Discussions: Community Engagement and the Energy Frontier - Johan Bonilla >> We would like to know in Johan is online? JOHAN: Yes, my name is pronounced Johan. All right. So, let me share my slides. >> Are the other speakers there? JOHAN: Yes, just me today. I had another co-chair but unfortunately she's sick, so cannot attend. So it is just going to be me today. >> Okay, thanks. So I hope you can see it now full screen. Confirmation? If you don't, just let me know if something goes wrong. >> We can see. >> Thanks. >> Sometimes Keynote doesn't co-operate well. Hi, everyone. My name is Johan Bonilla. My pronouns are they/them, I'm here to report to you on the community engagement frontier of the papers that we've been put together - and as I will mention later in my talk, one of the bottlenecks I think in further engagement from the community is knowledge of the things that are happening in the other frontiers, and community engagement frontier is one of the newer ones that's been - that has a lot of growth this time around in Snowmass. So, anyway, my purpose here is to go through them. A lot of this is going to be just a report of showing you what we've done, but I will try to point out things along the way that I think are particularly important for the with that, I will get started for it. General structure. So there are seven of these topical groups. Excuse me, I can't see. I can't see my screen! We are going to do it .. that's better. The first topical group is in the bridge between the research that's done in national labs and universities, and how this translates into industry, and how we can learn from industry, and respect flow, technologies, and knowledge to industry. Our second topical group is on career pipelines and development, so this has to do with training, with understanding what it is that folks that are in the process of climbing the academic lad questioner from students, to postdocs to young faculty, how they're being prepared, how to better prepare them, to continue in academia, or transition into industry. The third topical group is diversity and inclusion topical group. Then there are two topical groups that are focused on education, so one of them focuses on physics education, CEF4 and, and CEF5 focuses on public education and outreach. CEF6 is relevant to us here, and I will mention that, in some of the details on that later, but this is public policy and government engagement. This has to do with many of you might be aware of a trip to DC for lobbying for funding for different institutions. This is where these discussions happen, and there are papers that are being produced from that, to foreign recommendations going forward. Last but not least, CEF 7 is a new topical group created actually about less than a year ago, so it has been a little different dynamic than the other one, so created after the long because that we all had, and this focuses on environmental and social impacts. So first I will start off with the submissions, so, normally, when you submit these contributor papers, you indicate which topical group they normally fall under. So some of them straddle a couple of them, but these three in particular were submitted to the CEF, to the community engagement frontier, but are interested general. So for instance, search and silence and excellence in physics. The second one, which I'm going to focus on later, going through the report, has to do with the survey that was sent out to the Snowmass community, and I also, I listening it here, but I also link it later. It has very, very useful information, lots of interesting thoughts that help us understand how people feel about their - how informed they are of different frontiers as well as what kind of time constraints they have, whether their institutes are supportive in various aspects of our careers, whether that means mentoring, teaching, research. It is a very, very interesting paper, and that said, I'm going to focus on that a little bit later. And then the third one falls under this general undergrad - Sanford underground research. First up, I mentioned the application s and community engagement frontier topical group. There is a total of I think nine of these papers submitted. So some of these are quite specific. But I think relative to the frontier is the very first one, is application-driven engagement with universities and synergy with other funding agencies. A lot of our research might focus on R&D and in particular new technologies, so how they work with funding agencies to do this, and this is an interesting one if you want to take a look. And then there are many other ones on microelectronics, and things of that nature. I'm not going to go too much into detail on this because it's just too much to cover. The last two that I have here, so these are currently in submission, and they should be public relatively soon. This is the second topical group, career and development, this has to do with training. I think all of these are relevant to the as you know, a lot of our work tends to be narrow in the sense of what career choices you are trained to do, if you tend to follow the academic line, but of course not everybody that participate and has research will stay and have research - will stay in academic research for the rest of their lives. This is important to take a step back and better understand how we can better the pipeline to help everybody. Then the last two have to do with, just - so this is the transition into HEP careers, how we can facilitate that, training or mentoring with folks from outside of HEP, connecting to alumnae, things of this nature. The second one has to do with how to better the participation of undergraduate institutions and colleges. These are institutes that don't have the traditional funding to do, say, high-energy physics research, but still there is a lot of potential in these students and faculties that teach at institutions, so I really encourage you to take a look at these papers, so they have a lot of good things to say. I'm going to slow down on this next topical group because it's where I have the most expertise in, and I can give you a rundown of how this all ties together. So first off, we have the lifestyle and personal wellness in particle physics. This has to do with anything in mental health to how and what facilities are available for folks in different parts of their lives, so, by ... for example, whether