Outlook on LHC Agreement
Last week, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and CERN signed an agreement spelling out U.S. participation in the Large Hadron Collider. While this is a significant milestone, there is still a long way to go.
The LHC is largely an unknown to Congress and the American public. Six months ago, OSTP Associate Director Kerry-Ann Jones told the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology that there is a “tremendous amount of ignorance about that program.” A committee member added that “The Unified Theory is great, but what does it mean?” to the average person (see FYI #73 .) Both cautions remain valid.
What Congress does know about the LHC is probably associated with the Superconducting Super Collider. Few Members understood the project then, a memory from that time being an often-said plea of a senior House Energy and Water Development appropriator to DOE officials to explain the SSC “in cow pasture language.” While not many Members recall the specifics of the competition between the U.S. and CERN, at least one who does issued a warning last March. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), whose district contains the abandoned SSC tunnel, said he would do everything that he could to see that not “one thin dime, D-I-M-E” of U.S. money is spent until CERN agrees on how the next collider will be built (see FYI #37 .) That matter remains unsettled.
Energy Secretary Federico Pena was asked about the next collider after last week’s signing ceremony. Pena “did not want to speculate” about the relationship between the SSC and the LHC, characterizing future funding questions for the next collider as “hypothetical, futuristic.” Office of Energy Research Director Martha Krebs said the matter was “not ready for discussion,” saying that a mega-science forum provides such an opportunity. CERN Director General Christopher Llewellyn Smith commented that “matching project by project isn’t going to work.” While House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) initially raised this concern, he said in mid-May that he was “extremely pleased” with the revised agreement. Whether Barton shares Sensenbrenner’s optimism is unknown. Barton is a Member worth watching.
During the SSC’s postmortem, observers agreed that the collider’s escalating cost to the U.S. taxpayer was a major cause of its cancellation. U.S. participation in the LHC seems to avoid this problem. Although CERN’s resources are very tight, the agreement caps the U.S. contribution -- relieving another Sensenbrennner concern. Smith described the LHC’s construction cost, explaining that “civil engineering is a big risk item” that does not exist for the LHC since it will be installed in an existing tunnel. Smith said that many costs are already firmed up, and that CERN will be responsible for any overruns.
There is some concern about the impact of the U.S. LHC contribution on DOE’s high energy physics budget. The $150 million “Drell bump” recommended by HEPAP in 1994 did not materialize, and DOE’s High Energy Physics program budget is unlikely to increase much in the next five years. The DOE appropriations bill calls for the department to submit a report on the LHC’s impact on the high energy physics budget. This is, however, is probably a matter of concern to but a few Members, and many of those who are familiar with the LHC support it.
When Pena was asked last week what he had learned from this experience, he said a better job should have been done in explaining the project and its importance to the political leadership and the American people. Wise words, indeed, for the physics community to remember when Congress is asked to start appropriating what will eventually be over a half-billion dollars for the LHC beginning next year.
