Volume 20 Friday, April 18, 1997 Number 8

f President’s ScienceAdvisor Explores Fermilab

NSIDE2 Lab Annual Review

4 On Schedule andOn Budget

5 What is aDanny LehmanReview?

Comet Hale-Bopp

Pho

tos

by

Rei

dar

Hah

n

The director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy walks Main Injector tunnel and visits DZero.

by Donald Sena, Office of Public AffairsJohn Gibbons, President Clinton’s

assistant for science and technologyissues, said he has often seen the world’smost powerful particle accelerator fromthousands of feet up in an airplane, butnever had a chance to visit its home.That changed on April 7 when Gibbonscame to Fermi National AcceleratorLaboratory to gain a deeper under-standing of the research occurring at theenergy frontier.

Gibbons, originally a nuclear physi-cist, said he visited primarily to see thepowerful tools of high–energy physicsand learn about the basic science on thesite, rather than to give a long speech ordiscuss policy issues. Donning a hardhat,Gibbons walked the beamline of theMain Injector with physicist SteveHolmes, discussing luminosity,antiproton recycling and magnet con-struction. Later, Gibbons toured theDZero hall, climbing through the heartof the collider detector and learningabout the upgrades needed to keep upwith the Main Injector.

“It’s been a long time since I pushedbuttons and kicked machines myself,”said Gibbons. “It’s just extraordinary tosee the elegance of technology now inproviding a dependable but complicatedsystem” for exploring the fundamentalnature of matter.

Touring the Main Injector with anumber of Fermilab scientists, Fermilab

hn Gibbons addresses audience of scientists 1 West.

Fermilab Director John Peoples (right) discusses basic science with John Gibbons,as they climb around the DZero detector.

continued on page 8

dark matter and its composition with theNeutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) experi-ment and the search for cold dark matter.

Peoples quickly turned his focus to acommon concern in the particle physics com-munity: the federal budget. [Deputy DirectorKen Stanfield also detailed the budget’s impli-cations for Fermilab’s plans in the next twofiscal years at the end of the review.] Peoplessaid the fiscal 1997 budget presented aproblem for operations, as a lower–than–expected outlay for Fermilab combined withnew costs forced the director to make toughchoices. The director said Lab managersreduced the staff by about 100 people, reducedequipment funds by a factor of two or more foreverything except CDF and DZero upgrades,and deferred as many expenses as possible tofiscal 1998 and 1999.

“That’s allowed us to go ahead with thefixed–target operation and finish it with somestyle,” said Peoples, as he reminded thereviewers that this fixed–target run, scheduledto end in September 1997, will be the last 800GeV fixed–target run for Fermilab.

Peoples also summarized the plans for col-lider Run II, scheduled to begin after the com-pletion of the Main Injector in 1999. He said

by Donald Sena, Office of Public AffairsFermi National Accelerator Laboratory

launched a successful fixed–target run in thelast year, made solid progress on the construc-tion of the Lab’s newest accelerator and has agood plan in place for the upgrades to the twocollider detectors, according to Department ofEnergy officials and consultants conductingFermilab’s Annual Review. However, thereviewers expressed concern about plans for thelong–term future at the Laboratory, saying thatin the coming year Fermilab should put moreresources toward future physics tools and ideas.

The Annual Review, held April 1–3 at theLaboratory, included nearly 30 talks thatencompassed Fermilab’s work of the recentpast, the present experiments and plans for thenear–term (1997–2005) and long–term(beyond 2005) future. Speakers, includingFermilab employees and users from various universities, presented status reports and gen-eral information about all facets of the Lab’swork. Reviewers also toured the Lab’s facilities,going into the trenches where the cutting–edgescience is taking place.

“With [Fermilab] doing so well exploitingits facilities...I recommend and encourage theLaboratory to bring a greater sense of urgencyin planning for the future,” said Paul Slatteryfrom the University of Rochester, a review con-sultant. He added that Fermilab is the leader ofthe U.S. high–energy physics community andshould actively seek ways to remain the leader“to have a future for the next generation ofhigh–energy physicists.”

Director’s overviewDirector John Peoples began the three–day

review with a summary of the Fermilab pro-gram. He spoke of anticipated results from theLaboratory, including progress on the phenom-enon known as CP violation with the KTeVexperiment; expected results from the colliderrun set to begin in 1999; and the search for

DOEConductsLab’s AnnualReview

Pho

to b

y R

eid

ar H

ahn

Craig Moore, of the Beams Division, details the accelerator’s performance.

