Conseil Europèenne pour la Recherche Nucléaire

1. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AT CERNLuciano MAIANI. CERN Geneva Conseil Europèenne pour la Recherche Nucléaire Snowmass, July 18, 2001 Where it is ? What is it ? How is it managed ? International Cooperation for the Large Hadron Collider Conclusions

2. 1. Aerial view Snowmass presentation

3. 2. The first proposal (Louis De Broglie, 1949) “...a laboratory or institution where it would be possible to do scientific work, but somehow beyond the framework of the different participating states. …this body could be endowed with more resources than national laboratories and could, consequently, undertake tasks…beyond their scope…” Collaboration could be easier due to the “true nature of science”... This kind of cooperation would serve also other disciplines Snowmass presentation

4. The European Nuclear Research Council • Established in 1954, by 14 European countries • From Art. 2 of the Convention: "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… The Organization shall… confine its activities to… the construction of one or more international laboratories for research on high energy particles, including work in the field of cosmic rays;…" Snowmass presentation

5. 92 41 P-P, very high energy 34 Cold anti-P P, high energy P, low energy Nuclear physics CERN Member States Distribution of CERN users, May 1, 2001 Snowmass presentation

6. The CERN network in Europe CERN’s network • Strongly based in universities • 20 members, ~270 institutes, ~4600 users • Studentships, fellowships, etc. Annual throughput of ~400 engineers and ~500 physicists …and in the World Snowmass presentation

7. CERN has integrated Central Europe countries about 10 years ago… • Excellence assessed by independent peer review • Research knows no borders • Have to integrate candidate countries into world-class research • These countries have a lot to offer • We are very happy with the results: a great addition of intellectual and material resources ! ! Barrel Yoke (CMS) from Czeck Republic Industrial Exibition: Poland @ CERN, 2000 Snowmass presentation

8. Mobility • Getting the new researchers to the infrastructure • Getting the staff of the lab to the new nations • Schools The Joint CERN-Dubna School Snowmass presentation

9. Agreement between CERN and USSR • On the extreme left Dr. G. Funke, President of the CERN Council watches CERN’s Director-General, Professor B. Gregory (centre) and Professor A. Petrosiants sign the agreement Snowmass presentation

10. Visiting JINR From left to right: CERN Director-General V. Weisskopf, Professor V. P. Dzhelepov, and Academician B. M. Pontecorvo, a colleague of the Italian scientist E. Fermi, in JINR’s Laboratory of Nuclear Problems, Dubna, 1963. Snowmass presentation

11. Sending detectors from CERN to Serpukov The Antonov 22 transporter at Geneva airport in 1970. The Antonov’s pilot with the local press. Snowmass presentation

12. CMS feet from Pakistan LHC corrector magnet from India The LHC dipole n. 360 from Novosibirsk Beyond the EU candidate countries The win-win situation • Excellent researchers are not limited to EU-15 countries, nor even to greater Europe • People often very well-educated and highly motivated • If we can find the right specialities, everyone can become a major winner • Raw materials, heavy engineering, assembly of one-off sub-detectors, software components, are all things that can be spread around imaginatively….. Snowmass presentation

13. Institutes participating to CMS Access • It may be tempting to make “ access to large facilities ” dependent on “membership”, but particle physicists has been able to follow a different approach • Experiments running on our facilities tend to be based on very large (50-2000 person) collaborations • This allows people from economically weaker countries to join with those from stronger regions • So we tend not to look at the passport of the people making proposals • But (in general) we expect people who have not funded the lab infrastructure to contribute more than their “fair share” to the cost of the experiment • But the contribution can take many forms, such as assembly effort, software, … Look for the “win-win”. Snowmass presentation

14. 3. How is CERN managed • Council is the supreme body • Formal resolutions; • Committee of Council (CC): • Receives proposals from DG • Prepares work for Council after advice from SPC & FC • No formal vote. • C & CC: discussion at a political level, general steering of LHC project • Cooperative attitude of Member States has been vital for success !!! Snowmass presentation

15. Institutional aspects • In Council: one country-one vote • Contributions according to GDP • No just-return clause • but: • Finance Committee recommends to Council important financial decisions (Budget…) only with a majority of 70% of contributions; • specific rules (alignment) facilitate the equilibration of the industrial return of each country, which is closely monitored. Snowmass presentation

16. CERN STRUCTURE OBSERVER STATES ASSOCIATED TO LHC PROJECT (US, Japan, Russia) CERN COUNCIL --------------------------------- COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL OBSERVER STATES FINANCE COMMITTEE SCIENTIFIC POLICY COMMITTEE DIRECTOR-GENERAL RESEARCH BOARD DIRECTORS MANAGEMENT BOARD DIVISION LEADERS Snowmass presentation

17. The LHC formal framework • 1994: Council approves LHC construction with: • Final energy (7 TeV) in year 2008 if no external contribution • Special Host State (FR & CH) contribution • 1994- 1996: external support given by US, Japan, Russia, Canada, India, to speed up LHC construction and to share accelerator technology • US, Japan and Russia have Observer Status • participate to Comm. of Council for LHC issues; • LHC managing discussed in several common bodies (LHC-Board; LHC-Resource Review Boards…) • Participation to experiment has been never in question !! Snowmass presentation

18. Cost sharing for LHC (BCHF): MS, Material: 2.1 MS, Personnel: 1.1 (approx.) Host States: 0.2 NMS (net): 0.6 (≈15%) 4.0 4. International Collaboration for LHC construction Gross NMS contributions US: 200 M$ Russia: 100 MCHF Japan: 170 MCHF Canada: 30 MCHF India: 25 M$ Snowmass presentation

19. Snowmass presentation

20. Snowmass presentation

21. Snowmass presentation

22. US Institutions Participating in the LHC experiments(updated to 1999) Snowmass presentation

23. 5. CONCLUSIONS • Status of CERN as an International Organisation is often seen as a nuisance...but it is functional to: • attract best people & establish excellence of the Lab; • make Member States feel CERN is THEIR Laboratory; • bring in new Countries and resources. • LHC has set anew precedent in International Cooperation. • Fully supported by one region, but open to other regions: • to make it more effective (i.e. shorter construction time); • to share new technology. • LHC experiments: a very diffused construction • good for technology transfer; • provides a basis of support for the Laboratory. WILL THE NEXT MACHINE BE ALSO DONE THIS WAY ?? Snowmass presentation