paternal leave is guaranteed in various institutes, so whether there are adequate, say, breast-feeding facilities, for example, at your university, or at your lab or place of work; how this all affects the person. Has the person - the person at the end of the day is the one that is conducting the research, and it is important to take care of that person. The second one I have here is accessibility in HEP. A lot of this is learning through this experience of Snowmass. A lot of the people in in contributor paper are early-career scientists, and a lot of of this, a lot of the topics covered in this paper came out of the formation of the early-career Snowmass, Snowmass early-career group. That's where the letter of interest was born with people from the that group, and eventually, it transitioned into this top group of diversity and inclusion. There are lots of good recommendations here that I think we should should be taking more seriously going forward. One of the things we can consider that we recommend here is having lots of advance time for folks who need to arrange particular accessibility things, so say, closed caption ing, or a translator, an interpret er - having enough time for folks to be able to co-ordinate with the organisers of either a conference, or a workshop to be able to facilitate them, be fully productive in these places of work. Next up is the strategies and outreach, and education and inclusion. That has to do its very wide - it is a very wide net. On the fourth one that I have here, I'm going to have a slide on this later. It has to do with - it first started, the original name of the paper was, "High-energy physics in developing nations" but one of the issues we had is that we don't have the person power or the knowledge to talk about every single part of - to touch every part of the globe. Rather what we have is folks that have personal knowledge from their experiences in Africa, and in Latin America, so we decided to focus on this, and point out kind of some things that we all know, like we all as the authors of this paper that we all know through, personal experience, through anecdotes, but being able to pull all these publications that we can finds to together into a cohesive form for folks to understand the situation in Africa and Latin America for either folks that are coming from these countries, studying that other institutes, or staying in their countries, and trying to build a new group, so on and so forth. So I will cover this in a little bit. The last two are in submission. One of them is climate of the field, that is being head by two early-career scientists. And this is also a very wide far-reaching, that the scope is very wide, and it challenges our - what it is that we consider ... sorry, it covers things like code of conduct, the how that was made, whether there were any obstacles, whether the collaborations or institutes were receptive to this, whether there were any barriers, and, as you can imagine, there are many participants of this working paper that some of them come from large collaborations, like ATLAS CMS, and others come from smaller collaborations that are just a handful. So there is a wide range of experiences when it comes to developing things that affect the climate of the individual collaborators and how we all come together to set rules for each other, so that we all can work peacefully, and adequately. And then last but not least is building a culture of equitable access and success for marginalised communities. This tends to define a lot of the experiences that folks from these communities that things like this, these people experienced, so this is also very wide-ranging, a definition of these two should be wrapping up this week. So I promised I would go into some detail on this. So this climate of the field, I wanted to show here the contents to give you an idea of what we do. So there is some introduction, but immediately, you start talking about some of the reports that have already been put out, so for many of you may have already heard of the Team Up report that has been public for a few years. There's been climate reports, and this one in particular we focus on LGBTQ reporting, and there is the others that have visited several collaborations. We try to condense this into something readable. If there is anything in here that you're particularly interested in knowing about, you can do the reach-out to me or the original authors. There is again a very wide range of things that are being discussed, and so anyway, in the interests of time, I just wanted to show you here the contents of the paper, but I don't really have time to go into detail on this. If there is one thing that you all should be able to go in and look at, it is the summary of this, so, at the moment, the paper is not public, but like I said, by the end of next week, you should be able to check the main Snowmass page. If you go to the left side, there's a tab for the contributor papers that are submitted, and you can scroll down to the community from here, and this should be one of the ones that fall under the community engagement CF03 topical group. Now, I want to talk about one of the papers that I worked on in detail. This has to do with why the US should care about HEP in Africa and Latin America. This is a map of CERN users based on their institutes. For example, I was born in the United States, but my family is from Costa Rica, normally, I carry two nationalities, but one, there is no HEP experiments in Central America. There are some people, but no normal established group. And if you look at the places in white versus the places that are coloured here, it goes along economic lines. And this is one of the things that we wanted to point out while being very careful about how to phrase these things, but generally, what we know is that in order to have a successful group that conducts high-energy physics experiments, you need a significant amount of funding, and you need to have the support of some sort of funding institution. So I will give you the example of myself. In Costa Rica, this is a rather stable country, with long history of democratic elections. There is a good amount of technology that comes out of that country as well, lots of IT expertise. However, they haven't been involved at CERN, which, if anything, Costa Rica should be one of the best candidates for if you're talking about developing countries, for working at places like CERN. If you look at South Africa, it is South Africa and Egypt are part of this, some other countries that have connections to other European countries connected to this, but by and large, most of Africa is not involved with CERN, and this is true if you look at a map for DUNE or other large collaborations. The question is why is that a case? Is it a money issue? Yes, it's a money issue not necessarily that the country doesn't have the funds to do this, but rather that you need to convince someone in a country that doesn't have the history of participation in these kinds of collaborations, you need to convince them that their investment is worth it, so for Costa Rica, recently I've been working on opening up a LHCb group. The reason that we had to go with LHCb is that the rather larger ATLAS and CMS had large membership fees that were quite rigid. Whereas LHCb allowed us to have in-kind contributions, and provide expertise in the sense of data sifts and engineers, because those are the people that are trained right now. So it was based of this negotiation that we were able to get a proposal put together that was attractive to the government of Costa Rica, and so anyway, my point here is that it was very important for there to be flexibility in the rules, especially when it comes to the amount of money they have to pay up front, the amount of opportunities that you're given at the beginning, because at the end of the day, a lot of these countries are - I kind of, I kind of paralleled them to say when I was a grad student living month to month based on a very small salary. A lot of these countries are living on a year-to-year fiscal quota. If you come up and say you can get involved right now with very little money down, that is much more attractive to that country, and if you think about how they can develop their country and make it, build a workforce, or transcend their level of research, that is the kind of thing that allows them to walk into the door. There is willingness, there is excitement, there is talent, lots of talent and these countries, and more usually what happens is that folks have to leave their country, study abroad, and either find the job abroad, or come back and work in industry because there are no opportunities back home. So there are lots of programmes out there that say we will pay for students to come to do research at CERN from developing countries with the assumption that they can go back and apply these skills in their countries. That's more easily said than done. And so this is exactly the kinds of things that we tried to talk about in this paper, and what I have here on the right are the recommendations, specific recommendations, that we put forth to the community, so some of these might sound kind of general, but one of the things that we've noticed along the way is that this is just not written down any more. There is no - folks just kind of understand this is the way that we should go, but what we want to use the Snowmass process is as a formalised way to accept this as a community and move forward. So in here, we mention that it is not just, like I said, if you have a student that goes to say, goes to CERN, I work at CERN, and I'm using that as an example, goes to CERN and comes back to that country, it's not as effective if you can also say provide cross-pollination to get a US-based research scientist to come in the - have lunch, and talk to each other, and learn together as a collaborator, as an office mate as we would do at CERN in these countries, because a lot of these countries don't have the money to send these students abroad. They also might not have the history of research professor, so again, I'm using the idea of Costa Rica. The idea of a post doc was very, very new, at any of the public or private universities in Costa Rica. So when we were proposing this idea of joining LHCb, we were required to have a post-doc and it took a lot of working in the legal advising from people in the government of Costa Rica in order to provide this kind of position, because it just didn't exist. So anyway, there is a lot of stuff that we take for granted that just doesn't exist in other countries, and if we want to make our research more global, then we need to consider the fact that we can't be measuring everyone with the same stick. We can't ask every institute to come in and pay the exam the exact of money when the economy of their country are orders of magnitude different. So with that, I will keep moving on to some of the other contributed papers that we had. So this continues still on the topical group three on diversity and inclusion. This, I put them all together, because it's the same group of authors. So there are three papers, those three that you see up top, but what I find very interesting and useful is that they also provided a guideline to how to understand these kinds of papers putting out their terminology, putting out their context and all of these things. If you have the time to look into this, and I encourage you to do so, I start off with the bottom one first which explains how to read the top one. Then we move on to physics education. So in physics education, we have four topical groups in which the third one also I've already shown it before, appears on one of the previous ones. It's about broadening again the scope of education, career, and open science and HEP. This is a very broad topic but of course it would fall into some of these topical groups. I'm trying to think if there is anything else that I wanted to say in this case. Other than the fact that there is one more paper that is in submission at the moment that is at the bottom. I will keep moving along. So then there is physics education and outreach. That is tied to the previous topical group, and a lot of the authors you might recognise being involved in both. But I will mention later that outreach is something a lot of us are interested in. However, a lot of us don't have the time or the incentives to actually put time and effort into these efforts. And this changes depending on what kind of career stage you're at. So in, you know, there are all sorts of ways that you can do outreach. Outreach could be done within your community, could be done on a global scale, and all of these have different permutation, challenges, whereas things that you should not treat all outreach the same. So this is what it trying to be