Reviewers commend Fermilab for current experimentation and plannedupgrades, but express concern aboutlong–term future.

the two collider collaborations are busyupgrading their detectors, while work continueson Run II accelerator improvements.

Peering into the near future, Peoples saidthe Main Injector, while providing protons forthe collider experiments, could also supply 120GeV protons for NuMi and possibly to one ortwo more fixed–target experiments. In addi-tion, the director detailed an idea for a collisionhall at CZero dedicated to charm and bottomphysics.

Peoples also addressed the long–termfuture, saying the Lab is now focusing on twoideas: a muon collider and a Very LargeHadron Collider (VLHC). However, Fermilabis in a tough position, one reviewer noted, as itmust balance its commitments to users in thepresent and near future, while also planning forlong–term machines and goals.

“Our difficulty is to accomplish all we mustdo and still free up enough people to plan forFermilab’s future,” said Peoples in the AnnualReview booklet published in conjunction withthe review. “We cannot neglect the program forthe next eight years; it is far too exciting.”

The talksSpeakers from all areas of the Laboratory

elaborated on the director’s overview. CraigMoore, from the Beams Division, presenteddata on the accelerator’s performance for thecurrent fixed–target run. In a reserved manner,Moore presented chart after chart detailingsteady improvement in beam luminosity andreliability, resulting in several recent Tevatronrecords.

When Moore finished, one reviewer,noting the implications of the data just pre-sented, said, “This was a low-key presentationof incredible accomplishments.”

Fermilab researcher Peter Kasper presenteda synopsis of fixed–target results and papersfrom the 1990–91 run and anticipated resultsfrom the experiments now taking data.Switching to collider physics, Fermilab scientistssummarized new results and expectations fromCDF and DZero, while also explaining theideas and schedules for the upgrades.

The focus on the near–term future con-tinued with Computing Division Head JoelButler’s plans for dealing with the challenge ofaccumulating Run II data. Steve Holmesupdated the review team on the status of theMain Injector; one reviewer noted that it wasimportant to the high–energy physics field thatthe Main Injector was on schedule, on budgetand well managed, because it proves that theparticle physics community can still manageand complete a large accelerator “after the[Superconducting Super Collider] debacle.”

Day two marathonGreg Bock, a Fermilab scientist, opened

the second day of talks with an overview ofpossibilities for a 120 GeV fixed–target pro-gram. Bock said researchers have proposed anumber of ideas, and a workshop on the sub-ject planned for May 1–4 has generated wideinterest. Two DOE reviewers said they hadconcerns about “proton economics,” explainingthat the competition for protons between thecollider detectors, NuMI and other 120 GeVfixed–target experiments would be high.

Gina Rameika, NuMI project manager,outlined the organization, facility and beamdesign, cost, schedule and project milestonesfor NuMI. Noting funding constraints,Rameika said she is constantly scrutinizing thebudget of NuMI, looking for ways to reducethe cost. The project leader added that herteam was heartened by the $5.5 million lineitem for NuMI in President Clinton’s FY1998budget.

“It was an incredible morale booster forthe people on this project,” said Rameika.

One area of concern for Rameika is inter-national participation, as CERN experimentershave shown interest in conducting a similarstudy in Europe. DOE reviewers shared thatconcern, saying they hoped other countrieswould consider collaborating with the NuMIproject instead of launching an experiment indirect competition.

“There are lots of groups that could cometogether and coalesce into the program,” saidRameika. “We should let that happen.”

The spirit of international collaborationcontinued as Dan Green, from the Particle

continued on page 7

Fermilab Director JohnPeoples addresses theDOE review team.

Fermilab Deputy DirectorKen Stanfield discusses thefederal budget.

Some members of the DOE review team. From left, DOE’s Peter Rosen, Bob Diebold and Gordon Charlton.

Pho

tos

by

Rei

dar

Hah

n

By Judy Jackson, Office of Public Affairs Fermilab physicist Steve Holmes, project

manager for Fermilab’s Main Injector acceler-ator construction project, waited outside aLaboratory conference room for the thirteenthDepartment of Energy review of his $229 mil-lion project to begin. As he adjusted the necktiehe had donned for the occasion, he reflected onthe review process that has become an integralpart of managing the construction of large newresearch facilities for DOE’s national researchlaboratories.

“I think reviews are very valuable,”Holmes said. “We complain about them, butthey have great worth, both for us and forDOE. I’ve often said that we could call off thereview now, just before it begins, and we wouldalready have realized much of the value.Preparing for a review forces you to climb outof the trenches and take stock and look at thebroad perspective. It points up issues on theproject we should be doing something about.And, of course, hearing what the project lookslike from the perspective of people who are notinvolved in the day-to-day details that preoc-cupy us often leads to useful suggestions.”

