Shapiro obviously learned well, delivering one powerful point after another in his explication and observations on the report of the National Academies' EPP2010 panel, which he chaired, and which he is presenting around the country. He says he didn't especially like the title: "Revealing the Hidden Nature of Space and Time: Charting the Course for Elementary Particle Physics." But when he raised the point with reviewers, he said he was told: "It's too late not to like the title. It's already been approved."

Shapiro's candid, forthright presentation opened with the disclaimer (on a slide) that he was making "Informal Personal Observations (not approved by the National Academy of Sciences or the National Research Council)." His personal conclusions behind the report's official conclusions underscored the "current crisis in experimental particle physics." He declared, "It's hard to overestimate the critical nature of the next few years."

The challenge, Shapiro said, is to reverse the momentum of a program "that seems to be executing an exit strategy." He emphasized that especially at Fermilab, there were "very exciting experiments" being conducted. "But taking the longer view, as an outsider," he continued, "particle physics in this country does seem to be executing an exit strategy. To explain what I mean by an exit strategy: There is no compelling follow-on program established once the current program comes to an end."

A key beginning question and a major issue for the 20-member panel, Shapiro said, was to determine whether particle physics still "mattered:" how important was the field as an element of public policy? Should the country continue to invest in the field, or were there better scientific opportunities elsewhere? Shapiro said the panel concluded that particle physics was a critical component of the physical sciences, and that it was entering its most exciting era in at least a generation. He added: "It was not trivial for the committee to reach this conclusion!"

Shapiro said the committee's work encompassed an "incredible intellectual journey" for someone outside the field. "I developed as much passion for particle physics as an outsider can probably have," he said. The context of the report was established as the scientific opportunities in the US program and in programs abroad. The report would aim to establish strategic principles and an alternative set of priorities, while making reasonable budget assumptions.

The committee became quickly concerned over the status of the US program, Shapiro said: stagnant funding support over the past 10 years; the "center of gravity" moving abroad; the major experiments near the ends of their scientific lifetimes, and no clear follow-on plan in place. The committee saw a significant risk of losing substantial intellectual and financial resources. "And if you think our [recommended] plan is risky," Shapiro said, "it's nowhere near as risky as continuing where we are now."

The committee clearly saw that US leadership status was at stake. "By leadership, we don't mean dominating everyone else," Shapiro explained. "Leadership means being among the leaders: could we remain there? Leadership is very important to realize the intellectual, economic, social and cultural dividends from the public investment. We concluded that the US should aspire to a leadership role: not in terms of singular dominance, but taking the initiative at the frontiers."

This kind of global leadership, Shapiro said, involved a change in US attitudes toward internationalization. The past outlook, he said, was "we're going to build this, can you help us?" But the future approach must be: "What can we best build together?" Also crucial to the future of US particle physics, Shapiro said, were a diverse portfolio of activities, and multi-year planning. He emphasized the committee's belief that "only a strategy with a major commitment to LHC opportunities, and to domestic accelerator-based facilities, yields the highest risk-adjusted return for the US program, and the best opportunity to sustain or regain US distinction in this area." Failing in this strategy, Shapiro said, was tantamount to "folding our hands and walking away from leadership."

Shapiro indicated that the committee's strong recommendation for a US bid to host the proposed International Linear Collider was not a foregone conclusion. "The ILC was the elephant in the shadows behind all our discussions," he said. "We spent quite some time understanding the scientific role. There were a lot of skeptics on the committee. This is a big, big project." Identifying Fermilab as a "strong contender to have the ILC sited nearby," he also stated the need for the preliminary investment of "risk" capital in R&D. A successful US bid to host requires taking the initiative, Shapiro said. But he added that politically, he didn't think there could be a commitment to the ILC "until we see and understand the LHC results."

Shapiro also addressed the issue of future prospects for neutrino physics, in a global context: "We considered this important question: if the major new initiative is an accelerator-based neutrino program, can a globally relevant national program be sustained? As important and as interesting as [neutrino research] is, we concluded that it would not do the job." He repeated the committee's emphasis on a diverse program of activities, and said that a list of priorities "doesn't mean that you fund the first one and then see what's left over." His vision would enable physicists to "pursue whatever field of physics they find intellectually exciting," and therefore, "new facilities must be internationally optimized and open to all scientists on an equitable basis."

During the question period, Shapiro addressed issues including downtime before possible ILC operations, the possible absence of an ILC, and the possible alternative of an ILC sited abroad:

• Shapiro agreed that the US could continue to be a leader with an ILC sited elsewhere, "but resources would change, and not having a major accelerator program here would say a lot about our program."
• If the ILC is not built anywhere, perhaps because LHC results are not compelling, "that is a serious risk, and I don't have a comprehensive answer. But I look at it the other way around. What if we invest in other programs that are interesting now, and we find out that it is important to have the ILC? Then we've lost the chance of a leadership position."
• The downtime between the ending of current experiments and an operating ILC "is a very serious and important problem. We know that talent moves away, and money moves away. That issue is open. What the committee felt was that medium term programs could distract from the longer term goal, and if we made the medium term a priority, it might be a distraction from the priority of pursuing the ILC. There are other important decisions to make, and that is still an outstanding issue."

Shapiro concluded that "This committee did not solve anything. I view the committee's work as an attempt to start an important process. There is a lot for the particle physics community to do, and very little time to achieve it." He described "very positive" responses in his meetings thus far with the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of Management and Budget, members of Congress, and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. He also said the EPP2010 report has not gathered the kind of momentum experienced by the report "Rising Above the Gathering Storm," issued by the National Academies panel chaired by Norman Augustine. And he added that the EPP2010 committee could not carry the message entirely on its own.

"We're just 20 people, and we will do our best," Shapiro said. "But nothing substitutes for the particle physics community and the physics community coming together, and mobilizing to do something about this crisis."
--Mike Perricone