done in these non-traditional papers in particular, and I think the first one also mentions what I was mentioning there about how a lot of us have the interest, but the incentives might not be there from our institute. That it is not encouraged or discouraged in some way. I'm almost done with the list of these. So, in CEF 3, this is the public policy and government engagement. These have not been public yet. If you're interested in contributing to this, you can still do so. The best way for you to do that is to join the Slack channel. There is an overleaf for all of these. I should have put the Overleaf for these that are in submission. But, I will mention what they are. So the first one has to do specifically on what is called, or what informally is called DC trip, so there is advocacy that happens from us, the community members, on a congressional level. There is all sorts of considerations that one might take when going up there, whether intercommunication strategies, what kind of scope you want to be thinking, whether you're talking to someone who is on a cheat, or whether there is someone who is part of the general floor, so all of this is covered in that first, on that first paper. Of course there are other types of public engagement that are not necessarily tied to congressional apportionment. This is what the second paper aims's to tackle. This is the newest group which is to do with social and environmental impacts. I was asked by the convenor to point out the second line, the word public, the paper is public. You're encouraged to endorse this paper. It has to do with the climate impact of particle physics, so the fact that we want to build a bigger accelerator or telescope, that comes with a very large carbon footprint. So this paper tries to tackle some issues and explain them. This Indico page is used as a way to endorse. You can go to the register page, and the register page is an endorsing page. There are only three tabs. You can see the endorsors, the overview, and so if this is something you feel strongly about, I encourage you to take a look at the paper and endorse it if you feel so inclined. I will finally move on to the last bit that I think has a little bit more meat. All of these - these come from the Snowmass survey report paper. This is public on the archive, these plots are coming from the archive. I will explain them in a second. They're, there is a lot of rich information in this, so I will walk you through them. I will give you a general idea again, so I already told you that there are seven of these topical groups where CEF was formed about a year ago, across all of these - *across the topical groups, there were 22 contributed papers under the community engagement frontier, and of these 22 papers, it was approximately 100, let's say in the roughly, roughly 100 members, that were contributing within this frontier. And one thing I want to point out is that the community engagement frontier, unlike some of the other frontiers, are - it intersects the rest of them, whether you're neutrino, cosmic, energy, implementation underground, there is some form of community engagement that you have to deal with on your daily life. So in the sense, it's interesting that if you look on the right-hand side, this is the participation of books, whether this means they're actively working on something or just interested in it, the community engagement frontier is amongst the lowest, has the lowest amount of people engaged actively in this. However, it is something that affects all of the other frontiers. What this plot also on the top right shows, if you can see, that there is interest. If you look at the disparity between the blue and the orange, so the orange is the amount of people that are interested in this, so, you can think about the orange being behind the blue. If you're working on it, you're also interested in it. The orange shows that it is quite balanced. It is interestingly, the ... - cosmic shows more interest. Not everyone contributed to this study, but all of that information is shared in the paper that I mentioned. But the conclusions that we can get from this is that there is much less participation within the community than we would expect, given the interest, and the impact that this frontier has on the rest of them. And of course there are reasons for this, right? On the right-hand side, sorry - sorry, on the bottom right-hand side, this is another plot that shows the same information, so if you take the histogram of the community engagement and you split it amongst the topical groups, at the time, CEF 7 wasn't there, and you can see how the different engagement groups, community engagement topical groups are affected by this. So again, the one that has the most interest and most participation is the diversity and equity and inclusion group, followed by the public education, sorry, physics education, and then public education and outreach groups. The one all the way to the right is the government engagement group, and the one with the least amount of active participation is applications and industry with, and then the second one just to finish, just to come full circle, the second one is, yes, I'm ... but, anyway, my point is that there is interest bell they usually lack incentives, and this is something the paper tries to explain and put into context. I have here another plot from the same paper, so the question that's been posed for this is how informed does the community, so everybody in Snowmass, feel on the various frontiers? So, to me, it was a little bit difficult to read this, so, it all adds up to 100, right? Where blue means you're not informed at all and five means you're informed. If you see something with blue or orange, you don't know what is going on in that frontier. If you look at where the orange ends, that gives you a good idea of how many, what percentage of people that were surveyed feel whether they're informed or not. So the more to the right that orange lines ends up going, the less informed people are. You can see here, the community engagement frontier, along with the undergrad frontier, the ones that lead this question, in other words, people feel less informed about the community engagement frontier, and the underground frontier than many of the other frontiers. Whereas the other way you can think about it is where you can look at the purple and the red, and this is where people feel they're