On Schedule and On BudgetHow the review process developed by the Department of Energy’s Office ofEnergy Research keeps multimillion dollar projects at national laboratories oncourse, for the advancement of forefront science

“DOE has a public responsibility for getting projects executed on budget and onschedule,” Holmes continued. “They have anobligation to understand what’s going on.Reviews take lots of resources to prepare for,but they are worth it.”

Fermilab Deputy Director Ken Stanfieldagreed with Holmes’s assessment of the projectreviews that DOE’s Office of Energy Researchinstituted in the early 1980s in response to aseries of project cost overruns at ER nationallaboratories. Stanfield has recently helped toguide DZero and CDF, Fermilab’s two colliderdetector collaborations, through successfulreviews of the multimillion dollar projects toupgrade their detectors for Collider Run II atthe Tevatron. DOE’s Dan Lehman led thereviews.

“We take them seriously.”“One of DOE’s chief success stories is in

the construction of large user facilities forresearch,” Stanfield said. “The review process is a critical part of that success. As I often say atthe end of reviews, it is extremely important forthe success of big projects to have a good plan, supported by all the players: theAdministration, the Congress, the Departmentof Energy, and the laboratory. The reviewprocess is critical in order for everyone to buy in.

“Not all reviews are perfect,” Stanfieldadded. “A given review may not place the rightemphasis on all the key issues. But they areuseful because they assemble a good group ofpeople who can sit in a room and make uptheir minds about whether the project has awell-defined scope, accurate cost estimates, realistic schedules and good management. If aDOE Lehman review says the project is ingood shape, you can have some confidence that it is.”

“Believe me,” Stanfield said, “we take theresults of these reviews seriously.”

Department of Energy officials also holdthe process in high regard. “We considerDanny’s reviews as an important part of theproject management process,” said James

A recent Lehman review of Fermilab’s Main Injector project.

Pho

to b

y R

eid

ar H

ahn

“Plans are worthless, but planning is everything... So, the first thing you do is to take all the plans off the top shelf and throw them out the window and start once more. But if you haven’t been planning you can’t start to work, intelligently at least. That is the reason it is so important to plan, to keep yourselves steeped in the character of the problem that you may one day be called upon to solve—or to help to solve.”

~Dwight Eisenhower

continued on page 6

The Department ofEnergy’s Danny Lehman,director of the Office of EnergyResearch’s ConstructionManagement Support Division,has a clear idea of the purpose ofthe project reviews that now bearhis name.

“Remember,” he said, “ourmission in ER is to do science,not to do reviews. Our purposein doing reviews is to expeditethe science that is what we’re all about.”

Expediting the science wasthe motivation for creating thereview process in the early1980’s. The reviews originated as“Temple Reviews,” named for L. Edward Temple, who inaugu-

rated and built the review system that Lehmancontinues today.

“At the time,” Temple said recently, “DOE was engaged in many big-dollar activitiesthat did not involve much conventional construction,” which DOE had previously been accustomed to monitoring.

“Many of these projects were sufferingmajor cost overruns, which played havoc withplanning in ER,” Temple said. He began thepractice of inviting a group of expert consultantsto join DOE staff in reviewing the projects fortheir scope, cost, schedule, and management.

“We established some basic practices,”Temple explained. “The participants wouldagree ahead of time on what was to be coveredin the review, which would last from two to fourdays. We would leave the scene of the reviewwith a draft report, including action items withdue dates—things that all the parties involved,including DOE, needed to do.

“The review process evolved over time,”Temple said. “In the beginning, people werereluctant to believe that it could be anythingbut adversarial. However, they gradually cameto perceive that it did have some value. Projectseverywhere began to see the benefits. I neverviewed myself as ‘the government’ versus thelabs. Instead, I tried to put myself in the placeof the lab project manager and see things fromthat point of view.”

Lehman joined Temple in 1981, and thetwo worked together for a decade, untilTemple’s departure in 1991.

Has the process changed in the five yearssince Lehman has been conducting reviews onhis own?

“I think that the end results from a Lehmanreview are the same as from a Temple review,”Lehman said. “How we get from point A topoint B may be a little different. The trick is tobe objective. The truth is the truth, and we tellthe same story to the Program Office and to ERmanagement. We don’t adjust the facts to suitthe audience.”

Lehman said the review process is a flexibleone. “It is not a cookie-cutter process. We tailorthe review to suit the project and the phase it isin. If there are no real issues to resolve, thereviews can back off” and become less frequentand detailed.

