The Organization shall provide for collaboration among European States in nuclear research of a pure scientific and fundamental character, and in research essentially related thereto. The Organization shall have no concern with work for military requirements and the results of its experimental and theoretical work shall be published or otherwise made generally available.1
For over six decades the scientists and engineers of
For around twenty years, efforts have been in progress to make such newly arising knowledge generally available online. Before the availability of electronic libraries, publications were generally distributed as preprints, advance copies of papers submitted to refereed journals. Today,
This chapter will introduce the science and its governance, explain its open, democratic, self-organizing and collaborative methods, its sharing of insights, its modes of global “agenda setting,” its detailed processes of decision-making and quality control, and undertake to show the added value and also the inconveniences of this way of doing science. It will not attempt to demonstrate the difficult, tortuous and sometimes chaotic paths and scientific reflections of individuals or communities that are necessary to move from one particular scientific model to the next.2 It is not concerned with the particular scientific or technological choices that are made, or why, but it will point out the ever more complex instruments and, in particular, the
All knowledge, skills and know-how within this science are common goods, elaborated in a continuous and structured dialogue between equal partners, available without restriction to all participating scientists, supported by a powerful
electronic infrastructure to make them available to all participants immediately and everywhere. The community values every scientist’s opinion and encourages intense communication and exchanges of opinions. Hierarchies are rather flat.3
In contrast, and not in “cosmic” sciences, the use and availability of knowledge changes drastically when military superiority or industrial profits from scientific applications promise exclusive advantages. Free communication, the availability of data, information or results and information on potential applications is then severely channeled, restricted or suppressed. Equally, the advances of scientific efforts which are dominated by restricted availability of knowledge and by research agenda-setting following non-scientific interests make sciences appear to progress more slowly or in a biased fashion toward their general, high-level goals.
Following the example of complete openness that is typical for fundamental research, there is a growing tendency to establish similar openness in other fields, particularly in medicine and the life sciences,5 claiming that publicly funded research should make its results generally available as a public good. Between the restrictive proprietary use and availability of knowledge generated by industries or for military purposes and the generally available knowledge, there is a wide area of application of knowledge and setting of research goals where the public good should be favored over private interests. Many voices challenge the present balance, which seems to be more on the side of private, even if multinational, or
Thus, the use of knowledge and the unbiased setting of research agendas have become a prominent side issue of
[…] common desire and commitment to build a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and peoples to achieve their full potential […]
The declaration further promotes a dedicated strategy of sharing scientific knowledge, technological skills and best practices in science education and applications as essential for the development of less developed countries.6
The European Research Council has begun to speak about the desirability of a fifth European freedom: the free circulation of knowledge and the conditions to make it happen.7 This is in complement to the four established freedoms of the EU: the free circulation of goods, capital, services and persons.
Indeed, between the strictly proprietary, profit- or military-oriented endeavors and fundamental scientific goals, there is a large spectrum of global priority goals which would be better treated with global interests in mind and with all available knowledge at the disposal of all scientists concerned. Examples of such possible global goals are evident in the UN Millennium Development Goals, or more specifically concerning health in the
Public research and education, health, poverty and hunger, climate and sustainable energy provision, biodiversity and sustainable environment are amongst the promising subjects for global knowledge based approaches. The global communication, sharing and
28.2 Particle Physics: A Global Science
28.2.1 The Science
Fig. 28.1: Superconducting Magnets of the LHC.(CERN-AC-0911188 01 ©CERN)
Fig. 28.2: ATLAS experiment during assembly. (CERN-EX-0610006 ©CERN)
Thanks to fundamental research in physics, we know that all the matter we can see in the Universe is made up from a handful of elementary particles, and particle physics can tell us with good precision about the way these particles interact among themselves. However, we also know that what we see in the Universe accounts for only a few percent of what we know to be there. About the rest, named dark matter and dark energy, we know almost nothing.
That we occupy such a small fraction of our Universe is fascinating, and extending our knowledge here is in itself a good reason for pursuing this fundamental research. With the Large Hadron Collider project today in construction at CERN (compare Figures 28.1 and 28.2), we hope to undertake some further steps to find some missing details of the known 5% and clues as to what the remaining unknown 95% are, and how they relate to the familiar 5% that we inhabit and know.
Fig. 28.3: The 27km underground tunnel of the LHC accelerator (red circle) and cut-away drawings of CMS and ATLAS at the position of their underground collision areas. (CERN BUL-PHO-2009-064 3 ©CERN)
The LHC project9 is a European and now global project consisting of a 27 km-circumference, superconducting accelerator for creating
Fig. 28.4: CMS simulation of a Higgs-boson decay to four muons.(CERN-EX-9710002 1 ©CERN)
There are two such
Figure 28.4 shows an example of a simulated collision modeled for the CMS detector of the Large Hadron Collider LHC at CERN, producing a Higgs boson in a 14 TeV collision of two protons, entering along the diagonal and colliding in the center of the figure. The Higgs boson decays almost instantly into four muons, the rather straight yellow lines at larger angles. Collisions in the LHC occur at random and an event such as is shown in the simulation—event production and branching ratio into detectable decays—happens very rarely, at a level of 1 in ~1013 to 1014 of all collisions. For comparison, the straight tip in lotto is about 1 in 107, one to ten million times more frequent. Understanding such rare events requires studying and understanding all the physical processes that generate events in sufficient detail to be able to select the rare and interesting ones unambiguously.
The useful lifetime of LHC and its
28.2.2 The Community
In the interest of doing competitive research, scientists in particle physics agree to invest a considerable portion of their available resources in large laboratories capable of providing the required accelerator
In the past sixty years, the collision energies have grown by about four orders of magnitude based on many innovative changes of accelerator
Approximately two thirds of the global particle physics community are currently engaged in the LHC project at CERN.25 CERN employs a staff of around 2400, of which more than 1000 are academics, mostly physicists and engineers, ~300 work in experimental and theoretical physics, ~150 in computing and ~600 in accelerators and
Most of these scientists and engineers work in the four large collaborations, ALICE, ATLAS, CMS and LHCb. Their participating institutes define amongst themselves their rules of collaboration, the sharing of resources and governance. Most importantly, they set their own scientific goals and elaborate the corresponding experimental set-ups in competition with other groups.
Apart from these laboratories and collaborations, there are also collaborations that deliver important services to the community:
The Particle Data Group27 is a collaboration of more than 150 scientists, which presently delivers an impressive data curation service for the community’s awareness with a comprehensive and state-of-the-art summary of
Event generators—Monte Carlo programs simulating
The passage of particles through matter, for example, resulting from an event generator, can be described in great detail today in elaborate Monte Carlo simulation codes29 after many decades of effort starting from electromagnetic showers in matter to include strongly interacting particles and numerous other fine details. Such programs allow the simulation of collisions with hundreds of particles within experimental set-ups consisting of millions of different components represented in their actual shape and material composition.
Many other “service” collaborations exist for developing and pursuing research and design (R&D) in accelerator and experimental technologies.
Theoretical physicists reside mostly in universities and academies, but all large laboratories have theoretical physics groups and offer a small number of prestigious positions. With their meeting facilities and the latest experimental findings, accelerator laboratories attract numerous topical meetings, offer fellowships and temporary visiting scientist positions to theoreticians in order to encourage their close interaction with the experimentalists. The theoreticians express in their theories the findings of the experiments in the context of what is known or what might be a new phenomenon. They give scientific input to the desirability of new accelerators and experiments and advise on the interpretation of results. They work on the next and more encompassing theories of particle physics and
The most important feature of the whole community is that all knowledge, know-how and particular skills are shared freely and instantaneously, from engineering advances to the latest theoretical hypotheses. Institutes are basically free to choose with whom they collaborate as long as they meet the requirements of the collaboration they want to join.
28.2.3 Governance in Particle Physics: Interplay of ‘Informal and Bottom-up’ with ‘Formal and Top-down’
For national accelerator laboratories, national structures replace ‘council’ functions. There is a large variety of funding and supervision schemes for universities, academies or other institutes working in particle physics.
Accelerator laboratories conceive and construct their accelerators as part of their own objectives and goals and within their own organizational and supervisory structures. New projects advance only after ample discussions with and positive feedback from the international user community. All new accelerator projects are accompanied by peer review ‘machine’ committees with members from other accelerator laboratories or universities undertaking accelerator research.
Accelerator laboratories have formalized their relations with a number of committees, created ad hoc to achieve coordination at regional and world level with other such laboratories and the community:
The European Committee for Future Accelerators ECFA33 was set up at the beginning of 1963 on the initiative of Professor Weisskopf, then Director-General of CERN, to provide community feedback to CERN, DESY and other laboratories in Europe and to coordinate their activities involving governments, institutes and scientists. Committee members are proposed by the community and nominated by the
For over twenty years, a similar committee ACFA34 has existed for Asian countries.
The International Committee for Future Accelerators ICFA35 plays a role of early exchange and coordination of the particle physics laboratories and the community worldwide. It was founded as a regular meeting of the heads of the major laboratories in the late 1960s to early 1970s to avoid duplication of efforts in
The ICFA, however, could not resolve the conflict over the competing projects SSC36 and LHC. The CERN LHC project survived the competition as the less costly proposal backed by many nations; it eventually integrated the SSC user community.
Experimental collaborations aggregate outside of such governance. However, they face severe and high-level scientific and technical peer reviews throughout their existence. Such peer reviews report to the host laboratory’s management and supervisory councils and committees. Any institute may join provided it takes an agreed share of resources for construction, operation and maintenance, and exploitation of the
Throughout their lifetime, CERN experiments are supervised by “Resources Review Boards” who authorize the use of resources of experiments with participation beyond countries represented in the CERN Council. They also follow the progress of the performance goals. Their proceedings are reported to the Council by CERN management.
Today the ATLAS and CMS collaborations alone each have around 2500–3000 scientific or engineering collaborators who conceive, construct, operate, maintain and exploit their devices. The lifespan of such collaborations is about four decades: half for construction and half for exploitation, corresponding to several generations of scientists. The yearly budget of each of them for construction, exploitation, and human resources corresponds to the budget of a sizeable international laboratory. However, they are not legal entities in their own right and are represented by CERN. At the end of their exploitation, they cease to exist.
Each participating institute and its funding agency signs a memorandum of understanding (MoU) for the construction and exploitation of the corresponding experiment. The MoU defines the purpose of the collaboration, the participants, the deliverables of each institute, the overall schedule, the internal organization and responsibilities, the deliverables, the facilities and areas of the host organization made available for the experiment, the quality control and the supervising bodies of all funding agencies and the host laboratory. The MoU is not legally binding, but institutes and funding agencies recognize that “the success of the collaboration depends on all its members adhering to its provisions.”37 “Deliverables” are services or equipment attributed with a value in a convertible currency by the collaboration, with precise specifications and predetermined delivery schedules; they are executed under the entire responsibility and with the resources of the corresponding institute. Taking entire responsibility for parts of the experiment producing a deliverable reduces transfer of funds, ensures the use of local competences and mastering of the corresponding technologies by the institute concerned. The collaboration executes a rigorous quality control on all activities and parts, making use of external experts in the particular fields of technologies or sciences involved.
28.3 Open Communication: Global Collaboration to Address Complex Science Issues
Fig. 28.5: Cutaway view of the ATLAS detector. The detector is 25m in height and 44m in length (note the two persons as an indication of size). The overall weight of the detector is approximately 7000 tonnes.(CERN-GE-0803012 05 ©CERN)
The circulating beams of the LHC pass through the center of ATLAS in a vacuum chamber along its axis. Collisions occur inside the “pixel detector.” There are one billion collisions per second (109/sec) at design rate, each producing around 100 particles. The detector consists of successive shells of detection systems that measure first the position, direction and momentum of all ionizing particles emerging from the collision, then the energy and direction of electrons and photons, then of the hadrons and finally of the muons. The direction and energy of (non-interacting) neutrinos are inferred from missing transverse momentum in the whole event. Momentum measurements require large superconducting magnets creating strong magnetic fields in the tracking detectors. Every detector shell, cable, electronic readout, support structure or magnet element influences the overall precision of the whole device. Therefore, every piece of material inside the experiment needs to be optimized with respect to specific and overall performance. There are millions of pieces.
There are about 100 million electronic detection elements capable of making sense of more than 100 billion particles/sec passing through the experiment during operation. The experiment is capable of selecting online 100–200 events/sec out of the one billion events/sec occurring according to predetermined criteria, mostly large amounts of energy deposited in the detector at large angles away from the incoming beams. This corresponds to a data rate of several hundred megabytes/sec, which are stored for later detailed analysis. Altogether, each experiment creates about 10 million gigabytes or 10 petabytes of already highly selected ‘raw’ data per year from which the new physics is then extracted.
To give a
In August 1987, CERN Council received the report of the long-range planning committee to the CERN Council CERN 1987 considering the options to open the center of mass range for colliding partons of order one TeV, an order of magnitude more than was possible at the time. It consisted of descriptions of a large hadron collider, LHC, in the CERN LEP tunnel, a large electron positron linear collider, CLIC, a description of potentially interesting physics subjects in the one TeV (constituent collisions) domain and first considerations of the challenges for various parts of experimental apparatus from the mentioned workshops. The design of the LHC accelerator shown presented difficulties due to the size, cost, high magnetic fields and very high beam currents, but proponents considered these to be manageable within the accelerator and technical departments of CERN, given the resources for well-organized R&D work.
In contrast, the main experimental challenge was to make a general-purpose detector able to handle the unprecedented data rates and to distinguish wanted signals of new physics in the presence of a large variety of more standard processes. At that time, existing detectors were capable of addressing rates that were at best two to three orders of magnitude smaller, their granularity or the number of channels again two orders of magnitude lower and with orders of magnitude with lower response and recovery times. Furthermore, the amount of ambient radiation when operating the accelerator asked for radiation-hard electronics that did not exist at affordable cost.
Today, the LHC accelerator and the ATLAS and CMS general-purpose experiments exist and operate according the specifications of the early 1990s based on the R&D work undertaken since 1985 and exponential
What we see in Figure 28.5 is a large and complex device consisting of millions of parts fitting tightly together. Today, we can see the publication of first results CERN 1987. These are the finished products of two decades of work by 2000–3000 scientists and engineers. This is like watching a main stem river flowing out to sea but being unaware of the countless tributaries flowing in from the many directions and places that have created it. We may assume that the large river diverges again into a number of distributaries, where groups of scientists follow up diverse science subjects or upgrades of the experiment.
How do scientists proceed from first ideas to operating devices that fulfill the original specifications using available resources within a given time? In workshops that took place in the mid to late 1980s, a number of persons with excellent track records from previous experiments invited open and transparent groups of people to co-develop first ideas for novel general-purpose experimental systems. To meet the LHC physics discovery requirements, in numerous iterations they established combinations of potential subsystems from simulations of hypothetical new particles and their detectable decays, embedded into large numbers of more conventional events. Such activities established the required granularity and detection precision of all parts of the detector, setting high-level specifications and optimizing possible overall configurations for the future experiment by successive iterations.
Further iterations concerned, among many other issues, subsystems, looping through choices of detectors, achievable granularity, ease of absolute calibration, available fast, low power and radiation hard electronics, data readout and cables, power requirements, mechanical containers, positioning and obstructions to other parts of the experiment. In a variety and succession of meetings, the scientists involved reported the results which involved all levels of the experiment, from overall considerations down to technical details. Many ideas were discarded, although elements of these were sometimes retained and integrated into further efforts.
A transparent, horizontal, parallel, interactive and iterative multi-technological process looping and iterating through many parallel project designs and system developments was the obvious organizational choice for the participants. Given the unprecedented amount of new and breaking requirements, many competent persons had to work together and compete for the best solutions. Leadership style at all levels was more about stewardship—encouraging participation and crystallizing good ideas in agreement with overall objectives rather than dictating and directing project evolution Marchand and Margery 2009. The activity leaders were persons of recognized and acknowledged competencies. In the beginning, there was no question of applying traditional project management procedures with their distinct steps of requirements, design, implementation, verification, operation and maintenance, each step following the next like water cascading down steps: many technologies did not even exist in applicable form at the time when, for example, detector choices had to be made. Such project management procedures were exercised only for production when all ideas had been clarified.
The hierarchical structures normally attached to project management seemed to be inadequate. The participants were highly motivated by the scientific objectives, by the competition for best ideas, concepts or technologies, taking note of their increased powers of development enabled by collaborating with many colleagues with a large variety of skills. The prerequisites for such useful collaborations were openness, competence, tolerance, patience, trust, common interests and objectives as well as respect and hard work. Communicating under such conditions produces novel and excellent solutions.40
Even at that point, the experiments never exited the cycle of continuous communication as new facets of the overall enterprise became important. This is the reason why ATLAS (CMS) had around 40,000 (23,000) well-prepared meetings in the period 2006–2010, with almost 190,000 (120,000) documented contributions.41 These are the years of ending construction, of commissioning, of preparing for and of taking first data and publishing first results. There is no other method for gathering all relevant opinions and studies than by continually presenting all of the details until everything is clear and completely accepted by everyone involved. It is also an excellent way of avoiding errors, pitfalls and unexpected surprises.
The subjects of such meetings and their numbers (in brackets) in the ATLAS collaboration ranged from ATLAS weeks (42), Collaboration Board (25), Executive Board (112), Computing (4600), Inner Detector (3000), Liquid Argon Calorimeter (2400), Tile Calorimeter (1400), Muon Spectrometer (2200), Operation (1300), Physics (5600), National and Institute Meetings (11,800), Trigger and Data Acquisition (3600), Upgrades for high luminosity (1100) and many others, for example, the Combined Statistics Forum of ATLAS and CMS (13). All meetings had numerous local participants and numerous others joining in with contributions and comments by video or Internet from their home institutions.
28.4 Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Infrastructure in Particle Physics
E-Science is about global
collaboration in key areas of science, and the next generation of infrastructure that will enable it. […] E-Science will change the dynamics of the way science is undertaken.42
An all-encompassing communication, worldwide collaboration, common production and use of data and its complete analysis requires a powerful, supporting ICT-infrastructure. Driven by the needs of their science, particle physicists have employed state-of-the-art
It was the “web-like structure of CERN”43 which helped Tim Berners Lee to develop the World Wide Web at CERN around 1990. This information accession and retrieval service on the Internet brought about a
In 2001 after an in-depth, two-year-long review of all the computing requirements of the experiments45 CERN launched a worldwide computing project called LHC Computing Grid (LCG).46 The objective of the project was to provide equal opportunities for data analysis to all scientists participating in the LHC experiments, regardless of the location of their home institutes.
In contrast to the original Web and Web services, which enabled easy access to continuous information, Grids47 and Grid services in addition enable data and information to be processed within the grid and the results made directly available to the collaborators. Accessing and protecting original and derived data requires strict procedures and access-authorizations by their owners, the collaborators.
What else should the scientists preserve and make generally available besides the abstract summary conclusions of the Review of Particle Properties, the studies performed, and the technologies developed and combined into powerful devices? All of these have enabled scientists to produce and observe interesting collisions, to observe and record relevant data, analysing it to advance their science.
To turn only to CERN, its Scientific Information Service (SIS) runs, among other operations, since 1990 an online library, the CERN Document Server (CDS)53 currently holding a million bibliographic records of which almost half are full-text documents concerning
The CERN Scientific Information Policy Board (SIPB) is mandated to look into the preservation of scientific objects and records, meaning physical objects or their representations and also “original data.” A first report on a
Most of the information and data mentioned above is available in digital form. What is missing is a coherent and, most importantly, persistent online-structure for all of this information, as well as powerful search engines and the resources to bring it together. This encompasses high level reviews to experimental-device details and original data sets with a view to make all of this knowledge generally available and to archive and curate the information for long-term use.
Scientific and technical knowledge is a special commodity, and consuming or sharing this knowledge neither reduces nor impairs it. Most importantly, generally and openly sharing knowledge in its proper context increases the knowledge base of all, fertilizes the creation of new knowledge in new applications, and thus with use the value and applicability of knowledge is increased.
For over sixty years,
With its exceptional skills in information and
We have described the
Finally, a world “knowledge society” that applies the open sharing and availability of knowledge in a respectful and collaborative way would more rapidly advance many burning issues such as sustainable energies, climate, environment, health, development and even sciences.57
A European Commissioner responsible for Development once said:
It is not the impossible which gives cause for despair but the failure to achieve the possible.
Amsler, C., M. Doser, M. D. (2008). Review of Particle Physics. Particle Physics Letters B B667(1): 1-1340
Berners Lee, Tim, Mark Fischetti (1999). Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web by Its Inventor. San Francisco, CA: Harper.
Bethke, S., M. Calvetti, M. C., Hoffmann M., H. M., H. F. Hoffmann (2001) Report of the Steering Group of the LHC Computing Review. Geneva: CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research. CERN/LHCC/2001-004, 22 February 2001.
BGBL (1954). Convention for the Establishment of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, CERN. Bundesgesetzblatt
CERN (1987) Report of the Long-Range Planning Committee the CERN Council, n.
Charpak, Georges (1993). Electronic Imaging of Ionizing Radiation with Limited Avalanches in Gases. Review of Modern Physics 65(3): 591-598
Collaboration, ATLAS (2010). Charged-particle multiplicities in pp interactions at sqrt(s) = 900 GeV measured with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Phys Lett B 688
Collaboration, The CMS (2010). First measurement of the underlying event activity at the LHC with √s = 0.9 TeV. European Physical Journal C 70(3): 555-572
Committee, LHC Experiments (1994) ATLAS: Technical Proposal for a General-Purpose pp Experiment at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, LHCC-94-43; LHCC-P-2.
Corcella, G., I.G. Knowles, I. K., Marchesini I.G., M. I., G. Marchesini, G. M., Moretti G. (2002). HERWIG 6.5: An Event Generator for Hadron Emission Reactions with Interfering Gluons (Including Supersymmetric Processes). ArXiv High Energy Physics
- (2005). HERWIG 6.5 Release Note. ArXiv High Energy Physics
CORDIS (2007) Make `Knowledge' a Fifth Community Freedom, Says Potocnik at Green Paper Launch. .
Dosanjh, Manjit, Jonathan Wilkinson (2004). The Role of Science in the Information Society. Geneva: CERN.
ERA (2007) GREEN PAPER. The European Research Area: New Perspectives. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 4 April 2007.
Evans, Lyndon (2009). The Large Hadron Collider: A Marvel of Technology. Lausanne: EPFL Press.
Foster, Jan, Carl Kesselman, C. K. (2001). The Anatomy of the Grid. Journal of High Performance Computing Applications 15(3): 200-222
Gillies, James, Robert Cailliau (2000). How the Web Was Born: The Story of the World Wide Web. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gonzélez, López José Benito, José Pedro Ferreira, J.P. F. (2010). Indico Central-Events Organisation, Ergonomics and Collaboration Tools Integration. Journal of Physics: Conference Series
Group, Particle Data (nodate) None.
Hermann, Armin, John Krige, J. K., Mersits John (1987). Launching the European Organization for Nuclear Research. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Heuer, Rolf (2009). CERN and the Future of Particle Physics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series
Hey, Tony, Anne E. Trefethen (2005). Cyberinfrastructure for E-Science. Science 308(5723): 817-821
Holzner, André, P. Igo--Kemens, P. IK. (2009). First Results from the PARSE Insight Project: HEP Survey on Data Preservation, Re–use and (Open) Access. In: CERN-OPEN-2009-006 Geneva: CERN
Kleist, Heinrich (2008). Über die allmähliche Verfertigung der Gedanken beim Reden. Frankfurt: Dielmann.
Marchand, D. A., Philippe Margery (2009). Leadership Through Collaboration and Harmony: How to Lead without Formal Authority. Perspectives for Managers
Meer, Simon (1985). Stochastic Cooling and the Accumulation of Antiprotons. Reviews of Modern Physics 57(3): 689-697
Raymond, Eric S. (2001). The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. Beijing: O'Reilly.
