Science for Peace and the need for Civil Clauses at universities and civilian research institutions
Authors:
J. Altmann,
U. Amaldi,
M. Barone,
A. Bassalat,
M. Bona,
J. Beullens,
H. Brand,
S. Brentjes,
D. Britzger,
J. Ellis,
S. Franchoo,
A. Giammanco,
A. Glazov,
C. Heck,
H. Jung,
S. Kraml,
L. Lönnblad,
M. Mangano,
M. Renneberg,
Th. Riebe,
A. Sabio-Vera,
R. Sanders,
J. Scheffran,
M. Schmelling,
T. Schucker
, et al. (5 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
After the end of World War II, the commitment to confine scientific activities in universities and research institutions to peaceful and civilian purposes has entered, in the form of {\it Civil Clauses}, the charters of many research institutions and universities. In the wake of recent world events, the relevance and scope of such Civil Clauses has been questioned in reports issued by some governm…
▽ More
After the end of World War II, the commitment to confine scientific activities in universities and research institutions to peaceful and civilian purposes has entered, in the form of {\it Civil Clauses}, the charters of many research institutions and universities. In the wake of recent world events, the relevance and scope of such Civil Clauses has been questioned in reports issued by some governments and by the EU Commission, a development that opens the door to a possible blurring of the distinction between peaceful and military research.
This paper documents the reflections stimulated by a panel discussion on this issue recently organized by the Science4Peace Forum. We review the adoptions of Civil Clauses in research organizations and institutions in various countries, present evidence of the challenges that are emerging to such Civil Clauses, and collect arguments in favour of maintaining the purely civilian and peaceful focus of public (non-military) research.
△ Less
Submitted 28 May, 2025;
originally announced May 2025.
Charting the European Course to the High-Energy Frontier
Authors:
U. Amaldi,
E. Aslanides,
R. Barate,
C. Benvenuti,
P. Bloch,
T. Camporesi,
A. David,
D. Denegri,
M. Diemoz,
L. Di Lella,
G. Dissertori,
N. Doble,
J. Dumarchez,
J. Ellis,
J. Engelen,
C. Fabjan,
B. Fuks,
P. Gavillet,
A. Hoecker,
J. Iliopoulos,
P. Innocenti,
W. Kozanecki,
P. Lebrun,
C. Llewellyn Smith,
C. Lourenço
, et al. (28 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
We review the capabilities of two projects that have been proposed as the next major European facility, for consideration in the upcoming update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics: CLIC and FCC. We focus on their physics potentials and emphasise the key differences between the linear or circular approaches. We stress the uniqueness of the FCC-ee programme for precision electroweak physi…
▽ More
We review the capabilities of two projects that have been proposed as the next major European facility, for consideration in the upcoming update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics: CLIC and FCC. We focus on their physics potentials and emphasise the key differences between the linear or circular approaches. We stress the uniqueness of the FCC-ee programme for precision electroweak physics at the $Z$ peak and the $WW$ threshold, as well as its unequalled statistics for Higgs physics and high accuracy for observing possible new phenomena in Higgs and $Z$ decays, whereas CLIC and FCC-ee offer similar capabilities near the $t \overline t$ threshold. Whilst CLIC offers the possibility of energy upgrades to 1500 and 3000 GeV, FCC-ee paves the way for FCC-hh. The latter offers unique capabilities for making direct or indirect discoveries in a new energy range, and has the highest sensitivity to the self-couplings of the Higgs boson and any anomalous couplings. We consider the FCC programme to be the best option to maintain Europe's place at the high-energy frontier during the coming decades.
△ Less
Submitted 31 December, 2019;
originally announced December 2019.
