STFC Programmatic review …

                                           STFC Programmatic review

                                 Nuclear Physics Consultation Group
   1. Introduction
The STFC PPAN committee carried out a programmatic review. This group was set up to cover the nuclear
physics area of the programme with the Membership and Terms of Reference given in Annexe 1.

     2. Background to the Nuclear Physics Programme in STFC
Funding for the Nuclear Physics programme was in responsive mode with EPSRC until an announcement
was made in July 2006 that responsibility for funding would move to the newly formed STFC. Since that
date there has been no significant new funding for the UK Nuclear Physics programme. Responsibility for
the existing programmes was transferred to STFC. Following a request from the community, STFC funded
some short term bridging grants, mainly PDRA positions, to allow the programme to continue until funding
mechanisms and a peer review process were established in STFC. It was agreed with the community that
rolling grants would be established, the first series of which would start on August 1st, 2008.

The community produced a Nuclear Physics Strategy, which was submitted in March 2007. It discusses the
areas of physics that are of particular importance for the UK. The priorities were to sustain funding for ex-
ploitation to allow international leadership in many areas of nuclear physics to continue, and to invest in new
facilities that were vital to maintain UK leadership.

In order to be successful in the study of a given nuclear physics theme or to answer a particular nuclear phys-
ics question of interest, it is essential that a series of experiments are carried out, often at a range of facilities.
Different facilities around the world provide different beam species, different beam energies and properties,
and different instruments and spectrometers for the work. UK physicists have worked at a wide range of fa-
cilities by winning beam time from international programme advisory committees (PAC). UK physicists
have been very successful in this and lead many international physics programmes. There has been no charge
for access at most facilities. In some cases the UK has made a contribution to an instrument or spectrometer
at the facility, the funding coming from a specific responsive mode grant. These instruments are then avail-
able to all who use the facility. The UK has established an international leadership role in the provision of in-
struments and spectrometers largely due to a team of professional experts and engineers based in the Nuclear
Physics Group at Daresbury and at some of the Universities.

The projects that were part of the programmatic review were all international facilities where the UK has
worked in the past few years. Many different physics themes were studied at these facilities. No STFC fund-
ing has been committed to these facilities. The work was essentially exploitation.

The Nuclear Physics community wishes to work with PPAN to agree an STFC Nuclear Physics Strategy.
This would be an ideal role for the consultative group that PPAN is planning to establish.

    3. Digest and Summary of the community input to the consultation
A total of 31 comments (some from groups of people) were received for the Nuclear Physics programme.
Some concerning ALICE were passed to us from Particle Physics. A breakdown of the comments by topic is:
ALICE                   18                       ISOLDE                  1
MAMI                    5                        Jyväskylä               1
ALICE/MAMI              1                        HERMES                  1
General                 2
Panel Membership        2
The comments on ALICE and MAMI are discussed further below. A theme running through the other com-
ments was that in nuclear physics there is not always a clear connection between a facility and a particular
physics question. A judgement about a particular facility should therefore be made on the quality of physics,
which is best done by the Nuclear Physics Grants Panel.

3.1 ALICE ­ Summary of the input to the consultation process
These contributions came from a wide cross-section of the nuclear and particle physics community, both ex-
perimental and theory, in the UK and internationally. Whilst the UK's involvement in ALICE is small com-
pared with the other LHC experiments, it was widely recognised that Birmingham has a vital and high visi-
bility role. This was emphasised in the contributions of the ALICE spokesperson and the STFC ­ ALICE
oversight committee. The contribution from the Nuclear Physics European Collaboration Committee (Nu-
PECC), for whom ALICE was an integral part of its Roadmap for Construction of Nuclear Physics Infra-
structures in Europe, attested to the fact that the physics is internationally leading and also recognised the
leading role played by Birmingham.

