Researchers say they are alarmed by reports that the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, the largest U.S. funder of the physical sciences, is moving to merge its high energy physics and nuclear physics programs into a single division. Scientists argue the two fields have distinct scientific missions, separate experimental facilities, and different workforce needs. They worry the consolidation could dilute funding for basic research as DOE leadership emphasizes areas such as artificial intelligence and fusion energy in public messaging.
Two Programs, One Office: What Changed
For decades, the Office of Science ran high energy physics and nuclear physics as separate programs, each with its own budget line, advisory structure, and long-range planning process. High energy physics focuses on identifying the fundamental particles and forces of nature, while nuclear physics studies the structure of atomic nuclei and phenomena like the quark-gluon plasma that existed moments after the Big Bang. The two communities share some experimental techniques but pursue different questions, operate different flagship facilities, and train different cohorts of graduate students.
Under the new structure, both programs fall under a combined division within the Office of Science. Dario Gil, the Under Secretary for Science, oversees the full portfolio. In a public letter to the scientific community, Gil outlined his responsibilities across the Office of Science’s programs, explicitly naming nuclear and high energy particle physics among them. That message emphasized broad themes such as competitiveness in emerging technologies and partnerships with industry, but it did not spell out the reorganization itself or explain how existing basic research programs would be protected.
The lack of explicit communication has fueled unease. Researchers say they learned of the merger piecemeal, through internal briefings and budget documents, rather than via a clear strategy statement. Many interpret the move as part of a broader pivot away from curiosity-driven work toward projects with nearer-term commercial applications.
Advisory Committees Dissolved Before the Merger
The structural groundwork for this consolidation was laid months earlier. A Federal Register notice documented the termination of six federal advisory committees and the establishment of a single new body under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Among the panels dissolved was the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel, known as HEPAP, which had been jointly chartered by the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation to provide independent advice on the long-term direction of particle physics.
An archived page on the Office of Science’s website confirms that HEPAP was terminated effective August 8, 2025, with current charges to be transferred to the new committee. That timeline is significant: the advisory infrastructure that guided particle physics planning for years was dismantled well before the program merger was announced, leaving researchers with no dedicated forum to weigh in on the change. Nuclear physics, too, had relied on its own advisory processes to rank facility upgrades and experiments. Folding both communities into a single advisory channel raises questions about how competing priorities will be reconciled.
Scientists who served on the former panels say the old system, while imperfect, at least offered a transparent way to balance large facilities, midscale projects, and university-based research. Without a clear replacement process tailored to each field, they worry that decisions will be driven more by short-term budget pressures than by community-based strategic planning.
Budget Pressures Squeeze Basic Science
The merger did not happen in a vacuum. Both programs have faced tightening budgets as the Department of Energy redirects spending toward applied priorities. A Congressional Research Service analysis of FY2026 appropriations for energy and water development describes the Office of Science’s component programs, including high energy physics and nuclear physics, and summarizes lawmakers’ questions about how reorganizations might affect core research missions. Members of Congress probed whether consolidations would yield real efficiencies or simply mask resource constraints.
A separate CRS overview of DOE research spending situates the Office of Science within the department’s broader R&D portfolio, noting the growing emphasis on mission-driven work linked to clean energy deployment, grid modernization, and advanced computing. Within that context, traditional discovery science must now compete with high-profile initiatives in areas such as artificial intelligence and fusion demonstration projects.
The official FY2026 high energy physics request offers the department’s own account of the program’s scope and planned spending, from support for major accelerator facilities to grants for university groups. But neither that document nor the corresponding nuclear physics request spells out how a merged division will allocate resources between the two fields, or whether separate internal targets will be maintained. That silence is what troubles scientists most. When two programs with different needs compete for a single pot of money, the one with less political visibility tends to lose.
Budget analysts note that even small percentage shifts can have outsized effects. Large facilities require steady operating funds to keep accelerators running and detectors staffed. If flat or declining budgets are spread across a broader combined portfolio, managers may be forced to cut running time, delay upgrades, or cancel smaller experiments that often produce rapid, innovative results.
Researchers Sound the Alarm
The concern is not abstract. Physicists have watched DOE budget cycles squeeze operating funds before. “To have a 10% operating budget is kind of insane,” researcher Raymond Fonck said in an earlier round of budget pressure that hit fusion, nuclear physics, and particle physics, as reported by Science. That history gives current warnings real weight. When operating budgets shrink, experiments get delayed, early-career scientists leave the field, and the United States cedes ground to international competitors running similar programs in Europe and Asia.
Researchers say a merger could amplify those risks because both fields rely on expensive, long-lived facilities and large collaborations with different schedules and upgrade needs. Combining the programs under one management structure could force trade-offs between major facility operations and upgrades that serve entirely different scientific communities. A dollar spent on one set of priorities is a dollar unavailable for the other.
Researchers also fear that the merged division will have less clout within the department than two separate program offices did. In past budget negotiations, nuclear and particle physics advocates could make independent cases for their fields. Now, they may find themselves competing internally before a single manager even walks into a meeting with higher-level DOE leadership or appropriators on Capitol Hill.
A Quiet Shift Toward Applied Priorities
Many scientists see the reorganization as part of a quiet but consequential shift in the Office of Science’s identity. In his community message, Gil highlighted opportunities in artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and fusion energy, emphasizing partnerships with industry and rapid translation of research into applications. Those themes align with broader administration goals to accelerate clean energy deployment and maintain technological competitiveness, but they leave open how traditional discovery programs will fare.
Critics stress that basic research in high energy and nuclear physics has historically driven advances far beyond its original aims, from medical imaging and cancer therapy to the development of the World Wide Web. They argue that treating these fields as discretionary add-ons, rather than as core components of the national research enterprise, risks undermining the very innovation ecosystem that applied programs depend on.
For now, the merger is a bureaucratic reality, and scientists are left to navigate its consequences. Community groups are organizing town halls and white papers to articulate priorities to the new advisory structure, even as they press DOE for clearer explanations of how funding decisions will be made. Much will depend on whether the combined division can maintain transparent, field-specific planning processes and secure budgets that match the ambition of both communities.
The stakes extend beyond any single experiment or facility. The way the Office of Science balances its merged nuclear and high energy physics portfolio will signal how the United States values long-horizon discovery research in an era increasingly defined by short-term, application-driven goals. For many physicists, the hope is not to resist change outright, but to ensure that the drive toward new technologies does not come at the expense of the fundamental questions that first drew them into science.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
