BREESE QUINN: Good morning everybody.
Welcome to community engagement across the
frontiers
what will be looking up how community engagement issues
impact us all working
in all the frontiers in high-energy physics.
If we get started I want to recap
our guidelines
.
The DPF core principles and community guidelines for all
of our meetings.
Just to remind you
that by attending this meeting that you agree to
adhere to these.
They are focused on respecting and supporting our
community members and committing to constructive
dialogue and taking initiative for that.
The details of which have been discussed
and are found at the link that you see there.
We invite everyone to invoke these guidelines as needed
when issues come up
and when they do to please contact the convenors and
organizers of the meeting.
In an effort for all of us to look forward to everyone's
voice being heard.
So as I said, thanks so much for coming
to talk about community engagement.
Just a couple of recent brief words
about what this entails
before we get to our presenters and panelists.
Community engagement frontier
really in our description here
has a very important objective
for
(unknown term)
and that is to improve and stain strategic engagement
with our communities in order to draw support strength from
particle physics while playing key roles in seven
these committees.
So both parts of the sentence, there's two aspects
to it.
So first, sustaining strategic engagement with our
communities.
There are several topical groups and community
engagement frontier
, they are shown here applications in industry,
pipeline development, inclusive
and diversity, physical education, public education
and outreach and public policy and government
engagement.
Engagements with our communities – there's two
parts of it.
Engaging within our own community
and then also looking out to the communities where we live
and are a part of.
Half of our topical cute groups, a and I, career
pipeline and physics education are more inward
focused towards what is going on in our community.
Where is the other three are largely directed
at the Duke community is that we are part of and the
broader society.
And in those engagements
there are two aspects we are trying to achieve.
One is to strengthen our own field of possible particle
physics, to make us the best we can be in carrying out our
work in the best way possible.
But also to have real positive impact more broadly
in society all the communities we are a part of.
So that's what all of these efforts are geared around.
So we are going to be talking about these in some detail
over the next hour or so.
One thing I will point out is that we hope that there are
lots of questions and discussions that are inspired
by these, what you're going to hear in this session and
the way we are going to handle questions and
responding and discussing with you is through the
select channel.
So on the page you will find on the community engagement
across the frontier session the Slack channel for this
session.
So we encourage anyone that has a comment or question to
join that channel.
And when we finish this session we have invited all
of the panelists and topical group convenors for the
community engagement frontier to be on their to hold
different discussions with folks.
So please take advantage of that.
All right, with those things underway
I would like to let you know what we are going to do here
now.
We are going to start with about a 50 minute
presentation about community engagement
and a particular example of it.
And then we are going to move to an hour of speaking with
form representatives for each of the frontiers about
community engagement issues that are important in the
context of that specific frontier.
So the first thing is we have invited
Azwinndini Muronga who is serving as a topical group
convened is in public education and outreach
to give us a presentation on what they've been able to
achieve in South Africa on these issues
.
So to give us a model of what we are aiming for
and as an inspiration for all of us of what we can hope
to achieve through this process.
So I'm going to turn over to Azwinndini Muronga
so if you will unmute and get ready
and they will bring up the size for you first things a
lot.
AZWINNDINI MURONGA: Thank you very much
breeze, greetings to everyone around the globe
who is tuning in.
As you introduce me, I'm going to be speaking about
structural changes in support of public engagement with
science in South Africa.
You can go to the next slide, please.
So during this brief time
I will speak about why science engagement matters
for Africa, a brief South African context
for top I would talk about structural changes through
national policy as well as
through institutional
and faculty or develop
the Martello demand meant
to level.
Structural changes at professional society level.
And references that I've given in his presentation
that you might find on the agenda.
You can go to in the excitement please.
-- Slide please.
So why is science engagement important for development in
Africa?
So if you look
, this is just a typical example
.
If you look at this map
which I got from sandwiches a recent map
it shows that about
0.01%
of users are African nationals.
So I think it's a concern for everyone
and the concern is really
in the next life.
If you can go to the next slide.
So current level
about 60% of Africa's publishing is under the age
of 25,
making Africa the world's youngest continent.
The number of youth in Africa
accounts for about 20% of the global youth population
and is predicted to double by 20
and is predicted to double by 2055
from the UN website.
So it's important that we engage with the youth
and engage with the general public
and so that would be one of the biggest motivations
that motivate us to engage
in science engagement matters.
Now coming back to South Africa, if I can give you a
South African context
which motivates why science engagement is important.
So South Africa
is a relatively
young democracy
.
Before 1994
it was a siege Society and apartheid.
And 1960s
to 1980s
it was given time
for the science system itself.
The science system was isolated internationally
and also internally.
But the apartheid ideology
also had huge negative effects
on the state of the South African science system
as a whole.
As an example, there was a creation of historically
black universities and they were known as
Bush colleges.
This led to a different kind of polarization.
So science itself was
not under
a conducive space
.
Things then turned around in 1994
when we had a democracy for top
international isolation
ends
and for the first time we have a Minister of science
and technology.
We started to see growth and strategic plans
around sign systems
.
We started to be involved in big side projects
, namely the
SKA and others.
We had participation as a country
in the
certain science.
Suggested the dawn of democracy, physicist came
together with the help of international
expense and we came together to shape the future of
physics in South Africa was to that was around 2004,
10 years into democracy for stop and that
just like the (unknown term)
came up with 14 recommendations.
All of them are now implement it.
They are related to what we are going to discuss today
which is community engagement.
The first recommendation
, it's about our education system.
Especially physics education.
Going from school level all the way to university level,
we had a strategy for that.
