National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: References
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 213
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 214
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 215
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 216
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 217
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 218
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 219
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 220
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 221
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 222
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 223
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 224
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 225
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 226
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 227
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 228
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 229
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 230
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 231
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 232
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 233
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 234
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 235
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 236
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 237
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 238
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 239
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 240
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 241
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 242
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 243
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 244
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 245
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 246
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 247
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 248
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 249
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 250
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 251
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 252
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 253
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 254
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 255
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 256
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 257
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 258
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 259
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 260
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 261
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 262
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 263
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 264
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 265
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 266
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 267
Suggested Citation:"Appendix." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2003. Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10718.
×
Page 268

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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~.

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.

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

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

224 APPENDIX for the advancement of operational meteorology during the nineteenth century. With the advent of the telegraph, weather observations from distant points could be rapidly collected, plotted, and analyzed at one location. These weather services were hosted by several independent net- works and lacked a central storage and dissemination facility. With the support of several meteorological physicists, and in keeping with the nation's interest in agriculture, national security, and commerce, Congress established a national weather warning service in 1870, which was purposely organized within the Army Signal Corps under the Secre- tary of War to ensure the greatest promptness, regularity, and accuracy. President Grant authorized "the secretary of War to take observations at military stations and to warn of storms on the Great Lakes and on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts" (Grice, 2001~. Two years later, this forecast service was extended throughout the United States. The Signal Service's field stations grew in number from 24 in 1870 to 284 in 1878. Each station telegraphed an observation to Washington, D.C., at three designated times during the day. Washington compiled forecasts from the telegraph re- ports, which were then distributed throughout the country (Grice, 2001~. During the first 20 years of the weather service, research studies were conducted at the central office in Washington, D.C. The initial meteorol- ogy research program, largely intramural, was conducted by a team of about eight scientists, and included studies on the distribution of mois- ture in the air, a treatise on the laws of meteorology, a report on torna- does, and instructional material for Signal Service trainees. In 1890, after a raucous embezzlement scandal, the Signal Service was transferred out of the army to the Department of Agriculture, where it became the civilian Weather Bureau, began to publish daily weather maps, and established a hurricane warning service. In 1940 the service was again transferred, this time to the Department of Commerce, where it issued the first official daily forecasts. The service was eventually combined with the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey and renamed the National Weather Service. The National Weather Service, which currently resides under the jurisdiction of NOAA, provides the bulk of all meteorological information used in forecasting weather conditions both inside and outside of the United States. As the benefits of weather prediction became obvious in the areas of agriculture, commerce, and defense, the need for more extensive and more accurate forecasting became a national priority. The federal in- vestment in the young weather service and in skilled scientists pro- duced important new knowledge and technology. In so doing, it repre- sented another positive contribution that strengthened the federal policy of supporting scientific research programs. The beneficial effect of the government's role in the acquisition, application, and dissemination of

APPENDIX 225 scientific knowledge was becoming more apparent and necessary. Also increasingly apparent was the interdependence between the knowledge base gained in basic science research and the growth and availability of technology. 1879: U.S. Geological Survey The earliest geological surveys were conducted mainly in support of agriculture, which was the basic occupation in the United States through- out most of the nineteenth century. These first surveys were generally sponsored by independent state or local governments. With the conclu- sion of the Civil War, the federal government, in need of an accurate assessment of its western territories, incorporated the investigation, map- ping, and understanding of these territories into its domestic policy (PBS, 1999~. The U.S. Government wanted to know whether the land could be farmed, what its natural resources were, and how easily it could be settled. From 1867 to 1879, Congress began to sponsor what became known as the four Great Surveys. These surveys predated the formation of the U.S. Geological Survey. Each was a large undertaking in terms of both the amount of territory they examined and the wealth of information they contributed to the knowledge of the American West (PBS, 1999~. One of the first surveys was directed by Dr. Ferdinand Vandeveer Hayden. Hayden's expedition initially came under the supervision of the General Land Office and, despite its modest start, became the largest of the Great Surveys. With an initial appropriation of $5,000, Hayden's origi- nal commission was to explore the lands of Nebraska, investigating areas of the state suitable for human exploitation. Within 2 years, his annual appropriation had doubled, his investigation had been formally titled The United States Geological Survey of the Territories, and his work had been placed under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior. Hayden's most ambitious expeditions were the well-equipped investigations of the Yellowstone and Teton Mountain area of Wyoming. The photographs and drawings he brought back to Washington from those trips assisted legislators in creating Yellowstone National Park. Hayden moved his in- vestigations to Colorado, a transition that would put him in direct con- frontation with another surveying team. Ultimately, Hayden's survey was important in a number of ways. In addition to mapping the West, it pro- vided a wealth of knowledge about the region's natural history, and the artists, photographers, and newspaper reporters who accompanied his teams helped demystify the western territories for Americans (Rabbitt, 2000~. The year Hayden's operation was established, 25-year-old Clarence King, an affluent aristocrat from New England, arrived in Washington

226 APPENDIX with a handful of recommendations from scientists and the desire to di- rect his own survey in the western territories. His plan was to survey a 100-mile-wide belt along the 40th parallel that would roughly follow the route of the transcontinental railway. Upon granting King his commis- sion an expedition entitled the Geological Survey of the Fortieth Paral- lel the secretary of war dispensed some advice: "The sooner you get out of Washington, the better. You are too young a man to be seen about town with this appointment in your pocket. There are four major-generals who want your place" (Rabbitt, 2000~. King was a cautious and meticulous scholar. Unlike Hayden, who believed that any discoveries should immediately be made known to the public, King decided that his reports would represent the careful distilla- tion of years of research: "It is my intention to give this work a finish which will place it on an equal footing with the best European produc- tions" (Rabbitt, 2000~. To do this, King hired the best geologists and staffed the survey with first-rate scientists, including topographers, geologists, botanists, and an ornithologist. The survey's research program extended beyond geology to include studies in paleontology, botany, and ornithol- ogy. The seven-volume report and accompanying atlas of the 40th paral- lel that resulted from the investigation did much to improve the reputa- tion of American science in Europe. King's own contribution, Systematic Geology, was for decades a classic historical geological text. When it was published in 1878, it was the most comprehensive thesis to date on the subject (Rabbitt, 2000~. In 1867, the same year that Hayden and King approached Congress for financial support for their surveys, John Wesley Powell, a one-armed Civil War veteran, was also seeking sponsorship of an expedition. He secured nothing more than the promise of some wagons, livestock, camp equipment, and surveying gadgets. After his famous and successful first expedition down the Colorado River in 1869, Powell was granted a con- gressional appropriation to "complete the survey of the Colorado of the West and its tributaries" (Rabbitt, 2000~. Powell concentrated his investi- gations on a narrow rectangular area bordered by the Green River and the Uinta Mountains in the north, the Grand Canyon in the south, and Colo- rado in the west. Of all the Great Surveys, Powell's was initially staffed by men with the least knowledge and expertise. The initial work of the sur- vey, including the river trip and an exploration of the Great Plateau, was concluded by 1873. For the next 6 years, a handful of professional men remained in the field continuing the survey work, while Powell spent most of these years in Washington, D.C. His survey focused on geology, and although it did not produce the volumes of published material that emerged from the other surveys, it made important contributions in its

APPENDIX 227 explanations of the formation of the Grand Canyon's geological features, which helped open up new areas of geological investigation. In 1871, the Army Corps of Engineers inaugurated its own survey, initiated in part because of a belief within the army that civilians were usurping its traditional, pre-Civil War, peacetime activity of mapmaking. The army claimed that no one else was making maps suitable for military purposes. Lieutenant George Montague Wheeler was put in charge of the fourth Great Survey the Geographical Surveys West of the 100th Merid- ian to obtain "correct topographical knowledge of the region traversed . . . and to prepare accurate maps of that section" (Rabbitt, 2000~. Addition- ally, he was required to determine "everything relating to the physical features of the country, the numbers, habits, and disposition of the Indians who may live in this section . . . and the facilities offered for making rail or common roads, to meet the wants of those who at some future period may occupy or traverse this portion of our territory" (Rabbitt, 2000~. By the early 1870s, there were four different investigations of overlap- ping territory; conflict was inevitable. In 1872, Powell began campaigning to consolidate the work of the surveys. But Congress took no notice of the rivalries and needless duplication until Hayden's and Wheeler's men clashed in the Colorado territory in July 1873. Shortly thereafter, the House of Representatives held hearings into whether the survey work should be collapsed into one larger survey. The proceedings were notable for a succession of bitter and angry complaints. Faced with conflicting opin- ions from the various expedition leaders, Congress decided that all the surveys should continue. In 1878, Powell again lobbied for the consolidation of the three re- maining surveys. In June of that year, NAS was asked to consider the issue. The resulting report suggested consolidating the investigations under the supervision of the Department of the Interior. A new agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, was established in 1879 to carry out the work. King was hired as its first director. Within a year he had stepped down and been replaced by Powell, who would head the organization for the next 23 years. Over the next century, the U.S. Geological Survey became firmly incorporated into the federal government. Today its many activi- ties include predicting earthquakes, evaluating water quality, and pro- ducing tens of thousands of maps (PBS, 1999; Rabbitt, 2000~. 1887: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) NIH began in an attic room in the Marine Hospital in Stapleton on Staten Island, New York. Dr. Joseph Kinyoun (1860-1919), a 27-year-old bacteriologist and graduate of Bellevue Hospital Medical College in New

