ing the site infrastructure and the level of resident technical support. Developing sound proposals for experiments will require early access to deep underground facilities to perform the necessary preliminary R&D. Therefore, it is important to complete the process of setting the laboratory’s scope and goals, soliciting and reviewing proposals, and building up the necessary infrastructure to allow timely initiation of the experimental research program.


The exploratory physics envisioned for IceCube and the broad science program enabled by a deep underground laboratory are truly distinct. IceCube would concentrate on very high energy neutrinos from astrophysical sources that require a detector of much larger size than is possible in an underground laboratory, while an underground laboratory would focus on experiments, including neutrino experiments, that require the low backgrounds available deep underground. The committee finds essentially no overlap or redundancy in the primary science goals and capabilities of IceCube and those of a deep underground laboratory.

On the international scene of present and planned experiments, IceCube is unique in its technology and location (using ice as a detection medium at the South Pole) and is the most advanced project for gigaton-scale high-energy neutrino telescopes. Separately, the wealth of experimental opportunities available in an underground laboratory ensures that an additional underground laboratory would contribute substantially to international science efforts. While it is true that each particular experiment proposed for the underground lab could be individually sited elsewhere, there are likely to be scientific leadership, economic, and administrative advantages to a centralized national underground facility.

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement