In addition to the perspectives of institutions and researchers, the committee was interested in the broad views of advanced research instrumentation and facilities (ARIF) from different scientific, engineering, and medical fields. To obtain more information, committee staff drafted a survey of disciplinary societies that was distributed to roughly 150 executive officers and directors and federations of such societies.
The survey asked for an overview of the types of ARIF that were used in the fields represented by the societies and an assessment of the availability of and need for the instruments. It also asked the society what new types of instrumentation would interest researchers in the societies in the near future. Respondents were
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 148
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities E Summary of Disciplinary Society Survey Results CONTENTS Overview, 148 Examples of ARIF, 149 Examples of Future ARIF Needs, 153 Comments on Federal Policies, 156 Disciplinary Society Survey on Advanced Research Instrumentation, 159 List of Respondents, 161 OVERVIEW In addition to the perspectives of institutions and researchers, the committee was interested in the broad views of advanced research instrumentation and facilities (ARIF) from different scientific, engineering, and medical fields. To obtain more information, committee staff drafted a survey of disciplinary societies that was distributed to roughly 150 executive officers and directors and federations of such societies. The survey asked for an overview of the types of ARIF that were used in the fields represented by the societies and an assessment of the availability of and need for the instruments. It also asked the society what new types of instrumentation would interest researchers in the societies in the near future. Respondents were
OCR for page 149
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities asked to assess current federal agency policies with regard to ARIF and to express the primary federal policy issue faced by their field. In total, the committee received seven responses. All the respondents wrote generously about their fields and their needs. Because of the number of responses and desire for confidentiality, some responses are not included in this summary. EXAMPLES OF ARIF This section provides the responses from professional societies regarding current ARIF examples in their field: Chemical Physics “Experimental instrumentation in this price range currently reside primarily at the national laboratories (LANL, LLNL, LBL, ORNL, PNNL, BNL, FNL, ANL, INEL, SNL, etc.) and include what might be termed ‘big science,’ that is, instrumental approaches that are not possible at independent research institutions. Critical instrumentation in this price range for chemical physics research include (but are not limited to): Neutron scattering techniques/spectrometers—neutron diffraction, small angle neutron scattering, quasielastic neutron scattering, neutron reflectometry. Synchrotron radiation techniques/spectrometers—EUV/x-ray spectroscopy, x-ray diffraction, time-resolved high-energy experiments. High-field NMR spectrometers—pulsed field gradient, two-dimensional. Tunneling electron microscopes—in situ capabilities with aberration correction to follow the dynamics of nanoscale systems in real time. Elaborate state-of-the-art laser systems including facilities for studies of attosecond pulses. The utility of these resources is becoming more apparent to the research community, and the need for access to them is growing. For example, synchrotron radiation sources are now oversubscribed by users [see, e.g., B. Crasemann, Synchrotron radiation in atomic physics, Can J. Phys. 76:251-272 (1998)]. High-performance computing architectures also play a major role in chemical physics research, and the availability of this type of computation resources is always very limited. At the lower end of this price range, cluster computers also play an important role. Currently, the options are either large computer systems at national supercomputing facilities or relatively small private clusters. The number of
OCR for page 150
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities national facilities is currently too low as researchers vie for access to these facilities and the need for these resources is constantly growing. Division of Chemical Physics American Chemical Society Plant Biology “There is a need for more use of high-frequency nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrometers for doing whole cell/whole plant functional metabolomic studies. The cost is $5-$7 million for a high-field, 900-MHz instrument not including housing and related costs. NMR spectroscopy is a diagnostic tool that operates on the same principle as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, instead of looking at structures at the anatomical level, scientists use NMR spectroscopy to study structures at the atomic level. Through NMR, scientists get atomic-level pictures of biologically important molecules including proteins, nucleic acids, and carbohydrates. This contributes to an understanding of how molecules function. For example, NMR helps researchers understand how proteins recognize and interact with carbohydrates on the surfaces of cells. There needs to be a recognition that plant growth facilities such as greenhouses that provide critical control of lighting, temperature, watering, and humidity are instruments. There is a tremendous need for support in this area. Often greenhouse facilities are viewed as building projects by universities and government agencies and are therefore very difficult to fund. However, modern greenhouses are in fact sophisticated instruments necessary for controlled experimentation with plants. Modern greenhouse facilities cost several million dollars. American Society of Plant Biologists Political Science “Major instrumentation requirements in political science largely rest in the operation of major longitudinal data series and the maintenance of the institutional support for them, with the peak example being the National Election Survey sustained by the National Science Foundation and currently managed by the University of Michigan. This operates in the $7-$8 million range. The discipline has a strong need for additional capacity for such longitudinal data collection— both to apply new methodologies (such as ability to capture implicit attitudes as well as explicit) and to address other areas of politics, and in particular, electoral and other political behavior in comparative political settings. While it’s of course difficult to put boundaries on such capacity, I would
