AUSTRON and EURO-CRYST
Report of the ESF Assessment Panel
15 October 1997
Background
The Austrian project initiatives, AUSTRON and EURO-CRYST, are competing proposals for the realisation and operation, with European collaboration, of a transnational research facility in Austria. In order to facilitate decisions being taken as regards these projects, the Austrian Ministry for Research endorsed by the Austrian Member Organisations of the European Science Foundation (ESF) asked the Foundation to assess the two feasibility studies and their respective cases in the European context. The ESF Executive Council agreed to this request and launched the assessment along the following lines.
Scope and main terms of reference of the Assessment Panel
The main scope of the assessment is the scientific and technical case of the two project initiatives as well as their technological implications. Both projects are examined in their European context. Political aspects are not to be considered.
The assessment is performed by an independent group of experts (‘Assessment Panel’) appointed by the ESF. The Panel is assisted by a ‘Support Group’ set up by ESF. The ESF Scientific Secretary for the Physical and Engineering Sciences is charged with the coordination of this task and to act as the Panel’s Secretary.
The Panel, assisted by the Support Group, acts independently in the pursuit of this assessment task. The internal workings of the Panel are to take place confidentially.
In its official response to the
Austrian request for assessment, the ESF will forward the Panel’s Assessment
Report to the Austrian authorities. After submission of the Report, the
parties involved (ESF and its bodies, the Assessment Panel, and the Austrian
bodies) may make free use (including dissemination or publication) of the
Assessment Report presented and of ESF’s eventual additional response.
Members of the Assessment
Panel and Support Group
Assessment Panel
Dr. Reinder J. van Duinen [NL]
President of the Dutch Research Council, former member of the Board of Management of Fokker N.V., member of the ESF Executive Council.
Professor Marcello Fontanesi [I]
President of the Italian State Committee for Physics; Professor of Physics at the University of Milano.
Professor Yves Petroff [F]
Director, European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF), Grenoble.
Professor Joachim Seelig [CH]
Head, Biophysical Chemistry Dept., Biozentrum Basel. Chairman of the Swiss research council/section ‘biology and medicine’.
Professor Gerhard Wegner [D]
Director, Max-Planck-Institute for Polymer Research, Mainz. Vice-President of the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft.
Panel Secretary:
Dr. Hans U. Karow, ESF
Senior Scientific Secretary assisted by Marie
Clifford, Physical
and Engineering Sciences Secretariat (ESF-PESC).
Support Group
Professor Peter Day [UK]
Director, The Royal Institution, London, U.K.. Former Director of the Laue-Langevin Institute, Grenoble; member of the ESF Standing Committee PESC.
Professor Norbert Kroo [H]
Director, Solid-state Physics Research Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest. Former President of the European Physical Society; member of the ESF Standing Committee PESC.
Professor Piero Martinoli [CH]
Institute for Physics, University of Neuchâtel. Vice-President of the Swiss research council; member of the ESF Standing Committee PESC.
Professor Jean-Claude Mounolou [F]
CNRS-Centre for Molecular Genetics,
Gif-sur-Yvette. Member of the ESF Standing Committee LESC (life & environmental
sciences).
A. Assessment baseline
In accordance with the Terms of Reference, the assessment focuses on the scientific-technical-strategic cases of the two project proposals, AUSTRON and EURO-CRYST.
The assessment is based on the following:
(i) the submitted feasibility study reports on the projects AUSTRON and EURO-CRYST;
(ii) the oral briefings and written material received from the representatives of both projects at the Panel’s 2-day meeting at the Technical University of Vienna on 1-2 July 1997;
(iii) background information received from representatives of the Austrian research agencies, the Minister for Science, and ministerial representatives;
(iv) additional written information from both project groups requested by the Panel on specific issues;
(v)written and oral information collected by the Panel on specific (complementary or competing) facilities and related issues in the context of the two project initiatives being assessed;
(vi) individual expertise and knowledge of the members of the Panel and the Support Group.
According to the scope of the
evaluation, the Panel forwarded to the representatives of both projects
a ‘List of Assessment Issues’ which the briefings to the Panel should
specifically focus on. These assessment
issues were essentially the following:
1. Projected goals, proposers and promoters of the facility
Identification of:
· Projected scope, mission and lifetime of the projected facility;
· Targeted clientele and its transnational catchment area;
· Proposers
and developers of the projected facility, and parties promoting and supporting
the project.
2. Scientific case
Quality, relevance, and timeliness of the projected facility over its lifetime, assessed from a European-regional perspective, with emphasis on:
· Scientific/technical quality/impact/actuality of the R&D fields and application goals to be supported by the projected facility;
· Quality,
size, weight and the financial backing of the projected users.
3. Technical-strategic case
Scientific value of the facility, with emphasis on:
· Methodological-technical performance of the facility with regard to its projected function and compared to the state of the art in Europe and internationally;
· Uniqueness / complementarity / timeliness of the facility in the context of related facilities in central/south-east Europe;
· Innovation gain envisaged through its construction and operation, in general terms and for the local region;
· Possible alternatives or consequences if the projected facility is not realised.
· Requirements for the realisation and operation of the facility, with emphasis on:
· its technical infrastructure, site and ‘environment’;
· staff requirements for the operation of the facility and for serving its clientele.
