Upload
steven-davidson
View
216
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Patrick LooneyAssistant Director, Physical Science and Engineering
Office of Science & Technology PolicyExecutive Office of the President
Strategic Context for Gravitational Wave Astronomy
Internal
Research Program
(Competitive)
Agency
(Corporate)
Political
(Macro)
Government Environment for Research
Internal
Research Program
(Competitive)
Agency
(Corporate)
Political
(Macro)
Government Environment for Research
R&D Environment
(capacity & infrastructure)
• Capital (financial)
• Technology (Research Tools)
• People
• Legal (Policy, Leg. Regulation)
Societal Pull
(demands)
• {Homeland & National} Defense
• Energy
• Economic Security
• Health
• Environment
• Food/Water
• Exploration
Scientific Push
(opportunities)
• Bio (genomics, stem cells, etc),
• Materials Science (“nano”)
• IT
• Intersection of Physics and Astronomy
Political Factors Influencing the Direction of R&D
Historical Discretionary and R&D Spending
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
YEAR
R&
D (
$ B
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Dis
cre
tio
nary
($B
)
Total Discretionary
Total R&D
Defense
Non-Defense
R&D as a Share of Discretionary SpendingIt’s approximately constant over the last 40 years!
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002
R&D/ Discretionary, Civilian Civilian R&D share, excluding ApolloR&D/ Discretionary, Total Total R&D share, excluding Apollo
Trends in Nondefense R&D by Function, FY 1953-2004
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1953 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003
Fiscal Year
Bill
ions
(FY
96
dolla
rs)
Space (NASA)
Energy
Other
Natural Resourcesand Environment
General Science(NSF+atomic energy)
Health (total)
Large Projects in Discovery-Oriented Physical Sciences
Rules of Thumb
How big is it?
< $100Minteragency coordination probably not a requirementinternational participation probably not a requirement
mild political interest
$100M - $1B interagency coordination likely
international participation may be needed
moderate political interest
> $1B assume interagency and/or international planning & realization required
definite high-level political interest
Trends at the Political Level (3 – 10 years)
• R&D will capture 11% – 14% of the discretionary budget (~ $750M/yr)
• The mix of investments will change. Deliberations on how to fund research at the intersection of the life and physical sciences will come to the fore.
• There will be a growing emphasis on science for the public good.
• There will be a greater emphasis by the administration/congress on understanding what we are getting for our investment, minimize redundancy, maximize return on large existing investment base.
• There will be a greater emphasis on project risk management, longer lead time for project approval, more R&D.
Internal
Research Program
(Competitive)
Agency
(Corporate)
Political
(Macro)
Government Environment for Research
Agencies:
NASA, NSF, DOE
White HouseWhite House
EnergyEnergy CommerceCommerce USDAUSDADefenseDefenseEPAEPA DOTDOT
White House Offices
White House Offices
HHSHHSLaborLabor
NISTNISTScienceScience
TreasuryTreasuryEDED
NSF
MPS
NASA
Science
Agency Level Business Context
Independent Agencies
(not all)
Cabinet-Level Agencies
(not all)
Current NSTCStructure
Biotechnology
National Security R&D
Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures
International
Social, Behavioral & Econ.
Infrastructure
IWG on Dioxin
WMD Medical Countermeasures
Health and the Environment.
Oceans
WH: DaleDOD: WynneDHS: McQueary
WH: RussellDOC: Bond
WH: OlsenDOC: LautenbacherEPA: Gilman
NSTCDirector, OSTP
Technology Dev.
Nanoscale Science, Eng.& Technology
Aerospace
Networking Information & Technology
Under development
Informal
Legend
WH: OlsenNSF: ColwellNIH: Zerhouni
Aquaculture
Human Subjects Research
IWG Dom. Animal Genomics
IWG Plant Genome
IWG Physics of the Universe
Large Scale Science
Education & Workforce Dev.
Research Business Models
R&D Investment CriteriaResearch Misconduct Policy
Global Change Research
IWG Earth Observations
Disaster Reduction
Ecosystems
Toxics & Risks
Water Availability & Quality
Air Quality Research
Standards
Committee on Environment &
Natural Resources
Committee on Environment &
Natural Resources
Committee on Science
Committee on Technology
Committee on Homeland and
National Security
Trends at the Agency Level
• NASA– Exploration Vision: Major Organizational Changes.
– Return to Flight; ISS Core Complete: Costly!
– Hubble Servicing Mission: Costly, Scientific Return/$?
– Strong Budget Pressure to 2010.
– Earth observations?
• NSF– Continued pressure to plan large projects well.
– MRE Project Budget Pressure.
– Budget growth: moderate
• DOE– Yucca, Clean-Up, Weapons/Security, Energy Emphasized.
– Pressure on Office of Science (non-energy mission areas)
Agency Level – Large Scale Science
• LSS traditionally the realm of High Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, Astronomy and Space Science.
• These activities where born in a cold war era.
• Traditional fields have now ‘matured’ and motivations have changed.
• Balance of operations, research, new and existing facilities a chronic issue but serious issues loom for paths forward.
• Spin-offs from HEP and NP lead to the development of the highly successful materials characterization facilities. Not as mature - but similar stewardship issues exist.
• Computer, Microelectronics, IT & Networking advances in the 80’s and 90’s enabling new LSS Projects.
Environment for new “large scale science” programs:
• Large installed base of existing facilities - some may be under utilized, some may be redundant, some maybe a low priority for continuation, many need upgrades.
• Aging facilities consume budgets, prove difficult to close.
• Traditional fields (HEP, NP, AST) proposing a significant number of new facilities and asking for significant new $.
• Increased competition from emerging fields. Some will most certainly be deserving of funding.