OCR for page 151
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities estimate that the discipline could currently benefit from and take active advantage currently from half a dozen additional such major longitudinal surveys: tracking other dimensions of domestic political behavior, measuring political behavior in new ways, exploring emergence of new democracies, archiving patterns of political communication, and extending all work to comparative settings, including the study of comparative electoral systems. A second emerging area is the development of laboratory capacity for political science. Individual labs, such as the one newly supported by the NSF at Indiana University, cost about half a million dollars; the discipline over the next few years needs such laboratories in a dozen major US institutions. These labs are used for computerized research into the behavior of human subjects in simulated ‘political’ situations. A third area involves archiving, particularly of political communication materials, and the construction of meta-data. These efforts involve both the coding of political communication data, such as the News Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the merger of text, audio, and video files with a coding overlay. One can imagine such archive laboratories in each of the 50 states. Virtual data center projects are also emerging, where marginal costs of use are free but development costs are very expensive. The discipline shares with other disciplines in the humanities a need for preservation and digitization of primary materials—newspapers, and so forth. This includes a major project under way now at the National Endowment for the Humanities that calls for significant investment in the National Digital Newspaper. It is currently an $18 million annual effort at NEH. While political science is by no means the sole beneficiary of this infrastructure investment, it is central to our work and a small piece of what eventually needs to be accomplished. Michael Brintnall Executive Director American Political Science Association (Individual response) Particle Physics “One often thinks of an ‘Instrument’ as a facility for making measurements, such as a scanning electron microscope or CAT imager, where a user may come in and make measurements on a sample of interest. The closest analogy in high-energy physics is the combination of an accelerator which produces beams of particles and a detector which measures the products of the particle interactions. The high costs of accelerators put them well beyond the cost regime being studied by the present panel so we concentrate on detectors. Typical detectors may be a
OCR for page 152
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities combination of specialized instruments such as precision devices for localizing particle tracks, magnetic spectrometers for measuring particle momenta, and calorimeters for measuring particle energies. Experimental detectors in high-energy physics tend to fall into two major categories: Large general purpose detectors at accelerators (typical costs are several hundred million dollars, hence not the subject of this study) and smaller detectors designed to address a very specific physics question. The latter falls squarely in the cost range of interest to this study. Examples of such detectors include the MiniBoone neutrino detector designed to confirm or rule out a surprising previous result on neutrino oscillation, the CDMSII detector to search for dark matter, and several experiments around the world to detect neutrino-less double beta decay. It is worth mentioning that an excellent experiment called CKM to measure rare charged kaon decays at Fermilab was recently cancelled for lack of funding. The number of medium-size projects in the field is quite low at present, however there is no question that the need for medium-scale experiments to address specific questions in high-energy physics will continue or grow. Funding in this category has always been tight, due especially to competition with the very large experiments. This is unfortunate, because the small- and medium-size experiments provide excellent training for students and postdocs and provide good science value for the money. In addition, it is important for the overall health of the field to be able to take a chance with a few small innovative experiments that have the potential to surprise us with unexpected results. There is a second category of instrumentation research in the $2-$100M range which needs support and that is developing novel techniques to the technical readiness level where they could be considered for medium- or large-scale detectors. Suppose someone has an idea for a completely new type of calorimeter or particle-tracking device. How can they show that this idea has merit? The first step probably involves making a table-top scale prototype and carrying out a series of feasibility studies. These might cost a few 100 K$ and come from laboratory discretionary funds. If the idea passes these initial tests, the next step might be the construction of a full-scale subsystem and testing in an accelerator beam. Since these tests may require specialized readout electronics, data acquisition systems, and a small team of people, the costs could easily fall in the $2-$10M range. It has been extremely difficult to find this type of funding since the agencies expect it to come from existing operations budgets while laboratories and universities find these operations budgets barely adequate (often inadequate) to support the on-going programs. Division of Particles and Fields American Physical Society
