DOCSLIB.ORG

SMP Communities Mechanisms of Effective Global

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Durham E-Theses Science Mega-Project Communities; Mechanisms of Eective Global Collaboration? ROBINSON, MARK How to cite: ROBINSON, MARK (2019) Science Mega-Project Communities; Mechanisms of Eective Global Collaboration? , Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/13263/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. PhD Thesis Science Mega-Project Communities; Mechanisms of Effective Global Collaboration? Durham University, School of Government and International Affairs Mark Robinson 11 September 2019 Declaration This thesis is the result of my own work. Material from the published or unpublished work of others which is used in the thesis is credited to the author in question in the text. Mark Robinson 11 September 2019 Word Count 98573 words excluding the title page, declaration, and bibliography ii Dedication This thesis is dedicated to Professor David Held (1951-2019) My supervisor, my inspiration and my friend. He picked me up when I was down, guided me when I was lost and he will always be in my thoughts. iii Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been possible without the assistance of many people. Firstly, all the faculty and support staff at the School of Government and International Affairs, Durham University. Special mention goes to Professor Shaun Gregory who took over as my supervisor in difficult circumstances and has provided excellent advice. I would also like to thank Paula Furness and Fay Fradgley of University College for their unwavering support and friendship. The thesis benefitted from the cooperation of scores of people in the case study communities who gave up their valuable time and agreed to be interviewed. I would like to thank the Director of International Relations at CERN, Charlotte Lindberg Warakaulle and her team, the Head of Communications at ITER, Laban Coblentz and his team and the Head of Strategic Communications, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, Mark Uhran. Without their advice and assistance my access to key personnel in the three case study communities would not have been possible. Extra special thanks go to close friends that have encouraged me every step of the way: Ken Blackler, Sabina Griffith, Michael Roberts, Simon Rofe, Janet Smart and the simply fabulous Ruth Todd. Finally, I would like to thank my mother, Joyce, and my children, Ann, Nick and Hannah for their enduring patience and love. Any errors found within this thesis are mine alone. iv Picture courtesy of ITER Organisation “For the first time in history, we find industrialized nations forming partnerships to design and build complex, technological assets for which no nation alone can bear the cost, or the risk. By partnering together, the effort and cost is shared; the risk distributed, and; the benefits accrue to all." extract from an interview, for this thesis (and adapted from Uhran, 2015) from Mark Uhran Head of Strategic Communications, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Formerly, Assistant Associate Administrator for the International Space Station at NASA HQ in Washington DC (2005 to 2012) v Science Mega-Project Communities; Mechanisms of Effective Global Collaboration? ABSTRACT Thomas Hale and David Held in Beyond Gridlock (2017) define gridlock as the inability of countries to cooperate via international institutions to address policy problems that span borders; it refers both to deadlock or dysfunctionality in existing organisations and the inability of countries to come to new agreements as issues arise. In the context of addressing these problems that span borders it is analytically valuable to consider global science mega-project (SMP) communities that have been remarkably effective in working against the gridlock trend. Three of the most insightful SMP case studies are those chosen for my research: the Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire (CERN) community, the International Thermonuclear Experiential Reactor (ITER) nuclear fusion project community and the International Space Station (ISS) community. Previous research into these endeavours has focused on recounting the stories of their scientific discoveries and technical feats and innovations. This research has investigated the reasons behind these triumphs from a social sciences perspective. The research problem, that this thesis answers, is how do global SMPs achieve their effective collaboration pathways with Member States. A qualitative, ethnographic research method was utilised to consider the case study organisations and the people in them. Interpretivism and critical realism research philosophies governed the design. Three underlying hypotheses concerning start- up conditions, dealing with constraints and governance and leadership, were tested to examine SMP performance. Through over seventy field work interviews, evidence was gathered, and analysis and validation showed that the majority of data supported the hypotheses. The analysis reveals which of the seven Beyond Gridlock pathways and associated mechanisms had been used by the SMP communities to overcome gridlock. This research identifies a new eighth pathway, concerning innovative funding, that it is proposed be added to the primary theory. Two contributions emerged for consideration by others in the International Relations field. The first shows that communities should be primed and ready to exploit shifts in major power core interests in order to launch new endeavours and the second is how an ingeniously designed funding system allows Member States to commit to projects, permits the central IGOs to operate effectively and, at the same time, maintains support in the Member States’ homelands. vi Science Mega-Project Communities; Mechanisms of Effective Global Collaboration? Chapter level Table of Contents ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................... vi INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 56 CHAPTER 3: THE CERN COMMUNITY .................................................................................................... 80 CHAPTER 4: THE ITER PROJECT COMMUNITY ..................................................................................... 118 CHAPTER 5: THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION COMMUNITY ...................................................... 160 CHAPTER 6: RESEARCH RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 196 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................... 251 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ 254 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................... 261 vii Science Mega-Project Communities; Mechanisms of Effective Global Collaboration? Table of Contents ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................xiv List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... xv List of Abbreviations .........................................................................................................................xvi INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1 International Relations Background ................................................................................................... 1 Global Gridlock .................................................................................................................................... 4 Science Mega-Project communities as potential model pathways through global gridlock .............. 5 Research Timeliness ............................................................................................................................ 7 Analytical Structure ............................................................................................................................. 9 Terms, nomenclature and notations ................................................................................................ 12 Terms ...........................................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • A Time of Great Growth