The second one, it speaks about diversity and
education.
One of the particular groups in the CDF.
And the third one is about
career development
.
And the fourth one is about public understanding of
science.
See can see that these recommendations,
not on the appendix but on the understanding on their
own to signal the importance of (inaudible).
So we were not alone
during the dark days.
We had help from international community
and this sign
--
South African community of scientists.
Here we are looking at a letter written by
then president of
a APS
in 1997
written to a counterpart of South African
society
.
Rising concerns about the issues related to diversity
and inclusion and suggesting recommendations
that
go back now to the US
especially
to the CEF frontier
to look at some of these because they are very much
applicable to particle physics as well.
So in South Africa
we had to effect changes a policy level.
in order for the government government and everyone to
take every thing seriously.
So immediately after democracy
the newly established ministry of science
and technology
started on a process
like the one
that
Snowmass is undertaken
of grafting a white paper.
A white paper in South Africa, it's usually a
government department document
which is aimed at setting the long-term policy
direction for government
to ensure, in this case, the role of science and
technology and innovation in a more prosperous and
inclusive society.
And you will see that in this diagram
I have the white paper which is the policy document was to
the policy document gives conscience that we shall
establish science engagement strategy with a plan
which also necessitates
the change of lesson each
legislature
to complement science engagement.
And here I put some of the
directives
that came out of the white paper.
To say that there is a policy intent to support a
science literate and science away society.
And it calls for a coordinated system
to deal with science engagement in the country.
Not only that the
last policy there,
that the government will fund science engagement.
And here
we are dealing with
an act that has to be changed.
And this is the act
that didn't recognize science engagement before
, he only recognized
research
because it's an act
that is established in a national research foundation.
In the next slide
you will see that everything is underlined, is something
that is new
and under what is new you will see community engagement
and particular science engagement is highlighted
in the legislation.
And now
,
I put out this.
If I go to the National research foundation to apply
for a grant, I cannot succeed without
talking or feeling in the section
on science engagement.
I need to say
what this project has to do with science engagement
or what activities of science engagement.
Then I will have had completed
my grant for the proposal.
And then it does not end of the government, what
about institutions in the work is?
In universities back
a case at hand
is one that I'm involved in
is the national Mandel University.
And if you can move to the next slide,
University
which has discussed
its restructuring,
that said we need
to make sure
the engagement
is put in the universities
president's office.
To make sure that it is important aspect
,
of our life
in a university
that is in service of society.
And therefore it has to have
a portfolio
that is engagement
and its
main
… And
that by the deputy of the University, in this
case the deputy Vice Chancellor designated
for that.
Before it was just been researching Eugene.
Also within the faculty level,
the faculty has to align
.
If the faculty of science needed to be an
engaged university, you see in its mission,
brand, it has to emphasize engagement, it
has to institute structural engagement.
But importantly,
at the centre there is the philosophy of
principal of the faculty of science in the 21st
century.
That emphasizes diversity and inclusion
in science and all its doings
and everyday life.
Next page.
And you can see that this is a faculty if you
look on the left-hand side, that before,
it only emphasized learning and teaching
, research and training.
But now, it realizes that science engagement
is very very important
and it will be treated
in the same footing
with learning and teaching and research
and training.
At the university level, you need to
uplift engagement.
Next slide.
Not only that,
when we conducted the survey
in our topical group, we found that many
people said that there is a lack of incentives
through the structural reforms, when you apply
for promotion,
not only will you check teaching and learning
and research, but we now also check
your sites engagement activities.
Next slide please.
So what about our science
societies like the South African Institute
of physics?
And they also implement structural changes?
Yes.
Our South African Institute of physics,
that received a letter from
(unknown term) in the 1980s,
has implemented the recommendations but also
our own new recommendations.
Including, having to launch
a new outreach strategy.
As you can see, we've also emphasized
high school participation
at Serna because of the structure.
The Latin mass like please.
-- Slide.
You can see we really mean business because we
start all the way from the primary schools to
engage with them in terms of science and
communication, and science education.
But not only
is that important aspect,
we have to remember that Africa
used is
bulging,
and therefore it is important within that
context.
Thank you very much, Grace
for giving me this opportunity
.
-- Grace
to talk about our experiences in South
Africa.
BREESE QUINN: Just so much.
I really hope that everybody was inspired
by what
Azwinndini presented.
About what they were able to it
achieve in South Africa and the accomplishments
they were able to realize.
And to see the kind of things we really hope to
achieve in community engagement through the
SnowMass process.
One aspect of community engagement I want to
highlight before we talk to our panelists,
is that community engagement frontier is
not a in
isolated venture, just a separate community of
folks on the side,
that there are very few of us
in high-energy physics
for which I think
this is the professional work, this
is your day job.
So there are not a whole army of people
to carry out this work of developing these
issues.
So all of us, in high-energy physics,
each one of us, not only has a responsibility
to incorporate
and involve these issues
in your day-to-day work
, and implement them, but also
, it's required
that all of us
contribute efforts to developing these issues
within our community
.
And so,
to speak to that,
the fact that
the impact
of community engagement
are felt in all of the frontiers, and we were
our people in all frontiers to address
them.
We have brought together some
representatives from each of the SnowMass
frontiers to discuss for a few minutes each
some of the particular aspects of community
engagement that are very important for that
specific frontier.
And so, we will start
with the
(Name)
from Fermilab who is serving as a community
engagement applications and
industry Co.
convenors,
as well as a liaison
between the community engagement
frontier and instrumentation frontier.
So (Name),
but I'd like you to talk about if you could,
is this.
We just had a breakout session yesterday on
cross community mobility in (unknown term).
Between
different components of our workforce.
And so the question I want to ask is,
is the PhD degree in high-energy physics the
only way to really make an impact in our field?
There are disparities in career development,
research opportunities, that exist between the
various elements of our high-energy fitness
workforce, engineers, no
technicians, etc., what can be done to reduce
the disparities,
including making sure that everyone in our
community has a chance to progress in the
career and fully participate in the
enterprise?
Please go ahead.
PANELIST: Thanks for the question.
Like you said, in principle, there are
different career tracks that exist
for PhD physicists.
And non-PhD physicists.
For example, known as engineering physicists,
engineers as well as technicians.
In the evaluation criteria for
career progression is also different for each
of these categories, which is great,
there are however, few disparities in career
progression opportunities.
For example,
one of the biggest ones that comes into view,
is
early career awards.
These are restricted to
only people with a PhD degree.
There is no equivalent
early career award
for non-PhD physicists.
Engineers, or technicians.
And furthermore,
if you look at the way
(unknown term) uses
evaluation criteria, for example,
a number of publications,
which again is primarily driven
by PhD physicists,
and you have
patterns,
which is more engineering oriented
which doesn't need a PhD degree,
but you can always see that the number of
publications is much greater than the number
of patents that are held by any lab
on University.
Also,
I think with things like publishing, it also
comes naturally to people with a PhD degree
because it's a part of the training.
This becomes a higher barrier for engineers
and technicians who are generally don't publish.
The work they are doing is research, and it's
worth publishing, but there's no motivation
to publish.
Don't get me wrong, publishing is
encouraged at national labs,
there's a lack of time that spilled in and lack
of training that is associated
with trying to publish.
Hence,
nobody tends to do it.
So there is a trend recently, we have seen a
trend in certain niche areas
given with engineers, more and more engineers
are attending to become PhD engineers as opposed
to just the engineer itself.
So specifically, if you look at the
instrumentation printer, one of the aspects that
we would like to encourage,
is a collaboration with electrical engineering
departments, to collaborate more.
Because
nominal a high-energy physics is
looked at
the physics department
collaboration, and this physics department
is in the school assigns,
versus electrical engineering,
which is the school of engineering, and
therefore trying to make
more PhD as it is useful
because you can leverage the electrical
engineering departments themselves.
But in general, what we have seen is that there
is, there exists
a lack of opportunity for PhD versus non-PhD
holders, and some of the discrepancies
we overcome
by few suggestions that have been provided by
the community, which include
a creating early career awards for engineers and
technicians.
To encourage the research aspect of their
work without the emphasis
on having a PhD to be able to do that.
Then recognition in the field,
it's so important
for creating
networks,
and career progression as well.
And one of the things that the industry does,
which is not very heavily PhD focused,
is doing some things like industrial summits,
forms,
and maybe having some sort of platforms like
that to showcase their work.
For non-PhD degree holders.
That might be another avenue.
And finally,
the last suggestion that has been given,
joint appointments normally exist between
universities and National
labs, and again, which is very much focused
on PhD engineers or PhD physicists,
but creating an equivalent sabbatical
saying with the industry,
could help engineers and technicians and on
PhD holders to get the right training as well as
networking opportunities
to help their career progression.
That's it.
BREESE QUINN: Thank you so much.
Appreciate it.
Next I would like to
move to (Name)
from Alabama, representing the energy
frontier.
He is also serving as a liaison between the
energy frontier and CEF.
(Name), I would like to talk about issues
that are related to the fact that
our energy frontier facilities are
increasingly over as
stated.
And that's where you have to participate if
you are going to be involved.
And there are some impacts with that.
So first, I would like you to talk about how we
manage this impact of
overseas location, on early career physicists
in particular, and then I will have a follow-up
to that.
PANELIST: Thank you Grace and thank you for
having me here.
Indeed, this is a major issue for us.
It's one that I understand very well
both as a PhD student and then as a postdoc
, and actually for to my postdocs is based in
Europe so for a significant period of
time, essentially decade, was living there.
So one of the primary issues here is the cost
of living because especially if you talk
about Switzerland,
it's especially for those members of the
community in their early career stages
where you are not making a significant
salary, that job and the cost of living
is really a significant.
This is further compounded for families.
Especially as those you have a spouse, who
either needs to find a job or
as a career in the United States and can't
take a break, that presents difficulties.
The other part of this is it's challenging to
network.
Something very important, especially
when I'm talking about not networking at the
place where you are, you're in a great
position to do that, but if you want to network
back home, that's a very next job.
Especially as you go up for early career
positions.
So this is something which anecdotally, Craig
COVID,
you might not even be flown out for an
interview if you're based in interview, some
places could or couldn't do that, so that was
potentially one of the issues.
It's a little bit different at the moment.
In terms of managing this, a possible
solution.
Having better support.
One of the ways we've tried to
deal with this is by having the cost of
living adjustment, or COLA.
This is not automatic.
Usually, you get that in return for project
relative to the operations of the
experiment.
So it's not something that is automatic, and
it may not be something which is enough.
To support that early career person
, especially talking about PhD's.
So have a better support for PhD's and postdocs
is very valuable.
Local help abroad, is also
useful in terms of medical, social, spousal
issues.
And having more networking opportunities.
Either virtual or in person would go a long
way, and I would like to highlight I think the
role of (unknown term) in particular.
The Fermilab, I see
other places
similarly,
basically a place
of public
where
students can go
it's an intellectual hub where
where
first this is a community, second there
are ways for you to also engage back home.
