1092 



146 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL COOPERATION 



established over a short period of time; rather, arrangements for U.S. 

 support of, and interest in, CERN facilities might well be coupled with 

 CERN participation in the preparatory work for the very large pp Col- 

 lider recommended by the 1983 HEPAP subpanel. 



• Major U.S. use of LEP (as well as HERA and TRISTAN) means that 

 the great investments made by the countries subscribing to their con- 

 struction and operating costs directly benefit the United States; the ar- 

 rangement remains economically advantageous. 



• Essentially all other benefits of U.S. CERN participation, specifi- 

 cally those to U.S. electronics and computer manufacturers, remain 

 valid. 



As we embark on a period where international coordination becomes 

 more prominent, we have to strive for greater continuity in our high- 

 energy physics program. The stable growth of the European program is 

 not in the least due to the long-range planning prevalent in European 

 countries. (In Germany, e.g., even individual university groups are 

 funded for 3-year periods, and long-range projections are written into 

 national budgetary legislation.) Lackadaisical support for our own 

 facilities and abrupt termination of half-finished projects, as well as the 

 unpredictability of the funding for our university program on a yearly 

 basis, put us at a severe disadvantage when it comes to coordination 

 with international research activities. The longer time range over which 

 a major experimental effort will span— say , 8-12 years for an LEP experi- 

 ment, from proposal to the completion of the initially foreseen pro- 

 gram — alone mandates greater long-term stability for our program. 



CONCLUSIONS 



When the European Laboratory for Particle Physics started opera- 

 tions in the late 1950s, benevolent U.S. assistance helped to set a pattern 

 of successful operation. A tradition of informal U.S. presence at CERN 

 built up over the years, thus opening up the physical and cultural 

 resources of this uniquely successful laboratory to American scientists 

 on a mutually beneficial basis. 



As individual machines grew ever more costly to build and operate, 

 CERN facilities started to include some that were otherwise unavailable 

 to U.S. scientists. Still informally arranged, participation by entire U.S. 

 teams became an accepted feature at CERN. 



A continuing trend toward contraction to a smaller number of high- 

 powered, high-cost facilities can be partially offset by the practices thus 

 evolved, to permit joint usage of major facilities at CERN and in the 



