4 2 Llewellyn Smith

44 %
56 %
Information about 4 2 Llewellyn Smith
Entertainment

Published on November 19, 2007

Author: Davidson

Source: authorstream.com

Chris Llewellyn Smith Director UKAEA Culham Division Chairman Consultative Committee for Euratom on Fusion :  Chris Llewellyn Smith Director UKAEA Culham Division Chairman Consultative Committee for Euratom on Fusion Regional and Global Collaboration in Big Science FEAST November 2006 Slide3:  La science n’a 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:  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 Will focus on collaborations driven by governments (of obvious public policy interest), but many types are industrially driven e.g.:  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 R&D  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) Consider examples of collaboration (jointly funded major facilities, dispersed collaborations, networks) → what works, when is it appropriate?:  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 Slide9:  Distribution of CERN’s 6,481 users European Member States - 4746; Non-Member States - 1735 34 92 41 Slide11:  Where else would you find such a politically diverse collaboration? Conclusions on CERN:  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 Examples of collaborations (cont):  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/challenges for next 15 years Examples of collaborations (cont):  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 that…We 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:  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 > sum of parts Disadvantages - reduces diversity + spur of scientific competition - tension between (commercial) competition and collaboration - added complexity of decision making - ........ Issues on National and European scale I - most also issues on global scale:  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? Issues on National and European scale II - most also issues on global scale:  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:  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 Methodology:  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 Slide20:  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)* Slide21:  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)* Slide22:  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:  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 Slide24:  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 Preliminary Remarks on Case Studies:  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 Superconducting Super Collider:  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. Large Hadron Collider:  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?” Atacama Large Millimetre-Array:  Atacama Large Millimetre-Array Large telescope array in Atacama desert in Chile Atacama Large Millimetre-Array:  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 industry 4.5 Billion Euro construction cost Europe, Japan, Russia, US, China, South Korea, India Site at Cadarache ITER (International Tokamak Experimental Reactor – or ‘The way’) 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 ITER I:  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 ITER II:  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 ITER’s international character (hasn’t been true of JET) Sites of LHC, ITER, Linear Collider obviously linked in US Dept of Energy’s 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 Conclusions I:  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 operation;…American exceptionalism; site choice Conclusions II:  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:  Final Conclusions International collaboration in S&T works - speeds up science, saves costs, whole> 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 retour…Danger 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.

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

Llewellyn M. Smith - IMDb

Llewellyn M. Smith. Director: Independent Lens, Gaining Ground: Building Community on Dudley Street, Herskovits at the Heart of Blackness, Unnatural Causes ...
Read more

BBC Radio 4 - The Life Scientific, Chris Llewellyn Smith

BBC Radio 4. The Life Scientific ... Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith chats to Jim Al-Khalili about ... See all broadcasts of Chris Llewellyn Smith (2)
Read more

Michael Llewellyn-Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michael Llewellyn-Smith. From Wikipedia, ... navigation, search. Sir Michael John Llewellyn-Smith, KCVO ... 2 Diplomatic career; 3 Later life;
Read more

Llewellyn M. Smith - TV.com

Llewellyn M. Smith biography, pictures, ... 4.5. Your Rating: 4. ... Your Rating: 2.5. Your Rating: 2. Your Rating: 1.5. Your Rating: 1. Rate Now. REVIEWS
Read more

Llewellyn Smith - TV.com

Llewellyn Smith biography, pictures, ... 4. Your Rating: 3.5. Your Rating: 3. ... Ep 2 Reconstruction: The ...
Read more

Llewellyn Smith's Photos, Phone, Email, Address - Spokeo

Llewellyn Smith's photos, phone, email, address, and public records for free! Find more about Llewellyn Smith's biography, profile, ucsd, ltd, coronation ...
Read more

Llewellyn Smith Limited Energy Companies Obligation 2015 ...

1 Llewellyn Smith Limited Energy Companies Obligation 2015-2017 (ECO2): ECO2.2 Consultation Publication dated 4 December 2014, response deadline 21 January ...
Read more

LLEWELLYN SMITH | LinkedIn

View LLEWELLYN SMITH's professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the world's largest business network, helping professionals like LLEWELLYN SMITH ...
Read more

Correspondence from Llewellyn Smith - City of Hamilton ...

Robicheau, Vanessa Subject: RE: Fruitland Winona Secondary Plan Comments From: Llewellyn Smith Sent: May-38-13 18:42 ÿJÿ To: Robicheau, Vanessa
Read more

Llywelyn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Llewellyn) Jump to: navigation, search. For other ... 2.2 Politics; 2.3 Sports; 2.4 Other; 3 As a first name. 3.1 Arts; 3.2 Politics; 3.3 ...
Read more