1. Science Diplomacy in Large International Collaborations Barry Barish Caltech APS -- Anaheim 03-May-11 ITER

2. Importance  Forefront science is being carried out more and more through large-scale international collaborations.  The contributing factors include: a shrinking world that is making international collaboration easier, and the obvious advantages, such as the imperative to combine resources, skills and ideas.  What are the implications for US Science policy? 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy2

3. 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy3 International Science  Present day examples: »Small scale International Collaborations »Large Infrastructure – Polar Program; Underground Laboratories –Complex management –International treaty –International participation »Large-scale Science Projects –ITER, LHC, ILC, etc –International collaborators

4. 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy4 Auger Experiment Argentina  Origin of the highest energy cosmic rays?

5. 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy5 ALMA Project Argentina  Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array of up to 80 high-precision antennas

6. 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy6 Ice Cube Project  Neutrino Astrophysics – Investigating astrophysical sources emitting ultra high energy neutrinos South Pole

7. The Tevatron / B-factory 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy7 DoE Laboratories Fermilab, SLAC CDF, D0, BaBar International governance Experiments, Lab? Policy decisions Turning-off of B-factory, Tevatron

8. Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy8 Global Collaboration ~ $2B investment U.S. Roles DoE integration NASA launch Governance, Decisions? Pamela positron excess

9. 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy9 Mega-scale Projects --- LHC

10. 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy10 Mega-scale Projects --- ITER Goal is to produce a self- sustaining fusion-heated plasma

11. 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy11 Mega-scale Global Projects --- ILC International Linear Collider

12. Importance is in different ways  Large science facilities are becoming more and more important for pursuing: »National priorities (ITER); »Strategic priorities (Antarctica and South Pole); »Transformational science (Forefront goals (ALMA); »Leading research projects (Large Hadron Collider at CERN) 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy12

13. Benefits: Large-scale projects  Large-scale state of the art facility development advances technological applications for society, often in unpredictable ways.  The World Wide Web was developed at CERN to facilitate long distance collaboration;  Accelerator development has helped material studies and medical applications  Research motivated electronics development commonly becomes incorporated in many modern devices. 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy13

14. “We need each other”  The complexity, technical challenges and cost of large-scale forefront projects requires bringing together the most talented scientists, technical skills and shared costs to jointly develop the projects (examples shown earlier) 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy14

15. Comments: U.S. example projects  ITER is a seven country collaboration jointly costing billions of $$. The US is an equal scientific/technical partner (1/7 th ) of the technical part of the project (the host country France (or region Europe) is responsible for conventional facilities.  Antarctica / South Pole Station has foreign collaborators for developing the large scale neutrino experiment at the South Pole. 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy15

16. Comments: U.S. example projects  ALMA is an equal US (NSF) – Europe (ESO) collaboration, with substantial contributions from Japan, Taiwan, etc.  LHC at CERN has a broad US contribution to the European project at CERN for the accelerator and the experimental facilities  Future large scale projects may become global collaborations; Square Kilometer Array (future of radio astronomy) and International Linear Collider (future high energy physics beyond LHC) 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy16

17. A U.S. strategic imperative  Developing and supporting such large facilities must be an important part of US Science Policy, in order to keep US science at the forefront; to develop the state of the art skills, etc.  The U.S. must be part of the most important science to be most competitive and to have the biggest impact on society 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy17

18. Science policy and international partnerships  Our agencies, policy makers and scientific communities develop strategic long range plans and priorities.  Sharing resources through international partners is essential for broadly pursuing forefront science.  How can we make these decisions and policies in an international context? 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy18

19. A case example International Linear Collider Managing global science projects: a case example Progress & Issues

20. 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy20 Electron Positron Colliders The Energy Frontier

21. 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy21 2003 年 7 月 Asia Global Effort on Design / R&D for ILC Joint Design, Implementation, Operations, Management Host Country Provides Conventional Facilities EU US

22. 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy22 The ITRP Recommendation  We recommend that the linear collider be based on superconducting rf technology »This recommendation is made with the understanding that we are recommending a technology, not a design. We expect the final design to be developed by a team drawn from the combined warm and cold linear collider communities, taking full advantage of the experience and expertise of both

23. 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy23 »11km SC linacs operating at 31.5 MV/m for 500 GeV »Centralized injector –Circular damping rings for electrons and positrons –Undulator-based positron source »Single IR with 14 mrad crossing angle »Dual tunnel configuration for safety and availability ILC Reference Design Reference Design – Feb 2007

24. 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy24 RDR Design & “Value” Costs Summary RDR “Value” Costs Total Value Cost (FY07) 4.80 B ILC Units Shared + 1.82 B Units Site Specific + 14.1 K person-years (“explicit” labor = 24.0 M person-hrs @ 1,700 hrs/yr) 1 ILC Unit = $ 1 (2007) Σ Value = 6.62 B ILC Units International Costing Labor costs? Contingency? Escalation? In-kind Contributions Integration

25. 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy25 The Role of Governments  Governments are the key – they will make the decisions that lead to the establishment of an ILC or other global project  The scientific community, through ICFA, are maintaining close contact with the key government agencies »The main forum is the Funding Agencies for Large Colliders (FALC), which meets about twice a year. Major strategy steps (like ITRP, GDE etc) are discussed with FALC to ensure acceptance by the governments of ICFA’s actions

26. US Role: we need new policies  For the future of US science and technology development, US must enable increased international science collaboration and facility development (like LHC, ITER, ILC, SKA, etc)  We must learn how to do it. »For international partnerships we must figure out how to most effectively integrate our way of doing things with others: governance; project management; accountability, etc 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy26

27. Some issues  One year at a time budgeting does not make for stable funding required for large project international commitments (Recent example: ITER was zeroed out in Omnibus Bill a couple years ago)  Participating in shared governance for joint projects conflicts with our system of rigid steps, reviews, etc, which we impose even when we are a minority partner  There are no examples of the US hosting a major international science project, having international participation, governance, etc.  To host a major international project, we must solve problems of governance, visas, in-kind contributions, accountability, contingency and cost overruns, etc 3-May-11APS Science Diplomacy27