Both NuPECC and ALICE were at pains to stress the highly visible and strategically important role entrusted
to the UK in the ALICE trigger system. The group has delivered the system hardware, which is the nerve
centre of the entire experiment, on time and on budget. The group is now in the delicate phase of commis-
sioning the trigger software. The ALICE spokesperson pointed out that the withdrawal of the Birmingham
group at this stage would have a profound negative impact on the experiment and jeopardise the readiness of
the experiment to take data when first collisions are achieved later this year.

One of the main concerns of PPAN was the size and impact of the UK in this area of science. The recent
merger of the Birmingham nuclear physics group, who have been leading players in the STAR experiment at
the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), was seen as a welcome and timely addition to the existing AL-
ICE group and positions the group well for the future physics exploitation. The group is strongly supported
by its home institution, which, in the last year, has appointed a new proleptic lectureship on ALICE. In
terms of size, Birmingham is now one of the largest university groups in ALICE and ranks 10th largest out of
100 or so participating institutions.

On more general scientific grounds, PPAN was asked to reconsider the unique physics capabilities offered
by the study of the nuclear phase diagram using heavy ion collisions. Synergies were highlighted between
ALICE and studies of extremely neutron rich nuclei at future experiments at FAIR. This is matched by
strong interest by UK theory, both in hot QCD and nuclear structure at the limits of stability. The recent ex-
periments at RHIC, of which STAR was an important part, have sparked new theoretical interest with excit-
ing developments emerging from connections with string theory, as well as developments in orthodox quan-
tum field theory, both of which have been supported by recent UK faculty appointments.

Many of the contributions questioned the strategy of withdrawing from ALICE now that the capital invest-
ment has been completed. The view was expressed that STFC should be open to supporting small, high
quality projects that fall at the interface between nuclear and particle physics; a weakness of the former
EPSRC and PPARC funding system. The ALICE project was observed to fit well with existing high priority
science objectives of STFC and was recognised as being an area likely to excite the public imagination.

3.2 MAMI ­ Summary of the input to the consultation process
The comments from both the experimental and theoretical international hadron physics communities made a
number of important points. The UK plays a leading role at MAMI, in particular in the Tagged Photon Col-
laboration A2. This was emphasised in the contributions of the MAMI director and the Crystal Ball spokes-
person. The Crystal Ball operates at the Glasgow Tagger, which has recently been upgraded by the UK
groups to double its maximum momentum acceptance in accordance with the factor of 2 higher electron
beam energies available from MAMI C since last year. The UK also contributed significantly to the refur-
bishment of the SLAC Crystal Ball. In total, the UK has invested £5M in equipment at MAMI.

MAMI and Jefferson Lab are both first rate nuclear physics facilities, which operate at different and com-
plementary beam energies. The comments included: "For a number of important observables, for example
neutron form factors or nucleon sum rules, both energy regimes are needed for a complete picture." Conse-
quently, it is hard to see why one half of the answer to a physics question should be ranked as lower priority
than the other. MAMI and Jefferson Lab both operate complex experimental setups that are complementary
in their particle detection capabilities. For example, the SLAC Crystal Ball at MAMI measures neutral parti-
cles from nucleon resonance decays, whereas CLAS at Jefferson Lab measures charged ones. Both types of
measurements are needed for a complete understanding of the nucleon's excitation spectrum. Many nuclear
physics problems were first tackled by the UK groups at MAMI and subsequently pursued at Jefferson Lab
at higher momentum transfers. Examples are the investigation of the short-range structure of nuclei and the
measurement of electromagnetic nucleon form factors, which were pioneered at the 3-spectrometer facility at
MAMI, or the first ever measurement of the Gerasimov-Drell-Hearn sum rule on the proton at the Glasgow
photon tagging spectrometer at MAMI.
This cross-fertilisation between MAMI and Jefferson Lab has been acknowledged by several commentators.
In fact, the most recent NSAC nuclear physics long range plan published in Dec. 2007 states that MAMI has
produced excellent data that test chiral dynamics and yield nucleon strangeness form factors. This "knowl-
edge exchange" has also been working well regarding instrumentation. The UK groups have developed the
world's most powerful and versatile high-energy tagged photon beam at MAMI and subsequently transferred
their knowledge to Jefferson Lab. No major further investment is needed for MAMI. Now is the time for the
UK to exploit their investment by e.g. performing the first complete experiment on pseudoscalar meson pro-
duction on the nucleon at the Glasgow Tagger plus Crystal Ball setup.

