|
|
|
|
Megascience, the OECD and the new global forum
Basic scientific research may be one of the highest expressions of human reason, but the conduct of science is not exempt from the down-to-earth laws of economics. Although science and technology are obviously essential for economic well-being, they must take their place in line when competing for scarce resources. The world-wide distribution of these resources, and of information and talent, means that international consultations by science policy officials are essential for undertaking timely, informed decisions on science policy issues, especially those concerning very big projects—megascience. Every important technological innovation has its origins in basic research that was driven by pure intellectual curiosity. Unfortunately, the converse does not apply, since not all basic research leads to useful applications—hence the need for science policy. That is why scientific research has a natural place at the OECD. Article 2 of the Organisation’s Convention states that member governments “agree that they will, both individually and jointly: [...] in the scientific and technological field, promote the development of their resources, encourage research and promote vocational training.
Scientific and financial stakes
Since 1992, the Megascience Forum has provided a venue for regular consultations about Big Science among senior science policy officials of 27 out of the 29 OECD countries, plus the European Commission. In addition to regular exchanges of information about policies, plans and priorities, the Forum has delivered practical, action-oriented recommendations for strengthening scientific co-operation across a wide range of fields where big scientific projects play a major role. In each instance, the benefits of working together, such as pooling resources and avoiding duplication, are weighed against the costs, such as overheads, language issues and travel. In practice, international co-operation on anything but the smallest scale, is rarely straightforward, nor is internationalisation an end in itself. Individual countries have created their own political procedures and structures for priority-setting, scheduling, funding and evaluation of research. These have to be harmonised and co-ordinated for joint efforts to be undertaken. When the Megascience Forum was first being organised, the governments approached the proposed activity warily, given the scientific and financial stakes. After all, most big projects come to their attention after extensive discussions among scientists, not via intergovernmental organisations such as OECD. International collaboration, if it is to take place at all, is usually pursued on an ad hoc basis with bilateral, trilateral or other arrangements as needed. Governments were not alone in their wariness. The scientific community too was quite prepared to cast a jaundiced eye on the prospect of a group of officials deliberating on scientific projects outside the range of their scrutiny. Thus, in designing the procedures of the Forum, a careful balance had to be struck between providing a channel for input from scientists and the desire of beleaguered government officials not to have the meetings turn into a stage where scientists would chant their unvarying mantra—“more money!”.
A busy decade
Despite all these constraints and requirements, the Megascience Forum has been able to convene five working groups and two workshops over a period of three years since 1995, with a total of over fifty international meetings involving hundreds of delegates. One workshop, for example, was dedicated to strengthening co-ordination between scientists conducting underwater studies of ultra high-energy neutrinos—elusive elementary particles that arrive on Earth from deep outer space and whose origin is a mystery to astronomers. The other was devoted to optimising large-scale, multi-disciplinary scientific assessments of global issues, such as the threats to biological diversity. The working groups have been very active. For example, a shared global vision of the future of nuclear physics was developed, including the identification of opportunities for co-ordinated or co-operative development of radioactive nuclear beam facilities, heavy-ion colliders, electron accelerators, and facilities that produce multipurpose beams of exotic elementary particles for nuclear research. Some applications of nuclear science were also examined, notably nuclear waste transmutation and medical imaging. On biodiversity informatics, a work plan was developed for the implementation of a multinational Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) for policy-makers, researchers and business. And on neuro-informatics the Forum developed re-commendations for promoting international co-operation in the application of information science to the study of the brain. Improving access to large scientific facilities, and overcoming obstacles to international co-operation are a constant objective of the Forum, which has developed guidelines for governments on the rules underpinning existing and future large facilities. Recommendations for overcoming impediments in the transfer of scientific equipment and the mobility of personnel were also made. The Forum’s work, which has been subject to exceptional scrutiny by independent experts, is now regarded as a success. Not surprisingly, OECD governments have decided to endorse the establishment of a follow-on body, dubbed the “Global Science Forum” to continue the job. Only this time, in the spirit of the needs of basic research, very large projects will not be the only concern. n S.M.
Bibliography
Richter, Dieter and Springer, Tasso: A Twenty Years Forward Look at Neutron Scattering Facilities in the OECD Countries and Russia, OECD/European Science Foundation, 1998.
Scientific Prospects for Neutron Scattering with Present and Future Sources, European Science Foundation, 1996.
Report of the Megascience Forum Neutron Sources Working Group, OECD Megascience Forum, 1998.
Internet: http://www.oecd.org/dsti/sti/s_t/ms/.