228 APPENDIX York City, who had been instrumental in introducing the production of diphtheria and tetanus antitoxin serums in the United States, set up his one-person Laboratory of Hygiene as the federal government's first re- search institution. The laboratory's purpose was to identify and seek cures for infectious diseases, as well as to tackle other public health problems. In 1891, the laboratory needed more space and was moved to Washing- ton, D.C., and renamed the Hygienic Laboratory. Further change came to the Hygienic Laboratory in 1930. Its continued progress, illustrated by 45 years of successful research that resulted in the comprehensive identifica- tion and analysis of Rocky Mountain spotted fever, convinced Senator Joseph E. Randsell of Louisiana that fundamental research could lead to cures for disease (NIH, 2001~. The Randsell Act was passed by Congress to reorganize and expand the Hygienic Laboratory and change its name to the National Institute of Health. In 1938, a continually growing Na- tional Institute of Health began its move from Washington, D.C., to sub- urban Bethesda, Maryland (Rettig, 1977~. World War II marked a change in the basic research conducted by the National Institute of Health. The scope of its investigations was broad- ened to include fundamental medical research on major chronic diseases, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, arthritis, and mental illness. It was also at this time that the extramural research program began with the transfer of certain wartime medical research contracts from the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD; see below). In 1948 four institutes were created to support work on cardiac disease, dental disor- ders, infectious diseases, and experimental biology and medicine, and the National Institute of Health (singular) officially became the National In- stitutes of Health (plural). In that same year, construction began on the Clinical Center, a hospital with over 500 beds, which was designed to facilitate the development of therapies (NIH, 2001; Rettig, 1977~. A-- , 1916: The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Throughout the nineteenth century and in the early twentieth cen- tury, the U.S. military depended heavily on the navy. To ensure the nation's security, it was necessary for the navy to remain current with developing technologies. At the outset of the World War I, Thomas Edi- son suggested that "the Government should maintain a great research laboratory.... In this could be developed ... all the technique of military and naval progression without vast expense" (NRL, 2001~. Among elite scientists of the day, Thomas Edison was considered more of an inven- tor an applied scientist, not a pure, basic researcher. Nonetheless, Secre- tary of the Navy Josephus Daniels requested Edison's support to serve as the head of a new body of civilian experts, named the Naval Consulting

APPENDIX 229 Board, to advise the navy on science and technology. One of the first initiatives planned by the Board was to create a modern research facility for the navy. In 1916, Congress allocated $1.5 million for the creation of the institution, but wartime delays and disagreements within the Naval Consulting Board postponed construction until 1920; the laboratory be- gan operation in 1923 (NRL, 2001~. The laboratory's first projects included work on high-frequency radio and underwater sound propagation, improved communications equip- ment, and sonar. NRL produced the first practical radar equipment built in the United States. The laboratory moved gradually toward becoming a broadly based basic and applied research facility, and by World War II, five divisions had been added: Physical Optics, Chemistry, Metallurgy, Mechanics and Electricity, and Internal Communication. In 1941 NRL had a total of 396 employees and expenditures of close to $1.7 million. By 1946 the number of employees had reached 4,400 and expenditures close to $13.7 million; the number of buildings had increased from 23 to 67, and the number of projects from 200 to about 900. During World War II, scientific activities throughout the nation were concentrated almost en- tirely on applied research. NRL focused on developing and refining elec- tronics equipment radio, radar, and sonar. A thermal diffusion process was conceived and used to supply some of the U235 isotope needed for one of the first atomic bombs (NRL, 2001~. Because of scientific accomplishments during the war years, the United States sought to preserve the working relationship between its armed forces and the scientific community, desiring to consolidate its wartime gains in science and technology. The navy established the Office of Naval Research (ONR) as a liaison with and supporter of basic applied scientific research, and NRL was transferred to the administrative over- sight of ONR, with a civilian director. At the same time, the laboratory's research emphasis shifted to one of long-range basic and applied investi- gation in a broad range of the physical sciences. Since World War II, NRL programs in basic research have focused on the naval environments of earth, sea, sky, and space. Investigations in- clude monitoring the sun's behavior, analyzing marine atmospheric con- ditions, and measuring parameters of the deep oceans. The laboratory also began naval research into space, becoming involved in such pro- grams as the Vanguard project America's first satellite program the navy's Global Positioning System, and the Strategic Defense Initiative program. Recently, NRL was consolidated with the Naval Oceanographic and Atmospheric Research Laboratory to lead research in specialty areas of the ocean and atmospheric sciences (NRL, 2001~.

230 APPENDIX 1931: Lawrence Berkley Laboratory, U.S. High-Energy Particle Physics The advent of high-energy particle physics can be traced to the turn of the nineteenth century and the study of nuclear physics, whose most notable scientists at that time were located in Europe. However, it was in the United States in 1930 that an American scientist by the name of Ernest Lawrence, an associate professor of physics at Berkeley, together with his graduate student M. Stanley Livingston, built the first successful "atom smasher" (called a cyclotron, or circular accelerator). The cyclotron be- came the primary tool that enabled scientists to study the components of the nucleus; several of Lawrence's original design components are still used in the accelerators built today. Lawrence and Livingston received a total of $1,000 in research funds from the university and NAS, which he used to build the million-volt cyclotron (Heilbron and Kevles, 1988~. A few years later, during the Great Depression, Lawrence established the Radiation Lab ('Red Lab'), the forerunner of the present Lawrence Berke- ley Laboratory, with support from Berkeley, philanthropists, and the gift of an 80-ton magnet. With his accelerators, Lawrence committed his labo- ratory from 1934 until World War II to creating new radioisotopes with properties particularly adapted to biological research. Both the Rockefeller Foundation and the Macy Foundation encouraged Lawrence's attention to the creation of material for biomedical research. He received substan- tial sums from both philanthropies, and in turn created a supply of bio- logically active radioisotopes that included p32 and technetium (Heilbron et al., 1981~. In 1936, the University of California at Berkeley officially established the Radiation Laboratory as an independent entity within the Physics Department. The reorganized laboratory was dedicated to nuclear science rather than, as in its first incarnation, to accelerator physics. The focus on nuclear physics represented the hope that the potential sale of radioiso- topes for biological research and medicine would support further cyclo- tron developments. Although a radiopharmaceutical industry did not materialize in the 1930s, the hope that it might do so helped sustain accel- erator physics (Heilbron et al., 1981~. The focus, organization, and management of the Radiation Labora- tory at Berkeley were soon to be altered by three important events, all occurring in 1939: World War II began; Ernest Lawrence won the Nobel Prize for his work on the cyclotron; and Niels Bohr, on a visit to the United States to attend a conference at the Carnegie Institution, an- nounced to American scientists that two German scientists had discov- ered fission. These events would also have a permanent effect on the entire world of particle physics. Soon after the announcement on fission, laboratories around the world had duplicated the effect. The potential

