Topic 5 – SESAME, the gate to collaboration in Science

 

 

Speaker: Dr. Chris Llewellyn Smith (Former CERN Director General – Oxford University)

 

Science in diplomacy :

 

Dr. C.L. Smith (CERN) said that the term science diplomacy had been coined about 20 years ago and was used to describe anything involving science, scientists, international relations, politicians and diplomats. It was recognized as a subject in its own right and could be divided into several categories: (1) science in diplomacy; (2) diplomacy for science; (3) and science for diplomacy.

 

Science in diplomacy had two objectives: (a) supporting international political objectives such as disarmament and arms control; and (b) helping address global technical challenges, such as climate change.

 

Science supporting international objectives :

 

Regarding objective (a), it was important to point out that scientists often engaged on political issues, thus making it difficult to separate science from politics. One illustrative example was the issue of nuclear war, particularly the history of nuclear test ban treaties. In the 1950s, during the initial negotiations for such a treaty, the United States of America and the USSR had disagreed on whether underground nuclear tests could be detected. The disagreement had been based on political priorities thus suggesting a lack of objectivity in scientific judgements.

 

Bans on atmospheric and underground tests had eventually been introduced followed by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, although the latter had never come into force. Over time, the United States and the USSR had gradually reduced their nuclear-warhead stockpiles, eventually signing the first Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START I) with the aim of mutually getting them down to zero. However, the recent invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the planned expansion of China's stockpile posed new threats. It was not clear whether the START agreement would be renewed when it expired in 2026. The threat of nuclear war was therefore a primary challenge for science diplomacy at the present time.

 

Science helping address global challenges :

 

Regarding objective (b), it must be emphasized that problems with global impacts, such as climate change, pandemics and water security, needed global approaches. Science was crucial in identifying problems through blue skies research as well as in measuring impacts and finding solutions. That said, most of the challenges were very complex and required expensive solutions that were not always clear cut. There were also many players involved, including scientists, governments, industry and non-governmental organizations. Issues faced by scientists included getting the problems onto the agenda of decision-makers, deciding on appropriate forms of partnership and dealing with intellectual property rights.

 

He drew attention to two success stories in which international cooperation had helped address global technical challenges. The first was the eradication of smallpox. The smallpox vaccine had been discovered in 1798 and had eventually led to the eradication of the disease, albeit two centuries later. Eradication had been achieved thanks to a wide-scale immunization programme led by the World Health Organization. The second success related to the hole in the Ozone layer discovered in the 1970s. The discovery had led to a global agreement, namely, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer following which the hole had begun to heal itself.

 

Those successes could be put down to the fact that the science had been clear, the threats had been easy to grasp, and the solutions had been simple, cheap, and win-win for all parties. Such incentives, however, were not always sufficient, as illustrated by the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, where an early warning system had not been installed despite clear evidence that it would reduce the effects of a tsunami.

 

A consensus on climate change now existed among scientists, governments and the public, with many governments committing to net zero emissions. However, pledges were not enough, and the world remained off-track. The problem was that climate change solutions were multifaceted, location-dependent and expensive. There were also winners and losers in terms of jobs, profits, and regions resulting in a situation where people with vested interests, such as the oil and coal industries, were slowing down the movement. So far, little success had been achieved in fostering technical collaboration on climate change.

 

The difference between “diplomacy for science” and “science for diplomacy” :

 

Diplomacy was essential in facilitating international scientific collaboration, avoiding visa restrictions, enabling travel, and establishing exchanges. He pointed out a number of lessons he had learnt about diplomacy for science. First, the choice of sites was often political. For example, the United Kingdom had been chosen as the site for the Joint European Torus (JET) as a result of a 1977 hijacking of Lufthansa flight 181 at Mogadishu. Second, trust between scientists and administrators and diplomats was key but took time to build. Third, it was very difficult to get long-term collaborations with the United States given that Congress reserved the right to change funding every year. Fourth, in-kind contributions had advantages (buy-in) and disadvantages (split contracts).

 

Science for diplomacy was about harnessing scientific cooperation to build bridges between people. An important part of science for diplomacy were international students and exchanges. They could be seen as a form of soft power helping countries to extend their influence. However, the number of scientists spending time abroad had been decreasing in recent years. For instance, there was currently less movement to and from China due to COVID-19 restrictions and security concerns. Exchanges with Russia had also halted following the invasion of Ukraine, thus bringing an end to important collaborations, including projects in the Arctic. The resulting effects were dangerous for both science and politics.

 

He drew attention to a missed opportunity in science for diplomacy. It was well known that, in 1961, Kennedy had announced his intention to put a man on the moon before the end of the decade. However, few people knew that he had in fact proposed that it be a joint mission between the United States and the USSR. Initially, Khrushchev had refused to agree but, by 1963, had begun to come around to the idea. Kennedy’s assassination, however, had meant the idea had never gained traction. Politics would have changed in a big way had the journey to the moon been a joint one.

 

Scientific projects to bridge the East-West gap :

 

There were a number of other important projects designed to bridge the East-West gap. They included two top-down initiatives, namely the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and ITER. IIASA had been established in 1972 and was responsible for carrying out interdisciplinary studies on environmental issues as well as on other issues related to global change. ITER was an international nuclear fusion research project which had been set in motion in 1985. Neither project had grown in a big way showing that top-down initiatives were not always the most successful.

 

Two bottom-up projects had also been launched, namely the European Council for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Synchrotron-light for Experimental Science and Applications in the Middle East (SESAME), both of which aimed to enable excellent science while also building personal and political bridges between scientists in different countries. CERN had been conceived in the 1940s for two reasons: to support individual countries that did not have the means to build big accelerators on their own as well as to encourage European nations to work together in the wake of the Second World War. SESAME had been conceived much later, in the late 1990s, but with similar objectives of building bridges and providing members with access to an otherwise unaffordable facility. The difference between the two projects was that CERN aimed to foster collaboration between countries recently in conflict while SESAME aimed to foster collaboration between countries still in conflict. Such projects tended to work as long as the science was good.

 

CERN :

 

At first, CERN had been a purely European organization but had gradually become global as transatlantic travel had become easier. Over the years, CERN had had a number of successes in terms of bridging political differences. For example, it had served as a neutral venue for informal contacts between different nations, including post-war meetings between German and Israeli physicists. It had kept its doors open during the Cold War, fostering collaboration between both sides of the Iron Curtain, including between East and West German physicists. It had also been one of the first organizations to forge scientific contacts with China. The message here was that scientists and engineers, with very different political, religious and cultural views, might initially be suspicious of each other but could develop respect by working together on technical issues. It was clear that technical collaboration bred tolerance and understanding which was beneficial for politics and science alike.

 

However, the open-door tradition at CERN might be under threat due to the invasion of Ukraine. Indeed, the CERN Council had decided that it would not renew its collaboration agreements with the Russian and Belarusian Governments once they expired in 2024. It was his belief that the decision was bad for science but also for humanity, especially as many of the Russians who worked at CERN had bravely denounced the invasion of Ukraine.

 

SESAME: an example of regional scientific collaboration :

 

Meanwhile the tradition of collaboration remained open at SESAME. SESAME was a third-generation synchrotron-light source located in Jordan and one of over 50 storage ring-based synchrotron light sources in the world. It worked by producing very intense pulses of light that allowed detailed studies of a wide range of objects, such as viruses and atoms.

 

SESAME had been built in the Middle East for the purposes of scientific capacity building and international collaboration, especially among countries with relatively small scientific communities and budgets. It had a very broad programme (from biology and medical sciences through to material science, chemistry, physics and archaeology) and was thus ideal for building up scientific expertise. As a user facility, SESAME also helped to bring scientists together from across and beyond the region.

 

He gave a brief history of SESAME explaining that it had come about with the convergence of two ideas: (1) the need to build a light source in the Middle East, as proposed by Abdus Salam in the early 1980s; and (2) the desire to foster scientific projects that crossed divides. The original proposal made in 1997 had been to rebuild the 0.8 GeV Berlin Synchrotron (BESSY 1) which had been closing down. Instead, it had been decided that a new, ground-breaking 2.5 GeV ring would be built using part of the old Berlin synchrotron as a booster. The decision had been a good one scientifically, but insufficient funding had continued to cause problems. The building which housed SESAME had been completed in 2008 allowing various training programmes to be conducted so as to grow the user community. However, it had not been until May 2017, a few months after the first beam had been circulated, that the facility had been officially opened.

 

Dr. Smith had been persuaded to take over as President of the SESAME Council in 2008 for a number of reasons, including the enthusiasm of the young people working there. Those young people had been trained in Europe but had gone back to the Middle East to build SESAME. SESAME was thus helping reduce brain drain in the region.

 

In 2013, during the construction phase, the roof of SESAME had collapsed under an unprecedented snowstorm. Nevertheless, construction had continued under an open sky and SESAME had remained the highest energy accelerator in the Middle East. It had been during that time that the booster had been brought into operation.

 

CERN had begun to collaborate on the construction of SESAME in 2015. Collaboration with CERN had begun after the European Union had agreed to fund SESAME on the condition that CERN could be involved in the work.

 

Although SESAME had been in operation since 2017, experiments had begun three years earlier using an infrared microscope. The work being done at SESAME had regional as well as medical relevance and was being extended to other synchrotrons. Some of the ongoing studies included studies on agricultural issues and pollution. SESAME now had over 1,000 registered users and continued to receive many proposals. Three beam-lines were in operation: the x-ray fluorescence beam, the infra-red beam and the material science beam (with wiggler). Two more beams were under construction and another two would soon go into construction.

 

Political and financial challenges :

 

Members provided the operating budget for SESAME which paid for the manpower, materials and electricity. Israel, Jordan and Turkey also made special contributions in the form of capital funding. Iran and Egypt had pledged contributions but had been unable to pay due to sanctions in the former case and frequent changes of government in the latter. The cases of Iran and Egypt were an example of how politics had interfered in the functioning of SESAME. Jordan had also provided the land and building for the project as well as cash from the Royal Court and Jordanian Scientific Research and Innovation Support Fund. Lastly, SESAME received external support, including advice from advisory committees, donations of equipment, training and cash. It had attracted leading scientists from around the world who believed in its political goals and potential to serve as a beacon for peace.

 

SESAME had faced many challenges during its long lifetime, most of which had been financial rather than political. One of the positive lessons he had learnt from the project was that people of goodwill with common goals could collaborate across deep divides. Negative lessons included difficulties in persuading members to pay their annual contributions as well as in attracting additional members. Indeed, governments tended to allocate aid to projects with more immediate pay-offs rather ones with long-term goals, such as SESAME.

 

The future of SESAME :

 

The future of SESAME was not assured as funding would continue to be a challenge. However, members might find payment easier now that the scientific programme was producing results and growing. One piece of good news was that the power bill had reduced from US$ 380 per megawatt hour to US$ 10 per megawatt hour thanks to the installation of a solar farm funded by the European Union and gifted to SESAME by the Jordanian Government. Since 2019, SESAME had been the only accelerator in the world powered entirely by renewable energy.

 

SESAME had a guesthouse where scientists could stay when carrying out experiments. The guesthouse contained a meeting room for international collaborations. In the future, he hoped that the guesthouse could be used for meetings of other scientists when SESAME was not in operation. Just as CERN had spun off the European Space Agency and European Synchrotron Radiation Facility, SESAME could spin off other Middle Eastern collaborations.

 

Science for global challenges :

 

On science diplomacy generally, he highlighted the importance of science in supporting arms control, dealing with global challenges and facilitating international collaboration. Science was a way to extend influence and build bridges when official relationships were strained. Many countries had recognized the importance of science globally and had appointed scientific advisors in their foreign offices. However, collaborative, open-door policies were under threat due to the war in Ukraine.

 

The construction of SESAME had been a victory for optimism over scepticism and realism. SESAME was what it was today because people had persevered in the face of difficulties even when they could have easily given up.