Topic 2 – Addressing regional challenges with the neutrality of science

 

Speakers: Dr. Maurizio Bona (CERN’s former Senior Advisor for Relations with Parliaments and Science for Policy, Vice-President of the International Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development)

​

CERN as an International Organisation rather than a research institution :

​

Dr. M. Bona (CERN) said that it was important to consider CERN as an international organization rather than a research institution. It was set up by a group of scientists, politicians, diplomats and intellectuals with the aim of re-establishing scientific research in Europe following the Second World War. Its main objectives were to carry out scientific programmes and facilitate the resumption of dialogue among countries that were previously at war. The idea of CERN as a place for both science and peace was embedded into the early stages of the Organization’s existence. As stipulated in the CERN Convention, the Organization had no concern with work for military requirements, and the results of its experimental and theoretical work were published or otherwise made generally available. Knowledge should not be confined by barriers or borders. CERN became one of the key places for international dialogue throughout the twentieth century. Such action had been and continued to be revolutionary, especially as certain States still had difficulty in initiating dialogue with countries with which they did not fully agree.

CERN had a distinctive governance model. First, the Organization was based on a simple and robust Convention that excluded any military associations. Second, the composition of delegations to the Council was unique. Each Member State had one vote that was shared between the political representative of a Member State and a scientific representative, who was typically the representative of the institution responsible for high-energy physics. Both individuals had to understand each other. Third, the structures for decision-making were somewhat simple relative to the structures used in the United Nations system. High-level scientific research was particularly expensive; it was crucial to not invest in the wrong area. Decisions were not taken by political representatives, but rather proposed by scientists. The Scientific Policy Committee evaluated the scientific merit of activities and made recommendations on CERN’s scientific programme. Its members comprised scientists elected by colleagues and appointed on the basis of scientific eminence without reference to nationality. Fourth, the Organization was much smaller, with only 23 Member States. However, approximately 100 countries participated in research activities. Operationally, the Organization worked with researchers from both Member States and non-Member States, and supported national research communities. There was an active policy of inclusion to ensure that knowledge was not be confined by barriers of nationality, age, religion, gender, etc.

​

The need for interpretation between the language of science and politics :

​

In addition to scientific results, the Organization served as a model for dialogue and peace around the world. The principles of CERN had been transposed into the creation of the Synchrotron-light for Experimental Science and Applications in the Middle East (SESAME), with a similar prospect under consideration in the Western Balkans.

The focus of the first Science for Peace School was on the principle of turning elements of conflict into reasons for co-existence. Such a purpose was admirable, but it relied significantly on willpower to implement it. Over the years, various international organizations had put forward commendable goals, but the root cause of their failure was always politics. To address the real issues and ensure that science was used a catalyst for peace, it was crucial to build trust. People needed to work together. Everyone experienced similar life events at one point or another. Sharing in such events and experiences could help to build trust. The aim of the Science for Peace School was to foster international collaboration and provide the opportunity for like-minded people to come together to meet and collaborate on projects. The universal language of science would help to facilitate such meetings and collaborations. It was important to understand that science did not automatically translate into peace. Science, like music or sport, provided the opportunity to foster understanding, patience, courage and curiosity to listen to the narrative of others.