Chris Llewellyn Smith Director UKAEA Culham Division Chairman Consultative Committee for Euratom on

1
(No Transcript)
2
Chris Llewellyn SmithDirector UKAEA Culham
DivisionChairman Consultative Committee for
Euratom on Fusion
FEAST November 2006
Regional and Global Collaboration in Big Science
3

• La science na pas de patrie - Louis Pasteur
• There is no national science, just as there is no
  national multiplication table what is national
  is not science - A P Chekhov
• The laws of nature are the same everywhere in the
  world (indeed everywhere in the Universe as far
  as we can tell from light reaching us from
  distant galaxies)
• International collaboration in science and
  technology is therefore natural, especially as
  many problems that need scientific/technological
  solutions (e.g. pollution, spread of disease,
  climate change) do not respect national frontiers
• However - social and political factors influence
  what science gets done (agenda set in
  industrialised countries), and may bias
  conclusions when understanding is incomplete

4
Setting the Scene

• Collaborations many forms (informal
  networks/sharing of results... joint
  institutions/construction projects), and may
  involve many players (government labs, charitable
  Foundations, universities, industry)
• Note Nature of collaborations changing, due to
• - the Web
• - demise of big corporate laboratories
  blurring of boundaries between industries and
  universities

5
Will focus on collaborations driven by
governments (of obvious public policy interest),
but many types are industrially driven e.g.

• Horizontal (focussed on one topic)
  collaboration e.g. oil industry academia ? work
  on carbon sequestration
• Vertical (through supply chain) collaboration
  e.g. Alcan-motor industry-Ciba Cigy ? aluminium
  Jaguar
• Horizontal collaboration in RD ? manufacture
  e.g. airbus
• Computer Grid based e.g.
• DAME (Distributed Aircraft Maintenance
  Environment) Rolls-Royce 2 companies 4
  universities ? diagnostic systems for aircraft
  data taken in-flight ? 4 centre around world
• Pharmagrid (Novartis others) ? reliable data
  bank in silico experiments
• In the case of industrial collaborations the role
  of governments is to avoid creating
  barriers/facilitate (especially for
  collaborations involving public and private
  partners)

6
Consider examples of collaboration (jointly
funded major facilities, dispersed
collaborations, networks) ? what works, when is
it appropriate?

• Joint institutions/major facilities
• e.g. CERN
• international collaborations is the obvious
  way to do expensive big/fundamental science
• goal is science, but needs high-tech
  equipment/tools
• ? spin-offs (Web, synchrotron radiation,)
• Web cheap air travel ? world-wide
  participation possible
• study constituents of matter forces that
  control them at most basic level possible
• accelerators ? smash high energy particles
  together big detectors ? study debris

7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
Distribution of CERNs 6,481 users European
Member States - 4746 Non-Member States - 1735
92
41
34
10
(No Transcript)
11
Where else would you find such a politically
diverse collaboration?
12
Conclusions on CERN

• It has worked scientifically scientists with
  diverse backgrounds can work together on hub and
  spoke model
• - it had to work, or world-class particle
  physics impossible in Europe
• - stuck to one site
• - few intellectual property issues
• and politically
• - model for EMBL, ESRF, ESO,
• - helped build bridges in Europe post-war, with
  eastern block and rest of the world and was
  the model for
• no time to discuss role of scientific
  collaboration in conflict mitigation and in
  scientific capacity building in developing
  counties
• SESAME
• Synchrotron-light for Experimental Science and
  Applications in the Middle East under
  construction in Jordan
• Members Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan,
  Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, Turkey (Iran
  about to join?)
• Aim excellent science political bridge building

13
Examples of collaborations (cont)

• Dispersed, but strongly co-ordinated
  collaboration, e.g. human genome
• USA 6 universities 4 national labs, UK,
  France, Germany,Japan
• funding from governments Foundations in UK and
  France
• collaboration needed to provide resources and
  manpower
• obvious approach when result are (or should be)
  public goods
• in parallel Celera Genomics - funded by
  Perkin-Elmer (? shop
• window for gene sequencers), used gene map from
  publicly funded
• project welcome check of results, but
  intellectual property issue!
• Networks, e.g. International Technology Roadmap
  for Semiconductors
• Global collaborative effort of manufacturers,
  suppliers, government organisations, universities
  assessment of semiconductor requirements/challen
  ges for next 15 years

