Search Results

This chapter examines the ATLAS Collaboration from a leadership perspective. It first looks at how leadership in general may be conceptualized and then at how the concepts play out in the realm of science. Like other Big Science projects, the ATLAS Collaboration operates at the forefront of knowledge creation. The kind of leadership it requires is not vested in a single individual but is distributed throughout the collaboration. ATLAS's project management team has little formal control over the 3,000-plus members of the collaboration. These remain attached to national institutions and are accountable only to them. How, then, does a scientific collaboration as large as ATLAS generate and sustain creative and constructive interactions among several thousand scientists and engineers of diverse cultures, traditions, and habits? And, given the complexity of the tasks involved, how does it align such interactions with its experimental goals while keeping the project's stakeholders happy?

This chapter focuses on the inter- and intraorganizational dynamics that characterizes Big Science. It shows, first, that the high stakes associated with a unique, next-generation particle physics experiment will lead actors to collaborate and share resources; secondly, that, given the uncertainties, a loosely coupled institutional framework is essential for the pursuit of such a collaborative approach. The way that the ATLAS Collaboration deals with the collective action problem holds valuable lessons for all organizations — commercial, government, voluntary, and so on — involved in the production of knowledge in the 21st century. The chapter begins by exploring the nature of collective strategies and the varying degrees of collaboration they engender from a theoretical perspective. It then briefly describes the functioning of the ATLAS Collaboration as a collective practice. In a discussion section, it brings theory and description together in order to make sense of such a practice. It concludes with a brief look at the implications of the analysis of Big Science collaborations for the scientific enterprise as a whole and for science-based commercial collaborations in particular.

The detectors are the instruments used to register the particles produced in the proton collisions and to reconstruct their tracks. This chapter describes the two main detectors employed at the LHC: ATLAS and CMS. The four main components common to both detectors are the trackers, the electromagnetic calorimeters, the hadron calorimeters, and the muon chambers. Both the ATLAS and the CMS detectors are built around powerful magnets that are needed to bend the trajectories of the charged particles produced in the collisions. This chapter also describes the trigger, which is the electronic system for identifying potentially interesting collisions events that are retained for offline analysis. The other experiments at the LHC are shortly presented. The chapter concludes with some observations on the human aspects of scientific international collaborations.

In a very personal reflective essay, Marzio Nessi, the technical coordinator of the ATLAS Collaboration at CERN, recounts Max Boisot’s work and interaction with the particle physics community at ATLAS and CERN, whose research on the Higgs particle, the famous “God particle”, has attracted a lot of media attention. Boisot was interested in the creation of knowledge at ATLAS and studied its unique organization, characterized by collaborative behavior, a bottom-up approach, and a consensus-driven management style, which has enabled this Big Science institution to create a new way of dealing with extreme complexity. Boisot was fascinated by how a scientific collaboration as large as ATLAS generates and sustains creative and constructive interactions among thousands of researchers from diverse cultures, traditions and habits. He believed that the self-organizational capability of the collaboration was the key to success. Boisot’s research also laid the ground for studying how scientific and technical progress is made and how the value of basic research can be captured for society.

This chapter takes the reader on a tour of a NWS forecasting office’s ecology, operations, and culture to ultimately settle into a discussion of the basic routine of a forecast shift—from the moment the incoming forecaster gets briefed by the outgoing forecaster to the moment she releases the NWS forecast to the world. While thoroughly intertwined in practice, the three main components of the forecasting task, to be considered in turn, are data analysis, deliberation, and forecast production. This step-by-step breakdown of the forecasting process sets the stage for the sustained examination of particular aspects of meteorological decision-making in the chapters to come. But it also fleshes out and elaborates pragmatist theory of action with the day-to-day realities of diagnosis and prognosis at the NWS.

This chapter looks at the institutional infrastructures for global research networks in the public sector. Drawing on the results of a survey and case studies of e-science projects in the United Kingdom, it argues that “soft” institutional infrastructures can facilitate the formation and conduct of collaborative research initiatives in the public sector, such as those which aim to be truly global in scope. The chapter also examines ownership of research data or processes, citing the example of medical images, and the role of authorship in protecting the integrity of scientific collaboration. Finally, it highlights the legal issues that are related to the authorship and copyright of intellectual property developed in many e-Research projects.

This chapter discusses Newton's collaborative chymical project with Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1693. By examining Fatio's hitherto unstudied letter to Newton from the summer of 1693 in conjunction with Newton's manuscript “Three Mysterious Fires”, the chapter shows that the latter text represents the fruit of an elaborate set of procedures devised by Newton in conjunction with Fatio. These processes were related to another set of operations from Newton that Fatio recapitulates in the aforementioned 1693 letter. The procedures that Fatio quotes from Newton provide an important key for understanding both Keynes 58 and the laboratory notebooks. In a word, they are simplified procedures for making such important desiderata as the caduceus of Mercury and the scythe of Saturn, Decknamen that arise in the records of Newton's experimentation and reading notes.

Fatio was not the only chymist with whom Newton collaborated in his maturity. After his move to London in 1696, Newton was evidently approached by the obscure “Captain Hylliard,” who wrote a brief alchemical manifesto that the now famous intellectual and Mint official copied. This chapter provides an extensive analysis of the episode with Hylliard and describes Newton's extended collaboration with the Dutch distiller William Yworth, which also took place after Newton's move to London. Beyond casting new light on the processes behind Yworth's Processus mysterii magni and linking them to Newton's late florilegia, the chapter also uses a recently discovered manuscript in the Royal Society archives to show that the document actually contains the record of a live interview between Newton and Yworth.

Existing models of the division of cognitive labor in science assume that scientists have a particular problem they want to solve and can choose between different approaches to solving the problem. In this essay I invert the approach, supposing that scientists have fixed skills and seek problems to solve. This allows for a better explanation of increasing rates of cooperation in science, as well as flows of scientists between fields of inquiry. By increasing the realism of the model, we gain additional insight into the social structure of science and gain the ability to ask new questions about the optimal division of labor.

The epistolary correspondence networks and the socio-linguistic habits of scientists working in formally constituted groups, informal gatherings, and the friendship, research, and collecting networks of private individuals is framed by the various utopian fables and schemes for erecting scientific institutions, fables that partly influenced the foundation of the Royal Society itself; and the epistolary provides a virtual, utopian space of correspondence where scientists and virtuosos discussed, developed, and practised a functional rhetoric that served scientific exchange and advancement. As members of a scientific republic of lettters, these correspondents were open to rhetorical devices and fictions to support the ‘virtual present’ of their interactions, especially ones that framed matters of fact with ‘lively representation’ and imaginatively insulated speculation and debate within their literary community. Additionally, their careful observance of the ceremonies and civilities of epistolary exchange (the social signals that replicated presence in absence) also enacted the Baconian–utopian ethos of scientific, intellectual collaboration and cooperation that was repeatedly referred to but not always borne out in scientific practice.

This chapter examines how collaborative research affects the epistemic cultures of science. It begins by arguing that some groups of scientists hold views that are irreducibly the views of the group. The chapter also examines some normative issues that have arisen in the epistemic cultures of science. First, it considers how collaborative research threatens to erode the traditional notion of authorship in science. Second, it examines how collaborative research in science affects refereeing. The chapter argues that the norms of authorship and the refereeing practices have not developed to address the challenges encountered in the cultures of science where collaborative research is commonplace.

Collaborative authorship is the overwhelming norm in science. Yet philosophical issues that arise in this context have received little direct attention. The chapter examines several difficulties inherent in establishing authorship in the context of collaborative research. Using case studies, the chapter considers collaborative research that relies on multiple authors, collaborative research with a single author and many collaborators, and radically collaborative research that is distributed widely over disciplinary expertise, time, and space. The chapter argues that the first two types of collaborative research leave a standard understanding of authorship untouched, while the third yields a novel class of significant challenges for our common understanding of authorship.

Scientific discoveries are all, to some degree, collaborations with colleagues who have various affiliations. The subjects in the research group whose primary work was consistently or significantly interconnected with others were John Kendrew (with Max Perutz) on the structure of myoglobin; Konrad Bloch (with Edward Tatum and Feodor Lynen) on the structure of cholesterol and fatty acids; Emilio Segrè (with Owen Chamberlain, Clyde Wiegand, Thomas Ypsilanti) on the antiproton; and Joseph Murray (with Francis Moore, George Thorpe, Roy Calne, George Hitchens, Gertrude Elion) on kidney transplantation. The collaborative role of the individual Nobel laureates interviewed is described. The collaborations of all of the Nobel laureates were based on intense desires for learning and capacity for teaching.

This article presents a rudimentary model of collaboration with the aim to understand the conditions under which groups of scientists will endogenously form optimal collaborative groups. By analyzing the model with computer simulations, I uncover three lessons for collaborative groups. First, in reducing the cost borne by scientists from collaborating, one benefits the members of the group. Second, increasing the number of potential collaborative partners benefits all those involved in a collaborative group. Finally and counter intuitively, this model suggests that groups do better when scientists avoid experimenting with new collaborative interactions.

Global Intellectual Property is not only about regulating the protection and movement of IP subject matter. Ethical and regulatory questions pertaining to the impact of knowledge and technology are becoming more prevalent. This chapter deals with one such topic, namely the global challenges that lie ahead for IP and development in the Genomic realm. Genomics impact all mankind and are the result of global scientific collaboration across borders. Genomics signify the interface between: intellectual property, development, and globalization. This chapter focuses on the developmental, legal, ethical, and social challenges and costs pertaining to genomics. The chapter considers the effects that genomics have on individuals and the general population. Specifically the chapter considers the impact on health, insurance, industry, cloning, harvesting body parts, population control, as well as criminal prosecution based on personal genetic characteristics. The chapter proposes a global legal structure pertaining to the collection and use of genomic data.

Digital technology has a direct impact on copyright doctrine, but its impact on the production of informational works and the institutional arrangements for their protection is not well understood. This chapter examines the role of authorship in protecting the integrity of scientific collaboration, highlighting the legal issues that arise in the copyright of intellectual property associated with many e-Research initiatives. It first discusses the production and protection of digital informational works before turning to the different conceptions of authorship protected by law.

This initial chapter of part 2, “Training in Theory,” analyzes Darwin’s late-voyage scientific ambitions and his return to seek a place in the British geological community. It also introduces part 2’s major themes, particularly those of mentorship, collaboration, authorial credit, and the cultivation of audiences for scientific work. Sponsel argues that the well-known affinities between Darwin’s theories and those of the geologist Charles Lyell were more a product of their close working relationship than Darwin’s earlier reading of Lyell’s books. This master-and-student collaboration offered distinct benefits to both men while creating obligations on both sides. The chapter examines Lyell’s reputation as an eager generalizer or theorist who had been criticized and even parodied by contemporaries such as Henry De la Beche. Just as Darwin distributed zoological, paleontological, and botanical specimens from the voyage to relevant experts, so he shared his geological theories with Lyell, who helped craft them for publication in ways that would be mutually beneficial even when the two men disagreed, as they initially did on the formation of coral reefs. Not only did Darwin continue to develop his reef theory after the voyage, he did so in ways that emphasized his allegiance to Lyell’s geological principles.