Roundtable on Scientific Aspects (1 of 2)



okay so Wow thanks all for coming so there'll be plenty of food during the reception so it's it's the idea for this meeting is to try to unite some of the different groups that are here for different schools and one point in common among all the schools of course big collaborations so for the first round table we have a lab room maybe we can sit in these five chairs and the idea is that each person will give a short presentation and then we'll have time for questions and for discussions between the different people how will a Brahma Beatrice bar boy cadre cover the air Alessandra Silvestri and Marco Ximena so there's no special order but some people have prepared slides so maybe the people with slides can go first sorry so Beatrice yours is probably the first one you want to go first okay so the idea is each person will talk for five minutes and then questions from you guys they go supposed to be in I would afternoon I have a number of slides that correspond my styling fragment something here I wrote in Portuguese but I was picking English and I'll talk about the sciences in the observational stro physics matter asked me to talk about my projects in collaborations so it's a summary of some collaborations I'd like first to say that astronomy astrophysics and astrophysics is very different from particle physics because we have many frontiers it's not one result that we are looking for party it's partic or something like that we have with one observation we can do many things so it's completely different from the approach of particle physics or projects like dark energy like big projects these kinds I love my life I can describe I hope very fast kinds of collaborations with a few members medium sized and large collaborations this is one collaboration that we got 35 nights with the Very Large Telescope and we found this one particularly star with this particularly reimu line from which we could derive the age of the universe as you ran with radioactive and this is one example for this same star will obtain a 50 orbits of her bow and then we produce it within the same collaboration paper Hubble with a pressure of 1 over 10 so by Morocco in 2018 we got 45 orbits with 3 3 authors but it's an exception and medium-sized collaborations when you need I could never offer with from Hubble for example or with revealty or good it's like that you need a good number of members and this is a collaboration with 25 people and we go out I think 65 orbits of imaging with the Hubble and as an example this is a fuel in the elastic poll here on the left there is a globular cluster and these projects aimed at to observe I think 660 globular clusters to derive several things we are in paper number 20 for example the age this is the paper that we are doing on our site and the most interesting thing is that the aim of the project is to I don't know if it known astronomers understand this this plot these two separate the poeple the stellar populations in a globular cluster as you see in this class we have three star populations that we can distinguish because the filters in the UV they correspond to one filter in the OAH bands the other filter in the NH the others containing carbon and these are the elements that change from one population the other then I'm hoping to not so big collaborations in the Vista web in the via lecture collaborator to about the hundred participants which makes the imaging of the center of the galaxy in this collaboration all the data are reduces by centering in UK you only use the final results for example this is the galactic center and the globular cluster in the galactic center publishes one year ago this whole day well-known collector and the squares are identified by vvv as new clusters and candidates for example from the same vvv we use the photometry to analyze stars and to derive temperatures and for example this is a dynamic table cluster where we observed a few stars in high resolution then we used the vvv data to to to compare to complete the analysis and to derive the abundances of a few very old globular clusters then the other project is Zapata has observed so far and five hundred thousand stars in high resolution in the age bands and the reduction and the analysis don't bother by the main participants and it costs thirteen thousand dollars per year within the linear projects it's very intense the the the interaction between the participants it's important to begin to be to know what's going on and just a final remarks projects ongoing and future first of all the next large telescopes this is to illustrate that the reality for example corresponds to the surface of the 16 present presently existing 10 meter telescopes this is to say that there will be need to collaborate because here will have 16 but in the future have one or three at most now probably the collaborations will have to be much more common in the GE T in here we have 4% with the past indirect we might have the chain t and e l2 you have participation in instrumentation then in the Alma we have no more access but a few of our colleagues are getting access another project that another community master physics is involve it this is more like a dark energy that you look for one particle at high energy and all the group looks for one result okay and I'm sure that Roderick will talk about James Webb know the next instrument to give a lot of nice data is changed up telescope that will certainly require big collaborations and under the hell SST presently Brazil has access 10 the researcher have access [Applause] okay should I stand or I don't have slides so yeah I think I need a bow it's a non-technical so my name is Alessandra Sylvestre I'm a theoretical cosmologist originally from Italy I've been abroad for a long time and now I'm settled in the Netherlands Leiden University in the physics department but in the same building there's also astronomy so I have daily close interaction with cosmologies cosmologists in the industry Department until few years ago I've never been part of any collaboration I've always done heretical cosmologies just in the dreaming about an ideal world and sort of leaving other people worrying about the real world and then eventually when I moved back to Europe I joined Euclid Euclid is similar to LSST that was just mentioned the large synoptic survey telescope it's a big collaboration mostly funded by either the European Space Agency and there is also a contribution from NASA so there's also some scientists from the US and Canada now that are part of Euclid Euclid was born as the combination of two different missions that were proposed initially tamizha to Iza and smaller missions one was for focused on weak lensing and the other one was focused on galaxy clustering they did they didn't want to found all separately but they suggested to join them into a single larger mission so it was a challenge I'm told from the