CERN Accelerating science

							24 November 1997

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 
>
>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. 
>
>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: 
>
>"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." 
>
>More recently at its 30 May 1996 meeting (LHCC 96-28) the committee added: 
>
>"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." 
>
>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. 

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.html ). 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 CERN 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 situation.

Finally, 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