So in fact, the Fermilab
(unknown term) is a great program which I
personally also benefit with
which allows you to expend the time and
BREESE QUINN: You mentioned these issues
with particular collaborators
that have restrictions on their ability to travel
back-and-forth.
Another specific community
of our colleagues that falls into that
are those that have positions
at predominantly undergraduate institutions,
that appeal to you later I
is becoming an increasingly popular career path for some
of our folks stop can you speak about how the energy
frontier
in particular is expressing full inclusion of those
colleagues.?
PANELIST: Thanks for bringing up
because of you look at UIs and faculty FPU eyes
that have an important role to play
here because the students at these institutions
may not have exposure
or might not even come in contact with
(unknown term)
so it's an opportunity to engage students that
otherwise would be.
However,
they have an important role by the same role
--
same time they have a significant
(inaudible) and her
no travel budget.
It puts them at a disadvantage.
For example when you talk about institutions
that grant some travel, it's an issue for some
PIs
in this room.
But they are at a disadvantage here so it's
definitely an issue
and there's lots of anecdotal stories I've heard
from folks as I was gathering feedback
for this topic.
So there are some ideas.
I don't think there are obvious solutions but ideas
on how to make this potentially better.
Some ideas that have been voice were potentially
having the possibility of doing joint supervision of
PhD students and postdocs with larger groups
.
Potentially great immigration
-- integration and a way to deal with cost.
Because part of the experiment is having to
provide money to the experiment but treating the
faculty as
postdocs in the same context of (unknown term) would
alleviate some of this.
Because they wouldn't have a postop base somewhere or
funding for that.
So finding some way to include the faculty from P
you eyes would be huge and important.
At the same time we need to resolve some of these issues
so I want to highlight again the role of the US hubs here.
That allows the faculty to travel, not to Europe for
example but actually also spent time there and get
engaged to some extent that way.
There are a few LOI's that have been submitted, I just
want to mention that is the last thing.
There is a visiting faculty program at Fermilab
especially targets
some of these areas.
Also
progress for community colleges
and underrepresented minorities so I think those
would be important to take a look at.
(reads) ask a lot Sergei.
Next I want to
ring up
(Name)
of which he is serving as a liaison to CEF.
So you're in,
(Name) I have a couple of questions about the
relationship between the accelerated first
frontier industry.
So although developing accelerated specifically for
industrial applications
like security and medicine requires different sets of
standards that we find in our HEP research discovery,
there are some commonalities that exist
and control, feedback, diagnostics etc.
How act can our HEP accelerator facilities
to support
other accelerators in conjunction with our research
and goals to further those relationships?
PANELIST:
Thanks for asking that question and allowing me to
speak here.
So I'm not an industry expert per se, but I been
interesting
-- interacting for the last couple of weeks and talking
to insiders and I think it's clear that everyone wants a
smooth transition of innovation,
from the National labs and academia to the industry.
Integrate way to make sure that the general public and
society is aware of all these accelerated applications to
help benefit them.
They would generate jobs, be healthy industry etc.
At the same time it would ensure
a lot of the hard work and innovations
that are obtained and lost when people retire
or when the project ends.
And so will the industry experts have relayed to me
is that the problem isn't so much with mature accelerated
technology, the industry can handle that very well,
it's with these paradigm shifting technologies.
Like new stuff.
Like
plasma accelerators or flash
were technology.
That's where help or aiding
could make
a big impact in allowing industry to adapt these
technologies.
So few things have been proposed.
I think the first two points maybe the most important one
is, it encouraged
to retake an active role
in high-energy physics
takes an active role in supporting
our need for met things like medical applications, light
sources etc.
By having the scientists demonstrate
these novel tools at their lab
it will go a long way towards
commercialization
because when they see the results, industry will pick
up that interest
.
Results talk more than policy
so that one recommendation.
The other recommendation is related to
the barrier
that exists
for small and midscale companies
dealing with the intellectual property
and the royalties etc.
All of the upper front expenses associated with
working with national labs.
These new accelerated concepts are typically
not converted commercialized by Hugh industry giants like
Google Apple but rather by smaller
technology
enthusiasts who don't have the resources or time for
long negotiations
about contracts and royalties.
So the recommendation is to give them
exclusive license, at little to no cost and involve them
early on
and let them talk about the job and take a risk with them.
I don't know
at the time, those two
small points
is that there is more recommendation between
industry and academia.
Visiting students postdocs and working out the details
of intellectual property as well as making sure the
students are still published
in open access to journals.
So beam time
, where companies can
get beam time focusing less on science but
demonstration, robustness, stability etc.
In the last point is I think scientists should keep
reaching out to industry conferences that are technical
.
For example, the conference of the application of
accelerators research and industry gallery because
scientists are aware of features they have developed.
Polarized beams, (unknown term) capabilities but it
takes
a lot of time for industry to catch up and be aware of
these capabilities.
BREESE QUINN: I think you addressed a good bit of that
that the challenges in the US
a lot of the technologies have been adapted in the labs
of the universities but later on as its commercialized we
don't do such a good job of that in the US and you do a
much better job in Europe.
So we need to strengthen those relationships in the
ways you just mentioned.
So thank you for addressing that.
I appreciate it.
Next I'd like to hear from my representative from Snowmass
career so I'd like to invite Mateja's to come on who is
working closely with S CC and CEF
.
Mateja's who is Brooke from Brookhaven
I'd like to ask you about this question.
High-energy physics has had incredibly good success with
federal government advocacy toward funding support.
Through this particularly this past few years of
Akamai care of.
We've had good success with that.
