects despite their high scientific quality; some extremely difficult decisions have had to be made by STFC in the current financial environment.

12. Balance of Programmes
SB sub-panel chaired by Professor Richard Harrison (RAL Space) composed of SB core and non-core members. Interim findings and final report discussed with Science Board late 2016 and early 2017.
Excellent world-leading science across the whole of the PPAN programme.
Exploitation funding a priority in all areas.
Uncertainty in financial landscape introduces risk into the support for ATLAS and CMS Phase II Upgrades and into maintaining leadership in DUNE and Hyper-K.
Accompanying difficulties in maintaining diversity in the PP programmes.
Highlighted issues with gravitational wave funding.
Shared with Council in March and with the Executive for detailed response.

13. = doing great science! 2013 Astro PP NP 2555 1379 496 3 4 7 17.80
No. of publications
2555
1379
496
UK position 3 4 7
Citation impact (CI)
17.80
14.90
15.40 1
Normalised CI
1.48
1.73
3.10 2
“Our latest publication and citation analysis, conducted by Thomson Reuters, shows the UK is ranked first in the world for astronomy, particle physics and nuclear physics when the Citations Impact and Normalised Citation Impact are measured and averaged over the period “
= doing great science!

14. Some final thoughts…
ALL STFC PPAN Programmes are making a strong impact:
excellent publications, strong leadership, important non-academic “impact”.
doing excellent science is the necessary part of any strong funding argument whether to a call, a funding agency or a government.
Core of the Science Budget is still flat cash – utterly toxic.
Careful arguments – overall money for science has unprecedented increases.
Although there are strings with ISCF and GCRF – encourage creative thinking to access them.
There’s a lot going on – be agile to look for opportunities in the shifting funding landscape.
Assisting with peer-review and providing strategic advice can be tricky job in the current environment – but is an interesting and rewarding experience.
Call for Applications and Nominations to STFC's Science Board, Committees and Peer Review Panels, 2017
Deadline: 31st May