Download 2011 Review of ESF Expert Boards

1
About the European Science Foundation
ESF Update
The future of NuPECC
and Expert Boards and Committees
within ESF and Science Europe
Thibaut Lery
Senior Science Officer, PESSC
[email protected]
2
2011 Review of ESF Expert Boards
•
•
•
•
•
•
Took place between April and August 2011
All 6 ESF Expert Boards assessed by one Panel
Chair: Martin Huber
Other NuPECC-related members:
– Professor Shoji Nagamiya, J-PARC,
– Professor Dan-Olof Riska, Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki
– Professor John Simpson, STFC, Sc. & Techn. Facilities Council, UK
General outcome with regards to NuPECC was positive.
Review Panel overarching statement:
– “NuPECC should continue to provide its valuable, unique and
essential role for the European nuclear physics community.
NuPECC should continue to provide European strategy guidelines,
strengthen collaboration and coordinate European bids and
projects. ”
3
2011 Review of ESF Expert Boards
Recommendations
•
General recommendations
– ESF should continue to strongly support NuPECC and its mission
– NuPECC should maintain its special status as an Expert Committee of the
ESF or Science Europe.
•
Pan European communication. There is a need of pan-European
communication on science results and achievements. A dedicated web page
should be considered in addition to Nuclear Physics News.
•
International relations. NuPECC should foster stronger relationships with
similar organisations world-wide.
•
Public awareness. NuPECC is encouraged to develop further its PANS (Public
Awareness of Nuclear Science) activities.
•
Nuclear applications. NuPECC should strengthen its coordination of applied
nuclear physics. To our knowledge there are many activities at national level,
but not much coordination on a European level. Areas of interest are for
example nuclear technology based medical diagnostics and therapy, security,
environmental science and nuclear energy.
4
ESF Situation (1)
• Latest event: ESF Governing Council (Munich, 26-27 April
2012) and related Expert Boards and Committees (EBC) Joint
ESF-Science Europe Task Force meeting with EBC Chairs and
Secretaries (26/04)
• Spirit of these meetings: willingness to find solutions for EBCs
• SE Members made it very clear that they will solely handle
strategic activities, not operational ones. At the same time, it
seems clear that the largest Member Organisations of ESF do
not want to envisage paying membership fees to two
international organisations beyond 2015
• This does not rule out the possibility that ESF might remain as a
Members Organisation, but does imply that the membership
model would have to change and that many existing large
members would wish to terminate all financial or other liabilities
5
ESF Situation (2)
• Some members, including large ones, indicated that they could
support being customers of ESF – or a successor organisation –
i.e. buying services on a case-by-case basis or on the basis of a
multi-annual contract after 2015 (precedents exist in the UK)
• Two scenarios will therefore be prepared for decision at the
November 2012 Assembly
– Complete closure of ESF by end of 2015
– Possible successor organisation, complementary to SE, with the mission
to provide services required to support ERA but which are not on the SE
strategic plan (in support of the implementation of its strategy)
• Mandate was given to ESF to prepare alternative business
models for such a possible successor organisation
• It was recommended to wind down the ESF Standing
Committees by end of 10/12 and replace them by reduced Core
Group(s) to ensure continued scientific oversight until 2015
6
ESF Situation (3)
• The ESF Expert Boards and Committees also met
prior to the Governing Council (separate interviews
for each EBC, plus a joint discussion)
• The Chairs formulated a joint declaration
• The future of the various Expert Boards and
Committees would have been discussed at the
Science Europe Assembly which has taken place
on 24 May
• The joint ESF/Science Europe Task Force has met
again on 29 May and normally finalised its
recommendations for ESF’s and Science Europe’s
governing bodies regarding EBCs
7
The Munich Declaration (1)
• A step-wise approach is proposed, as several issues can only be
solved after Science Europe has agreed its future portfolio and
when ESF has more certainty regarding its own future
• However, certain issues require rapid decision or action, such as
the possibility for some of the EBCs to be able to engage in
external contracts. This will require a legal entity
• Preserve the EBC scientific independence and pro-activity
• The EBC capacity for influence at European level should be
preserved and enhanced
• EBCs provide strategic advice that Science Europe could and
should be able to use, and EBCs would benefit from direct
interactions with the SE structure. It is, therefore, possible and
important to establish partnerships with SE in the delivery of
strategic advice (e.g. through publication of joint position papers)
8
The Munich Declaration (2)
• ESF is the appropriate organisation presently to cover strategic and
operational/legal aspects for EBCs
• The period after 2015 and the intermediate period should be
addressed urgently as a follow-up of the work done during this
consultation. The transition period (between now and the end of
2015) is especially critical
• The activities of the EBCs need to be included in the discussions
on the setting-up of the ESF Multi-Annual Plan as soon as possible,
and agreed upon at the November 2012 ESF General Assembly.
To ensure continuity and credibility, it is vitally important that the
EBCs are fully operational during this transition period.
• Finally, Member Organisations of all stakeholders (ESF, Science
Europe, EBCs) should be kept well-informed during the transition
period of the positive steps being taken by all parties towards
finding a future base for EBCs.
9
Next steps
• For the moment, ESF is the appropriate organisation to cover
strategic and operational/legal aspects for EBCs.
• The ESF is preparing alternative business models for a possible
successor organisation towards finding a future base for EBCs.
• The successor organisation could be an umbrella organisation
hosting all the existing Expert Boards and Committees and
potentially new ones (Computational sciences, Mathematics,
astrophysics, astro-nuclear physics, chemistry, graphene, etc).
• The Physical, Engineering and Space Sciences Unit will run a large
study on Scientific Community Needs over the summer. We
want to understand their needs that EC, ERC, SE or national
programmes may not fulfil. We may ask for your contribution.
• There is a need to coordinate strategies at international level for
collaborations and joint ventures.
10