Click for next page ( 214


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 213
Appendix A History of Government Funding of Basic Science Research and the Development of Big-Science Projects in the Context of High-Energy Particle Physics MaryJoy Ballantyne Research Associate National Cancer Policy Board Institute of Medicine The National Academies

OCR for page 213

OCR for page 213
Contents Part I: HISTORY OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF UNIVERSITY- BASED BASIC SCIENCE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING Pre-World War II, 218 1787: The Constitutional Convention, 219 1807: Survey of the Coast, 220 1862: The Department of Agriculture and The Land Grant College Acts, 222 1870: United States Weather Service, 223 1879: U.S. Geological Survey, 225 1887: The National Institutes of Health (NIH), 227 1916: The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), 228 1931: Lawrence Berkley Laboratory, U.S. High-Energy Particle Physics, 230 1937: The National Cancer Institute (NCI), 232 Change in National Focus: Earth Sciences to Physical (Laboratory) Sciences, 233 World War II, 234 1940-1941: National Defense Research Committee (NDRC) and Office of Scientific Research and Defense (OSRD), 234 1940-1945: The Manhattan Project, 235 Post-World War II, 239 1946: The Office of Naval Research (ONR), 239 1946: The Department of Energy (DOE), 240 215 217

OCR for page 213
216 APPENDIX 1947: The National Laboratories (component of the DOE), 241 1950: The National Science Foundation (NSF), 242 1952: CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research), 242 1954: The President's Science Advisor, 243 1989: The End of the Cold War, 243 Part II: ISSUES IN CONDUCTING LARGE SCALE COLLABORATIONS IN HIGH-ENERGY PARTICLE PHYSICS 246 Funding, 247 Allocation of Federal Science Research Funds, 247 Traditional University Funding Mechanism, 249 Large-Scale Versus Small-Scale Research, 249 Basic Versus Applied Research, 250 Organization, 251 Size and Personnel, 251 Choosing Collaborators, 252 Communication, 253 International Collaborations, 253 Management, 253 The Spokesperson, 254 Management Issues, 254 Compensation, Career Advancement, and Academic Recognition, 255 Universities Research Association (URA), Inc., 256 Staffing and Training, 257 Intellectual Property, 263 CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES 263 265

OCR for page 213
Since World War II, the organizational framework for scientific research is increasingly the multi-institutional collaboration. However, this form of re- search has received slight attention from scholars. Without a dedicated effort to understand such collaborations, policy makers and administrators will contin- ue to have only hearsay and their own memories to guide their management.... (AIP, 1992) This paper is a supplement to a study conducted by the National Cancer Policy Board on big science in cancer research. As the study committee ven- tured out in search of the available literature to address the issues in our tentative outline, including how large-scale projects should best be priori- tized, funded, organized, managed, and staffed, we received an abundance of verbal and editorial affirmations regarding these issues and the direction we were taking, but no analytical scholarship. To date, no studies have been conducted in the biological sciences to address the questions we are asking. Instead, we were repeatedly referred to the field of high-energy particle phys- ics the field that inspired Alvin Weinberg to coin the phrase "big science" in 1961 (Weinberg, 1961~. The origins of the field of high-energy particle phys- ics, as well as the evolution of federal investment in science research, can be traced back to before World War II. During our study of this field, we found a wealth of interesting and helpful historical summaries, papers, surveys, and thoughtful analyses that address directly or indirectly several of the issues the Board has associated with big science in cancer research. This paper is divided into two major sections. The first is a brief account of the organization of a group of key federal regulatory and funding agencies that have influenced the formation of current federal science and technology policy. This account is presented in the form of a selected chronological history of the government's earliest support for basic and applied science research, both intramural and extramural, lead- ing up to university-based publicly funded research. Though the section is outlined as a chronology according to the agencies' founding date, there is noticeable but unavoidable overlap in several of the subsections. The second section examines several of the issues unique to the develop- ment, pursuit, implementation, and practice of big-science projects in the field of high-energy particle physics, as indicated by scientists and policy makers associated with that field. PART I: HISTORY OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF UNIVERSITY-BASED BASIC SCIENCE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING It has been basic United States policy that government should foster the open- ing of new frontiers. It opened the seas to clipper ships and furnished land for 217

