Science and politics in bad climate

Nuclear waste, GMO, environment disasters and now climate change, every time science meets societal issues, every time science enters in the political arena, science is questioned beyond reason. Opponents to the widely accepted baseline are put forward by the media, the lobbies or by the political agenda. A few of them get the same media coverage than the thousand mainliners. After all this artificially noise, the popular conclusion is often "You see !! scientists do not agree" and the door is now wide open to arbitrary decisions.

Don't take me wrong I am not saying that science should not be questioned or criticised, that is the essence, the backbone of research. Any theory, any experiment, any numbers, any uncertainties are discussed extensively, put on trial, cross-checked before a consensus arises. This is the everyday concern of the scientists.

But with the "Climategate", the limits of "bienséance" against science have been outrageously overpassed. Once again the ugly face of scientifico-political politics takes the front page, once again scientific research is dragged along in the mud by lobbies and political activists, once again the true value of the scientific methodology and ethics is dumped into the black hole of ignorance and credulity.

"Climategate" reveals some of the means climate change deniers are using to attempt, a few days before the Copenhagen summit, to jeopardize years of efforts made by a large scientific community to study a complex and highly societal issue (see "On science and politics"Asymptotia Blog). On all this frenzy, little is said about the scandalous act of stealing private communications, throwing them in the face of the public with no context and using them to make up a case of scientific misconduct and trickery. This is an act of trumpery against humanity.

Climate change studies are like all scientific research: a glimpse into reality. But this is the best understanding one has of our world. Only sustained and systematic research will bring sturdier assessments, not political activism and e-mail robbery.

To fight against the manipulation of science, science and the society must meet, often, more often than currently done. The Copenhagen summit is a rare platform where research, politics, industry and the society gather and everything should be done to establish serene and objective discussions so as to strengthen the brittle links between these various communities. Let's hope intelligence will prevail and that these efforts will not be wasted by malicious and greedy arguments.
(BTW: On a more modest level, ASEPS, the first Summit on Physics "Physics towards Science Innovations" (March 2010) is meant to be another of these uncommon occasions.)

ASEPS: Physics at the Top

ASEPS 2010 is the first ASia-Europe Physics Summit in a series meant to reinforce the cooperation in research between the European and Asian countries. On many aspects, the scientific links between the two regions are weaker than those represented by the two other sides of the triangle formed by Europe, America and Asia.

... A balanced partnership between Europe, Asia and America is a crucial aspect of any world-wide endeavor in the field of science and technology. The Summit will deal with programs addressing either issues in fundamental physics or physics research playing a significant role in other fields (i.e. biology, chemistry, earth, space sciences …) ...

The opposite figure (Journal du CNRS, April 2009) shows the sharing of the world internet bandwidth. These are striking numbers, symbolic of deeper imbalance in term of researcher exchange, co-developed patents, joint programs or infrastructures.

The summit targets a second challenging goal: gathering 3 communities which rarely mix: scientists, policy and decision makers and industry leaders:

... The active participation of researchers, decision makers from funding agencies, research organisation and government as well as industry leaders of the European and Asian countries is necessary for the success of this initiative. ...

The kickoff meeting will be held at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University, July 24, 2009.

You may contact aseps_at_kek.jp for more info.
Being part of the organising committee, I am welcoming, on this blog, discussions on this challenging project.

The top-10 research projects

Research investments in crisis times.

The economic crisis has both dramatic and surprising consequences. The credit crunch is curbing the industrial activity, deglobalization and protectionism are surfacing, the euro is challenged, public deficits and unemployment rates are surging ...
But, interestingly enough, most of the stimuli plans injecting trillions of dollars in the economies include provisions to boost R&D as research and innovation are seen by the politicians as one of the few available lifelines.
The stimuli plan breadcrumbs (2-3%) devoted to R&D are quiet substantial when seen from the research community (for example: 21 B$ in the US). They amount to doubling the yearly budget of some research organizations.
So, in this credit crunch times, research ends up with a lot of money to spend, which is, at first sight, good. But when the immediate needs are covered, the main question becomes: what to do with and how to spend this bonanza in a year or so.
We, researchers, have always said that long term and sustained investments in research were more efficient than changing policies and short term vision, even if large support are temporarily given, but here we are.
Hiring researchers/engineers/post-docs for one year would make no sense, neither would buying expensive equipments on which neither manpower nor maintenance could be secured. Moreover it would not serve the stimulus plan goal to save the money for covering long term research. Then what ?