The summary is that in order to address a number of challenging nuclear physics questions both complemen-
tary facilities are needed. MAMI is expected to be an exploitation facility for the foreseeable future.

    4. Comment on the prioritisation of the projects /Adjustment of Priorities
The panel discussed how nuclear physics fitted into the current programmatic review and how the outcome
of the process should be used. The following points are relevant to a successful internationally leading nu-
clear physics programme:
    · The setting of priorities is a "multi-dimensional" problem: exploitation of past investments/future
        new investments; short-to-medium term/medium-to-long term time scales. A simple list as produced
        by the Programmatic Review is not completely helpful.
    · The published priority list is helpful in terms of ranking new projects as an aid to prioritising future
        investment.
    · Nuclear Physics operates in three ways:
             1. Winning experimental time in an internationally competitive environment on facilities at
                 which there has been little or no UK investment.
             2. Winning experimental time in an internationally competitive environment on facilities to
                 which the UK has contributed experimental infrastructure. It is important to exploit past in-
                 vestment by the UK.
             3. Contributing leadership and investment in new international facilities at which a science
                 programme will take place.
    · The priority list is less helpful in ranking facilities (facilities are not projects) being used for exploi-
        tation. In these cases science themes are of prime importance: physicists will use the facil-
        ity/instrument that is best suited to address the high priority science themes in their field.
    · World-class science addressing important questions needs several instruments and several laborato-
        ries.
    · Priorities must recognise the need to maintain the vitality and excellence of UK Nuclear Physics re-
        search in the short-to-medium term.
    · Theoretical Nuclear Physics needs to be judged and prioritised within the context of the prioritisation
        of the science themes.
    · The Programmatic Review list is a list that is intended to reflect the current time-status of research in
        Astronomy, Nuclear Physics and Particle Physics. In some cases wrong signals have been sent con-
        cerning the science value of projects. The list was not designed to resolve problems arising from a
        shortfall in funding, which increases the damage that can be done by sending false signals.

4.1 Recommendations on the priority list
PPAN have stated that the majority of nuclear physics projects that they considered were not ranked as no
STFC funds were at stake. These "projects" were scored in the same way as all other STFC programmes. We
take the view that the majority of nuclear physics entries on the list should be treated equally in the current
rolling grants round that will fund exploitation.
We recommend that in these circumstances the Nuclear Physics Grants Panel (NPGP) bases its deci-
sions largely on the quality of the physics cases.

It has been recognised since the review took place that ALICE/STAR is a special case. Input to the review
came separately from ALICE (then a particle physics project) and STAR (part of the nuclear physics pro-
gramme). Prior to the review, and with consultation with STFC, these groups decided to join forces to ex-
ploit the physics opportunities at ALICE as part of the future nuclear physics programme. The physics that
can be addressed by ALICE was recognised as one of the areas for exploitation in the UK Nuclear Physics
Strategy document. This view is supported by theoretical groups in the UK who work in this area. Heavy ion
physics at the LHC is strongly endorsed by NuPECC. The NuPECC submission to the consultation also rec-
ognised the pivotal role played by the Birmingham group in delivering the trigger sub-system for ALICE and
the competency of the newly expanded group for the future scientific exploitation of the experiment.
We recommend that in the light of the changes that have happened recently, assessment of ALICE
should be based on exploiting an existing investment. Funding for this activity is best decided by the
NPGP based on the strength of the physics case submitted.