Acclaim from afar“The process works well because all parties

use it and rely on it: the lab, the program office,ER management, the Site Office and our office,”Lehman said. “All contribute to it, and all abideby the results. If some parties don’t participate, it will fall apart.”

Physicists value the Lehman review. RetiredFermilab physicist Dick Lundy, himself a frequentexpert consultant on reviews, said, “Scientistsaccept peer review. What Ed Temple and DannyLehman had to do was to convince the scientistsat the labs that DOE reviews were peer reviews. I think that, after a while, they succeeded indoing that.”

Regard for Lehman reviews does not stop atU.S. national laboratories, as a February 7 mem-orandum from DOE’s John O’Fallon, director ofER’s High Energy Physics Program, reveals:

“On Monday, February 3, 1997,” O’Fallonwrote, “at the initialing of the U.S./CERN LHCAgreement, Chris Llewellyn Smith, the Director-General of CERN, commented to all assembledon the high quality technical review that DanLehman had performed of the LHC [LargeHadron Collider] on April 22-26, 1996. In fact,he stated that DOE was ‘the only agency in theworld capable of performing a technical reviewof this kind.’ This capability is due in large mea-sure to Dan Lehman’s leadership.

“While I have long maintained that theLehman reviews (and previously Temple reviews)are invaluable to the program offices,” O’Fallonconcluded, “it now appears that they have gainedinternational acclaim as well.” ■

What Is a Danny Lehman Review?

Dan Lehman, director of the Office of EnergyResearch’s ConstructionManagement SupportDivision, at a recentreview of Fermilab’s Main Injector Project.

Pho

to b

y R

eid

ar H

ahn

One definition of

a Lehman review:

“A good group of

people who sit in a

room and make up

their minds about

whether a project

has a well-defined

scope, accurate

cost estimates,

realistic schedules

and good

management.”

Newman-Holmes said she had learnedsomething important from the review. “One ofthe purposes is to make clear to DOE whatTHEY need to provide. DOE is reviewing theproject, and they want to know what part istheir responsibility.”

Reviews have come thick and fast for theHolmes family this spring. Newman-Holmesthe CDF project co-manager is married toHolmes the Main Injector project manager.Did her husband, veteran of a dozen reviews,give her any advice as she prepared for her firstone?

“He did. He said it was important tounderstand the charge to the review committeeand to agree ahead of time on the purpose ofthe review and what it was trying to accom-plish. At one point, when we presented thingsin a slightly different way from what thereviewers wanted, Danny Lehman said to me,‘You should have known what we wanted fromtalking to Steve.’

“Also,” Newman-Holmes said, “Steve wasout of town during my review, so I had to leaveevery afternoon to pick up the kids fromschool. But this week I’m getting even. I’mleaving town, and he’s having a review, so he’llhave to pick them up.” ■

On Schedulecontinued from page 4

Decker, deputy director of theOffice of Energy Research. “In nosmall measure, they are responsiblefor the success that ER has had inbuilding projects on schedule and onbudget.”

Fermilab projects have undergonetheir share of reviews in recent months.DZero went through a Lehman reviewin mid-February, CDF had one in mid-March, and early April saw DannyLehman and his review committee back at Fermilab to scrutinize progress on theMain Injector.

Physicists Jim Christenson and MikeTuts, project managers for DZero’supgrade, pronounced themselves pleasedwith the results of their collaboration’sreview.

“We’ve been baselined!” Christensondeclared, referring to the review committee’sacceptance of the scope, cost, schedule andmanagement plan outlined by the collabora-tion. “Danny Lehman had a smile on his face atthe closeout. They told us they didn’t see any-thing wrong.”

“Basically,” Christenson continued, “youcan’t manage a multimillion dollar project to beready in 1999 without a resource-loadedschedule and careful planning. A Lehmanreview pushes you to get things done that youneed to do for the project.”

DZero’s next review will occur in sixmonths. “The review process is a bit likepainting a bridge,” Tuts observed. “As soon asyou finish one review, it’s time to start gettingready for the next one. Now we need to dowhat we said we would. We have to spend themoney.”

CDF Upgrade Project Co-Manager CathyNewman Holmes was also pleased with theresults of her project’s recent review.

“It validates our cost estimate and schedulefor the project,” she said, “and it makes peoplemore inclined to have confidence in theupgrade.

“For this review,” Newman-Holmes said,“we did a bottoms-up cost estimate, starting atthe lowest level for both materials and labor.Labor is notoriously difficult to estimate in aproject like CDF, where labor comes frommany sources around the world, from universi-ties and from other countries. The project man-agement needs to understand what it will haveto pay for and what it won’t.”