colleagues in the science working group that it was a big challenge to basically strike a balance for the requirements need it for the telescope okay from for weak lensing and those need it for galaxy clustering stuff so from the technical and scientific point of view it's a very delicate mission it's a very big one it's I think I'm not very big expert of collaborations but I think it's one of the first times that it works on a sort of open basis everybody that feels like utilities noise can basically join by sending an email with CV and saying what they would contribute now I mean after going over thousand members they have changed the policy made it a bit stricter the interesting thing is that there is a huge theory group Theory working group which I think sometimes I feel like the science working group is making fun of us in the theory working group Latinas entertain with things while they do the actual science and design of the telescope and deal with all the systematics and all the problems that will really we really face when the data will arrive being in the sea I'm part of the theory working group and that for me made it very difficult to understand what means to be in a collaboration and what do you actually do for a collaboration because basically you keep doing your own research but somehow thinking about the type of data that will be delivered by usually I think it's sometimes you look like a malfunctioning working group the theory one because it's basically 10 years the 300 or 400 people are thinking about theories that we can test with Euclid and there's no end to that it's like opening a Pandora Box so now I think we have switched towards more efficient ways of learning about whatever the goals are for instance they're kind of dark matter and stuff like that or testing gravity trying more than coming up with new models to test random models to test efficient ways of learning physics South to the data still it makes it difficult because the data is not there so we keep thinking and working on the theory but for me it was a nice experience positive size of Euclid positive aspects of Euclid I think her that it's a quite quite open to young people they make a serious effort at having young youngsters in real relevant at least want to be relevant positions like leading different working groups so that gives the experience and of course gives you CV and they also make an effort that striking imbalance geographically and also for the gender aspects so they try to have for instance women in relevant positions now they just opened made a new call in order to make more representative also the D toriel board that turned out to be very little representative of the entire community so it's a nice collaboration that's the only one in which I am and we did that the thing should launch in 2020 no 20 to 18 now end of 2022 so it will be exciting and I think of course there's a lot of synergy with the other missions and large synoptic survey telescope will also be very interesting for comparing and combining I think that's as much as I can say for now okay that's close to a thousand members or more I don't know the exact number but I think it's few hundreds more than a thousand yes so now it's getting harder to get in but yes so but as many times out of those more than thousand the core the one that are really working hard for Euclid's is a fraction of that now they have implemented a tracking system to track contributions so because eventually I never experience it so for me I doesn't but eventually we come the time when papers have to come to be published and then authorship matters and you won't so and the thing is that they thought about this tracking just last year so you had to do it retroactively Li for the old ten years or whatever and so I mean there's a bit of a tricky exercise because typically also them more honest and hardworking people are also the more honest thing when they have to declare the percentage of time that they put into Euclid so it was a very but now we have caught up so now I just had to fill out my contribution for the past semester so your memories fresher so ideally it will be fun when papers come out so my name is Mark osmanovic I'm currently a staff member at CERN and I'm the only person here who is actually not in any cooperation so I guess that I cannot tell you much about that how does it feel to be in collaboration or working collaboration but maybe I can say a few words about what are the major scientific goals it is for smaller getting me might be interesting because not everybody here is accustomed always as far as I understand and also maybe I can say a few words about this relation of collaboration and the outsiders but how does it look like what are the major challenges things like that so so first of all I'm going to say you know very few words that in cosmology we have a very well-established standard lambda-cdm model so it fits all currently available alterations everything seems to be working fine but we still have a large unanswered order one questions about cosmology and this ranges from the early universe where you have questions about the very beginning with the statistics of the initial conditions is that mechanism and generates them with that about possible extra videos of freedom for instance during epoch of recombination universe about questions about the origin and the nature of dark matter what it is also there is mysterious and what mysterious the Clayton cosmic acceleration and which also we should explore better and is probably something that was not explored in great details many of these corporations were mentioned as one of their major scientific goals health exactly that mapping and understand better what is happening within great universe so these are all order one questions in the sense that we really have no idea what is what is happening but unfortunately many of them are producing very small effect on top of some large like background and to dig out from from future observations these details in order to answer these order one questions that requires a lot of effort this is why we need this huge telescope this is why we need huge datasets this is why we need a lot of people to work on these things and this is why all these collaborations have to be so large okay so of course when it comes to the relation of people were working for corporations in general and the rest of the community I think that there are several interesting connections that maybe you can talk about if you're interested more later so so for example one of them is that there is always this this one direction is it the rest of the community constantly is interested in what is happening corporation what is what are their goals what are their plans what do they want to do how they're going to do it it's on because then you can always provide some input that may be relevant so many people who work in theory are either trying to come up with new observable effects you may want to look for or or try to improve maybe some parts of the pipeline date and all these things like that on the other hands there is also something which is very very much very relevant for the whole community as well is what what comes out from collaboration so not only papers and find the results but also something which is very important is the moment when when later publicly released that everybody can look into that and maybe try to do an origin difference way or test some sounds something that people in corporations including me have time to focus on and so on and so forth so there there are these channels of communications of course there is no strict separation obviously between those people who are inside and outside we are all colleagues we wants to talk to each other of course people in collaborate the first one to see the data to play with the data to analyze them and see the first results but there is a lot of cross talk even during that process and of course after the papers are published and data is released so I think that yes if you have any questions about any of these aspects and all we have to toss away [Applause] okay my name is Rodrigo Vizier I'm originally from the Netherlands now six years in Brazil I work at the National Observatory in Rio de Janeiro my interests are black holes galaxy formation formation of galaxy clusters I'm a an observer experimental astrophysicist and so if you work in this field then you want to have a strategic advantage over your collaborator or your colleague and so for observers that means you want to have the largest telescope or access to a wavelength regime that other groups are collaborations don't have and so you know if you want to push frontier science it's important to benefit from these kind of large collaborations that are able to fund projects that any small group would probably unlikely be able to pull off just by themselves so just running through some of the groups or project I've been part of during my career as a graduate student that was a member of the team that built and used the new camera on the Hubble Space Telescope that produced the Hubble ultra-deep field then as a postdoc I was a member of the science team that built and used the Galax UV satellite which is a small Explorer mission from NASA that did the first large sky survey in the ultraviolet I've been a participant member of a number of Japanese collaborations with the Subaru telescope there's the hyper supreme cam imaging survey which is a very large project going on now led by Japan using largest camera in the world to map a significant part of the sky and in a few years the second phase of this project will be what's called the super prime focus back to graph projects this is another survey not imaging but taking spectra of galaxies which largely will speak more I hope I imagine and then since recently become participants in the project related giant Magellan telescope led by Professor John Steiner this is not I wouldn't say this is a large collaboration but it's certainly the most expensive project for for Brazil in astronomy significant amount of funding from philosophy and then a most of the project scientist of our projects we've got a certain photomatic local universe survey or s+ for short and I'm quite proud of this project because it's the largest project in astronomy done by Brazilians in Brazil and we are a very open collaboration so one aspect of collaborations is that you're part of the collaboration you're inside life is mostly fun if you're outside you can't collaborate okay this is the other side and I'm proud to say that art our Brazilian project as plus is extremely open we welcome anyone not only in Brazil but also abroad we want our data to be used by anyone how they see fit we have over 100 members from more than 50 institutions and the project is going quite well I'm relearning a lot about how to organize a project how to lead to project how to eventually hopefully get good science out and say yeah I think one aspect maybe we will discuss this more later it doesn't always help to be inside the collaboration so my rule of thumb is that if the being in the collaboration makes your life better then you have to do it if it just gives you limitations and restrictions on what you can do as a scientist then this is probably not the best the best project or best place for you to give a small example a number of times collaborations that have led new new observations with the Hubble Space Telescope such as the help have altered the field they were quite significant teams to spend most of their time sending emails and telecoms figuring out who is going to do what and who gets to leave who's to gets to do what and in the meantime I was part of a small group of people that was never not a part of the collaboration the data was immediately public we just took it and we did we did it and so yeah I think so my name is how a brahmam many of the students of the cosmology course already know me here so I'm a physicist from the University of Sao Paulo Physics Department so I'm actually new to this game also I used to be a very theoretical cosmologist up until 2010 basically so I'm like almost like a postdoc in this kind of capacity here so I understand very well with how Derek said I mean in terms of sometimes in terms of your career joining a collaboration may be actually not in your best interest if you think it you have to think it have to think very hard because you you give up a lot of things I'm having I think they can we have just stay right here so you're giving up on many things also the ability to work with whomever you want and share your work with other people so that you're limited by this let me come back to a point here that I think it's important the issue of large versus medium or small collaborations as in business science Sciences is in some sense close to up to how businesses work there is consolidation and this is happening whenever something reach maturity then you have consolidation in businesses in science and in particle physics this consolidation happen already many years ago and in such a way that nowadays there's basically one infrastructure which works for particle physics which is CERN there's nothing else now strong isn't quite there yet but it's it's certainly moving that way the number of projects is getting smaller but the scope is getting much larger and some people argue that the only way to do big science is with big instruments with big very expensive very large instruments which cost a lot of money and then I think that it's not so much you have a question of how you organize your work if it is in small teams or if it's in large teams but the infrastructure that you use is getting larger and this is a this is one of the challenges so I'm going to look at this from that point of view how do you join and keep up with a big infrastructure that is needed for your work even if your collaboration per se is a smaller group of people which is many cases has to be so so we're talking about big collaborations in a small country with a small budget for science small and shrinking budgets for science so what are the lessons there well there are many many issues there so there's an interesting interview from the European Commissioner for science and research Carlos moyá does from a few from this one when years ago and he's saying that and what he says is that if you want to do a big science that means you're doing big business and you're doing big politics you have to do the politics you have to do the coordination between science and politics and administration and the institutions and businesses so this is something that the European Union got better at doing CERN also helped a lot in that respect but the fact that the European Union became more integrated led to integration of bureaucracies and also this coordination so this this is I think and I think this is what he's saying also in this interview that this is a big part of why Europe was able to do these big projects and in doing it well because there's concentration there's a the consolidation was helped by an environment an ecosystem that was living by the same rules now here we are not in immersed in that kind of environment but we still we have to do this integration of politics and in the funding agencies and universities and so on and this is something that I think we do we still have a long way to go there are many gaps in the in the way that we fund science here there are many gaps in the way that we have to join collaborations so one of the ways is we in which this has been done historically here is that there's a price tag on the collaboration so it's ten thousand per year or 100,000 per year something like this this is a way of joining that is that say free of hassle but it's it has limitations as you can see you have a small group and then you join with that price tag and it doesn't mean that you are a part of the development of anything you're just joining something and you pay for it which is valid in some cases but it's not the only way it's not necessarily the way in which to develop let's say a whole ecosystem where you are where this can be done in a more sustainable way in the future right the Seco system of companies and administration and funding agencies and politics is something that we that we need to develop here in such a way that we have our own that we can contribute as a partner to these to these big collaborations there are many gaps in there the way in which we fund science here so maybe this is a bit too a lot for the Brazilian community here but there are many ways in which we are lagging behind specifically on the way that we try to develop things here instrumentation and how to how do we build instruments here so this is a big part of the collaborations it has to be and we are we are trying to become more part of it that the ecosystem is still still lagging behind and it's very hard to hire technical staff here engineering on a long-term basis there is only one way of doing this which is to permanent contracts which is not not the best way of doing this so so I think this is what we have to work on this big politics of joining collaborations being accountable knowing which which things are working having a political let's say connections that ensure that this is done there so let me just give you a final example to see how this can go terribly wrong the maybe many of you are too young to know this but in the 80s there was this project and viewers called the SSC the superconducting supercollider which was going to be the next version of CERN and that became a completist that was that consumed a lot of money and the was never made because there was no the let's say the groundwork of having a project which was motivated to the to the politicians and to the public this was not done properly and it was also seen as a purely American effort he was not done as a world effort so there were not there were no other countries engaged in trying to make this happen and then it failed as a result all of the Americans went to stern turned was a success but the American community for particle physics in the meantime a generation was decimated because of this so I shouldn't say decimated but they they suffered quite a lot because of this so so this kind of effort we have to be we have to learn from these things and we have to be able to talk to the politicians and motivate things in fact the next framework program for the European Union is based on missions these missions have a certain so the mission is say to solve to cure Parkinson's so there is a problem with this which is to focus right you cure Parkinson's but you don't look at I don't know how high Mars or something like this but this is but this is how the European Union is doing this because that's the way that you reach the public you have a have a goal there this is the goal that we are going to achieve here we don't quite have that kind of we don't frame those questions to politics yet quite in that way maybe this is changing but this is something to learn how do we motivate how do we show to the public that what we're doing is worthwhile that we are solving a key problem an interesting problem something that engages people so the very way that the very way in which you organize the science funding and the political structure behind it is linked to the way in which motivated to the public and here I think is where we still have a lot of work to do so [Applause] okay so thanks very much so the idea is to have questions from the audience ooh because I'm the moderator I'm gonna ask the first question so one reason for having this this meeting as I mentioned is because there are actually four or five activities going on within a brief period so there's a cosmology school that's already started here there's a astronomy school that's starting tomorrow there's a big day to school it's starting tomorrow there's an astrophysics school it's starting next week and one thing I noticed is an outsider from the community is that the four schools are essentially completely independent the students from one school don't have any idea what's going on in the other school and when I suggested to the organizers to try to at least combine efforts they said no I only want students for my school I don't want students from the other school and everybody said it's not I'm not blaming anybody because it seems to be a problem of the community not of any specific organizer so as you said I mean the in order to convince the government the politicians that you're going to do something there has to be United Front because I mean for an outside of her outsider astronomy is equal to astrophysics is equal to cosmology so if you start saying no this is my student not your student it has to be somehow done in a better way so I don't know if you could use to comment or say something or a reactor defend yourself in some way called that I can make now I'll tell you the rationale behind our school which is called first light stars black holes and galaxies in the food of realization it starts tomorrow at the LJ USP so I hope this is the most controversial thing I'm going to say today so I think in in Brazil we have a very healthy community of theoretical cosmology and Vanessa a very healthy I mean is very big relatively speaking to compared to other other countries and I think this is a consequence of being starved of of having access to large telescopes for example for a long time and so now we're in a situation where we're funding a lot of projects big projects observational projects and we we actually lack the the community of students postdocs that are trained in this kind of experimental extra galactic astrophysics and so this is a the IDB ant this this particular school was to try to start creating an awareness and a you know advertisement for this area of science which is a very close ready to tear to cosmology but it's actually directly going to the data yeah we were also unfortunate that these weeks they came out to be overlapping it was not by design it was almost by accident so this wasn't these things were playing we planned with a lot of a lot of time and then it just happened that this was frozen already so he was not by design but he was kind of but it points to a sort of gap that we need to cover which is that if we had which if we didn't have this overlap it would have been for sure for some of the students it would have been better because they could have attended both of them but I wouldn't I don't know I would come back to your I would come back to sorry what I don't think that's a problem I think that's an opportunity for the students they have all these things going on but there's an overlap so this next week now there will be the second week of this school here and the first week of the other one and you kind of have to choose right but I entirely agree with you that it's a we we have to come to a United with the message we have to be on message on topic right and we we don't even know what the topic is right now we each person has a different topic I mean each project has a different topic slightly here or there but it's not like why is it that fast-paced funding astronomy at the tune of I don't know how many tens of millions of of dollars per year for the past I mean I don't know the numbers exactly but it's a huge number what exactly how is that being framed to the population maybe there is a maybe this is a maybe this is something that needs to be better explained I surely know why I like it but I'm I'm not sure that the public knows why this is important maybe somebody else here knows is better but has a has a more concise answer to this this is to this question but we have to be more on point that's that's for sure my name is Akash the fish nebulas in Brazil I think there are a couple points first of all I think there is a cultural problem in Brazil I mean we know before we have a problem with big cooperation we have a problem with collaboration we don't we don't collaborate much what you were mentioning how we don't have a strategy whenever we're able to define a joint strategy each group develops their own thing if I best be defenses its own policy and so on and third I don't agree with you that we it's just a pain to join the large collaborations for instance we involved in several collaborations long dark and Survey LSST desi and the way we did that was actually by developing software so basically most of it was a kite contribution so there are ways of joining big collaborations that you participate and the advantage of the main advantage is that you are preparing the next generation so I think there are ways to do it yeah let me just clarify I didn't say it was only a downside to it there's an upside of course otherwise that I wouldn't be spanning half of my time in a collaboration which is not for my own science so yeah it's a good it's a there's a there's a there's an upside of course but it's just that it should be also clear that there are some downsides but it's not only not only you know rainbows and unicorns that's for sure you spend a lot of time dealing with people and doing like alexander said it is disgusting who is going to write war and when and and then you miss the train just because you were arguing with with other people about who is going to do what they have definitely there are many avenues to join and of course if you have a way of a way in which is doesn't necessarily mean paying a lot of money just with your expertise like what you have done then absolutely it's a perfectly valid way of joining it it's just that in the long term if we don't join the game as a player of doing of being you know developing your own expertise from the ground up then it's not sustainable that's what I'm saying I don't think it's the same well and in the case of darkened survey we actually were one of the first groups to join so we have we've been deaths in 2006 so we actually participate of the building up hi my name is Vivian Miranda I'm a postdoc at University of Arizona and I would like to ask where the policies are apiece for example for allowing continuation for young people so it can be very welcoming which is good the collaborations have been are very welcoming but for example when you jump and you try faculty positions people ask like how are you gonna continue to work in the collaborations and then don't ask that you know at least for in my case and my way of trying to come back to Brazil as I want and people know that I'm I want to come back it's being an issue in a question that I have to non edition but a question that I have to think carefully and and I've seen many postdocs when you know they get faculty even the United States to institutions that are not affiliated to some experiment and they they have to carefully negotiate to not lose years of work and and what happened and here for example in San Paulo you have a postdoc system where there after two years you'll have to justify why we should keep fun to you for an extra year so it's kind of two plus one and they are very tough this is evaluation and working for collaborations you know this year I did at least in my own metric a lot of coding and infrastructure work and I'm already like super worried about my you know output so how do you deal with that like having post Docs now by a promise of having data ten years later where they might already be out of the market we agree let me add some let's let me add some anecdotal about about other aspect of this which is getting your work in a collaboration recognized so that you can get a job that's another issue right in particle physics this is even worse because many cases these are alphabetical order papers hundreds of them so recently there was somebody higher in a State University of Sao Paulo a very good one a young guy that had never written a paper with less than a thousand authors he if by looking at the guy's papers you have no idea what this guy did whatsoever so there's no way that anybody else from who is not from the collaboration that he worked on would know what he had done nevertheless so I was surprised that this guy was even hired and it was like how this happened then many people that I trust told me that no no this guy is a really good guy it's just that the way that you get to know what this person has done is by looking at the internal documents any whatever so the community learned how to do this right this will have to happen more and more for astronomy because maybe in some areas this would be somebody may write only big papers with tens or hundreds of people you'll have to be able to recognize the work somebody even in those circumstances now I'm not sure if this is the case right now maybe it is maybe it's not but it's it's a challenge so that's I'm not answering your question I'm turning it the other way around how do you make sure that such a person that works on collaborations then hired is this is the Astronomy community prepare and physics by the way not only astronomy community prepared to learn what this person has done to look deep enough or just count papers because then that case we are in a hard place just say what you CLE tries to do to help with that he's I was saying that they really try hard to have young people in positions like leader of some work packages we have a lot of work packages right for instance inside the theory working group there are eleven work packages the world package on that matter the work package on dark energy the world in whatever and so what they try really hard is to have young people the one that are most active leading these work packages and with the rotation typically for no longer than a few years and especially once they these tend to get close to a permanent job then you tend to go and help the younger so because showing on your CV and showing at your interviews that at least you were able to lead a war package we can be which can fifty hundred or whatever people having some telecom discussing about the science etc that helps a lot so in that in nuclear at least are very good at doing that they did that they're very I've seen that they're very careful with that they keep an eye on who are the most active young people that will need help and so they put them in these little positions am and there's rotation so once they don't really need it anymore and maybe it's actually it's not even that good anymore because you need time for other bureaucracy when you become more then you leave the space it's very important that you yourself leave the space to younger ones in the group so that's one way yeah so I think it's quite I think it's becoming more and more common that collaborations are having these kind of policies about continuation of taking the rights with you while you move to a non-member institution probably our collaboration where this is not not the case but you mentioned something else that maybe it's interesting to to say something about is that so students and posters when they choose a project you have to be a little bit careful that you you know that you're aware of the timescale of that project and maybe as a student you have you this is hard to judge from the start but I think there's certainly a responsible responsibility on the side of the supervisors to not give projects to you no PhD students that you know are not going to be generating any results within let's say five or ten years or certainly don't do not promise the student that they'll be working on great data from some super telescope that should be ready in two or three years whereas you know that all these projects they lead to delays and maybe you know at five years to any any dates that somebody mentions to you that the data will come and so me personally I would feel very bad giving a project to a student that will then spend the whole PhD doing simulations or writing software or pipelines – and that will never actually get to work with it I'm okay wasting my own time but you know I think much better approach would be to to have your students proposer to work in the science area that will be addressed by these future future experiments rather than you know just let's say do a lot of work in as more supporting role that doesn't necessarily need to – contributing to the science I think that this is a problem for in collaboration and I would like to mention that for example the PFS has devised a mechanism to take into account infrastructure work by postdocs the point is that has what Eric just mentioned if you are work in an institution that is member of a project during your period of working there you are entitled to participate in collaboration but this is not assured if you leave the institution in the case of TFS we have just decided to to give permanent access to data to postdocs that develop a given task of work recognized by the collaboration there are some rules etc but this is exactly something that goes in the direction of giving more security to postdocs to assure rights to data in the future any questions from the students I have a question maybe more bringing the discussion towards Brazil because we don't have representation let's say in the apartment of scientists that much right so how can we be sure that if we enter in a big collaboration and have to get funding from our agencies but somehow then not the president is elected and then we don't have the money anymore and we have to go out of these collaborations and also if we don't have representation in our Parliament our lawmakers maybe since they represent our population they we have no one there to really be let's say asking or arguing with the other ones to make science really important in our country let's say so I can start maybe I think that this really can but I think that the only country where probably there is a significant participation of scientists really in politics at higher levels is Italy because they give this these Senate seats to some important people like this Rita levi-montalcini which is a casino Nobel Prize she's a senator right sorry she died I'm sorry yes okay anyway so I don't think the US or and you don't you don't have to have a scientist there sitting as a as a senator or the opportunity you just need that your case is well taking into account by my Parliament you need to be convincing people all the time now the way it works in the federal government is a slightly difference more it's more subject to the oscillations of power in Brazil in its own power because of a past is a bit more insulated from politics a bit more not a bit more not totally then it's a bit less subject to these oscillations and so so yeah it's an issue of having these fluctuations here has always been an issue by the way maybe we were living in a sort of a strange situation in the past for for a while there where there was a constant and high level of funding this was not has not been the norm in Brazil for past many many years maybe batteries once you had something about this I think in these fields astronomy and particle physics there isn't one advantage that it's very international so you have to be prepared to go abroad from time to time if you don't have a fellowship here and come back and etc it's hard you have to be patient and continual for many years when information that I just capped is now doing the survey of how the students that they don't repeat these that we formed where are they and I just did that for dozen for the ERJ and I realized that from 2004 to 2010 for the from the 48 that got a pitch d13 manner from philosophers our professors in some universe good University so it worked they had to wait I don't know how many years but it work and things might be changing I don't know from the more recent ones there are a few that are data scientists somewhere so I think you have to be prepared to really know in which world you are right now so I think maybe you have a PhD in a postdoc now for two years you have to go somewhere and then come back and then go again that's life for an astronomer yes that I have no answer for the moment well yeah I don't know I don't want to scare people more than they are already but I guess all students here have our Brazilian students at least have a fellowship have fellowships already right but we are studying the new cycle now in August and we actually don't know if we're gonna be able to pace some of the fellowship because of cuts so you already accepted students we told them that we were going to give them fellowships now we don't know anymore so there you go it's a this is this is the situation we are in right now we don't know if in a month or so we will be able to pay fellowships for students that we already accepted and we already told them that they would have fellowships so this is this is at the level at which we are talking here but but I think we have the answer for that both abroad and in Brazil so some Paulo is we need to make long-term you know commitments and convince Congress is everything the president and I can give it examples for that sample is an example where Congress made a long-term commitment and Phap asthma has steady funding from 30 years and is doing great so we have state funding and the federal Congress you know United States the last two years the president tried to cut up the first we went to Congress we call Congress and Congress block and now NASA budget was increased by 10 percent and they made in a way that they cannot just you know block that the fund is at the middle of the year because of fluctuations in the you know in the government spending and tax and the same for fat pass so you know we need as a community to go to both state and federal Congress and commit them to make long-term commitments and then I and for that we need to better say of what we do and I think the previous year which was also very scary for people like me told me that we have done a terrible job to show cargo we actually do so I had a scientific question so it sounds like you're trying to imitate the particle physics growth into CERN so I'm asking is there room for small science in astronomy cosmology or is it just going to be you know bigger and bigger and more expensive well I don't think people are trying to imitate it's just a sum in some areas it's just natural it's a natural it's almost an avoidable trend that consolidation getting bigger and so on but I think yes I mean there there are small projects and some of them are they may be successful some of them are probably not going to be but I guess let's say the concentration of risk of research funds is set by certainly increasing and it's it's just a natural force I think I don't know it's not by design I'm not sure I agree with what you said that we're moving in in metaphysics towards this sort of monopole projects yes with respect to you know focusing all the funding resources into a giant projects but I think the the range of questions that were the people trying to answer is two very large very different from what what LHC for example is doing and I dare to say that for example the dark energy survey I believe that most people that are participating in this project are not interested in dark energy but it was the is the way to get the projects funded and maybe you could say something similar about Euclid's I think there's a lot of people that are super excited about this data and the way to do it is you know with this type of facility and yeah well maybe I can say that that that it is true that all these musicians of course are super proud they have many many different aspects of course but it for some questions I think that we simply need a lot of data there is no other way but will we collect a lot of data so of course there are many questions which which which can be done probably going to be the much smaller serving it could be very much small teams but there are so many things for which you simply have to do this large surveys or big telescopes and then I think the challenge comes because it requires a lot of people and that naturally drives the organizers to the organizing make a comment about how to get the funding to science and I'm gonna take the perspective of the Netherlands that where I currently work which is too much better than Italy even if there are some people in the Senate so since I moved to the Netherlands five years ago I've been confronted a lot with the grant writing system which is pretty intense so you have to apply there it's rich it's it's a rich system there's a lot of money for science but it comes mostly through grants so you have to go through these exercises of writing grants and you have to learn how to write successful grants it took me some time especially because there's always basically for any ground that you write there's always section that is called knowledge utilization where whether you are a string theorist or you are an experimentalist or whatever you have to write you have like a page to feel which how what the science that you are proposing will have an impact on the society and you you have the choice of saying there will be no impact you're free to do that but you have to explain why you think there will no impact and still your science is interesting and I think it's a very useful exercise that we should start from very early on trying to understand besides the dream the things you're dreaming about the big questions you're dreaming about we have always to keep your feet on the ground and try to understand yourself and then present it to the general public and and social politics in terms of what advantages will come from there it can be sometimes only things such as inspiring new generations getting them into study in science because maybe what you do is very theoretical there's no but there are there's always some impact and another thing that they that we do there is the public is involved and answered so politics is involved in the sort of choices of the science that will be part of the funding where it will go in the sense that every thought years there's a call where you as a scientist can submit this question you are after so there's thousands of questions that are submitted they are made public and then there's a sort of vote whoever in the country scientists know scientists the pub whoever can vote and there's a ranking of what are considered the most important questions in science medicine etc by the Netherlands and the politics get involved into funding that so I think that there's many clever ways so I had another question how are these big collaboration started is it just self generated or just somebody said no you know you were going to do this well again so so I guess that again the point is that if you if you if you have only one way to do something for instance let's say you want to observe the microwave background radiation you want to measure tiny fluctuations you can simply predict what kind of precision you need what kind of instrument can do that and it just turns out that it is very complicated you need many people put together to design the detector to design the lens design the satellite you mean many experts who know how to analyze this data how to turn the time dependency what you see into CMB map you have to have many people who know how to interpret these results and so on so I think it just naturally for some kind of things it is it is it is like if you have a very specific goal and it's very difficult you need a lot of people to work it out and there is another aspect probably which maybe you can you can tell better which is that if you if you for example have some other kind of things that program you want to build a huge telescope and if you ask why do we want to do that there will be 1 million reasons we can start the use of planets we can study many different interesting Astrophysical objects there are many interesting goals but still it requires a lot of people so I didn't it just simple things have been already done and somehow it seems that if you want to do something more complicated and more general or make the instruments which can serve for many different purposes it just requires many people that's my big time right when I started to get more involved with let's say less theoretical cosmology I was also involved in a conception of one collaboration so I saw it from the beginning so it's it's a process of local I've identify if let's say a topic question that you want to answer then you also have a new idea of how to how to come at that answer so sometimes it's very clear there's only one way nowadays CMB is just you have to send it to satellites in just into the sky just measure many things only a few things you can do it from the ground but it's not but there are many flavors of doing telescopes for many applications and then you come up with a new idea of how to build an instrument then you have to build a team and secure financing now that's the that's where enlarging the team becomes important having connections having broader support for it and then you know people are against it you have to either convince them or go live with the fact that some people not everybody likes your science but I say I would say that in our case we probably spent two three four years I mean the conception of the instrument was something was clear but we took probably around three four years to see curved secure funding and that was the largest effort in bringing people together so and in that effort at that moment that's when the when it consolidated so securing funding was the largest effort for us at least making sure that we could have enough parties involved that we could actually go ahead with it but it wasn't risk-free that it was clear that at some points that we could be killed just like the SSC was killed it was a risk but it took about four years of efforts so just to find the science was relatively easy in the beginning securing funding that was the largest effort well just let me give my five cents after 40 years in the business I mean basically in astronomy especially cosmology de-risking to oversimplify the question there are three kinds of surveys CMB redshift surveys photometric surveys so basically were driven by technology so the people that are involved today LSST or desi are the ones that in the eighties were doing in redshift surveys my case for instance I used to observe I took me 10 years to observe five thousand galaxies nowadays they would do that in 20 minutes so basically it's driven by technology and the groups are always the same different combinations of course as the politics as the technology who actually has the technology to do it but basically this is it I mean it's the same groups actually that's the nice thing of joining a collaboration because for instance people that start in Sloan you know they were postdocs as long so they are the directors of law so that's continuations but do any of the people at the round table want to ask anything or say anything let me just for the sake of discussion let me make an observation which can be completely wrong but it's my impression that when we try to do a project here in Brazil it often starts with a very good idea by one or two people that then try to organize the pyramids the base of the pyramid below them if you compare and and then now we have all these competing pyramids that are competing for the same resources the same you know human resources and if I compare this to how maybe another country's projects large projects start it starts with the base so there are many Institute's capable people that's join together with an ID and then they they formed it they built the pyramids upwards rather than try to do it from from the top down and I think that's a better way to get started okay so if there's no more comments or questions let's take this [Applause] it's not a question it's an opinion I I lived for long in a military field and I think the only way to have people collaborating is to give them a common enemy the Americans set a man on the moon in 1969 because they wanted to defeat the Russians my parents and I think that if we weren't to progress in science we have to give a common enemy to the society the politicians and the scientists and I don't know where is where these enemies but I know I noticed that the best collaborations came from this we have to defeat them the problem is to find these them thank you okay so we have some food upstairs people that want so we'll come back in 25 minutes

Leave a Reply

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