From: Ed Blucher (blucher@hep.uchicago.edu)
Date: Mon Apr 17 2006 - 10:58:09 CDT
Dear Braidwood,
Here is a draft note to P5, largely based on a letter from Joe
Formaggio. Please send comments by 4 pm today. We sill send a revised
version to P5, probably with copies to HEPAP and NuSAG committee members.
Thanks.
Mike and Ed
Dear P5 Committee Members:
We are sincerely disappointmented by the recent decision to deny
both the Braidwood and Double-Chooz experiments research and
development funds to evaluate a future reaction neutrino experiment.
Our discomfort in the decision imposed on the two collaborations stems
not from the decision of whether one experiment is funded over the
other: each collaboration presents a strong case for making the
measurement. Our discomfort lies in the pre-emptive decision made by
choosing one experiment without a proper technical and cost-analysis
review of any of the experiments. It is the mandate of the community
that decisions of funding be based on both merit and cost. This indeed
was the recommendation of the NUSAG report. The recent decision,
however, completely disregards this approach, as the decision was made
before any proper technical/cost review was carried out.
It is imperative that the scientific community ensure that we do the
best science based on the physical and technical merits of a given
experiment. Society additionally requires that such projects be
carried out in a cost-effective manner. The importance of improved
US-China relations should not overide these two principles. We believe
the recent decision by the DOE to bypass this process is a bad precedent
for our community. We request that the decision regarding reactor
experiments be reconsidered, and that the original cost/technical
assessment be used as the judge of which experiment should be carried
forward.
Sincerely,
The Braidwood Collaboration
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Tue Apr 18 2006 - 03:10:19 CDT