Sijbrand de Jong on CERN and particle physics

  • cover play_arrow

    PLAY EPISODE


Season 2021
Season 2021
Description arrow_drop_down

Description

What does it take to make a thousand full professors, each king of their own empire, work together as equals? Sijbrand de Jong, former president of the CERN Council, reveals how the world’s largest scientific collaborations actually function, why formal rules of procedure matter more than goodwill, and what particle physics can teach every organization about scaling cooperation. Subscribe for more episodes on collaboration at scale. Sijbrand de Jong’s career is a masterclass in escalating collaborative complexity: from 60-person experiments as a master’s student, through hundreds-strong collaborations at CERN’s OPAL experiment, to presiding over the CERN Council , the governing body that approves billion-euro accelerator projects requiring decades of commitment from member states. Along the way, he founded research institutes, directed a pre-university science college, and served in university governance at Radboud University. The conversation opens with a linguistic insight that frames everything that follows. In Dutch, “collaboration” means siding with the enemy , a direct reference to World War II occupation. The Dutch use “samenwerking” for constructive joint work. This distinction, shared with Danish, reveals how historical trauma shapes even the vocabulary available for discussing collective action. De Jong describes the internal dynamics of large physics collaborations with unusual candor. When over a thousand principal investigators must work together, nationality becomes a significant variable. Some national cultures produce researchers who accept collaborative hierarchy easily; others generate constant friction. The skill of collaboration leadership is managing these differences without pretending they do not exist. The most revealing segment addresses the CERN Council’s rules of procedure , which de Jong personally wrote. He argues that formal rules are not bureaucratic overhead but essential collaborative infrastructure. Rules about who can raise which topics, how far in advance proposals must be submitted, how many discussion cycles are required before decisions , these structures prevent the chaos that destroys large-scale cooperation. He even found that insisting on formal dress changed the atmosphere of meetings, producing more civilized and productive deliberation. On the relationship between competition and collaboration in science, de Jong is nuanced. Large collaborations contain intense internal competition , for resources, recognition, and intellectual priority. The structure must channel this competition productively rather than suppress it. When collaborations fail, it is usually because personal conflicts override shared scientific goals, or because institutional incentives reward individual achievement over collective contribution. The discussion connects particle physics governance to broader questions about democratic decision-making. The CERN Council operates as a quasi-diplomatic body where half the representatives are professional diplomats and decisions commit countries to decades of financial obligation. The parallels to international climate negotiations and EU governance are direct. De Jong’s perspective on what makes collaboration sustainable is structural rather than psychological: have clear rules, enforce them consistently, document everything, and ensure that the process for raising and resolving disagreements is transparent and predictable. Human nature does not need to change; the architecture of interaction does. Part of the Ernst Strüngmann Forum series on Collaboration, produced with the Convergent Science Network.

Tagged as:

About the author call_made

CSN Podcasts

Both the triumphs of humanity and its most evil deeds have resulted from collaboration. In a time where humanity is required to aspire to the former and minimize the latter, the question arises of how collaboration arises and why it fails. Surprisingly, this phenomenon, so central to who we are, is not well understood. Hence, a collaborative effort is required to understand collaboration in its full biological, psychological, sociological, cultural, and economic complexity and to translate this understanding into operational impact. This series of podcasts is one step toward achieving these complementary goals. The Collaboration Podcast presents interviews with people who are central orchestrators of collaboration in various domains including business, government, science, art, health, sustainability, and the military. The discussions were conducted by Prof. Dr. Paul F.M.J. Verschure and members of the Program Advisory Committee of the Ernst Strungmann Forum on Collaboration (https://www.esforum.de/forums/ESF32_Collaboration.html) during 2021 and had the goal to sketch a map of opportunities, challenges, and obstacles in human collaboration. The forum took place in May 2022, and now we would like to share this series of interviews with a broader audience. The full report of the Forum will be published in 2023 by MIT Press. The podcast was produced by the Convergent Science Network (https://www.convergentsciencenetwork.org/). Context: The stability of social systems depends critically on realizing sustainable methods of “collaboration,” yet how and by which means collaboration is achieved is not clearly understood; neither are the conditions or processes that lead to its breakdown or failure. Collaboration can be understood as cooperation between agents toward mutually constructed goals. Part of the reason for our lack of understanding is that the phenomenon of collaboration is, by nature, a highly multidisciplinary problem, and effective research into its complexities has been difficult to achieve across the broad range of scientific and technical disciplines involved. The need for a fundamental understanding of collaboration, however, has become increasingly important. Not only does humankind demand answers as it attempts to address critical challenges at multiple scales (e.g., climate change, migration, enhanced automation, social and economic inequality), but ever-increasing technological and economic means of interconnecting people and societies are disrupting long-established, familiar patterns of how we interact. Radical technological changes that are ongoing have the potential to reshape collaboration in ways that are currently hard to predict or influence (e.g., by altering configurations in interaction, information creation, and modes of communication). On one hand, such changes could disrupt hitherto stable forms of collaboration by affecting critical communication channels and traditional roles, as can be observed in the rapidly changing patterns in governance, commerce, and social interaction. Conversely, technology could lead to the emergence of novel, successful forms of collaboration that deviate from traditional “hierarchical” architectures. Evidence of this can be seen in areas as diverse as highly automated manufacturing plants, the open science movement, collaborative software repositories, user-centered services, and the sharing of economy-based modes of organization. Without a fundamental understanding of the mechanisms, processes, and boundary conditions of collaboration, it is not possible to evaluate or predict which of these possible scenarios are sustainable or even plausible. The Forum “How Collaboration Arises and Why it Fails” (May 8–13, 2022, Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany) Chairs: Andreas Roepstorff and Paul Verschure Program Advisory Committee: Jenna Bednar, Julia R. Lupp, Bhavani R. Rao , Andreas Roepstorff, Ferdinand von Siemens, and Paul Verschure

More posts

Timestamp

  • fast_forward00:00:05 - Welcome to the Conversion Science and Instrument Formed podcast on collaboration.
  • fast_forward00:00:09 - I'm Paul Verschurek, and together with my colleague Julia Lug, we speak with Dr.
  • fast_forward00:00:14 - Sybrandt de Jong, Professor of High Energy Physics at Radboud University,
  • fast_forward00:00:19 - where he's also the Dean of the Faculty of Science and Technology.
  • fast_forward00:00:23 - Sybrandt is an expert on elementary particle and astroparticle physics,
  • fast_forward00:00:27 - and he's a member of the CERN Council.
  • fast_forward00:00:30 - Having conducted high energy experiments at large accelerator laboratories such
  • fast_forward00:00:35 - as CERN, Ferney Lab, and the Pierre Auger Observatory, he reflects on how large-scale
  • fast_forward00:00:40 - scientific collaboration is carried out. Sebrant, welcome to our podcast.
  • fast_forward00:00:45 - Hello, good afternoon. And Sebrant, before we really delve into the questions around collaboration,
  • fast_forward00:00:54 - it would be very helpful if you could situate us a little bit in your background
  • fast_forward00:00:58 - and in your career path that brought us together today.
  • fast_forward00:01:02 - Okay, well, I'm not completely sure what brought us together today,
  • fast_forward00:01:06 - but I can certainly sketch my career path.
  • fast_forward00:01:09 - So by building, I'm a physicist.
  • fast_forward00:01:15 - So I studied physics, but also I have a keen interest in mathematics,
  • fast_forward00:01:21 - computer science and astronomy.
  • fast_forward00:01:23 - So I also picked up parts of that in my study.
  • fast_forward00:01:27 - After graduating at the University of Amsterdam,
  • fast_forward00:01:32 - I did my PhD research with NICEF, already on a large experimental collaboration
  • fast_forward00:01:39 - in Hamburg, on the Hierar Ring at the Dacey Laboratory.
  • fast_forward00:01:45 - Of course, there I was a very junior member of that collaboration.
  • fast_forward00:01:51 - From that, after obtaining my PhD, I moved on to CERN.
  • fast_forward00:01:58 - I've been for eight years at CERN as a CERN fellow and a CERN associate,
  • fast_forward00:02:02 - really working on another large experiment, the OPAL experiment at the lab ring.
  • fast_forward00:02:11 - And then after my stint at CERN, I came to Nijmegen.
  • fast_forward00:02:17 - Somehow I called it coming back to Nijmegen, but I'm not really from Nijmegen,
  • fast_forward00:02:21 - as many people will hear.
  • fast_forward00:02:24 - I'm, of course, from the area of Amsterdam. But ever since I've been in Nijmegen,
  • fast_forward00:02:30 - well, it first was called the Catholic University Nijmegen, and now it's called
  • fast_forward00:02:34 - the Radboud University.
  • fast_forward00:02:35 - And there I served in several managerial tasks.
  • fast_forward00:02:43 - So I've been a department head, I've been the director of the School of Physics from 2000 to 2004.
  • fast_forward00:02:50 - After that, I was the founding director of the EMAP Research Institute for mathematics,
  • fast_forward00:02:56 - astrophysics and particle physics.
  • fast_forward00:02:58 - After that, I founded the Radboud Pre-University College of Science,
  • fast_forward00:03:05 - so an interface to high schools.
  • fast_forward00:03:08 - And then I moved on to serve on the CERN Council and the last three years as
  • fast_forward00:03:17 - the CERN Council President.
  • fast_forward00:03:18 - And of course, meanwhile, I did many things in both together,
  • fast_forward00:03:23 - always simultaneously in research and in governance and management.
  • fast_forward00:03:29 - So far, I've been able to always combine it.
  • fast_forward00:03:32 - So from the 1st of December on, I will be the Dean of the Faculty of Science.
  • fast_forward00:03:36 - And now for the first time in my life, I won't be able to combine that anymore
  • fast_forward00:03:39 - with doing really science myself.
  • fast_forward00:03:43 - So I had to give that up and I'm still sort of in the process of getting accustomed
  • fast_forward00:03:52 - to that. Right. Understood.
  • fast_forward00:03:54 - Well, that's an amazing career up to this point.
  • fast_forward00:03:59 - But then in the context of that experience, how do you define collaboration and what is it good for?
  • fast_forward00:04:09 - Well, collaboration already is a very interesting word for those who are not
  • fast_forward00:04:13 - Dutch listening to this podcast.
  • fast_forward00:04:15 - Collaboratie, collaboration in the Netherlands means quite the opposite,
  • fast_forward00:04:20 - I guess, from what it means anywhere else.
  • fast_forward00:04:24 - So in Dutch, it's like siding with the enemy, which is, of course,
  • fast_forward00:04:31 - more or less the opposite of collaboration.
  • fast_forward00:04:35 - I've always been working in large experimental collaborations.
  • fast_forward00:04:39 - So typically from ranging from, well, my very first collaboration I worked in
  • fast_forward00:04:43 - as a master's student was only like 60 people.
  • fast_forward00:04:46 - And then it scaled up from hundreds to thousands.
  • fast_forward00:04:52 - So for me, sort of a natural way of dealing with, say, large and complex situations.
  • fast_forward00:05:04 - So, in that sense, it's sort of my habitat, my natural habitat is working with large collaborations.
  • fast_forward00:05:12 - And these collaborations I do, of course, there's the common goal,
  • fast_forward00:05:16 - which is very unifying normally.
  • fast_forward00:05:19 - But of course, there's also a lot of fighting, a lot of infighting,
  • fast_forward00:05:22 - a lot of fighting between colleagues.
  • fast_forward00:05:27 - Because these collaborations are usually formed from like, well,
  • fast_forward00:05:30 - I've been in collaborations with over a thousand full professors.
  • fast_forward00:05:34 - And of course, they're all sort of king of their own empire.
  • fast_forward00:05:41 - But then in a much larger context, they have to work together as equals.
  • fast_forward00:05:45 - Okay. And okay, depending on, especially depending on nationality,
  • fast_forward00:05:49 - that gives more or less problems.
  • fast_forward00:05:52 - So, but then how does that work? So if you look at these larger,
  • fast_forward00:05:56 - the ones you just described, the really challenging ones, why would it work and why does it fail?
  • fast_forward00:06:03 - Could you could you describe that or give an example the foremost thing why
  • fast_forward00:06:07 - it it can work is to have a recognized common goal um typically the cycle in
  • fast_forward00:06:16 - a large experiment is that.
  • fast_forward00:06:19 - People dream of doing something spectacular
  • fast_forward00:06:22 - and then they they they they
  • fast_forward00:06:25 - find out okay i can i can't do it alone okay so i
  • fast_forward00:06:28 - need companions through this and then they round
  • fast_forward00:06:30 - up a couple of friends and then the circle gets larger and larger
  • fast_forward00:06:33 - and then at some point you have like the the
  • fast_forward00:06:36 - volume to to jump into the big
  • fast_forward00:06:39 - enterprise uh of course at
  • fast_forward00:06:42 - that point everybody is very enthusiastic about the common goal and
  • fast_forward00:06:45 - then usually things like letters of intent
  • fast_forward00:06:48 - are written which are of course a letter
  • fast_forward00:06:51 - of intent it sounds like a letter okay but usually it's
  • fast_forward00:06:54 - like a few hundred page book um with quite
  • fast_forward00:06:57 - detailed uh prognosis of what you want to
  • fast_forward00:07:00 - do and studies on how you're going to do it etc so at
  • fast_forward00:07:04 - that point there's still like one community then um
  • fast_forward00:07:07 - the trouble actually starts when these things get approved because
  • fast_forward00:07:11 - then suddenly like the first hurdle the first goal has been taken the approval
  • fast_forward00:07:16 - is there okay so what do we do now then of course typically there's years between
  • fast_forward00:07:22 - a new collaboration approved and a large apparatus really being built.
  • fast_forward00:07:28 - And so there's lots of designs in between. And this design phase is usually like a huge fight.
  • fast_forward00:07:34 - It's like a huge cage fight because you know you're condemned to one another,
  • fast_forward00:07:38 - yet you want to kill the enemy. You want your idea to prevail.
  • fast_forward00:07:44 - So it's really like a cage, an enormous big cage fight.
  • fast_forward00:07:50 - And then all sorts of things come in so not only the scientific argument of
  • fast_forward00:07:55 - what is best but also in the end my ideas may be second best but I pay for it
  • fast_forward00:07:59 - so it's my idea that's going to be built,
  • fast_forward00:08:04 - and actually this is one of the better arguments there are worse arguments that make people win,
  • fast_forward00:08:11 - which I won't go into but.
  • fast_forward00:08:16 - Okay and then sort of at some point okay this fighting takes usually a lot of
  • fast_forward00:08:22 - time and a lot of energy people do this actually typically for years in these large collaborations,
  • fast_forward00:08:27 - and at some point I realized like oh gee gee, we should have started building
  • fast_forward00:08:32 - half a year or a year ago to make it for the deadline of, say,
  • fast_forward00:08:37 - the accelerator to be finished or the promised start of the project.
  • fast_forward00:08:43 - And then sort of there's usually there's first a panic.
  • fast_forward00:08:48 - Then, of course, there's a lot of blaming and shaming on who's guilty of this.
  • fast_forward00:08:53 - And then people realize like, okay, this doesn't help to actually pull it together.
  • fast_forward00:08:58 - We have to really work together again so then
  • fast_forward00:09:01 - there's a there's usually a very rapid stage of
