Q:
Isn't the overall scope of the funding, $875K/yr as proposed,
too large to be implemented in one year.
Q:
Why not support junior faculty through a RIKEN-like
program, rather than postdocs and students?
Q:
How can you ensure that the selection process is unbiased?
Q:
How will you ensure that the funded proposals are
sufficiently related to collider physics?
Q:
Is DOE involved?
A:
We propose to "ramp" up the program over 2 or 3 years,
to minimize the impact of the program. In addition, if current legislative
activities succeed, there should be an increase in the funding of basic
research at NSF overall -- which would allow
for the program to be fully funded without adversely effecting HEP
theory support at NSF. Finally, Joe Dehmer has stressed that making a
strong case for HEP theory could increase the amount of support
available to the program overall.
Back to top
Back to LHC-TI home page
A:
A RIKEN-like program, which would fund 50% of the salary of
a junior faculty member for the five-year probationary period of a tenure-
track apppointment (and corresponding research funding) would be prohibitively
expensive. In addition, NSF guidelines do not allow for funds to be used
to pay academic-year salary to faculty.
Junior faculty are eligible to nominate LHC graduate and postdoctoral
fellows -- selection of the fellow they nominated would be a demonstrable
success in tenure and reappointment considerations. Finally, the
dominant start-up expense for junior theorists is postdoc and student
support, which could be addressed through the fellowship program..
Back to top
Back to LHC-TI home page
A:
As proposed, a screening committee would be selected by the
LHC-TI steering committee, and members of the committee would be
ineligible to nominate fellows so long as they serve.
In addition, we propose to incorporate NSF panel-review of the selection
process. After the screening committee meets, its recommendations
will be forwarded to NSF as a "change of budget", along with a
rank-ordered list of all nominations and supporting materials.
Any change of budget can, at the discretion of the program officer,
trigger an external review if it involves a "change of scope." Fred
Cooper will then convene a review subpanel, governed by the standard NSF
rules, to review the selection process and make the final fellowship
selections. Such a process allows the (non-NSF) screening committee to
do most of the hard work -- sorting and grading nominations -- while
allowing for an NSF panel to validate the process and the selection.
Back to top
Back to LHC-TI home page
A:
It is important that the LHC-TI process have direct input
from US LHC experimentalists. We have added two more LHC
experimentalists, Tom LeCompte (Argonne, ATLAS) and Robin Erbacher (UC
Davis, CMS), to the Steering Committee.
In addition, we will have experimentalists on the screening committee
and -- we understand -- Fred Cooper would anticipate having
experimentalists serve on the NSF panel reviewing the selection process.
Back to top
Back to LHC-TI home page
A:
DOE believes that it can address the issue of LHC Theory
support through their base program. NSF support for theory has been, on
a per-theorist basis, less generous than DOE. This program provides an
avenue for increasing NSF support for HEP theory in a vital area and in
a manner which can be spread broadly throughout the program.
Back to top
Back to LHC-TI home page