    A Time of Great Growth

    Newsletter | Spring 2019 A Time of Great Growth Heartfelt greetings from the UC Riverside Department of Physics and Astronomy. This is our annual newsletter, sent out each Spring to stay connected with our former students, retired faculty, and friends in the wider community. The Department continues to grow, not merely in size but also in stature and reputation. For the 2018-2019 academic year, we were pleased to welcome two new faculty: Professors Thomas Kuhlman and Barry Barish. Professor Kuhlman was previously on the faculty at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He joins our efforts in the emerging field of biophysics. His research lies in the quantitative imaging and theoretical modeling of biological systems. He works on genome dynamics, quantification of the activity of transposable elements in living cells, and applications to the engineering of genome editing. Professor Barry Barish, who joins us from Caltech, is the winner of the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics. He brings great prestige to our Department. Along with Professor Richard Schrock of the Department of Chemistry, who also joined UCR in 2018, UCR now has two Nobel Prize winners on its faculty. Professor Barish is an expert on the detection and physics of gravitational waves. He has been one of the key figures in the conception, construction, and operation of the LIGO detector, where gravitational waves were first discovered in 2015, and which led to his Nobel Prize. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the winner of many other prestigious awards. The discovery of gravitational waves is one of the most exciting developments in physics so far this century.
  • Ripples in Spacetime

    Ripples in Spacetime

    editorial Ripples in spacetime The 2017 Nobel prize in Physics has been awarded to Rainer Weiss, Barry C. Barish and Kip S. Thorne “for decisive contributions to the LIGO detector and the observation of gravitational waves”. It is, frankly, difficult to find something original to say about the detection of gravitational waves that hasn’t been said already. The technological feat of measuring fluctuations in the fabric of spacetime less than one-thousandth the width of an atomic nucleus is quite simply astonishing. The scientific achievement represented by the confirmation of a century-old prediction by Albert Einstein is unique. And the collaborative effort that made the discovery possible — the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) — is inspiring. Adapted from Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), under Creative Commons Licence. Rainer Weiss and Kip Thorne were, along with the late Ronald Drever, founders of the project that eventually became known Barry Barish, who was the director Last month we received a spectacular as LIGO. In the 1960s, Thorne, a black hole of LIGO from 1997 to 2005, is widely demonstration that talk of a new era expert, had come to believe that his objects of credited with transforming it into a ‘big of gravitational astronomy was no interest should be detectable as gravitational physics’ collaboration, and providing the exaggeration. Cued by detections at LIGO waves. Separately, and inspired by previous organizational structure required to ensure and Virgo, an interferometer based in Pisa, proposals, Weiss came up with the first it worked. Of course, the passion, skill and Italy, more than 70 teams of researchers calculations detailing how an interferometer dedication of the thousand or so scientists working at different telescopes around could be used to detect them in 1972.
  • Speculative Geology

    Speculative Geology

    15 Speculative Geology DALE E. SNOW We are not at peace with nature now. Whether it is the record-setting rain on the east coast or the raging wildfires in the west, distant news of melting permafrost or bleaching coral reefs, or the unexpected eruption of Mount Kilauea a few miles from here, things seem increasingly, and increasingly violently, out of control. I would like to suggest that there are resources in Schelling’s Naturphilosophie we can use in the twenty-first century to help us think differently about both the power of nature and our own relationship to it. Although Schelling saw himself, and was seen by many, as antagonistic toward the mechanical science of his own time, it would be a mistake—and a missed opportunity—to see his view as a mere Romantic reaction. It is a speculative rethinking of the idea of nature itself that finds a place for even those phenomena which seem most distant and alien. Schelling described his philosophy of nature as “speculative physics” both to distinguish it from what he calls the dogmatic or mechanistic model of nature, and to announce a new approach to natural science, concerned with the original causes of motion in nature (SW III: 275). Since every “natural phenomenon … stands in connection with the last conditions of nature” (SW III: 279), speculative physics can bring us to an understanding of nature as a system. Geology presents an illuminating case of this approach, as can be seen from Schelling’s characteristically enthusiastic introduction to a paper published by Henrik Steffens in Schelling’sJournal of Speculative Physics (Zeitschrift für speculative Physik) on the oxidization and deoxidization of the earth.1 After praising Steffens’ work on a new and better founded science of geology, Schelling reflects darkly on the too long dominant mechanical approach to geology.
  • The History of Lasers at Stanford Group

    The History of Lasers at Stanford Group

    Lasers at 50: Byer The History of Lasers at Stanford Group Robert L. Byer Applied Physics Stanford University [email protected] Abstract In the fifty years since the demonstration of the laser, coherent light has changed the way we work, communicate and play. The generation and control of light is critical for meeting important challenges of the 21st century from fundamental science to the generation of energy. A look back at the early days of the laser at Stanford will be contrasted to the recent breakthroughs in solid state lasers and the applications to fundamental science of gravitational wave detection, remote sensing, and laser induced fusion for energy production. Stanford Historical Society 34th Annual Meeting & Reception May 25, 2010 The History of Lasers at Stanford May 25 2010 Cubberley Auditorium, Staford Byer California – Leader in advanced telescopes for astronomy Group Lick 36 inch refractor The Mount Wilson 100 inch The Palomar 200 inch 1888 1917 1948 The History of Lasers at Stanford May 25 2010 Cubberley Auditorium, Staford From Maser to Laser – stimulated emission at optical frequencies Byer proposed in 1958 – A. Schawlow and C. H. Townes Group The History of Lasers at Stanford May 25 2010 Cubberley Auditorium, Staford Early advances in lasers --- Byer 2009 a Special Year Group Concept of Optical Maser Schawlow & Townes 1958 Ruby Laser Ted Maiman 1960 Nobel Prize awarded in 1964 Townes, Prokhorov and Basov Hg+ Ion Laser Earl Bell 1965 Argon Ion Laser Bill Bridges Tunable cw parametric Laser Harris 1968 Diode bar 1Watt
  • Mapping Our Genes—Genome Projects: How Big? How Fast?

    Mapping Our Genes—Genome Projects: How Big? How Fast?

    Mapping Our Genes—Genome Projects: How Big? How Fast? April 1988 NTIS order #PB88-212402 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Mapping Our Genes-The Genmne Projects.’ How Big, How Fast? OTA-BA-373 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1988). Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 87-619898 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325 (order form can be found in the back of this report) Foreword For the past 2 years, scientific and technical journals in biology and medicine have extensively covered a debate about whether and how to determine the function and order of human genes on human chromosomes and when to determine the sequence of molecular building blocks that comprise DNA in those chromosomes. In 1987, these issues rose to become part of the public agenda. The debate involves science, technol- ogy, and politics. Congress is responsible for ‘(writing the rules” of what various Federal agencies do and for funding their work. This report surveys the points made so far in the debate, focusing on those that most directly influence the policy options facing the U.S. Congress, The House Committee on Energy and Commerce requested that OTA undertake the project. The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the Senate Com- mittee on Labor and Human Resources, and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natu- ral Resources also asked OTA to address specific points of concern to them. Congres- sional interest focused on several issues: ● how to assess the rationales for conducting human genome projects, ● how to fund human genome projects (at what level and through which mech- anisms), ● how to coordinate the scientific and technical programs of the several Federal agencies and private interests already supporting various genome projects, and ● how to strike a balance regarding the impact of genome projects on international scientific cooperation and international economic competition in biotechnology.
  • FY 1982 Submission Provided

    FY 1982 Submission Provided

    DRAFT DOE/FE-0033 Previous No. DOE/ER-0102 ENERGY MATERIALS COORDINATING COMMITTEE (EMACC) Fiscal Year 1982 March 1983 ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20545 DRAFT DOE/FE-0033 Previous No. DOE/ER-0102 ENERGY MATERIALS COORDINATING COMMITTEE (EMACC) Fiscal Year 1982 March 1983 ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT U.S. Department of Energy TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1 Fiscal Year 1982 Activities ....................................... 2 Materials Funding Trends in the Department of Energy .............. 6 PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS ................................................ 11 - Office of Conservation and Renewable Systems .................... 14 * Office of Building Energy Research Development .............. 14 * Energy Conversion and Utilization Technologies .............. 15 * Division of Energy Storage Technology - Electrochemical Storage Branch .............................. 16 * Office of Vehicle and Engine R&D ............................ 17 * Office of Industrial Programs ............................... 18 * Biomass Energy Technology Division - Biological Hydrogen Program .......................................... 18 * Division of Ocean Energy Technology - Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Program ................................. 19 * Office of Solar Energy/Photovoltaics Energy - Technology - Materials Research ........................... 20 * Wind Energy Technology Division - Large Wind Turbine Research and Technology Development ........................
  • SKA-Athena Synergy White Paper

    SKA-Athena Synergy White Paper

    SKA-Athena Synergy White Paper SKA-Athena Synergy Team July 2018. Edited by: Francisco J. Carrera and Silvia Martínez-Núñez on behalf of the Athena Community Office. Revisions provided by: Judith Croston, Andrew C. Fabian, Robert Laing, Didier Barret, Robert Braun, Kirpal Nandra Authorship Authors Rossella Cassano (INAF-Istituto di Radioastronomia, Italy). • Rob Fender (University of Oxford, United Kingdom). • Chiara Ferrari (Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur, France). • Andrea Merloni (Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, Germany). • Contributors Takuya Akahori (Kagoshima University, Japan). • Hiroki Akamatsu (SRON Netherlands Institute for Space Research, The Netherlands). • Yago Ascasibar (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain). • David Ballantyne (Georgia Institute of Technology, United States). • Gianfranco Brunetti (INAF-Istituto di Radioastronomia, Italy) and Maxim Markevitch (NASA-Goddard • Space Flight Center, United States). Judith Croston (The Open University, United Kingdom). • Imma Donnarumma (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana, Italy) and E. M. Rossi (Leiden Observatory, The • Netherlands). Robert Ferdman (University of East Anglia, United Kingdom) on behalf of the SKA Pulsar Science • Working Group. Luigina Feretti (INAF-Istituto di Radioastronomia, Italy) and Federica Govoni (INAF Osservatorio • Astronomico,Italy). Jan Forbrich (University of Hertfordshire, United Kingdom). • Giancarlo Ghirlanda (INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera and University Milano Bicocca, Italy). • Adriano Ingallinera (INAF-Osservatorio Astrofisico di Catania, Italy). • Andrei Mesinger (Scuola Normale Superiore, Italy). • Vanessa Moss and Elaine Sadler (Sydney Institute for Astronomy/CAASTRO and University of Sydney, • Australia). Fabrizio Nicastro (Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma,Italy), Edvige Corbelli (INAF-Osservatorio As- • trofisico di Arcetri, Italy) and Luigi Piro (INAF, Istituto di Astrofisica e Planetologia Spaziali, Italy). Paolo Padovani (European Southern Observatory, Germany). • Francesca Panessa (INAF/Istituto di Astrofisica e Planetologia Spaziali, Italy).
  • Rainer Weiss, Professor of Physics Emeritus and 2017 Nobel Laureate

    Rainer Weiss, Professor of Physics Emeritus and 2017 Nobel Laureate

    Giving to the Department of Physics by Erin McGrath RAINER WEISS ’55, PHD ’62 Bryce Vickmark Rai Weiss has established a fellowship in the Physics Department because he is eternally grateful to his advisor, the late Jerrold Zacharias, for all that he did for Rai, so he knows firsthand the importance of supporting graduate students. Rainer Weiss, Professor of Physics Emeritus and 2017 Nobel Laureate. Rainer “Rai” Weiss was born in Berlin, Germany in 1932. His father was a physician and his mother was an actress. His family was forced out of Germany by the Nazis since his father was Jewish and a Communist. Rai, his mother and father fled to Prague, Czecho- slovakia. In 1937 a sister was born in Prague. In 1938, after Chamberlain appeased Hitler by effectively giving him Czechoslovakia, the family was able to obtain visas to enter the United States through the Stix Family in St. Louis, who were giving bond to professional Jewish emigrants. When Rai was 21 years-old, he visited Mrs. Stix and thanked her for what she had done for his family. The family immigrated to New York City. Rai’s father had a hard time passing the medi- cal boards because of his inability to answer multiple choice exams. His mother, who Rai says “held the family together,” worked in a number of retail stores. Through the services of an immigrant relief organization Rai received a scholarship to attend the prestigious Columbia Grammar School. At the end of 1945, when Rai was 13 years old, he became fascinated with electronics and music.
  • A Joint Fermilab/SLAC Publication Dimensions of Particle Physics Issue

    A Joint Fermilab/SLAC Publication Dimensions of Particle Physics Issue

    dimensions volume 03 of particle physics symmetryA joint Fermilab/SLAC publication issue 05 june/july 06 Cover Physicists at Fermilab ponder the physics of the proposed International Linear Collider, as outlined in the report Discovering the Quantum Universe. Photos: Reidar Hahn, Fermilab Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy volume 03 | issue 05 | june/july 06 symmetryA joint Fermilab/SLAC publication 3 Commentary: John Beacom “In a global fi eld, keeping up with all the literature is impossible. Personal contact is essential, and I always urge students and postdocs to go to meetings and talk to strangers.” 4 Signal to Background An industrial waterfall; education by placemats; a super-clean surface; horned owls; Garden Club for particle physicists; Nobel banners; US Congress meets Quantum Universe. 8 Voices: Milestones vs. History Celebrating a milestone is always enjoyable, but a complete and accurate historical record is invalu- able for the past to inform the future. 10 A Report Like No Other Can the unique EPP2010 panel steer US particle physics away from a looming crisis? Physicists and policy makers are depending on it. 14 SNS: Neutrons for ‘molecular movies’ A new research facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory has produced its fi rst neutrons, presenting new opportunities for studying materials from semiconductors to human enzymes. 20 Battling the Clouds Electron clouds could reduce the brightness—and discovery potential—of the proposed International Linear Collider. Innovative solutions are on the way and might reduce the cost of the machine, too. 24 A (Magnus) Force on the Mound Professional baseball player Jeff Francis of the Colorado Rockies brings a strong arm and a physics background to the playing fi eld: “I bet Einstein couldn’t throw a curveball.” 26 Deconstruction: Spallation Neutron Source Accelerator-based neutron sources such as the SNS can provide pulses of neutrons to probe superconductors, aluminum bridges, lighter and stronger plastic products, and pharmaceuticals.
  • US Neutron Facility Development in the Last Half-Century: a Cautionary Tale

    US Neutron Facility Development in the Last Half-Century: a Cautionary Tale

    Phys. Perspect. Ó 2015 The Author(s). This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com DOI 10.1007/s00016-015-0158-8 Physics in Perspective US Neutron Facility Development in the Last Half-Century: A Cautionary Tale John J. Rush* Large multi-user facilities serve many thousands of researchers in fields from particle physics to fundamental biology. The great expense—up to billions of current-day dollars— and the complexity of such facilities required access to extensive engineering and research infrastructures, most often found at national laboratories and the largest research univer- sities. Although the development of such facilities has been largely successful and the research results unique and often spectacular, the processes for choosing, funding, and locating them were complex and not always productive. In this review, I describe the troubled efforts over the past fifty years to develop neutron research facilities in the United States. During this period, the US has moved from a preeminent position in neutron-based science to a lesser status with respect to Europe. Several major US centers of excellence have been shut down and replaced with more focused capabilities. I compare the US efforts in neutron facilities with parallel developments in Europe and Asia, discuss the reasons for this state of affairs, and make some suggestions to help prevent similar consequences in the future. Key words: neutron research; national laboratories; Department of Energy; National Institute of Standards and Technology; research reactors; spallation neutron sources; Institut Laue-Langevin; National Academy of Sciences. Introduction A major element in the great expansion both of US and international science since the Second World War has been the development of large multi-user facilities to serve many thousands of researchers around the world with applications in almost all fields, ranging from particle physics to fundamental biology.
  • Exascale Workshop Panel Report Meeting

    Exascale Workshop Panel Report Meeting

    DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of a workshop sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of document authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Copyrights to portions of this report (including graphics) are reserved by original copyright holders or their assignees, and are used by the Government’s license and by permission. Requests to use any images must be made to the provider identified in the image credits. On the cover: Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Cray XT5TM supercomputer. The computer, dubbed Jaguar, is the largest in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science. The Jaguar’s computing power makes it among the most powerful open scientific systems in the world. Future reports in the Scientific Grand Challenges workshop series will feature different Office of Science computers on their covers. EXASCALE WORKSHOP PANEL MEETING REPORT Report from the Meeting Held January 19-20, 2010 Sponsored by the U.S.
  • The Strong and Weak Senses of Theory-Ladenness of Experimentation: Theory-Driven Versus Exploratory Experiments in the History of High-Energy Particle Physics

    The Strong and Weak Senses of Theory-Ladenness of Experimentation: Theory-Driven Versus Exploratory Experiments in the History of High-Energy Particle Physics

    [Accepted for Publication in Science in Context] The Strong and Weak Senses of Theory-Ladenness of Experimentation: Theory-Driven versus Exploratory Experiments in the History of High-Energy Particle Physics Koray Karaca University of Wuppertal Interdisciplinary Centre for Science and Technology Studies (IZWT) University of Wuppertal Gaußstr. 20 42119 Wuppertal, Germany [email protected] Argument In the theory-dominated view of scientific experimentation, all relations of theory and experiment are taken on a par; namely, that experiments are performed solely to ascertain the conclusions of scientific theories. As a result, different aspects of experimentation and of the relation of theory to experiment remain undifferentiated. This in turn fosters a notion of theory- ladenness of experimentation (TLE) that is too coarse-grained to accurately describe the relations of theory and experiment in scientific practice. By contrast, in this article, I suggest that TLE should be understood as an umbrella concept that has different senses. To this end, I introduce a three-fold distinction among the theories of high-energy particle physics (HEP) as background theories, model theories and phenomenological models. Drawing on this categorization, I contrast two types of experimentation, namely, “theory-driven” and “exploratory” experiments, and I distinguish between the “weak” and “strong” senses of TLE in the context of scattering experiments from the history of HEP. This distinction enables to identify the exploratory character of the deep-inelastic electron-proton scattering experiments— performed at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) between the years 1967 and 1973—thereby shedding light on a crucial phase of the history of HEP, namely, the discovery of “scaling”, which was the decisive step towards the construction of quantum chromo-dynamics (QCD) as a gauge theory of strong interactions.