14
Examples of collaborations (cont)

• Network/dispersed collaboration, e.g. IPCC WGI on
  anthropic climate change WG II impacts, WG III
  policy options
• 2001 (3rd) report 50 scientists wrote each of
  14 chapters 4 review stages 300 reviewers
• Considered/balanced conclusions We are
  certain thatWe calculate with confidence that
  Based on current models, we predict that
• ownership by scientific community
  transparency, peer review
• separation of science/policy
• cross-disciplinary integration of information
• e.g. ExternE external costs (environment/health)
  of different energy sources and transport 30
  teams in 9 European countries (economists,
  sociologists, environmental scientists, health
  specialists, atmospheric chemists and modellers,
  software experts)
• e.g. electric train is more friendly for
  environment than a barge

15
International Collaboration

• Advantages - progress fastest when it draws on
  all/the best sources of knowledge,
  wherever located
• - may be needed to reach critical mass
  of expertise (especially for
  multi-disciplinary work) and/or
  resources
• - sharing costs releases resources for
  other purposes
• - whole gt sum of parts
• Disadvantages - reduces diversity spur of
  scientific competition - tension
  between (commercial) competition and
  collaboration
• - added complexity of decision making
• - ........?

16
Issues on National and European scale I- most
also issues on global scale

• What is appropriate nationally/internationally
  depends on size of country/region
• Mutually open access versus common ownership?
  Access for non-members?
• Choice of site (note case of JET)
• Time needed for decisions lengthened by
  negotiations (and by greater accountability on
  national scale) becoming longer than the time
  scale on which technology and needs change!
• Juste retour posts, contracts, use getting
  worse?

17
Issues on National and European scale II- most
also issues on global scale

• Small science at large facilities
• Big scientists (particle physicists,
  astronomers) are out of business without
  facilities can rely on them to make case/lobby
• Small science needing big facilities most users
  not totally reliant on any one facility
• How to ensure small science case is heard?
• Needs leadership Road Maps very useful on
  national and European scale
• ? first European Road Map for Research
  Infrastructures (just published)

18
European Road Map for Research Infrastructures
produced by the European Strategy Forum on
Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) one or two
high level science policy officials from each EU
member one from European Commission

• Mandate . . . describe the scientific needs for
  Research Infrastructures for the next 10-20
  years, on the basis of a methodology recognised
  by all stakeholders, and take into account input
  from relevant inter-governmental research
  organisations as well as the industry community.
• The Competitiveness Council stresses that this
  roadmap should identify vital new European
  Research Infrastructures of different size and
  scope, including medium-sized infrastructures and
  those in the fields of humanities and
  bio-informatics, such as electronic archiving
  systems for scientific publications and
  databases.
• single site, distributed or virtual
  pan-European science case required

19
Methodology

• Three Working Groups ( one member/country) on
• total membership 80
• Social Sciences and Humanities (? 2 Expert
  Groups)
• Biological and Medical Sciences (? 3 Expert
  Groups)
• Physical Sciences and Engineering (? 10 Expert
  Groups)
• total membership 150
• ? 10 person Drafting Group 5 person Review
  Group
• Altogether 1000 scientists involved (including
  200 in peer review)
• Conference with attendees form Australia,
  Japan, S Africa and USA

20

• The Road Map describes 35 mature projects (and
  lists another 25 emerging proposals) chosen
  from 200 proposals
• Social Sciences and Humanities (6)
• range from European Social Survey (9M),
  through (eg) EROHS facility to promote
  cooperation and integrator of data, technologies
  and policies (43M), to CLARIN infrastructures
  to make language and resources and technology
  available to all disciplines (108M)
• Capital cost. Annual operation/deployment
  costs also given and first possible operation
  date
• Environmental Sciences (7)
• range from IAGOS ERI (Global) climate change
  observation in commercial aircraft (20M),
  (through (eg) EURO ARGO (Global) ocean
  observing buoy system (76M) to LIFE WATCH
  infrastructures for research on protection,
  management and sustainable use of biodiversity
  (370M)