  • fast_forward00:09:04 - convergence uh typically like in
  • fast_forward00:09:07 - months where people realized okay we we just
  • fast_forward00:09:10 - and then and then um people just
  • fast_forward00:09:13 - tend to be more soft on giving up some of their own ideas etc like okay anything
  • fast_forward00:09:19 - okay as long as it's been built and so then there's this phase of of building
  • fast_forward00:09:25 - where people are pretty much unified and then you at the point where the whole thing is going to be,
  • fast_forward00:09:32 - commissioned uh there's usually like a great group spirit okay but things tend to work together.
  • fast_forward00:09:40 - Sometimes miraculously there's also great satisfaction and group identity and
  • fast_forward00:09:45 - big parties sometimes parties of thousands of people you i mean you build belief
  • fast_forward00:09:49 - in corona times um and uh And then,
  • fast_forward00:09:53 - of course, you have to start the experiment.
  • fast_forward00:09:56 - And usually the first few measurements are, again, really like the core business.
  • fast_forward00:10:01 - So everybody's unified, big success.
  • fast_forward00:10:04 - And then you get into the stage where you have to accumulate more data and to
  • fast_forward00:10:12 - either supersede the first publications or to do something entirely new.
  • fast_forward00:10:18 - You just need so much data that you need to wait for years.
  • fast_forward00:10:21 - Years, and then people start to fight again, because there's one analysis against
  • fast_forward00:10:25 - the other, because they're basically waiting for data, they get a little bit
  • fast_forward00:10:28 - bored, okay, the initial successes are over, and the goal becomes sort of fussy.
  • fast_forward00:10:35 - So my conclusion from all of this is that it's all in the goal, okay?
  • fast_forward00:10:43 - You can get people working together. It was a long story, but...
  • fast_forward00:10:49 - No, no, no, it's very good. The conclusion is relatively simple.
  • fast_forward00:10:51 - But, Saber, if we focus on the goal as the unifier, is that really enough?
  • fast_forward00:10:58 - Because in some sense, it's also, at some point, also these phases that you
  • fast_forward00:11:03 - described, right, of infighting, coalescing again, and so on.
  • fast_forward00:11:07 - In some sense, now you also have a limited resource that you know you have to
  • fast_forward00:11:14 - share in order to achieve your selfish objectives.
  • fast_forward00:11:18 - So that is our new element that comes in. So is the goal and actually still the same?
  • fast_forward00:11:23 - Yeah, but that's okay. So again, okay, the resources can play both parts.
  • fast_forward00:11:29 - Okay. So of course, when the project is defined, everybody realizes that,
  • fast_forward00:11:32 - okay, I cannot pay for this on my own.
  • fast_forward00:11:35 - So we will have to share it. And then everybody, of course,
  • fast_forward00:11:38 - immediately agrees that, yeah, of course, if we have to to share resources
  • fast_forward00:11:41 - we also have to share responsibility and then
  • fast_forward00:11:44 - share tasks and and okay fine
  • fast_forward00:11:48 - no problem but then especially in this design phase okay when people have already
  • fast_forward00:11:54 - committed basically their resources then it's like yeah but you give like a
  • fast_forward00:11:59 - thousand and i give ten thousand so i can tell you what you should do so there
  • fast_forward00:12:04 - the resources are abused again
  • fast_forward00:12:07 - okay and everything has to be built usually yes
  • fast_forward00:12:10 - yes before we go to that stage
  • fast_forward00:12:13 - i want to back up again to the goal because you're
  • fast_forward00:12:16 - talking about recognizing a common goal but how is that common goal constructed
  • fast_forward00:12:23 - in other words if you have a collaboration of eventually a thousand people are
  • fast_forward00:12:28 - a thousand people involved in constructing the common goal who constructs that common goal okay well,
  • fast_forward00:12:36 - again okay so usually of course there's like a couple of people that really pull the cart okay that.
  • fast_forward00:12:46 - Really express the the goal and and
  • fast_forward00:12:49 - usually those are the people that can sort of make good
  • fast_forward00:12:52 - presentations present it in a in a in a
  • fast_forward00:12:55 - in a very nice way so that it's convincing but
  • fast_forward00:12:59 - usually these goals um that are
  • fast_forward00:13:03 - then defined by individuals already i like living
  • fast_forward00:13:06 - in the community for quite some time so
  • fast_forward00:13:09 - um and that's where people then recognize it
  • fast_forward00:13:12 - say yeah yeah i'll i thought the same
  • fast_forward00:13:15 - and and then they join this collaboration uh of
  • fast_forward00:13:19 - course also projects actually exist where people are
  • fast_forward00:13:22 - so much ahead of the troops that they have marvelous ideas okay but if it's
  • fast_forward00:13:28 - not it's if it's not living in the community okay then they they consider that
  • fast_forward00:13:33 - they have this brilliant idea with the three of them okay and they have to find
  • fast_forward00:13:36 - like a half a billion bucks with the three of them and And it's not going to happen.
  • fast_forward00:13:42 - But then, Sebron, do you see a stage where the people who might be in front
  • fast_forward00:13:47 - of the troops start really an active, let's say, campaign?
  • fast_forward00:13:52 - Yes, that's usually what is being done, okay? Okay, so how is that structured?
  • fast_forward00:13:59 - Yeah, no, it's just like going for it, okay? Okay, so you have this idea,
  • fast_forward00:14:05 - and then typically you try to get conference talks.
  • fast_forward00:14:10 - You try to get, and also what is very powerful in our case is you try to get
  • fast_forward00:14:16 - invited at certain research institutes.
  • fast_forward00:14:19 - You present your case, and especially you go with these people for lunch and
  • fast_forward00:14:24 - maybe dinner, and you try to convince them that it's a really good case and
  • fast_forward00:14:28 - that it would be really marvelous if their group would be joining.
  • fast_forward00:14:30 - And the other thing that is in the first stages is that, of course,
  • fast_forward00:14:36 - at that point, it doesn't cost anything.
  • fast_forward00:14:39 - So it's practically resource-free because it's just an idea.
  • fast_forward00:14:43 - So you join this collaboration, and then it's just a little bit,
  • fast_forward00:14:48 - we sort out the business later, okay?
  • fast_forward00:14:51 - First, join us, okay, and do a few studies and run a few simulations and see
  • fast_forward00:14:56 - what you can contribute to the goals or to the ideas of realizing the goals. And then we see.
  • fast_forward00:15:08 - This is usually how collaboration is formed and then it's then sort of it acquires
  • fast_forward00:15:14 - sort of it goes over a critical mass,
  • fast_forward00:15:17 - but then you start looking for resources and then actually this helps because
  • fast_forward00:15:23 - you're already tied into all the other organizations the universities,
  • fast_forward00:15:27 - the research institutes etc and then each of them has to fight in their own
  • fast_forward00:15:32 - institute for a piece of the pie right But that means you first build a coalition around the idea,
  • fast_forward00:15:39 - which is a process that has psychological, social components to it.
  • fast_forward00:15:45 - Does that also lead to, let's say, a regression to the mean of the idea?
  • fast_forward00:15:52 - Do you see that also as a compromise?
  • fast_forward00:15:54 - Yes, of course. Like I said, at several stages, the idea is watered down.
  • fast_forward00:16:01 - There's no question about it.
  • fast_forward00:16:05 - Usually in the goals, okay, if you're still in the dreaming world,
  • fast_forward00:16:09 - okay, you can actually stack goals. So it doesn't matter too much.
  • fast_forward00:16:15 - Then when you get into the stage where you have to secure the resources,
  • fast_forward00:16:21 - then that's the first time you're confronted with reality.
  • fast_forward00:16:25 - And then you find out, okay, maybe you have to descope a couple of things,
  • fast_forward00:16:28 - or maybe you have to descope many things.
  • fast_forward00:16:30 - And then usually, of course, the people that can secure the money,
  • fast_forward00:16:40 - can secure the resources, their ideas will prevail.
  • fast_forward00:16:47 - Of course, usually also a couple of good ideas that are in common to everybody will also make it.
  • fast_forward00:16:53 - There's no doubt about that. But then some other ideas of people that are less
  • fast_forward00:16:58 - resourceful, they will have to go because they are compromised on that.
  • fast_forward00:17:06 - And in fact, it's true that sometimes good ideas go. Right, exactly.
  • fast_forward00:17:12 - But then, so now you form your consortium in some sense.
  • fast_forward00:17:19 - Now they started to compete with other consortia to dominate for the resource.
  • fast_forward00:17:23 - But now the whole process is extended over years so what's the mean what's the
  • fast_forward00:17:30 - duration of such a process?
  • fast_forward00:17:33 - 10 years? So in our field the process of doing an experiment is typically that
  • fast_forward00:17:39 - you have a phase of 5 to 10 years which we call proto-collaboration so that's
  • fast_forward00:17:45 - where the collaboration is formed,
  • fast_forward00:17:47 - then typically you have a phase of 5.
  • fast_forward00:17:52 - Well sometimes even to 10 years where you try to secure resources it's also
  • fast_forward00:17:58 - true that you never secure the resources that you really need so you have to
  • fast_forward00:18:02 - decide at what point you're going just go,
