Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Should Ireland become a member of CERN?

13

Comments

  • #62
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    flynnlives wrote: »
    this is what they mean
    The countries of origin of supplies and services shall be CERN Member States, except

    Except. You're sinking your own battleship. 'Except' means the claim that Ireland will not get contracts because it is not a member of CERN is wrong. WRONG.
    And why cant we compete against England, Germany and France?!

    I'm not saying we can't. I do think it might be a bad calculation that we could.
    are you really that ignorant to assume Irish companies cant compete with these countries?

    No.
    What exactly is your issue with this idea? you seem to have some gripe with spending 1 million euros on the project. If only you would but your energy into whining about the billions we sunk into literal black holes like anglo.

    I'm asking questions exactly because billions were spent to protect the privileges of bond holders who don't deserve one fucking cent of their failed speculating underwritten by we Irish people - I despise that that is happening - if I, and many others, had our way they wouldn't be getting one cent back.

    Now, do you understand why I'm asking if we spend Irish people's money what return will we get for it?


  • #63
    EoghanIRL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭EoghanIRL


    I was at a talk given by Steve Myers. He couldn't stress how important it is for Ireland to become a member .


  • #64
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    EoghanIRL wrote: »
    I was at a talk given by Steve Myers. He couldn't stress how important it is for Ireland to become a member .

    A Belfast born graduate of QUB and director of CERN (financial support from member countries pays his wages I presume) is hardly going to say 'meh, it really doesn't matter if Ireland is a member or not'.


  • #65
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Hmm? Ireland will get some contracts relating to CERN regardless of membership, but isn't it clear that we are excluded from many others due to lack of membership? (people do seem to have provided examples, of companies and people, losing opportunities due to lack of membership)

    I agree that spending €1 million on insulation, will be a better more immediate economic benefit today, but spending it with CERN allows a longer-term economic benefit through opening up a wider range of tendering with CERN projects, and through better providing for our graduates who want to study in these fields (promoting the number of students studying these fields, providing knock-on benefits within our economy due to the increased knowledge/skill base there).

    It's both a long-term economic and knowledge-base investment, with knock-on/side benefits in increasing both the number of science graduates, and the skills of workers in these fields.

    I'm not well practiced on the arguments surrounding this, but the benefits do seem clear enough?


    It's also not a mutually exclusive choice between spending €1 million on insulation, or CERN, since there are alternative methods of funding which allow us to do both - we should be setting our spending limits, based on employment (< 2-4%) and inflation (also < 2-4%) targets, which alternative methods of funding allow.

    So in short: We can do both anyway, and gain the economic/worker-knowledge/skill-base benefits of each.


  • #66
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 99,665 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Charles Rocher wrote: »
    I did and it does not address my question - which you've ignored too.
    You are like our government reserach budget - interested only in the short term. You want to give loans that will be paid back in taxes.


    'Ifs', 'buts' and 'might haves'. If we hadn't spent money on the space race we might have had an amazing network of inter-continental fiber optic cables 40 years ago. See that? I can bend the ifs and buts to cast aspersions on counter-arguments too.
    The space race didn't lead to fancy pens or non stick pans

    but it did lead to a major miniaturisation in semiconductors, without which having a fibre optic network wouldn't have been much use. ( yes it was the Japanese who figured out how to make transistors without relying on diffusion which was a huge jump but still)


    Xerox's , Palo Alto research centre sounds like it would have developed some fancy photocopiers. You know when you open your email and click print ? almost everything involved , from the laptop to the mouse, to the laser printer to the windows, to the networking and social interaction with computers can be traced back to them. They were 20 years ahead of everyone. Only problem was the huge cost of the hardware. (and yes the Canadians invented the track ball in the 1950's)

    Here we wouldn't have supported them because the payback time was too far in the future. The US is still benefiting from the dominant position they got in the computing world from that.

    Here our research funding is more like loans. In a lot of cases it's more or less a subsidy for local companies R&D.

    CERN is like venture capital. You don't expect a payback. But sometimes you get a payback that pays for everything. I mentioned the ITER for that reason.

    In the scientific world there are a couple of game changers that might happen. If someone figures out a better way of storing energy - I don't believe we can get nuclear isomer storage working (neither fission nor fusion) but if we did then you'd have rechargable "batteries" that could power an aircraft for a year and no radiation. Particle accelerators are kinda handy for the whole nanotech field, stuff like better solar panels, faster electronics that use less power.

    Pasteur said "chance favours the prepared mind".


    The other wonderful thing about CERN is that like Astrophysics there is very little profit to be made in the day to day discoveries, this means the research results are freely available. A lot of the stuff we fund here is commercially sensitive so information is at best only visible through a paywall.

    Another argument is that we fund the arts even though it doesn't have a financial payback, and it's a niche area, not everyone is interested in the arts. Funding CERN is just the same except, if you believe such things, for the other hemisphere of the brain. Just look at the reaction over the Higgs Boson.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Ireland should join CERN for the sole reason that Ireland apparently is a big supporter of R and D .We're not but we should at least appear to be.


  • #68
    debit2credit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 192 ✭✭debit2credit


    rte.ie wrote:
    Membership fees are based on national economic output, so ironically right now, it would prove relatively inexpensive for us to join. Senior CERN managers estimate full membership would cost Ireland in the region of €12 million a year, associate membership one tenth of that.
    In return Irish companies could compete for CERN contracts worth €500 million each year. Irish Government agencies would be able to have an input into CERN’s direction and operations. Our students would more easily be able to participate in CERN’s many education programmes. But perhaps most important of all, it would allow Ireland to be a part of an enormous movement of cutting edge science, and access ideas, knowledge and experience

    Would ireland be more likely to access to the valuable contracts on the 1m observer or 12m actual membership?

    1m for what seems like a 'newsletter' seems a waste of money while 12m might actually bring tangible benefit?

    Also what is the official language of CERN? If it isnt English its value to us might be limited.

    Can someone explain what links we have with the US equivalent?


  • #69
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 99,665 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    debit2credit wrote: »
    Also what is the official language of CERN? If it isnt English its value to us might be limited.
    Yip, the difference between literature in the arts and sciences is that you can translate the nuances in books without loosing meaning, but not research papers ?


    And what is the official language of Ireland ?


  • #70
    debit2credit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 192 ✭✭debit2credit


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Yip, the difference between literature in the arts and sciences is that you can translate the nuances in books without loosing meaning, but not research papers ?


    And what is the official language of Ireland ?

    Sorry what point are you trying to make here?

    I'm referring to the project work, tender presentations, "political influence and decision making", educational projects etc... is English the language used there?


  • #71
    NTMK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,575 ✭✭✭NTMK


    debit2credit wrote: »
    Sorry what point are you trying to make here?

    I'm referring to the project work, tender presentations, "political influence and decision making", educational projects etc... is English the language used there?

    English primarily with french on some projects


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    laugh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭laugh


    We could have built a couple of Large Hadron Colliders in the bogs with the wind turbines instead of bailing out the banks.





    Did I just cause a rip in space time?


  • #73
    conorhal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,098 ✭✭✭conorhal


    donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »
    The Irish government have absolutely no interest in fundamental scientific research at the moment. It costs a lot, is prone to failure, takes ages and ,in their view, has no commercial benefit. CERN is probably the most fundamental of fundamental research therefore does not fit the current model of spending. I think this model is short sighted and extremely harmful to the Irish research community but sure there ya go, no one wants to hear that.

    So yes we should join, but we won't.

    When you think about how over 90 million has been spent on an incenerator for Dublin that hasn't and probably never will get built, the tens of millions spent on the Thornton Hall site for a new prision and the bucket loads spent on Irish water so far without so much as a drip from a tap, it kinda make me angry that we probably could have been Cern members for a hundred years for the money we've wasted on projects with no foresight at all.
    Sure, it's entirely possible that the money could have been spent without seeing a single result, but if you're going to piss money up a wall, which wall would you rather see it pissed up? That of pure science .....or on a field with rotting sign that says 'coming soon...'


  • #74
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Okay then, nobody can give anything even approaching a guarantee that spending millions on CERN will stimulate Ireland's economy (the claim in the OP) unlike, say, spending it on refurbishing schools, insulating homes, building cycle paths all of which are guaranteed to take people off the dole and get them spending locally.

    I'm glad we cleared that up.

    What's utterly ridiculous is the 'look how much we've wasted on x, y, and z' non-argument as an excuse to potentially waste even more money.
    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Ireland should join CERN for the sole reason that Ireland apparently is a big supporter of R and D .We're not but we should at least appear to be.

    At least that's a more honest appraisal. People are making the argument to spend money on CERN based on values, fine. When the argument is 'we're not throwing money into a black hole', or if it's based on some nebulous claim on economic return-on-investment in a time and space far from now, well, that gets my geiger counter clicking loudly.


  • #75
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    The thing is though, we can do both - we can put money into CERN as well as restoring pretty much full employment, using the alternative funding method I mention.


  • #76
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Scientific research is a no-lose area of economic development:

    That's a bold claim Kyuss. Scientific research gave us the thermo-nuclear bomb which serves no purpose other than mass destruction and death. Listen to a couple of Ben Goldacres talks on how bad science is harming people in the medical field.


  • #77
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Charles Rocher wrote: »
    That's a bold claim Kyuss. Scientific research gave us the thermo-nuclear bomb which serves no purpose other than mass destruction and death. Listen to a couple of Ben Goldacres talks on how bad science is harming people in the medical field.

    If it's bad science then it isn't real science.


  • #78
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Charles Rocher wrote: »
    That's a bold claim Kyuss. Scientific research gave us the thermo-nuclear bomb which serves no purpose other than mass destruction and death. Listen to a couple of Ben Goldacres talks on how bad science is harming people in the medical field.
    Heh, true certainly :) I more meant though, that it's a field of effort that you can sink a pretty much infinite amount of work into, while still getting returns - the social/economic usefulness of it though, does depend upon what areas of research you put that effort into.


  • #79
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    If it's bad science then it isn't real science.

    No true scientist, eh? :)


  • #80
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Charles Rocher wrote: »
    No true scientist, eh? :)

    What?


  • #81
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Realistically would our membership of CERN come from our existing research and education budgets or would it come from elsewhere, because if it comes from our research budget the argument about not being a member forces a certain number of graduates to leave to pursue research in it becomes an exercise in cherry picking because 1 million euro is enough money to fund 30/40 PhD students in a time of scarcity in terms of research council budgets, I doubt this number is smaller than the amount of researchers forced to leave to enter CERN


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 99,665 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Scientific research is a no-lose area of economic development:
    No experiment is ever a complete failure. It can always serve as a bad example.


  • #83
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 99,665 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Charles Rocher wrote: »
    Okay then, nobody can give anything even approaching a guarantee that spending millions on CERN will stimulate Ireland's economy (the claim in the OP) unlike, say, spending it on refurbishing schools, insulating homes, building cycle paths all of which are guaranteed to take people off the dole and get them spending locally.

    I'm glad we cleared that up.

    What's utterly ridiculous is the 'look how much we've wasted on x, y, and z' non-argument as an excuse to potentially waste even more money.



    At least that's a more honest appraisal. People are making the argument to spend money on CERN based on values, fine. When the argument is 'we're not throwing money into a black hole', or if it's based on some nebulous claim on economic return-on-investment in a time and space far from now, well, that gets my geiger counter clicking loudly.
    Stick to your short term thinking.

    Yes we can refurbish schools. But back in the 1980's if you were an electronic engineer it was pretty much a case that you either got a job in Philips or emigrated or stayed in the education system until you got a job in Philips or emigrated.

    We spend far more money on third level than primary. We could probably get a world class primary school system if we just accepted that a lot of technical people will emigrate because there aren't certain high tech jobs here, shut down those third level courses and used the savings to sort out the student/teacher ratio in primary.






    There is no question that funding CERN would help us retain some great talent and we'd get enough kickbacks that it wouldn't all be one way.

    We could easily provide the same infrastructure/jobs with money from other stuff. €12m a year is what An Post get for collecting 90% of the TV license fee.



    Past performance is no guarantee of future returns but CERN has already justified it's existance.


  • #84
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Charles Rocher wrote: »
    Okay then, nobody can give anything even approaching a guarantee that spending millions on CERN will stimulate Ireland's economy (the claim in the OP) unlike, say, spending it on refurbishing schools, insulating homes, building cycle paths all of which are guaranteed to take people off the dole and get them spending locally.

    I'm glad we cleared that up.

    What's utterly ridiculous is the 'look how much we've wasted on x, y, and z' non-argument as an excuse to potentially waste even more money.



    At least that's a more honest appraisal. People are making the argument to spend money on CERN based on values, fine. When the argument is 'we're not throwing money into a black hole', or if it's based on some nebulous claim on economic return-on-investment in a time and space far from now, well, that gets my geiger counter clicking loudly.

    Well actually there's a large possibility of economic gain


  • #85
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    There is no question that funding CERN would help us retain some great talent and we'd get enough kickbacks that it wouldn't all be one way.

    The claim in the OP has yet to be backed up.
    Charles Rocher wrote: »
    Okay then, nobody can give anything even approaching a guarantee that spending millions on CERN will stimulate Ireland's economy (the claim in the OP)


  • #86
    debit2credit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 192 ✭✭debit2credit


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    Realistically would our membership of CERN come from our existing research and education budgets or would it come from elsewhere, because if it comes from our research budget the argument about not being a member forces a certain number of graduates to leave to pursue research in it becomes an exercise in cherry picking because 1 million euro is enough money to fund 30/40 PhD students in a time of scarcity in terms of research council budgets, I doubt this number is smaller than the amount of researchers forced to leave to enter CERN

    This.

    And it would appear realistically it's closer to 12m to get the tangible benefits?


  • #87
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Well actually there's a large possibility of economic gain

    'Possibility' don't pay ma bills mmm hmmm.

    I'm outa here.


  • #88
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Why do I take some people in After Hours seriously?


  • #89
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    Realistically would our membership of CERN come from our existing research and education budgets or would it come from elsewhere, because if it comes from our research budget the argument about not being a member forces a certain number of graduates to leave to pursue research in it becomes an exercise in cherry picking because 1 million euro is enough money to fund 30/40 PhD students in a time of scarcity in terms of research council budgets, I doubt this number is smaller than the amount of researchers forced to leave to enter CERN
    I think that no matter what way we try to evaluate this within our current economic management, it's a lose/lose situation all around, because we're always going to be trading off one thing or another (budget for the increasingly crippled health service, vs social welfare, vs R&D, vs CERN etc.), and there are things that will have a higher short-term demand that take funding away from other longer-term funding goals - so, in an economy focused on fiscal contraction, you'll never find a good balance.

    I don't evaluate this based on our current mismanagement of the economy though: There are alternative means of funding available (that we can undertake entirely on our own, without EU help), which allow restoring the economy to full employment, as well as funding full membership into CERN - that'd be what I advocate.

    The issue here, is not an issue of whether we should take funding from one thing or another, the core issue is actually that the economy is being mismanaged, and that we have alternatives to current policies that aren't being taken.


  • #90
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    debit2credit wrote: »
    This.

    And it would appear realistically it's closer to 12m to get the tangible benefits?

    The answer is we don't know. The beauty of physics research is that it often yields a lot more than we expect.

    On the price front the state is wasting millions a year on public bodies. I can guarantee that Cern membership is worth more than that.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    flynnlives
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 739 ✭✭✭flynnlives


    Charles Rocher wrote: »
    Except. You're sinking your own battleship. 'Except' means the claim that Ireland will not get contracts because it is not a member of CERN is wrong. WRONG.


    I'm asking questions exactly because billions were spent to protect the privileges of bond holders who don't deserve one fucking cent of their failed speculating underwritten by we Irish people - I despise that that is happening - if I, and many others, had our way they wouldn't be getting one cent back.

    Now, do you understand why I'm asking if we spend Irish people's money what return will we get for it?

    I already explained the exception rule. And this rule probably applies to a very small percentage of tenders.
    The rule for job applicants very much applies.

    If you would look at the tenders you would note alot of construction related tenders and these are of high value in the millions. How many out of work builders are there in Ireland?
    I have no doubt that if we were a member we would gain more opportunities.

    Ireland has an issue with spending money correctly. Irish water being a prime example. Actually we are experts at wasting money. 150 million spent on consultants in one year.
    1 tenth of that would cover our membership and allow graduates of many fields to apply as well as tenders from Irish companies.
    Not too mention the potential spin off long term companies that could be created. Add to does the spin of ancillary companies.

    Imagine a scenario where an irish engineer invents a new type of of extraordinary U value insulation because cooling stuff is a big part of the accelerator. He then launches a spin of company in ireland making this new insulation. do you see a pattern here?

    You have not backed up any claim that this venture would be a negative.
    All you have managed to do was say that a miniscule amount of tenders are open to Irish companies. And conveniently ignored the job opportunities.

    Our dear leaders seem to have a hard on for proclaiming that we are a knowledge economy and a high tech hub. Yet we are not part of the most sophisticated and complex experiment ever built and performed by man.

    And im sorry but relying on corporation tax and generating 1,000's of jobs answering phones in call centres is not a road to success. Its not even a knowledge economy.

    Its just repeating the same mistakes of the past. We in Ireland who continue to vote for the local gombeen are only interested in 5 year cycles.


Advertisement
Advertisement