Has there been an overinvestment or underinvestment 

 in "big science" such as high energy physics or 

 magnetic fusion energy relative to other sub-fields 

 of physics or other disciplines? How can we best 

 set priorities so that the appropriate levels of 

 investment in different subfields or disciplines 

 can be determined? 



As in other areas of human endeavor, science is not 



immune to the improved vision accompanying hindsight. 



This is especially true when the science has a close 



relationship with a potentially economically important 



technology, such as magnetic fusion or solar energy. 



In such cases it is important to clearly distinguish 



the science base, and its susceptibility to rapid 



advancement, from economic and market force aspects. 



High energy physics is one of the most rapidly 

 advancing, most fundamental areas of science, and one 

 that truly attracts the best and the brightest. Here, 

 our significant investments have paid off at a high 

 rate of return, and there is every sign that making 

 the new investments to keep us at the forefront 

 will be prudent. 



The best criteria for setting science investment 

 priorities are the rate of advance of a field and 

 its attraction to our best young minds. Some of 

 these fields will require large scale facilities and 

 some will not. So, it is not so much a matter of "big" 

 versus "little" science,- but investing where we will 

 enable the greatest gains. 



