October 2009 Archives

President Obama's 28 October announcement of $3.4 billion in grants to begin a major upgrading of the US electricity grid came a day after the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA–E) grant program at the Department of Energy (DOE) named the winners of its first $151 million in grants to support 37 high-risk research projects that could advance novel clean-energy technologies.

The 100 "smart grid" grants will begin a modernization of the US electrical generation, transmission, and distribution system—a process that when completed will save consumers $20 billion over 10 years on their utility bills, Obama said. Ranging from $200 million to less than $1 million, the awards will pay for utilities to install 18 million "smart" meters, covering 13% of US homes—devices that will allow customers to monitor their electricity use in real time, and as utilities begin to move to dynamic electricity pricing, to program new smart appliances to operate when rates are low.

The awards will also pay for the replacement of 200,000 transformers and the automation of 700 substations—5% of the US total—improvements that will allow utilities to respond faster and more effectively to restore service after power interruptions. More than 850 sensors called phasor measurement units are to be installed, providing improved monitoring of conditions on the grid and helping prevent minor disturbances from cascading into power outages or blackouts. Awardees, who were chosen from 400 grant applicants, are putting up another $4.7 billion of their own capital for the grid upgrades.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu traveled to Google Inc's Mountain View, California, headquarters to unveil the ARPA–E grants, which are to support R&D for especially high-risk, but potentially high-payoff concepts for producing clean energy. All 37 awards went for projects proposed by universities or to small and large companies, though a number of DOE national laboratories were teamed with awardees. ARPA–E will award its remaining fiscal year 2010 funding of $249 million through a second solicitation later this year. As with the smart grid program, ARPA–E's resources are from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

"We're here to announce a portfolio of bold new research projects, any one of which could do for energy what Google did for the Internet," Chu said. Renewable energy, energy storage, industrial and building efficiency, petroleum-free vehicles, and carbon capture are all represented. DOE received 3700 responses—"a stunning level of interest"—Chu said, when it first solicited expressions of interest in the ARPA–E program in April. The agency invited 300 of those to submit full proposals, which were put before 500 expert reviewers.

David Kramer

High-energy physics and the Large Hadron Collider in particular were put under intense scrutiny at a hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Science and Technology Committee earlier this month (video available).

Money spent on the LHC was compared to that of the never-completed Superconducting Super Collider (SSC). The taxpayer had "got nothing really out of it," said subcommittee chairman Brian Baird (D-WA). (See video at the 1:15:00 mark)

Baird then described the "tremendous" amount of money contributed to the LHC and how it failed to operate properly, adding "we put a hell of a lot of money into this thing on the promise that certain things would be achieved and now it's not going to be achieved."

Baird predicted that investigations would have been undertaken and oversight hearings convened if this had occurred in any other US government program. "You get to skate, partially because you know stuff that we don't have a clue what you are doing," he said. "And I think that's neat. I admire your knowledge, I admire your intellect."

Baird said it was a member's responsibility to ensure that federal revenue is well spent, saying that constituents' taxes allocated to research facilities like the LHC could have been used for a child's education, a new car, or to repair a roof.

Money used on "big gizmos," said Baird, could be spent on programs with a more immediate and a more direct benefit to a society. Besides curiosity, "how can this spending be rationalized?" he asked.

The witnesses respond

"It really has to be justified by the results," said Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory director Pier Oddone, one of four witnesses testifying in the hearing.

"I completely agree with you that our field is in deep, deep trouble globally if we do not deliver on the LHC," Oddone said, adding "our intent is absolutely to deliver." In a reference to Christopher Columbus's unexpected discovery, he added, "we may be going toward the spices in India, but we may run into America."

Another witness, Dennis Kovar, the director of the DOE High Energy Physics Program, responded that the US contribution to the LHC was working as designed, and under the Office of Science's project management practices, was on cost and on schedule.

He said the LHC was a very complicated machine that is defining the state of the art, and as such is a "high risk." While acknowledging that it is "not good right now," Kovar said that there is "the expectation that it is going to run at some point."

A larger problem, Kovar stated, was the difficulty of better documenting and communicating the value of highly technical research performed at facilities such as the LHC to the larger public.

People need to better experience science, he said. Among immediate gains from US participation in the LHC are advances in US technology, the training of a workforce that goes on to work in many areas, and the appeal of cutting-edge discoveries to the public.

Hugh Montgomery, director of the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility described how metrics have measured the success of accelerator performance at Jefferson National Laboratory, Fermilab's Tevatron, SLAC's B Factory, and Brookhaven's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. "You are getting real scientific measurements and return on your dollars in general," he told Baird.

Lisa Randall from Harvard University expressed disappointment that the SSC was not completed, and assured Baird that it was only a question of time before the LHC would be operating. Governments, she said, were the only source of funding for cutting-edge basic research of this type.

The role of physics

Earlier in the hearing, the witnesses discussed the likelihood of profound consequences from future discoveries in high-energy and nuclear physics research, expressed concern over the number of US high-energy physics facilities that were closing, and emphasized the necessity of maintaining US leadership in the area.

In response to Rep. Daniel Lipinski's (D-IL) observation that research in these fields is expensive and that more needs to be done to better communicate its results, the witnesses spoke of the importance of the media and other programs to engage the public. Oddone and Montgomery described the public's enthusiastic response to outreach and teacher education programs at their laboratories.

Kovar expressed concern that advances in accelerator technology have moved overseas, and with it the vendors who provide develop them.

It was, Kovar said, extremely important for the US to maintain its leadership in these fields.

Other witnesses explained how the construction of accelerators in the US has strengthened domestic technologies leading to advances in areas such as the web and medicine. Laboratories serve as "the great attractors," said Montgomery, drawing the world's best scientists to the US.

The subcommittee continues its work on a reauthorization bill for DOE's science programs over the coming weeks.

Originally published as FYI's Questions Raised About DOE High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics Programs by Richard M. Jones.
Edited for Physics Today by Paul Guinnessy.

On 2 October, 100 Russian researchers who permanently work abroad published a letter, in the leading Moscow business newspaper Vedomosti, complaining of "the disastrous situation in Russian basic research," reports Science and Radio Free Europe.

Official Russian statistics suggest that 25,000 scientists emigrated from Russia between 1989 and 2004, and another 30,000 went abroad under temporary contracts says the newswire service RIA Novosti. Independent reports estimate at least 80,000 emigrated in the early 1990s alone.

According to Russian president Dmitry Medvedev's press office, Medvedev responded by initiating work on a plan for developing Russian science.

Both Medvedev and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have called for increased science investment in the last year, triggered in part by the US stimulus bill which channeled billions of dollars to basic research.

Medvedev's visibility with science investment increased recently when he opened the Second International Forum on Nanotechnology held in Moscow, which was attended by a number of government officials.

In his speech, Medvedev said that Russia had all the intellectual, organizational and financial resources necessary to become a leader in nanotechnology by investing $10.5 billion of government funding over the next few years to 2015.

Medvedev praised the university system, suggesting that it represents "a genuine potential advantage" compared with international competitors.

He also stated that Russia needs to facilitate the return of researchers who fled the country and create favorable conditions for research, and expressed concern how Russia will train up the 100 000–150 000 workforce needed for nanotechnology.

"It is obvious that we need modern, informed, qualified professionals in this [nanotech] field, people who have been trained in the new programs.... If the existing nomenclature of specializations does not provide the capabilities we need, then we simply need to change it and to prepare the sort of professionals that we do need," he said. "A shortage of personnel remains a serious barrier to Russia's serious engagement in nanotechnology."

Paul Guinnessy

Tonight, the U.S. Senate confirmed two more senior appointees: Marcia McNutt as director of the United States Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, and Arun Majumdar as director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, Department of Energy.

The National Science Foundation (NSF)'s Advisory Committee for Geosciences (AC-GEO) has released a new report that calls for re-focusing research in the geosciences in the US.

"For most of its history Earth has experienced vast alterations," states the report, "in response to natural variations in our planet." But humans are now emerging as the dominant agent of change it says.

"It is essential going forward that we have the scientific tools and evidence to understand and anticipate how the Earth will be transformed in the future, and at what rate, in response to these growing pressures," says geoscientist George Davis of the University of Arizona, chair of the AC-GEO.

"To identify these influences and their potential impacts requires an understanding of the Earth, its history, and its systems that's grounded in basic science," he adds.

The report recommends that NSF coordinate US research into these areas. "The [NSF] geosciences directorate must engage other NSF directorates and external partners in an ambitious research program that furthers our understanding of Earth, and provides the basis for objective and sound policy formulation and decision-making," says NSF director Arden L. Bement, Jr.

The challenges ahead for the geosciences, says the report, are:

"We as geoscientists must work to meet the challenge of understanding [the Earth's dynamic and complex interactions], and use that knowledge to advance our [governmental] stewardship of its systems," says Tim Killeen, NSF assistant director for geosciences.

Society as a whole must learn to use a grounded and rational set of guidelines for making decisions regarding environmental and resource management says the report, and "leading many of those discussions will be geoscientists ... who will share their understanding of the Earth system with the public and with decision-makers, providing the scientific knowledge that will ultimately guide society as it comes to understand its evolving relationship with the planet."