“ Preparing for a

review forces you

to climb out of

the trenches and

take stock and

look at the broad

perspective.

It points up issues

on the project we

should be doing

something about.”

~ Steve Holmes,Main InjectorProject Manager

Fermilab’s colliderdetector collaborations,DZero and CDF, recentlycompleted successfulDOE Lehman reviews.

Physics Division, and Jim Kerby, from theTechnical Division, outlined plans for U.S. andFermilab participation in the Large HadronCollider at CERN and one of its detectors,CMS.

Green, the spokesman for the U.S./CMSeffort, explained Fermilab’s role as the host laboratory for the U.S. work. Using an over-head showing a cutaway of CMS, Green out-lined U.S. responsibilities for the detector,including construction of the trigger/dataacquisition system, the forward muon systemand the hadron calorimeter; he also detailedcost profiles, construction schedules and project management. Green said a review of the effort in early June will help set the fullcontingency level.

Kerby, the project engineer for theU.S./LHC accelerator team, detailed the man-agement team for LHC work, provided costestimates and gave an overview of upcomingwork. Kerby said the national institutions’responsibilities on the project are in three mainareas: interaction regions, the rf straight sectionand superconducting wire and cable.

“The centerpiece of our work here atFermilab is developing the interaction regionquadrupole” magnets, said Kerby.

The last talks of the second day focused onideas for future accelerators on the Fermilabsite. Robert Noble and Steve Geer, Fermilabscientists, detailed the feasibility and ideas for amuon collider. Ernie Malamud discussed ideasfor the VLHC, including investigating high-–temperature superconducting wire andlow–field superferric magnets. Peter Limon,head of the Technical Division, rounded out

the 10–hour session with a presentation onpossible technologies for physics tools of the future.

Close–outThis future was foremost on the minds of

the review team members during the close–outdiscussion.

“From now until the LHC turn–on, thisLaboratory has a very bright future. But, theday will come when the LHC does turnon...and the energy frontier will pass,” saidJohn O’Fallon, director of the High–EnergyPhysics Program in DOE. “Fermilab must facethat and [the Lab] should put its best minds towork on it.”

The Fermilab director acknowledged thereviewers’ concerns, and said during the courseof 1997 the Labplans to move moreresources towardplanning for lifebeyond the LHC.Peoples said whenreviewers returnnext year, theywould see more for-malized plans forthe years 2005 andbeyond.

“Next year, youwill still have someconcerns about ourfuture, but you willalso see we will havemade progress,”said Peoples. ■

Jack L. Ritchie (left), fromthe University of Texas atAustin, and P. K. Williamsdiscuss a portion of theFermilab program. DaveFinley, head of the BeamsDivision, looks on.

Annual Reviewcontinued from page 3

Brenna Flaugher, aCDF experimenter,presents new resultsfrom Run I andexpectations forRun II.

Pho

tos

by

Rei

dar

Hah

n

Director John Peoples and Beverly Hartline,from the Office of Science and TechnologyPolicy, Gibbons viewed dipole and quadrupolemagnets in the accelerator tunnel, examinedpermanent magnets in the 8 GeV line and sawthe Neutrinos for the Main Injector (NuMI)stub—the beginning of a large future experi-ment to study neutrino oscillations.

Later, Gibbons toured the DZero hall withHugh Montgomery, DZero cospokesman, andDima Denisov, a researcher from Fermilab.They viewed the 5,000–ton particle detectorfrom a catwalk, then ventured down to see thestructure from the inside.

A dialogue in 1 WestBetween the stops on the tour, Gibbons

addressed scientists in 1 West, giving a briefopening statement and answering questionsfrom the audience.

The OSTP director said it has beenexciting to work in the White House the pastfour years, as “we have a president and a vicepresident both of whom are very much inter-ested in science and technology and its inter-play with various other national goals.”

Gibbons said one of the factors driving theinterest in the executive branch is the history ofa high return on the investment in research.Going back to World War II, the rate of returnon the investment in science and technologyhas been about 50 percent per year, accordingto Gibbons.

He said the funding challenge for sciencecame about as government turned its attentionto tackling the national debt. Gibbons said theadministration has taken on the difficult task oftrying to end the cycle of annual budgetdeficits, while still preserving programs thatbenefit the nation. After four and one-half yearsof trying to get that deficit to zero, they are stillshort, forcing every program to come underscrutiny, said Gibbons. He added that reduc-tions generally come from the discretionarybudget, which represents only a small fractionof the entire budget.

