| Name | Institution | pronouns | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Co-Conveners | |||
| Rob Fine | LANL | finer[at]fnal.gov | he/him |
| Louise Suter | FNAL | lsuter[at]fnal.gov | she/her |
This is the final version of the summary report for our topical group. This can also be accessed at https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.09067
The importance to maintain effective and continuous presence and engagement in all sectors of society, in particular with government and policymakers, should be well articulated. Physicists should be trained and promote these images of societal engagements that may erase stereotypes and improve public perceptions. This should be accompanied by well-articulated, yet realistic, presentations of our activities with the objective to sustain or augment support for fundamental and applied physics.
We have identified four broad areas of focus, which are described below. These do not represent an exhaustive list of questions to be addressed, just the main areas that have arisen so far. It is planned that each of these areas become, at least one, contributed paper.
This includes the majority of existing HEP advocacy infrastructure (i.e. the annual “DC trip”, led by the users groups of FNAL, SLAC and US-LHC). Areas include: What has worked for our community and where can we expand existing efforts? How can we quantify the impact of our efforts? Can we improve the representation active in these areas? Are there barriers preventing members in our community from participating?
Should we expand the community advocacy efforts beyond HEP funding advocacy to also include topics that directly impact HEP? This could include topics like STEM education, diversity affecting HEP researchers, immigration issues affecting HEP researchers. What mechanism would be used to decide which topics to advocate for? Would this impact our ongoing HEP advocacy?
Current advocacy efforts are mostly focused on Congress. How can we establish more robust channels of communication with our funding agencies at the community-wide level? Is there a place for HEP advocacy at the State and local level within the US? Could international partners benefit from the tools we have developed for their own advocacy? Can we benefit from additional community communications with the executive branch, OMB (office of management and budget) and OSTP (office of science and technology policy)?
How well-educated is our community about existing advocacy efforts? How can we improve awareness within our community about these efforts? Separately, how can we provide advocacy training for HEP community members more expansively than we currently do?
Here is the current list of Contributed papers, if you are interested in getting involved in any of these please email the conveners (emails at top of page).
| Working Title | Lead Author | slack # |
|---|---|---|
| Congressional advocacy for HEP funding (DC Trip) | #commf06_wg1_hep_advocacy_funding | |
| Congressional advocacy for HEP issues not involving funding | #commf06_wg2_hep_advocacy_impacful_issues | |
| Non-congressional government engagement | #commf06_wg3_non_congressional_advocacy | |
| HEP PP&GE inreach and outreach, training and education | #commf06_wg4_hep-advocacy-training-and-inreach |
We invite you to join these conversations, and specifically to participate in our upcoming public fora. If any of these topics specifically piques your interest, or you'd like to raise another question that we should be thinking about, please feel free to reach out directly to us!
Bi-weekly meetings are currently on hold due to the pause. Details will be added here once they start again.
Please see Indico https://indico.fnal.gov/category/1156/ (connection details at link) for our past meeting. The Google calendar will contain details of upcoming meetings.
Generally, the public meetings are organized into two categories:
Here is the list of submitted LOIs to this topic. First index before “/” corresponds to the primary frontier used for the submission.