Sean Freeman The University of Manchester Update from Science Board Particle Physics Advisory Panel Meeting July 2017 A brief update on recent activities since PPAP Meeting in July 2016. Sean Freeman The University of Manchester

Science Board The abridged version: Scientific overview, assessment and advice Marco Borghesi, Queen’s University Belfast Richard Harrison, STFC RAL João Cabral, Imperial College London Chris Hawes, Oxford Brooks Peter Clarke, University of Edinburgh Ofer Lahav, University College London Bill David, University of Oxford and RAL Jayne Lawrence (Deputy Chair) King’s College London Christine Davies, University of Glasgow Andy Parker, University of Cambridge Rory Duncan, Heriot Watt University Don Pollacco, University of Warwick Sean Freeman (Chair) University of Manchester Tara Shears, University of Liverpool Jon Goff, Royal Holloway University of London Chick Wilson, University of Bath Change of ~¼ of the core membership for the October meeting with same chair and deputy chair. Plus a college of 32 Non-Core SB members Interact with the communities via the Advisory Panels STFC Office Contact for Science Board: Trish Mullins

Environment: CSR-2016, UKRI and BREXIT. Pretty much the same slide as July 2016 – given the events that have happened and the number of debates, still strangely appropriate – updates in italics Environment: CSR-2016, UKRI and BREXIT. CSR-2016 (relative calibration) – pretty good compared to other areas of Government. CSR-2016 (absolute calibration) – disappointing, core of Science Budget essentially flat cash for four years, with still only indicative budgets for last two years. Growth in Science Budget has ODA requirements – Newton and Global Research Challenges Fund (GCRF). Further growth in Science Budget also has (industrial) requirements – Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (ISCF) Turbulence – BREXIT Referendum. – Another change in Government; albeit still the same minister. – Changes in the landscape with UKRI. Financial constraints are still very tough – need to thoroughly understand the implications. Careful strategic planning: ensure strong consistent messages and direction during a period of change.

What has Science Board considered since last summer? We do talk across the whole of STFC activities including astronomy, space science, nuclear physics, neutron facilities, light sources… Some common threads in SB discussions have been: Excellence of the science that is being done across the whole programme. The increasing importance of computing (HPC, HTP, data analytics…) in most areas. Extreme difficulties of flat cash – lack of resource is really biting. Worries about maintaining an already very focussed programme and making sure that new opportunities are realised. Stark contrast between an unprecedented increase in the Science Budget and RCUK Core Programmes under unprecedented financial pressure. Concern and uncertainty over BREXIT. …but here concentrate on topics relevant to particle physics.

Advisory Panel Discussions and Input SB discussed recent AP activities with: Patrick Sutton, Chair of the Particle Astrophysics AP Claire Shepherd-Themistocleous, Chair of the Particle Physics AP, Stephen Fairhurst, Chair for the Computing AP. They discussed aspects of the associated programmes, emerging opportunities and issues. They also contributed community inputs to the SB sub-group working on the Balance of Programmes.

Reviews LHC Detector Phase II Upgrade Tensioning Review: Strategic importance, timeliness and impact of ATLAS and CMS Phase II Upgrades. Both ATLAS and CMS Phase II Upgrade proposals should proceed to Projects Peer Review Panel (PPRP) in 2017 at indicative planning lines previously determined. SB noted that the evolving financial landscape may require revision of these plans in the future. Long Baseline Neutrino Experiments Strategic Review: Strategic importance, timeliness and impact of DUNE and Hyper-K. Recommended that both “pre-construction” phases proceed through Project Peer Review in 2017. SB noted that decisions on construction phases will be needed in 2019 – a further review may be needed in 2018. SB noted that these two areas had commitment from large fractions of the particle-physics community, but these plans would reduce the flexibility of the programme to invest in new development projects over the next five years.

Reviews Updates Review of Accelerator Institutes: Strategic importance, timeliness and impact of John Adams and Cockcroft Institutes. Identified the unique strengths of each institute and synergies between the two. High-Level Strategy for RAL Particle Physics Department: SB received a report on the high-level strategy for PPD, presented at the December meeting by David Wark (Director of PPD) - SB passed on comments and suggestions. Updates SB are regularly updated and kept well informed about the status of projects and facilities. In addition, SB received specific updates this year on HPC/HTC, status of the MICE experiment, the work of the Accelerator Strategy Board and UK industrial engagement at CERN.

