Particle Physics Funding Mechanism • PPARC has become STFC • Should be same funding structure as before • PP and A constitute about £330M/year • About half is spent on subscriptions • ESA, ESO, CERN, Gemini, Eiscat • ~50M/year on grants to University groups • University RA/technical/Academic support for exploitation and construction • Rest is spent on projects • How do the projects get selected and funded? • ......
International Advisory Committee Science Board Financial and scientific tensioning Long Term Planning Science Programme Office OPTIONS OPTIONS PPAN* Science Committee Prioritize, Filter, Sort, Peer Review *Particle Physics, Astronomy and Nuclear Physics ADVISORY STRUCTURE USER COMMITTEES COMMUNITY IDEAS PEER REVIEW FROM RCs OPPORTUNITIES STRATEGIC PLANS FROM OTHER RCs Science Advisory Structure COUNCIL CEO Physical and Life Sciences Committee Prioritize, Filter, Sort, Peer Review where appropriate
committees and peer review Nominations receivedand being processed Science Board PPAN PALS Still to be finalised Scope of PPRP? Separate panel for R&D? AGP PPRP etc. PPGP NPGP new Accelerator Science and Technology Advisory Board ASTAB
~120 SoIs since start of new process Prioritize new proposals against existing projects to aid in final decision. Focus on scientific impact and UK leadership SC threw out about 25%, 50% returned with advice, 25% have become full proposals since 2002 We want to make sure projects are funded adequately and not financially squeezed PPAN Science Committee System
Prioritization and Recommendation • All projects tensioned across PP and A • Process takes into account: • Scientific excellence • UK leadership • Track Record of proposing group(s) • Share of allocations has been about equal over last 5 years • Astronomy has many small projects while PP has fewer larger ones • Good or bad? Just an observation.
PPARC must also consider Industrial involvement Training Education Knowledge Transfer STFC must also consider Industrial involvement Training Education Knowledge Transfer to SB CEO approves the project
The Down Side • Resources are limited • We will need to say “no” to good science • This is a real shame • but we can’t borrow (or print) money • And if we’re going to say “no” • Best to say “no” sooner • Best to say “no” to whole projects
Message • Need to be smart with the (not insubstantial) resources available to us • Sharing across Astronomy and PP has allowed successful opportunities on both sides • New broader STFC remit also includes accelerator infrastructure • This presents a new opportunity for even more impact in PP (A,AP,N…)