The folks running that have built
an extremely efficient
and effective
enterprise
to make that happen.
But the early career community
seems to be quite passionate
about advocating for other issues that are important
for the members of our community besides just the
funding support.
So is there a way to systematically address that
problem
and perhaps do advocacy for other issues and what are the
challenges to face there?
PANELIST: Hi.
Thank you for the question.
Let me try to give
a little more context about what we mean will be talking
about other issues in non-funding relation
-- related faculty and why we think the early career a
passion about it.
As was just mentioned we are all aware or should be of the
efforts of restriction asking for support and funding.
It's the historical success in there and very much closer
related to the Snowmass process.
As the (unknown term) mostly guides the talking points
and that conversation when it comes to funding.
But is that enough?
There are many different policies that affect AGP, not
just as a structural way but directly affecting people's
lives.
a really example
.
A really easy example to give
is
(inaudible) adding stress and out to the lives of our
colleagues that don't happen to be US citizens and that's
a big chunk of us.
That's just an example we just heard
about how governmental faculties are important to
shape the future of physics together with a more
inclusive society or given these issues of trying to
insert engineers and people that are not necessarily
physicists
into the funding agencies
point of view.
These are all related to
non-funding related faculty.
So as a community we have been having these discussions
about our climate and
systematic issues in the field
and it seems to be clear
for at least a part of the early career community
that there is too much at stake not to speak on it.
So we need additional faculty on behalf of our
climate goals in the community rather than just
our science goals.
Actually to address the question directly, I think
the answer is no.
We do not have a way to systematically address this
problem.
But the Snowmass
is exactly the venue we can use to stop this description.
That was brought up by members of the community to us
and when I say asked
us I mean the early career Snowmass community that has
been organized.
We put together an LOI in the team
and that was
funded by a town hall
organized by a government outreach program.
You can find the yellow eye and the town hall, it's
recorded and if you are interested I can put the link
on slack.
Those lead to interesting discussions where we talked
about the faculties of this kind of
advocacy.
We need to be careful not to
harm the funding related
faculty that we already know
and there is a structure behind
that actually we need to learn from it.
And maybe expand it
.
But try very hard not to harm them.
What seems to be the best way to go right now
is to write a white paper that can turn into real
recommendations in the final Snowmass report.
For that we need communication with experts.
We are good at doing this but we are getting
into
a somewhat more dangerous field so we need experts
for this.
And at the same time, we really need some input
and some work from the whole community.
This is not an easy task
and I completely understand if it sounds like
a lot of things that may be thinking
that are included in this non-funding faculty are
controversial but that's exactly why
you should add your voice to the discussion.
If you agree with me,
if you are passionate about these different things
please join your voice to us.
If you don't, also please bring your point of view to
this discussion.
Because we need a cultural change in the field.
That's something we can't do without the participation of
the early career community.
So if this is interesting to you, away to join
– you can learn how to join our discussions and
conversations in tomorrow's early career report.
There will be a lot of links and specifications about the
different initiatives that the group is trying to push
including the non-funding related faculty efforts.
I understandably don't have time to attend all of the
meetings and town halls
but any opinions, ideas or help you can give is very
important.
They are all big pushes, even if it's
proof reading something, that's a lot.
If you're a PI, please incentivize the early career
people around you to enjoy and participate
because we can't do much if the early career is not there
.
We believe that this type of effort and initiative
of trying to speak up
and push for things that are related to the climate of
thus as a community.
It's a momentum that will come from early career more
than anything.
BREESE QUINN: Thanks a lot, really appreciate it.
Another issue that
is being dealt with in community engagement is
diversity in our field.
We know there's really check
challenges for.
I want to bring on Devon Walker from Dartmouth
to represent the theory frontier.
He is serving as our theory frontier liaison
.
Devon, what I like you to talk about is
the leaky pipeline
which is often used as an epic explanation to use the
two explain the lack of diversity.
We know that physics is probably the least successful
of all the sciences in this regard.
HDP is not at the top of the list within physics
and within HDP
even
this seems to especially
been an issue in the more specialized or exclusive
components of our field
such as theory or accelerate.
So I'd like you to talk about how the leaky pipeline
, from this perspective of the theorists
can be remedied to address diversity.
exposure back home.
It was this issue
that was really highlighted
in the theory frontier really
views diversity is critical to sustaining
vibrant physics programs.
So this can be summarized
by the
talk for diversity.
In this talk,
I've met a lot of great physicists historically,
but there's no-one waving them
a great physicist or good physicist.
There's just some set of towels that each
person has that they are great at,
and each person is different.
There are different ways to be great.
And he made the argument that we really need
diversity, of ideas, thoughts and creativity.
In diverse people to answer these challenges.
And this was highlighted by recent publication
in the proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, the diversions diversity and innovation
paragraphs.
Some Stanford side to show the connection
between diversity,
people, and making really wonderful
innovations
.
There are more things to this paper,
I can highlight,
but I want to get onto the other
problems.
In our theory frontier discussions, we
viewed
diversity as the likely
pipeline solutions.
We viewed them as
macroscopic and
microscopic.
I'm going to say that whatever to tell you
this.
By my perspective because I'm African
American.
So, microscopic.
This viewpoint can be summarized by
(Name),
in physics today,
years ago,
she gave for explicit
things
that established scientists can do
to really put diversity and
microscopically.
So she wrote,
quote let me be clear,
if you're
career is established, you are not making
explicit and continual effort to encourage
all young physicists,
2, create a welcoming
climate in your department, and three,
promoting
the hiring of diverse faculty members
.
You are part of the problem.
