Interim † report of “Strategic Planning Committee”*

1. P. Grannis, May 7, 2010 Interim† report of “Strategic Planning Committee”* B. Altshuler (Columbia), S. Aronson (BNL), P. Grannis (chair), J. Hobbs, B. Jacak, J. Kirz (LBNL), J. Lattimer, K. Likharev, L. Orozco (Maryland), P. Paul, S. Smith (BioChemistry & Cell Biology), G. Sterman † Nothing in this report is finalized, and some of what I say reflects my own personal views. We are eager to have comment from the faculty to help us make this report useful to the Department. * The name gave us some trouble: this committee is not doing a full-blown 10-20 year plan as being undertaken by SBU generally, but is offering advice to the Department on ways that the Department can enhance its stature. Our report however should be useful input to the university Strategic plan.

2. Our charge: • Are there one or two research areas that allow us to compete at level of top three departments • In what areas are we lagging behind and need reinvestment? • What areas could we retrench if forced by university constraints so as to expand in new areas? • How to soften boundaries within and without the department? • Policy on joint research with BNL? Interdisciplinary centers? • What new opportunities in graduate education?

3. Committee’s activities Solicit input from all faculty, including potential new initiatives Meeting Mar. 19: Discuss the charge; Plan interactions with all major research groupings in Department; Outline potential new initiatives suggested by committee (10 of these initially) Mar. 20 – Apr. 15: Discussions between committee members and research groups or individuals and collect new potential initiatives Meeting Apr. 15: Discuss current state of research groups; Preliminary discussion of initiatives (now 14) leading to selection of 6 or 7 of them for further evaluation; Establish evaluation criteria for new initiatives. Apr. 16 – May 15: 2 committee members to develop each selected initiative and prepare evaluation for discussion. Meeting May 26: Discuss initiatives and reduce to 2 – 3; Discuss other strategic considerations for the interim report June 6: Preliminary advice to Dean of Arts and Sciences for University strategic planning and prepare interim report for the faculty.

4. 55 total active faculty 16 faculty of 43 P&A (37%)+ 5 YITP (of 12) How many current faculty will have reached 70 in ten years? These lines are the resource which will in part allow new initiatives. Faculty demographics

5. Evaluation of current research areas Astronomy: 7 faculty, down 2 from 5 years ago, smaller than peer departments, and at minimum size needed for courses. Now the youngest group in Dept. Two main thrusts: observations of exoplanets, star formation, compact objects and computational astrophysics/theory. Some increase in size is needed. Atomic physics: 4 faculty now, thought to be minimum sustainable size; 2 now are ≥60. It may be worthwhile to seek replacement faculty in connection with a new initiative or evolution of current areas in quantum control and BE condensates. Condensed Matter expt: 9 faculty now; 4 are ≥ 60, so considerable room for redirection through new initiatives. Little direct collaboration among the group members. Research funding has declined and only 4 are now highly active in the lab. Presence at NSLS has diminished. Central place of CM in physics means that new faculty could connect to a variety of new initiatives (biological physics, photon science, applied devices etc.)

6. Evaluation of current research areas Condensed Matter theory: 5 faculty, 2 ≥ 60. All are quite active and have good connection to CM expt. 1 recent departure is slated for refilling. Stronger ties to YITP and SCGP would be beneficial. High Energy expt: 8 faculty now, two are relatively inactive and 4 ≥ 60. Current activities are collider physics (5) and neutrinos/proton decay (2). Reduction in active collider faculty by 1 could be sustained. Future of colliders is not clear, but options to enter astroparticle physics could become attractive and a natural outgrowth of current interests. Nuclear expt: 4 active younger faculty now on RHIC, and 1 older is inactive. Concentrating all effort in RHI could be dangerous in long term. Search now underway may not be in RHI physics and could provide a buffer if RHI program declines.

