Following up on VR report 

 

From discussions with T. Akesson / R. Brenner, LHCK intends to make a statement about the fact that the current funding system/criteria are not ideal for a physics return on investment on large facilities where Sweden invests infrastructure money or that have long-term benefits. Examples are LHC experiments, the IceCube experiment, and developments on widely used MonteCarlo generators for particle physics. 

This was also brought up in the Partikeldagarna funding panel discussion. We will coordinate with LHCK on a joint or individual statement, and we will decide on what to do at the next meeting. 

 

If in the future the board wants to suggest a specific new funding line (not foreseen yet) they should also contact other communities where “big science” is becoming a reality (e.g. EuXFEL, GW community...)

 

10-year Swedish roadmap for particle and astroparticle physics

 

At the last meeting, the idea of having a “10-year-roadmap” document for particle and astroparticle physics was brought up. This would help exploiting synergies between ongoing activities in Sweden - there is not enough time to talk about that at Partikeldagarna in the current format. 

 

It is not clear whether such a process would be easy to organize without an end goal such as a bigger Strategy document. 

 

Instead of a document, we agreed we will:

 

Website

 

Members of the board have signed up to a number of tasks to update the SFS Particle & Astroparticle website. 

 

Spaatind

 

Given the uncertainty on the travel situation in early 2022, Caterina will email the two potential Spaatind venues to understand what their cancellation policy is. 

If there is an agreeable cancellation policy, the board will sends an email to Elpasfysik asking for Local and Scientific Organizing Committee for Spaatind 2022, organized by Sweden. 

[adding caveats on “it happens only if it’s safe to”]