" So she pushed her and said you are part of the
problem.
She emphasized that this is a critical civil
rights issue for our field.
She also goes on and says in addition to her
offering encouragement and mentorship, you
should be ensuring racial and gender
your diaper stands for Christmas, job
shortlists, and making increased diversity-
priority and faculty hiring.
The all that, our discussions also talked
about accountability.
So, there are a lot of people who have been
working on making pipelines.
To varying degrees.
So how can we have a bit of accountability?
So maybe it seems like a good idea versus assist
the partner with minority professional
organizations
and the National Society of Black
physicists.
We apply for grants,
we say what we want to do, in terms of our
research, and then after the grant ends, with go
and write and after grant report.
So the idea is, what can happen is, we can make a
pledge to let's say the National Society of
Black physicists, you make a pledge of the
beginning of the year, and then later, the
(unknown term) can see how the pledge went.
And they keep records, give awards, whatever
else, but they really keep records.
This can be a really positive way
, that systematic change can occur.
And I think this was
, part of this was mentioned and
highlighted by our first speaker.
Beyond this, personally, is something that I
always do
for the past seven or eight years, I've held a
Google form.
BREESE QUINN: Hold on a minute
.
PANELIST: Almost done.
I'm almost done.
Older physicists were talking with younger
physicists.
Sustained and
Cajun.
And this worked.
Some of our first people have gotten tier 1
tenure-track positions.
So my point is sustain engagement.
As for macroscopic, I'm a bit out of
time.
The theory really wants us to
encourage theory and complete
self-assessment
,
and for example,
theorists or anybody else
can work in their departments to form
bridge partnerships,
or if you haven't already done so,
spearhead the application to become
involved.
Again, the research challenges for us right
now, are immense,
there's a lot of physics we have to
accomplish.
When a diversity of ideas, thought,
creativity, and people to enter these
challenges.
Thank you.
BREESE QUINN: Thank you, appreciate it.
Amy Roberts from Denver, if you come on
now, Amy is
one of the co-convenors
of one of the computational frontier
topical groups.
Just a quick follow-up
to the previous issues, if you will,
,
there are diversity issues that are
associated with technologies and tools.
So,
we already know that there are barriers
distant
proportionately underrepresented
minorities due to gatekeeping effects.
And how will the computing frontier
ensure that new technologies that come
up with can you in tools and such, when
appropriate, are integrated into the field
so when they do, they don't suffer the way
that other existing technologies like
grid-based analysis frameworks have in this
respect?
PANELIST: Great, thanks.
OK,
so I think actually
,
the thing I want to briefly explain
is how gatekeeping happens.
So fiercely in the computational frontier.
So,
there are a lot of different ways it can
happen.
But we are really susceptible to it
because often in the computational frontier,
we have technologies,
that are integral and mandatory parts of any
analysis workflow,
and when those
, and knowledge about how to use those is
often stored
in people.
And usually, there are very few people who have
all the knowledge that you need.
So you have, if you have a small set of people
who inadvertently become gatekeepers.
So if you don't have access to this people,
or those people don't like you,
or for whatever reason, you have a hard time
community with those people,
then you can suddenly be in a situation where
you can't do science because you can't submit
jobs or checkout software,
or you can't make the request to the right
person to get the processing done.
So this is where we end up with gatekeeping.
Onto my answer,
there are three things to keep in mind here.
One of them is that
if we approach this as an individual problem, I
think the answer is that we will not be able to
improve the situation substantially.
So I think one of the things in the (unknown
term) report, that is really
appropriate to think about here,
is the idea that one individual
with an
a collaboration, or small set of people
working,
is not a sustainable solution to this problem.
What we really need to think about is
how can we have an investment field wind
.
So this is all of our problem,
and I think that this is
a major point dose that I would like to make,
we need to think about how we can change
the reward structures,
and make sure that this kind of work
is really valued.
We can say that is value, and we know that
it should be fine, but when it comes to tenure
criteria, is not necessarily valued.
When it's when it comes to
grant reviews, it's not necessarily valued.
For that reason, there is not
always money available for this type of thing.
So the major thing I would suggest, and again,
as several other panelists have
mentioned, the SnowMass process is a good venue
for this, but we really need to think about
how as a field, we can make sure
that work on this is really supportive.
Because I think that has to be in place for
sustainable
and continued effort to happen.
So it's not really fair to ask the people
who are often most invested in moving
forward on this,
scientists who are already
underrepresented, to take a hit.
And I think there are ways we can fix this.
And there are several LOI's that talk about
this.
Improving tenure criteria, and pushing
for tenant criteria that
the value this, and grant evaluation
criteria, making changes within the field so this
effort is funded, I think all of these
avenues that are really addressed,
and I think are something that we need
to consider.
So I'm really hopeful that we can work on how
to improve this as a community, and make sure
the rewards really line up.
Through this process.
This back there was a second question we don't
have time for now, I want to ask Amy if you
would
be available in the select channel to
address this specifically, we've
gotten several LOI is about education and
training needs within (unknown term), and
computing is one of the areas so, in the slack
Channel after, could you talk about examples
such as (Name) and the software mom, and
address the training needs that we need to
pay attention to four
wider training in these
specific targeted areas and how to address those
challenges.
PANELIST: OK thank you.
BREESE QUINN: OK, thanks a lot.
Now I would like to
introduce Sophie Middleton
from Caltech
who is serving as a liaison
between the community engagement frontier
and the rare
imprecision frontier.
Sophie,
could you tell us a little bit about what is
being done to include early career help
collaborators
in your frontier,
both now in the SnowMass process and
following
if we move forward with our research program?