very well informed, or quite well informed of the activities in these frontiers, and you can see the usual suspects are up there, neutrino, energy, and cosmic, are the ones that are leading this with the community engagement frontier, and under ground where folks feel they're not very informed about. The next slide is on a different question, so the question is, on average, how much time do you spend on the various different career-related items over the course of a year? On the left side, we're talking about faculty at universities, so, you know - sorry, yes, teaching faculty, research faculty, or any faculty that falls under some sort of university. On the right-hand side, those that tend to work at national labs. So the first thing I want to mention is there are five items that the survey group considered to be relating to your career. The other category means that they spent time on something else that we had not considered. So in a way, because everything kind of is normalised to one year, you can use that very first row of other to show how much uncertainty or how much budge there might be in some of these. So to notice here is that outreach - sorry, let me explain the colours. So yellow and orange means that you don't spend very much time on this, and the darker the blue means they spend a lot of time on this. So, you know, the obvious candidate for what people spend most their time on is research, so the very bottom one will be right? So completely dark, maybe blue, that means folks that didn't respond to this particular question. Look at what is in teal and the sage colour. Research, most people spend more than half of their time on this, which is no surprise. For faculty at teaching at universities, you can see that teaching becomes a strong important amount of - you know, percentage of their time that they use in their job. And it tends to be pretty one-to-one with mentoring. Again, this is no surprise. Then when it goes to outreach and advocacy, you can see that there is very few people have dedicate a lot of time to this. Most people do not have the time to dedicate to outreach and advocacy. However, like I said, there is interest, as we've seen in some of the previous plots that I showed, and this is explained in this paper. On the right-hand side we have the behaviour for research scientists. This is where leadership is one of the things that the folks tend to focus a lot of their energy on, on service work, advocacy and outreach, and mentoring tend to be the ones that are, that folks tend to not have the time to dedicate to. Finally, on this set of plots from the survey, is on support from the Home Institute, so whether this is a lab or university, this is all put together. Yellow and orange means that this institute does not - it actively hinders these three tights, so to me, it was quite interesting to see that for a considerable number of folks, their home institute hinders their research, and there are many reasons for this, particularly on the philosophy of the university, if they have a high teaching responsibilities, or things of that nature. You know, this might account for some of these things at the bottom, but certainly outreach and mentoring, it is, what I see here is that the institute doesn't quite help. Most of it is that it neither helps nor hinders, or it somewhat helps, but very few people have - not a very few people, but less than we would like to see here of the folks that were surveyed, have strong support from their home institutes. So, all of this is connected in the sense of, things start, there is structural changes that need to happen at various institutes, and the institute level, and collaboration levels in order to help some of these observations that we just saw in these plots. So with that, I want to end with advertising if any of you are interested in attending either the whole thing, or parts of the community engagement frontier workshop that is to take place May 24th to 26th, and it will be fully virtual, and you can register at that that I have here. With that, I will have to to exit my full screen, because I can't see the chat window from the keynote, and I want to dedicate the rest of the time that I have in the session to - one, answer any questions that folks might have, but also to open up for discussion to the community. I have a few prepared statements of both - of folks that have asked me to raise a question for you all, and I will have that - I will pose those when I go through the hands that I see up. I will first check the chat. So, is there a chair, or should I ... >> See somebody on Zoom. JOHAN: Kevin? >> Sure, can you go to the slide where you showed the world map for a second? Yes. I mean, I wanted to make two points about it. First of all, thank you for the engaging and useful and important points that you made here. I think jag with everything that you said. One - *I think I agree with everything you said. One of the things I didn't see was that I wanted to repeat the obvious here that a lot of - as you said, a lot of the issues here is because of the wealth discrepancy between some of the countries you see here in white and the other coloured countries. But it is also, if you look at where particle physics has a lot of activity and a lot of resources, and you look at the countries where there is very little, it is also because I'm sorry to remind people of this, but the direct exploitation of Central America and Africa, by the countries, and the US is by no means the only country, but certainly one of the major ones. I think there is also the point that there is a severe moral imperative of this relative success is also based on fortunately that is. Right? Part of the story, that exploitation of both resources and unfortunately really people. And so in the other point I wanted to make is that if you look at some of the countries that have evolved over time from being less wealthy to more wealthy, you know, for example, like China and India, you just see that there is for a long time, there were a lot of people who came to the US in these fields, a lot of my colleagues are from there originally, and you can see there is a lot of talent there that has come and I think also similar, must by also be a lot of talent from the countries here in white as well that haven't been given those opportunities yet, so that is another reason, that there is real talent there as well that hasn't been given that opportunity, and I think those are important somehow to capture in all of this, even if it is not politically easy to put it down as a bullet point. JOHAN: I totally agree with everything you're saying. From my own personal experience in Costa Rica, the reason - there is good education, there are good literacy rates in Costa Rica, but no opportunities, because there is, how can I say, the class structure is a lot more subtle in some these countries where although you might educate yourself as much as you could in the public system, there is still, how can I say, echos of the kind of influence of like Costa Rica in the United States in the 1950, and a similar situation happening with Cuba, and anyway, that still survives today, right, where the folks that are empowered, the folks that are in academia and these countries, it's that class of folks that tends to continue to have those opportunities and the lower class, there's very little up ward - there is very little upward mobility of the class in many of these countries, so although one programme to help them do one research stint in some university, that is not going to change the culture of that country. There needs to be greater opportunities where folks can really run with it, and create their own spaces. Thanks for that comment, Kevin. >> I have - we can alternate between the room and Zoom. I have a question, but first let me thank you for a very nice and comprehensive talk about what the community engagement frontier is doing. I have actually two questions for you. One is maybe I may have missed it, but in this diversity and inclusion, is there a paper or some recommendations about how to engage within the US institutes, and sort of have better representation of underrepresented groups moving forward? In physics? JOHAN: That would fall under this very bottom one. I can't see because of the Zoom. That is ... >> So the building culture and equitable access. Yes. That would have some recommendations on best practices? Thank you. JOHAN: Yes, and this is one of the widest reaching contributed papers, and it is the reason we haven't been able to submit it yet. It is wide-reaching. We want to make sure that folks can endorse it, or it has sensitive information, right? Lots of these recommendations are quite strong, so we're taking the time to make sure that we all agree with this. >> One of the plots towards the end. One of the important aspects of our lives is missing where I spent most of tie mime is especially as a female faculty doing service to the university, to my EGP community, that takes an incredible amount of time. That part is severely missing from there. It is not teaching or mentoring, or whatever. We do that, but service as a faculty. You have to be on many committees, you have to write many letters, you have to, you know, represent your gender, whatever. Thank you. JOHAN: Yes. It is considered here. I wasn't a part of the folks that made this survey, but I see that there is an option here for service. I did notice it doesn't show here for the of course cult. That is a really good point. I will pass that message along. Are there any questions, now we've done the room on Zoom, I see Chip? Go ready? >> Thank you for the nice summary. I wonder in your education group is anybody thinking about [inaudible] in universities and colleges? We teach thousands of credit hours every year in general astronomy, and physics of power, and all kinds of things. Kind of a unique thing in the United States, but it is an educational opportunity that is not aimed at STEM necessarily because these folks go off and change the world in other ways. But it's a really important constituency that doesn't quite the same thing as outreach, where the general public occupies a unique spot. JOHAN: You mean in particular teaching non-science majors? And science literacy. >> Exactly. Because I've devoted myself to doing entirely that. JOHAN: That's a good point. One of the things about this process is that the next thing that comes up is the topical group reports where a lot of things have fallen through the cracks, where, you bring something up that is very, very relevant. What I can do is I can pass this comment along to the convenors of the CEF04 group so it is agreed in one way or the other. I don't know the ins and outs of the paper and if it is included in any of this. I will make that note and pass it along. >> Three comments to make. The first one on programmes. With countries under development. There used to be a CERN programme called E Planet that allowed people from central and South America to go to CERN. That was extremely useful. It used to be a programme which I took advantage of. Great people came to CERN and many of us went to South America, Latin America for a month or two, or a few weeks, and that was very beneficial both ways. So, something similar could be envisioned also in the United States. And also with Africa, for example, or other continents. So I think that was extremely useful and really I think helped both ways. Get work done at CERN as well as making sure the stronger links between CERN and Latin and South American countries, and it lasted for five years or more, but it's something that we have revisit, not only for CERN but also for the United States. JOHAN: Could you repeat the name of it? >> E Planet. I can give you more details, if you like? JOHAN: That would be great. I didn't catch your name? >> Alessandro. JOHAN: Yes, I message you. >> Another comment on on more for inclusion. I think these kinds of meetings, which are hybrid, they're very useful, and after the pandemic, we should learn to move towards hybrid meetings, conference s at all levels and workshops. This would facilitate the participation of people who have issues travelling, or have families, or other constraints, and cannot travel, and allow also younger people for funding reasons cannot travel, so they I think - so that would be more inclusive moving forward to have a hybrid meetings and conferences, and workshops. I think it would be very useful. CERN experiments is what we do typically, but the conferences typically, they're in person. We could learn from the pandemic and moving in that direction. JOHAN: I agree. And I'm glad you brought this up. One of the points made in the accessibility is the cost that come along with various accessibility issues, say, the one that just comes to mind is