WASHINGTON, DC The U.S. Department of Energys Office of Science today released a comprehensive update of its landmark 2003 publication, Facilities for the Future of Science: A Twenty-Year Outlook, that shows the agency has made significant progress in deploying the scientific facilities and instruments that the United States needs to capture world scientific leadership, extend the frontiers of science and support the Departments missions.
When it was published four years ago, the Facilities Outlook was the first long-range facilities plan prioritized across disciplines ever issued by a government science funding agency anywhere in the world. It remains so today and serves a model for other countries and regions that are developing roadmaps for research infrastructures.
The 2003 plan listed 28 new scientific facilities and upgrades of current facilities that will define scientific opportunities over the next 20 years in all fields of science supported by the Office of Science, including fusion energy, advanced scientific computation, materials science, biological and environmental science, high energy physics and nuclear physics. The facilities were ranked according to their scientific importance and readiness for construction, and they spanned scientific fields to ensure the U.S. retains its primacy in critical areas of science and technology well into this century.
The world-leading scientific facilities we create, maintain and operate are key to continued U.S. leadership in physical and biological research, writes Under Secretary for Science Dr. Raymond L. Orbach in the introduction of Four Years Later: An Interim Report on Facilities for the Future of Science: A Twenty-Year Outlook. This leadership, and the transformational scientific discoveries that flow from it, are critical to meeting the challenges our Nation faces in the twenty-first century in the areas of both global economic competitiveness and energy security.
Our purpose [in the Interim Report], Dr. Orbach continues, is to give our citizens, legislators, and stakeholder communities a relatively digestible summary of where our Facilities Outlook stands today and a flavor for the continual careful effort of analysis, evaluation, and internal and external review that goes into our facilities planning and decision-making.
The new Interim Report provides a summary update on the status of the original 28 facilities and features three charts. One lists the 28 facilities as of the original November 2003 publication, including their R&D, conceptual design, engineering design, construction, and operation status at that time. The other two charts show the updated list of facilities and their projected status, respectively, by the conclusion of the 2007 fiscal year, which ended September 30, 2007, and by the conclusion of the 2008 fiscal year, ending September 30, 2008.
The write-ups about each of the 28 facilities include an update on their status since the Facilities Outlook and a section about their scientific purpose and significance and their prospective societal and other benefits. In cases where Department decisions about facilities have changed, a summary of the rationale behind those decisions is provided.
The Interim Report lists the 28 facilities by priority, in the same format used in the original Facilities Outlook. Some are noted individually; however others, for which the advice of Office of Science program advisory committees was insufficient to discriminate among relative priority, are listed in bands. In addition the facilities are grouped into near-term, mid-term, and far-term priorities over the full 20-year period, according to the anticipated R&D timeframe of the scientific opportunities they would address.
A central purpose of the 2003 Facilities Report, according to its introduction, was to offer a vision of the future and to reassure the public that its government makes its decisions on such important and costly facilities in the open with a transparent process.
The Facilities Outlook, as intended, has served as a roadmap, providing an overarching strategic framework and long-term vision to guide year-by-year DOE policy and funding decisions, Dr. Orbach says in the Interim Report. Significant progress has been made in implementing the plan and deploying many of the planned facilities. For example:
At the same time, Dr. Orbach points out, contemporary science and technology are undergoing change, as always, and the Office [of Science] has been careful not to adhere with inappropriate rigidity to the 2003 snapshot, but to respond to technological progress in reordering and restructuring its priorities. Some planned facilities have been accelerated; a number have been reoriented, some in a substantial way. One was terminated in light of facilities abroad. For example:
|Contact: Jeff Sherwood|
DOE/US Department of Energy