  • fast_forward00:18:06 - so typically at 50 60 of the resources pledged you just go and you hope for the rest,
  • fast_forward00:18:14 - typically by the way this is a strong mechanism because
  • fast_forward00:18:18 - um this is like with all sort of large
  • fast_forward00:18:21 - as public projects if you go over a certain uh
  • fast_forward00:18:24 - volume it's too
  • fast_forward00:18:28 - big to fail so typically you will
  • fast_forward00:18:30 - get so typically what what happens is you find 50 or
  • fast_forward00:18:33 - 60 percent and there's not so much problem in
  • fast_forward00:18:36 - finding another 30 percent it's usually the last 10 percent which is a problem
  • fast_forward00:18:41 - um because then the argument of too big to fail doesn't work anymore and for
  • fast_forward00:18:46 - that you have to descope This is typically also a pity because de-scoping for
  • fast_forward00:18:51 - the last 10% actually means that typically the apparatus only works half as well,
  • fast_forward00:18:57 - which is something that funding organizations do not always realize.
  • fast_forward00:19:07 - But yeah, this is how it goes. And then there's the time of construction.
  • fast_forward00:19:12 - Again, time of construction in our field is by now five to 10 years.
  • fast_forward00:19:17 - And then there's the time of exploitation, which is typically in our field now
  • fast_forward00:19:21 - going up to 20 years or 25 years.
  • fast_forward00:19:24 - So you're talking about...
  • fast_forward00:19:27 - 40 years. You're talking about people that actually can spend their entire career,
  • fast_forward00:19:34 - doing one project. Right.
  • fast_forward00:19:36 - This is important, right, to understand, because now the question becomes,
  • fast_forward00:19:41 - if the goal is so critical in keeping this together,
  • fast_forward00:19:46 - how do you assure that that goal also stays intact over that whole period,
  • fast_forward00:19:52 - is propagated properly, and is also that you don't have mission drift,
  • fast_forward00:19:57 - right, so that the goal fragments?
  • fast_forward00:19:59 - No, in our case, okay, I've never seen that really happen.
  • fast_forward00:20:05 - So the goals are typically so well, like these are typically already questions
  • fast_forward00:20:11 - that are decades above the market.
  • fast_forward00:20:15 - So really big things that we want to solve.
  • fast_forward00:20:18 - Okay um some well what what are the most interesting cases of mission drift
  • fast_forward00:20:25 - of course is that you you you build something for a certain goal and then the
  • fast_forward00:20:31 - thing is built and then you switch the apparatus on and you look at the data
  • fast_forward00:20:34 - and you just find out something completely different.
  • fast_forward00:20:38 - We we don't call this mission drift okay it's just like okay you adapt your
  • fast_forward00:20:44 - goals would adapt if the implementation stage you find new information that
  • fast_forward00:20:50 - will change your goals or bring you...
  • fast_forward00:20:51 - Typically, the old goals are still there, but you acquire new goals.
  • fast_forward00:20:57 - And sometimes the new goals sort of overshadow the old goals.
  • fast_forward00:21:01 - So famous for that is that there was an experiment that tried to look at decay
  • fast_forward00:21:06 - of protons, proton in the elementary particle, and it's predicted to decay,
  • fast_forward00:21:11 - but with a very long lifetime because otherwise we wouldn't be sitting here.
  • fast_forward00:21:16 - And so you need a huge detector, and then you look for the one proton to decay,
  • fast_forward00:21:20 - one in enormously many protons.
  • fast_forward00:21:23 - So they build a huge detector, they wait for this proton to decay,
  • fast_forward00:21:27 - and what they found out is that for a completely different particle called neutrino,
  • fast_forward00:21:32 - they actually did some measurements which were done by the PhD student,
  • fast_forward00:21:37 - because, well, they have to do something while waiting for the proton to decay,
  • fast_forward00:21:41 - and they actually found out that these neutrinos, they change their nature.
  • fast_forward00:21:47 - So a neutrino could start as one particle and after some while could end up
  • fast_forward00:21:51 - as a completely different particle, still a neutrino, but a different neutrino, okay?
  • fast_forward00:21:55 - So they could completely sort of...
  • fast_forward00:22:00 - Change. This was a fantastic discovery.
  • fast_forward00:22:06 - But the thing is, if it runs over such a long period of time,
  • fast_forward00:22:12 - does it also mean you have different generations?
  • fast_forward00:22:14 - That's, for instance, the first push even by a senior generation that in the
  • fast_forward00:22:21 - end also will hate each other so much they cannot go on, but then there's a
  • fast_forward00:22:24 - younger group that comes in to push you to the next stage. That's part of the dynamics.
  • fast_forward00:22:29 - Typically, it's the old people just before or just after retirement that dream
  • fast_forward00:22:34 - of the new big things that they will actually never see working alive.
  • fast_forward00:22:41 - And then in the process, of course, they drag on the younger colleagues.
  • fast_forward00:22:46 - And the most interesting thing is that the peak of, say,
  • fast_forward00:22:53 - the young colleagues joining the collaboration is typically when the experiment
  • fast_forward00:22:59 - is already running for a while. So in the last stages.
  • fast_forward00:23:04 - And part of it is because the old guys in the experiment then are already busy
  • fast_forward00:23:09 - with dreaming up the next project. Right.
  • fast_forward00:23:13 - So we go from old to young in these collaborations.
  • fast_forward00:23:18 - Right. The average age goes down in steps, but it goes down along the way. Right.
  • fast_forward00:23:24 - So now we looked at the important challenge of goal setting and how this might
  • fast_forward00:23:30 - be maintained or might also change.
  • fast_forward00:23:32 - But you also mentioned that there are these serendipitous discoveries that were
  • fast_forward00:23:38 - not part of the original path. path, on the average, how is that balanced?
  • fast_forward00:23:44 - So if you look at the high-impact outcomes of all these huge experiments,
  • fast_forward00:23:51 - are most of them on the critical path of the original goal, or are they on this
  • fast_forward00:23:55 - serendipitous offshoot?
  • fast_forward00:23:58 - No, typically for all the experiments that I know, hardly any of them actually
  • fast_forward00:24:04 - have failed to fulfill their initial goal.
  • fast_forward00:24:10 - All. Of course, sometimes you're looking for things and the things turn out not to exist,
  • fast_forward00:24:18 - which is among the public and it's called a failure, but we think actually this
  • fast_forward00:24:24 - is success because that makes a paradigm shift because we always thought something
  • fast_forward00:24:27 - was there and now we discover it's not.
  • fast_forward00:24:30 - So that is a big discovery, basically, for us, because that means that your
  • fast_forward00:24:36 - common theory doesn't work, which is a big,
  • fast_forward00:24:40 - overturn of the thinking exactly so
  • fast_forward00:24:44 - in that sense in that sense the goals are nearly
  • fast_forward00:24:47 - always met like either you find what you
  • fast_forward00:24:49 - were looking for and in fact personally okay i always find like you have this
  • fast_forward00:24:54 - theoretical idea and you you set up to check it and then you check it and it
  • fast_forward00:24:58 - turns out to be true yeah it's like ticking a box okay it's really boring so
  • fast_forward00:25:04 - it's much nicer if you don't find it, or you find something completely different.
  • fast_forward00:25:09 - So now we looked at the goals, we looked at outcomes, but as you mentioned,
  • fast_forward00:25:15 - the process is complex and also contentious.
  • fast_forward00:25:17 - There are phases where people, like you said, are in a cage fight.
  • fast_forward00:25:21 - Now, another aspect of collaboration is that also the different participants
  • fast_forward00:25:25 - at least have a sense of trust in each other and in the process to move forward.
  • fast_forward00:25:31 - So how is trust then defined and maintained in such a complex process?
  • fast_forward00:25:39 - I don't know how trust is defined, but it turns out that even in these cage
  • fast_forward00:25:45 - fights or at the end of the cage fights, people make up.
  • fast_forward00:25:49 - So they they still know that
  • fast_forward00:25:52 - they are condemned to one another okay there's there's no way
  • fast_forward00:25:55 - they can they can have an exodus of
  • fast_forward00:25:58 - people like i the famous thing okay we have is that very often we have like
  • fast_forward00:26:04 - three ideas on certain detector construction and they're nearly equally good
  • fast_forward00:26:10 - and of course there are some deciding criteria and you could sort of say who's
  • fast_forward00:26:14 - best okay but but the second and third best are not so far off.
  • fast_forward00:26:19 - And so I heard one spokesman say, like, whatever I do, okay,
  • fast_forward00:26:25 - I will lose two-thirds of my collaboration in this decision.
  • fast_forward00:26:29 - And this is true. But we also know that if you lose two-thirds of your collaboration,
  • fast_forward00:26:34 - the whole thing is not going to happen.
  • fast_forward00:26:37 - So people also know that they can be sore about things, okay,
  • fast_forward00:26:43 - And they can sort of, yeah, what do you do then?
  • fast_forward00:26:47 - Okay, you kick in a door or so, and then you...
  • fast_forward00:26:54 - Go home and um but how
  • fast_forward00:26:58 - could how can we do how do you get a little bit of shopping you return and you
  • fast_forward00:27:02 - say well how can i help okay so you give in in the end but is trust not based
  • fast_forward00:27:08 - because in that sense physics is a very unique domain right it's one of the
  • fast_forward00:27:13 - few if to my knowledge the only area,
  • fast_forward00:27:16 - in science where people succeed in pulling off these huge collaborative initiatives
  • fast_forward00:27:22 - but But isn't that also not related to the availability of, let's say,
  • fast_forward00:27:28 - a theory that everybody trusts in some sense?
  • fast_forward00:27:31 - Yeah, that's also true. Like I said, that's also why there is so little goal drift.
  • fast_forward00:27:41 - Because usually the goals are already sort of stably defined.
  • fast_forward00:27:45 - And it also plays a role in what I said about there are a few forerunners that promote ideas,
  • fast_forward00:27:52 - but there is lots of followers that already thought like, well,
  • fast_forward00:27:55 - I had the same idea, okay, so I can as well join them and then we'll make it to success together.
  • fast_forward00:28:01 - So it means that the meme is already living in the crowds.
  • fast_forward00:28:09 - Exactly. And that, of course, has much to do with like an underlying theory,
  • fast_forward00:28:14 - which is commonly believed in and relatively stable.
  • fast_forward00:28:21 - So it's not like we change theory every couple of years.
  • fast_forward00:28:25 - Right. And so what you're saying is that the trust is in the thing itself,
  • fast_forward00:28:29 - in the ideas, in the concept, and not so much interpersonal trust.
  • fast_forward00:28:34 - Is that what you're saying?
  • fast_forward00:28:35 - Oh, there's also interpersonal trust. There's also interpersonal distrust.
  • fast_forward00:28:39 - But the interesting thing is
  • fast_forward00:28:41 - that even people that have mutual distrust in the end will work together.
  • fast_forward00:28:47 - And really cooperate. Is competition in the sense a positive thing for the outcome?
  • fast_forward00:28:55 - I don't mean competition over funds, but I mean competition in terms of ideas.
  • fast_forward00:29:01 - Yes, I think overall, yes. So what the competition makes is that people are
  • fast_forward00:29:07 - just sort of working harder,
  • fast_forward00:29:08 - going the extra mile in developing their ideas and in presenting their ideas
  • fast_forward00:29:16 - and getting the details right.
  • fast_forward00:29:18 - Because they know that if any of these has a little flaw, then they will be shot by the other party.
  • fast_forward00:29:24 - So in that sense, it works very much elevating the quality.
  • fast_forward00:29:30 - On the other hand okay practically always
  • fast_forward00:29:34 - it's like not quite the best idea that
  • fast_forward00:29:37 - wins but nearly the best idea but then our my
  • fast_forward00:29:40 - my feeling is that nearly the best idea then would still be much better than
  • fast_forward00:29:44 - in the case if there would have been no competition right it's actually quite
  • fast_forward00:29:48 - subtle the whole thing but now if you have competition about ideas in in in
  • fast_forward00:29:54 - science there are various characteristic mechanisms also to express this competition as,
  • fast_forward00:30:00 - for instance, in the critical dependence on peer review.
  • fast_forward00:30:03 - So do you see that people also use that mechanism to dominate or win in that competition? In which?
  • fast_forward00:30:11 - Because I'm trying to figure out what you mean, okay?
  • fast_forward00:30:15 - So if one part has to sort of be the referee of the other part. Exactly, yeah.
  • fast_forward00:30:21 - There's interdependence, In the background, there's interdependence because
  • fast_forward00:30:25 - everyone is, in some sense, a potential reviewer of everybody else.
  • fast_forward00:30:30 - Yes, yes. And in our fields, they're more or less permanently because it's sort of in the open.
  • fast_forward00:30:37 - So I think it's not that, okay? It's not that that influences things so much.
  • fast_forward00:30:43 - What does influence things is that, of course, some people are more powerful than others.
  • fast_forward00:30:51 - And uh so there there's there's also a lot of backroom policy so so a lot of
  • fast_forward00:31:00 - i mean basically all the important decisions are taken uh in the cafeteria.
  • fast_forward00:31:07 - Right so so so there's a lot of wheeling and dealing and hassling okay uh to,
  • fast_forward00:31:15 - to set up certain people against other people, et cetera.
  • fast_forward00:31:18 - So there's, of course, also physicists are completely human.
  • fast_forward00:31:24 - Yes. But now you have been at different sides of this process.
  • fast_forward00:31:30 - You have been in the middle of it.
  • fast_forward00:31:32 - But also, if you had the board of CERN, you have to manage it.
  • fast_forward00:31:36 - So do you then, from that perspective, are you able to really manage and or
  • fast_forward00:31:42 - engineer that process by, for instance, bringing people together in certain
  • fast_forward00:31:46 - ways or setting up forms of communication?
  • fast_forward00:31:49 - That's also where we distinguish things. Okay, so I was not in management.
  • fast_forward00:31:52 - I was in governance, which is a different game.
  • fast_forward00:31:56 - And in fact, most of the structures are set up in governance, not by management.
  • fast_forward00:32:03 - And actually, this is an important distinction distinction.
  • fast_forward00:32:08 - Because in governance, there's a little bit more distance because the governance
  • fast_forward00:32:14 - is always over a number and maybe even a large number of projects.
  • fast_forward00:32:21 - So it's more like a mechanism that would fit all the different things. Okay.
  • fast_forward00:32:29 - Well, management is much more trying to tailor
  • fast_forward00:32:33 - things to a certain situation and it really helps that the structures are set
  • fast_forward00:32:42 - up from a more global perspective.
  • fast_forward00:32:45 - Because I've also seen structures that have been set up to tailor the situation
  • fast_forward00:32:51 - and they nearly always end up getting messy because they were so much tailored to the situation.
  • fast_forward00:33:02 - New events arise they have to be adapted and then you have to add on things
  • fast_forward00:33:10 - and you have maybe to scrap a few things and add on more things and it should
  • fast_forward00:33:13 - sort of get a biologically grown structure and in the end,
  • fast_forward00:33:18 - that is very advantageous for the cowboys but not for the.
  • fast_forward00:33:24 - Straight thinking people yes, but also then the management becomes part of the
  • fast_forward00:33:28 - situation to be managed yes, exactly Exactly, okay, exactly.
  • fast_forward00:33:32 - But then from the governance perspective, what you can do is put in place procedures,
  • fast_forward00:33:38 - protocols to try to structure the collaboration.
  • fast_forward00:33:43 - Now, for CERN, did you also do that in a very deliberate way that you also knew?
  • fast_forward00:33:48 - Yeah, all the things are structured very deliberately.
  • fast_forward00:33:53 - So the idea is to have peer monitoring on practically everything.
  • fast_forward00:34:01 - So that's an important thing. And so those are people that are in the spare
  • fast_forward00:34:06 - monitoring that are very knowledgeable about what is going on,
  • fast_forward00:34:11 - but they're completely independent to both the thing they monitor and to the
  • fast_forward00:34:16 - body they actually report to.
  • fast_forward00:34:19 - So also it's not like the body that is in the governance is actually arranging
  • fast_forward00:34:26 - the monitoring, but it arranged it through a third party, which is an independent monitor.
  • fast_forward00:34:32 - So they can also sort of say things that are not very much to the liking of the governance.
  • fast_forward00:34:41 - And without consequences. And that is a very powerful structure.
  • fast_forward00:34:47 - So peer monitoring is a quality control system, but that has to operate on,
  • fast_forward00:34:55 - let's say, protocols of, let's say, communication, responsibility.
  • fast_forward00:34:59 - So are you also structuring the OSINT in a very specific way? Like hierarchy?
  • fast_forward00:35:08 - Well, this monitoring is usually sort of, there's not, okay,
  • fast_forward00:35:15 - in our case, there's not so much hierarchy in the monitoring.
  • fast_forward00:35:18 - So there's monitoring at, in principle, at a rather global level,
  • fast_forward00:35:25 - but they're allowed to actually go into the detail. tell.
  • fast_forward00:35:30 - So it monitors a large span of things.
  • fast_forward00:35:36 - So part of my career, I've been into one of these monitoring bodies.
  • fast_forward00:35:42 - And on the one hand, we were dealing with bolts that you should make sure that
  • fast_forward00:35:50 - they were not containing any magnetic material.
  • fast_forward00:35:53 - And on the other hand, of the spectrum, we were also dealing with the accountancy of.
  • fast_forward00:36:03 - Material requisitions and how this was done and how this was monitored and whether
  • fast_forward00:36:11 - all sorts of buying procedures were in place, etc.
  • fast_forward00:36:15 - So over the whole span, we were actually ...
  • fast_forward00:36:19 - But I'm a bit confused now.
  • fast_forward00:36:23 - Because The monitoring I understand, but the monitoring will very often have
  • fast_forward00:36:28 - to refer to certain standards to look at different parts of the process.
  • fast_forward00:36:32 - And these standards also must be defined.
  • fast_forward00:36:34 - And I would assume that's also part of the governance structure.
  • fast_forward00:36:42 - Well, okay, that's the other interesting thing, okay? So the real monitoring
  • fast_forward00:36:46 - is done by committees which have very little constraint.
  • fast_forward00:36:52 - And who establishes the committees? Who establishes the committees?
  • fast_forward00:36:59 - The committees are established by the governance structure.
  • fast_forward00:37:05 - Okay. So, of course, there's a subtlety there, because usually they are proposed
  • fast_forward00:37:11 - by management, but then have to be established by the governance structure.
  • fast_forward00:37:17 - But that sounds very loosely defined then, because that would also mean… That
  • fast_forward00:37:22 - part is loosely defined, okay?
  • fast_forward00:37:24 - Actually, the strict standards are, of course, things like safety, accountancy.
  • fast_forward00:37:32 - They are quite strictly defined, okay? But since we are in the process of building
  • fast_forward00:37:38 - things that have never been built before, it is very hard to set standards for this.
  • fast_forward00:37:44 - And we go for the common sense of the people in the review committees or in
  • fast_forward00:37:51 - the monitoring committees,
  • fast_forward00:37:52 - to see what is right and what is wrong. But then you don't try to then extract a rule book or so,
  • fast_forward00:38:00 - or a playbook from successful projects to say, well, this was the playbook of
  • fast_forward00:38:05 - this project and this could be standards for a future project. Oh, yeah.
  • fast_forward00:38:08 - But that's again not in the monitoring side, but that is in the implementation
  • fast_forward00:38:13 - side, so on the management level.
  • fast_forward00:38:16 - And yes, there is also like a strong idea
  • fast_forward00:38:19 - of how the collaboration
  • fast_forward00:38:23 - is formalized and there are variations on that but if you look at it and it's
  • fast_forward00:38:28 - from a distance okay then you see that the overall structure is the same and
  • fast_forward00:38:31 - the variations are minor yeah so one of the interesting things about these large
  • fast_forward00:38:36 - collaborations for example is they don't have a boss,
  • fast_forward00:38:41 - so the actually the the acting boss is called spokesperson so traditionally
  • fast_forward00:38:47 - Additionally, that was the person speaking to the management and the press when there was like, well,
  • fast_forward00:38:52 - to the management to say how things were going and to the press to say what they discovered.
  • fast_forward00:38:58 - And basically, that is the person now who is in charge of a collaboration.
  • fast_forward00:39:07 - But that person has no personnel. So there's no hierarchical relation between
  • fast_forward00:39:13 - that person and the rest of the collaboration.
  • fast_forward00:39:15 - Usually it's somebody from a larger group so he has like some of his group members
  • fast_forward00:39:20 - but typically in a large LHC experiment like 3,500 collaborators,
  • fast_forward00:39:26 - then the spokesperson has like at most 20 people that he or she can fire and
  • fast_forward00:39:32 - all the others okay there's no leverage,
  • fast_forward00:39:37 - how is the spokesperson so you have to do it on persuasion and the spokesperson is elected okay,
  • fast_forward00:39:45 - okay celebration so and that and
  • fast_forward00:39:48 - that actually that is an important thing because that that gives credit,
  • fast_forward00:39:53 - So you're elected and then of course your power in the collaboration comes from
  • fast_forward00:40:00 - the fact that you were elected.
  • fast_forward00:40:02 - You can always say like, okay, you don't like it then you shouldn't have chosen me.
  • fast_forward00:40:07 - People also vying and competing for this role of spokesperson?
  • fast_forward00:40:13 - Yeah, of course. This is highly prestigious. And again, so
  • fast_forward00:40:17 - there's like the formal thing of of uh there's the
  • fast_forward00:40:19 - competition and there are usually several candidates and then there's
  • fast_forward00:40:22 - the voting and then there's all the the the
  • fast_forward00:40:25 - things that you have in a voting process like people try to gain votes and and
  • fast_forward00:40:30 - they make all sorts of promises etc but there's also uh and that is maybe different
  • fast_forward00:40:37 - from a normal democracy or at least from a national democracy there there's
  • fast_forward00:40:42 - a lot of things is going on behind the scenes.
  • fast_forward00:40:45 - Right. So there's a lot of trading.
  • fast_forward00:40:49 - Like if I become spokesperson, then this and this person from your institute
  • fast_forward00:40:53 - gets this and this position in the collaboration. Right. Okay.
  • fast_forward00:40:58 - Okay. One thing, okay.
  • fast_forward00:41:01 - We, the Dutch, are very not good at this, okay? Mm-hmm. So that's why Italians always win.
  • fast_forward00:41:10 - Why? They're much better at these things, okay? We always think that it should
  • fast_forward00:41:14 - be fair and honest, et cetera, okay? And they don't care.
  • fast_forward00:41:19 - It should just be effective. Exactly. That's also something you mentioned earlier, right?
  • fast_forward00:41:24 - That there were cultural differences and how people approach that process.
  • fast_forward00:41:29 - And without necessarily wanting
  • fast_forward00:41:31 - to hear you say certain stereotypes about different cultures, still,
  • fast_forward00:41:35 - it would be useful to understand how these cultural backgrounds make a difference
  • fast_forward00:41:40 - in how collaborations get built up and work or fail, right?
  • fast_forward00:41:45 - So what are the basic dimensions there?
  • fast_forward00:41:49 - Well, again, okay, so in these large collaborations, it actually helps to have
  • fast_forward00:41:53 - a lot of culture because some of them are more risk-taking than others.
  • fast_forward00:41:58 - Some of them are more solid than others. And if you somehow can deploy all these
  • fast_forward00:42:03 - qualities more or less in the right places, then it's a very powerful combination.
  • fast_forward00:42:09 - And so, again, okay, this is in the process. So usually, like,
  • fast_forward00:42:13 - the more risk-taking people, they're the ones with the big dreams and the fancy
  • fast_forward00:42:17 - ideas, and they try things.
  • fast_forward00:42:19 - And sometimes they succeed and often they fail, but sometimes you get very good ideas from that.
  • fast_forward00:42:25 - And then in the end, okay, you have to have an apparatus that actually works.
  • fast_forward00:42:29 - Then there's also a large part of the community, which are just very solid working people.
  • fast_forward00:42:36 - And apart from the one or two highlights where we have a fantastic idea that
  • fast_forward00:42:40 - works, most of the apparatus is actually built on steady progress.
  • fast_forward00:42:45 - Progress and and so but this combination is is
  • fast_forward00:42:48 - quite powerful and it's and and again okay
  • fast_forward00:42:51 - you never get it perfectly sort of
  • fast_forward00:42:54 - everybody in the right position right but
  • fast_forward00:42:57 - there is a sort of a natural selection on that because the the the risk-taking
  • fast_forward00:43:03 - people they they tend to focus on the parts where they allow to take a risk
  • fast_forward00:43:08 - the people that are delivering solid work okay they They would go to places
  • fast_forward00:43:14 - where their solid work is appreciated.
  • fast_forward00:43:16 - So there is some sorting out mechanism, okay, with the nature of people sort
  • fast_forward00:43:26 - of fits with the thing they're doing.
  • fast_forward00:43:29 - Right. But then who are the real players in this context? Who are,
  • fast_forward00:43:32 - in the end, managing to grab the most control over that complex process?
  • fast_forward00:43:38 - Like you say, these are more the Italians or the Americans, the British.
  • fast_forward00:43:42 - Who are the strong players there?
  • fast_forward00:43:46 - No, in the end, often, okay, so what you see is like spokespeople,
  • fast_forward00:43:50 - et cetera, they're very often like more of the risk-taking types and the outgoing types.
  • fast_forward00:43:56 - And then there's also a very important role in all of these large enterprises
  • fast_forward00:44:00 - is something we call technical coordinator, which is just what it is, okay?
  • fast_forward00:44:05 - So it's like the person who coordinates all the technical stuff.
  • fast_forward00:44:09 - And therefore, you need a very solid and stress-resistant person.
  • fast_forward00:44:19 - And that also selects itself, okay? Because typically, people that are not robust
  • fast_forward00:44:25 - and stress-resistant will actually disappear within finite time. Sure.
  • fast_forward00:44:32 - But now, so we looked at the process.
  • fast_forward00:44:35 - Can you give an example of what is the biggest success of your time at CERN?
  • fast_forward00:44:41 - And what was the biggest failure? And what's the difference between these two?
  • fast_forward00:44:47 - Yeah, of my time at CERN. I had, of course, different times at CERN.
  • fast_forward00:44:51 - Oh, no, no. So you can choose.
  • fast_forward00:44:54 - Okay. Well, by far my biggest failure, I consider that I lost the detector.
  • fast_forward00:45:05 - So I was responsible for the detector, which actually melted.
  • fast_forward00:45:10 - It was not a small detector. It was actually a fairly substantial part of a large detector.
  • fast_forward00:45:16 - And that was because basically not all the security that should have been there was in place.
  • fast_forward00:45:26 - And then there was a series of human failure in my absence.
  • fast_forward00:45:32 - But okay, I still was responsible for it. So that was... How does it reflect
  • fast_forward00:45:37 - on the process of collaboration? That was a failure of collaboration?
  • fast_forward00:45:41 - Or it was a failure of you just not being there? No, no,
  • fast_forward00:45:45 - it was a failure on my part of sufficiently recognizing human weakness.
  • fast_forward00:45:57 - And trying to exclude the risks associated to that with the fact that there was like a sequence
  • fast_forward00:46:06 - of of human failures so a highly unlikely sequence but and then you can say okay well,
  • fast_forward00:46:14 - normally this wouldn't have happened it's not your fault etc but but any of
  • fast_forward00:46:18 - the failures that was that was there could have been prevented if the right
  • fast_forward00:46:23 - procedures would have been in place,
  • fast_forward00:46:27 - right and and so in that sense okay because after that you immediately see okay
  • fast_forward00:46:34 - if we had done this and this okay then this would not have happened and it would
  • fast_forward00:46:38 - have been presented in at least three or four different,
  • fast_forward00:46:42 - things that would not have failed.
  • fast_forward00:46:45 - But of course, what you learn is that you can be more careful in thinking out
  • fast_forward00:46:50 - all the possible scenarios.
  • fast_forward00:46:52 - And even if you think like, well, who on earth would do this?
  • fast_forward00:46:55 - Okay, if it can be done, somebody will do it. Yeah, exactly.
  • fast_forward00:47:02 - But in terms of the collaborative projects and... What's interesting is that
  • fast_forward00:47:10 - in that case again, okay, Okay, so this was a case in which the experiment was
  • fast_forward00:47:14 - actually coming to a grinding halt.
  • fast_forward00:47:16 - Not only that, it was actually one experiment out of four on the lap accelerator.
  • fast_forward00:47:22 - And so the accelerator had to be stopped. So the other three experiments were also victim.
  • fast_forward00:47:28 - So it was a big thing because you also have to realize that the running costs
  • fast_forward00:47:33 - of these things are about a million a day.
  • fast_forward00:47:35 - And this failure took out like one and a half months.
  • fast_forward00:47:38 - It's not like small problem so now you're the 60 million dollar man well,
  • fast_forward00:47:46 - this was spelled out to me very explicitly when I had to go to the director to,
  • fast_forward00:47:55 - explain how on earth this could have happened.
  • fast_forward00:47:59 - You feel very tiny at the time but I had nothing but support,
  • fast_forward00:48:06 - and even from the directory it was not like okay of course this is really bad
  • fast_forward00:48:11 - but the immediately like there's a switch like okay how do we how do we recuperate
  • fast_forward00:48:16 - from this how do we how we get back on track right but what do you see as the
  • fast_forward00:48:21 - biggest success then of of these large-scale experiments,
  • fast_forward00:48:25 - over the last decades what's the biggest success story the biggest success okay so okay,
  • fast_forward00:48:34 - Well, the biggest success of that, no, there's several dimensions.
  • fast_forward00:48:38 - So, of course, there have been like marvelous discoveries, expected and unexpected.
  • fast_forward00:48:44 - And we have a very different view of our universe, actually,
  • fast_forward00:48:50 - from the discoveries of the last, well, I would say three decades ago.
  • fast_forward00:48:58 - So this is one asset from this enterprises.
  • fast_forward00:49:03 - The other asset is that we have this worldwide collaboration.
  • fast_forward00:49:08 - So there's like, I don't know how many nationalities involved,
  • fast_forward00:49:12 - 180 or so, like practically all nationalities in the world, peacefully cooperating.
  • fast_forward00:49:19 - I've seen Israelis and Palestine doing shifts together and actually getting
  • fast_forward00:49:25 - along, et cetera. So I consider that also to be a big success.
  • fast_forward00:49:32 - And then probably the biggest success for society is that we educated many people
  • fast_forward00:49:39 - in performing state-of-the-art,
  • fast_forward00:49:45 - beyond state-of-the-art things in large collaborations in an international setting.
  • fast_forward00:49:50 - And of all the people that come to these large experiments as a master's student
  • fast_forward00:49:58 - even, or a PhD student, or a postdoc,
  • fast_forward00:50:02 - in the end, 90% ends up not in research, but in some other part of society.
  • fast_forward00:50:10 - And there they play a large role. For example, the whole of ASML would not have been possible.
  • fast_forward00:50:20 - If not for the science that we do.
  • fast_forward00:50:25 - Not in terms of that we invented what they should do, because we didn't,
  • fast_forward00:50:29 - but we delivered the people. Right, exactly.
  • fast_forward00:50:35 - Go ahead, Julia. Sorry, Paul. If you were to construct,
  • fast_forward00:50:40 - a future major collaboration using Using your knowledge of what works very well,
  • fast_forward00:50:48 - using your knowledge of the frameworks that you had in place,
  • fast_forward00:50:52 - but mindful of the fact that failures are inevitable in areas of science where
  • fast_forward00:50:59 - there is not a basis of already understanding mechanisms,
  • fast_forward00:51:04 - as you say, in many of the parts of the project.
  • fast_forward00:51:08 - How do you try to compensate for the unknown when you are constructing a collaboration?
  • fast_forward00:51:17 - Compensate for the unknown when constructing a collaboration.
  • fast_forward00:51:21 - I think the best robustness you can gain is by having a pluriform collaboration,
  • fast_forward00:51:29 - to have many talents on board.
  • fast_forward00:51:31 - That is actually the main mitigation mechanism, is that if something fails,
  • fast_forward00:51:38 - you have so many different angles to look at it that you fix it again.
  • fast_forward00:51:43 - And also before it fails, to have so many different angles to look at things
  • fast_forward00:51:47 - that failure is avoided.
  • fast_forward00:51:50 - And there again, this competition within collaboration plays a large role because
  • fast_forward00:51:56 - if you're competing for building the same piece of equipment and you see a flaw in the other ones, okay,
  • fast_forward00:52:03 - you would not hesitate to actually say this will never work or your thing will
  • fast_forward00:52:06 - burn down on the first instance because, et cetera, okay?
  • fast_forward00:52:11 - Okay, so I think that's probably an important thing, is this competition and
  • fast_forward00:52:21 - collaboration and the diversity of talent.
  • fast_forward00:52:25 - But are you also describing a sort of humility in the face of the challenge,
  • fast_forward00:52:30 - that therefore also people give each other space?
  • fast_forward00:52:32 - Is that also what you were expressing here? No, I don't think it is.
  • fast_forward00:52:37 - But yeah, what I say, people only give other people space when they are more or less forced to do so.
  • fast_forward00:52:43 - In terms of things are more relaxed, okay, they don't get a millimeter.
  • fast_forward00:52:49 - And I think humility is not one of our virtues. Okay.
  • fast_forward00:52:57 - But I was thinking more about humility in the context of the theories that people try to pursue.
  • fast_forward00:53:02 - Because there, of course, you enter highly complex conceptual frameworks that
  • fast_forward00:53:08 - not always everybody understands all aspects of,
  • fast_forward00:53:11 - where you also need to have a sense of a common approach towards the more challenging
  • fast_forward00:53:18 - scientific objects that you're dealing with.
  • fast_forward00:53:23 - Yeah, but I'm not sure that, okay.
  • fast_forward00:53:31 - It's not like we're sort of in awe of the big things okay because that would
  • fast_forward00:53:38 - be sort of freezing us so in that sense there's no humility okay we think we
  • fast_forward00:53:43 - can find out how nature works we really do it's probably not true but we really do,
  • fast_forward00:53:50 - so there's a lot of confidence there I understand yeah because why would you
  • fast_forward00:53:55 - otherwise embark on such things.
  • fast_forward00:53:57 - If you think you're not going to understand it anyway in the end, you better play golf.
  • fast_forward00:54:03 - Well, but you could also see it like the constructs are of a certain complexity,
  • fast_forward00:54:09 - that I need to be in a continuous dialogue with others to get my head around it.
  • fast_forward00:54:16 - I'm not going to solve this on my own. Oh, yeah. No, no. Most people realize that.
  • fast_forward00:54:21 - And of course, there are also some individuals that think they know it all.
  • fast_forward00:54:25 - But most people realize that they need all this input from all the others.
  • fast_forward00:54:32 - And it's it's it's i think by
  • fast_forward00:54:35 - now it is probably cannot find
  • fast_forward00:54:38 - anybody anymore who can who is
  • fast_forward00:54:41 - actually even willing to claim that he understands uh one of the large experiments
  • fast_forward00:54:47 - like completely right and and so in that sense but it's not humility i think
  • fast_forward00:54:54 - it's it's because many people would like to, but they feel forced to be realistic.
  • fast_forward00:55:00 - But understanding the limits of your knowledge is a form of humility that stands
  • fast_forward00:55:06 - in contrast to over confidence, right? That balance.
  • fast_forward00:55:12 - No, no, okay. I would rather sort of phrase it in terms of optimism and pessimism.
  • fast_forward00:55:19 - And there again, in the collaboration, you find these hopeless optimists who think anything goes.
  • fast_forward00:55:25 - And then you also have some group of people that are always like, they'll not work.
  • fast_forward00:55:31 - Right, exactly. Okay. And yeah, and they both have a function.
  • fast_forward00:55:38 - Sure. Okay. It would be unhealthy for a collaboration not to have this group.
  • fast_forward00:55:45 - Yep. Now that I understand.
  • fast_forward00:55:47 - So before we go to the final stretch, I want to understand a little bit the