The hadron physics that will be addressed at MAMI was recognised as one of the areas for exploitation in the
UK Nuclear Physics Strategy document. Strong support was also voiced by international nuclear theorists
who work in the MAMI energy regime. It was stressed that MAMI is, in an ideal fashion, complementary to
Jefferson Lab. in the USA. We agree that MAMI is one of the facilities that is needed for the UK nuclear
physics programme. There are no major investments necessary any longer; MAMI will be used only for ex-
ploitation.
We recommend that assessment of MAMI should be based on exploiting an existing investment. Fund-
ing for this activity is best decided by the NPGP based on the strength of the physics case submitted.

A priority list such as that drawn up by the programmatic review is appropriate for projects. There are sev-
eral nuclear physics projects currently being considered by the peer review process. These are AGATA,
PANDA, NUSTAR and HIE-ISOLDE. The priority for UK Nuclear Physics is to have leadership roles in the
physics areas it pursues. This can be done by investment in major facilities and projects. The community
agreed that investment in FAIR was a high priority. FAIR will produce radioactive beams for NUSTAR (us-
ing fragmentation) and antiprotons for PANDA. The NUSTAR proposal is for investment in instrumentation
at FAIR. AGATA is a central part of the NUSTAR experiment at FAIR; it is the vital part of HISPEC. Both
the PANDA and NUSTAR proposals are currently being considered by PPRP.

There are also developments in ISOL facilities which will produce a range of radioactive beams and exotic
nuclei complementary to those at FAIR. These developments are aimed at the pan-Europe EURISOL facility
which is at least 10 years away. Presently ISOL facilities are being developed at GANIL (SPIRAL) and
ISOLDE. AGATA is the gamma-ray detector that will also be used at SPIRAL and is a vital instrument at
that facility. A proposal is being considered by PPRP (HIE-ISOLDE) which will accelerate the beams from
the present ISOLDE facility at CERN to energies up to 10 MeV/nucleon for use in nuclear physics experi-
ments. This is an accelerator development based on superconducting LINAC technology.

The hadron physics programme has requested investment in PANDA at FAIR and will make a request for
investment at Jefferson Laboratory. PANDA will be the most advanced antiproton annihilation experiment
world-wide to investigate, inter alia, the 3-dimensional structure of the nucleon and search for exotic
strongly interacting particles (hadrons). A SoI for UK investment in the new experimental facilities GlueX
and CLAS12 at the upgraded 12 GeV Jefferson Lab. SC electron accelerator is currently being prepared.

We note that all of these instruments being considered currently by the peer review process are essential for
the physics programmes at GSI/FAIR, SPIRAL, and Jefferson Lab. in the future. The activities at these fa-
cilities were recognised as high priority by PPAN based on their excellent track record and their potential for
truly revolutionary, breakthrough science. ISOLDE was regarded by PPAN as being potentially important
once the upgrade to HIE-ISOLDE was complete. The nuclear physics community regards these projects as
their highest priority for funding.

We recommend that, following the outcome of the peer review process, there is an investment in nu-
clear physics projects at these facilities. This is important to keep UK leadership and to ensure the UK
plays an influential role in the development of these facilities. The spend profile for this investment
should ensure that the instruments are developed on a timescale that ensures that they are ready at the
start of these new facilities.

    5. Reduction in funding for some projects to ensure increases for others
The nuclear physics activities in the priority list are essentially used for exploitation only.
We recommend that the Nuclear Physics Grants Panel makes its decision with physics quality being
the overriding and dominant factor.
Changes to timescales for projects
The Nuclear Physics Strategy included the following statement:
"The first priority of the UK Strategy is to ensure the continued vitality of the UK nuclear physics pro-
gramme by supporting the academic community to carry out world-leading experimental and theoretical re-
search. It is vital to invest in the manpower (postdoctoral researchers, professional support staff and re-
search students) to advance the programme."

We confirm our support for this statement and recommend that sufficient funds are made available in the
rolling grants round in order to achieve this.

