This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site you agree to our use of cookies. To find out more, see our Privacy and Cookies policy.
Skip to the content

Share this

Free weekly newswire

Sign up to receive all our latest news direct to your inbox.

Physics on film

100 Second Science Your scientific questions answered simply by specialists in less than 100 seconds.

Watch now

Bright Recruits

At all stages of your career – whether you're an undergraduate, graduate, researcher or industry professional – can help find the job for you.

Find your perfect job

Physics connect

Are you looking for a supplier? Physics Connect lists thousands of scientific companies, businesses, non-profit organizations, institutions and experts worldwide.

Start your search today


Who gets the cash?

“Is the title an oxymoron?” Harold Shapiro asked rhetorically at the beginning of his talk, The Responsible Use of Public Resources in Elementary Particle Physics. He wanted to show how one goes about prioritizing funding within the US science budget for high-energy physics. Later in his talk he posed another rhetorical question: “Are we in the US silently executing an exit strategy?”

Shapiro is professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University and also chairs the US elementary particle physics committee. The committee is composed of nine particle physicists among five non-particle physicists and six non-physicists, and recently submitted a report recommending research priorities to the US National Academy.

The report begins by summarizing, for the uninitiated, the main unresolved issues in physics: the nature of space and time; the origin of mass; and the beginning and fate of the universe. Then it notes that the most likely way for significant progress to be made will be to resolve Einstein’s theory of general relativity, which describes how gravity arises from the curvature of space–time, with the Standard Model of particle physics. A theory known as supersymmetry might be able to do this, but to be tested it really needs the help of particle accelerators that operate at tera-eV (1012 eV) energy scales.

One such accelerator is the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, due to start-up this June. However, it ought to be complemented by the International Linear Collider (ILC), a non-hadron accelerator that is still in the R&D stage. The US would like to submit a credible bid to host the ILC, and that requires making significant R&D contributions. Hence firmly recommending it as a priority to the National Academy.

Trouble is, particle accelerators are expensive pieces of kit. The LHC will clock-in at around $9.2bn, while the ILC could easily be double or triple that. Playing the devil’s advocate, I asked why funds allocated for particle-physics facilities would not be better spent on research into more useful physics — alternative energy, for instance. Shapiro said there is no way of quantifying which is more important, adding that, for him, understanding the ways of the universe “is an extraordinarily important issue.”

Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University, the symposium organizer, also chipped in. “There is no other way of answering these big questions,” he said. “And it’s worth remembering that the entire cost of the LHC is the same as nine days in Iraq.”

This entry was posted in AAAS Annual Meeting 2008. Bookmark the permalink.
View all posts by this author  | View this author's profile

Comments are closed.


  • Comments should be relevant to the article and not be used to promote your own work, products or services.
  • Please keep your comments brief (we recommend a maximum of 250 words).
  • We reserve the right to remove excessively long, inappropriate or offensive entries.

Show/hide formatting guidelines

Tag Description Example Output
<a> Hyperlink <a href="">google</a> google
<abbr> Abbreviation <abbr title="World Health Organisation" >WHO</abbr> WHO
<acronym> Acronym <acronym title="as soon as possible">ASAP</acronym> ASAP
<b> Bold <b>Some text</b> Some text
<blockquote> Quoted from another source <blockquote cite="">IOP</blockquote>
<cite> Cite <cite>Diagram 1</cite> Diagram 1
<del> Deleted text From this line<del datetime="2012-12-17"> this text was deleted</del> From this line this text was deleted
<em> Emphasized text In this line<em> this text was emphasised</em> In this line this text was emphasised
<i> Italic <i>Some text</i> Some text
<q> Quotation WWF goal is to build a future <q cite="">
where people live in harmony with nature and animals</q>
WWF goal is to build a future
where people live in harmony with nature and animals
<strike> Strike text <strike>Some text</strike> Some text
<strong> Stronger emphasis of text <strong>Some text</strong> Some text