Renn, Jürgen (2006). Auf den Schultern von Riesen und Zwergen: Einsteins unvollendete Revolution. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.
Riordan, Michael (2000). The Demise of the Superconducting Super Collider. Physics in Perspective 2(4): 411-425
WSIS (2003) Declaration of Principles. Building the Information Society: A Global Challenge in the New Millennium. WSIS-03/GENEVA/DOC/4-E. Geneva: World Summit on the Information Society.
From the “Convention for the Establishment of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, CERN,” ratified in 1954 by its member states, published, for example, in Germany in BGBL 1954.
This is the author’s view of the workings of a collaboration in particle physics from decades of working within such collaborations. One ingredient is the CERN convention (see footnote 1) and its requirement to make all findings generally available. The formal organization statements of the collaborations demonstrate another aspect as they represent the community’s decisions of how they want to collaborate in practice. The ATLAS organization can be taken as typical example from the ATLAS technical proposal Committee 1994, chap. 10.5.1, 205. The ATLAS organization chapter describes the roles and responsibilities of every member and every institute of the collaboration as well as of all officers of the collaboration and their limited terms of office and regular election processes. The ultimate authority is the regular “all hands plenary meeting.”
For example, the public accessibility of research sponsored by the US National Institutes of Health: http://publicaccess.nih.gov.
Compare, for example, the “UN Millennium Development Goals”: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals, and the WHO “The Global Burden of Disease”: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/en.
Technical papers describing the LHC and its experiments can be found in the special edition of the electronic journal JINST, the Institute of Physics (IOP) electronic Journal of Instrumentation: http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.lhc/jinst. A more popular description of the LHC accelerator and the corresponding experiments can be found in Evans 2009.
Currently India, Israel, Japan, Russia, Turkey, and USA.
This is a data storage, mining and analysis software package for physicists, authored by Rene Brun, Fons Rademakers and many others: http://root.cern.ch/drupal; for an introduction, see: http://root.cern.ch/download/doc/1Introduction.pdf.
ECFA: European Committee for Future Accelerators, compare http://ecfa.web.cern.ch/ecfa/en/Welcome.html.
ICFA: International Committee for Future Accelerators, compare http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/icfa.
From: ATLAS Collaboration, “Memorandum of Understanding for Collaboration in the Construction of the ATLAS Detector”; CERN RRB-D 98-44rev. CERN Archives, restricted access. All construction MoUs of the other LHC experiments were of a similar format; they were followed by “Maintenance and Operation-MoUs.”
On individuals elaborating new ideas in a friendly and consenting environment, see the work of the German poet Heinrich von Kleist (1777–1811): “Wenn Du etwas wissen willst, und es durch Meditation nicht finden kannst, so rate ich Dir, lieber, sinnreicher Freund, mit dem nächsten Bekannten, der Dir aufstößt, darüber zu sprechen […] Der Franzose sagt l’appetit vient en mangeant, und dieser Erfahrungssatz bleibt wahr, wenn man ihn parodiert und sagt, l’idée vient en parlant” Kleist 2008.
The management tool INDICO is described in Gonzélez et.al. 2010. The values quoted above can only be read from an ATLAS or CERN account.
E-science in the UK as described by its first programme director Tony Hey in Science magazine Hey and Trefethen 2005.
His first website was info.cern.ch.
European Grid Infrastructure study: http://knowledge.eu-egi.eu/knowledge/EOAindex.php/Main_Page. In the wake of LCG and to obtain resources from the European Commission several successive EU grid projects were undertaken under CERN leadership, such as Enabling Grids for E-science in Europe (EGEE): http://www.eu-egee.org. The corresponding US effort is the Open Science Grid (OSG): http://www.opensciencegrid.org.
Report of the National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure: http://www.nsf.gov/od/oci/reports/toc.jsp.
“Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics” (SCOAP3): http://scoap3.org/about.html and “CERN Publication Policy Open Access and Copyright for the LHC publications” http://library.web.cern.ch/library/OpenAccess/PublicationPolicy.html.
For the attribution license of creative commons, see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0.
The views presented here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent CERN’s or other particle physics institutes’ views.