Patrick LooneyAssistant Director, Physical Science and Engineering

Office of Science & Technology PolicyExecutive Office of the President

Strategic Context for Gravitational Wave Astronomy

Internal

Research Program

(Competitive)

Agency

(Corporate)

Political

(Macro)

Government Environment for Research

Internal

Research Program

(Competitive)

Agency

(Corporate)

Political

(Macro)

Government Environment for Research

R&D Environment

(capacity & infrastructure)

• Capital (financial)

• Technology (Research Tools)

• People

• Legal (Policy, Leg. Regulation)

Societal Pull

(demands)

• {Homeland & National} Defense

• Energy

• Economic Security

• Health

• Environment

• Food/Water

• Exploration

Scientific Push

(opportunities)

• Bio (genomics, stem cells, etc),

• Materials Science (“nano”)

• IT

• Intersection of Physics and Astronomy

Political Factors Influencing the Direction of R&D

Historical Discretionary and R&D Spending

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

YEAR

R&

D (

$ B

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Dis

cre

tio

nary

($B

)

Total Discretionary

Total R&D

Defense

Non-Defense

R&D as a Share of Discretionary SpendingIt’s approximately constant over the last 40 years!

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002

R&D/ Discretionary, Civilian Civilian R&D share, excluding ApolloR&D/ Discretionary, Total Total R&D share, excluding Apollo

Trends in Nondefense R&D by Function, FY 1953-2004

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1953 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003

Fiscal Year

Bill

ions

(FY

96

dolla

rs)

Space (NASA)

Energy

Other

Natural Resourcesand Environment

General Science(NSF+atomic energy)

Health (total)

Large Projects in Discovery-Oriented Physical Sciences

Rules of Thumb

How big is it?

< $100Minteragency coordination probably not a requirementinternational participation probably not a requirement

mild political interest

$100M - $1B interagency coordination likely

international participation may be needed

moderate political interest

> $1B assume interagency and/or international planning & realization required

definite high-level political interest

Trends at the Political Level (3 – 10 years)

• R&D will capture 11% – 14% of the discretionary budget (~ $750M/yr)

• The mix of investments will change. Deliberations on how to fund research at the intersection of the life and physical sciences will come to the fore.

• There will be a growing emphasis on science for the public good.

• There will be a greater emphasis by the administration/congress on understanding what we are getting for our investment, minimize redundancy, maximize return on large existing investment base.

• There will be a greater emphasis on project risk management, longer lead time for project approval, more R&D.

Internal

Research Program

(Competitive)

Agency

(Corporate)

Political

(Macro)

Government Environment for Research

Agencies:

NASA, NSF, DOE

White HouseWhite House

EnergyEnergy CommerceCommerce USDAUSDADefenseDefenseEPAEPA DOTDOT

White House Offices

White House Offices

HHSHHSLaborLabor

NISTNISTScienceScience

TreasuryTreasuryEDED

NSF

MPS

NASA

Science

Agency Level Business Context

Independent Agencies

(not all)

Cabinet-Level Agencies

(not all)

Current NSTCStructure

Biotechnology

National Security R&D

Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures

International

Social, Behavioral & Econ.

Infrastructure

IWG on Dioxin

WMD Medical Countermeasures

Health and the Environment.

Oceans

WH: DaleDOD: WynneDHS: McQueary

WH: RussellDOC: Bond

WH: OlsenDOC: LautenbacherEPA: Gilman

NSTCDirector, OSTP

Technology Dev.

Nanoscale Science, Eng.& Technology

Aerospace

Networking Information & Technology

Under development

Informal

Legend

WH: OlsenNSF: ColwellNIH: Zerhouni

Aquaculture

Human Subjects Research

IWG Dom. Animal Genomics

IWG Plant Genome

IWG Physics of the Universe

Large Scale Science

Education & Workforce Dev.

Research Business Models

R&D Investment CriteriaResearch Misconduct Policy

Global Change Research

IWG Earth Observations

Disaster Reduction

Ecosystems

Toxics & Risks

Water Availability & Quality

Air Quality Research

Standards

Committee on Environment &

Natural Resources

Committee on Environment &

Natural Resources

Committee on Science

Committee on Technology

Committee on Homeland and

National Security

Trends at the Agency Level

• NASA– Exploration Vision: Major Organizational Changes.

– Return to Flight; ISS Core Complete: Costly!

– Hubble Servicing Mission: Costly, Scientific Return/$?

– Strong Budget Pressure to 2010.

– Earth observations?

• NSF– Continued pressure to plan large projects well.

– MRE Project Budget Pressure.

– Budget growth: moderate

• DOE– Yucca, Clean-Up, Weapons/Security, Energy Emphasized.

– Pressure on Office of Science (non-energy mission areas)

Agency Level – Large Scale Science

• LSS traditionally the realm of High Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, Astronomy and Space Science.

• These activities where born in a cold war era.

• Traditional fields have now ‘matured’ and motivations have changed.

• Balance of operations, research, new and existing facilities a chronic issue but serious issues loom for paths forward.

• Spin-offs from HEP and NP lead to the development of the highly successful materials characterization facilities. Not as mature - but similar stewardship issues exist.

• Computer, Microelectronics, IT & Networking advances in the 80’s and 90’s enabling new LSS Projects.

Environment for new “large scale science” programs:

• Large installed base of existing facilities - some may be under utilized, some may be redundant, some maybe a low priority for continuation, many need upgrades.

• Aging facilities consume budgets, prove difficult to close.

• Traditional fields (HEP, NP, AST) proposing a significant number of new facilities and asking for significant new $.

• Increased competition from emerging fields. Some will most certainly be deserving of funding.

• Significant increase in earmarking and lobbying activity in R&D funding. Re-adjudication of decisions and straight-up earmarking of facilities.

Agency Level Environment –

Trends: • Pressure to emphasize ‘relevant’ research. • Pure discovery will grow more slowly than ‘relevant’. It is most likely that it

will not decline. • Advisory Committees propose more facility concepts than budget growth

will support (by factors of 2 – 4). Not all will be funded.

Consequences:• Programs managed by objective. (What are the goals? How do you select

research areas?)

• Program activities are placed in a broader (scientific/technological) context.

• Programs and activities coordinated across the government

• Programs planned using reasonable budget scenarios.

• Needs for machines, instruments, specialized facilities derived directly from objectives.

• Programs work to place themselves in national & international context.

• Working to minimize redundancy, low priority activities or programs that do not make a superior contribution.

Internal

Research Program

(Competitive)

Agency

(Corporate)

Political

(Macro)

Government Environment for Research

Decadal Survey: The Bible

• Taken seriously by OSTP, OMB, Agencies, Hill

•Sets Community Priorities

• Provides a roadmap for large facilities

• No other community has been able to achieve this level of planning

• Assumed SM-4 was a given.

• Does not prioritize large vs medium vs small

• Exploration impact on implementation may be significant

•Coordination is needed to be most effective.

“a new coordination and planning process is called for that should bring together all of the federal supporters of astronomy and astrophysics for the first time, the committee believes that the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget are the proper government entities to supervise the establishment of such a process.”

HR 4664 and the AAAC

SEC. 23. ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall jointly establish an

Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Advisory Committee’’).

(b) DUTIES.—The Advisory Committee shall—

(1) assess, and make recommendations regarding, the coordination of astronomy and astrophysics programs of the Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;

(2) assess, and make recommendations regarding, the status of the activities of the Foundation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as they relate to the recommendations contained in the National Research Council’s 2001 report entitled ‘‘Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium’’, and the recommendations contained in subsequent National Research Council reports of a similar nature;

(f) COORDINATION.—The Advisory Committee shall coordinate with the advisory bodies of other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Energy, which may engage in related research activities.

Trends at the Agency Level

• NSF– Physics:

• LIGO: Mutli-year Ops at design sensitivity• Adv Ligo Approved by NSB for 2007 start. • GRID Computing

– Astronomy• NSF Building Ground Based Telescopes? (public-private partnerships)

• DOE– High End Computing Initiative, INCITE Program (Open Competition for

NERSC Time)

– Theoretical/Experimental work in unification.

– Increased investments in space-based probes for cosmology/astrophysics (dark energy, dark matter, astrophysical processes of relevance to HEP/NP)

Trends at the Agency Level

• NASA– Beyond Einstein de-emphasized and pushed out. Not eliminated.

– LISA: agreement with ESA adds resilience to budget forces.

– Con-X: budget pressure remains high.

• Emphasis on Cooperation and Coordination of Research Programs– NASA and NSF Astronomy Programs

– DOE expertise and mission need to use the laboratory of the cosmos

– Coordination of Advice: AAAC

Co-chairs: Anne Kinney, Joe Dehmer, Robin Staffin (Peter Rosen)

Participation:

NASA OSS

NSF (Astronomy, Physics, Office of Polar Programs),

DOE

High Energy Physics

Nuclear Physics

Fusion Energy Science

NNSA

OSTP, OMB

NSTC IWG on The Physics of the Universe

1. What is the Dark Matter?

2. What is Dark Energy?

3. How did the Universe Begin?

4. Did Einstein have the last word on gravity?

5. What are the masses of the neutrinos and how have they shaped our universe?

6. How do cosmic accelerators work and what are they accelerating?

7. Are protons unstable?

8. What are new states of matter at exceedingly high density and temperature? (HED)

9. Are there additional space-time dimensions?

10. How were elements from iron to uranium made?

11. Is a new theory of matter and light needed at the highest energies?

Quarks to the Cosmos ReportQuarks to the Cosmos Report

• What are the approaches to answers?

• What suite of tools are needed?

• What are the highest priorities?

• What are the “tall pole” policy issues?

• Define steward agencies for fields and tools.

• Define who will do what and when (as best we can).

• Bring items up for a decision in a timely manner.

Response to Quarks to the CosmosResponse to Quarks to the Cosmos

POU Investment Priorities: ProcessPOU Investment Priorities: Process

• Develop inventory of current investments.

• Prioritize the 11 scientific questions using:

• potential for scientific advancement

• timeliness for the investment

• technical readiness of projects

• existence of gaps in current investments

POU: Prioritization of Recommendations

• Use questions prioritized in terms of investment priority.

• Sort or group questions into themes that are programmatically linked across agencies (e.g. dark matter, neutrinos, proton decay).

• Develop recommended actions for each theme area (across agencies)

• Assess programmatic readiness to proceed.

• Grouped into:

• Directions known.

• Roadmap/flesh out areas in more detail.

ONP OHEP NSF NASA

NSAC SEUSAAACHEPAP

NeutrinoPhysics

AcceleratorBased High

Energy Physics

Dark EnergyDark Matter

High Energy Particle

Astrophysics

Emerging Scheme for Coordination of Advisory Committee Activities

• What are the driving scientific questions for the field? • Are the questions interesting or important?• How do these questions fit into the larger picture of science?• How will this program address the driving questions?• Is the program plan a national plan rather than an agency plan? • What are the priorities for this plan? • How will this program plan impact the elements of the field? • Is the planning realistic? ($, time, available technologies,

management) • What is the international context? Are there redundancies? Is

there an international vision/consensus?

• Will this impact or strengthen other programs or related activities (across the Government) ?(if so, is there demonstrated coordination with these other programs?)

• How has the program been managing and performing with the current funds?

Some of the questions that will be asked: