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?– ......

COUNCIL

CEO

Science Board

Financial and scientific tensioning

Long Term Planning

OPTIONS

Physical and Life Sciences Committee

Prioritize, Filter, Sort, Peer Review where appropriate

Science Advisory Science Advisory StructureStructure

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

International Advisory Committee

OPTIONS

Science Programme Office

committees and peer review

Science Board

PPAN PALS

AGP PPRP etc.

PPGP

NPGPASTAB

Accelerator Science and Technology Advisory Board

Still to be finalisedScope of PPRP?Separate panel for R&D?

new

Nominations receivedand being processed

PPAN Science Committee System~120 SoIs since start of new process

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

Prioritize new proposals against existing projects to aid in final decision. Focus on scientific impact and UK leadership

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

CEO approves the project

to SB

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…)