Chris Llewellyn Smith Director UKAEA Culham Division Chairman Consultative Committee for Euratom on - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 35
About This Presentation

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


... diagnostic systems for aircraft: data taken in-flight 4 centre around world ... Web cheap air travel world-wide participation possible ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:127
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 36
Provided by: UKA86


Transcript and Presenter's Notes

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

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

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

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
  • 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

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
  • ? 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

(No Transcript)
(No Transcript)
Distribution of CERNs 6,481 users European
Member States - 4746 Non-Member States - 1735
(No Transcript)
Where else would you find such a politically
diverse collaboration?
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
  • 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

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
  • collaboration needed to provide resources and
  • 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

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

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
  • - sharing costs releases resources for
    other purposes
  • - whole gt sum of parts
  • Disadvantages - reduces diversity spur of
    scientific competition - tension
    between (commercial) competition and
  • - added complexity of decision making
  • - ........?

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

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)

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
  • single site, distributed or virtual
    pan-European science case required

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

  • 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
  • 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

  • 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)

  • 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)

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
  • 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

From Regional to Global Collaboration in Big
  • Case Studies
  • Cancelled US Superconducting Super Collider
  • Large Hadron Collider at CERN
  • Attacama Large Millimetre Array
  • International Tokamak Experimental Reactor
  • Conclusions and lessons

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
  • SSC, LHC - additional users ? better experimental
    detectors all benefit
  • ALMA - additional users ? less observing time for
    each group

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

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
  • 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
  • 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?

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

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
  • 4.5 Billion Euro construction cost
  • Europe, Japan, Russia, US, China, South Korea,
  • 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

  • Some features that seem to be emerging as best
    practice (e.g. in-kind contributions common
    costing model), but various actual/potential
  • 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
  • Juste retour for senior posts (all posts
    contributions) - not necessarily optimal
  • Intellectual property in development phase

  • 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
  • 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

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

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)

Final Conclusions
  • International collaboration in ST works
  • - speeds up science, saves costs, wholegt sum of
  • 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
  • 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.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)