“So all of us, including yourselves, have toreally look to every means we can develop toenable us to continue to do the work we aredoing, and, at the same time, do it with greaterefficiency and effectiveness,” said Gibbons.“And I must say that I am extremely impressedwith the progress that’s been made here atFermilab in just that regard.”

Gibbons added, although he is not herewith a message of greatly expanding budgetsfor the future, the Administration will try toprotect funding for science and educationendeavors as best it can.

“We feel we can hold the line at least, withrespect to the purchasing power of our work, inbasic research,” said Gibbons.

Gibbons said he is heartened by thenumber of students who have received theirPh.D.s through work at the Laboratory, sayingFermilab is not only a place that advances thetechnology of accelerators and furthers theunderstanding of the fundamental properties ofmatter, but also “trains new minds” in a fieldthat has much potential for new insight intonature.

“Certainly, [Fermilab] represents the highfrontier,” said Gibbons. “The rate of advance-ment of knowledge in this area remains asexciting as it has been; and, it seems to me,[the Lab] also represents a place where there isa lot of convergence now between disciplinesonce thought to be very separate.”

President’sAdvisorcontinued from page 1

Pho

tos

by

Rei

dar

Hah

n

Hugh Montgomery (second from left), DZero cospokesman, discusses the upgrades for the collider detector in the DZero assemblyhall with John Gibbons. Fermilab scientist Dima Denisov (far right)and Kam Seth, a user from Northwestern University, look on. Above, they view the detector from a catwalk.

Funding stabilityAfter Gibbons opened up the room for

questions, a scientist queried him about stabilityof funding for projects that take years todevelop and execute. Gibbons said FranklinRaines, director of the Office of Managementand Budget, supports full funding for certainprojects upfront—meaning full authorizationand appropriation of the funds, with the moneyfor the outyears going into escrow. He saidCongress is still divided on this issue, however.

Future of DOEAddressing a question about DOE’s future,

Gibbons acknowledged that there is some pres-sure in Washington to get rid of the depart-ment, but said he believes DOE performs manyvital functions, including housing a variety offundamental science endeavors, working withdefense issues and environmental restorationand developing a long–term energy strategy forthe U.S. Gibbons did concede that he seesroom for improvement, and he believes EnergySecretary Federico Peña will address thoseissues. Among the concerns is departmentbureaucracy, as Gibbons said he hopes Peña“continues this evolution of stripping outmiddle management layers. I think there is a lotof opportunity there to streamline the system.”

Concerns about fundingRocky Kolb, of Fermilab’s Theoretical

Astrophysics Group, said his students constantlyask him what can they do to help the cause ofscience and its funding.

Gibbons said all scientists should engage inoutreach in the form of open communicationwith, and education of, the members ofCongress about the benefits of basic science tothe country. Gibbons said he already has seensome progress, as last year there were draconiancuts proposed for science and research pro-grams, but this year there has been a greaterawareness of the importance of science inCongress. Gibbons also said the outyearfunding profile from the Administration is nowshowing a leveling out of funds, if not a slightincrease, over the next five years—a far cryfrom when the projections showed a steepdownward slope. Gibbons admitted outreach is easier for other disciplines, such as the life sciences, but is still possible, and necessary, inparticle physics.

“Fermilab is a good example of doing notonly excellent science but being deeply engagedin education and a variety of types of outreach.I would encourage you to keep it strong.” ■

Pho

to b

y R

eid

ar H

ahn

John Gibbons, PresidentClinton’s advisor for scienceissues, talks with Steve Holmes, Main Injector project manager, about magnet construction.

“So all of us,

including your-

selves, have to

really look to every

means we can

develop to enable

us to continue to

do the work we

are doing, and, at

the same time, do

it with greater

efficiency and

effectiveness.”

~ John Gibbons

by Donald Sena, Office of Public AffairsEnvironmental specialists at Fermi National

Accelerator Laboratory said the raccoon popu-lation on the site may experience an increasedlevel of a disease known as distemper this springand summer.

Distemper is a common disease in the raccoon population and carries many symp-toms. Infected animals may appear disorientedand lose some motor capabilities, according toBob Bluett, a wildlife biologist with the IllinoisDepartment of Natural Resources. He saidmany raccoons with the disease give the appear-ance of being intoxicated, and they may havefeces or urine on their fur due to the disorienta-tion. Infected animals may experience respira-tory problems as well. During the latter stagesof the disease, a raccoon will have a thick, whitemucus discharge from the eyes and nose, andits eyes often are swollen shut; an infected raccoon may also go into convulsions. Bluettsaid another symptom of distemper is aggres-sive behavior, and he added that some infectedanimals may even lose their fear of humans.The raccoons may also develop other ailments,as distemper weakens the animals’ immune systems causing them to die of secondary infections.