OCR for page 213
218 APPENDIX pioneers. Although thesefrontiers have more or less disappeared, thefrontier of science remains. It is in keeping with the American tradition~ne which has made the United States great that new frontiers shall be made accessible for development by all American citizens. (Bush, 1945bJ Traditionally, the U.S. government has used its resources to pursue matters of national importance. As the country's foundations were being laid, the nation relied very little on matters of science. Though U.S. scien- tific pursuits had a slow start, strong foundations were formed early in the nineteenth century through federally sponsored research programs in agriculture, national security, and commerce that facilitated significant momentum in government sponsorship of public-based scientific endeav- ors in the early part of the twentieth century. It should be noted that before the surge of federal funds into public research programs, private philanthropic foundations, such as Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Smith- sonian, provided much of the earliest support for university-based basic research. This was definitely true for the field of high-energy particle physics, which received most of its initial support from such foundations as Rockefeller and Carnegie (Heilbron et al., 1981~. Pre-World War II In the United States, the period of time closely preceding, including, and following World War II had a significant impact on the govern- ment's investment in university-based scientific research. During the decade surrounding the war, from 1940 to 1950, various key people and events facilitated the creation and expansion of several science-oriented federal agencies whose main objective was sponsoring public research, thus enabling the expansion of federal policy regarding science research. The foundation for these developments had been laid during the previ- ous century through the government's involvement in a variety of sci- ence research programs in the areas of exploration, agriculture, security, and settlement, though most of these initial programs were intramural in nature. These pursuits led to the organization of a few federal agen- cies that conducted or sponsored science research, including the U.S. Coast Survey, the Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Geological Survey. Although the government hired civil scientists to assist and conduct research on these federal projects prior to World War II, it allo- cated little funding directly to universities in support of scientific educa- tion, training, and basic research. During and directly after World War II, federal science policy was created and refined into the federal fund- ing of university-based scientific research, which continued to evolve to form the substantial endowment that has become the accepted and ex- pected norm today.

OCR for page 213
APPENDIX 1787: The Constitutional Convention 219 The idea that the federal government should become the patron of science was easily within the grasp of the framers of the Constitution, which was written by educated men who held all branches of philosophy in high regard, and who knew that European governments often supported sci- ence. As they went about their political task of writing the Constitution, they gave consideration and debate to the constitutional position of science with regard to the federal government they were establishing. Debate en- sued during the Constitutional Convention of the late 1780s, as proposals outlining government's relationship with science were presented. Propos- als for a national university devoted to advanced scientific training, societ- ies chartered by the government, technical schools, and prized and direct subsidies for creative effort could all have become realities. Because of a fear of powerful central organizations, the consensus was to restrict the powers of the central government. The Constitution, ratified in April 1789, contained very little language directly related to science. However, it did include the concepts of "internal improvements," "general welfare," and "necessary and proper," as well as a clause for patents that gave Congress power to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respec- tive Writings and Discoveries" (Dupree, 1986~. It was through these frag- ments of language that the federal government would eventually support and sustain science. After ratification, interpretation of the Constitution began, and public works of all sorts were inferred from the concept of "internal improve- ments." During this time, most highly educated Americans had obtained a university education in Europe and were still dependent on Europe for equipment and ideas. Despite the debates, all sides agreed that universi- ties and learned societies were in fact internal improvements, and that they were necessary and proper and sustained the general welfare. The idea of a national university was emphatically pursued by many, but never came to fruition. One of the most avid supporters of this idea was Thomas Jefferson, who was secretary of state; he would soon become responsible for administering U.S. patents, which would be the earliest connection between science and the federal government. Although the framers explicitly avoided the word "patent," the quali- fying phrases in the language of the Constitution suggest the English practice of protecting new inventions for a limited time (Dupree, 1986~. As a result of confusion surrounding this language, Congress passed the first patent act in 1790 at the request of President Washington. The secre- taries of state and of war and the attorney general constituted a board to pass on inventions. The board had full authority to refuse patents because

OCR for page 213
220 APPENDIX of a lack of novelty, utility, or importance, which placed the heavy re- sponsibility of making technical decisions on three of the four leading men in Washington (Dupree, 1986~. Jefferson, administrator of the patent law of 1790, disliked monopo- lies of all kinds, including patents of limited duration, but came to see the latter's usefulness as a grant from society to encourage inventors by giv- ing them some chance of receiving a financial return for their work (Du- pree, 1986~. Jefferson upheld a strict interpretation of the law, according to which patents had to be real novelties, not familiar devices or prin- ciples common to the public. Thus a principle abstracted from a machine was not patentable, only the device itself. These assumptions had two very important influences on lefferson's administration of the patent law. First, science itself was rigidly excluded from patents. Second, and para- doxically, all the techniques of science were to be applied by the govern- ment to a patent application in an active effort to protect the public from unwarranted exclusiveness. lefferson's personal contributions to and un- derstanding and veneration of science allowed him to take these initial steps connecting the federal government with science, while at the same time protecting science from the federal government. lefferson's influence on linking science and the federal government would lead to the creation of the first federal science project the Coast Survey. Through all the twists and turns of U.S. political history, and through the immense changes wrought by over two centuries of rapidly expanding scientific knowledge, the policies and activities of the govern- ment in science form a single strand that connects the Constitutional Con- vention to current science policy (Dupree, 1986~. 1807: Survey of the Coast The earliest American pursuits in government-funded science re- search began in the military. Congress did not authorize civilian scientific activities in the federal government until 1807, when, with the support of President Thomas Jefferson, it established the Coast Survey for the practi- cal purpose of providing better charts of coastal waters and navigational aids for commercial interests. The Coast Survey could not get under way until after the end of the War of 1812, when it was transferred several times between the Department of the Treasury (1816-1818, 1832-1834, 1836-1903) and the Navy (1818-1832, 1834-1836~. It became the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey and was transferred in 1913 to the Department of Commerce, where it was later consolidated with the National Weather Service, and where it currently resides as part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Rabbitt, 2000; U.S. National Oce- anic and Atmospheric Administration, 2001~.

OCR for page 213
APPENDIX 221 As is true of most successful ventures, the Coast Survey's significant contributions to the advancement and development of American sci- ence can be attributed largely to an influential leader. In 1843, Alexander Dallas Bache, a great-grandson of Benjamin Franklin, took the helm of the project. He had the ability to work within the American political scene for the benefit of both the Coast Survey and American science. The project prospered during his tenure as superintendent, becoming the first great science organization of the U.S. government. Bache em- barked on a policy of publishing the results of the Coast Survey and the related work of other professional scientists in the Annual Report of the Superintendent of the Coast Survey, elevating American science in the eyes of the world scientific community (Coast and Geodetic Survey Annual Reports, 1844-1910~. His accomplishments in promoting science included his service in the organization of the American Association for the Ad- vancement of Science (AAAS) and as a founder of the National Acad- emy of Sciences (NAS). The early years of the Coast Survey reflect the growth of nineteenth- century American physical science, including rapid advances in knowl- edge and technology in several fields of earth sciences, including geodesy, geophysics, hydrography, topography, and oceanography. Early work on the project also generated a number of noteworthy published papers in the fields of astronomy, geology, and meteorology. Almost as a precedent for today's technology momentum, the gain in basic knowledge made through the work of the Survey spurred technological developments that made it possible to facilitate geographic exploration; implement harbor improve- ments; advance printing, engraving, and photographic technology; and strengthen national defense. The benefits and success of this scientific en- deavor made the initial influence of a federally sponsored science program on national science policy and politics a positive one, enabling the expan- sion of federal support within the nation's science-oriented programs. The forerunner of today's National Institute of Standards and Technology re- sided within the Coast and Geodetic Survey (Coast and Geodetic Survey Annual Reports, 1844-1910~. Work on the Coast Survey spanned the continental United States, tying together travel between the east and west coasts. Through precise nautical charting surveys, American commerce began to flourish as com- mercial ships were led more safely into ports all along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific shores. Under Superintendent Bache, contributors to the Sur- vey in both the field and the office were held to the highest standard of accuracy in obtaining and recording scientific measurements. The office force consisted of a wide range of professionals, including mathemati- cians, physicists, geodesists, astronomers, instrument makers, draftsmen, engravers, and pressmen.

OCR for page 213
222 APPENDIX Scientific contributions attributed to the Coast Survey include highly accurate astronomic measurements, new and more accurate observational instrumentation for sea and land surveying, new techniques for math- ematical analysis of the data obtained in the field, and further-refined techniques for error analysis and mitigation. It was the Coast Survey that led American science away from the older descriptive scientific methods to the current techniques of statistical analysis and the use of mathemati- cal modeling to predict future states of natural phenomena (Coast and Geodetic Survey Annual Reports, 1844 1910~. In addition, during its early tenure within the Navy, the Coast Survey conducted activities that led to the establishment of the Depot of Charts and Instruments in 1844, which served as a central office where both naval and commercial seamen could deposit and retrieve new navigational information and technology. In the mid-1800s, this office was divided into the Naval Observatory and the Naval Hydrographic Office, whose respective responsibilities included gathering astronomical data for navigation and charting the ocean floor (National Archives and Records Administration Records of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1807-1965~. 1862: The Department of Agriculture and The Land Grant College Acts Agriculture has always been a national priority, and was an occupa- tion in one form or another for many U.S. citizens during the 1800s. The usefulness of science for economic purposes in the field of agriculture was documented in May 1862, when Congress established the Department of Agriculture "to acquire and diffuse... useful information on subjects con- nected with agriculture," and authorized "practical and scientific experi- ments" to obtain this information (Rabbitt, 2000~. To this end, the Land Grant College Acts, also known as the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890, were signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln. The acts initiated one of the first programs of federal support for university-based basic research. The first act requested that the federal government provide each state with a grant of land that could be sold to finance a college hence the term "land-grant." The second act provided direct appropriations to land- grant colleges that could show that race and color were not admission criteria. These acts allowed members of the working classes to obtain a liberal, practical education in such areas as agriculture, military tactics, and mechanical arts, as well as classical studies. Several other pieces of legislation further defined land-grant col- leges. The Hatch Act of 1887 authorized $15,000 for direct payment of federal grant funds to each state for the establishment of an agricultural experiment station in connection with the state's land-grant institution (Rosenberg, 1997; IFAS, 2000~. The funds were provided to enable the