• Significant increase in earmarking and lobbying activity in R&D funding. Re-adjudication of decisions and straight-up earmarking of facilities.
Agency Level Environment –
Trends: • Pressure to emphasize ‘relevant’ research. • Pure discovery will grow more slowly than ‘relevant’. It is most likely that it
will not decline. • Advisory Committees propose more facility concepts than budget growth
will support (by factors of 2 – 4). Not all will be funded.
Consequences:• Programs managed by objective. (What are the goals? How do you select
research areas?)
• Program activities are placed in a broader (scientific/technological) context.
• Programs and activities coordinated across the government
• Programs planned using reasonable budget scenarios.
• Needs for machines, instruments, specialized facilities derived directly from objectives.
• Programs work to place themselves in national & international context.
• Working to minimize redundancy, low priority activities or programs that do not make a superior contribution.
Internal
Research Program
(Competitive)
Agency
(Corporate)
Political
(Macro)
Government Environment for Research
Decadal Survey: The Bible
• Taken seriously by OSTP, OMB, Agencies, Hill
•Sets Community Priorities
• Provides a roadmap for large facilities
• No other community has been able to achieve this level of planning
• Assumed SM-4 was a given.
• Does not prioritize large vs medium vs small
• Exploration impact on implementation may be significant
•Coordination is needed to be most effective.
“a new coordination and planning process is called for that should bring together all of the federal supporters of astronomy and astrophysics for the first time, the committee believes that the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget are the proper government entities to supervise the establishment of such a process.”
HR 4664 and the AAAC
SEC. 23. ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall jointly establish an
Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Advisory Committee’’).
(b) DUTIES.—The Advisory Committee shall—
(1) assess, and make recommendations regarding, the coordination of astronomy and astrophysics programs of the Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
(2) assess, and make recommendations regarding, the status of the activities of the Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as they relate to the recommendations contained in the National Research Council’s 2001 report entitled ‘‘Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium’’, and the recommendations contained in subsequent National Research Council reports of a similar nature;
(f) COORDINATION.—The Advisory Committee shall coordinate with the advisory bodies of other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Energy, which may engage in related research activities.
Trends at the Agency Level
• NSF– Physics:
• LIGO: Mutli-year Ops at design sensitivity• Adv Ligo Approved by NSB for 2007 start. • GRID Computing
– Astronomy• NSF Building Ground Based Telescopes? (public-private partnerships)
• DOE– High End Computing Initiative, INCITE Program (Open Competition for
NERSC Time)
– Theoretical/Experimental work in unification.
– Increased investments in space-based probes for cosmology/astrophysics (dark energy, dark matter, astrophysical processes of relevance to HEP/NP)
Trends at the Agency Level
• NASA– Beyond Einstein de-emphasized and pushed out. Not eliminated.
– LISA: agreement with ESA adds resilience to budget forces.
– Con-X: budget pressure remains high.
• Emphasis on Cooperation and Coordination of Research Programs– NASA and NSF Astronomy Programs
– DOE expertise and mission need to use the laboratory of the cosmos
– Coordination of Advice: AAAC
Co-chairs: Anne Kinney, Joe Dehmer, Robin Staffin (Peter Rosen)
Participation:
NASA OSS
NSF (Astronomy, Physics, Office of Polar Programs),
DOE
High Energy Physics
Nuclear Physics
Fusion Energy Science
NNSA
OSTP, OMB
NSTC IWG on The Physics of the Universe
1. What is the Dark Matter?
2. What is Dark Energy?
3. How did the Universe Begin?
4. Did Einstein have the last word on gravity?
5. What are the masses of the neutrinos and how have they shaped our universe?
6. How do cosmic accelerators work and what are they accelerating?
7. Are protons unstable?
8. What are new states of matter at exceedingly high density and temperature? (HED)
9. Are there additional space-time dimensions?
10. How were elements from iron to uranium made?
11. Is a new theory of matter and light needed at the highest energies?
Quarks to the Cosmos ReportQuarks to the Cosmos Report
• What are the approaches to answers?
• What suite of tools are needed?
• What are the highest priorities?
• What are the “tall pole” policy issues?
• Define steward agencies for fields and tools.
• Define who will do what and when (as best we can).
• Bring items up for a decision in a timely manner.
Response to Quarks to the CosmosResponse to Quarks to the Cosmos
POU Investment Priorities: ProcessPOU Investment Priorities: Process
• Develop inventory of current investments.
• Prioritize the 11 scientific questions using:
• potential for scientific advancement
• timeliness for the investment
• technical readiness of projects
• existence of gaps in current investments
POU: Prioritization of Recommendations
• Use questions prioritized in terms of investment priority.
• Sort or group questions into themes that are programmatically linked across agencies (e.g. dark matter, neutrinos, proton decay).
• Develop recommended actions for each theme area (across agencies)
• Assess programmatic readiness to proceed.
• Grouped into:
• Directions known.
• Roadmap/flesh out areas in more detail.
ONP OHEP NSF NASA
NSAC SEUSAAACHEPAP
NeutrinoPhysics
AcceleratorBased High
Energy Physics
Dark EnergyDark Matter
High Energy Particle
Astrophysics
Emerging Scheme for Coordination of Advisory Committee Activities
• What are the driving scientific questions for the field? • Are the questions interesting or important?• How do these questions fit into the larger picture of science?• How will this program address the driving questions?• Is the program plan a national plan rather than an agency plan? • What are the priorities for this plan? • How will this program plan impact the elements of the field? • Is the planning realistic? ($, time, available technologies,
management) • What is the international context? Are there redundancies? Is
there an international vision/consensus?
• Will this impact or strengthen other programs or related activities (across the Government) ?(if so, is there demonstrated coordination with these other programs?)
• How has the program been managing and performing with the current funds?
Some of the questions that will be asked: