Europe sets strategy for multinational research facilities

The first ESFRI road map, in 2006, was intended to coordinate the prioritization of research projects that are beyond the budget of a single country. At the time, according to current ESFRI chair John Womersley, head of the UK’s Science and Technology Facilities Council, there was a realization that countries needed guidance to invest collectively in big science facilities. ESFRI is composed of scientists and government representatives from the European Union’s 28 member states and the associated countries Israel, Norway, and Switzerland.

The road map is meant to set the stage for Europe to be competitive across many areas of research. It encompasses humanities and the social, medical, life, and physical sciences, and it includes projects costing from a few million to nearly 2 billion euros. The road map was previously updated in 2008 and 2010.

When ESFRI started, says Péter Lévai, director general of the Wigner Research Centre for Physics in Budapest and the Hungarian scientific delegate to ESFRI, hundreds of ideas for new projects were considered. “This could have been a nightmare. Nobody would have enough money to accomplish all of these plans.” The 2006 road map was whittled down to 35 projects.

“We were much tougher this time,” says Womersley. Earlier, if the science was good, “we put you on the list—as encouragement to move forward. This time, if you have not thought through the governance and funding, we didn’t put you on the list—as an encouragement to think about it.”

For the first time, the ESFRI road map divides projects into categories based on how advanced they are. After 10 years, projects should reach the more established “landmark” status, be dropped from the list, or be reconfigured and reapply.

The road map has 21 projects that still need money and final design, site, and governance plans. In addition to the EST, the new projects this go-round are in heritage science (see photos above); food security; river–sea systems; and aerosols, clouds, and trace gases. The underwater neutrino telescope KM3NeT (see photo, next page) won a second chance in a reconfigured, less costly form; the initial version, on the original road map, didn’t progress as planned largely due to Greece’s financial difficulties and the 2008 economic collapse. Those 6 projects join 15 that entered in the last two road map updates.

The other 29 items on the road map are more mature landmarks, which are either under construction or already producing science. “It’s important that we remind our member governments to continue to support these projects,” says Womersley. “Investment is not just about building new things, but about operations and continuing to upgrade. It’s a balance.”

Most of the landmarks are projects from the original 2006 road map that have graduated to the implementation stage. Among them are projects on health, ageing, and retirement; mouse disease models; and biodiversity. The list also includes such major facilities as the European Spallation Source, the Facility for Antiproton and Ion Research, and the Extreme Light Infrastructure (ELI). (See Physics Today, March 2010, page 24; November 2015, page 22; and June 2010, page 20.)

But two landmarks are new to the road map: the High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC), an upgrade to the particle accelerator at CERN, and the Extremely Brilliant Source addition to the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) in Grenoble, France. They were deemed too mature for the projects category. Mostly funded, they would likely proceed regardless of appearing on the ESFRI road map. But ESRF director general Francesco Sette notes two advantages of being listed: It gives some assurance that member states will pay in even if they face financial hardship, and it could make finding additional partners easier.

The HL-LHC upgrade entails not just increasing the beam luminosity, but also upgrading the detectors. “We are in the process of securing those funds,” says Eckhard Elsen, CERN’s director of research and computing. For many national funding agencies, a project’s being on the ESFRI road map is a reaffirmation of the European strategy in particle physics, he says. More broadly, the ESFRI road map shows Europe’s overall strength and strategy in research, says Elsen. “Particle physics should, of course, be represented.”

On the road map, 3 projects and 11 landmarks are categorized as “physical sciences and engineering.” But many of the other items on the list—in the categories of energy, environment, health and food, and social and cultural innovation—are physics-related.

To be considered for the road map this time, a proposal had to have letters of support from three countries, one leading the project and committing funding and two offering political support. “We want to stimulate interactions between scientists and funders much earlier,” Womersley says. The stricter requirements mean that all projects making it onto the road map have a good chance of succeeding, he adds.

Although the road map as a whole specifies European research priorities, projects are not ranked. The breadth of topics would make that tough. But beyond that, says Womersley, “different countries have different priorities.” So the Square Kilometre Array, for example, is a priority for the UK and the Netherlands, which have strong radio astronomy communities. ELI is a top priority for the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Romania because they each host a branch of that project. And a landlocked country in central Europe won’t find Arctic research as urgent as the Nordic countries.

The European Commission “would like the national strategies for research infrastructure to align with ESFRI. We try to push in that direction,” says Octavi Quintana Trias, the commission’s representative in ESFRI. Construction funding comes from the member states, whereas the EC grants money for project preparation. In the case of poorer countries, the EC distributes so-called structural funds, which can be used to build research facilities. About 95% of ELI’s construction comes from such funds.

ESFRI tries “to fulfill an incubation role by providing continued feedback, monitoring, and guidance,” says Womersley. Balance among fields emerged naturally, he says. For the arts and humanities, “it’s a new trend to do large projects. Mostly they involve large data sets.” The ESFRI process weeds out overlap among projects, and its stamp of approval helps scientists and countries choose which projects to sign on to.

On a day-to-day level, the road map can also help researchers. Says Lévai, “If a group at my center wants to start a new activity, I can ask, What is the future of this activity? How can you connect it to the ESFRI list?” The ESFRI road map suggests where to focus effort, because it reflects the common European priorities and portends new facilities. “This serves the Hungarian interest,” he says. “It gives us, our young people in research, security.”

The next road map updates will be in 2018 and 2020, to assess projects first listed a decade earlier. New projects will also be eligible for consideration.