having either a closed captioning service that is made by a human and not by an AI programme, because in particular our jargon is quite hard to understand, even for a human. And these costs if you do them in a one -time deal are quite high, but if this is considered something that you do all the time, and have like a dedicated budget for this, many of these companies that provide interpreters, or closed captioning, it is certainly more reasonable prices if you have several - book for several meetings rather than doing a one-time thing. This is really important because it becomes prohibitively expensive to do the same thing every time of this one time service as opposed to including it as part of the budget, just the thing you do every time that you organise a workshop or a conference. It makes it more accessible for host institutes to be able to provide this kind of much-needed assistance. >> Yes, I saw people in the chat are also saying hybrid meetings are more climate-friendly, and for other reasons they support it, and also the recording. We post all the recordings, and post all the transcripts of all these meetings this week. Can I make a last comment and pass it over. This meeting, for example, several examples of - several sessions are being closed captioned. It is expensive, if you turn it on, there is a nice person closed captions in there. I think I don't know how useful it is for the general community, but there is something that definitely several people need in order to participate actively, so I think moving forward, there should be a way more centralised to provide funds for closed captioning, or to facilitate participation of people with impairment. And it is difficult for the organisers who have no funds to start with to do it, so this week, it kindly, B and L, DI provided the funds, may not happen the next meeting. It is just a one-off. We couldn't even close-caption every single session because of lack of funds. We are grateful to B and I for providing these funds. There should be a more centralised way of coming from central agencies, I don't know, in a way that people can tap from those funds when there is a meeting and when there is need for participation with impairments. JOHAN: Just to make a comment on that. Closed captioning is useful for many people, especially, just now, like I'm working with this in my own convenorship in CMS, we have folks who English is not their main language and seeing them having it written in in text helps them understand it more, and folks with issues with attention, this also helps them focus. There are lots of reasons why closed captioning would be helpful. It's not because you might have a hearing impairment, or something along those lines. It's quite useful. The more you look at it, the more useful it becomes. >> Do you have something on Zoom, the next question? >> Oh. Yes, I do. May I ask one? >> If there is nothing on Zoom, I will ask a question. So, just a quick comment on - I really understand and support accessibility, but I'm glad to hear that you all are looking into the funding issue, and trying to bring it down, because that is the impediment right now, and for every Energy Frontier workshop, we've tried to do that, and we've been lucky to have funds from Brooke Haven a couple of times, so we're really thankful to them. On the other hand, hybrid meeting is the way to go but I also want to remind everyone that it also costs something, and if I wouldn't have gotten funding from the initially when Energy Frontier workshop, preregistration, we suggested some funding to be on Zoom, or some registration fee, because it costs for us to host this in a way where it is reliable, it is - and works for everyone. However, there was a pushback. People, while we want these conveniences, and it is not only convenient, it is part of our life, how we're going to move forward to be inclusive, but then we also have to think about the cost which comes along with it, and we cannot pass the cost to the in-person registrant to make it free for Zoom participants too. So, this should be also one of the recommendation s if possible in the Community Engagement Frontier because it costs to be hybrid. >> I'm trying to think if it is explicitly mentioned somewhere. I personally don't know the explicit costs of this hybrid meeting. This is something we are starting to do now, so if it is not included in any of these papers, it is definitely part of the topical group report to come out in May. So I will follow up with that. >> Yes, I would be happy to share what I've learned through this process. Thank you. >> Thanks. I know we've got four more minutes. There is one thing I did want to share or a question I would like to put out that will be included in this very last paper on marginalised communities, and it has to do with the fact that a lot of our students or post docs when it comes to CERN, there is institute support at your local university, but that institute support tends to stop once you leave the state, or you leave the country. So things like healthcare to support folks that whatever it is that they need to have, I am trans, and I don't go through hormone therapy, but I know that being here in Europe, it's a very, very different system, and a lot of us don't understand how this all works, and having to go through that ourselves is a lot of burden on top of getting a PhD, or on top of doing a research, or on top of whatever it is you need to do. So there are a lot of things we take for granted in our own universities, that we might be proud of how far universities have come with various aspects of diversity, equity, and inclusion, or taking care of humans, sometimes there are disconnects between where your actual work place is and where your institute support is, and sometimes it doesn't connect well. So in that sense, I would encourage you all to think about this, about how we could make this better, how we could provide support for folks before they move and also a lot of the reasons that folks decide not to move or stay away from the action, say, at CERN, is for these kinds of considerations. I definitely thought about that when I was moving out here, and that was really difference between choosing one opportunity over another. So I wanted to make that up. I think we've got two more minutes. Is there another question in the room? >> I think there are a couple more questions here. I wanted to make a remark