From: Richard K. Yamamoto (rky@mit.edu)
Date: Mon Apr 17 2006 - 14:31:30 CDT
It all sounds good, so Mike, Ed, please do what you think best with all
the comments. The main gist of the letter will remain solid with any/all
of the suggestions.
Best regards,
Dick
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Jonathan Link wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I think that we need some comment after the first sentence of the second
> paragraph explaining why this process is unhealthy for the high energy
> physics program. I would suggest some thing like:
>
> "When experiments are terminated without proper review or in a
> capricious or non-transparent manner, it has the tendency to stifle the
> creativity that is vital to the long term success of our science."
>
> -Jon
>
> Mike Shaevitz wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > This is an alternative letter mainly written by Janet and Mike S. to
> > send to P5.
> > Mike and Ed
> >
> >
> > Dear Members of P5,
> >
> > The Braidwood Collaboration was scheduled to present the
> > proposal for our
> > experiment to measure theta_13 at the P5 meeting on April
> > 18. This talk was withdrawn
> > because on April 13, the Braidwood Collaboration received
> > the attached
> > message from Robin Staffin at the Department of Energy
> > stating that a decision had been made not to support the R&D
> > for the Braidwood experiment.
> > This preemptive decision was made without a proper technical
> > and cost review of the experiments.
> > In fact, the input from the NuSAG report put the
> > Braidwood experiment at the same level or slightly in front
> > of the Daya Bay experiment in several ways. As outlined in
> > the message from Staffin, the DOE has made this decision
> > with the hope that "with strong project planning and
> > development, [Daya Bay] could be made technically feasible
> > and affordable." Thus, the decision to terminate Braidwood
> > was not based on a relative merit assessment of the two
> > experiments. The NuSAG and P5
> > committees were put in place to allow the scientific
> > community to have input into the approval and
> > prioritization of experiments like Braidwood. What has
> > occurred shows that this input is not being used or needed
> > by DOE management in developing our high energy physics program.
> >
> > Input from the scientific community is critical for the health of the
> > high energy physics program. We
> > ask that P5, in its role as the main advisory committee on the
> > content of
> > the U.S.
> > high energy physics
> > program, ensure that the competing reactor experiments
> > are properly peer reviewed with respect to scientific merit and cost.
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > The Braidwood Collabroation
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Tue Apr 18 2006 - 03:10:19 CDT