Topic 1 – Planning for the large scientific challenges

 

Speaker: Dr. Markus Nordberg (Head of Resources Development, Development and Innovation Unit, CERN)

 

Scientific Experiments :

Dr. M. Nordberg (CERN) said that scientific experiments were typically planned and executed under very specific circumstances. There were four key criteria that needed to be met.

First, new experiments could take place when the main goals of any ongoing experiments had been achieved or when their discovery potential was in decline. It was normal for the rate of new knowledge and discoveries to slow down in the life cycle of any experiment. At some point, further work or effort may not achieve certain results or leverage the desired return on investment.

Second, it was crucial that scientists had the ability to dream and contemplate new ideas. Dreaming was the glue that held all scientific research and developments together.

Third, there needed to be sufficient opportunity, not just in the scientific domain, but also the wider geopolitical context. There was a continuous dialogue between science and politics, which the Science for Peace Schools would help to unlock.

Fourth, a tolerance for research activities was vital. In the context of experiments, tolerance referred to people working together because they shared the same passion for science. It was important that people were prepared to work together, even if they did not necessarily share the same views or perhaps even like one another. There was a richness in disagreeing with colleagues. It was often assumed that good collaborative relationships consisted of people who regularly shared the same views. Such an assessment was fundamentally incorrect. Success could not occur if everyone agreed. To effectively make leaps in orders of magnitude where there was not a clear path to results, diversity was a cornerstone of collaboration, and it was crucial to accept the passion and purpose of everyone involved.

​

Scientists cannot predict the future :

​

To plan experiments, the shared dream or purpose needed to be articulated in ways that could be measured compared with the goals and time frames of achievement. It was a common perception outside the scientific community that success in science referred exclusively to binary yes/no questions or finite truths. However, such perceptions were inaccurate. Results in science were more often measured on a spectrum or scale. It was important that everyone agreed on the same measurement or articulation methods. Physics had different expressions of goals, and usually revolved around questions such as why something existed or why something occurred in a particular way. For more specific areas, there was a shift in the line of questioning that focused on whether something in fact existed. In the context of the Higgs Boson elementary particle, questions were asked about its existence some 60 years ago. It was ultimately discovered in 2012. When articulating and agreeing on a shared purpose, it was important to avoid being too specific, with sufficient room allocated for serendipity or ambiguity. Both concepts were exceptionally powerful if carefully nurtured. Scientists could not predict the future; it was crucial for them to be comfortable with the prospect of being uncertain. Serendipity should not be understood as not knowing what was happening, but rather as an inability to predict a specific outcome ahead of time.

​

Collaborations among Scientists are formed organically :

​

Collaborations among scientists typically formed organically, sometimes even starting from conversations over lunch in the CERN cafeteria, and took on a bottom-up approach. The best collaborations started from a group of passionate individuals contributing to a dream that focused on a specific goal. He encouraged participants in the Science for Peace Schools programme to talk to the scientists in the cafeteria and strike up conversations so as to hear about their passion, dedication and excitement for research. A useful tool used to formalize collaborations among partners was a memorandum of understanding, which laid out the initial capital investment, the basis for project structures and the overall relationship. Memorandums of understanding also encapsulated the nature of expected deliverables, the recognition of contributions and how resources were used and reported. The concept of deliverables was particularly important, as it allowed each participating institution to agree on their individual measurable contribution. The relationship with the host lab, as well its involvement and support, was especially significant in terms of administrative guidance and reporting mechanisms. It was crucial to agree on the procedures on how to solve challenges, both technical and administrative, how to disseminate information within the collaboration, and engage with different parties when needed. Foresight was needed to plan for when issues arose and how they would be addressed. Most often, memorandums of understanding took many years, if not decades, to build and implement.

​

Scientific democratic decisions through equal representation of ideas :

​

To ensure experiments took place effectively, it was important to provide for consensus, ensuring that all parties felt comfortable before proceeding. Everyone was given the opportunity to influence decisions through equal representation or voting mechanisms. Transparency was a key principle, along with a collective understanding that experiments would not work if the contribution of each and every party was not delivered properly. There was a generous approach in sharing in success. Everyone who participated in an experiment, no matter how small, would have their name printed in the resulting scientific journal. In many cases, such an approach resulted in thousands of names appearing in a single scientific paper. Understandably, there were rigorous processes that were followed internally to ensure that what had been discovered was correct and that everyone could agree on verifiable data. Such procedures and committees ensured that there was careful monitoring, and funding agencies could understand how their financial contributions were being spent.

​

Rules for experiments :

​

There were five simple rules for experiments: 1) allow people to dream; 2) accept diversity; 3) utilize a bottom-up approach with leaders elected based on technical competence, credibility and trust; 4) allow for a spirit of collaboration and friendly competition; and 5) question and justify all aspects using experimental proof to find agreement.

The experience at CERN had demonstrated that there were lessons for the future. Ultimately, collaborations and large experiments could take place, but the quality of new ideas, the availability of technologies and resources, and the geopolitical situation were fundamental. It would be advisable to pay greater attention to addressing the effects of economic uncertainty and ensure that contingency plans were in place. The CERN model could certainly be replicated. The best contexts in this regard would be open science or open innovation-driven relationships involving complex, large-scale undertakings where the risk-benefit ratio was high, where a collaborative approach was required, and when it was impossible to set out all the steps in advance.