7. Evaluation of current research areas Nuclear theory: 5 faculty, 1 ≥ 60. An offer is now accepted by a senior target of opportunity. The group is prominent but funding has declined. NP theory would be in good position to collaborate with other fields in new initiatives. ( YITP: 12 faculty with 5 ≥ 60. YITP direction is not the purview of this Departmental committee. Some new connections between YITP & SCGP and traditional areas in P&A could be envisioned and these would be desirable. ) I imagine that ~2 lines plus 1 senior non-research line could be redirected to new areas in a 10 year time frame, and that perhaps ~3– 4 replacements in several groups could be tied to new initiatives, particularly if these connect naturally to the group. We imagine that a new initiative, to be successful, should ramp quickly to about three faculty.

8. Suggested initiatives The committee identified 13 potential initiatives for future growth after some splitting and merging of proposals. We each ranked these and identified a smaller list (*) to be better described and evaluated according to the criteria we developed. Accelerator science * Photon science (NSLS2 related and including some expt. Biophysics) * Theoretical biological physics * Theoretical neuroscience * Enhanced imaging and astronomical instrumentation * Coherent quantum control * Cosmology Biological physics experiment (non NSLS2) Applied physics of devices Astroparticles Energy science Climate physics Laser driven high energy density physics and computational HEDP *

9. Evaluating new initiatives Two committee members, consulting with faculty, will further describe each of the 7 initiatives. An important aspect of this is the evaluation of how well each might suit the needs and aspirations of the department: Our criteria: • What is the overall scientific importance and likely national impact? • How unique would this be to Stony Brook? • If successful, would this raise Stony Brook’s stature among peers? • How likely is this initiative to get significant new funding (e.g. Physics Frontier Center or the like)? • What connections to other Stony Brook units, or to BNL or CSHL would there be? • How would this new initiative connect to ongoing activities in the department? • What would the cost be (in addition to the new lines)? • Are there champions in the department or other units that would drive the development of a new initiative?

10. What advice on new directions should the committee give? Our charge asks for discussion of the future directions for existing areas of research, and for possible new directions. How prescriptive this advice should be is a subject of some discussion. We know that unforeseen events (resignations, targets of opportunity, new research initiatives) will modify what we may think now. This committee is largely drawn from retired or external people, so may not reflect the current younger faculty accurately. The charge suggests however that some explicit guidance for future planning may be desired. We will try to narrow the choices of initiatives down to 2 or 3, but we should all recognize that this will be advice that must be evaluated by the department in light of circumstances and desires of the faculty when such new directions become possible.

11. Other topics for discussion and the report There are several questions that the committee wishes to address in its report beyond the potential new initiatives. Many of these have not yet been discussed in depth. General strategic question: How should the department define its goals for where it should be in 10 years? How would we define improved stature? Move up 10 places in the national rankings? Increased number of Academy members, prizes, honors? More leadership on the national scene?

12. Other topics for discussion and the report • Hiring strategy and planning new initiatives: • How should the department use the Simons Foundation gift? What mix of Simons funds used for funding salaries of new hires, funding startups, matching funds for federal initiatives (Frontier Centers etc.), addressing pressing needs in student support etc? Does the limited term of the Simons gift constrain its use for new hires?? • What mix of searches for young faculty and more senior ‘stars’? • Should we initiate a rolling search for stars in any of several fields that can stay open until a suitable candidate is found? • Should we conduct searches in several areas in parallel, intending to fill the position with the best overall candidate? • What use of joint hires (BNL or other SBU units) is optimal?

13. Other topics for discussion and the report • Items to be brought to the attention of the University strategic planning: • Our support for TAs relies on substantial department subsidy and curtails our ability to advance our program in other ways. The Graduate committee advocates substantial increase in the number of students, both Masters and PhD, more students at BNL and in interdisciplinary areas, and use of graduate students for recitations. • The ‘location adjustment’ for Long Island is very far from balanced relative to other State units, and detracts from our ability to attract new faculty and students. • The policy for two body hiring needs to be revamped, as many women in science and engineering have partners also in academia.

14. Other topics for discussion and the report • Internal practices: • We have tapped young research – active faculty for many jobs within the department and in the university. This practice should be curtailed, as we are handicapping those people in whose hands the future stature of the department depends. • Teaching a secondary assignment handicaps our faculty, particularly young faculty, relative to other peer departments.