In order to enable an iCal export link, your account needs to have an API key created. This key enables other applications to access data from within Indico even when you are neither using nor logged into the Indico system yourself with the link provided. Once created, you can manage your key at any time by going to 'My Profile' and looking under the tab entitled 'HTTP API'. Further information about HTTP API keys can be found in the Indico documentation.
Additionally to having an API key associated with your account, exporting private event information requires the usage of a persistent signature. This enables API URLs which do not expire after a few minutes so while the setting is active, anyone in possession of the link provided can access the information. Due to this, it is extremely important that you keep these links private and for your use only. If you think someone else may have acquired access to a link using this key in the future, you must immediately create a new key pair on the 'My Profile' page under the 'HTTP API' and update the iCalendar links afterwards.
Permanent link for public information only:
Permanent link for all public and protected information:
April APS FIP Invited Sessions: Models of International Partnership
Key 8 (Hilton Baltimore Inner Harbor)
Hilton Baltimore Inner Harbor
Ed Berger, Maria Spiropulu
Meeting URL: http://www.aps.org/meetings/april/index.cfm Context/Background: The underlying foundation of the P5 report is the "international" nature of science projects. What are the succesfull models for inetrnational collaboration acorss science in the US and the world? Here we focus on HEP/NP/Astro/Cosmo/Gravity. Questions for Discussion: Are there actual mechanisms and cross-national platforms that facilitate international science deals? What is the US government framework used to negotiate and make deals that involve big science projects? What examples do we have of successful and unseccessful international deals? How do (geographically) national labs with international science programs fit into the frameworks for international partnerships? Do we have similar examples from industry where worldwide collaboration was necessary for big projects to be carried out? How do such deals warrant the reward of all participants with intellectual credit and sharing of the results? China, Korea and other flourishing economies are progressing in international deal making for matters of national pride and international leadership in science and technology. Where does the US and Europe stand in this landscape?
(Argonne National Laboratory)
Introduction and Context15m
LHC at CERN – Machine and Detectors30m
The Long Baseline Neutrino Facility -- Developing Model30m
The proposed Long Baseline Neutrino Facility is the first attempt to host a large basic science initiative in the United States that is formulated from the beginning as an international project. LBNF will consist of a 1.2 megawatt proton beam neutrino source at Fermilab in Illinois, sending high energy neutrinos to large liquid argon detectors located 1300 kilometers away and a mile underground at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in South Dakota. The detectors will be built and operated by a newly formed scientific collaboration called DUNE (for Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment); this is a global collaboration of 142 universities and labs from 24 countries. The international governance and oversight of LBNF and DUNE borrows from the successful model of the LHC, with adaptions arising from the fact that Fermilab is a U.S. Dept. of Energy national lab, not an international lab like CERN.
FRIB (Facility for Rare Isotope Beams)--Diverse Partnership Models in Nuclear Physics30m
Discoveries in nuclear physics are made by international teams of scientists, often facilitated by large and expensive accelerator facilities. This presentation looks at different partnership models to establish and operate large nuclear physics scientific user facilities and their implications for project delivery. Progress on construction and partnership model choices for the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams will be presented in detail.
Models of International Partnership (II)Key 8
Hilton Baltimore Inner Harbor
ITER--Is it a model For International Scientific Cooperation?30m
ITER is an international experimental facility being built by seven Parties to demonstrate the long term potential of fusion energy. The ITER Joint Implementation Agreement (JIA) defines the structure and governance model of such cooperation. There are a number of necessary conditions for such international projects to be successful: a complete design, strong systems engineering working with an agreed set of requirements, an experienced organization with systems and plans in place to manage the project, a cost estimate backed by industry, and someone in charge. Unfortunately for ITER many of these conditions were not present. The paper discusses the priorities in the JIA which led to setting up the project with a Central Integrating Organization (IO) in Cadarache, France as the ITER HQ, and seven Domestic Agencies (DAs) located in the countries of the Parties, responsible for delivering 90\%+ of the project hardware as Contributions-in-Kind and also financial contributions to the IO, as ``Contributions-in-Cash.'' Theoretically the Director General (DG) is responsible for everything. In practice the DG does not have the power to control the work of the DAs, and there is not an effective management structure enabling the IO and the DAs to arbitrate disputes, so the project is not really managed, but is a loose collaboration of competing interests. Any DA can effectively block a decision reached by the DG. Inefficiencies in completing design while setting up a competent organization from scratch contributed to the delays and cost increases during the initial few years. So did the fact that the original estimate was not developed from industry input. Unforeseen inflation and market demand on certain commodities/materials further exacerbated the cost increases. Since then, improvements are debatable. Does this mean that the governance model of ITER is a wrong model for international scientific cooperation? I do not believe so. Had the necessary conditions for success been present at the beginning, ITER would be in far better shape. As is, it can provide good lessons to avoid the same problems in the future. The ITER Council is now applying those lessons. A very experienced new Director General has just been appointed. He has instituted a number of drastic changes, but still within the governance of the JIA. Will there changes be effective? Only time will tell, but I am optimistic.
Astrophysics and Cosmology: International Partnerships30m
Most large projects in astrophysics and cosmology are international. This raises many challenges including:
- Aligning the sequence of: proposal, planning, selection, funding, construction, deployment, operation, data mining in different countries
- Managing to minimize cost growth through reconciling different practices
- Communicating at all levels to ensure a successful outcome
- Stabilizing long term career opportunities.
There has been considerable progress in confronting these challenges. Lessons learned from past collaborations are influencing current facilities but much remains to be done if we are to optimize the scientific and public return on the expenditure of financial and human resources.
The LIGO Scientific Collaboration30m
The LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) is a self-governing collaboration seeking to detect gravitational waves, use them to explore the fundamental physics of gravity, and develop gravitational wave observations as a tool of astronomical discovery. The LSC works toward this goal through research on, and development of techniques for, gravitational wave detection; and the development, commissioning and exploitation of gravitational wave detectors. The LSC, funded in 1997, has now many hundreds of scientists in 16 countries, with a diverse range of skills and background. The LSC is preparing for a discovery era with Advanced LIGO detectors starting in the next few years; we will describe the features and challenges of the LSC organization in such an exciting time.
Invited speakers: Speakers from Sessions I and II, plus William Colglazier (Former Science and Technology Adviser, US Dept of State), James Siegrist (DOE Office of Science), Nigel Lockyer (Director, Fermilab), John Womersley (CEO, UK Science and Technology Facilities Council), Saul Gonzalez (OSTP), and others.