Based on various

studies of the

state, “It’s safe to

say some of the

highest densities

of raccoons occur

in northeastern

Illinois.”

~ Bob Bluett,Illinois Departmentof Natural Resources

A raccoon in a storage building on the Fermilab site.

Bluett said the raccoon population inIllinois is unusually high, and disease spreadsrapidly in high densities of animals.

Based on various studies of the state,“It’s safe to say some of the highest densitiesof raccoons occur in northeastern Illinois,”said Bluett. He added that places likeFermilab—an open area in the middle of residential and commercial development—provide a sanctuary for animal populations,causing density to increase even further. As of this writing, the Fermilab environ-mental team has euthanized five raccoonswith distemper, while disposing of two morethat were found dead from the disease.

Fermilab’s experts warned anyone whosees a raccoon that appears to be injured or dead, or exhibits any symptoms of distemper, not to go near the animal but tocall the Roads and Grounds Department at840–3303. If the animal is just sick orinjured, the Fermilab team will take it to asanctuary for rehabilitation. If the animal issuffering from distemper, the environmentalteam will euthanize the raccoon. ■

Distemper to Hit RaccoonPopulation on SiteThe common raccoon disease is expected to be more prevalent than usual

Pho

to b

y Fr

ed U

llric

h

Lunch served from11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.

$8/personDinner served at 7 p.m.

$20/person

For reservations call x4512Cakes for Special Occasions

Dietary RestrictionsContact Tita, x3524

-LunchWednesdayApril 23Shrimp with

Spicy Rice Noodles,Vegetables and Peanuts

Lichee Nuts, Grapes andMandarin Oranges

in Ginger Syrup

DinnerThursdayApril 24Puree Gloria

Two-Pepper ShrimpRice with Dill

and Baby VegetablesHazelnut Cake with Chocolate

Raspberry Coulis

LunchWednesdayApril 30

Vegetable and Cheese Calzone

Arugula and Bibb SaladLemon Almond Tart

DinnerThursday

May 1Leek Tart

Sole with Tarragonand Pink Peppercorn Sauce

Buttered PotatoesVegetable of the Season

Pineapple Cakewith Rum Creme

Chantilly

-

-

-

-

A group of 300-plus skywatchers gatheredat Fermilab on the evening of April 5 toobserve Comet Hale-Bopp through telescopesprovided by members of the NapervilleAstronomical Association (motto “OrganizedAmateur Astronomy”). Storm clouds partedjust in time to permit comet observing fromthe parking lot of the Lederman ScienceCenter. After viewing the comet, visitorsattended an evening of comet lectures inFermilab’s Ramsey Auditorium. A few nightslater, on April 8, Fermilab photographer ReidarHahn photographed the comet (shown below)from inside the circle of Fermilab’s Main Ring.

Another view of Hale-Bopp (right), photographed by Fermilab physicist PatColestock on March 27, at Cloudcroft, NM,where amateur Alan Hale first observed thecomet that bears his name (and that of Thomas Bopp). “It was a primeval night,” Colestock said. ■

Hale-Bopp Over Fermilab

Pho

tob

yPa

tC

ole

sto

ck

Pho

to b

y R

eid

ar H

ahn

FOR SALE■ ’92 Ford Crown Victoria LX, fully loaded, 43k miles, excellent condition, disk brakes. Phone (630)355–2740.■ ’87 Winnebago motor home, Ford 7.5 liter eng.,64k miles, 24.5 ft, sleeps 5, self contained, furnaceand air, excellent condition inside & out—ready togo. $12,000 call Jackie, x3027 or Joe (630) 932–1450.■ 13" Color TV w/antenna $100 obo. Contact James Done, x2125 or jpdone@fnal.gov.■ 8mm Camcorder, GE Model CG400. Includes one extra battery, charger, 3x zoom.Current discount price $299 plus $50 battery, asking $200. Mark x4776 or markl@fnal.gov.■ Printer, Cannon 230 BJ (legal size) like new, stillon first ink cartridge, $75; Grass hay, clean andgreen 50 lb. - 60 lb. bales, $2.75 each; Duplex doghouse, 7' x 4' x 4' high, shingled roof, cedar siding,totally insulated, exterior plywood interior w/porchoverhang, $150; Rabbit hutch, 4 stall 8' x 4' x 5'high, made w/ treated lumber, fiberglass roof, 8 access doors, 4 enclosed nesting areas, 4 shadedopen areas, chew proof interior, and 4 feeders $75.Call Pam x3377 or pryback@fnal.gov.■ Cockatiels, 3 hand-raised and fed (2 males 1 female) $50 each. Two more on the way—readyby Mother’s Day. Breeding pair w/large cage andsome supplies including baby bird formula, $300obo. Call Trina (630) 879–9356 or Pam x3825.