21

• Energy (3)
• range from JHR-high flux fission materials test
  reactor (500M) to HIPER high power laser for
  fast ignition fusion (850M)
• Biomedical and Life Sciences (6)
• range from infrastructure for Clinical Trials
  and Biotherapy Facilities network of clinical
  research centres (36M), through EATRIS
  network of new centre to translate basic
  discoveries to clinical interruptions (255M), to
  upgrades of European Bio-information
  Infrastructures (550M)
• Materials Sciences (7)
• range from ILL 20/20 2 phase upgrade of ILL
  (160M), to European Spallation Neutron Source
  (1050M) and PRINS Pan European
  Infrastructures for Nanostructures and Non
  electronics (1110M)

22

• Astronomy, Astrophysics, Nuclear and Particle
  Physics (5)
• Note road map excludes particle physics and
  space-based projects (covered on a European basis
  by CERN and ESA)
• range from SPIRAL2 production of rare isotope
  radioactive beams (137M), to the Square
  Kilometre Array (1150M) and FAIR Facility for
  Antiproton and Ion Research (1186M)
• Computer and Data Treatment (1)
• Integrated European High Power Computing Service
  G2 with 2-4 high-end centres (200 400M)

23
Benefits of the ESFRI Roadmap

• Forced dispersed scientific communities
  unaccustomed to strategic planning to think ahead
  (and think big) and identify future needs
• NB Publication of the Roadmap should provoke new
  ideas new edition next year.
• Put projects on radar screens of funders
• tool to facilitate more rational discussion of
  future national and regional strategies for
  construction, and sharing of facilities (ESFRI
  has requested mandate to start/faciltitae
  negotiations)
• early warnings could help speed up decisions
• UK merging CCLRC RAL Daresbury shareholder
  for Diamond, EFRF, ILL with PPARC funds
  particle physics astronomy shareholder for
  CERN, ESO, .. to be better positioned for
  negotiations large facilities
• Note several projects (e.g. IFMIF, SKA) being
  discussed on a global scale ESFRI plans to open
  dialogue with the OECD Global Science Forum

24
From Regional to Global Collaboration in Big
Science

• Case Studies
• Cancelled US Superconducting Super Collider
• Large Hadron Collider at CERN
• Attacama Large Millimetre Array
• International Tokamak Experimental Reactor
• Conclusions and lessons

25
Preliminary Remarks on Case Studies

• Advantages of collaboration clear in cases
  considered, but there are disadvantages
  (complexity, lack of competition)
• Treat generalisations with care. Differences
  between cases considered include
• ITER - potential fusion industry ? issue of
  intellectual property and industrial know-how
• SSC, LHC, ALMA - no potential industry (except
  one-offs)
• SSC, LHC - additional users ? better experimental
  detectors all benefit
• ALMA - additional users ? less observing time for
  each group

26
Superconducting Super Collider

• Conceived 1982 First (1984) detailed cost
  estimates - 2.7bn
• Approved 1987 4.4bn ? 5.9bn with detectors
• Cancelled 1993 Cost estimate - 11 bn over
  2bn spent
• Reasons for failing lessons
• Cost increase !
• Project started to restore US leadership.
  Congress later made international contributions a
  condition (e.g. 2bn requested from Japan)
  start collaboration (real partnership) early.
• Greenfield site did not attract key scientists
  and engineers (already at Fermilab, where
  existing infrastructure would have saved 2bn)
  consider locating big projects next to existing
  laboratories.

27
Large Hadron Collider

• Approved as European project, but initially for
  two stage construction - other countries told
  their contributions would be used to speed up
  and improve the project, not to reduce the Member
  States contributions. This proved attractive,
  aided by offer of a voice in decisions
  established nature of CERN as a multinational
  collaboration.
• Some tension over cash/in-kind contributions
• Despite long tradition of international
  collaboration in particle physics, negotiations
  with Non-Member States took a lot of time -
  necessary to establish mutual confidence of
  administrations and adapt to different ways of
  working
• Problems with USA - different culture
  contributions subject to annual availability of
  funding (no prospect of Treaty) escape clause
  no independent arbitration what number do I
  dial to speak to Europe?