And as an early career scientists, are the
specific things you would like the senior
folks in your frontier to know?
PANELIST: Thank you for that question.
I think it's important that we encourage
early career people to be actively involved
with the SnowMass process, after all, the
follow-up to SnowMass and what comes after,
will shape their careers.
It's essential they get their voices heard.
SnowMass as well, offers a great
opportunity to learn about experiments
and materials you are not part of, like over
the last few days, community planning
meeting has been a great exercise to see the
panoramic view of how energy physics
experiments
and all the saints.
So it's gratefully clear people attending stalks.
Our frontier is doing fairly well in that
sense.
I know that even today, there are many
participants were early career people and there
has been a week.
The convenors do an exceptionally good job,
in the town hall, in the parallels, we had many
speakers who were early career people.
Including myself, and we also had some young
students who presented, and for them, for some
of those people it was their first time
to speak as either collaborations, and that
was great to be given that opportunity.
And hopefully that will continue throughout the
SnowMass process.
In terms of yellow eyes, we had many that
had early career cosigners or authors,
which was great, was great to see the
excitement.
And we also had many, it one thing that was very
(inaudible) to me was where I worked, the
spokespeople asked the early career people
asked us to write the LOI and that
created a lot of excitement in
a lot of excitement to be involved in that.
We also have short of leadership cohort of
about 13 people,
in the SnowMass, and these people act as
liaisons so we have seven subgroups in our
subgroups and may ask as liaisons.
And we relay that information
back to their individual experiments.
And
on the
(unknown term)
front, we had a joint election to
elect representatives to that group of them is
communicate the information
in the Khmers back to them, and these people
also attend
the convenor's meetings.
Obviously I'm one of those people as well who
is on a group of 13.
And that's been a great opportunity to be part
of that.
I do think it's important obviously this
is a lot of momentum, I think it's important we
harness that momentum and we keep
communication channels open between the early
career people in the senior collaborators
that we managed to forge these links over the
last months, and hopefully we can
continue that, and hopefully after SnowMass
as well,.
In the network of early career people that's
been brought together by the SnowMass process, on
slack, sometimes, especially in our
frontier where there are smaller experiments, you
might be part of a small group of early career
people, and it's great to see the entire
community out there as well.
I think also it's that we continue to combat
this bias where the same experts always give
talks at conferences and summers does, and we
encourage those people, there experts.
But to encourage those people to nominate
junior collaborators in future conferences and
in future seminars, and in that way, we give
those people a chance to speak and get a platform
and exposure.
But also, it changes the perception of the field
as well to external people who like the
And yet,
was there a second part of the question?
I forgotten.
BREESE QUINN: There is a second thing I would like
some of the other frontiers to respond to as well on the
Slack discussion immediately following related to this.
That is that there seems to be
very low early career involvement
from specific frontiers.
The ones that come to mind our theory, accelerator,
underground in particular.
This very low participation from those.
So representatives of those frontiers
I would really appreciate if you joined the Slack channel
and addressed what you think is causing the participation
– low participation in what you are doing to
minimize that first so I asked people to
take part look for that in the Slack discussion later.
Thanks so much, Sophie.
Appreciate it.
Claire Lee from Fermilab who is serving as the liaison
between the CEF and the (unknown term) frontier.
Claire, what I like you to talk about
is being a representative of the neutrino community
we are definitely moving into the era were neutrino
is going to be representing the flagship US-based
(unknown term) for some time to come.
With that being the case the neutrino frontier will
therefore bear quite a large fraction of the response will
at a four HTP engagement with the general outcome.
The media and so forth.
So can you discuss the plans or strategies that your
frontier specifically is developing to take on that
role?
PANELIST: Thanks very much for allowing me to be here.
Of course I don't need to tell anybody here why the
public engagement is important but it certainly
going to be and (unknown term) are going to start
around 2026 or no or so and going to run into 2030s or so.
It's time to keep people excited about the projects we
are doing and keep up are focused on the fact we really
should keep supporting these physics projects throughout
the country.
I'm pleased to say that if you look at the public
engagement that is already being done by labs and
experiments throughout, especially with respect to
the neutrino frontier.
For example Fermilab and (unknown term) and the LBNF
and Eun Mack experiments have good social media
, Facebook, Twitter and all of these things.
It's great to see and social media is a fantastic way
to get out into the community, especially with
younger generations.
The labs as well offer lab tours in non-COVID times of
course, and special events.
Sofa has their neutrino day every year.
They have public lectures, Fermilab has our gallery.
There's a science Centre as well for there's a lot of
YouTube videos I know in order Mac has
YouTube videos on all aspects of physics not just
read neutrino related.
There are podcasts available.
The JUDE: Project a couple of years agoo
put together
pictures of DUNE
who tried to show people who are working as part of the
collaboration.
Not only from a physics perspective but what they do
in everyday life.
There's also symmetry magazine which is another
public engagement channel
with great public articles and videos
and things as well for
.
So this is nice to see
and it's very encouraging but if you look at it
it's also very, I guess the word that comes to mind is
somewhat passive because what we are doing
is we are putting out information
for people that are already interested.
So we are having tours for people that are already
interested
in coming to us, coming to the tours, coming to the
labs, coming to the lectures, going to the internet sites.
We are relying on the other people to drive their
interaction.
I think we really need to
take a careful look at this and shift focus somewhat
because what we need to ask is, why should people care
about and support these projects in the US?
Why neutrino?
Why the USA?
Why should people care about this?
There was an interesting study done a couple of months
ago about the perception of physics and science through
the American public.