WANTEDInteractive, experienced childcare sought: Long termposition from April or May 1997 caring for pleasant,musical 2 1/2 year old girl five days/week, 9 am to5 pm. English fluency and car necessary; cognitivedevelopment training and/or musical inclinationdesirable. Salary competitive. References please.Nicole Jordan and David Herrup, Warrenville, (630) 393–3970.

Published by the Fermilab Office of Public AffairsMS 206 P.O. Box 500 Batavia, IL 60510630-840-3351ferminews@ fnal.gov

Fermilab is operated by Universities Research Association, Inc.under contract with the U.S. Department of Energy.

✩ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1997--545-057/60014

50% TOTAL RECOVERED FIBER

10% POST-CONSUMER FIBER

The deadline for theFriday, May 2, 1997 issue of FermiNews is Tuesday, April 22.

Please send your articlesubmissions, classifiedadvertisements and ideasto the Public AffairsOffice, MS 206 or E-mail: ferminews@fnal.gov

FermiNews welcomes letters from readers. Please include yourname and daytimephone number.

C L A S S I F I E D S

M I L E S T O N E SHONOREDCarlos Hojvat, winner of a Fulbright Scholar awardfor work on the Auger Project in Argentina duringthe 1997-98 academic year.

RETIRINGJess Rugg, #8023, on May 1, from the BS/Telecommunications group.

SUMMER DAY CAMPThere are still openings in all three sessions. For more information contact the Recreation Office,x2548, x5427 or jeanm@fnal.gov.

CORVETTE OWNERSWe are in the process of compiling a FermilabCorvette owners registry. Please send your name,vehicle year, body style and your mail station toChuck Nila at MS 219 or cnila@fnal.gov. Yourthoughts on a “Vette Show” in the future?

GOLF LEAGUEThe Fermi Lab Golf League at Phillips Park islooking for players. We play every Thursday nightfrom the beginning of May to the end of August. To sign up or get more information contact SteveBaginski, x4538, Baginski@Almond.fnal.gov or Joe O’Malley, x2504.

LAB NOTES

APRIL 20Afternoon barn dance at the Village Barn from 2—5 p.m. The dance features live music by TheBlind Tigers and calling by Paul Watkins. The dancesare contras, squares, and circle dances. All dances aretaught, and people of all ages and experience levelsare welcome. You don’t need to come with apartner. Admission is $5. Children under 12 are free.The barn dance is sponsored by the Fermilab FolkClub. For more information, contact Lynn Garren,x2061, or Dave Harding, x2971.

APRIL 24Take Your Daughters and Sons To Work Day -Arbor Day. Can you help? Volunteer your time tohelp make this day something to remember for thechildren of Fermilab. Send email toferminews@fnal.gov.

APRIL 25All welcome to Potluck Supper at the Village Barn5:30 p.m. Drinks/Appetizers, 6:15 p.m. Dinner.Please bring a main dish for 6 or a side dish ordessert for 10 to share. If you cannot bring a dish,please contribute $3 per person. Drinks, babysittingand pizza for the kids are provided. We will collect$1 from those adults drinking alcoholic beverages.Questions, call Angela Jostlein at (630)355–8279.

APRIL 25International Film Society presents: Three Colors:Red (Trzy kolory: Czerony) 8 p.m. Dir: BlakeEdwards, USA (1963), 113 minutes.

APRIL 30Volunteer Prairie Seed Planting at the MargaretPearson Trail at 11:30 a.m. If you would like to helpFermilab’s Prairie Project by raking new seeds intothe soil, please see the sign-up sheet located at theenvironmental display in the atrium or call x3303.Volunteers should bring a brown bag lunch. For rainout or other information please call x3303.

ONGOINGEnglish lessons, Thursdays 10–noon in the Users Center, call Janet Antonio, (630) 769-6518.NALWO coffee mornings, Thursdays 10 a.m. in the Users’ Center, call Selitha Raja, (630) 305–7769.In the Village Barn, international folk dancing,Thursdays 7:30–10 p.m., call Mady, (630) 584-0825; Scottish country dancing Tuesdays 7–9:30 p.m., call Doug, x8194.

CALENDAR