Collaborations between University Groups and the Fermilab Accelerator Division

1. Collaborations between University Groups and theFermilab Accelerator Division

2. Purpose of Our Committee • Goal is to promote university collaboration on accelerator projects at Fermilab, and as a result accelerator science within the university community • This is an important goal for a few reasons • Consistent with tradition of user participation in delivery of their beams; resists ‘client/server’ relationship between HEP exp’ts. & Accel. Div. • Enhance the ‘pipeline’ of future accelerator physicists. • Prepare for some of the most demanding aspects for experiments in the HEP horizon • History of this committee • Initially discussed with the Director • Committee charged by Roger Dixon, Head, Accelerator Division • Roger invited us to explore issues outside Accel. Div. (Tech Div, …)

3. December 7, 2004 • Charge for the Committee on University/Accel. Div. Collaboration • The committee should investigate the feasibility and mechanisms of participation by university research groups, students and postdocs in Accelerator Division projects and tasks. The following topics should be explicitly addressed: • Who are the potential participants in these collaborations with the Accelerator Division? • What formal mechanisms, if any, should be put in place to encourage both the University groups and the Accelerator Division staff to participate in such collaborations? • What are the processes and organization needed to identify projects in the Accelerator Division and to match them with groups or individuals from Universities? • What are the characteristics of the projects needed to promote collaboration between university groups and the Accelerator Division • What is needed in order to satisfy the funding agencies that the University should be supported for this effort. • What is needed to satisfy the participants’ experimental collaborations that their Accelerator Division efforts are furthering their research goals? • Should the present Ph.D. program in the Accelerator Division be modified to include broader participation from the universities?

4. Committee Membership • Eric Prebys, FNAL • Head, Proton Source Dept. (AD) • MiniBooNE • Mike Syphers, FNAL • Integration Department (AD) • Chair Joint PhD Program Cmte. • Stephen Pordes, FNAL • Instrumentation Dept. (AD) • Vaia Papadimitriou, FNAL • Integration Department (AD) • CDF • Sacha Kopp, UT–Austin, chair • NuMI/MINOS • Jerry Blazey, NIU • Spokesperson of DØ • Director of NICADD • George Gollin, U. Illinois • Linear Collider R&D

5. Opportunities • Opportunities for accelerator R&D are on the horizon or already here: • Collider improvement ‘experiments’ • Commissioning high-intensity NuMI • “Proton Plan” – increased protons out of Booster/MI for neutrino and antiproton production • Superconducting Module Test Facility (SMTF) (1st step toward superconducting linac) • Proton Driver • Linear Collider • LHC Accelerator Research Project (“LARP”) • These kinds of projects can become real research paths for many university groups in HEP or accelerator physics or other fields.

6. Collaboration Benefits… …to the Lab • Intellectual contributions from faculty, postdocs, students • Expertise from wide array of university departments (mechanical engineering, materials science, …) • Opportunity to explore less programmatic R&D – speculative or long-term projects. …to the universities • Important sense of mission/value, demonstrable to research community, funding agencies, … • Success of the Lab intimately tied with future of university research • Accelerator topics of intrinsic interest • ‘Small-science’ training of students in ‘big-science’ setting.

7. Our Committee’s Activities • Survey of current efforts, FNAL, funding agencies • Meetings with Directorate • Survey of HEP spokespeople • Discussions with several university participants • Discussions with FNAL PhD advisors • Meetings with Technical Division regarding ILC, SMTF, PD • Advice from DOE, NSF • Attempted to engage the various communities that seek out this kind of collaboration: • Accelerator physics groups • HEP users who want to further their experiments • Materials science groups (SRF, AMO, AFM, …) • Discussions of some specific anecdotes from past collaborations • Attempt to learn what are the ‘disconnects’ • Draw lessons

8. Some Not-so-startling Lessons • Mutually agreed-on expectations of a project  crucial • Perceptions of ‘success’ or ‘failure’ different on FNAL/university side • Relative priority of a project has to be explicit • When is a product complete? • Specifications for device’s and group’s performance? • Transition from ‘vendor’ to ‘collaborator’ relationship • Significant AD FTE as coordinator, advocate • ‘Institutional commitment’ as compared to individual commitment • Many examples of final product being dropped, lack of use • What happens when student/postdoc moves on? • Need for ‘Service after sales’ by university group • Picking the right kind of project • Unfortunate examples of scale of project » scale of group • Examples of ‘grungy’ projects – not suitable science project

