HEPAP Subpanel Report on Vision for the Future of High Energy Physics

First reactions on Capitol Hill to an eagerly-awaited report on high energy physics research were very positive. Both friend and foe of the now-canceled SSC were effusive in their praise for the draft report, “High Energy Physics Advisory Panel’s Subpanel on Vision for the Future of High-Energy Physics.”

On Monday, the House Subcommittee on Science received testimony from Dr. Sidney Drell, Chairman of DOE’s HEPAP Subpanel. Drell presented an enthusiastic summation of the subpanel’s findings, prompting high praise from subcommittee chairman Rick Boucher (D-VA), committee chairman George Brown (D-CAL), and Ranking Republican Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY).

Briefly stated, the subpanel recommended that DOE’s High Energy Physics program budget remain at a constant-level-of-effort between FY 1995 (at the requested level) and FY 2002, with an additional $50 million “bump” in FY 1996, FY 1997, and FY 1998 (total additional funding: $150 million.) This level of funding would supplement the reduction in the non-SSC high energy physics budget in previous years. This new budget would permit current facilities to be utilized more fully, allow continued construction of scheduled upgrades, enhance accelerator R&D, and make it possible for the U.S. to initiate significant participation in CERN’s proposed Large Hadron Collider (LHC), another major report recommendation. If this level of funding cannot be appropriated, the subpanel recommends that a high energy physics laboratory be closed, rather than making proportional budget decreases at all high energy physics facilities. The report states, “the U.S. should still make a commitment to join the LHC, even if the budget remains flat at the FY 1995 level of effort.”

Drell called the SSC termination a “severe loss,” and cited its impact on young physicists. Looking ahead, Drell said it was important that the U.S. physics community, as well as CERN, receive a timely “signal” of a federal commitment to high energy physics research. He continued, “CERN wants us, they need us.”

Boucher and Boehlert were surprised and pleased at the level of recommended funding, Boucher calling it “sound,” “somewhat more modest,” and, “perhaps within the realm of the possible.” No doubt Boucher was thinking of the very stringent caps on current and future federal discretionary spending. He pledged his support, as did Boehlert. Boehlert recommended that the American physics community organize in support of the report, saying that the recommendations “will not happen by osmosis.” Physicists, Boehlert said, need to talk to their elected representatives about the future of high energy physics. Drell agreed that physicists should publicize and unite behind the report, which was unanimously accepted by the subpanel as well as the full HEPAP.

Judging from this hearing, the outlook for high energy physics which had seemed so unpromising in the days following the SSC’s termination now has taken a turn for the better. The future depends on many factors, ranging from budget caps to congressional support to the actions of the physics community.