Exploitation Grants Theoretical Particle Physics Consolidated Grants: PPGP(T) 2016 round outcome announced last year for funding period Oct 2017 to Sept 2020. Included review of funding for IPPP for period Oct 2018 to Sept 2020 – tensioned with PPGP(T) grants to help ensure optimal balance of programme within the available funding. With a non-indexed flat cash budget, not possible to maintain a constant volume of research; despite a strong programme of proposed work with high international calibre. Particle Physics Capital Grants Round 2016: Distributed around £1.5M capital funds over three years. Experimental Particle Physics Consolidated Grants Round 2018: Begins in October 2017 with review undertaken during 2018 – Tony will say more.

Project Peer Review Projects reviewed during 2016: ATLAS Phase II Upgrade (Bridging). Proto-DUNE. Currently proceeding through project review: DUNE – PPRP report considered at last meeting. Hyper-K – PPRP report considered at last meeting. ATLAS Phase II Upgrade – with PPRP. CMS Phase II Upgrade – considered SoI in April, now with PPRP. Unfortunately unable to support other recently proposed projects despite their high scientific quality.

Computing Reviews Studentships Two computing-related discussions at the most recent SB meeting: Science Board discussed and gave comments on a draft of the STFC e-infrastructure strategy – report identifies key e-infrastructure challenges facing STFC and UK research and how these might be tackled. Intended as input into a UK-wide e-infrastructure strategy and investment roadmap. DiRAC 2.5 Operations Review – aimed at enabling the collaboration to prioritise its activities, and to consider how to maximise UK capability and leadership, within a defined funding envelope while supporting the STFC computing programme. Studentships Although strictly under the remit of SEAB and ETCC, the additional CDT studentships funded by the industrial strategy funds announced in AS2016 will be of benefit to the research programme.

PPAN Balance of Programmes SB sub-panel chaired by Professor Richard Harrison (RAL Space) composed of SB core and non-core members. Discussed with Science Board at various points during 2016-17. Excellent world-leading science across the whole of the PPAN programme. Exploitation funding a priority in all areas. Uncertainty in financial landscape introduces risk into the support for ATLAS and CMS Phase II Upgrades and into maintaining leadership in DUNE and Hyper-K. Accompanying difficulties in maintaining diversity in the PP programmes. Report made public in late spring. Shared with Council in March and with STFC Executive for detailed response – further discussion planned at next SB.

Discipline Evaluations The new approach to reviewing and evaluating the STFC PPAN Programme consists of a series of specific discipline evaluations followed by a look at the balance in the programme every three years. The BoP was the initial step towards this – three years since the Programmatic Review and financial pressures have grown, necessitating the BoP. Over the next 18 months, the following PPAN areas will be considered in detail – particle physics, astronomy, nuclear physics, accelerators and PPAN computing The details of the evaluation plan are being worked on, but more in-depth information to be gathered to: establish the strengths and opportunities in each specific fields. the size and balance of funding within each area. outline the requirements for future projects to allow decisions regarding tensioning. The evaluations will be designed to enable standardised information from the various scientific disciplines to be used together with the Programme Evaluation report to inform the next Balance of Programmes exercise.

= doing great science! 2013 Astro PP NP 2555 1379 496 3 4 7 17.80 No. of publications 2555 1379 496 UK position 3 4 7 Citation impact (CI) 17.80 14.90 15.40 1 Normalised CI 1.48 1.73 3.10 2 “Our latest publication and citation analysis, conducted by Thomson Reuters, shows the UK is ranked first in the world for astronomy, particle physics and nuclear physics when the Citations Impact and Normalised Citation Impact are measured and averaged over the period 2008-2013. “ = doing great science!

Some final thoughts… ALL STFC PPAN Programmes are making a strong impact: excellent publications, strong leadership, important non-academic “impact”. Core of the Science Budget is still flat cash – utterly toxic. “Keep them lean – keep them mean” is not sustainable. Careful arguments – overall money for science has unprecedented increases. STFC-supported science and facilities: “uniquely” international, “uniquely” collaborative, “uniquely” long time scales. This needs emphasis within UKRI. Lots of strings with ISCF and GCRF – needs creative thinking to access them, but they aren’t a replacement for core science funding. There’s a lot going on – keep doing excellent science. That is the essential part of any strong funding argument whether to a call, a funding agency or a government.