Transcript Document 7318091

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Global Science Forum
Large-Scale International Scientific Cooperation:
A View from OECD
- Drivers: what’ s new and important
- Implications for scientists and for policymakers
- Prospects for a Linear Collider
- Lessons learned form the OECD Global Science Forum 1995-2005
- A personal unofficial view
Eighth ICFA Seminar, Daegu, Korea, Sept 28 –Oct 1, 2005
Presentation by Stefan Michalowski, OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Global Science Forum
Through the Global Science Forum, senior government
officials develop findings and action recommendations on
specific science policy issues.
Recent Topics:
 High-Energy Physics
 Administrative Practices
 Nuclear Physics
 Energy Research
 Astronomy
 Science Education
 Condensed Matter Facilities
 Neuroinformatics
 Grid Computing
 Structural Genomics
 High-Intensity Lasers
 Earthquake S ience
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Global Science Forum
All Global Science Forum activities result in a publiclyavailable policy-level report containing findings and action
recommendations for governments, inter-governmental
organisations, or the international scientific community.
www.oecd.org/sti/gsf
Deliberations of the GSF have demonstrated the need for
strengthened, more structured interactions between the scientific
community and science policy makers, especially when large
international projects are being considered. National/regional
chartered advisory bodies may no longer be sufficient.
Examples of constructive collaboration between GSF and the physics
community:
•
Establishment of the IUPAP Particle and Nuclear Astrophysics and
Gravitation International Committee (PaNAGIC), c. 2000
•
Establishment of the IUPAP International Committee on Ultrahigh
Intensity Lasers (ICUIL), 2004
•
Joint meetings of the International Committee for Future
Accelerators (ICFA) and the GSF Consultative Group on HighEnergy Physics. Establishment of FALC following
OECD Consultative Group on High Energy Physics.
OECD Global Science Forum
Consultative Group on High-Energy Physics, 2000 – 2005
Delegations from 19 countries, CERN, EC, ICFA, ECFA, ACFA
Chaired by Ian Corbett (2000 – 2003), Richard Wade (2003 – 2005)
Major Report in June 2002. Among the conclusions:
“The Consultative Group concurs with the world-wide consensus of the
scientific community that a high-energy electron-positron linear collider is the
next facility on the Road Map.
There should be a significant period of concurrent running of the LHC and
the LC, requiring the LC to start operating before 2015. Given the long lead
times for decision-making and for construction, consultations among
interested countries should begin at a suitably-chosen time in the near future.
The cost of the LC will be broadly comparable to that of the LHC, and can be
accommodated if the historical pattern of expenditure on particle physics is
maintained, taking into account the additional resources that the host country
(or countries) will need to provide.”
In January 2004, Science Ministers of the OECD countries met in
Paris and endorsed the following statement:
Ministers acknowledged the importance of ensuring access to large-scale
research infrastructure and the importance of the long-term vitality of highenergy physics. They noted the worldwide consensus of the scientific
community, which has chosen an electron-positron linear collider as the next
accelerator-based facility to complement and expand on the discoveries that
are likely to emerge from the Large Hadron Collider currently being built at
CERN. They agreed that the planning and implementation of such a
large, multi-year project should be carried out on a global basis, and
should involve consultations among not just scientists, but also
representatives of science funding agencies from interested countries.
Accordingly, Ministers endorsed the statement prepared by the OECD
Global Science Forum Consultative Group on High-Energy Physics
Drivers: what’s new and important (1)
• Globalisation Is Happening




End of the Cold War
Ongoing revolution in communication
Easier travel, transportation
Expertise/resources/issues/data are globally
distributed
 Emerging nations investing in R&D
 European integration is moving forward
Drivers: what’s new and important (2)
• Larger Scale of Infrastructures
Imposed by Science Itself
 Some fields are entering the global-scale
megascience era for the first time
 The culture of science is changing
 Large costs suppress duplication
(and competition)
 Smaller number of large facilities aggravates
laboratory politics
 Long lead times, high costs require more
sophisticated planning, cooperation
Drivers: what’s new and important (3)
• Increasing Role of Large User
Facilities
 Importance of long-term planning, prioritysetting
 National/regional/global balance issues
 Access policies become more visible
 Need for investments, R&D for
instrumentation
Drivers: what’s new and important (4, 5)
• Stronger Links Within and Between
Scientific Fields
• Greater Social Relevance Expected




Economic competitiveness
Global-scale issues (health, env., energy…)
National security issues
Public attitudes to science
(e.g., science education)
Average annual change in the number of S&E university graduates, 1995-2003
(preliminary OECD GSF results)
BIOLOGY
%
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
PHYSICS
MATHEMATICS
COMPSCI
ENGINEERING
Implications for scientists and policymakers (1)
(Excluding purely scientific matters)
• Need for Enhanced Foresighting
and Long-Range Planning
 This is tricky because “bottom up” is sacred
and “top-down” is despised.
 Supply/demand issues are rarely addressed
 Potential for scientists to be more proactive
in determining the future of their fields
High-energy physicists are leading the
way!
Implications for scientists and policymakers (2)
• Organising the Planning Process
 National/regional cycles are not synchronised,
not sufficiently international
 Need venues where scientists/officials can
interact (e.g., OECD GSF)
 Vertical disciplinary boundaries do not reflect
evolution of science
 Allowing for serendipity when planning
 Special challenges for Europe
- especially following the “non!”
Implications for scientists and policymakers (3)
• Advanced Computer Networks (“Grids”)
Becoming Essential
 Grids as research infrastructures in their own
right – challenge for funding agencies
 Culture of sharing is not yet universal
 Major challenges for authorisation, security,
authenication, interoperability, etc.
 Business models need study, development
 “Digital Divide” still threatens
 Science will benefit the global economy (again)
Implications for scientists and policymakers (4)
• Siting Considerations
 Try to keep the politics out; works best when
science is the driver, or when choice is
obvious
 Recognise/acknowledge political dimension
 The “basket” approach will probably never
work
 Take advantage of existing infrastructures
 Be sensitive to local concerns
 Anticipate decommissioning costs
Implications for scientists and policymakers (5)
• Organising Large Collaborations
 Understanding the options for
legal/organisational/managerial structures
 Speaking the same language about budgets,
project stages, approvals, etc.
 Being clear about access policies
 Many collaboration issues – big and small will be decided by negotiating agencies
 The intergovernmental negotiations take lots
of time
Prospects for a Linear Collider:
 The HEP community has done an excellent
job: science case, global unity, leadership,
R&D, transparency, openness
but…
 National economies are sluggish, deficits are
high
 Other big projects are coming up for funding
 There is low awareness at senior political
levels
 The public doesn’t know about ILC, its
attention is elsewhere
 LHC/ILC relationship still needs clarification
Thank you