RE: Alternative letter to P5

From: Hahn, Richard (
Date: Mon Apr 17 2006 - 16:37:14 CDT

I think that Jon's suggested addition is valuable. However, I would delete the words "a capricious", so the sentence reads "...without proper review or in a non-transparent manner...". There is no sense in ticking off the OHEP people. We will have to deal with them in the future.


From: Jonathan Link []
Sent: Mon 4/17/2006 3:05 PM
To: Mike Shaevitz
Cc: Braidwood Collaboration
Subject: Re: Alternative letter to P5

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."


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 This talk was withdrawn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 : Thu Apr 20 2006 - 03:10:15 CDT