· Other relevant issues, as far as they were proposed and presented:
· Feasibility
of construction and operation schemes, including costing schemes,
for owner(s) / operator(s) /
users;
· Feasibility
of managing schemes concerning users’ access, available services, property
rights and use of results, with regard to the targeted user communities.
In the following pages, the Assessment Panel, assisted by its Support Group, presents its assessment of the two project proposals AUSTRON & EURO-CRYST, which is based and focused on the assessment issues and references as listed above. Concerning the Panel’s evaluating and assessing procedures, the following points need to be made:
· The Panel did not reduce its double-assessment task to a "comparative assessment" of the two competing projects but considered each of the two in its own right, each independently of the other. Only in the final section (D.) does the Panel come up with its over-all concluding remarks.
· The Panel understood that its task was primarily to assess and not to undertake its own investigations into the two projects under study. Nevertheless, on certain issues, the Panel presents comments using its own or others’ findings.
The Panel recognised that both project initiatives, AUSTRON and EURO-CRYST, emerged initially from strategic considerations, driven by policy issues:
Up to now the Austrian science communities lack any large research facility of excellence such as exists in most other European countries. A transnational R&D centre of excellence was probably seen as indispensable for the promotion of science and technical research in Austria and the neighbouring region, for the sake of the research communities’ identity and motivation, and in the societal and cultural interests of Austria and of neighbouring countries. One might add that transnational R&D institutes of excellence further the integration of Europe, and promote European science, research and culture and the competitiveness of European industries.
· A
disproportionate percentage of Austrian public R&D spending goes into
the use of foreign research facilities by Austrian scientists and researchers,
with an insufficient number of visiting researchers coming to Austria.
Smaller countries are especially burdened with the difficult issue of ‘rucksack-science’,
i.e. their national researchers at foreign large facilities. Such ‘going
foreign’, combined with an export of scientific ideas and the spending
of national R&D money abroad, can cause a significant loss of R&D
activity in the respective home countries when this one-way flow is not
counterbalanced, at least partly, by an inflow of visiting scientists and
foreign ideas (and money).
The Panel recognises these policy
issues which have stimulated the initiation of the Austrian project studies
but did not assess these arguments per se.
B. The project AUSTRON
B1. General aspects and features of the AUSTRON project study
Concerning general aspects and overall features of the feasibility study, the Panel makes the following points:
The AUSTRON project targets the evolution of an already existing type of facility within the European region, more concretely, the extension of the existing park of neutron facilities in Europe which is distinguished by a strong multi-disciplinary but rather coherent R&D community and also by supportive bodies at the international policy level. Therefore, the AUSTRON goal could be pursued through a rather "traditional approach", i.e. projecting a transnational research facility unique within its transnational context, thereby winning strong support from the existing international R&D community and in turn attracting a potential transnational users clientele related to research agencies or bodies with adequate financial resources.
· In the context of the above, the substantial effort and work that the AUSTRON parties have invested into this project study is acknowledged. It is especially recognised that an international scientific advisory body whose membership included highly renowned experts advised the AUSTRON Study Group.
· On the other hand, it has to be recognised that the level of maturity of the study is uneven. While individual issues are treated in detail, the most important scientific-strategic target has, in the Panel’s view, not yet been tackled with the necessary depth, i.e. analysing and presenting the scientific-technical-strategic value of the projected AUSTRON facility in its regional and European context.
B2. The scientific-technical-strategic case of the AUSTRON project
B2.1 The R&TD fields targeted by AUSTRON
The Panel considered the importance, relevance, and the envisaged impact, of the R&TD fields and research subjects to be served by the AUSTRON facility.
The Panel acknowledges the opinion presented in the ESF Studies Report into Large Research Facilities "Scientific prospects for neutron scattering [and neutron methods] with present and future sources", ESF 1996:
· The structural investigation, on a precise atomic scale, of inanimate matter and technical structures and of animate matter will continue to benefit crucially from the complementary use and exploitation of neutron beams and of synchrotron X-rays, made available at both national and multinational facilities.
· In particular, neutron scattering techniques remain a vital resource for structural research on condensed matter, including in the future the solution of structural problems in the technical sciences or for industrial developments.
· Synchrotron radiation techniques and radiation sources cannot abrogate neutron techniques and neutron sources (which would have been an appealing hope at financially constrained times with regard to the much lower specific costs of X- photon beams as compared to neutron beams). Even in the long term, both techniques and advanced radiation sources including instrumentation of both categories are indispensable to Europe’s lead in science, research and technical applications, as the two techniques cannot replace each other (nor be replaced by third methods), but complement and extend each other’s range and opportunities.
· Europe has established a clear world lead in the application of neutron scattering to structural research in the physical and biological sciences. This lead should be maintained to the advantage of science and research in the European communities.
· There is a continuing need in Europe for high quality neutron sources and their corresponding instrumentation for the foreseeable future. Structural matter research with neutrons should make a special impact in newly emerging interdisciplinary fields. The need to carry out experiments at a centre of excellence will, in itself, encourage the interdisciplinary flow of ideas essential to make progress in new-emerging fields.
· The further progress in science and research will rely on the availability of two types of neutron beam sources concerning their time-characteristics: neutron sources generating (quasi-) continuous neutron beams of high stability (in specially optimised nuclear research reactors or in accelerator driven spallation sources), and neutron sources generating short(est)-pulse neutron beams, i.e., sharply-pulsed neutron spallation sources (such as an AUSTRON-type facility).
In conclusion, the Panel assesses
the R&TD fields and applications served by advanced neutron sources,
as of high value, highly relevant, and highly promising for the future,
for progress in the natural, life, and technical sciences. This should
certainly continue to be the case for the projected life time of an AUSTRON
facility.
B2.2 The targeted R&TD communities and users’ clientele of AUSTRON
The Panel notes the positive assessment of this issue in the ESF Case Studies Report quoted above, and adds its specific views:
· The R&TD community of neutron users in Europe is a large, distinguished, and vibrant one and representative of many of the most-relevant disciplines in the physical and chemical sciences. The use of neutron scattering is becoming central to the life sciences (in particular, in structural research in molecular biology), and is gaining importance in engineering.
· The European user community is large and vibrant enough to make the best use of new or additional facilities if these facilities open up unique opportunities for science and research.
· The Panel recognises that, according to the analysis recently carried out by the European Neutron Scattering Association, the targeted R&TD community in Austria, and the neighbouring catchment region of an AUSTRON facility, presently comprises 950 users of neutron sources, and looks like it will continue to increase. The to-date rather small community of neutron users in Austria itself (i.e. at present less than 50 researchers) would certainly flourish with the advent of AUSTRON.
In conclusion, the Panel
notes that a significant community of potential users exists in the catchment
area of the projected AUSTRON facility. The crucial issue is whether this
community would become committed users of AUSTRON. In turn there is the
complementary issue of whether the Austrian and regional funding agencies
would financially commit themselves to the construction and operation of
AUSTRON. The answer will crucially depend on the positioning of the projected
facility, i.e. its specific value and impact within the regional framework
of complementary or competing neutron sources that already exist or are
under construction.
B2.3 Positioning the projected AUSTRON facility
The Austrian project initiators of AUSTRON are aiming at a transnational users’ clientele from Austria and the neighbouring region, i.e. from Austria, (South/East-) Germany, Hungary, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ex-Yugoslavian countries, Russia, Greece, Italy, Switzerland, and possibly an even wider catchment area.
The Panel understood that this users spectrum represents, in the view of the project proposers, the baseline for a transnational financing scheme for the construction and the operation of the projected facility, with a substantial inflow from the envisaged transnational partners. Hence the Panel expected to see a facility concept which convincingly demonstrates its position in the future park of neutron facilities in Europe.
In the general context of this issue, the Panel agrees with the general assessment expressed in the previously quoted ESF Case Studies Report:
· "In the medium term, means should be found to ensure the most effective exploitation of the existing portfolio of neutron sources in Europe, both of the national medium flux type and those centres of excellence such as ILL and ISIS having the highest fluxes available in the world in their respective categories. The small number of highest flux sources provide benchmarks for the science conducted with neutrons at the global level. […..] Arrangements must be made by the ESF sponsoring agencies to ensure that the fullest possible use is made of such sources, by optimising the number of instrument days available to users and ensuring that as many beamlines as possible are furnished with state of the art instruments. Neutrons are scarce and should not be wasted! "
· Besides these few world-class sources of highest flux and most advanced instrumentation, regional facilities of medium-flux and advanced instrumentation remain important to serve the regional users’ clientele in their science and research and, also, to serve as regional training grounds for young researchers, for developing novel instrumentation and conducting preliminary or speculative experiments before they are transferred, if necessary, to the international highest-flux sources where beam-time is in greater demand and where access can become financially burdening.
However, to demonstrate the specific positioning of AUSTRON requires an elaboration on the added value of this project as a new, additional neutron source of medium-/large-scale in central Europe, in terms of its quality as a pulsed neutron source of advanced performance and its cost-benefit features.
Therefore, the AUSTRON project needs to be considered in the context of the following neutron sources in the Austrian region and in the wider area of Europe:
· today’s
(world-leading) ‘centres of excellence’ in Europe:
the continuous source ILL in
Grenoble, present core technically operational until »2015;
the pulsed source ISIS in Appleton/Rutherford
Lab., technically operational until >2015.
· the
more regional sources (operational or under construction):
the continuous ORPHEE in Saclay,
technically operational until »2020;
the pulsed SINQ in Villigen, recently inaugurated, technically operational
until >2025; the continuous FRM-II in Garching, under construction, operation
expected until ³2040;
the continuous BER-II in Berlin, technically operational until »2020;
the continuous FRJ-2 in Jülich, technically operational until »2005;
the continuous BNC in Budapest, ³2010.
· the project initiative of a next-generation European Spallation Source (ESS), which aims at a world leading centre of excellence with a pulsed neutron source of 25 times ISIS in accelerator beam power and pulse energy (operation targeted for around the year 2010).
The evolution of these projects in the European/regional context should have been the basic reference line for the AUSTRON feasibility study, concerning the scientific–technical positioning of AUSTRON and its cost-benefit-projection. In the regional context of advanced continuous neutron sources (SINQ which recently became operational, FRM-II which is under construction), the pulsed AUSTRON source, with adequate instrumentation, should aim to establish an optimised regional network of neutron facilities, which would convince the users and the financial backers of AUSTRON and the other regional facilities.
In its present development stage, however, the winning case for AUSTRON has not yet been proven. The feasibility study and the briefings received provided a rather general picture of the added value of AUSTRON in its European-regional context.
· The project proposers stated that AUSTRON could and should serve as:
(a)a "working horse"-neutron source, meeting Austrian and regional users’ basic needs in standard tasks;
(b) a high performance shortest-pulse neutron source, with sufficient instrumentation; for advanced tasks and ambitions (with four different versions offered in the course of the project study);
(c) a special options- neutron source (e.g. for medical research and medical treatment).
· However, the proposed range of instrumentation appears rather conventional and unexciting. In the Panel’s view, the opportunity must clearly be taken to aim at advanced scientific-technical instruments and beam lines with unique features, to maximise the complementary value of the pulsed AUSTRON source with regard to the continuous neutron sources in the region. With regard to the various projected options and directions of the AUSTRON feasibility study: the Panel is not convinced of the medical facility option; it may be discarded if no further rationales can be presented.
· In
the European context (with particular regard to ISIS as the existing pulsed
source of excellence), AUSTRON-III would be a satisfactory version of AUSTRON
towards the goal of becoming a competitive neutron source in Europe in
terms of neutron flux.
Also in the regional context
of existing sources (including FRM-II), AUSTRON-III appears to offer the
best scientific-technical bargain.
· In
a European context, however, even AUSTRON-III only provides capabilities
that could be obtained by the cheaper and faster route of enhancing existing
sources such as ISIS, or by investing in detector or instrument improvement.
This argument can probably be
outweighed by the strategic and policy point that a new source brings more
and novel instruments into service, which then compete with those currently
available, enabling a larger volume and/or more advanced quality of science
to be addressed.
Another strong policy argument
for AUSTRON as already quoted in Chap. A. is to promote science and research
in its geographical context through establishing a regional centre of excellence.
· While in the regional dimension, AUSTRON’s value may be based on its optimised quality features as compared with advanced regional sources (SINQ, FRM-II), the time dimension of AUSTRON could be to become a scientific-technical milestone towards the long term goal of a next generation European spallation source (ESS).
In conclusion, the Panel
is of the opinion that the scientific-strategic ‘positioning’ of the AUSTRON
project in its European-regional context has not yet been satisfactorily
elaborated upon nor optimised to-date. The Panel has no doubt that this
could still be achieved. However, this task would need to be given high
priority otherwise all efforts to promote AUSTRON any further could be
too late.
B2.4 The cost plan, budget estimates and managerial issues of the AUSTRON study
The Panel comes to the following findings:
Cost plan, budget estimates:
The Panel to the best of its knowledge and after careful analysis considers the AUSTRON cost estimates as a carefully elaborated baseline of the cost plan for the construction of the projected facility. In the revised cost plan (July 1997), however, the Panel observes that the cost item "contingency", which was originally included in the feasibility study, has been removed. The contingency item should be reinstated and should amount to not less than 10% of the accelerator costs. The costs for instrumentation should be re-estimated, and a contingency should also be foreseen, when aiming at instruments of excellence for AUSTRON (see the Panel’s assessment of this important issue).
Concerning the operational cost plan, the Panel identifies in the cost baseline a specific disparity, namely the share of the operational costs of AUSTRON specified for ‘salaries’, which represent 55% of the quoted budget. The Panel points to experiences in running facilities of a similar kind which suggest that the AUSTRON personnel costs would rise substantially in real terms, say to ³65% of the total running costs. The operational cost plan should deal with this issue seriously, in order to secure sufficient means in the longer term for up-grading the facility and for advancing its instrumentation.
Management concepts concerning the R&D use of the facility and users’ access:
The Panel considers the information provided as preliminary, but does not see fundamental problems for the elaboration of adequate operational plans.
B2.5 Other issues
While avoiding individual site issues in its assessment, the Panel looked into the basic safety and environmental issues of the feasibility study as AUSTRON is a ‘radiation facility’ whose operation generates ionising radiation and creates radioactive waste of lower radioactivity level.
In this context the Panel
recognises no fundamental problems which could impede the operation of
an AUSTRON facility or its decommissioning after the end of its lifetime.
B3. Overall assessment of the AUSTRON project study
In summary, the Panel comes to the following assessment of the AUSTRON project study:
· The AUSTRON feasibility study is recognised to be aiming at a high-performance research facility of medium to large scale that could serve science and research with high impact and satisfactory value for money.
· The R&TD fields served by neutron sources (i.e. in particular, structural research in many fields of fundamental and applied sciences and research and engineering) are, and will be in the long term, of high actuality and importance for the progress of fundamental and applied sciences and research in Europe. It is thereby recognised that neutron sources (as well as synchrotron radiation sources) do not serve ‘big science’ but are large facilities dedicated to serve excellent ‘small’ science and research. This certainly is an important policy argument in the present times of constrained R&D budgets in Europe and the enhanced competition between the different R&D communities for funding. It is further recognised that neutron sources will remain indispensable tools that cannot be substituted by other methods in the foreseeable future.
· Europe has achieved a world lead in the development of advanced neutron sources and in their successful scientific exploitation. The demand for advanced neutron sources in Europe is high and may still increase. The users’ clientele in the catchment area targeted by AUSTRON – research communities from Austria, from neighbouring countries and from an even wider European area – in principle exists, and the facility’s projected size in general terms appears to be adequate.
· The technical feasibility of the AUSTRON studies is acknowledged, but a few corrections to the cost analysis are needed.
· The policy value and impact which a central facility of excellence like AUSTRON would have for Austria and the region is acknowledged. It cannot be claimed that the high costs of the projected facility could be better applied to an alternative programme of challenging ‘small research’ as this alternative does not exist in reality at the present time.
However:
As the AUSTRON project is aiming at a new and additional neutron source for transnational use in the context of the existing and future neutron facilities, and as the Austrian parties are aiming at a substantial financial inflow from the targeted transnational region, the specific value of the projected AUSTRON facility and its specific features of merit within its regional context are the crucial issues which would be decisive for the projected transnational (committed!) use and for the co-financing of the facility by transnational partners.
These issues still need to
be elaborated upon convincingly by the AUSTRON study group in mutual interaction
with the project groups of the other facilities of the regional network
of neutron sources. Otherwise the assessors would not see a realistic prospect
for the transnational realisation, operation and funding of the AUSTRON
project.
C. The project EURO-CRYST
C1. General aspects and features of the EURO-CRYST project study
Concerning general aspects including the overall-quality and level of maturity of the feasibility study, the Panel makes the following points:
· The Panel acknowledges that the development of the EURO-CRYST project study required a rather "non-traditional approach" as this project aims at a new type of research facility unprecedented in the European region. Consequently, the proposal lacks (at least in the development phase) the committed support of an established coherent community of potential users. (In this respect, the AUSTRON proposers had an easier task). The difficulties posed by this "non-traditional approach" have been taken into account in the Panel’s considerations.
· The Panel acknowledged the substantial effort and work that the Austrian project group - advised by an international group of experts – have invested in the carrying out of this study.
· In response to the "unanswered questions" which the Panel had identified in the feasibility study (May 1995) and during the briefing meeting (on 1 July 1997), the EURO-CRYST project study group provided the Panel with substantive additional documentation (of 25 July 1997) which contains a revised R&TD baseline and scope. This additional material modifies and expands the 1995 feasibility study report. It was this revised baseline which the Panel used in its evaluation and assessment.
· Initially, the Panel had recognised a certain ambiguity in the projected format of EURO-CRYST. In their briefings to the Panel the project representatives emphasised the goal of a single central laboratory in the Austrian region, but also made references to alternative or additional formats such as a distributed laboratory (i.e. a trans-national network of laboratories), or a "virtual laboratory" (i.e. an information network between, and for, distributed R&D groups). However, based on the EURO-CRYST follow-up statements (of July 1997), the Panel understood that the EURO-CRYST initiative targets a trans-national research centre in Austria.
· The Panel recognises the value of the in-depth survey and analysis undertaken as part of the EURO-CRYST studies on the status and impact, and the strength and deficiencies, of crystal R&TD in Europe in the international context. This survey and analysis present a valuable baseline for strategic and policy conclusions in this R&TD area. However while many specific issues have been treated in-depth in the project studies, some core issues of decisive relevance for the EURO-CRYST concept have, in the Panel’s judgement, not been adequately analysed. These include the scientific-strategic case of a single central European laboratory, including the basic issues related to the projected trans-national/European baseline, financing, staffing, operation, and management of the EURO-CRYST research centre.
C2. The scientific-technical-strategic case of the EURO-CRYST project
C2.1 The R&TD fields, and scope of research, projected for EURO-CRYST
The Panel considered the scope of the science and research, the technical development goals and service functions projected for the EURO-CRYST research centre. The Panel came to the following findings:
· The Panel generally agrees with the core statement of the EURO-CRYST study that "single crystal growth and epitaxial thin film growth as essential links in the production chain are of eminent importance to the microelectronics, telecommunication and information industry" and also to other sectors. It is acknowledged that this basic perspective applies to the whole spectrum of today’s R&TD efforts in crystalline matter and materials, i.e. inorganic crystals, organic crystals, and - with increasing importance – biologic crystalline matter.
It is also acknowledged, as the project study states, that achieving a leading position in advanced crystalline materials and devices requires an adequate basis of fundamental and applied R&TD in Europe, with a shift from "proprietary empiricism" towards more science-based crystallisation technologies.
The Panel agrees that "a most critical element for competitive manufacturing technology in Europe is the existence of a viable infrastructure of related Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SME)" and that "in Europe the formation of SMEs and their operation is seriously impeded by the lack of venture capital, unfavourable tax laws and the absence of logistic, scientific and technological support".
Concerning the projection of a research plan for a EURO-CRYST research centre, the Panel agrees with the project proponents that the scope of modern crystal R&TD is in perpetual evolution, with ever increasing challenges and demands arising from the crystal users’ clientele in science and industry.
To quote the proposers: the "long term" research projects of EURO-CRYST are projected for a life-time of only "3 to 4 years"; and even a core project such as the "Development of SiC for device applications" is projected to have a perspective of only 3 to 5 years (or a bit longer).
· Due to this short term bias of R&TD strategies in crystal research and development, the Panel acknowledged that the research programme of EURO-CRYST as outlined in the 1995-feasibility study had to be regarded as preliminary. Nevertheless, the Panel expressed basic doubts about the R&D scope for the EURO-CRYST laboratory as projected in the 1995 document. The assessors could not recognise a convincing ‘added synergy value’ in crystal research and development when extending from inorganic technical oxide crystals to biological materials.
The revised R&TD scope of EURO-CRYST as of July 1997 is more focused than the 1995 feasibility study. The Panel notes that biological crystal R&TD has been removed and that further changes to its form have taken place. With regard to the specific R&TD tasks outlined in the 1997 plan, the Panel questions the justification of launching centralised heavy R&TD efforts specifically into MBE (molecular beams epithaxy) and MOCVD (Metal organic chemical vapour deposition), in view of the massive investment, Europe-wide, in distributed facilities for these techniques over the past ten years.
Panel’s assessment:
Due to the rapid evolution
of R&TD goals in the fields of crystalline materials and devices, the
specific R&TD goals of a EURO-CRYST trans-national enterprise would
need to be identified and reviewed on a rather short term scale, in response
to the varying needs and interests of science, research and industry. The
EURO-CRYST R&TD programme would have to be a ‘rolling programme,’ and
rather frequent shifts and re-targeting of its R&TD tasks and adjustments
in the participating experts would have to be envisaged.
C2.2 The R&TD communities and users’ collaborations targeted by EURO-CRYST
The Panel agrees, in general terms, with the EURO-CRYST study group that:
· the R&D community of crystal developers in Europe is significant – also in the international context - in its quality, reputation, and integral size;
· this community serves natural sciences research and technical developments, and its services are of strategic importance;
· this community has established a tremendous base in research, technological facilities, equipment, and people;
· this community is rather distributed, mainly in small, or even very small, highly specialised institutes or industrial R&D groups and firms;
· this
community probably has certain weaknesses concerning coherence, information,
interaction, or networking.
The Panel stresses the fact that:
· the distributed groups are firmly based in their individual environment of scientific or industrial/commercial collaborations. There is no clearly recognised demand for a central meeting point. On the contrary, the embedding of these highly specialised groups in their pluri-disciplinary home environment provides essential input, stimulation and also financial support to them for their R&TD agenda and successful work.
· the R&TD clientele in the Austrian/European region related to the R&TD fields of EURO-CRYST (as projected in the revised document of July 1997) is relatively small! Specifically, in this region (apart from eastern European countries) only a very few "free/mobile" experts would be available from academic or industrial research who would or could on a short term basis join a central EURO-CRYST research centre.
· it is hard to assess the solidness of the commitments represented by the numerous letters of support to the EURO-CRYST initiative from individual academics, the majority coming from Eastern Europe. The letters presented do not constitute promises of tangible support, still less commitments from funding bodies. With regard to the quoted support from industrial enterprises, they show clear interest in specific projects, e.g. SiC, but the Panel regards this as too narrow a base for the kind of generic crystal R&TD facility that the EURO-CRYST proposers envisage.
Panel’s assessment:
It is acknowledged, in general terms, that an intellectual case can be
defended for a concrete trans-national R&TD endeavour in this area
in Europe. However, the commitments to EURO-CRYST presented so far from
the targeted clientele (academia, national research centres, industrial
groups, professional associations) are not assessed to be convincing nor
to be of sufficient weight to provide a justifiable base for a EURO-CRYST
research centre. This Panel believes that this weakness of the project
initiative is related to the specific format projected for EURO-CRYST,
i.e. a central European laboratory.
C2.3 The projected format of EURO-CRYST
As indicated above, after some initial ambiguity, the Panel understood that the format projected for EURO-CRYST is, exclusively, a single central research laboratory of European dimension, in Austria.
It is not projected that this (relatively large) EURO-CRYST research centre be built around a ‘large research facility’ which typically is the anchor point and justification of an international research centre. The EURO-CRYST centre is essentially the sum of the high-quality ‘small-science’ R&TD projects and their ‘non-linear added value’, brought together within its envelope.
In its assessment of this issue the Panel was guided by the following:
A centralised large research laboratory of trans-national dimension such as EURO-CRYST can only be justified if it provides large or extensive equipment, beyond the capabilities of smaller laboratories, that would allow R&TD that cannot be achieved in a distributed manner,
and / or,
if it guarantees an exclusive ‘non-linear added value’ through the synergy effect of centralising R&TD groups which hitherto have worked in a distributed manner.
In the Panel’s judgement, a EURO-CRYST research centre, as projected, does not fulfil these criteria.
· The EURO-CRYST study does not propose ‘grand challenges’ in science and technology research that would enable breakthroughs that would definitely require a large central (European) research centre. Nor does the project study propose specific ‘grand facility challenges’ which are beyond the intellectual or technical capabilities of a modern, well-supported and well-managed R&TD department of a university or an industrial R&D laboratory.
· Instead, the EURO-CRYST concept lumps together numerous ‘small science’ projects of high quality and impact pursued by highly specialised individual experts by use and development of relatively small-sized laboratory equipment and instruments.
The Panel sees the following intrinsic difficulties in the projected EURO-CRYST format of a central-site research centre that would seriously impede its claimed synergistic value:
· Within the focused R&D scope projected in the 1997 EURO-CRYST document, a limited inter-disciplinary added value may indeed be envisaged if such R&TD groups were to work in close contact at a single-site laboratory. However, this limited added value would be outweighed by the loss of synergy and stimulation which the centralised groups would experience through their decoupling from their inter-disciplinary R&TD home base and their home-clients (i.e. academia, national laboratories, industrial clientele).
As already pointed out, it is this connection of the R&D groups to their R&D home institutions and to their home clientele which is the real stimulus for their R&TD work and progress. The close local interaction and embedding of these crystal experts is, vice versa, at the root of the high value which these groups represent to their home institutions and to their local environment and which secures their financial support from their home bodies. The Panel notes that some EURO-CRYST speakers in their briefings to the Panel even emphasised this issue which to the Panel appears self-contradictory as this notion does not really support the projected EURO-CRYST format of a centralised trans-national laboratory.
Also with regard to technical crystal research for industrial technology and product development, a strong synergistic value may not be achievable due to limitations on R&D knowledge exchange which the EURO-CRYST management would have to impose in order to protect intellectual or instrumental property rights and the interests of the R&D groups and their clients.
The Panel, however, would not envisage an enhancement of the argued synergistic added value of a European research centre if EURO-CRYST were to keep to its initially much broader R&D scope (which ranged from physical and technical crystals to biologic ones). Such a broad R&D spectrum would put the centralised R&D groups in a diverse and incoherent laboratory framework.
· The Panel admits that in exceptional cases, such as newly emerging complex R&TD problems, a central laboratory with accumulated equipment and expertise could accelerate progress. Also, the Panel does not deny that a central laboratory could more easily offer broad and in-depth teaching or training that could help to promote the quality of crystal science, research, and knowledge in Europe.
However, the Panel sees intrinsic problems:
EURO-CRYST is projected as a research centre of excellence, and this implies that the very best R&TD groups need to be affiliated to the central institution EURO-CRYST. But the Panel doubts that highly qualified leading individual experts or R&D groups could be motivated to leave their home base and join the EURO-CRYST centre. To succeed, the start-up phase would have to be as short and intense as possible; but a ‘green field’ laboratory would not be very attractive in view of existing alternatives.
This issue becomes even more acute due to the rather short time scale under which the R&D programme of a EURO-CRYST research centre would operate (as discussed under C2.2). Centralisation would require that renowned R&D groups and individual top researchers affiliate and identify themselves with the EURO-CRYST centre - by working there in persona and by transferring their specific knowledge and advanced equipment to the centre within a rather short time scale. The Panel doubts that such short term but intense R&D centralisation would materialise, in particular when taking into account the particular implications which arise from the R&TD baseline of EURO-CRYST which targets applied research and industrial developments ("devices").
The Panel envisages that in the Austrian/European region this could result in too few reputed experts being available from academia or industrial research in the projected R&TD fields of EURO-CRYST who would be motivated and also mobile in the short term to join and staff on a temporary basis the EURO-CRYST research centre. (Permanent staffing would in any case have to be minimised due to the continuously changing scope of crystal R&TD.) Experts from eastern European countries might indeed be available due to the limited options offered to them at their home institutes, but EURO-CRYST would need to recruit from across the region, in a balanced way, particularly from the financing member states of EURO-CRYST.
· In turn, the Panel questions why respective home institutions and funding agencies should be motivated to transfer top R&D groups, their knowledge and equipment, including substantial funding, to a trans-national European research centre EURO-CRYST.
It is in fact quite probable that these home institutions and agencies would assess such proposals from the same baseline as the Panel does above. The Panel would envisage a negative response from those institutes and funding bodies when requesting their trans-national engagement in EURO-CRYST, including co-funding, under the projected format.
· The EURO-CRYST initiative rightly emphasises industrial crystal R&TD and industrial crystal users as a most important clientele of a EURO-CRYST centre. The Panel, however, doubts whether this could materialise, particularly in the starting phase of a EURO-CRYST research centre, as there are contradictory strategies for both parties.
Competitive industrial R&TD and production in the fields of crystalline materials and devices, as stressed also by the EURO-CRYST proponents, are generally bound to very short term planning which forces industry to collaborate only with well-established, most-advanced and optimally-equipped R&D groups which are at the zenith of their performance and can respond on-time. Built on a ‘green field’ site, EURO-CRYST would reach such a competitive status, if at all, only after a rather lengthy start-up phase. The Panel therefore would not envisage any serious commitments, including co-financing, from industry during the first five years of a EURO-CRYST research centre.
Panel’s assessment:
The projected EURO-CRYST
format of a single-site large research centre, to be set up on ‘a green
field’ site cannot meet the targeted goals. It will not persuade the targeted
R&TD clientele in academia, national research laboratories, or industry
to use it sufficiently, nor attract sufficient funding from foreign agencies.
C2.4 Organisational and economic-financial
issues of the EURO-CRYST laboratory,
and other issues
The Panel did not analyse in detail the cost estimates established for the projected large central laboratory but would like to make the following points:
The four modes of financing the project (page 323 of the feasibility study) do not appear to be fully realistic. Two issues in particular require clarification. The personnel costs already represent 66% of the budget at the beginning of the operation. This feature needs to be seriously reconsidered in order not to arrive at an unacceptably high level in the longer term of a EURO-CRYST laboratory operation. The projected operational budget is 14% of the construction costs which appears too high from experiences with large facilities’ or large laboratories’ operations.
Management concepts concerning users’ access, R&TD property rights, and related issues:
The Panel considers the information
provided as preliminary but would envisage intrinsic problems for synergystic
R&TD collaboration in the EURO-CRYST research centre due to limitations
on knowledge exchange which the management would have to impose in order
to protect intellectual or instrumental property rights and interests of
the various R&D groups and their clients.
C3. Overall-assessment of the EURO-CRYST project study
The EURO-CRYST project as it stands aims at a European-regional central laboratory in Austria for crystal research and technical developments. The research goals and development tasks of the laboratory are mainly projected to create solutions for the needs and demands of science and industry in other sectors. (It is understood that fundamental research in crystal science in itself is not to be the central task of EURO-CRYST.)
The Panel states that the difficulties and uncertainties identified in the EURO-CRYST concept are such that the project cannot be recommended as it now stands. The main issue concerns the projected format of a European-regional central, single-site, large research laboratory to be set up on a ‘green field’ site.
The concepts, techniques, and uses of crystalline materials to be developed under EURO-CRYST are so disparate, and the evolution of R&TD goals and trends so swift, that no convincing added value would be achieved by massing crystal R&TD together under such a central unitary structure at such high costs.
The staffing and scientifically successful operation of such a centralised EURO-CRYST research laboratory would pose intrinsic problems. The Panel doubts that there would be enough expert crystal developers, in quality and quantity, who would be motivated and free to leave their successful home base and their/local clientele in order to affiliate temporarily with the EURO-CRYST centre. In particular, the inevitably difficult start-up phase of the research centre would be hit by this fundamental problem.
For the same reasons the Panel doubts that foreign funding bodies, in sufficient numbers, could be persuaded to support and co-fund a European-regional EURO-CRYST research centre together with their counterparts in Austria. (In this context the Panel doubts that a financial inflow of more than 50% of the laboratory costs as indicated by the EURO-CRYST speakers would be a realistic planning perspective.)
While the proposed EURO-CRYST
large central laboratory is judged unfavourably, the Panel sees promising
features in a ‘distributed laboratory’, i.e. a networking collaboration
of already existing expert groups in crystal R&TD, initiated and promoted
through a national Austrian effort in trans-national collaboration. The
distributed laboratory format would not only bypass most of the drawbacks
and difficulties identified in the centralised format but would offer convincing
added value. An internationally acknowledged position could be envisaged
for a EURO-CRYST network project.
Concluding remarks
While in the previous chapters the two proposals have been discussed and evaluated each on its own scientific merits and within the international context, the Panel has also given consideration to providing an assessment of the merits of the two proposals relative to one another. Such advice, however, entails more than scientific judgement in its own right. Policy considerations, such as, but not limited to, national priorities in science and/or industrial policy also have to be taken into account. Clearly, to give such advice is not within the formal remit of the panel. However, the panel members had the opportunity to meet with the Austrian Minister for Science on 2 July 1997 and were briefed not only on that occasion but also in addition by civil servants from several departments on issues which relate to government policies. In the light of these discussions, the Panel felt that, whilst not giving advice in these matters, at least some consideration might be offered from a scientific perspective, which seems relevant in view of the decision process in Austria.
Our first remark concerns considerations of "timeliness". Often in scientific endeavours there is a ‘window-of-opportunity’. It would seem to us that despite the duration of the AUSTRON debate such a window still exists for the case of a new facility for neutron scattering. However, the dynamics in this field dictate that strong and decisive action and a clearly led initiative need to be taken in the short term. Otherwise, there is the risk that competing ideas for upgrades and improvements to existing facilities or even new initiatives elsewhere will make AUSTRON scientifically less attractive and, in consequence, unappealing to non-Austrian funding bodies.
Our second consideration concerns the "scope" of a large scientific endeavour. It is desirable that a scientific project convincingly complies with the projected format of its realisation: realisation as a national project; in a bi- or tri-lateral regional collaboration; or, realisation in a wider international collaboration through existing and newly to be created agreements or bodies.
The AUSTRON proposal falls into the second or third of these categories. However, intense efforts would be needed to improve the proposal in order to attract regional or international support for such an investment. The EURO-CRYST proposal, if improved, could as a ‘distributed laboratory’ (and with the reduced scale of that) make excellent sense in a national context, and in a later phase probably in the regional context.
In balance it is not within the
remit of the scientific review panel to advise the authorities on what
course of action to take. Considerations, other than scientific ones play
a role and must be weighted in the context of national policies. But a
credible decision should be reached based on scientific merit.