You are here

NRC-IPR Committee

NRC International Peer Review Committee


An evaluation of the TRIUMF has been scheduled to take place in fiscal year 2008-2009. The evaluation is being carried out in accordance with the National Research Council’s approved evaluation plan for 2008-2009 and the policies of the Government of Canada’s Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS). The evaluation will take the form of a peer review and will focus primarily on issues related to relevance, success, level of scientific excellence and future opportunities for TRIUMF. The last peer review of TRIUMF was conducted in September 2003.



The *** AGENDA *** for the International Peer Review Committee (IPRC) site visit to TRIUMF is available as an html file with hyperlinks to presentations and short biographical sketches of each speaker.



The members of the NRC International Peer Review Committee are as follows:


Prof. Dr. Rolf-Dieter Heuer
Research Director, Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY
Hamburg, Federal Republic of Germany


Dr. Edwin Bourget
Vice-rectorat à la recherché et à la création 
Université Laval, Québec, Canada

Dr. Jonathan M. Dorfan
Director Emeritus, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Stanford University, California, USA

Professor Ian G. Halliday
President of European Science Foundation and Chief Executive Scottish Universities Physics Alliance
Edinburgh, Scotland

Prof. Dr. Karlheinz Langanke
Research Director and Theory Department Head, Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung mbH                 
Darmstadt, Federal Republic of Germany

Dr. Thom Mason
Laboratory Director, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Tennessee, USA

Dr. Shoji Nagamiya 
High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK)           
Japan Atomic Energy Agenc, J-PARC Center

Dr. Alan I. Pelman
British Columbia, Canada

Dr. Kenneth J. Ragan 
Professor of Physics, McGill University
Quebec, Canada

Simon B. Sutcliffe, MD, FRCP, FRCPC
President, British Columbia Cancer Agency
British Columbia, Canada

Dr. Robert E. Tribble
Professor of Physics and Director, Cyclotron Institute
Texas A&M University
Texas, USA 


Terms of Reference

The TRIUMF Peer Review will be both retrospective and prospective in nature. By examining activities from 2000 to date, the Peer Review Committee will seek to examine:

TRIUMF’s relevance.  The extent to which TRIUMF has been responsive to the needs of the Canadian R&D community and Canadian industry.

  • To what extent are TRIUMF’s research linkages (collaborations, partnerships and interactions) with colleagues in academia, both nationally and internationally appropriate?
  • What is the quality of TRIUMF’s research linkages (collaborations, partnerships and interactions)?
  • To what extent are TRIUMF’s commercial and industrial linkages relating to economic impact and the transfer of knowledge and technology appropriate?
  • What is the quality of TRIUMF’s commercial and industrial linkages?

TRIUMF’s success.  The extent to which TRIUMF has been successful in operating in an affordable manner and achieving its objectives as outlined in the NRC Contribution to TRIUMF Agreement, Annex A.

  • Given the level of resources allocated to TRIUMF are its stated objectives achievable?
  • To what extent is TRIUMF’s infrastructure (including facilities, equipment and human resources) appropriate and adequate in relation to its role as a national facility for sub-atomic physics (special attention to be paid to Canada’s contribution to the CERN Large Hadron Collider project including the ATLAS detector?
  • What is the progress to date of TRIUMF’s ISAC facility and what is the future potential for an innovative research program in nuclear physics, nuclear astrophysics, materials science and life sciences in the years ahead?
  • To what extent has the Canadian government’s investment in TRIUMF seen to have maximized the economic benefits to Canadian companies?

TRIUMF’s level of scientific excellence.  The extent to which TRIUMF’s research activities and researchers are viewed as excellent.

  • To what extent are TRIUMF’s research activities, on a national and international scale, considered leading edge or ‘excellent’?
  • Is the quality and stature of TRIUMF’s staff appropriate?

Prospectively, the Peer Review Committee will comment on the proposed 5-year plan put forward by TRIUMF as well as identify:

Opportunities and future direction for TRIUMF.  Opportunities for the facility to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of its performance based upon the current and future needs of Canada’s particle and nuclear physics community.

  • What, if anything, should change to improve TRIUMF’s future prospects?
  • Is TRIUMF well positioned to carry out the future activities set out in the 5-year plan?
  • Are there activities missing from TRIUMF’s 5-year plan that should be part of its future?
  • Are TRIUMF’s funding requests for the different elements of the program appropriate?

The Peer Review Committee’s report will become a public document and will be included in the request for future funding.


Quick Links

Supplemental Files