Appendixes



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



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 65
Appendixes

OCR for page 65
This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page 65
A Formation of the Committee See next page.

OCR for page 65
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20502 March 29, 2002 Dr. Bruce Alberts President National Academy of Sciences 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Room 215 Washington, DC 20418 Dear Dr. Alberts: As indicated in the President’s FY 2003 Budget Request for NSF under the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction Account, the Office of Science and Technology Policy requests that the National Research Council (NRC) review the scientific merit of IceCube, and other proposed US, neutrino collectors in the context of current and planned neutrino research capabilities throughout the world. The report’s findings and recommendations relative to IceCube would inform a decision whether to initiate its construction in FY 2004. In addition, I request that this review assess the merits of neutrino detectors associated with deep underground research laboratories and large volume detectors, like IceCube. Specifically, the NRC should address the unique capabilities of each class of new experiments and any possible scientific redundancy between these two types of facilities. The review should also include: The identification of the major science problems that could be addressed with 1-km3 class neutrino observatories. The identification of the major science problems that could be addressed with a deep underground science laboratory neutrino detector. An assessment of the scientific importance of these problems and the extent to which they can be addressed with existing, soon to be completed, or planned facilities around the world. I am requesting that such a review be earned out under the sponsorship of NSF and completed by September 1, 2002. Sincerely, John H.Marburger, III Director

OCR for page 65
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering Institute of Medicine National Research Council April 8, 2002 The Honorable John H.Marburger, III Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy Executive Office of the President Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Room 424 Washington, DC 20502 Dear Jack: I am writing in response to your letter of March 29 requesting a review of proposed U.S. neutrino collectors and the nature and importance of the science problems that such facilities could address. I have asked our Board on Physics and Astronomy to form a committee under the National Research Council to undertake this study. The committee will be charged to complete an approved Research Council report in accordance with your request within 6 months of conclusion of an agreement with the National Science Foundation for financial support of this work. Thank you for this expression of confidence in the NRC’s ability to provide useful and timely advice on scientific matters of importance to the nation. Sincerely, Bruce Alberts Chairman National Research Council