Megascience Forum: Valuable from IUPAP's Perspective

Abstract

In his Policy Forum “International scientific cooperation” ( Science 's Compass, 8 Oct., p. [245][1]), Pierre Baruch asks the question, “Has the [Megascience] Forum been worthwhile, and did it justify the resources that were invested in it by the participating countries?” From the perspective of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP), the answer is yes. When the Megascience Forum (MSF) was first set up, it was greeted with some suspicion by many in the science community as another bureaucratic body that would try to tell scientists what to do and how to do it, but it has not been that way at all. IUPAP has had three main interactions with the MSF. The first, described by Baruch, was in regard to our recommendations for access to large-scale scientific facilities. From IUPAP's perspective, the main thrust of our recommendations was accepted. In the second interaction, IUPAP brought together a group consisting of the chairs of our commissions on condensed matter physics plus the chairs of the neutron source users groups from Europe, North America, and Japan to comment on the report of the Working Group on Neutron Sources while that report was still in draft. Most of our recommendations on the draft were accepted by the Working Group, and this input from the science community was beneficial and effective for both sides. In our other major interaction, the MSF had been asked by the proponents of $100-million-class underwater neutrino observatories to help sort out certain national rivalries. The Forum found that the scientists were not talking to one another, so the Forum suggested that IUPAP set up a group to facilitate discussion and foster international collaboration on large-scale astroparticle physics collaborations. We did so, and the protagonists seemed to find it useful in fostering discussion and sorting out rivalries and priorities. Interactions between the MSF and the scientific unions can help to address another problem identified by Baruch—that of the limited membership of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). IUPAP's membership includes many non-OECD members, such as China and India, as well as South American, African, and Middle Eastern countries. Maintaining a communication channel between the Forum and IUPAP has allowed the views of these countries to be included to some degree. The MSF, under its new name, the Global Science Forum, can be more effective in the future if the problems identified by Baruch are addressed. The governments that fund large-scale scientific work need an informal place to discuss issues, but those discussions have to be informed by appropriate scientific input. Strengthening the scientific membership of national delegations, as suggested by Baruch, is one way to do that, and another way that gives an even broader perspective is to strengthen the links between the Forum and the scientific unions in appropriate areas. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.286.5438.245