Issues in international collaboration in large astronomical projects

Richard Schilizzi

Chair, IAU Working Group on Future Large Scale Facilities

acknowledgements

•Report of the OECD Global Science Forum Workshop on Best Practices in International Scientific Cooperation

•ALMA Project Plan

•Pierre Auger Observatory Management Plan

•SALT Business Management Plan

•Square Kilometre Array Management Plan

A few general remarks

Individual scientists

Universities

Research institutes

International Scientfic Unions

Funding bodies

Government agencies

Legal advisors

High level government officials

Intergovernmental agencies

General public

large international research collaborations are not straightforward

they involve long drawn-out procedures

international is more complex than national

the players are:

What forms do research collaborations take?

1) between individual scientists – informal, no exchange of funds

2) between research institutions – can be more formal, requiring government agency funding

3) collaborations needing large injections of capital or operational funds

• formal approach needed with more complex arrangements, even if no exchange of funds

• can be based on an existing facility, or require a new facility

4) collaborations designed to provide a new facility, including those beyond the capability of a single country

Driving motivation: mutual benefit

International collaboration or not?

advantages

• can broaden the research base

• reduces financial burden to individual partners (but note that total cost usually higher)

• cross-cultural benefits at scientific and personal level

• can provide access to facilities or information beyond the reach of individual participants

disadvantages• loss of national sovereignity

and control• loss of “home-team”

advantage• extra administrative

complexity• potential difficulties of

working abroad

Policy-makers

•Governments and their agencies dont like surprises!

•Bring policy-makers into the process at an early stage

Types of collaborative agreement

• Intergovernmental treaty eg ESO

• Cooperative agreement eg Canary Islands Agreement on Cooperation in Astrophysics

• Inter-agency agreements eg CFHT, IRAM, JCMT, Gemini, JIVE, ALMA

leadershipIndividual level

•Need motivated individuals to steer project through the scientific, administrative and political processes

•Consultation with potential stake-holders and scientific community

Lead country?

•Host to formal secretariat/headquarters/facility itself

•If a lead country arrangement is preferred, better to evolve this early in the project so host country characteristics can be included in project decisions

Funding and finance

• Flat rate

• Based on GDP

• Based on expected usage

• Host country premium?

• Cash vs “in-kind”

• “juste retour”

•Realistic negotiations with partners and government agencies require realistic cost estimates early in project

•Need to consider division of costs amongst partners

•Business plan

•Problem: how to align funding opportunities world-wide in an international project

Project governance

Statutes, rules and procedures

•managerial framework

•clear decision-making procedures

•voting rights

Should the organisation be a legal entity?

Entrance and exit criteria for partners

Access policy

•Open access

•Only members of the collaboration

•Access by payment

Intellectual Property

•Procedures needed from the start

•Take account of different guidelines and regulations for IPR in the different countries

Site selection for facility, HQ, or science centres

•Best facility site for the best science

•Need well-defined and transparent criteria to allow potential sites to compete on a fair basis

•In some cases, site is determined uniquely by geography. Where this is not clear-cut, financial and political trade-offs may play a role.

Industry and business

Large astronomical projects attractive to commercial interests

•Participation in pre-competitive research together with research institutes

•Contracts for construction

Government policy to encourage public-private partnerships in many countries

Organisation and management

Pre-international funding

•Square Kilometre Array

Funded

•ALMA

•Pierre Auger Observatory

•South African Large Telescope

International SKA Steering Committee

Executive Committee

International Science Advisory

Committee

SKA Project Office

Engineering Management

Team

Site Evaluation

and Selection Committee

Simulations Working Group

Outreach Committee

Long Term Planning

Committee

Square Kilometre Array

Current organisation

Outreach Committee

International SKA Steering Committee

Executive Committee

International Science Advisory

Committee

International Technical Advisory

Committee

SKA Project Office

Engineering Working Group

Site Evaluation Committee

Simulations Working Group

Science Working Group

International Site Selection Advisory

Committee

Industrial Liaison Committee

sponsors

Square Kilometre Array

Likely organisation in 2005

Pierre Auger Observatory•Separate financial and scientific oversight

- Collaboration Board- Financial Board

•Executive financial institution (CERN)

•80% of construction funding is in-kind

• Common fund is essential

ALMA•One ALMA Board - no separated financial and scientific oversight

•Financial authority remains with the legal entity in each region, the “regional executive”

-Fair Return multiple project offices

South Africa Large Telescope (SALT)

Foundation Pty LTDBoard of directors

Officers of the Board:

Project Manager Project Scientist Chief Financial Officer

Company Secretary

•Private company, registered in SAfr, and operated as a non-profit organisation

•10 shareholder organisations in 5 countries

•Limited liability, long term, clear ownership structure

•Shareholders fund capital costs and first 10 years of operation

Global issues• global funding – role for the OECD Global Science Forum?

• develop astronomy-wide scientific priorities for large projects – role for the IAU?

• multi-wavelength observatory requires telescopes across the e-m spectrum to be contemporaneous and able to see the same sky

• forget about detailed collaboration on individual projects, and agree at a global level that one country or region does one of the large projects, and another country or region does another.

ConclusionsSuccessful international collaborations require:

•Clear and compelling scientific objectives

•Motivated scientists committed for the long term

•Mutual benefit for all participants

•Credible organisation and management

•Early participation of policy-makers

•A means of internationally-coordinated funding

What role for the IAU?

• develop scientific priorities for individual projects?

• global “forward look” for astronomy?