Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Global Science Forum

1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentGlobal 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

2. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentGlobal 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 • Nuclear Physics • Astronomy • Condensed Matter Facilities • Grid Computing • High-Intensity Lasers • Administrative Practices • Energy Research • Science Education • Neuroinformatics • Structural Genomics • Earthquake S ience

3. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentGlobal Science Forum All Global Science Forum activities result in a publicly-available policy-level report containing findings and action recommendations for governments, inter-governmental organisations, or the international scientific community. www.oecd.org/sti/gsf

4. 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 High-Energy Physics. Establishment of FALC following OECD Consultative Group on High Energy Physics.

5. 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.”

6. 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 high-energy 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Drivers: what’s new and important (3) • Increasing Role of Large User Facilities • Importance of long-term planning, priority-setting • National/regional/global balance issues • Access policies become more visible • Need for investments, R&D for instrumentation

10. 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)

11. Average annual change in the number of S&E university graduates, 1995-2003 (preliminary OECD GSF results) BIOLOGY PHYSICS MATHEMATICS COMPSCI ENGINEERING % 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Sweden UK Denmark US -5 Australia Korea France -10 Germany NL -15

12. 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!

13. 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!”

14. Implications for scientists and policymakers (3) • Advanced Computer Networks (“Grids”) Becoming Essential OECD GSF Report coming soon • 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)

15. 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 Possible new GSF activity

16. 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 See GSF web site. More information in 2006, hopefully…

17. 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

18. Thank you