APPENDIX 231 that fission the splitting of an atom resulting in the release of a consider- able amount of energy could be used to create an enormous reactive explosion, created fear in the United States that German scientists might build a fission bomb (Goldberg, 1995~. That same year Lawrence an- nounced plans for a 100-megavolt cyclotron (Heilbron et al., 1981~. During 1940 a group of notable European scientists who had emi- grated to the United States to escape the Nazi regime developed a techno- logical program to explore the possibility of capitalizing on the energy released from nuclear fission. Private foundations were supporting re- search in nuclear physics, but no one was pursuing the potential explo- sive releases of fission energy. Spurred by the potential of Germany's progress in this area, immigrant scientists called upon their friend Albert Einstein to write and sign a letter informing President Roosevelt of the technological possibilities offered by fission. Five months later, Roosevelt responded by authorizing $6,000 to set up a committee on uranium re- search. Soon after, a crash program to build the first fission bomb, under the name of the Manhattan Project, began in the United States. The mag- net for Lawrence's new 100-megavolt accelerator, completed as a war- time priority, helped in developing the machinery for making the first nuclear explosives (Goldberg, 1995~. By 1940 there were almost 23 cyclotrons in service, all financed by private patrons and states not the federal government and as is the case today, accelerators quickly outdated themselves. The wartime mobi- lization of the Radiation Laboratory brought irreversible changes in its size, scope, and corporate life. It became the embodiment of big science in physics. Its prewar development had provided a base on which the tem- porary expansion demanded by war could take place successfully. In 1940, Lawrence's proposal for a 100-megavolt accelerator was aggressive, costing over $1 million and requiring a corresponding increase in staff (Kevles, 1995~. The award of the Nobel Prize in physics to Lawrence helped in his quest for money for the new machine among his usual sources. The Rockefeller Foundation pledged the principal amount of $1.4 million in April 1940, and OSRD contributed $400,000 in 1942 (Heilbron et al., 1981~. Most of the funds were used to purchase a cyclotron with a magnet face 184 inches in diameter. This magnet could not be housed on campus, and the laboratory was moved adjacent to the campus. The magnet was used to separate the explosive part of natural uranium, U235, from the more plentiful companion isotope, U238. Because of the technology design expertise housed in the Radiation Laboratory, General Leslie Groves con- tacted Berkeley in 1942, and requested that the laboratory design the huge electromagnetic complex that would be used to produce fissionable mate- rial and was to be constructed in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Soon after, an-

232 APPENDIX other substantial discovery was made at Berkeley when the Radiation Laboratory isolated plutonium. In 1943, emulating the uranium labora- tory at Oak Ridge, General Groves began supervising the construction of a plant for plutonium production (Heilbron et al., 1981~. The war had mobilized all aspects of the Radiation Laboratory, from nuclear medicine to nuclear physics and chemistry. Discoveries had been made in examining the biological consequences of high-altitude flying. Using radioactive isotopes of inert gases, the cause of decompression sickness was discovered, and tracer studies at the laboratory made funda- mental contributions to the understanding of the circulation and diffu- sion of gases. Other contributions in the form of practical devices, such as oxygen equipment, a parachute opener, and methods for measuring the rate of circulation and perfusion of the blood by capillaries, were also made by work done at the laboratory. The surrender of Japan ended the emergency that had created the federally funded National Laboratories, but not the large organization and tight security that had come to characterize nuclear science. The meth- ods and resources of big science, enlarged by the war, were to dominate the study of physics in peace as well. In February 1946, the Radiation Laboratory's semiannual budget, distributed by the army through the Manhattan Engineering District, amounted to $1,370,000 (Heilbron et al., 1981~. As the war budget closed down, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC, forerunner of the Department of Energy [DOE]), headed by a civil- ian commission under presidential control, took charge of the nuclear energy program in January 1947. The AEC formulated its research policy in 1947, with much input from the physicists at the National Laboratories, who advocated broad and strong support for basic scientific research. The newly organized AEC appropriated $15 million for the accelerators. Pro- hibited by the Atomic Energy Act of 1947 from giving grants for research, the agency developed a system of contracts with universities and estab- lished an independent Division of Research to administer them (Heilbron et al., 1981~. 1937: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) On August 5, 1937, President Roosevelt signed the National Cancer Institute Act into law. NCI was authorized to conduct and foster research and studies relating to methods of diagnosis and treatment of cancer; promote the coordination of cancer research; provide fellowships at the Institute; secure advice from cancer experts in the United States and abroad; and cooperate with state health agencies in the prevention, con- trol, and eradication of cancer (Rettig, 1977~. Included in this act was the establishment of an advisory body to NCI, the National Advisory Cancer

APPENDIX 233 Council, authorized to review all research projects for approval. Funds were appropriated directly to NCI, not to the parent organization, NIH. The organization of NCI occurred between the passage of the 1937 law and the entry of the United States into World War II. By 1939 the original research staff, consisting of 20 fellows recruited for their scientific competence, was settled in the new Institute building in Bethesda, Mary- land. Through World War II, NCI's research program was conducted mainly in the Institute's own intramural laboratories, where organization was kept fluid, and scientific competence was the basis for establishing laboratory leadership (Rettig, 1977~. Not long after its organization, the scope of NCI's research program gradually developed beyond the intramural effort in its Bethesda labora- tories to include extramural grants for clinical and basic research to uni- versity and medical school investigators. With an initial appropriation total of $500,000, the extramural program began slowly, those in charge calling the idea "unsound" (Rettig, 1977~. In 1938, only 10 extramural grants totaling $90,000 were approved. During the war, funds remained limited, but in the two decades between 1937 and 1957, extramural expen- ditures totaled $45.2 million. NCI's clinical research program took off soon after the war with a clinical research center the Laboratory of Ex- perimental Oncology being established jointly with the University of California San Francisco. In 1953, this clinical laboratory was closed, and NCI moved its clinical programs to the newly opened NIH Clinical Cen- ter on the Bethesda campus (Rettig, 1977~. NCI's program also funded state studies of cancer mortality and epi- demiology, and provided advisory services to state health departments during World War II. This grant-in-aid program to the states had an annual program level that ranged from $2.2 to $3.5 million, with a total of $23.3 million spent from 1947 through 1957. The funds were used for cancer clinics, home nursing care, follow-up services, limited laboratory services for the indigent, statistical studies, and education (Rettig, 1977~. NCI's extensive research program was used as a model by other NIH Institutes in establishing their own research programs. Change in National Focus: Earth Sciences to Physical (Laboratory) Sciences During the late nineteenth century, the years following the Civil War, federal support for research in the earth sciences had expanded enor- mously, supplying extraordinary investment to fields relevant to one of the major national missions of the era the exploration, settlement, and economic development of the Far West. This increase in federally sup- ported science displeased conservatives, who thought that the govern-

234 APPENDIX ment was spending too much money for seemingly impractical work. The increase also upset populist-oriented congressmen, who did not see why funds should be spent for research on the things of the earth when human beings were earning too little to keep their farms. During the depression of the 1890s, these conservatives and reformers formed a coalition that sharply reduced the government's support for "impractical" science and forced bare-bones budgets on the federal scientific agencies (Kevles, 1995~. Though the Depression was the occasion for the cutbacks, the geographi- cal frontier had closed; the country was beginning to emphasize the agenda of its new urban industrial revolution, and the earth sciences agencies were no longer at the top of that agenda. World War II The efforts of the early American earth and biological scientists in the fields of geology, topography, paleontology, botany, and zoology had earned the respect of Europeans. In the 1870s, only about 75 Americans called themselves physicists, and almost all American physics was experi- mental rather than theoretical. In physics, chemistry, and astronomy, Americans had published only one-third as much work since the Revolu- tion as their French and British colleagues (Kevles, 1995~. At the turn of the twentieth century, using the momentum, experience, and scientific knowledge gained in the previous century's research activities, American science was poised to begin exploring new frontiers in the physical sci- ences. It took on new challenges during World War I, using research in the physical sciences to aid in the development and advancement of mili- tary technologies. By the advent of World War II, the government had already begun a pattern of investment in scientific research on which it would increasingly rely during the impending conflict. 1940-1941: National Defense Research Committee (NDRC) and Office of Scientific Research and Defense (OSRD) Early in 1940, in light of "the upcoming conflict," President Franklin D. Roosevelt approved the organization of NDRC, which had been pro- posed by Vannevar Bush (president of Carnegie Institution of Washing- ton, chair of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics [NACA], and ex-MIT vice president and dean of engineering). Financial support for NDRC was provided by presidential emergency funds authorized by Congress. Bush was appointed as chair of NDRC, which was organized to coordinate the scientific efforts in weaponry development of the govern- ment, the private sector, and universities. Bush used his experience as chair of NACA, an organization created by Congress to oversee and coor-

APPENDIX 235 dinate scientific study of the problems of flight, to establish similar mecha- nisms of research and development (R&D) management within NDRC. He continued and expanded his relatively novel use of the government contract system, greatly increasing the government's use of contracts for R&D services (facilities and expertise) that were available in the private and university sectors. NDRC delegated the responsibility for technical decisions concerning research to be pursued and managed at the institu- tion level while maintaining a tight hold on the administration and coor- dination of the overall effort. NDRC made the revolutionary decision to ask universities to undertake war projects and brought American univer- sities for the first time into large-scale research programs, ushering in a new period in the relationship between the federal government and insti- tutions of higher education (Killian, 1982; Goldberg, 1995~. This approach required a new relationship among government, uni- versity, and the private sector, resulting in an infusion of public resources into university-based research. A year later (1941), at Bush's request, Roosevelt approved OSRD, an expansion and reorganization of govern- ment R&D activities, which included NDRC. OSRD expanded the devel- opment of agency-sponsored extramural research programs, entering into over 800 research contracts, mainly with universities, and expending in excess of $330,000,000 in completing these contracts. Under OSRD con- tracts, MIT began developing radar, Carnegie Institute of Technology (CIT) developed rockets, Harvard University worked on sonar, the Uni- versity of Chicago worked on nuclear reactions, the University of Califor- nia fabricated the first atomic bomb, and 69 academic institutions were represented on the staff of the Radiation Laboratory. Meanwhile, du Pont, General Electric, Union Carbide, and other industrial giants built the fa- cilities to produce fissionable materials. Other contracts enabled the per- fection of sulfa drugs and penicillin and the invention of insecticides, such as DOT (Killian, 1982; Price, 1962~. Vannevar Bush's contributions to the advancement of science and technology and the expansion of federal science policy in the United States have had a lasting impact. Although the official executive office of Scien- tific Advisor to the President was not organized until the Eisenhower Administration, Bush's influential involvement with Franklin Roosevelt during a critical period in the country's history and the wartime projects he organized had a significant effect on the course of American science. 1940-1945: The Manhattan Project As noted above, certain events during World War II have had a con- siderable and lasting impact on federally funded, university-based scien- tific research. Arguably among the greatest contributors to the shift in

236 APPENDIX large-scale government investment in university-based research was the Manhattan Project, which had a significant effect on the direction of fed- erally funded basic research as we know it and gave rise to a new type of big-science project. At the time it was completed, the Manhattan Project could probably have claimed to be one of the largest government spon- sors of university-based research. In the United States prior to World War II, federal funds were avail- able to a limited number of universities for scientific research. Physical science research activities at the turn of the century were small and pur- posely did not rely on expensive equipment, large expenditures, or many personnel. During the decade preceding the war, many advances in par- ticle physics were made, sponsored in large part by private foundations. At the outset of the war, Vannevar Bush had jurisdiction within OSRD over investigations into the possibility of developing a nuclear bomb, the pursuit of which would rely heavily on promising advances in several fields of physics. Rumors that Germany was a year ahead in developing such technology spurred Bush to convene an NAS committee of chemists, physicists, and engineers, who were to answer the very narrow question of whether it would be feasible to use uranium to engineer a fission bomb. After three meetings over the course of 9 months, the panel reported that with sufficient effort over several years, success in doing so was a virtual certainty, and the effort would require $133 million (Goldberg, 1995~. By 1941, work on uranium had proved very successful, and with the positive response from the NAS committee, Bush decided to make an immediate move. He reorganized the work on uranium, began designing production plants and reactors, and created three research centers to participate in the project at Columbia University, the University of Chicago, and the Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley (Goldberg, 1995~. In tune 1942, when the substantial costs required for production be- came obvious, Bush turned the project over to the Army Corps of Engi- neers, whose massive wartime budget could bury the effort, and where it could be disguised as the Manhattan Project. By October 1942, to speed up progress, Bush requested that Colonel Leslie R. Groves be appointed to lead the project. Groves' intention was to do whatever was required to build the bomb in the shortest amount of time and use it to end the war. It was Groves who, amid strong objections, appointed T. Robert Oppen- heimer as director of a special new laboratory at Los Alamos that Groves set up specifically to design the bomb itself. Groves had the factories and plants built that were necessary to produce the fissionable materials and provided other services to the scientists as needs appeared. During the peak of the project in late 1944, over 160,000 people were employed in operations extending from coast to coast and in Canada as well (Heilbron et al., 1981; Goldberg, 1995~. The bomb was completed in the summer of

APPENDIX 237 1945, and by the end of World War II several weeks later, the original estimate of $133 million had grown to the $2 billion cost for the Manhat- tan Project ($20 billion in current dollars) (Goldberg, 1995~. An incentive to build the bomb had been fear that Germany would do so first. Ger- many surrendered on May 7,1945. On August 6 the United States dropped the first nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. The Russians declared war on lapan on August 8. On August 9 the United States dropped a second atomic bomb on Nagasaki. On August 14 the Japanese agreed to an uncondi- tional surrender. The field of high-energy physics grew at an incredible rate during the brief period of the war in those laboratories associated with designing the atomic bomb. Organization and management of these physics projects, conducted within the Manhattan Project, were directed largely by the federal government and in part by the scientist directors of individual . . . . . . ~ %, . ~ . . . . . research laboratories and Vacates. Most of the research conducted by physicists, whether or not it was federally funded, was influenced and directed on some level by the federal government, and proceeded under tight security with the utmost secrecy. Despite this security and secrecy, however, most scientists believed that the pursuit of this science was not regimented. Scientists in both universities and industry were "free to make the most of the creative powers" (Killian, 1982~. Many of the most notable physicists, several of whom were Nobel Laureates, became direc- tors of the National Laboratories, including Los Alamos National Labora- tory, the Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley, and the Fermi National Accel- erator Laboratory. It was at these laboratories where many students were trained. Unfortunately, many graduate programs were put on hold dur- ing the war, but colleges and universities "had their dormitories and classrooms filled with Army and Navy trainees"(Killian, 1982~. The train- ing was necessary to staff the national and university research laborato- ries conducting research on novel war technologies such as sonar, radar, atomic and other weaponry, aircraft, optics, and antibiotics, to name a few. The results of the Manhattan Project's investment in basic and applied research provide an obvious example of the essential role science plays as a prerequisite to technology development. These advances led to a continua- tion of the wartime policy of government support for university-based scientific research laboratories. The work on the atom bomb during the war raised a host of new questions, and officials in both the federal government and universities agreed that research in this area should have federal sup- port, and should include funding for building the machines and for train- ing undergraduate and graduate students. NDRC, OSRD, and the wartime federal contracts were destined to terminate with the end of the war. Many of those involved in these wartime efforts (with the interesting exception of most universities) believed that the new technological advances, the poten-