One of the things that came out of this was that the
public tend to equate science with hope.
That's actually really lovely but also if you think about
it, it's also very pragmatic because what are they hoping
for?
They are hoping for in some way that their lives are
going to be changed.
Now, the frontiers may have much easier ways
of looking at how their frontier is changing.
For example, the energy frontier can talk about
accelerators in hospitals and the neutrino frontier may be
a little bit more difficult.
BREESE QUINN: A few more seconds.
PANELIST: So it's very important to focus on but one
of the things I want to end up by saying that I found
really nice is I've heard that in South Dakota, the lab
in South Dakota, has really formed some wonderful
relationships with the surrounding community.
The community takes great pride in the lab
and what is going on there.
They have souvenirs in restaurants and shops
that you can buy if you visit and I think this is the
type of thing that we really need to focus on.
We need to go down to the lab level and look at the
surrounding area and go out to the people more actively
and get the community really excited and to really take
pride in what is being done right there with them.
I think that is maybe the thing that we can focus on
, we can look at going out to community colleges nearby, we
can go to music festivals.
There was a letter of intent on that.
We can really work on taking a step outside and may be
early career people themselves, and see in
this frontier, you can get these opportunities
to take these leading roles.
BREESE QUINN: Thank you so much for that.
And I also like to invite you to the
selected channel to possibly address this
other question, and that is, it goes back to the
earliest talk, big experiments like doing
our global endeavours and portrayed it
diversity in our field, but in reality,
often times it doesn't reality that
penned out that wake respect to developing
countries and colleagues in those areas.
We generally participate just on
individual levels
, as opposed to being very involved in driving
the science of the project.
So, these projects really have to bridge
that gap.
If you could possibly discuss on this like to
know what efforts are being undertaken to
release further incorporate folks from
those countries, that would be fantastic.
PANELIST: Sure.!
And as a follow-up to this public education,
outreach, BREESE QUINN:
I would like to invite (Name) on
,
who's going to be representing the cosmic
frontier.
As
liaison to that frontier as well as a
co-convenor of our public education.
Toggle group.
Topical group.
As neutrinos taking on that mantle, the cosmic
frontier has always had a special
due to the fascination the public has with it
and how inspired daily blog with the cosmos.
What can we do to make changes in physics
education to capitalize on that, and take that
interest to keeping students connected
to (unknown term) and because we are frontier
in particular?
Thanks.
PANELIST: Thank you for the question.
And thank you for Clara for addressing a lot of
the subjects that I would also like to
address.
Concerning the cosmic frontier, it's clear
that from the early charm, a lot of young
people
are captured by the imagination of the
universe.
But somehow,
in the schooling system,
this is not sustained and is not fed.
Until rather late.
When they may go to college
or go into a PhD program.
So the question is, how to sustain
and feed
this imagination
with young people.
And I think that the cosmic frontier
plays a very special role there
because
these are some of the big questions that
people ask
maybe at least as much as particle physics
or the like.
Also,
in the cosmic frontier for example, cosmic rays,
you have great demonstrators, and their
great experiments you can do with simple
materials.
And so it lends itself quite suitably
for outreach and also for education.
And all sorts of ages.
And I think we should profit more from that.
Now I would like to make a comparison
for particles to visit situation
where we have a number of programs
that engage
for example with high school teachers,
in the (unknown term)
and the international master classes from
(unknown term), and dark matter today,
and international cosmic ray day,
but somehow for the cosmic frontier,
this is less well organized.
There are a couple of ideas,
and (Name) and (Name) pointed me to some of
these initiatives.
But there is still in the infancy.
So that may have to be developed.
In the community will have to play a big role
in developing these things.
So I'm actually looking forward to a white paper
concerning the subject.
That's it,
what can facilitate this?
Is to have programs which are like
(unknown term) but also focusing
on the more cosmic questions.
That would really help.
The other thing that would help,
is
(unknown term) is very much centred
on Fermilab to have this type of activity
with high school teachers spread much
more distributed
over the entire United States,
and that also
includes the cosmic frontier.
And then I cannot help
… BREESE QUINN:
Just a few more seconds.
We have a hard deadline at
12:15.
PANELIST: I can't help giving a
European perspective.
In the European
particle physics strategy update, it
actually calls
for the funding agency
to make sure
that in grants,
there is a structural component, small
component for this type of outreach.
So that we can mobilize the entire community
and helping these initiatives
and I think that is important.
BREESE QUINN:
Thank you.
PANELIST: Thank you.
Respect thank you I really appreciate it.
BREESE QUINN: I want to thank all the
participants in the session
for taking the time to explain what's going on
in your frontiers, and to get everybody excited
about what's going on.
I hope that everybody has seen that CEF
community engagement is very important.
Impacts all of us no matter what
frontier we are in.
And we all have a responsibility not only
to implement,
cf.
ideas and values in our work,
but also to actively contribute to the
development of that work if it is going to get
done.
I'd like to say that if you are involved in any
way in SnowMass, you should be involved
actively in at least two topical groups.
One being the topical group representing your
primary area of research, and wine, pick
a CEF topical group to make contributions to
because all of us have to make that happen.
So, I invite you to do that, and just looking
forward to the rest of the day, I want to point
out this, that the conversations that we've
started here,
are going to continue on this slack channel,
web address, so please join Mac
and they Q&A
questions have been copied over to that so
we will address them there.
And take a look at the rest of the breakout
sessions on (unknown term), some are starting
up just now, and plan the rest of your day.
Thanks so much, I really appreciate
everybody's time to learn about these issues,
and we look forward to working with you over