Universal hot Collider, built not built exactly who is in charge? -Collider-IT information
More recently, about whether China should be super collider uproar in the scientific community, and gradually evolved into a public issue. Shing-Tung Yau, Chinese mathematician to endorse before China built the super collider, Chinese Nobel Laureate in physics Yang Chen-Ning wrote after the China of today is not the construction of super collider and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of high energy physics Wang yifang said "large Collider, it's time to" ... ...
In time, the media, even ordinary people have queued up opinions. People were excited to "personally involved in major research projects of decision", also "firmly believes that more debates, the more the truth", the most important thing is "mercilessly tore open the science Café" is a scene not seen for many years.
Institute of science, technology and society at Tsinghua University Professor Liu Bing, it's just a chance discussion, discuss mechanism of Chinese science projects has not established. He said in an interview with the science and technology daily: "I hope to establish open and transparent discussion of the future system, make great project horse dismount institutionalized. ”
United States Superconducting Supercollider horse and dismounted
If any event in the history of science and contemporary China "do you want to build a large Collider" issue is similar, it is United States superconducting super collider in the history of the event.
Superconducting Super Collider (Superconducting Super Collider, abbreviated SSC), is in the eighties or nineties of the 20th century United States's big science projects, it officially proposed in June 1983, aims in order to make the United States regain the basic physics of the world leading position. Its initial budget of US $ 3 billion, later increased to us $ 11 billion. This project started, excavations near 23-kilometer, TX, SSC tunnel, at a cost of nearly $ 2 billion, a large number of physicists involved in this work. But in October 1993, the project cost too large to be United States Congress voted, after Congress allocated $ 640 million for tunnel landfill, personnel placement and other work.
Liu Bing in 2008, visiting SSC site, but it has become a ruin that nobody even knows, what a shame. He recorded feeling in a blog: at that time, such a brilliant project, with nearly $ 3 billion cost, only now the idle construction visible, more underground tunnels, even the entrance is not visible. On the ground and saw wilderness, fields, meadows, and a smattering of others.
"Basically, against United States Superconducting Supercollider horse horse we can generally understand the Chinese debate on the large Collider. "Liu Bing said in an interview with the science and technology daily.
Among scientists there is a community of interests
Institute of philosophy and sociology at Beijing Normal University Professor, history of science, philosophy of science expert Tian Song, neither SSC, and is now also a large Collider controversy behind there is a benefit of the game.
He said in an interview with the science and technology daily, all understanding--truths of science adhere to, the exploration of the mysteries of nature, human curiosity satisfaction. We thought in science, technology, science-driven technology is the relationship between social progress and promote social progress, but in reality is not so simple. In the era of big science, decision-making and development of each and every project means a lot of input, the scientists themselves to form a community of interests in the process.
SSC Tian Song as mentioned, he said, obtained means that a large number of physicists of SSC jobs, a large number of doctoral enrollment of University Physics Department, these are benefits, so the physics community is supported.
Dong Lili Liu Bing students once wrote an academic paper in the scientific conflict of interest – the United States case studies of the superconducting super collider, in this article, refers to scientists caused by the SSC within the community, other interest groups, scientists and Government officials argued, as well as on the surface of the hide behind the argument of the real interests of the parties competing for.
"Up to now, have not yet found an optimal solution, but every decision is the result of the game", said Tian Song. He also said that information more transparent decision-making science prerequisite, "independence of the media in this process in order to make the sound, which is not controlled by stakeholders", Tian Song stressed.
China's lack of discussion of large projects of decision mechanism
Over the years, there is a sound scientific science, science things only scientists know that outsiders do not understand, so I shouldn't comment. But after the scientists form a community of interests for their own interests, scientific activity is complicated and delicate. How to avoid large losses on the public interest in the project's policy?
Liu Bing believes that SSC case China and United States Congress science plays a special role in the decision-making process must be used as a reference for the scientific research in the country. He said that China has many large projects have been launched or are about to start, on these projects should not? Without an open and transparent discussion system, most of the projects even without a large discussion. Nano, GM is putting a lot of projects, what is its decision-making process?
"Should allow more people to participate in decision-making, scientific and economic resources is behind the project, is related to everyone, rather than the minority, in particular stakeholders decided", Liu Bing said.
Tian Song also expressed similar views, he said, we have always thought that outsiders do not understand science, in fact, know and do not know, not to turn all of us into scientists, but make it clear what scientists do, from this point of view, an outsider can understand the science.
全民热议对撞机，建不建究竟谁说了算？ - 对撞机 - IT资讯
最近，关于中国是否应该建超大对撞机在科学界闹得沸沸扬扬，并逐渐演变成公共话题。前有华裔数学家丘成桐表态支持中国建造超大对撞机，后有华人诺贝尔物理学奖得主杨振宁撰文《中国今天不宜建造超大对撞机》，又有中国科学院高能物理研究所所长王贻芳称“建大型对撞机正当其时”……
一时间，媒体、网友甚至普通民众纷纷站队，各抒己见。人们兴奋于“亲自参与重大科研项目的决断”，也“坚信真理越辩越明”，最重要的是“科学界大咖们毫不留情地开撕”是多少年都没见过的场景。
而在清华大学科学技术与社会研究所教授刘兵看来，这只是一次具有偶然性的讨论，中国科学项目决策的讨论机制并没有建立。他在接受科技日报记者采访时表示：“希望未来能建立公开透明的讨论系统，让重大项目的上马下马制度化。”
美国超导超级对撞机的上马与下马
如果说科学史上有哪个事件与当下“中国要不要建大型对撞机”的争议类似，那一定是美国历史上的超导超级对撞机事件。
超导超级对撞机（Superconducting Super Collider，简称SSC），是20世纪八九十年代美国提出的大科学项目，它在1983年6月正式提出，目的是为了使美国重新取得世界基础物理学界的领先地位。它初期预算为30亿美元，后期增长到110亿美元。这个项目启动后，SSC在德克萨斯州挖掘了近23千米隧道、耗资近20亿美元，大批的物理学家参与这项工作。但是1993年10月，这一项目因耗资过于庞大被美国国会投票否决，此后国会又拨款6.4亿美元用于隧道填埋、人员安置等善后工作。
刘兵曾在2008年走访SSC遗址，但那里已经变成了无人问津甚至无人知晓的废墟，令人唏嘘。他在博客中记录当时的感受：当年，如此辉煌的工程，以将近30亿美元的代价，现在就只剩下了这几项闲置的建筑可见了，更大的地下隧道，则连入口处都不可见了。地面上，只见荒野、庄稼地、牧场和零星的人家。
“基本上，对照美国超导超级对撞机的上马下马我们能大致理解现在中国对大型对撞机的争论。”刘兵在接受科技日报记者采访时表示。
科学家之间存在利益共同体
在北京师范大学哲学与社会学学院教授、科学史、科学哲学专家田松看来，不管是SSC的周折，还是如今大型对撞机的争议，背后都存在一种利益的博弈。
他在接受科技日报记者采访时表示，以往大家对科学的理解是——对真理的坚持、对自然奥秘的探索、对人类好奇心的满足。我们以为科学、技术、社会的关系是科学进步带动技术进步而后推动社会进步，但实际上并不是这么简单。在大科学时代，每一个项目的决策和开展都意味着大量投入，这个过程中科学家自身结成了利益共同体。
田松同样提到SSC，他说，SSC的实施意味着大量物理学家获得工作岗位，大量高校物理系的博士扩招，这些都是利益，所以当年物理学界是支持方。
刘兵的学生董丽丽曾经写过一篇学术论文《科研立项中的利益冲突——对美国超导超级对撞机的案例研究》，在这篇文章中，提到了由SSC问题引发的科学家共同体内部、科学家与政府官员、其他利益集团之间的争论，以及在表面的争论背后所隐藏的各方实际利益的争夺。
“到现在为止，还没有找到一个最优的解决途径，只能说每一项决定都是各方的博弈的结果”，田松说。他同时表示，信息更透明是决策更科学的首要条件，“在这个过程中媒体要真正发出独立的声音，而不是为利益相关方所操控”，田松强调。
中国对大型项目的决策缺乏讨论机制
一直以来，有一种声音就是科学的事归科学，科学的事只有科学家才懂，外人不懂，所以也不该发表评论。但是当科学家为自身利益结成利益共同体之后，科学活动就变得复杂和微妙起来。如何避免大型项目决策中对公众利益造成损失？
刘兵认为，SSC案例中国和美国国国会在科学决策过程中所起到的特殊作用对国内的科学决策研究有一定的借鉴作用。他说，中国有许多大项目已经上马或是正准备上马，这些项目该不该上？没有一个公开透明的讨论系统，绝大多数项目甚至没有经过大规模讨论。纳米、转基因都是投入很大的项目，它的决策过程是怎样的？
“应该让更多人参与到决策中来，科学项目背后是经济资源，是跟每个人都相关的，不应该是少数人、特别是利益相关方来拍板”，刘兵说。
田松亦表达了类似的观点，他说，我们一直以为外人不懂科学，其实懂与不懂，并不是要把所有人变成科学家，而是让大家明白科学家在做什么，从这个角度来说，外人也可以懂科学。