238 APPENDIX fiat for more research developments, and the momentum gained in basic science research during the war should be maintained and even expanded after the war (Old, 1961~. Toward the end of the war, various steps were taken to explore the possibility of a continued federal investment in public research efforts (Goldberg, 1995; Old, 1961~. Vannevar Bush was among those who wished federal investments in science to continue after the war. In response to a letter he had received from President Roosevelt inquiring about the returns from and economic value of this federal investment, Bush wrote a report entitled Science: The Endless Frontier. He stated: "We have no national policy for science. The Government has only begun to utilize science in the nation's welfare. There is no body within the Government charged with formulating or executing a national science policy. There are no standing committees in Congress devoted to this important subject. Science has been in the wings. It should be brought to the center of the stage for in it lies much of our hope for the future" (Bush, 1945a). Within the report, Bush outlined several notable and decisive achieve- ments, but he carried his report beyond a response to Roosevelt's inquir- ies. His main emphasis was on the need for continued investment in scientific research and the development of a more refined and applicable science policy. He outlined the impact of science on the outcome of World War II. He emphasized that basic scientific research is scientific capital from which applied technologies are developed. The wealth of basic re- search before the war had aided in the development of radio, radar, peni- cillin, guided gunsites and bombsites, the atomic bomb (not mentioned in Bush's report, published in fuly 1945), and other technical developments that had been decisive in winning the war. Bush attributed these impor- tant advances to well-trained scientists and to the open and free environ- ment that encouraged them to pursue basic science research. He men- tioned that for many years, government had wisely supported research in the agricultural colleges, whose benefits had been great, and that this same system of support should be extended to other fields. He outlined the organization of a new federal agency with the sole purpose of sup- porting basic science research in the public domain. Bush's desire for such a science agency and the science policy he specifically outlined in his report was never fully realized. However, fragments of his ideas, along with the government's wartime investment in large-scale science research projects, did have an impact on the creation of a national science agency and on postwar science policy, influencing the precedents for current government involvement in science research.

APPENDIX 239 Post-World War II After the war, as the federal government worked on prioritizing its funding responsibilities, many agencies were created, and existing agen- cies were expanded. Several of the agencies that play key roles in funding current science research endeavors have their roots in this postwar pe- riod. The organization of new agencies facilitated the funding and coordi- nation of both small- and large-scale science research projects in many different disciplines, and gave rise to both intramural and extramural research programs. The extramural grant system provided federal fund- ing to universities for science research, but without interference from the government regarding the details of conducting individual research projects. The agencies discussed below have played major roles in con- tinuing and expanding research activities within high-energy physics. Without the continuing support provided by these key agencies, research in this area would not have advanced as rapidly as it has. Although domestic involvement has played a large part in the ad- vancement of particle physics, soon after World War II it became appar- ent that success and efficiency in this field would depend upon interna- tional cooperation. Following the pattern established historically in the fields of astronomy, geology, and cartography in forming international communities, high-energy physics began, and has since sustained, large- scale international research collaborations. 1946: The Office of Naval Research (ONR) As World War II unfolded, it became increasingly evident that the success of the Allied Forces could be attributed to the use of new techno- logical advances in warfare. Many of these advances were developed by the scientists and engineers who had formerly been associated with university and industrial basic and applied research laboratories, but were assigned during the war to OSRD and NDRC. As these organiza- tions were intended to terminate at the end of the war, a small group of naval reserve officers in the Office of the Secretary of the Navy began to consider how R&D should be organized within the Navy Department after the war. What worried these officers was that the Navy Depart- ment as organized in 1943 had no mechanism for liaison with key re- search scientists and engineers other than through OSRD. The basic question the naval officers addressed was how to enable the navy to establish and maintain relationships with top research scientists and engineers to continue the development of new weapons systems and operational capabilities. The naval reserve officers' group proposed a new office to oversee a novel organizational concept. This concept in-