and then a question. The remark is it is impressive what you guys have done and I thank you for organising this big effort. I noticed it is Snowmass 2013. We had precisely two contributed papers in this front tear, now 30 and hundreds of authors. You done a great job. In the Energy Frontier, it is missing which needs a white paper itself and I'm making an appeal to the Energy Frontier community to try and do something about this. So one of the two papers submitted last time is one called "benefits to the US from physicists working at accelerators overseas." And I think this is a case that we really have to make to our government, and it is very important that it be written up for Snowmass. Actually, I was the principal author of this paper in 2013, and I didn't think we did a very good job, because it wasn't really social science, it was much more anecdotal. Frankly, I don't know how to do better, but I'm sure there is someone in our community who does, and I would really appreciate it if someone out there could put effort into this, please look at what we did in 2013. I'm sure you could do much better. I'm glad to help you. Get in touch with me if you want to work on this. JOHAN: The kind of training that we do at CERN while being overseas, it's not just research training, it's also training on how to work with people from different cultures, from different systems, from different perspectives, and that is invaluable, and definitely of use to the US have a whole. I can follow up on this. >> I have two comments. One is the chart at the slide. I think these must be very different for women and men. So I think self-reflection for our community, it would be useful to separate them. The other comment I wanted to make is I think these efforts are really nice, but we also need to make sure that we don't overlook the situation that we have for people of colour and low-income people in the US. ... to provide our up on resources to help them overcome these barriers. We need more resources that are coming from our institutions that are coming from the government, because this is not just about creating a welcoming environment. These students really, really do need actual resources that are going to help them be prepared for STEM fields. >> You can see the difference when it is a real person doing captions or some AI algorithm. You can turn the sound off, see if you can follow it. With this captioning for this meeting, I've been able to follow the meeting turning the sound off, but I can't generally speaking when it is like the Zoom AI tool. So I was wondering, is it possible if people consider instead of coming up with special sources to pay for this, or donations from various people, or organisations, you know, just adding a nominal fee to the Zoom registration? Is that something that is possible? Because if you split it up over 100, or 200 people, it's maybe not so bad compared to ... >> Thank you. Kevin, so Brooke Haven gave us $5,000 and we couldn't even cover for a total of four days for this meeting, so this is what it is. So clearly, this is untenable, right? We got a certain amount of money to tailor to what we could afford. Clearly, the need is there, and I support the efforts of the community engagement frontier to bring this forward and somehow figure out a community deal to sort of get the costs down. >> That's why I was suggesting if we have a $30 fee for joining the Zoom. >> So a $30 fee for joining the Zoom, so, 400 people have registered. If we tried to pay something, $25 even on Zoom, we could afford some of this, but also plus there is another 3,500 for media for this week, so that is what it costs for hybrid, so $8,000 for not complete accessibility, not complete captioning, so, sorry, I will give it to Alessandro who has more of the numbers. >> I just want to say, I think, so, moving forward, I think we have an option. We have to do it that way, and the only way to proceed is how to make it affordable. And there are different ways. One, organisations can have their own captioning hired for meetings with special contracts. This is one way. The other way is having people in Zoom paying. Now, in this meeting, for example, we don't know what to do, because coming out of the pandemic, some people are uncomfortable, people are uncomfortable travelling, so it is important to have the meeting free connected by Zoom. In a year, it may not be the case, people connecting to Zoom at conferences may have to pay a little amount, but may have to pay. But there are different ways. I think cost is not necessarily an issue, and it should not be an obstacle. It's a matter of political will, and consensus, and discussion how to make it affordable for everybody. I agree, I think it is useful. Also, for me, sometimes, just reading the closed captioning can be useful. It is something you miss when people speak and you understand better looking at the transcript, and also, it works for minutes too. But just to give an example. I see Sam also has a raised hand. Maybe the last question and then we close the meeting? Sam? >> Yes, I think I just agree. I was going to lower my hand but I agree with everything you said. I don't think the solution if we're talking about accessibility. I don't think it's the solution to pass off costs to the individual. This is very much it seems like if it is an accessibility issue which should be solved at a much higher level and should not be a concern when people set up these meetings, there should be a dedicated fund or group of people that are hired explicitly to do this, otherwise it's making things less inclusive for other people. >> Thank you. Johann, I think we are close to the end? Final words before we close the session? JOHAN: I want to thank the engagement that I've seen from the room. To be 100% honest, I was worried that that I wasn't going to get engagement and I was asking a lot of people to ask questions and it didn't need to happen. I'm very happy and reassured from my community y'all that you care about these issues, and more than happy to talk to anyone about anything that I mentioned. I'm an open book. So thank you for giving us the opportunity to share with this, and to have a great hour of discussion. Thank you, and I wish you a good rest of the workshop. >> Thank you. [Applause]. >> 25 minutes for coffee, and we continue with Strong Interactions sessions. 35 thrive, three-five. So 25 minutes' break. [Break].