OCR for page 153
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities EXAMPLES OF FUTURE ARIF NEEDS Descriptions of various research communities anticipated needs for ARIF, as described by disciplinary societies, are excerpted below: Chemical Physics “As research instrumentation grows more complex and more expensive, we envision many individual research labs encroaching on the lower end of this instrumentation limit. For example, in the next few years, ultrashort extended UV and x-ray sources, various UHV surface analysis tools, and ultra-high-field NMR spectrometers should become available commercially and individual investigators will want to have such costly equipment in their labs. There is also the need for tunable free-electron lasers and linear accelerators applicable to QED research. At the same time, there are various types of equipment that can only exist in shared facilities, such as equipment with a >$10M pricetag. As the SNS goes online at Oak Ridge, there are many instruments associated with this source that should be built. The SNS has the potential to be the premier neutron diffraction facility in the world with its predicted high neutron fluxes. This is one piece of instrumentation that should be a VERY high priority because it would be unique and would bolster the US presence in this internationally dominated field. Computing architectures will continue to be in high demand in the future. We can anticipate new architectures becoming available (e.g., vector processors rather than massively parallel scalar processors). Another important component for the usability of these high-end computer systems is the availability of software for specific applications. There is the need for significant investment in the software as well as the hardware for high-performance computing systems. Limited funding drives the need for development of shared software (community codes) as well as shared hardware. Division of Chemical Physics American Chemical Society Plant Biology “One would be a cyclotron-based mass spectrometer, which would be very useful for high-throughput, high-accuracy proteomics. Another would be a computer cluster of appropriate size. It is possible that instrumentation starting in this price range will drop in cost as the market develops. These two items would be very useful in the future of genomics and its attendant -omic disciplines. There
OCR for page 154
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities will be a continued demand for high-end electron microscope and nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometers. As plant research moves more towards understanding the functions and interactions of all plant genes in crop plants, it will become increasingly important to use highly controlled growth conditions. The technologies needed to provide controlled lighting, temperature, water, and humidity control depend on elaborate and expensive equipment. We will see in the next 5 years that researchers in our society will become increasingly interested in having sophisticated plant growth facilities. American Society of Plant Biologists Mass Spectrometry “Primarily high-field (≥15 tesla) Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry, although some integrated proteomics instruments (robotic sample manipulation and introduction, automated data reduction) will hit that range soon. Also, there is some use of free-electron lasers combined with mass spectrometry, and the FEL component can be in the $15M range. Note that as the cost of the instrument increases, the need for operating it at a national user facility increases. Remote operation (cyberinfrastructure) will also become more prevalent. American Society for Mass Spectrometry Political Science “This is difficult to assess beyond recognizing the continued evolution of the themes mentioned above—especially increasing need for infrastructure for longitudinal data sets and enhanced capacity for political science laboratory work. Two areas however deserve note. One is the promise of significant investment in the interface between academic scholarship in political science and administrative systems. An example that would warrant significant instrumentation investment is the formulation of a network of exit polling to validate election outcomes. The exit polling system in the United States has not worked effectively based on the commercial-new media model we have followed, and significant investment is needed to fix it. Another is the global necessity to link political-administrative information systems with physical science systems to translate natural disaster warnings into effective systems for sharing life-saving information and implementing public safety plans. Arden Bement of the NSF has pointed out, for
OCR for page 155
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities instance, that in the recent south Asia tsunami, we detected the physical threat but were unprepared for the administrative follow-through. We need to link the science from physical, social, and political systems. A second emerging area is the incipient collaboration between political scientists and other scientists in brain imaging and genomics. Already very preliminary work is appearing using fMRI measurements in assessment of motivation for political and civic action. Likely political science will purchase ‘time’ on equipment in other sciences for this work rather than make major instrumentation investments ourselves, but the demand nevertheless is likely to grow rapidly in the future. Michael Brintnall Executive Director American Political Science Association (Individual response) Particle Physics “Medium-scale detectors will continue to be crucial. A few illustrative examples are: reactor-based neutrino detectors to measure the crucial parameter for accessing CP-violation in the neutrino sector. fixed target experiments to search for rare decays. accelerator-based neutrino detectors to measure neutrino scattering processes and constrain backgrounds for future detection of CP violation in the neutrino sector. dark matter detectors employing 500-1,000 kilograms of sensitive material. The dark matter issue could become particularly interesting if early results from the LHC show evidence for a dark matter candidate. neutrinoless double beta decay detectors. advanced bolometer arrays for measuring the polarization of the cosmic microwave background. new instruments on ground-based telescopes to improve our knowledge of cosmology. In addition, we will need to develop new detector technologies for the proposed International Linear Collider. Division of Particles and Fields American Physical Society