  • fast_forward00:55:51 - continuity of large-scale projects in physics.
  • fast_forward00:55:54 - So is it fair to say that the Manhattan Project was the first one.
  • fast_forward00:55:59 - Oh that i don't know that was really like a huge constructed project but of
  • fast_forward00:56:04 - course well wait a minute before
  • fast_forward00:56:05 - that okay the manhattan project is basically the answer on a sort of.
  • fast_forward00:56:10 - Uh you much larger scale of uh german projects uh both uh for building a an atom bomb and also in
  • fast_forward00:56:23 - rocket science, to call it that.
  • fast_forward00:56:26 - Yeah, but that scale, that's my point.
  • fast_forward00:56:30 - So they were also of a certain scale, okay?
  • fast_forward00:56:34 - And actually, then the Manhattan Project, of course, was independent,
  • fast_forward00:56:37 - and they really made it happen.
  • fast_forward00:56:41 - But it was like really, that was really like power.
  • fast_forward00:56:45 - It was an enormous project.
  • fast_forward00:56:47 - Yep. But you know, it was not the biggest project during the war by the US.
  • fast_forward00:56:51 - It was the second biggest the biggest one was for the B-29 superfortress but
  • fast_forward00:56:58 - my question would then be,
  • fast_forward00:57:02 - was the dynamics and the organization of these early projects like the Manhattan
  • fast_forward00:57:07 - Project already anticipating how they run today at organizations like CERN or
  • fast_forward00:57:13 - was there some transition point?
  • fast_forward00:57:15 - No, that's an interesting thing because of course the Manhattan Project was
  • fast_forward00:57:20 - really run as a military project,
  • fast_forward00:57:22 - And since then, that has been tried one more time for one of our projects,
  • fast_forward00:57:27 - which was the SSC, the Superconducting Super Collider, which ended up in demise.
  • fast_forward00:57:37 - Because it was at some point really converted into a military operation,
  • fast_forward00:57:43 - really with military leaders.
  • fast_forward00:57:45 - And that doesn't work with us. Okay. Again, okay, it's all about the goal.
  • fast_forward00:57:50 - So it probably works if you have like a world war going on, but it doesn't work for anything less.
  • fast_forward00:57:58 - Right. Yeah. Right. Exactly.
  • fast_forward00:58:02 - So how much is your science worth to you?
  • fast_forward00:58:06 - Yeah. Yeah, it's a lot worth, okay, but running that as a military operation didn't work.
  • fast_forward00:58:14 - Right, exactly. But now, if you look forward, and also if you look at the current
  • fast_forward00:58:20 - situation we're in, we have two big crises in front of us, the COVID pandemic
  • fast_forward00:58:25 - and ecological collapse,
  • fast_forward00:58:28 - sustainability of the planet.
  • fast_forward00:58:29 - Do you believe that our society could learn something from the rulebook of these
  • fast_forward00:58:35 - large-scale physics experiments?
  • fast_forward00:58:38 - Okay. Well, first of all, I'm already sort of, I heard a lot of people doing
  • fast_forward00:58:43 - it, so I'm not surprised anymore.
  • fast_forward00:58:44 - But I think there's quite a big difference between COVID.
  • fast_forward00:58:48 - Of course, COVID is just hitting us now very hard, okay? But COVID is just a
  • fast_forward00:58:52 - ripple compared to our ecological problem.
  • fast_forward00:58:57 - Okay? COVID will go over. Our ecological problem, probably not.
  • fast_forward00:59:02 - So it's of a quite different scale and so what maybe I think people in my field
  • fast_forward00:59:12 - and I think many people in my field are of the same opinion.
  • fast_forward00:59:18 - If not most. Because I think in my field, people can actually look like 20,
  • fast_forward00:59:25 - 30, 40 years ahead and look at it in that perspective.
  • fast_forward00:59:30 - And also when you talk about COVID, it's not COVID-19, which is the problem.
  • fast_forward00:59:34 - Maybe it'll be COVID-22, COVID-25, COVID-27, COVID-28.
  • fast_forward00:59:40 - Or a completely different virus, right? No, that's why I label them all by year.
  • fast_forward00:59:46 - Right. This is how it's done. But we're not done yet with that type of vulnerability.
  • fast_forward00:59:55 - And so that requires something different than what we're doing now in fighting
  • fast_forward01:00:00 - this one virus or even this one type of virus.
  • fast_forward01:00:04 - So we have to think about how we organize this.
  • fast_forward01:00:09 - If it's everyone's question, can we learn from you guys?
  • fast_forward01:00:12 - Can we learn from you guys to then respond? Well, exactly this, okay?
  • fast_forward01:00:17 - That if you, of course, it's important that next week we cannot go to a cafe anymore.
  • fast_forward01:00:24 - Well, is it? Is it really?
  • fast_forward01:00:28 - Or is it that over the years, okay,
  • fast_forward01:00:31 - we will have a very limited life for 20 or 30 or 40 years, that our children
  • fast_forward01:00:37 - will have a completely different life because they will have to isolate one
  • fast_forward01:00:43 - from the other, more or less continuously.
  • fast_forward01:00:48 - So think a little bit further, okay?
  • fast_forward01:00:52 - So think about what you're doing in terms of a much longer timescale.
  • fast_forward01:00:58 - And of course, I mean, if there's an imminent disaster, okay, you should solve it.
  • fast_forward01:01:05 - But at the same time, you should live in a long-term perspective.
  • fast_forward01:01:14 - And that's, of course, in general missing.
  • fast_forward01:01:17 - Right. But my question was a more specific one.
  • fast_forward01:01:20 - Can we learn from the models that the physicists have developed for their large-scale
  • fast_forward01:01:25 - experiments to really also advance collaboration in society,
  • fast_forward01:01:31 - responding to large-scale experiments?
  • fast_forward01:01:33 - I don't think that in COVID it was because of our organization that they organized things that way.
  • fast_forward01:01:40 - But the fact that in a year's time you have a vaccine is due to this focused effort, okay?
  • fast_forward01:01:52 - So this is how we would have done it. But it's not because they looked at us
  • fast_forward01:01:56 - and they said, oh, we do it like those guys.
  • fast_forward01:01:58 - But because there is this huge common goal which just has to be met.
  • fast_forward01:02:05 - And then how do we bring that to the ecological challenge?
  • fast_forward01:02:08 - Challenge yeah so there my feeling is that apparently people are only compelled
  • fast_forward01:02:18 - to actually go for the goal,
  • fast_forward01:02:20 - when they really feel it when they recognize it so so.
  • fast_forward01:02:27 - As long as as you just drive your car okay you hardly notice from day to day
  • fast_forward01:02:34 - that that things are deteriorating I mean.
  • fast_forward01:02:40 - Yeah. So it's about times. Again, okay, it's about timescale.
  • fast_forward01:02:46 - It's about thinking about the long-term perspective.
  • fast_forward01:02:48 - And I think, in general, humans are not very well adapted to that.
  • fast_forward01:02:55 - No, we're not. Which is also completely logical in terms of looking at the evolution, okay?
  • fast_forward01:03:01 - Because if something is threatening you today, you should immediately respond to survive.
  • fast_forward01:03:07 - Survive and if it's threatening you in 20 years you
  • fast_forward01:03:10 - can still produce some offspring and you and you survive that
  • fast_forward01:03:13 - way but now do you believe humans will be ever able to collaborate effectively
  • fast_forward01:03:19 - to answer these kinds of challenges will are we able intrinsically yes in particle
  • fast_forward01:03:24 - physics we are in in astronomy we are okay there's more fields like this so
  • fast_forward01:03:29 - there are fields in which it has been demonstrated.
  • fast_forward01:03:34 - So, yes, it can be done. But I think what may be important there,
  • fast_forward01:03:41 - of course, is the subset of people that you...
  • fast_forward01:03:48 - It's also selection bias, right? Because it works in physics because it works in physics.
  • fast_forward01:03:55 - But maybe in other domains of human endeavor, However, the conditions are not
  • fast_forward01:04:01 - conducive to actually instill these kinds of collaboration because of whatever,
  • fast_forward01:04:06 - competitive forces, resource limitations, what have you.
  • fast_forward01:04:10 - Well, it's more like a short-term win.
  • fast_forward01:04:13 - Sure. That is the most destructive force, I think, for these things. Yeah.
  • fast_forward01:04:19 - But now, if you could change one thing in humans in order to make them successful
  • fast_forward01:04:23 - collectively, also as non-physicists, you can change one thing. What would you change?
  • fast_forward01:04:33 - Probably would help if you could kill the instant satisfaction gene,
  • fast_forward01:04:38 - alright Cybron de Jong, thank you very much for this conversation ok hi,
  • fast_forward01:04:44 - you listened to one of our podcasts in the series on collaboration,
  • fast_forward01:04:48 - produced by the Ernst Trommel Forum and the Conversion Science Network you can
  • fast_forward01:04:53 - find more episodes on our website.

Be the first to leave a comment

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exploring the convergence of neuroscience, robotics, and AI through conversations with leading researchers since 2010.

A project of the Convergent Science Network Foundation.

© CSN Podcasts. Developed by IMCreativeWEBC

0%

Login to enjoy full advantages

Please login or subscribe to continue.

Go Premium!

Enjoy the full advantage of the premium access.

Stop following

Unfollow Cancel

Cancel subscription

Are you sure you want to cancel your subscription? You will lose your Premium access and stored playlists.

Go back Confirm cancellation