The AC-GEO's recommendations for NSF's directorate for geosciences, which has three divisions--atmospheric and geospace sciences; earth sciences; and ocean sciences—are to:

"We as a society face a daunting task," says Killeen. "Through the help of [this report], we will make great strides in realizing a new vision for the geosciences—and for the future of our planet.

Paul Guinnessy

Physics Today: Johns Hopkins University is again the leading US academic institution in total research and development spending for the 30th year in a row, according to a new the latest annual NSF Survey of Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges.

The total funding ranking includes research support not only from federal agencies, but also from foundations, industry and other sources.

The university pulled in $1.68 billion in medical, science and engineering research in fiscal 2008, half of which was based at the Applied Physics Laboratory. Since NSF changed its methodology in 1979 to include spending by the Applied Physics Laboratory in the university’s totals, the university has remained top of the list.

APL employs 4,300 people working specifically on some 400 R&D projects with annual funding of about $800 million.

The institutions ranked second through fifth—University of California at San Francisco; University of Wisconsin at Madison; University of Michigan and UCLA—all reported spending in the $800 million to $900 million range.

Top of the federal list

Johns Hopkins also ranked first on the NSF’s separate list of federally funded research and development, spending $1.42 billion in FY2008 on research supported by NSF, NASA, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense.

"More than half of our annual expenditures is invested in research," said Lloyd Minor, provost and senior vice president of academic affairs at Johns Hopkins. "Our success in attracting external research support is a testament to the talent, dedication and leadership of the faculty, staff and students."

In FY2010, positions on the list may change slightly due to the heavy investment in R&D as part of the administration's billion dollar stimulus package.

Virginia Tech dropped from 42nd to 46th out of 679 universities, not because of a lack of funding—which increased by $7 million to $373 million in 2008—, but because funding increased more dramatically at other institutions.

"While our overall growth was below our goals, the areas that account for competitive research awards continued to grow," said Robert Walters, vice president for research. "We increased our external federal funding by more than 5 percent and our industry funding by almost 20 percent. In the current economy, those numbers are encouraging."

Paul Guinnessy

Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, one of the winners of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, has attacked UK government plans to divert research funding from basic science into projects that are expected to have a quick financial payoff, says the Guardian.

The shakeup in science funding announced earlier this year is a "huge mistake" that jeopardizes the UK's ability to make discoveries needed to drive technological progress, said Ramakrishnan.

Ramakrishnan moved to the UK from the US 10 years ago to join the Medical Research Council's Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) in Cambridge.

Physics Today: An article in the London Times that suggesting the UK was considering pulling out of the CERN has caused consternation in the physics community, and denials from the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), but a review of the UK's science expenditure is ongoing.

The Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) has suffered from a financial crisis caused by over-spending on some high-profile projects such as the Diamond synchrotron light source. In response, STFC has cut back some grants and support for some facilities, and is conducting a major science review through its advisory panels, and with input from the science community and STFC's international partners. The report is due in December. The STFC has "to live within constrained budgets if need be, and to diversify our funding base," says STFC's Keith Mason.

A misquoted article

The Times article misquoted the STFC's chief operating officer Richard Wade, says Mason and took other comments out of context.

The UK's agreement with CERN is governed by an international treaty, and could only be changed with UK Government approval and with consultation with the other CERN partners, it cannot be made unilaterally by the STFC alone. It was the strength of this international agreement that during the 1980s, protected the UK's particle physics community's membership of CERN but also allowed the UK to negotiate a reduction in its membership fees.

CERN membership did however, have a knock on effect of leading to cuts in other areas of UK particle physics.

A vision for today

"The STFC's position in relation to the LHC is made clear in our July vision document," says Mason, "which states that 'our highest priority in particle physics is to exploit the Large Hadron Collider at CERN'."

The vision document also says that the UK's highest priorities in ground-based astronomy is to exploit membership of the European Southern Observatory, which gives access to the Very Large Telescope and to the ALMA millimeter astronomy array, and to carry out R&D towards the next generation European Extremely Large Telescope. The UK is also heavily involved in the proposed Square Kilometer Array radio telescope.

A bleak UK budget

However, the public sector, which funds the majority of research in the UK, is expected to suffer significant cuts next year because of the recession. The ongoing science review will "ensure STFC is prudently prepared for the tougher budget environment," says Mason, and "ask tough questions about the future direction of our science and technology program, including the balance between [science] disciplines."

The consultation encompasses all of STFC's programs, and includes an examination of the cost-effectiveness of international subscriptions, including CERN, the European Southern Observatory, the ILL neutron source and others.

"All UK publicly-funded bodies have a responsibility to ensure value-for-money," says Mason, "and STFC has discussed with our international partners the need to restrain costs and, if possible, reduce expenditure."

The next few months will be challenging says Mason, "but an exciting opportunity [for STFC] to set the course for the future."

Paul Guinnessy