OCR for page 156
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities COMMENTS ON FEDERAL POLICIES In addition to the comments excepted below, several disciplinary societies commented on the difficulty of finding a balance between the need for new instrumentation and the need for support of operating costs for existing facilities. Others commented that individual investigator grants are already challenging to fund and funding these proposal is more important then funding instrumentation. Mass Spectrometry “There is currently very limited support for technique development. The next generation of major instruments (commercial or academic) requires manpower that is currently produced only in a very few research groups. The reason is that most federal support is ‘hypothesis-driven,’ and that’s not a good model for building new instruments, for which performance and applications are not necessarily predictable. Moreover, the best justification for next-generation instruments (e.g., NMR, mass spec) is NOT new world record performance for a few narrowly chosen examples (as emphasized in grant proposals), but rather that experiments formerly possible only with heroic difficulty become routine with the higher-level instrument. Finally, support for instrumentation typically does NOT include manpower, and that makes it difficult to train grad students and postdocs in that area. The primary problem for mass spectrometry is that the instruments typically fall in a range ($150-$800K) not supported by federal funding. For example, mass spectrometry is the fastest-growing of all segments of the spectroscopy market and is a larger market than NMR, but receives only a fraction of the federal funding allocated to NMR. A big reason is the NMRs cost the right amount of money— e.g., major equipment at ~$1M (with a limit of 1-2 awards per institution) goes disproportionately to NMR, because it matches the category most closely. American Society for Mass Spectrometry Plant Biology “Biological instrumentation is frequently vested in a technician-run core facility, and it is often overtly stated as a requirement for federal funding that shared use instrumentation be placed in such a facility. This attitude is old-fashioned and has the effect that the instruments and their applications are run only at the education level of the technician. Cutting-edge activities are automatically discouraged. A policy shift is needed to fully integrate technology and instrument
OCR for page 157
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities development and operation, with biological questions and research directions. This can only be done through faculty-led development and operation of the instruments, and the development of collaborative programs that emphasize the synergy of instrument development and use and the uncovering of new biological knowledge. American Society of Plant Biologists Particle Physics “There is a second category of instrumentation research in the $2-$100M range which needs support and that is developing novel techniques to the technical readiness level where they could be considered for medium- or large-scale detectors. Suppose someone has an idea for a completely new type of calorimeter or particle-tracking device. How can they show that this idea has merit? The first step probably involves making a table-top scale prototype and carrying out a series of feasibility studies. These might cost a few 100 K$ and come from laboratory discretionary funds. If the idea passes these initial tests, the next step might be the construction of a full-scale subsystem and testing in an accelerator beam. Since these tests may require specialized readout electronics, data acquisition systems, and a small team of people, the costs could easily fall in the $2-$10M range. It has been extremely difficult to find this type of funding since the agencies expect it to come from existing operations budgets while laboratories and universities find these operations budgets barely adequate (often inadequate) to support the on-going programs. Funding in HEP comes from a mixture of DOE and NSF. As cosmology becomes an increasingly important component of HEP, NASA is also involved. Each agency approaches projects in a different way, and it is difficult to get projects started that straddle agency boundaries. For example, NSF has so far been unwilling to consider funding experiments based at DOE laboratories. The field of high-energy physics is truly international and the federal agencies are still struggling with assessing priorities and negotiating cost-sharing on the international scale. While this is particularly crucial for very large projects, it impacts medium-scale projects and detector technology development as well. Division of Particles and Fields American Physical Society
OCR for page 158
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities Chemical Physics “One of the biggest issues is the balance between funding for very expensive research instrumentation and funding for research programs that will use the instruments. The perception is that it is easier politically to secure funding for new instrumentation, so that funding for new facilities seems to rise faster than funding for research programs in the basic sciences. There is also need for more emphasis on basic research and to encourage graduate students and post-docs to remain in the field, ease their career opportunities. Dedicated 750 NMR or instrumentation at an even higher cost level requires maintenance. That is a big problem, especially in the world of academic institutions, since nobody (except NIH in certain cases) will pay for it. Division of Chemical Physics American Chemical Society
