From: David Finley (finley@fnal.gov)
Date: Mon Apr 17 2006 - 14:42:42 CDT
Hi, Mike and Ed: This version, along with whatever modifications you deem
fit, will be fine with me. The point of the exercise is to send the letter.
Cheers. Dave.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard K. Yamamoto [mailto:rky@mit.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:32 PM
To: Jonathan Link
Cc: Mike Shaevitz; Braidwood Collaboration
Subject: Re: Alternative letter to P5
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 This talk was withdrawn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