Difficult budget times have already led to strong measures at Fermilab, with the Department of Energy canceling the BTeV experiment. Director Michael Witherell told a series of All-Hands Meetings on Thursday: "If the U.S. is to remain in the forefront of high-energy physics, we need a strong accelerator program, and that's clear to everyone in the field."

Witherell emphasized again that the loss of BTeV leaves the lab-and U.S. high-energy physics-with the Fermilab neutrino program as the only program operating at U.S. accelerators in FY2009. "We need a project to start in the next couple of

Director Mike Witherell addresses Fermilab's budget at an All-Hands Meeting on February 17, 2005. (Click on image for larger version.)

years," he said, adding that that DOE is encouraging the lab to offer near-term and mid-term plans. At the recent High-Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) meetings in Washington, Director of the Office of Science Ray Orbach described Fermilab as "the premier accelerator facility in high-energy physics." DOE Associate Director for High Energy Physics Robin Staffin stated that there might be funds available in coming years. Staffin also said DOE was "committed to Fermilab as one of the world's leading science facilities" with the "strongest possible future," and that the lab's Long Range Plan offered "a broad and exciting program for the next decade."

Witherell said the existing LRP provides a strong base but needs some updating. He said Fermilab would continue to ramp up R&D on the International Linear Collider (ILC) as quickly as possible, as recommended in the LRP. He pointed to the lab's step-by-step roadmap for neutrinos: accelerating plans for more protons to neutrino experiments; putting the NOVA off-axis neutrino experiment on a "fast decision track;" advancing the design of a proton driver, which would provide more intense neutrinos, and possibly a very long baseline neutrino experiment in the longer future. The physics case for the proton driver is being reviewed by an international advisory committee, and Witherell added that "results from MiniBooNE could change the neutrino picture, too." The short baseline neutrino experiment is promising "exciting results" for later in the year.

In response to small budget increases "well below inflation for the last six years," including the FY'06 budget, Witherell said there is a need for staff reductions, and he expects to make an announcement soon on that issue after working out details with DOE.

"Our view is not completely optimistic but is far from pessimistic," Witherell said. While needing to reexamine the lab's future in light of the BTeV decision, Witherell added: "We have a lot to work with. We remain the best high-energy physics program operating in the world, with a chance of making major discoveries."

Witherell emphasized the quality of the BTeV project, and the fact that the cancellation was a DOE decision. "BTeV provided as good a level of science value per dollar as anything out there," he said. "It was ready to go. I do not agree with the decision, but the DOE Office of Science determines the lab's program. BTeV needed a construction start in a budget that was bad generally for science. Ray Orbach gave the reason for the cancellation: 'There is just not enough money.' I want to express my admiration and respect for BTeV: they did a great job in difficult circumstances, and no one ever worked harder to advance a project. It's a difficult decision, but as a lab we have to accept it and move on."

Despite the budget outlook, Witherell listed the lab's accomplishments. "The good news is that we're doing extremely well on our program with the resources we have," he said. "Run II is providing good luminosity. Neutrinos were delivered on schedule to NuMI. MiniBooNE is running steadily and expects exciting results. We are meeting our commitments to CMS and LHC. We have established a particle astrophysics center. Our record for safety is the envy of the laboratory system. All these accomplishments are due to everyone in this room."

Following his presentation, Witherell responded to questions from the Ramsey Auditorium audience:

Question-and-Answer session

Q: CDF and DZero are scheduled to operate until 2009. What happens then?

A: BTeV was expected to operate at the Tevatron after 2009, but now it will not be there. Parts of the accelerator operations would not continue. We would continue to operate the accelerator complex through the Main Injector, but not the Tevatron or the Antiproton Source in that mode. We expect there to be new facilities, including the SMTF (Superconducting Module Test Facility), and perhaps a high-intensity neutrino source.

Q: Does this mean no opportunities for the participation of universities?

A: The tight budget constrains the field as a whole, and it really does not slice differently for universities and the labs. Universities have a large role in CMS, a small role in LHC accelerator, and a large role in particle astrophysics. The fraction of the DOE-HEP budget supporting work at universities has been quite constant. We're all going through this together, and we'll build the future together.

Mike Witherell

Q: Isn't it a narrowing of the field with only neutrino experiments at the accelerators after 2009?

A: Most of the experiments are neutrino experiments, and it does represent a narrowing of the field. The experiments with the most attention in advisory panels are neutrino experiments. But we do not rule out other experiments. We must develop the scientific interest for other experiments and sell them to the physics community, if they are sufficiently compelling.

Q: There was a dramatic contraction in the fusion program a few years back. How do we avoid that in high-energy physics?

A: The hope of a big U.S. commitment to ITER, the Tokamak reactor, collapsed back then. There was a strategic decision and funding was cut significantly. But this is unlikely to happen in our field. Even in this difficult budget time, John Marburger [Director of OSTP and science advisor to the president] says, "We fund $800 million to high-energy physics each year, and I don't think that is going to change in the foreseeable future." The bad news is that such a flat budget gives limited opportunity to do new things.

Q: The CKM experiment was approved, then removed by the P5 panel. How does that experiment compete now in this environment?

A: We don't want what happened to BTeV to happen with CKM. We want to make sure that if we go forward with something, we will have the funding. We would only put it forward if we had good reason to think it had a good opportunity to get funded.

Q: Is the ILC totally dependent on international collaboration?

A: The ILC is tied to an international agreement to build it. You can see that international relations are not exactly at their peak right now. In the past, science relations were not affected much by other political difficulties, even between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. As the last HEPAP panel says, we need to develop mid-size projects here while we're waiting for the ILC to evolve. We have more ideas than there is funding available. We need to determine which have the highest priority in the particle physics community.

Q: How was 2009 determined as the end date for Run II?

A: We set that date based on the expected evolution of the luminosity, the LHC schedule, and the anticipated move to BTeV. Now there's no BTeV. Now we will be looking at how the other two factors evolve over the next year.

Q: Is there recourse on the budget?

A: After the budget request, there is still a lot to do in Congress and that could affect the budget substantially. The best way to gain support for our budget is to continue to do very well what we're doing at the lab now.

Q: Will medical accelerators play a role in the lab's future?

A: This is quite different from the role of particle physics at the lab. Obviously, we have strong accelerator expertise, and a strong background with the Neutron Therapy Facility. We are working with Northern Illinois University, operating the present facility and looking to the future. NIU is proposing a new, larger facility, and we would be called on to work on it. They are applying now for funding to support that facility. Is developing medical accelerators something DOE could add to its core mission? That's a question for DOE to decide in the future.

Q: If the budget levels remain the same, will money for new projects have to come from money for research and operations?

A: The budget projections for the future are not better than the budget for FY'06, although projections can change. We have to think about how to shape the future of the field. Over the next few years we in particle physics will have to take money from operations and research, if we want to build anything new.