OCR for page 159
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities DISCIPLINARY SOCIETY SURVEY ON ADVANCED RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION Today, instrumentation plays a critical role in scientific and engineering research and exploration. We would like to get your help in gaining a better understanding of the issues related to instrumentation and your thoughts on federal policies. This survey is part of a study being conducted by the National Academies Committee on Advanced Research Instrumentation in response to Section 13(b) of the National Science Foundation (NSF) Authorization Act of 2002. The Instrumentation Committee is under the aegis of the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP). COSEPUP, chaired by Dr. Maxine Singer, is the only joint committee of the three honorific academies: the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. Its overall charge is to address cross-cutting issues in science and technology policy that affect the health of the national research enterprise. The study is examining federal programs and policies related to advanced research instrumentation used for interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and disciplinary research. If needed, the Committee will propose policies to make the most effective use of federal agency resources to fund such instruments. Advanced research instrumentation, for the purposes of this survey, is defined as instrumentation that is not categorized by NSF as Major Research Instrumentation ($100,000 to $2 million in capital cost) or as Major Research Equipment (more than several tens of millions of dollars), but instead falls in between these two designations. The scope of this study includes cyberinfrastructure. To respond to its charge from Congress and NSF, the Committee is interested hearing your thoughts on issues related to instrumentation in the fields represented by your society as well as your opinions concerning current and possible future federal programs and policies for advanced research instrumentation. We hope you will be willing to participate in this important information-gathering effort. We recognize that answering all the questions in this survey may be challenging. We only ask that you do the best you can in providing the information requested. If another person at your society is better suited to answer this survey, please forward it to them, but please let us know to whom you sent it. We also encourage you to send the attached researcher survey to any members of your society who may have additional thoughts. Their comments may be sent either to you for compilation or directly to email@example.com. We would appreciate receiving your response by Monday, April 11, 2005. Please return the completed survey via e-mail as an attachment to firstname.lastname@example.org or by fax to 202-334-1667. If you have any questions, please contact the study director, Dr. Deborah Stine, at email@example.com or 202-334-3239.
OCR for page 160
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities Thank you for your time and participation. For more information on the study, please visit our website at http://www7.nationalacademies.org/instrumentation/. Copies of both this survey and the researcher survey are available on our website. National Academies Committee on Advanced Research Instrumentation MARTHA KREBS (Chair), President, Science Strategies DAVID BISHOP, VP Nanotechnology Research, President, NJNC, Bell Labs MARVIN CASSMAN, Independent Consultant ULRICH DAHMAN, Director, National Center for Electron Microscopy, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory THOM H. DUNNING, Jr., Director, National Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign FRANK FERNANDEZ, Distinguished Instititute Technical Advisor, Stevens Institute of Technology MARILYN L. FOGEL, Staff Member, Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington LESLIE KOLODZIEJSKI, Professor, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ALVIN KWIRAM, Professor of Chemistry, University of Washington, Vice Provost for Research Emeritus WARREN S. WARREN, Professor of Chemistry, Director, NJ Center for Ultrafast Laser Applications, Princeton University DANIEL WEILL, Professor (by courtesy), University of Oregon, Department of Geological Sciences National Academies Committee on Advanced Research Instrumentation Disciplinary Society Survey of Instrumentation Funding and Support Please answer the following general questions: Name: Title: Society: Daytime phone: E-mail: Research field(s) represented by your society:
OCR for page 161
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities Unless permission is otherwise given, the responses provided in this survey will only be used in an aggregated fashion in the Committee report. Your society will be listed as a respondent to the survey. May we use the comments you have provided verbatim in the report (Y/N)? May we attribute these comments to your society (Y/N)? Please share your perspective on instrumentation: In the fields represented by your society, what types of advanced research instrumentation (instrumentation with capital costs between $2M and $100M) are used? What is your assessment of the availability of and additional need for these instruments? What new kinds of instrumentation in the $2-$100M price range do you think researchers in your society will be interested in five years from now? Besides additional federal funding, what is the primary federal agency policy issue your field faces and what is your assessment of current agency policies for advanced research instrumentation? Do you have any additional thoughts regarding advanced research instrumentation that you would like to share with the Committee? LIST OF RESPONDENTS American Astronomical Society American Chemical Society American Physical Society Division of Condensed Matter Physics Division of Particles and Fields American Political Science Association American Society for Mass Spectrometry American Society of Plant Biologists Federation of Materials Societies
Representative terms from entire chapter: