For background, see Peter’s entry here: S.O.S. (i.e. Save Austrian Science)
Since the announcement that Austria plans to leave CERN, I’ve seen a number of invitations to sign the petition asking the Austrian government to reconsider. Everyone I know who’s discussed the subject has said the same thing: the Austrian government is making a grave and shortsighted mistake. I’m not particularly well informed on the background or details, and particle physicists do like to be collegial, so I feel odd disagreeing publicly; however, I would like to make the case that the decision is less black-and-white than many seem to think it, and that it’s not really my place to intervene any which way in the decision.
The latter argument, that I shouldn’t sign the petition, seems to be an easy case to make by analogy from an American perspective. The policies of the United States are made by the elected representatives of the American people, and in particular U.S. science policy ought to be made by those representatives with the advice of American scientists. If a Senator or Representative received a petition that was signed mostly by foreigners, even well-informed foreigners, I imagine that he or she would disregard it. Frankly, I think that’s the right thing to do; while we can often take our instinct to “go it alone” too far, most Americans want their government to make decisions based on their interests rather than agglomerated international opinion. Why would we expect the Austrian government to make decisions any differently? In order to remain in CERN, the Austrian government must be convinced that it’s good for Austrian science to spend the money, and it’s Austrian scientists who are in the best position to make that case.
My personal opinion is that leaving CERN is indeed a bad idea for Austria — they are casting aside their long-term involvement in Europe’s greatest scientific endeavor, and that’s not something that will be easily restored — but the question is complex. Certainly it’s bad news for Austrian particle physicists: their participation and opportunities at CERN will certainly be curtailed. However, I doubt it will be eliminated; like the United States and other observers, their citizens and universities will likely continue to participate in CERN on an experiment-by-experiment basis. They may not be able to send very many summer students or fellows to CERN anymore, but they can still fund their own summer programs at CERN (as America has) and send their scientists to work here. The Austrian government has what seems to be a sensible argument for why it’s good for Austrian science to withdraw — given their limited resources, the CERN contribution uses about 70% of their budget for international science collaboration, and they propose to spend that money on other projects.
Could withdrawing from CERN really be beneficial for Austrian science as a whole? I have no idea, and I doubt that all Austrian scientists will agree. But they should make their case, and then Austria should decide the question on its own — without worrying about my signature on a petition.
I think the international concern, as Peter Woit I think pointed out, mainly hinges on how the CERN-Austrian relation will evolve after Austria opts out. If other member states see Austrian science still benefitting to some significant extent from the work at CERN, then some politicians might think it is OK to stop funding and still be in good scientific terms with CERN. I think CERN will have to make the message clear that if a state decides to leave, its scientists will pay very restricting consequences. It’s not about saving Austrian science, it’s about braking political sabotage.
(Received by email and posted by Seth with the permission of the sender.)
Hi Seth,
The questions you raise perhaps would have been worthwhile discussing before the decision was made…
However, there was no public discussion and no discussion with/among experts – nobody knew of Science Minister Hahn’s decision until two days before the press release (and most people just knew it from the press release and CERN was not informed even after the press release). So in short: it was a big surprise to everyone involved.
Certainly not a well-informed decision based upon careful judgment of pros and cons.
Regarding limited resources: well, yes, that is the press release by the minister (which also rounds up the 16 million annual membership to 20 million euro) – and the timing with the financial crisis is “optimal” – everyone understands that resources are scarce right now, right? Wrong! The science budget in Austria was, in fact, increased by 15% in this year – which is thanks to the minister I should add, so if it were not for his grave mistake concerning CERN I’d be happy with him (though the overall science budget is still very low in Austria). The CERN membership fee is less than a half percent of the total science budget, so it is really marginal, especially considering what you are buying for it.
The other reason given by the ministry, that Austria’s contribution at CERN is not visible enough, is also strange. First of all, even if it was true, what would that imply for similar constructs like the European Community? Should we also stop being member of the EU just because Austria is a small country and not as visible as Germany or France? Moreover, it flatly contradicts the 2004 assessment by RECFA that we quote at http://sos.teilchen.at/OeatCERN.html and, btw, the assessment by the same minister Hahn, but from October 2008 (same webpage, further below, in German language – the short version of the 2008 announcement is “AT at CERN rocks” while now it seems to be “AT at CERN sucks”).
So in short, the only reasons that were given so far by the ministry are false claims that may convince a superficial observer, but that fall apart after a minute of investigation.
As to your last question: I was asking this myself and I couldn’t find a single reason why Austria would benefit from a withdrawal from CERN. The only explanations I could find so far are all based upon some basic instincts like fear, greed or envy. Maybe someone can come up with a rational explanation – I’d be delighted to hear it (well, maybe not delighted but perhaps enlightened
.
Note that I am not a particle physicist, so if some of my statements may seem a bit passionate it is not because I try to defend my “hobby garden”, but because I sincerely think that Austria is about to make a severe mistake and setting a bad example for other, poorer, countries.
Having said all that I agree that eventually we, the Austrians, have to sort it our ourselves. But given that minister Hahn seems to be underinformed or misinformed any help from outside is still highly appreciated.
Regards,
Daniel
Well, the 70% are a random number given away by the government.
They just defined a pot containing CERN and a tiny fraction of other international science projects.
In total, the 16M are less than 1% of the total science budget.
While you certainly have a point in not signing the Austrian petition, please do not fall for this sort of propagande so easily.
I’m sure in your professional work you don’t take a random number from some paper without looking at the context.
Related to this petition is actually a long-standing question:
When CERN will grant countries who have made significant contribution toward CERN operation, a Full Member State status ?
I am personally surprised that countries like United States, Russia, Canada, Japan and many others are not member states of CERN yet. The scientists from those countries have contributed quite a lot into scientific activity at CERN. CERN belongs and is part of the worldwide scientific community, and not merely Europe. And I think budget issue is not really a problem.
This question was raised last fall during a town hall meeting at Fermilab between DG-elect Rolf-Dieter Hauser and Fermilab/US community. He declined to give a definite answer to that issue, other than saying he is aware of it and has his own plan about it.
Maybe this is also a good time to remember that there are other countries out there who are NOT Member States of CERN, yet have played a significant role in research at CERN. And maybe it is high time that those countries are granted Full Member Status.
With regard to the questions that are posed in the preceding comment by Haryo.
First, CERN continues to welcome new countries as members. There has been significant expansion of the roster of member nation states over the past two decades, and there presently are candidates for full membership whose applications are in process. It is particularly ironic that Austria should be taking this action at a time that some other countries have submitted formal applications to become member nations, and yet others are cooperating with CERN, and are in the early stages of a process that may lead to them becoming members as well.
Secondly, countries that are not member nation states often have formalized relations with CERN, in the form of international agreements. This has allowed their scientists to work at CERN (in large numbers; for example the United States now has more CERN users than any other nation). It has also allowed them to make limited contributions to CERN projects. eg. the American, Canadian, Russian, and Japanese contributions to LHC machine components. Make no mistake, this deal has been a HUGE bargain for these countries. Their scientists have access to the experiments for an investment that is a tiny fraction of what their annual contribution, calculated proportional to their GDP, would have been if integrated over the LHC construction period. And the majority of those contributions were “in kind” contributions, where components were constructed in their own country (providing local economic stimulus) and then shipped to CERN. I would be very surprised if any of those nations has made inquiries with regard to becoming a member nation state of CERN; the deal that they presently have is vastly cheaper, and brings most of the same benefits. It is also true that those countries have access to the Council discussions as they are observer states, which provides the information necessary for their partnership with CERN [presently observer states include: India, Israel, Japan, Russia, Turkey, and the U.S.A.].
Thirdly, CERN has an ongoing process of consultation with its partners. Council is presently considering how to cooperate with its partners in other regions, to undertake the kind of global projects which will be necessary in the future.
You write that the question was raised in a town-hall meeting at Fermilab with Heuer. CERN management can hardly respond to individual requests from users, especially in countries that are not formally member states. If you are seriously advocating that the U.S.A. join CERN, this initiative would have to come from the DOE. So if this is your goal, you should first be making the case to your own funding agency, and be prepared to defend the resulting expenditures that it would entail. You write that “CERN belongs and is part of the worldwide scientific community, and not merely Europe.” I agree with the sentiment, but the fact remains that it is Europe that is paying for CERN. For it really to belong to the worldwide scientific community, the other nations need to agree to pay their proportional share. If you want this to occur, it is the DOE that you should be lobbying.
Saving you future embarrassment, it’s “particle,” I do believe, in reference to the name of your occupation.
Thanks, Bruce. I fixed that.