Babbage

Science and technology

The future of Fermilab

A sunset before a sunrise

Sep 30th 2011, 19:00 by J.P. | BATAVIA, ILLINOIS

FOR 26 years before the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was fired up in 2009 at CERN, Europe's main particle-physics laboratory, near Geneva, the discipline was dominated by the Tevatron, the pride and joy of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, on the outskirts of Chicago (and, amusingly, next door to Geneva, Illinois). The machine was the first to smash particles at energies in excess of one trillion electron-volts—or 1TeV, whence its name. It nabbed plenty of subatomic exotica, including the top quark, a heavier cousin of the up quarks found in atomic nuclei, and made precise measurements of assorted fundamental physical parameters.

On September 30th, around 2pm central time, the venerable particle smasher will be put to rest (see article in this week's print edition). Some scientists get philosophical about its demise. “Experiments are like lifeforms,” muses James Gates, a noted physicist and one of Barack Obama’s scientific advisers. “They have lifetimes.” They are also rendered obsolete by newer, niftier kit; for all its might, the Tevatron pales in comparison to the LHC. And keeping it alive would have meant $30m-60m less for other promising projects at Fermilab. Pier Oddone, Fermilab’s Peruvian-born director general, wouldn't have it.

There will be no shortage of mourners. Roger Dixon, who heads Fermilab’s accelerator division, is planning a small wake after the last beam is aborted. Yet many of Fermilab’s boffins are not overcome with grief. For a start, the Tevatron detectors may not be recording any new collisions, but there are enough data to keep researchers at CDF and D-Zero busy for up to two years. They will be poring over petabytes of information for hints of, among other things, the elusive Higgs boson which is thought to be responsible for giving other particles their mass.

More importantly, a slew of new projects is in the offing. The laboratory—and, by the same token, the United States—may be throwing in the towel in the high-energy ring, admits Dr Oddone. But he believes it will soon be pushing what he dubs the "high-intensity frontier", focusing on what is emerging as the hottest thing in physics: mysterious particles called neutrinos. These tiny beasts continue to baffle physicists, most recently by appearing to travel faster than light.

Dr Oddone has spent the past few years planning for life after the Tevatron. This has allowed Fermilab to avoid major upheaval. There will be few lay-offs: a handful of veteran researchers have agreed to early retirement and a bunch of younger ones are moving to industry, which is only too keen to snap them up. One accelerator physicist who worked on the Tevatron has accepted a position operating tabletop accelerators used in cancer therapy at a hospital in California. For specialists like this, securing a well-paid job in the private sector is not hard. Companies are eager to tap their experience and know-how. Every time a budgetary squeeze is announced firms flood Fermilab with requests (unheeded) to place job offers in its internal communications channels.

Most of the 960 or so researchers, engineers and IT professionals on Fermilab’s payroll will be manning the new projects. Some will aid their colleagues already working on prototype components for the International Linear Collider (ILC), the next big thing in physics. Congress will be reluctant to host the ILC, which would entail doling out half of the $20 billion it is expected to cost. In the sombre global economic climate it is far from assured that the ILC will get off the ground elsewhere. (Though Japan seems especially keen, having been pipped by France as the site for an experimental fusion reactor.) If it does not, however, the accelerator technology developed for it would still be used for Project X, a planned Fermilab accelerator which would produce the world's most intense neutrino beams. 

A more immediate worry is an exodus of talent not employed directly by the laboratory. The number of scientists and students from the United States and abroad who are employed by other academic institutions but do their research at Fermilab is expected to drop by several hundred over the next few years, from around 2,000 today. Many have been helping with other experiments on site. Their loss will be felt. The hope is that they will be back once new experiments come on stream towards the end of the decade. Before then, though, many researchers and doctoral candidates, who need to analyse data to gain their degree, will stay away.

Others, though, may join the one-third of roughly 1,000 CDF and D-Zero physicists who already moonlight at CMS, a big LHC detector. One attraction is an exact replica of the CMS operating room—complete with identical arrangements of computer displays and even furniture as that on the CERN campus. It is a godsend for American institutions which can send their researchers to work on the LHC without them having to set foot in Switzerland, with its painfully high living costs, compounded by the strength of the Swiss franc. (It also ensures that when they do visit CERN they can get cracking there without having to relearn the ropes.) The seven-hour time difference between Batavia and Switzerland means that fewer people on either side of the Atlantic need to endure wearisome nightshifts; another similar facility was opened in Beijing earlier this year to make physicists’ lives even easier.

And, for all the warranted excitement surrounding the LHC, plenty of physicists prefer Fermilab’s smaller, closer-knit collaborations. There, any one individual holds greater sway than in the several-thousand-strong LHC behemoths like CMS. 

All this means that, at least in the short run, life in Batavia will not change out of all recognition on October 1st. It might be a tad quieter, and the scientific focus may shift somewhat, though to no less exciting areas. In the longer term, the fate of both Fermilab and American physics depends of whether Congress can be persuaded that there is still a lot that mankind does not understand about the universe—and that Americans ought to contribute to furthering that understanding. Even if it costs billions of dollars.

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

Sort:

Gregory A. Dalfonzo

As America has much of our economy based in the tertiary (service) and quaternary (information and R+D) job sectors, I believe that keeping scientific facilities such as Fermilab and the Tevatron are important to keeping America in the forefront of the world economy. Part of the reason America emerged as a super power after WW II was the influx of scientific talent from Germany. This continued to be the case for the later half of the 20th century, as America continued to be at the top of scientific inovation (as was the case in the USSR, until it collapsed). I believe that government should actively fund theoretical research, as there is no way to generate capital through the private sector. i also believe that there should be government grants and subsidies for businesses trying to apply physics and other sciences. This seems to me to be the best way to encourage scientific advancement for America, and the World as a whole.

guest-iwjweso

"Maedros wrote: Space missions were an engineering achievement. There was practically no science involved"

True, but only because the science required to know "how" to engineer it had already been done. Think about it.

kbischof

Government should not be investing their money in studying fundamental physics. We already know enough information about the universe to survive in, so it's not necessary to continue spending money on it. There are plenty of other ways that the government could spend their money that would be more productive and beneficial to society. Shutting down this project was not a bad thing in my opinion.

RumbaClave

There you have it. Two unfunded wars, Bush Tax Cuts and unfunded Medicare Part D.

What's next on the chopping block, the National Labortories ?

kara11@vt.edu

I think we should put in perspective how much money we use to figure out how much information. Science should have to hold some of its own weight by proving things that are applicable us and to improving our lives. The government should fund scientific phonomena such as this but they also need to keep their pocketbook in check. Maybe going 50 50 isn't the best split between the government's pocketbook and the organizations.

Giuliano Sider

I'm wondering what it would take to create a new "Sputnik moment" in American politics. China landing people on Mars, perhaps? That is still many, many years away. If ever. Manned space missions aren't that useful, except for stroking the national ego.

Then again, Sputnik was associated with a lot of wasteful military spending. I don't think we would ever want that again. But a surge of scientific investment would sure benefit humanity.

Giuliano Sider

If the Americans don't want to depend on Russian rockets to access space (for the time being), they can help the Brazilians develop rockets and space launch capabilities. I think they would be eager to use the Alcantara base give people rides to space. They say that the Alcantara base would make launches more cost effective, as it is quite close to the Equator.

Now are the Americans scared Brazil would provide rocket technology to Iran?

Giuliano Sider

Virgin Galactic, along with Scaled Composites, is developing a spaceship that is much safer and cheaper than the Space Shuttle. It will be a huge boon to the exploration of the "ignorosphere" situated between outer space and the area in which planes and balloons travel. When their ship is deemed space-worthy, they will double, triple the number of people who have traveled to space in a matter of months.

What role does the government play? Well, they were the initial pioneers of space travel. Without their efforts, Virgin's rocket technology probably wouldn't exist. We would have less information about space. Is the government's role over? Not quite. They will continue to sponsor scientific research using Branson's ships, Russian rockets, and other future means. You may not like Vladimir Putin, but this isn't Soviet Russia anymore.

The private sector is going at putting things together - marketing, sales, technology - to make an activity financially sustainable. But much of the technology - composite materials, rocket fuels, space know how - probably wouldn't exist without previous government support.

Likewise, I don't ever see a particle accelerator becoming financially sustainable. But the potential for improvement in knowledge of medicine, transportation, and other areas is just staggering. Would our society rather allocate capital to build financially "sustainable" mega shopping malls instead?

heuplek

This is truly disappointing. Americans just haven't been the scientific front runner that they used to be.

One would think that after scientist in Europe were supposedly able to get neutrinos to move faster than light the US would have some interest in keeping this laboratory open. What a shame.

Giuliano Sider

You would need one heck of a capital investment to meaningfully surpass the LHC in Geneva. I don't think the Congress would be prepared to fund it anytime soon. That's okay (for now) because we can focus on other aspects of basic science, like Neutrinos, which are pretty hot right now. Of course it makes no sense to spend money replicating the LHC in America. Specialization allows scientists to be more productive. Besides, the LHC people are only just starting their work. There will be years of groundbreaking data coming out of Geneva's mainframes.

As for the Space Program, Dear Fossil American, I think you may have set yourself up for a heck of a contradiction. I thought you were against "Soviet-style" investments in science. Why would you be concerned about space launch capabilities then? Are you a fan of the Space Shuttle, a gargantuan Cold War project? You've never heard of Virgin Galactic or the New Mexico Spaceport? NASA already plans to hitch a ride on Richard Branson's spaceships. They won't replace traditional rockets (for now), but they're one heck of an innovation coming from the (primarily US-based) private sector.

New Conservative

@Fossil American

DARPA to internet not being democratic project? Do you pitch for a softball team, by any chance?

If only there had been some democrat who helped make the DARPA project into a commercial network available to everyone. Let's just look over a brief article on the history of the internet.

"24 Jun 1986: Albert Gore introduce S 2594 Supercomputer Network Study Act of 1986

As a Senator, Gore began to craft the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (commonly referred to as "The Gore Bill" after hearing the 1988 report Toward a National Research Network submitted to Congress by a group chaired by UCLA professor of computer science, Leonard Kleinrock, one of the central creators of the ARPANET (the ARPANET, first deployed by Kleinrock and others in 1969, is the predecessor of the Internet).

Indeed, Kleinrock would later credit both Gore and the Gore Bill as a critical moment in Internet history:

A second development occurred around this time, namely, then-Senator Al Gore, a strong and knowledgeable proponent of the Internet, promoted legislation that resulted in President George H.W Bush signing the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991. This Act allocated $600 million for high performance computing and for the creation of the National Research and Education Network [13–14]. The NREN brought together industry, academia and government in a joint effort to accelerate the development and deployment of gigabit/sec networking. "

To summarize, a Democratic senator, Al Gore, proposed legislation to bring a piece of theoretical science (well not quite theoretical, but then restricted only to academics and the military）and help make it usable for the public and commercial interests. Exactly what you say you want the government's science role to be.

So the Republican party must have been all about this right? Instead, they nailed him to the wall, for saying, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

Any sane person would understand that when a congressman says they created something, it's talking about legislation, not that he personally invented it.

This is a senator who did all the right things and used legislation to get the government help make the internet into something everyone can use. And the republicans nailed him to the wall for it.

The Al Gore/internet episode is a case in point on why Republicans can't be trusted with science. He did precisely what you advocate in your post and the Republican party burned him at the stake.

Do you think any senator or congressman is ever going to talk about their achievements in legislating to help science after what happened to Al Gore? "I brought the LHC to American soil" is too easily misinterpreted. Also, no republican will talk about being pro science in a primary, wouldn't want people to think they might believe in the foundations of modern biology. In the Republican pary, being scientifically ignorant, either genuinely or just as a cover to fool the crazies whose support you need is far far too ok.

sugarfree

I respect those who disagree with the concept of the government investing in fundamental science. I am astonished at the amounts of money spent on this, when most people do not even begin to understand the purpose of those hugely expensive machines and experiments funded with their money. But I am also proud of the Western world pursuing the ultimate understanding of the universe we live in. I will not argue that finding out what dark matter is made of will lead to practical applications. It may never happen. So what? I, for one, will always support with my vote this noble, intellectually stimulating and most human endeavour that makes us, in a way, so much richer. And I hope you will too.

teacup775

@Fossil American wrote: Oct 1st 2011 5:12 GMT

Ah yes, but the Internet was an engineering/applied science project of DARPA, and so is the robotic car project amongst others. Go watch Apollo 13 sometime and learn what "government" engineers do. Also you demonstrate a weak understanding that applied and pure science feed off of each other and that the borders to applicability are fuzzy.

It is also rather poor judgement in my mind to lay the problems of education at the teacher union feet.

Everything from huge vested interests in text book selection, and the decline in their quality, to bloat in administrative ranks, the abandonment of PE (yes because kids need to learn to compete and brains grow on challenge) to the abandoment of public education for private schools, to the fact that -mothers- are the main force behind a child's education. The first and fundamental problem is the attitude of the school district itself. In one place the question asked is which college will you go to, a few miles away it's will you graduate. Fundamentally that boils down to the will of the public in the school district. Period. Look at any other nation beaten our pants off in education, and see if the salient factor is school choice.

Lastly, how the heck does constitutional basis even enter into the discussion? It's in our national interest to do research, unless you want a nation more like Somalia. Private business doesn't exist to do it. Simply put, if the nation generally wants to fund basic research, Congress funds it. That is Constitutional.

You might want to ask yourself why is it that the Nation took up science and created a crash program for science education? Because of Sputnik. And how did we get all those brainy scientists? Spoils of war. We wanted all the brains that Europe produced and we got a generation of them. Silicon valley itself by product of two things, the space race and the GI bill.

Fossil American

New Conservative wrote: "...@Fossil American... A good chunk of the Republican party views scientists as the enemy...They don't care that we are losing a lead gained in WW2...America benefits immensely from being able to suck up the best talent in the world and get them to America to study here... If you want to save American science, think about who you vote for...”

* * *

By and large, I agree with you. But we do differ in our conclusion.

There are some religious nut cases particularly with the creationist crowd. However, the Democrats are just as bad with science. While the “Moon race” was proposed by JFK, many Democrats objected to spending money in space rather than inner cities. The internet is a DARPA project. Guess who supports the military more? I would be a fool to think either Democrat or Republican is better for science.

...America benefits immensely from being able to suck up the best talent in the world and get them to America to study here...
America is no longer the number one destination for the brightest. That disappoints me greatly. I think our immigration policy should be point based. A PhD or Master in the hard sciences from a world class university alone should be sufficient points. We do need things like a Super Collider to attract the bright minds. A "Europa Project" to find out what is under the ice to attract bright minds. I must admit, I cannot find the constitutional basis to do it. Bush proposed a Man on Mars project. That would have attracted some bright minds, but it was never seriously considered by congress and Obama killed it. We will have to find other ways to attract the bright minds. I was shock to see two of my friends, one a Chinese and one an Indian, both US residents and both moved back to their home country to seek jobs. Both were university graduates. We don't even have the jobs to keep the minds here given the current regulation happy administration. Sad indeed.

... If you want to save American science, think about who you vote for...
As to who to vote for, neither party is good for science. Besides, voting is beyond science: (1) survival of nation (2) environment for betterment of nation and its citizens, and (3) all else. If we go down a path where it will lead to self destruction, there is no point in having the Superconducting Super Collider. So, survival of nation must come first. I believe our over spending is destroying us as a nation. I believe the Statism mindset is destroying self reliance thus eroding our nation. The Democrats are in support of both. I believe the teacher’s unions are destroying education and Democrats are their eager accomplice. So, until the Democrats change (fat chance), they are rather far down the list in my mind.

Republicans support a strong America and Republicans support school choice; school choice alone will help us educate our kids. Better educated kids, better tomorrow. To me, the choice can’t be clearer.

Fossil American

patrick veale wrote:
“So government has a big role to play even as we hear the clamor of those calling for it to shut down.”

* * *

In my view, not a big role but a limited role. As I said in my original post, I drew a distinction between pure science and applied science. Pure science may be driven by government but government should not have much role with apply sciences. To use a Cowboy Indian example, troops can pacify the land (push back the frontier), but it will be average citizens to find ways to be it mine gold or farm the land.

(Using a Cowboy and Indian example also conveniently allow me to NOT think about the constitutional issue. I am disappointed by the shut down of the Superconducting Super Collider, I am not sure under what Constitutional authority might the Federal Government be empowered to built it.)

“Battary cars” or “Green Energy” are applied technology. Those in my view should be done the private sector. Market forces should figure how to build a car that normal people will buy. On the other hand, market forces have no role in Super String Theory (or SETI) that I can think of today; but both will bring in great understanding and knowledge for the human race.

Studying super conductor was in the “pure science” arena for a long time - that government may have a role. Now part of Super Conductivity moved to the applied science phase. Market forces can decide if it is good to make super conducting generator or signal transmission cable. Imagine if government throws tons of money into super conducting signal cable, market forces would not have invented fiber optics. Further imagine, with the politician mindset, the development will be “how to cool copper wires” instead of really innovate to find some near room-temperature super conductors.

Obama is strangling science. By my measure, no worthwhile projects have been proposed of late, and worthwhile ones are being shut down. Even NASA is reassigned to Muslim outreach.

boontee

Well, this is progress in experimental physics, obsolete facility to be replaced by ultra-modern one.

Tevatron gives way to LHC that will eventually be overshadowed by ILC. Naturally, the cost soars, from a billion dollar to 10 billion, then 20 billion or more (inflation not adjusted).

Physics must have evolved into the most incredibly expensive scientific discipline, unimaginable in Michael Faraday’s days. Would that be necessary? (vzc1943, btt1943)

jspitz15

I read articles such as this, and wonder what the place of science is in America. Increasingly, I find that American's politicians are more concerned about cost and balancing budgets than what I'd warrant most people view as progress: science.
The end of American space missions marked a very sad end point to a long history of American progress in science. I fear that more closures such as these are in the near future, and that America's position as a dominant producer of science is at an end.

About Babbage

In this blog, our correspondents report on the intersections between science, technology, culture and policy. The blog takes its name from Charles Babbage, a Victorian mathematician and engineer who designed a mechanical computer.

RSS feed

Advertisement

Babbage audio

Trending topics

Read comments on the site's most popular topics

Advertisement

Products & events