Large scale research infrastructures have become so expensive that their funding and construction have become major political issues. An approach is outlined for addressing these issues in a structured and coordinated manner, involving both scientific and governmental bodies.

I. Statement of the Problem

The cost of large scale scientific infrastructure has reached 1000M euros or more (X-FEL, for example). Expenditures of this magnitude are seldom within the budget capabilities of a single government, and must therefore rely on contributions of sizeable magnitude from a variety of funding sources. The politics of large scale funding are both scientific and governmental. The scientific community needs to speak with a single voice, sometimes difficult when confronted with competition between different scientific fields. Funding agencies need to be convinced that expenditures of this magnitude are in the overall interest of their respective responsibility, and can be contained. Finally, governments need to be comfortable that these investments are in the public interest, and take precedence over competing needs of society.

This paper treats each of these three areas separately, with responsibility for each ultimately resting upon the “shoulders” of the scientific community.

IIa. Scientific Community

Each branch of science has its own priorities. These sometimes are in conflict internal to a branch, and worse, in conflict with other branches of science. When brought into the open, these differences can be seized upon as excuses to ignore or oppose proposals for specific large scale scientific infrastructure projects.

The process for the scientific community speaking with a single voice begins with the field or sub-field. The science case for a new large scale facility or collection of facilities must be made at the outset. What is the “mission need” for an investment of 1000M euros or more? What are the expected outcomes? Why is investment in the specific facility or facilities more important than direct support of individual researchers? Each scientific field is different, and will answer these questions differently. The important outcome is for the field to come to agreement on its priorities. Vehicles for discussion and debate that will lead to consensus within a branch of science can be found in scientific societies, within the structure of governmental agencies, or within the committees of the European Union.

Once consensus is reached within each of the branches of science for large scale scientific infrastructure, the next step may be most difficult: prioritization between disciplines. Without consensus between different scientific branches, “in-fighting” could lead to disaster. There is never enough money to support the full panoply of large scale scientific needs. Prioritization between projects, including time lines for construction and operation, are essential if the next political steps are to be successful.

The process for decision making between branches of science requires that each branch makes its needs known, having reached prioritization internally based on scientific quality. This allows the scientific impact of each project to be measured against another, and for a prioritized “roadmap” to be created than can be supported by the entire scientific community.

It is my personal experience that prioritization between fields cannot be accomplished through a “committee.” Rather, an individual or individual agency, weighing the relative scientific contributions for each proposed large scale facility, needs to lay out a long term plan for investment that can fit within a budgetary envelope. This long term plan needs to be developed in an open and transparent fashion if it is to be accepted by the larger scientific community.

IIb. Funding Agency

Once consensus for prioritization of large scale infrastructure projects has been reached, funding agencies take the next step in the political process. This has two components: site selection and cost range.

Site selection requires a fair process that maximizes scientific output from a given facility, with access and local support prerequisites for success. Modern communication methods no longer require on-site presence for conducting experiments, but capability, cross-fertilization, and set-up do require easy and inexpensive travel to and from the facility. Local support, both scientific and fiscal, is essential to successful operation. Satisfaction of these factors will support the political process at governmental levels.

Certainly as important as site selection is the cost range for construction and operation. Setting a hard limit for construction cost before near completion of a design will most often fail. Project management principles, differing from country to country, must be followed, and baseline performance construction costs determined in a consistent manner that is universally understood and accepted. Cost overruns can kill a project, or, almost as bad, cause funding agencies to down scope a project.

IIc. Government

Societal needs extend far beyond large scale scientific infrastructures. National budgets are constrained by social requirements, most of which are non-discretionary spending. As a consequence, scientific needs compete for funding from a rather small percentage of government budgets. The politics of science requires that a case be made for investment in science, all the more difficult for projects that require in excess of 1000M euros.

All of the steps referred to above are essential for a successful justification for expenditures on large scale research infrastructures:

a. Consensus of the scientific community

b. Prioritization between different facilities

c. Cost estimates (ranges) for construction

d. Impact on society

The scientific community needs to be engaged at every step. It needs to develop a public communications program designed to gain public support, and influence decision makers. The program must speak to the public in plain language. Key scientists, trained in advocacy, can contribute significantly. The scientific community must make the case that large scale infrastructure investment will provide benefits to society sufficient to warrant expenditures of large magnitude.

III. Summary

Political decision making, that lead to construction and operation of large scale research infrastructures, requires continuing involvement of the scientific community, from conception to realization. Consensus on priorities across scientific disciplines is a necessary condition for success, but probably the most difficult to achieve. Cost containment is an essential feature, one that is difficult when multi-national teams are involved in design and construction. Finally, “return on investment” requires that the scientific community makes it case for public expenditures of large magnitude.