Dear Colleagues,
Much to our astonishment, the LHCC took action regarding FELIX during a=
closed session of its meeting on 5-6 November 1997. While rumors regarding=
this action reached us quite quickly, the minutes of the LHCC were only=
released today. You can find them at:
http://www.cern.ch/Committees/LHCC/LHCC31.html
The portion relevant to FELIX reads:
>5. REPORT FROM THE FELIX REFEREES AND DISCUSSION=20
>
>The committee heard a report from the FELIX referees, and had an extensive=
discussion on the
>Letter of Intent in the light of this report.=20
>
>At its 19-20 January 1995 meeting (LHCC 95-03), the LHCC expressed its=
interest in diffraction
>phenomena and related studies in pp collisions by stating:=20
>
>"The LHCC noted the interest in diffraction, and expects that such studies=
may also form part of
>the LHC experimental programme. The committee encourages interested parties=
to work together
>on an integrated approach towards this physics, whilst bearing in mind the=
LHC physics
>priorities already established."=20
>
>More recently at its 30 May 1996 meeting (LHCC 96-28) the committee added:=
=20
>
>"The LHCC urges that any new experimental initiative should be consistent=
with the restricted
>resources likely to be available, and combined as far as possible with one=
of the foreseen
>experiments."=20
>
>It is in this context, which the present LHCC members strongly reaffirm,=
that the FELIX
>Letter of Intent was considered and reviewed. The LHCC finds that the FELIX=
LoI is not
>responsive to these guidelines. While the physics topics addressed by the=
programme proposed
>in the LoI are of interest (particularly the complete reconstruction of=
diffractive events), the likely
>costs of constructing the proposed dedicated detector and of the=
modifications to the LHC
>collider are very high in comparison with the probable physics output.=
Finally, the composition
>and strength of the collaboration seem inadequate for carrying out a strong=
programme
>addressing these physics topics.=20
We note that the final paragraph, in which FELIX is accused of being "not=
responsive" to LHC guidelines, is disingenuous to say the least, and very=
selective in the history which it recalls. Subsequent to either of the=
LHCC guidelines which are recalled, we (K. Eggert, C. Taylor, J. Bjorken)=
sent a Memorandum to Enzo Iarocci, Chair of the LHCC, CERN/LHCC 96-37, 11=
October 1996 outlining in detail the FELIX project and budget. (You can=
find the text of this memorandum at http://www.cern.ch/FELIX/News/memor.htm=
l ). While the LHCC made no official response at that time, we discussed the=
project in detail both with Prof. Iarocci as well as with members of the=
CERN Directorate. They were uniform in encouraging us to go ahead, fully=
understanding the precise scope of FELIX. Needless to say, we would not=
have mobilized the efforts of the approximately 160 people who directly=
contributed to the Letter of Intent if we had not been led to believe that=
the Chair of the LHCC and the C!
!
ERN Directorate believed that FELIX fell within the guidelines established=
by the LHCC.
We are also deeply disturbed, even astonished, by the lack of "due process"=
in the LHCC's action. We submitted the LOI end of August to the LHCC and=
three referees were appointed with the target to give a first preliminary=
evaluation of the LOI at the LHCC meeting in November. We were told that=
the referees had been asked to proceed slowly. Despite repeated attempts=
we were not able to speak with the referees and to explain where we stand=
with our negotiations about the collaboration and possible staging=
scenarios. As a result it appears (based on private communications) that =
the LHCC acted precipitately, on the basis of false statements and=
innuendo, to which we were given no opportunity to respond.
We are continuing to pursue possible avenues of recourse to this decision,=
and will make the relevant documents available on the FELIX web pages as=
they become available. We would certainly appreciate any information or=
input you are able to provide: we would be in an even worse situation, if=
that is imaginable, were it not for the help many of you have already=
provided in the past two weeks. We will, of course, try to keep you=
informed of possible action you can take to help rectify this terrible situ=
ation.
=46inally, we would like to thank you again for the hard work and passionate=
attention you have given to FELIX. We are not done yet!
It is always darkest before the dawn,
Karsten & Cyrus
-----------------------------------
Cyrus Taylor (216) 368-3710
Associate Professor (216) 368-4671 (FAX)
Department of Physics cct@po.cwru.edu
Case Western Reserve University ctaylor@fnal.fnal.gov
Cleveland, OH 44106-7079 (co-spokesman, Fermilab T-864=
)
USA (co-spokesman,=
FELIX at the LHC)