One possible way would be to get more international and to jump start a couple of world-wide large scale research projects relying on the international sharing of the long term running costs.
This would imply a reshuffling of the current investment plans and projected budget spendings, but it would be worth the effort. As a side effect, it would make basic research more global.

But which projects ? what are, today, the top-10 science projects that could benefit to the world from this unplanned large support. Let me propose here a few selection criteria (you may comment).
The project should be:

• Of great scientific importance
• Internationally accepted as such
  
• Technologically ready, but
• Advanced enough (not to be obsolete once built)
  
• Serving a large community (optionally larger than the initiator field)
  

I can see a few examples in particle/accelerator physics, nuclear physics, astrophysics, space, nanotechnology, life science, computing... but I do not want to bias your comments.

Let's have a short survey:

What is your favorite, most needed project ? (see status of the survey after submitting)


RoadMaps and long term planning:
Many long term R&D forecasts have been prepared these last years in science, in general, and in some more particular fields (energy, health, particle physics, astroparticle,..). Each plan has often been made at the country level or, in the best case, at the regional level (EU), but none have been discussed at the international level.
A compilation of the various plans may help fore coming discussions:

• EU: ESFRI (European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures: a list of 44 large scale projects
• EU: ASPERA Strategy for Astroparticle physics
  
• US: DOE (Department of Energy) roadmaps and science with a mission.
• UK: STFC (Science and Technology Facility Council)
• Germany: BMFM Health research program
• ... more to come from your input ..

If you have been involved in such a roadmap discussions or, simply, if you happen to have read such a document, just fill the following form.

The imperative of collaboration and world leadership

The imperative of collaboration (Herald Tribune Oct 24, 2008) by Felix G. Rohatyn, a former US Ambassador to France and Allison Stanger, a professor of politics and economics in the US is a clear call for more collaboration between the nations to curb and regulate the globalized world of finance. It is also a call for multilateralism where all countries would have their says and role in a balanced world:

The antiquated notion that the world needs one leader must itself be put to rest. For collaboration to produce a new rule set that binds all the players, all the players must be present at the creation. This is indeed the right time to invite China, Russia and India to join the conversation.

In the same page, Redefining multilateralism by Rober B. Zoellick (President of the World Bank Group) goes one step further, as if unilateralism were already established:

Our New Multilateralism must build a sense of shared responsibility for the health of the global political economy and must involve those with a major stake in that economy. We must redefine economic multilateralism more broadly, beyond the traditional focus on finance and trade. Today, energy, climate change, and stabilizing fragile and post-conflict states are economic issues. They are already part of the international security and environmental dialogue. They must be the concern of economic multilateralism as well.

For basic research, collaboration is also imperative for reasons often described in this blog: the complexity of the problems to solve, the growing size of the equipments and of the related budgets, the advanced technology not always available in a single country ... But also because basic science is the development of basic knowledge which is a world common heritage and resource.

But it is interesting to confront these opinions, mainly triggered by the financial crisis, to the current positions of the 2 main candidates to the US presidency. A simple look to the Science Debate demonstrates that the US is still more concerned about "leadership", "leading the world" or to "become a leader" than to actually collaborate and cooperate in Science. Just counting the number of these expressions in the text gives 11 for B. Obama and 7 for J. Mc Cain plus 2 more in the questions themselves showing that even for the questioners the goal of making research is to secure the leadership of the world.

So we still have a long way to go before building balanced global project in science, but maybe this crisis will have the virtue to underline what necessity rules.

PS: the LHC inauguration gave many opportunities to the European leaders to praise the collaborative success of the CERN organization.

Ford T anniversary: the first Engine of Mass Destruction

Oct. 1 marks the 100th birthday of Ford's Model T (Time Magazine, Sept. 24, 2008)
It also marks the beginning of not one, but of a flurry of new industries. In mainly 2 categories, those supporting the new transportation system and those generated by this new freedom . For example: the whole petrol industry from drilling to distribution (and the related chemical industry that was sparkled (so to say) by the gasoline consumption), the building of road, highways and all other necessary infrastructures (tunnels, bridges), and in addition, the development of off-center supermarket and shopping centers changing the whole scheme of goods distribution, the huge extension of the metropolis, a large part of the tourism industry, ... It also started the development of a flock of explosion-engine devices: from large trucks to moped, from caterpillars to chainsaws, from airplane to powered paraglider...

Which part of the GDP growth rate is linked to this innovation and how many direct and indirect jobs were created during these 100 years, it is difficult to say, but it is certainly tremendous.

So in sympathy with most of the celebrations and together with Henry Ford's grandson Edsel Ford II we should thank him for his visionary and pioneering dream-comes-true.

"I'm thrilled to be with the keepers of my great-grandfather's legacy,'' Edsel Ford II, referring to company founder Henry Ford, told those attending the opening banquet. His voice breaking with emotion at one point, Ford said it was the spirit of Model T that made the vehicle so successful.

"It was a product that delivered freedom,'' he said. "You are the guardians of the spirit that got the whole thing going. You are the keepers of the flame. As long as we have people who love the Model T, we will never forget what brought us here.'' (see more here)

But 100 years later, dreamland is not quite as expected, what do we have instead ? a world sick of air pollution, of noise and of massive environmental destruction. Wherever we go, in the developed countries, there is no way to escape the view, the sound or the smell of some explosion engine. It is sometime even worse in the developing countries cities, where crossing a street is as risky as walking over the Niagara falls on a thin wire. But even worse, the need for petrol has often contributed to trigger conflicts or wars over the gas rich fields countries.

Beyond questioning Henry Ford's unwillingness or inability to foresee that a device emitting pollutants will pollute the world if massively produced and used, after all, at this time, people and even scientists were not that sensitive to environmental issues, one should ask what about today ? Did we learn from history? Would we reject technologies that can arm the planet and its inhabitants, today, environmental aware as we are ?

I am afraid, the answer is no:

• car companies want to sell more and more cars at the lowest price (2500$) to open new markets with no consideration to environmental consequences.
• new so called green energy like hydrogen is blatantly advertised, although we know that the real global energy efficiency is very poor and therefore probably not a solution to the energy crisis if no new discoveries are made.
  
• Nuclear energy seen as the most promising solution to the raising energy demand relies on secured waste management although, "So far no country has implemented a high-level, long-lived radioactive waste management option" (see here).
  
• Genetically Modified crops are raising serious concerns if extensively used.
• Nanotechnologies, food processing, ... you name it
  

Solutions certainly exist, but to find them and to make them commercially available, investment on research is mandatory, now, before proceeding to large scale production.

There was a debate in France (in French a report to the prime minister) on the so called "precautionary principle" which actually became part of the French constitution in February 2005. Some was arguing that the law was too constraining and would hamper innovation (in French "le Principe de Precaution"). But it is simply a reasonable attitude that should prevail on all important decisions embarking the whole humanity for decades and hundreds of decade.

Here again the scientists have a major role to play: to inform the society about the limits of our knowledge, to develop further the basic understanding of the law of nature and, when breakthrough are made, to set up research strategies to solve societal issues.

R&D spending in recession times

In recession times and shrinking economies, reducing spending becomes the main motto. Research, and more particularly basic research, is often seen as an easy sacrificial lamb. But these short viewed decisions jeopardize future recoveries and history shows that sometimes different stands are taken.
Back in the 90's, Japan was badly hurt by the real estate bubble burst similar to the American sub-prime crisis. The Japanese government and the industry leaders counteracted by raising the R&D budgets whereas the GDP was falling substantially. This proactive attitude did promote Japan as the leader in many consumer markets:

For example, there is no doubt that technology and new-era thinking played a major role in the Japanese bubble. During the bubble, Japan took over leadership of high technology in the areas of consumer electronics, the automobile industry, manufacturing, and even robotics, and was perceived as a major threat to dominate all technological development around the globe – just as the U.S. is today.("The Japanese Bubble economy")

So lessons should be learned and it seems at least some are, as reported by the french economy newspaper Les Echos (The Industry rescue the American R&D (in French).
The US, although plagued by the sub-prime crisis, have invested in 2007 386 B$ in R&D, 100 B$ more than the European countries all together. Most of the budget came from the industry for product developments with an increase of more than 10B$ as compare to 2006. But at the same time, we all remember the serious budgets cuts in basic research projects (-1.6 B$) by the US government. This shows that the industry was wise enough not to follow the natural decline slope. However nothing should be taken for granted and there are fears that 2008 will not go the same way and concerns are high for basic research.

Although science is not a central topic of this presidential year, a flurry of questions were thrown at the two main candidates (Science Debate).

Most questions reflect concerns on the rising of the Asian power, the loss of interest of the young generations for science, the budget cuts and the decreasing attractiveness of the US for the foreign researchers.
Concerning "the lost of interest of the young generation" in particular for basic research (mainly done in government owned research centers), let me refer here to a recent survey on the white collar salaries made by another french economy magazine, "L'expansion", where it is shown that a researcher in the industry has a salary twice as high as he would get at the end of his carrier in a government center. In addition, the potential promotion openings (like becoming a R&D director in a big company) may end up with salaries up to 7 times larger than whatever you can get as a civil servant. This may play a role in this "loss of interest" although there are compensations that motivate many of us: more freedom in selecting projects, more time for fundamental and basic research. It is passion that attract youngers to science, but salary issues may divert them to more financially rewarding jobs. For french speaking people: you may even compute your expected salary here.... Yes that is what you should get but then you still have to find "the Company" and stay there...

Let's hope that Europe (and the european countries) will follow this courageous and proactive approaches as more than ever we need a balanced world-wide endeavor in R&D. The world is facing major challenges: the more or less near end of the petrol era and the replacement by alternative energies, the vanishing of mineral resources, the steady raise of all type of pollution hazards, some leading to climate change, the fast growing of the world population expected to go from 6 to 9 billions by 2050.

Only scientific and sociological innovations give us a hope to survive. There are lessons one should not forget specially in troubled times.

Should we continue scientific research?

In the last issue of Sciences&Avenir (July 2008) a short article on Alexandre Grothendieck, a french mathematician, is presented in connection with the up-coming publication by IHéS (Institut des Hautes études Scientifiques) of a 1000 pages book he wrote, mostly about his life.
"Récoltes et Semailles" is available free on the Grothendieck_circle web site in French but some parts are also available in English, Spanish, Russian ... Many other writings both on mathematics and on his political activities can also be found on this well documented site. See also "Comme Appelé du Néant— As If Summoned from the Void: The life of Alexandre Grothendieck by Allyn Jackson".

This 1966 Field medal laureate decided when he was at the top of his carrier to resign from IHéS partly after discovering that his institute was, to some extend (5%), supported by the defense ministry.

He started then a new life as a "anti-militarist" activist accepting to give mathematic talks only if he could also present his political ideas.

With a few other scientists, he founded an international movement called "Survivre" for the survival of mankind and a newsletter was published from 1970 to 1973.

1) Goal of the Movement
To fight for the survival of mankind and of life in general threatened by the ecological imbalance created by the present industrial society (pollutions and environmental and natural resources devastation), by military conflicts themselves and even by the dangers of military conflicts.

For a short period, he gave a lecture at the "College de France" (CDF) in Paris entitled: «Faut-il continuer la recherche scientifique ?» (Should we continue scientific research?) he was then turned down by the assembly of the CDF professors. He gave also a talk (in French) at CERN on this provocative question.

These writings raise important issues (central to this blog) that any scientist, at one point or another of his life, has been concerned with. A.G. should then be acknowledged for underlying the responsibility of the scientists toward the society at large, the role of science in the making of War and Peace and the implication of new technologies on the planet ecology.

Jean-Jacques Salomon, a French philosopher and writer who died last January had also strong criticisms on the underestimated social responsibility of the scientist (la responsabilite du scientifique) that sometimes he calls the social irresponsibility of scientists (Talk). But J.J. Salomon was also a convinced supporter of basic science. (why sustain fundamental research).
He was remembered recently during a conference of the Japan Sokendai group "War and Peace" (see also here and there) by D. Leglu (War and Peace Tokyo 2008 to be published).

Back to the question "Should we continue scientific research?" IMHO YES, because stopping would mean stopping thinking.
From the prehistorical ages, the act of thinking has been dedicated to the research of ways to, precisely, survive: accessing basic needs (food, shelter, ...), providing a more secure and better life, fighting disease, reaching mental/spiritual balance ... This personal and permanent search for survival has led to the survival of humanity. Even if man was physically weaker on many respects than most of the other animals, his thinking brain has got, for better or worse, the upper hand over all life on this planet. And we are still doing research because all questions have not been solved, because some of the solutions found must be revisited as they are not fit to our today world, because new questions arise ...
Have we reached the no return point where man is becoming dangerous to man? Yes probably, since sometime, pollution and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) could now destroy the world as it was feared by A.G. but solutions will not be found by advocating for less research but on the contrary to more in the hope to find new technical innovations and a new social organization to avoid the "big human crunch".

To the question "Should we continue scientific research the way we do it today?" A.G. in the CERN's talk reply by a strong NO. Research brings more harm than relief. Unavoidably all scientific results are and will be used to improve the military power, to more efficiently coerce people into slavery (George Orwell's 1984) and to contribute to the destruction of the planet ecology.

Well one can agree with this but, it is only up to us ( the society) to fight against the evil use of science and to us to promote a peaceful, free and sustainable world that science and technology can also contribute to provide.
What should be changed in the way we do research? One may advance on many fronts:

1. Scientist's Rights: If scientists have responsibilities, they must also have rights: the right to oppose to some applications of science and the right to speak out openly without constrains or retaliation risks. How to fulfill these conditions is a major issue and will imply a change of society. But the solution will include a better protection of the scientists although not excluding some control by the society and more regulations at the global level (arms, pollution, resources, labor, ...) to the setting up of which scientists should participate...
2. Improving the common understanding between scientists and politician/decision makers. The gap is often large in term of scientific/political knowledge, short and long term visions and goals, agenda ... although both communities are genuinely willing to bridge those differences (see for example here)
   
3. Moving away from a market/profit-driven research: Research funding should be managed by scientific organizations even if the global envelop is set directly or indirectly by the society. Public or private, it is not so much the source of the budget which counts, it is the freedom which comes with it. However public money is the direct effort of the society to support an open research.
   
4. Making science information more accessible to the people. Internet can play a major role through the development of open access and good informative sites. Scientists are committing themselves and spending a fair amount of time on science internet forums, high quality scientific blogs, science cafés (real or virtual), world science festivals ...
5. Get the people involved in scientific research. Some attempts although modests are quite successful and more attention should be devoted to those activities. After the "Volunteer Computing" initiated by seti@home and generalized by BOINC where anyone with a PC connected to the internet could dedicate CPU power to some scientific project, "citizen science" or "distributed thinking" (see Bossa) is now relying on ordinary people to perform large classification or pattern recognition tasks where human brains, even from non-scientifically trained people, are often much better than computers (see The Economist and galaxy zoo, or stardurst@home).
   
6. Research and particularly basic research should become Global. Country level basic research makes no sense nowadays, resources must be federated and the results made freely available to the whole world. New world-wide research infrastructures should be developed based on international treaties like CERN to secure long term budgets. In this context the LHC and ITER projects among others should provide important inputs to this discussion.
   
7. Developing countries should be involved on frontier research and in particular on the large research infrastructures to help solving the knowledge divide.
   

Proof reading this post, I wonder if these 7 items are actually achievable or pure utopia leading to the dishearten thought that A. Grothendieck was maybe right... but is'nt utopia sustaining progress?