9. Some Not-so-startling Lessons • 10  (0.1FTE)  1.0 FTE • Collaborations require solid core group • This must come from the university group • All collaborations will have one non-equal partner: FNAL • University groups are proposal-driven; Lab is program-driven • Priorities of lab operations inevitably must prevail • Different resources of the lab vs. university groups • Opportunities for university groups to advance a project • Lab has had to prioritize projects (not all that are desirable are at the top of the list) given resources available. • Have an idea? Start prodding…

10. Our Recommendations • Each collaborative project should be modeled like an HEP experiment, covered by an MOU which discusses • Division of responsibilities between the Lab and the university, both in terms of manpower and finances. • A timetable with clearly defined milestones and deliverables. • A good faith estimate as to the ultimate disposition of the project; e.g. will it likely become part of standard operations or is it a more speculative R&D project? • A long term plan for support of the project, if appropriate. • A contact person, both from the Lab and from the university, which would be responsible for reporting on the status of the project and serve as points of contact. • Remedial actions to be taken in the event that schedules are not met.

11. Our Recommendations (cont’d) 2. Collaborations would benefit from specific encouragement for participation. This means active efforts to recruit collaborators early in the development process, rather than later when trying to fill specific roles. Some possibilities: • Holding workshops on new initiatives • Conducting lectures at experimenters’ collaboration meetings • Seeking out university partners to assume management responsibility • Establishment of an AD liaison to each experiment. • Maintain listof projects with potential for university collaboration. Side note: new projects are a prime source for university participation • Opportunity to contribute scientific/technical decisions • Opportunity to define tangible ‘widget’ which is univ’s responsibility • Specific funding more likely available • But it’s easy for these trains to leave the station without broad knowledge of their existence.

12. Our Recommendations (cont’d) 3. Collaborations would benefit from mentoring and oversight: • Technical progress best monitored within the Divisions (eg: mini-reviews conducted by non-participants) • Health of the collaborative partnerships monitored by a Directorate-level point of contact, coordinator, and advocate. • We suggest that this person organize a standing committee consisting of FNAL staff and university faculty to assist in that role. We feel that this individual must be at the Directorate level • Monitors progress, satisfaction of participants • Can coordinate activities across the span of the Lab (Tech Div, AD, PPD,…) • Acknowledge such activities to outside world • Advocate to funding agencies

13. Our Recommendations (cont’d) • Fermilab Joint PhD Program is a precious asset to developing collaborations. Its support from the Lab is essential. We suggested • Additional recruiting of students • Additional recruiting of FNAL mentors • Continued support for the U.S. Particle Accelerator School The committee notes that this program is an excellent opportunity to develop solid training of students. 5. Academic appointments very helpful in initiating collaborative partnerships (more long term than specific projects). • Guest scientists • Joint Academic appointments. • The committee learned of both (+) and (-) examples. Care to be taken that interests of candidates and the Lab mesh well. • The long-term advantage of such appointments is the development of a university program including postdoctoral fellows, students, etc.

14. Our Recommendations (cont’d) 6. Need to work with the funding agencies • For reference, there are a few of relevance here: • DoE HEP University Program • DoE Advanced Technology Program (accelerators) • NSF HEP • For trained accelerator physicists, such collaborative work falls mostly within their agencies’ mission (NB: projects on FNAL accelerators occasionally too ‘applied’ according to DOE/ATP) • For HEP collaborators, must educate agencies that such work is a valuable and necessary component of the development of future experiments (LHC, LC, neutrino experiments, …). • Our suggested high-level advocate from the Lab can help set a lot of context here

15. Summary • FNAL is a Users’ lab, a strong tradition that must be maintained • This cmte was opportunity to set up collaborative environment for future R&D. • Future accelerator projects will depend on significant participation by University groups for their success. Crucial for short- and long-term health of HEP. • This applies equally well to the LC, Neutrino Superbeams, Proton Driver, MiniBooNE, NuMI, LHC, Neutrino Factory, … • We value anyfurther input from User community in developing final recommendations. • Our committee has submitted a draft report to the AD (March 25, 2005), and has briefed Roger Dixon and Stephen Holmes. • We look forward to the next steps…