28
Atacama Large Millimetre-Array
Large telescope array in Atacama desert in Chile
29
Atacama Large Millimetre-Array

• Inter-regional collaboration, in co-operation
  with Chile, based on Agreement between
• European Southern Observatory Spain
• US National Science Foundation Canada
• Japan (NAOJ) Taiwan
• Agreement ? Baseline programme any other new
  members (who would join through ESO, NSF, or
  NAOJ) must enhance baseline programme
• Contributions during construction mostly in-kind,
  based on common costing model
• No problem with site choice (based on science).
  Host contribution not an issue - Chile not
  regarded as a host
• No juste retour

30
ITER (International Tokamak Experimental Reactor
or The way)

• Aim is to demonstrate integrated fusion physics
  and engineering on the scale of a power station
• Key ITER technologies fabricated and tested by
  industry
• 4.5 Billion Euro construction cost
• Europe, Japan, Russia, US, China, South Korea,
  India
• Site at Cadarache

• Also need International Fusion Materials
  Irradiation Facility (IFMIF) - if built in
  parallel with ITER, prototype fusion power
  stations could be supplying power to the grid
  within 30 years

31
ITER I

• Some features that seem to be emerging as best
  practice (e.g. in-kind contributions common
  costing model), but various actual/potential
  problems
• Six parties (EU 50 Japan, Russia, USA, China,
  S Korea, India - 6x10 100 10 contingency)
  diverse contributions not related to economic or
  scientific strength
• Japan and EU both offered up to 50 as host
  Europe paying 50 too asymmetric for real
  partnership/bad precedent?
• Some confusion in negotiations between roles of
  Commission, Country holding EU Presidency, and
  France as potential host
• Dispersed in-kind contributions to very
  integrated project sub-optimal for engineering
  integrity
• Juste retour for senior posts (all posts
  contributions) - not necessarily optimal
• Intellectual property in development phase

32
ITER II

• USA - no Treaty (subject to annual availability
  of funding escape clause) no arbitration
  as anticipated from CERN and other experience,
  also problems with Privileges and Immunities. At
  one stage other countries looked for same
  conditions.
• Site
• Cadarache next to large laboratory ??, but some
  argued this could vitiate ITERs international
  character (hasnt been true of JET)
• Sites of LHC, ITER, Linear Collider obviously
  linked in US Dept of Energys view ( view of US
  particle physicists, and Japan?). Connection not
  made in Europe no mechanism. Good for fusion
  that any trade-off (Broader Approach) fusion,
  but not necessarily optimal for science
• European Intergovernmental Research
  Organisations Forum (CERN, EFDA, EMBL, ESA, ESO,
  ESRF, ILL), created 2002, should help
  communication

33
Conclusions I

• Wide experience of European collaboration (CERN,
  EMBL, ESA, ILL, ESO, JET, ESRF,...) - we know the
  advantages and the problems (from work
  permits/job opportunities for spouses to
  nature/size of contributions). It took time, as
  will going global.
• Early exchange of information important. ESFRI
  is doing this in Europe. OECD Global Science
  Forum provides mechanism on world scale
• Various lessons learned/good ideas - start
  multilateral discussions early (? all on equal
  footing), offer/demand added value to/from
  late-comers agree ground rules early try to
  minimise juste retour if possible associate with
  existing laboratory (?) in-kind contributions
  common costing model (politically necessary
  dispersed construction ? buy-in, but...) idea of
  collaboration between regions is attractive try
  to avoid confusion between roles of EU,
  Presidency, Host country.
• Open questions - appropriate level of Host
  contributions during construction and
  operationAmerican exceptionalism site choice

34
Conclusions II

• USA not prepared/able to play by same rules as
  others destabilising
• Choice of Site
• generally an illusion to seek detailed balance
  field by field
• basket approach (decide several projects in
  different fields simultaneously ? all regions
  win) doomed to failure (too few projects, not in
  phase) Europe has no mechanism
• but approximate medium-term balance across
  different scientific fields seems necessary
  others are thinking in these terms and Europe
  must find a way to deal with this or be forced to
  follow an agenda set by others.
• fusion is a partial exception (Broader Approach
  partially balancing ITER)

35
Final Conclusions

• International collaboration in ST works
• - speeds up science, saves costs, wholegt sum of
  parts
• There are some problems
• - scale at which European or global collaboration
  is desirable, possible loss of diversity,
  complexity of decisions, access, juste
  retourDanger that time needed for decisions may
  become longer than the time scale on which
  technology and needs change!
• Going global
• - takes time, but many lessons learned (start
  early, common costing,), and common
  confidence is building
• - Europe needs to be sure to speak with a common
  voice
• Final remark best collaborations driven
  bottom-up by scientists. Need to balance getting
  projects on political radar screens vs. premature
  politicisation, and optimise for science.