OSTP and Neutron Science

1. OSTP and Neutron Science • OSTP is authorized to (under PL 94-282, National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976): • Advise the President and others within the EOP on the impact of science & technology on domestic & international affairs; • Lead interagency efforts to develop & implement sound S&T policy and budgets; • Work with the private sector to ensure Federal investments in S&T contribute to economic prosperity, environmental quality and national security; • Build strong partnerships among Federal, State, and local governments, other countries and the scientific community • Evaluate the scale, quality and effectiveness of the Federal effort in S&T

2. OSTP & Facilities • Improving Federal Laboratories to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century: An Action Plan, report of the NSTC IWG on Federal Laboratory Reform (July 1999) • Cooperative Stewardship, report of the NRC Committee on Developing a Federal Materials Facilities Strategy (1999) • Synchrotron Radiation for Macromolecular Crystallography, a report of the OSTP Working Group on Structural Biology at Synchrotron Radiation Facilities (January 1999). • Subpanel Review of the IPNS and Lujan Center (“Plummer report”), BESAC report (February 2001).

3. Neutron Sciences IWG • Participating agencies: • OSTP • OMB • DOE • NSF • NIST • NIH  Looked at neutron scattering use of facilities only

4. Activities • 3 meetings of the IWG + one planned tomorrow with neutron facility management • Extensive review of existing reports. • Extensive review of facility supplied data on source operations, instrumentation, staffing, users, etc. • Draft discussion paper in progress to summarize assessment data, frame terms of reference and to outline a broad strategy.

5. Stewardship & operation of US neutron sources Source Research facility Cooperative Stewardship… Steward Steward + partners • Defines relationships between stakeholders across the spectrum of activities • Defines expectations for cost sharing, management & funding roles for various parts of the facility • Responsibilities tend to be more well defined for the source facility relative to the research facility

13. U.S. Overall: 65% competitive-level instrumentation

14. Facility Estimate. of competitive instruments Reported No. of competitive instruments HFIR 3 6 IPNS 4 7 LANSCE 0.5 4 NCNR 14 13 Can estimate the number of internationally competitive instruments by dividing the number of users by a benchmark value of 50 users/instrument: Compare to self reported value from facilities 300 350 200 650 Estimated “full” productivity of existing instruments (35% increase) Estimated “full” productivity with all comp-level represents a 100% increase.

15. Facility Staff Instruments Staff/instrument Users per staff HFIR 22 10 2.2 5.8 LANSCE 38 10 3.8 0.7* IPNS 38 12 3.2 6.1 NCNR 65 17 3.8 11.1 ISIS 98 18 5.4 10.2 ILL 207 34 6.1 9.7 SNS - - 4-5 (target) - Staff “burden” level Reasonable Maximum (10) Survey of user support levels per instrument estimated for FY01 at selected neutron facilities (table adopted from data courtesy of Joyce Roberts, LANSCE). Note: instrument totals reflect the number of instruments operated as part of the facility’s user program. “Users per staff” is the reported number of neutron scattering users divided by the total number of reported staff. (*The LANSCE number is suppressed due to the small number of users in FY00.)

16. Alternative view of facilities “Chain of performance” Source Instruments People • Scientific performance limited by the weakest link • Opportunities can be identified by looking to ensure a complete chain of performance • Priorities can be set by looking at the ultimate performance potential of a complete chain