The community is also asking for project funds in order to establish new instruments and capability for the
future. This funding will also ensure UK leadership roles and establish UK influence at major facilities.
We recommend a dialogue between the STFC and the community about the spending profile for this
funding in order to ensure the correct balance with the rolling grant round.

     6. What would you do with more money?
Should increased money become available we would see the funding of top-rated exploitation programmes
within the current NP rolling grants process that would not otherwise be funded within current funding con-
straints, as being the highest priority. These excellent science proposals, and the scientists themselves, are
core to providing a foundation for future scientific success at the major new facilities our community will be
working at in the next decade, such as the world-leading FAIR facility. The UK NP community is already
disproportionately small compared with its counterparts in France, Italy, and Germany. Cutting further into
the already dangerously low base of nuclear physics research and researchers (which is the likely effect of
projected funding outcomes in the rolling grant process), at the very time when the UK is going to require
increased training and expertise in this area, would appear a major strategic mistake for UK plc.

Should additional money become available for investment projects, we would recommend an increased fund-
ing commitment to the FAIR project at GSI. This is the highest priority of the UK Nuclear physics commu-
nity in the UK, and the highest priority for the NuPECC committee in its most recent recommendations for
new facilities in Europe. Moreover, it was top-ranked in the ESFRI process. FAIR is a world-leading,
broadly based, scientific facility, matching very well the strengths of the UK NP community. Increased sup-
port would enable the UK NP community to move forward from its current scientific leadership of several
key collaborations at FAIR, to the full implementation of these projects. Increased investment would also
provide a stronger overall strategic influence for the UK.

    7. Nuclear Physics, training and knowledge exchange

With the transfer from EPSRC, STFC has accepted stewardship of nuclear physics training for the UK. As
well as supporting the academic base, this also includes responsibility for training the personnel which the
UK needs for energy (the government has recently committed to new build and is concerned at the looming
skills shortage), medical radiation treatment (a shortage of trained physicists to operate recently installed fa-
cilities) and defence (a decision to renew Polaris and the need to train a new generation of physicists for the
government laboratories). Some years ago a report was prepared for EPSRC which showed the vital role that
the university NP groups provide in this training. There has not been time to update this, but we have sur-
veyed three of the largest groups to seek data on PhD destinations and the data from that (see below) sup-
ports the earlier survey. In the three groups surveyed, 55 PhD's had graduated in the last four years, of which
40% have gone into these three critical sectors (of which 48% to the power sector, 17% to the medical sector
and 35% to the defence sector). Of course, this does not include the large number (50+ per year) of MSc stu-
dents trained in nuclear power, radiation techniques and medical radiation in courses run by the nuclear
groups at Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Surrey - these have not been included as MSc provision is
not in STFC's remit, but clearly could not continue without the NP groups supported by STFC.

We would suggest to PPAN that some thought needs to be given to how STFC will exercise this vital stew-
ardship role of NP expertise and training in the UK. We note that it is an excellent example of how STFC is
supporting and benefiting UK plc - data which may be of use in preparing for the next CSR, when applica-
tions may be a key factor in government decisions on funding.
Annexe 1

Membership

P J Nolan, Liverpool chair
W Catford, Surrey
J L Durell, Manchester
P G Jones, Birmingham
G Rosner, Glasgow
J Simpson, Daresbury
P J Woods, Edinburgh

A meeting was held on 10th April 2008. All members were present.
(B R Fulton, York, was in attendance to advise on PPAN related issues).


Terms of Reference

To produce:

A report that digests and summarises the community input to the consultation

A commentary on the prioritisation of the projects

Recommendations on a course of action (could include):
   · Adjustment of priorities
   · Reduction in the funding of some projects to support increases to others
   · Changes in timescales for projects

What could be done with a modest increase in funding (to allow STFC to tension opportunities that may ex-
ist in different areas of its programme)?

In addition the group has been asked by PPAN to establish the priority of AGATA vis-à-vis other nuclear
physics priorities.