OCR for page 213
APPENDIX 223 colleges to conduct agricultural research and pursue scientific knowl- edge that could be shared with students and farmers. Unfortunately, many university administrators saw the Hatch Act as a windfall for undernourished academic funds, and misused its appropriations to pay salaries and other university expenses. The Department of Agriculture set up the Office of Experiment Stations (OES) to regulate and review the activities of the stations, but it took several years for this new office to develop a sound and well-articulated policy ensuring that the Hatch appropriations would be used as a research fund. The original wording of the Hatch Act was ultimately unsatisfactory as an administrative tool to control station research policies and as a source of funds to support basic research. The Adams Act of 1906 took the Hatch Act a bit further, gradually increasing each state's appropriation to $30,000, this sum to be used exclusively for "original investigationts)" in scientific research (Rosen- berg, 1997~. To ensure that stations and universities would comply with the Adams Act, OES established a new administrative tool now known as the grant system; all plans for conducting research with the Adams appropriations had to be submitted as a proposal for approval before the work itself could be undertaken. The development of the grants system, along with the research conducted by the stations, played a substantial role in the development of a number of biological sciences in the United States, including bacteriology, biochemistry, and genetics (Goldberg, 1995~. The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 extended the concept of service to the community by creating the federal Cooperative Extension ~ . service. These measures contributed to the creation and success of many of the country's well-known universities, including Purdue University, Mas- sachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Rutgers University, Cornell University, the University of Wisconsin, Texas A&M University, and Iowa State University. The later success of the land-grant colleges was due, in part, to experimental farms, which grew out of the experiment stations. The achievements of these farms include improvements in fertilizers, seed corn, pesticides, fruits, livestock breeding, and disease control. Today there are 105 land-grant colleges and universities, including those in U.S. territories such as Guam and the Virgin Islands and 29 Native American institutions. 1870: United States Weather Service At about the same time as the development of the land-grant colleges, civilian and military weather observation networks began to grow and expand across the United States. The telegraph was largely responsible

OCR for page 213
258 1900 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 98 Year APPENDIX ~ ~ ~Q~ - ~ 400 - ~ 200 - ~ 000 - ~Q~ - ~Q~ - 4OQ - 2OQ Number degrees FIGURE A-2 Number of physics Ph.D.s conferred in the United States, 1900- 1998. SOURCE: NRC (2001). 70 60 50 cn ~ 40 tn . 30 . _ Q 20 10 O~ ~RR ~a ~a ~8 ~8 ~a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. . . .. . . . . .. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 r ff^~ Defense R&D Year ~ Nondefense R&D FIGURE A-3 Federal spending on defense and nondefense R&D: outlays for the conduct of R&D, FY 1949-2004, billions of constant FY 2003 dollars. SOURCE: AAAS (2003).

OCR for page 213
APPENDIX 259 during World War II, leading to immense expenditures in this area, had several significant results. Along with the development of sizeable and high-quality research facilities, these results include the extensive use of the federal contract system to fund sustained university research, the introduction of the scientist managers appointed to principal manage- ment roles in large-scale research projects, the involvement of notable scientists in government policy making, the creation of new and larger graduate programs, and the training of university undergraduate and graduate students. Growth in physics continued after World War II with the onset of the Cold War. The hostility between the Soviet Union and the West com- pelled the United States to retain its preeminence in particle physics by funding the building of large facilities as academic laboratories to train new physicists and engineers who were needed to staff the national labo- ratories. National and international competition within the field and a concern to fill the demand for a "supply of well-trained physicists, engi- neers, and technicians produced Nobel prizes, national prestige, substan- tive knowledge, and many persons with doctorates in science and engi- neering" (Heilbron and Kevles, 1988~. In the midst of the Cold War, however, opposition was voiced that physics had become too large and expensive, provided little of social consequence, and was too closely associated with the military (in support of the Vietnam War). As mentioned above, this opposition resulted in a leveling in the growth of federal funds for physics. Although the federal budget (in constant dollars) for R&D had dropped 20 percent by the mid- 1970s, the number of physicists had increased. Since the federal govern- ment was the primary supporter of basic physics research everywhere it was practiced, the contraction in funding adversely affected virtually the entire enterprise of the physical sciences in the United States, making jobs in academic physics, the center of basic research in many areas of the subject, particularly difficult to find. High-energy accelerators were shut down, and many research programs were terminated (Kevles, 1995~. Dur- ing this same time, accelerator facilities were becoming outdated, and the beginning of an energy crisis was making these facilities too expensive to maintain. As the smaller university facilities closed, a select few of the larger, more sophisticated, and efficient facilities were becoming centers of collaborative research. During the early 1980s, funding for physics research rose again, but the increase was short-lived after the Cold War ended in 1989. The dependence on government funding for university-based re- search and training caused several problems after the Cold War in the early l990s. The loss of the Superconducting Super Collider in 1993 drew a rather dramatic response from high-energy physicists, who feared it

OCR for page 213
260 APPENDIX would mark the death of their field (Flam, 1992~. As funding waned, headlines appeared such as "Physics Famine: A Frenzied Search for lob Stability," "Taking Roads Less Traveled by Researchers: Ph.D's Are Strik- ing Off into Areas Such as Business and High School Teaching, With Mixed Success," and "Unemployment Blues: A Report from the Field" (Flam, 1992; Chollar, 1994; Tobias, 1994~. Nobelist Leon Lederman stated, "Industry is shucking research, universities are retrenching, and national labs are on a decayed mission and don't know what they are going to do" (Flam, 1992~. The relatively steady federal investment in physics research after World War II and through the Cold War era had created large train- ing programs, numerous research projects, and a plethora of physicists. The decrease in physics funding after the Cold War, compounded by an influx of foreign students and scientists (see Figure A-4), left many physi- cists at every stage of the traditional career path without clear prospects. Throughout the 1990s, the landscape for many physicists was unpre- dictable. Trained physicists had to find employment outside of traditional channels. AIP conducted several surveys and found physicists employed in all kinds of businesses, from venture capital, to finance, to running their own companies (Chollar, 1994~. They became teachers, engineers, computer scientists, or consultants. Many students felt misled, believing that they had not been properly informed by their mentors about the lack of jobs and funding within the field. A large population of newly trained physicists with fewer traditional career options caused physics graduate training programs to come under scrutiny. Within the field there was a contradiction with regard to graduate training expectations. Most physi- cist mentors expected their graduate students to participate in all types of work, including the design, construction, running, and analysis of an experiment, as part of their training (American Institute of Physics, 1992~. For most mentors, this expectation paralleled the training they had re- ceived, but they had undergone that training on significantly smaller, shorter, and less complex experiments. Other individuals lamented the effect of the length and complexity of experiments on graduate education, believing that long construction times were interfering with students' ability to both build the hardware and analyze data from the same experi- ment. The current system encourages a student to either develop the technical expertise necessary to keep an experiment going or analyze data from a previous experiment. It forces students to spend too much time on too few stages. To alleviate this situation, some scientists have recom- mended that graduate students analyze data from an experiment already under way while designing and building an apparatus to be used after receiving their degrees (American Institute of Physics, 1992~. Toward the latter part of the 1990s, amid a shortage of enrolling graduate students, an excess of unhappy graduate and postdoctoral stu-

OCR for page 213
APPENDIX u) N u m be r of firs t-ye a r stu cl e n ts o ~ 2 0 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 Year | ~ US Foreign _ Total 261 FIGURE A-4 First-year U.S. and foreign physics graduate students, 1965-1999. SOURCE: NRC (2001). dents, and skepticism surrounding the physics training programs avail- able to students, physics graduate programs redesigned themselves (Feder, 2000~. Several programs worked with industry, providing oppor- tunities and internships for students. In other cases, interdisciplinary pro- grams with business, engineering, or computer science were offered (Pimbley, 1997~. Graduate programs also touted a physics education as good general training, and they began to communicate to students the realities of the physics academic world. According to some, despite these efforts and other factors, including the recent increase in federal support for physics and the development of new avenues of research, there are not enough trained and qualified individuals in the field (Freidman,2000~. A 2001 National Research Council study, Physics in a New Era: An Overview, recommends that despite the many exciting frontiers in phys- ics, changes in the recruitment and training of physicists are crucial to the future success of the field. The report notes that the number of U.S.- educated undergraduates in physics has decreased in the last 15 years, leading to an imbalance between the supply of U.S. bachelor's degree holders and the capacity of U.S. graduate programs. Physics departments have reacted by increasing the flow of students from other countries. Articles such as "Why Do They Leave Physics?" (Anderson, 1999), and "From Bear to Bull in a Decade" (Kirby et al., 2001) have described these trends. In recent years, the physics job market has opened up, and there is concern about a lack of qualified personnel to fill the available positions. The above National Research Council (2001) report confirms this, one of its strongest recommendations being to increase support for and focus on all levels of physics education.

OCR for page 213
262 APPENDIX Several factors appear to have played some part in the current trend of undergraduates not entering physics graduate programs and of phys- ics graduates pursuing alternative careers: Sociological factors The end of the Cold War, government fund- ing cuts, industry downsizing, the influx of talented foreign scientists, and other events led to significant changes throughout science in the early 1990s and affected many young physicists who had promising scientific careers ahead of them. Graduate students who began their studies in the 1990s came to physics with their eyes wide open about their job prospects, and physics departments, as mentioned above, aware that applications for admissions were declining, began trying to sell graduate physics edu- cation as good training for many nonscientific careers. Consequently, graduate education has shifted from a kind of guild/apprenticeship model to something more akin to preprofessional training for private- sector jobs (Freidman, 2000; Feder, 2000~. Financial factors Financial compensation in science is signifi- cantly higher outside of academia, and industry is hiring more young people than is academia (Feder, 2000~. Academic factors A shift is occurring in how a physicist is recog- nized and credited for contributions. According to one physicist, "in lieu of scholarship, scientific achievement, and reputation, we are now as- sessed in terms of four so-called objective criteria: number of papers pub- lished, prestige of the journals involved, number of invited talks given, and amount of grant monies received" (Serota, 2000~. "Horganism" Reflecting John Horgan's philosophy that there are no new scientific laws to discover, some physicists conjecture that under- graduate students believe there is nothing left to contribute to the study of physics (Serota, 2000~. The trend of trained physicists leaving physics and of graduate stu- dents not entering physics is recognized as one of the most important issues facing the field. With regard to physics education, the National Research Council report (2001) points out that advanced undergraduate and graduate curricula should reflect physics as it is currently practiced, making appropriate connections to other areas of science, to engineering, and to schools of management. The report notes that high-quality under- graduate research opportunities are an important tool for introducing students to modern physics practice. Physics education needs to reflect the career destinations of today's students. Only a third of all physics majors pursue graduate degrees in physics, and of those who do, nearly three-quarters find permanent employment in industry. The report con- cludes that undergraduate and graduate curricula must satisfy the educa-

OCR for page 213
APPENDIX 263 tional needs of all these students. Along with encouraging physics de- partments to continue to revise their curricula to be engaging and effec- tive for a wide audience, the report's recommendations encompass two principal goals: (1) to make physics education do a better job of contribut- ing to the scientific literacy of the general public and the training of the technical workforce, and (2) to reverse, through a better-conceived, more outward-looking curriculum, the long-term decline in the numbers of U.S. undergraduate and graduate students studying physics. Intellectual Property Soon after Lawrence built his first accelerator, a not-for-profit research facility, The Research Corporation, obtained the rights to the cyclotron on the understanding that Berkeley's Radiation Laboratory would continue to be a beneficiary of the corporation's policy of investing proceeds from its patents back into research at the university. Throughout World War II, accelerator laboratories across the country added their technical improve- ments to the machines without knowledge of whether the basic design was protected. After the war, The Research Corporation wrote a letter to all the laboratories in possession of cyclotrons requesting that they grant use of their machines without payment of royalties. Most scientists and engineers who had worked on the accelerators knew nothing of the origi- nal patent on Lawrence's cyclotron and were astonished when they re- ceived this letter. When the AEC was formed in 1946, the wartime policy of open access that had contributed greatly to the development of accel- erators continued under the new agency. Since then, both law and policy have tended to grant to DOE (formerly AEC) the ownership of patentable inventions developed in its laboratories or by contractors, and to make freely available the technology of particle physics to scientists engaged in basic research. "The exemplary freedom with which high-energy physi- cists are accustomed to exchange information and the speed with which the information finds application rests on their belief that their field was never thought to have commercial or military possibilities" (Heilbron and Kevles, 1988~. CONCLUSIONS Throughout the history of government-sponsored large-scale research projects, issues related to funding, organizing, and managing their re- search, and to training qualified personnel have been in constant flux, depending on how the government has allocated and reallocated the avail- able resources, and as social needs and economic trends have changed. When funding levels have declined and acquiring research funds has

OCR for page 213
264 APPENDIX become difficult, the issues have become more apparent, and a great deal of debate has ensued, but the subsequent responses have yet to stop the cycle. When funds have increased and experiments have flourished, with results of technological or economic utility, the significance of the issues has faded, and the need to create safeguards against a potentially detri- mental cycle has diminished. Academic high-energy physics has been involved with the issues of large-scale science research, as discussed throughout this paper, for over 60 years, decades longer than any other academic scientific discipline. There is consensus throughout this field, and in other fields as well, that these issues need to be addressed. The studies conducted in physics that have been cited in this paper, although few in number, have revealed that the major issues associated with large-scale research projects involve prioritizing, funding, organizing, and managing research, and educating, training, and advancing scientists. According to these few studies, one of the longest- running federally funded university-based scientific fields of the twentieth century is still grappling with almost all of these issues. There appear to be no overarching plans, solutions, or policies to serve as guidelines for large collaborations and projects. The various issues that arise during a project are quickly addressed as they appear, with no continuity. Particle physics has followed a slightly different path from that of most of the other sciences; even within the field of physics, it has a rela- tively unique role. As particle physics has left the limelight, new frontiers in other areas of physics have been opening up, such as new materials; the properties and uses of fluids, plasmas, and gases; nanotechnology; and even interfaces with biology. In comparing big particle physics projects with large-scale research pursuits in biology in such areas as genomics and proteomics, one finds several differences between the fields in the definition and outcomes of their large-scale projects. Traditionally, the vast majority of expense involved in particle physics has been in building the facilities the accelerators and detectors. Over the years, the size of the accelerators has grown of necessity from inches to miles, making them more expensive and increasingly less accessible to scientists. In contrast, technologies developed in big biology have tended to become smaller, more efficient, less expensive, and more widely available to interested scientists. Although the technologies developed in particle physics have provided a great foundation of knowledge that has led to the develop- ment of several technologies used in apparently unrelated fields, it has directly produced relatively few commercially marketable applications. Projects in biology, in contrast, have traditionally created products with tremendous commercial potential that have appealed more readily to the lay population.

OCR for page 213
APPENDIX 265 While constant fluctuations in the social and economic trends and priorities of a wealthy democracy may make improving our current sys- tem for funding of scientific research challenging, continual increases in the cost of pursuing large-scale research and the competition among vari- ous areas of science for the limited funds available make addressing and resolving these issues crucial. Great utility has resulted from the pursuit of large-scale science research in an array of outcomes. It is difficult to evaluate or quantify the economic and social benefits derived from these pursuits, and little effort has been made to assess the quality or accom- plishments of the various programs and approaches involved, especially in a comparative fashion. There is no doubt that the quest for scientific knowledge has provided numerous conveniences and a tremendous in- crease in the quality of life in less than a century. The abundance enjoyed by U.S. society has provided the means that have enabled us to engage in these pursuits. The most difficult factor has not been a lack of available resources, but the question of how to allocate those resources. This is the challenge in prioritizing research pursuits; knowing what discipline or project to fund; and deciding whether to allocate funds to a few large projects, distribute them to a large number of smaller projects, or divide them between both large and small projects. It is unfortunate that we are not able to follow Nobel Laureate km Watson's jest to Congress and, "only fund the breakthroughs." Until we are capable of funding only successful projects, it is important to establish helpful and realistic guide- lines and policies that will ensure the ability to continue the pursuit of knowledge in the most efficient and practical way. ~ . . . . . ~ REFERENCES AAAS. 2003. Guide to R&D Funding Data Historical trends in federal R&D. Chart. De- fense and Nondefense R&D, 1949-2004. http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm. AIP Center for History of Physics. 1992. AIP Study of Multi-institutional Collaborations. Phase I: High-Energy Physics. Report Number 1: Summary of Project and Findings: Project Recommendations. College Park, MD: American Institute of Physics. Anderson PW. 1999. Why do they leave physics? Physics Today 52:11. Bozeman B. 1995. Federal Laboratories: Understanding the 10,000. New York: Center for Science, Policy, and Outcomes. Bush V. 1945a. Science: The Endless Frontier. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Bush V. 1945b. As we may think. Atlantic Monthly 176~1~:101-9. Chollar S. 1994. Scientific alternatives: Taking roads less traveled by researchers. Science 265~5180~1914. Dupree AH. 1986. Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Feder T. 2000. Physics community: Physics graduate programs train students for industrial careers. Physics Today 53~8~:39. Flam F. 1992. Physics famine: A frenzied search for job stability. Science 257~5077):1726-7.

OCR for page 213
266 APPENDIX Freidman JR. 2000. Letters: More on "why do they leave physics?": Money matters, re- search and job opportunities. Physics Today 53~1~:15. Galison P. Hevly B. 1992. Big Science: The Growth of Large-scale Research. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Goldberg S. 1995. Big Science: Atomic Bomb Research and the Beginnings of High-Energy Physics. Seattle: History of Science Society. Green W. 1995. Two Cheers for Democracy: Science and Technology Politics. New York: Center for Science, Policy, and Outcomes. Grice GK. 2001. The Beginning of the National Weather Service: The Signal Years (1870-1891) as Viewed by Early Weather Pioneers. Washington, DC: United States National Weather Service. Groopman J. 2001. The Thirty Years' War. New York: The New Yorker. Heilbron JL, Kevles DJ. 1988. Finding a policy for mapping and sequencing the human genome: Lessons from the history of particle physics. Minerva 29:299-314. Heilbron JL, Seidel RW, Wheaton BR. 1981. Lawrence and his laboratory: Nuclear science at Berkeley. LBL News Magazine 6~3~. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS). 2000. Land Grants: Events Leading to the Establishment of Land-grant Universities. Gainesville: University of Florida. Kevles DJ. 1995. The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America. 4th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Killian JR. 1982. A Brief Analysis of University Research and Development Efforts Relating to National Security, 1940-1980. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. King J. 1991. Many top researchers are disenchanted with big science. The Scientist 5~1~:13. Kirby K, Czujko R. Mulvey P. 2001. The physics job market: From bear to bull in a decade. Physics Today 54~4~:36~1. Kolb A, Hoddeson L. 1992. The Mirage of the World Accelerator for World Peace and the Origins of the SSC, 1953-1983. Batavia, IL: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. FERMILAB-Pub-92/375. National Archives and Records Administration. Records of the Coast and Geodetic Survey (1807-1965~. Record Group 23. National Archives and Records Administration. Records of the Office of Naval Research (ONR). National Institutes of Health (NIH). 2001. History of the NIH. Bethesda, MD: NIH. National Research Council. 1995. Setting Priorities for Space Research: An Experiment in Methodology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. Board on Physics and Astronomy. 2001. Physics in a New Era: An Overview. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Naval Research Laboratory. 2001. NRL History. Washington, DC: Naval Research Labora- tory. Office of Science and Technology Policy. 2001. About OSTP. Washington, DC. Old BS. 1982. Return on Investment in Basic Research Exploring a Methodology. National Academy of Engineering. Washington, DC. Old BS, The Bird Dogs. 1961. The evolution of the Office of Naval Research. Physics Today 14~8~:30-35. Pimbley JM. 1997. Physicists in Finance. Physics Today 50~1~:42. Price DJ. 1963. Little Science, Big Science. New York and London: Columbia University Press. Price DK. 1962. The scientific establishment. Science 136:1099-1106. Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). 1999. Establishment of the United States Geological Sur- vey, 1879. The American Experience: Lost in the Grand Canyon. Alexandria, VA: PBS. Rabbitt MC. 2000. The United States Geological Survey: 1879-1989. USGS Circular 1050. Washington, DC: United States Geological Survey.

OCR for page 213
APPENDIX 267 Rettig R. 1977. Cancer Crusade: The Story of the National Cancer Act of 1971. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rosenberg CE. 1997. No Other Gods: On Science and American Social Thought. Revised and expanded edition. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Serota RA. 2000. Letters: More on "why do they leave physics?": Money matters, research and job opportunities. Physics Today 53~1~:75. Smith CHL. 1998. What's the Use of Basic Science? Why Governments Must Support Basic Science. Geneva, Switzerland: CERN. Tobias S. 1994. Unemployment blues: A report from the field. Science 265~5180~:1931-32. U.S. Congressional Yellow Book. 2001. Washington, DC: United States Government Print- ing Office. U.S. Department of Energy. 2001. Inside the DOE: Our History. Washington, DC: Depart- ment of Energy. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Coast and Geodetic Survey Annual Reports 1844-1919 bibliography. Universities Research Association. 2001. About URA, Inc. Washington, DC: Universities Research Association. Weinberg A. 1961. Impact of large-scale science on the United States. Science 134:161-164. Weinberg A. 1967. Reflections on Big Science. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Pg. 39. Wilson RR. 1975. A world laboratory and world peace. Physics Today 18~11~.

OCR for page 213