240 APPENDIX valved establishing, by an act of Congress, a special office under the secretary of the navy with its own budget and the authority to invest in and contract for basic and applied research (Old, 1961~. The new office would be called the chief of naval research and could be held by a naval officer, but the office would require two safety valves. First, the chief of naval research must report to a civilian assistant secretary of the navy, who would be a recognized scientist or engineer capable of influencing a sound and rigorous R&D program. Second, a Naval Research Advi- sory Committee (NRAC), made up of nationally recognized leaders, would have to be formed to advise the secretary of the navy on research matters (Old, 1961~. This concept was completed by the end of 1943 and was promoted both inside the Navy Department and within the Executive Office of the President over the next 3 years. On August 1, 1946, the ONR was orga- nized and received the $40 million the navy had in excess funds at the end of the war. ONR coordinated naval research, development, and test ac- tivities; managed activities relating to patents, inventions, trademarks, and copyrights; and sponsored many science and technology contracts in the postwar years. The achievements of university research during the war led the Department of Defense (DOD), through ONR, to generously fund on-campus basic research in the postwar period. ONR moved quickly to aid universities in reestablishing graduate programs in science and technology, setting a pattern of sponsorship that recognized the unique characteristics of universities the essential values of academic freedom and the admission (and freedom of choice) of qualified students, including foreign nationals. ONR established contracting principles and procedures that paved the way for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and were generally adopted by all parts of DOD and by other govern- ment agencies, including the AEC (currently DOE) (Killian, 1982~. ONR's charter was expanded from basic science to the management of all the navy's science and technology programs, and has played a major part in underwriting unclassified science and technology research (National Archives and Records Administration Records of the Office of Naval Research). 1946: The Department of Energy (DOE) The origins of DOE can be traced to the Manhattan Project and the race to develop the atomic bomb during World War II. In 1942, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers established the Manhattan Engineering District to manage the project. Following the war, Congress engaged in a vigor- ous and contentious debate over civilian versus military control of the atom. The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 settled the debate by creating the

APPENDIX 241 AEC, which took over the Manhattan Engineering District's sprawling scientific and industrial complex. The AEC was established specifically to maintain civilian govern- ment control over the field of atomic R&D. During the early years of the Cold War, it focused on designing and producing nuclear weapons and developing nuclear reactors for naval propulsion. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ended exclusive government use of the atom and initiated the growth of the commercial nuclear power industry, giving the AEC au- thority to regulate the new industry (U.S. Department of Energy, 2001~. In response to obvious conflicts of interest and disputes that mounted in the mid-1970s, the AEC was abolished, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 created two new agencies. The Nuclear Regulatory Commis- sion was organized to regulate the nuclear power industry, and the Energy Research and Development Administration was responsible for manag- ing the nuclear weapon, naval reactor, and energy development programs (U.S. Department of Energy, 2001~. However, with the extended energy crisis of the 1970s came a need for unified energy organization and planning. The Department of Energy Organization Act brought the federal government's agencies and pro- grams into a single agency. DOE, activated on October 1, 1977, assumed the responsibilities of the Federal Energy Administration, the Energy Re- search and Development Administration, the Federal Power Commis- sion, and parts and programs of several other agencies. Since its inception, DOE has shifted its focus as the needs of the na- tion have changed. During the late 1970s, it emphasized energy develop- ment and regulation. In the 1980s, nuclear weapons research, develop- ment, and production took priority. Since the end of the Cold War, DOE has focused on cleaning up the environment from the legacy of the Cold War, maintaining the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile, pursuing energy efficiency and conservation, developing innovations in science and technology, and fostering technology transfer and industrial competitiveness (U.S. Department of Energy, 2001~. 1947: The National Laboratories (component of the DOE) Several of the research centers created to support the Manhattan Project formed a set of "National Laboratories." These laboratories were incorporated into the AEC in 1947, which, as noted, later became DOE. As a result, accelerator physics (high-energy particle physics) became, and remains, a ward of the federal government. The National Laboratories are responsible for some of the largest government-sponsored collaborations in science. The size and expense of their machines make them un- affordable for any single university or state government. Currently there

242 APPENDIX are several DOE-sponsored National Laboratories that carry out particle physics activities, including Brookhaven, Fermi, Thomas Jefferson, Oak Ridge, Sandia, Los Alamos, Argonne, and Lawrence Berkley National Laboratories. 1950: The National Science Foundation (NSF) Directly after World War II, universities most commonly received contracts from specific agencies, such as DOD, the Department of Agri- culture, or the Department of Commerce. In 1950, Congress, in response to the work of several national advisory committees, created NSF to pro- vide scholarships and fellowships for advanced scientific education, and organized a competitive grants system that awarded large grants through university departments to individuals and teams of scientists. 1952: CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) Given the enormous and continually increasing costs associated with particle physics, it became apparent after World War II that success and the continued pursuit of knowledge in this field would depend on large- scale international collaborations. One of the first and most notable of such ventures was organized in 1952 as Conseil Europeen Pour La Rechierche Nucleaire (European Council for Nuclear Research). The word "Council" has since been replaced by "Organization," but the organiza- tion is still known by its original acronym, CERN. The enormous expense of building, maintaining, and operating the large particle conductors, colliders, and detectors was shared among several European nations that came together to design, finance, and construct the CERN facility. The establishment of CERN as an organization and as a facility encouraged the return of the European physicists who had emigrated to the United States as a result of World War II. CERN has had a unifying effect on the world of particle physics and operates for pure, basic research. The re- sults of its experiments and theoretical work are available to the public. Scientists at CERN, attempting to design a tool to connect research col- laborations and academic purposes throughout the world, created the World Wide Web (Galison and Hevly, 1992~. During the 1950s, in the midst of the Cold War, the success of CERN as a series of multinational collaborations spawned the idea of creating a world accelerator for world peace (Wilson, 1975~. Many physicists be- lieved that the pursuit of international science research projects would lessen the effects of the Cold War, and physicists worldwide, including scientists from the Soviet Union, gathered for conferences to discuss col-

APPENDIX 243 laborations. The well-known Rochester Conferences brought particle physicists together from around the world in an attempt to reopen scien- tific communication after the first icy decade of the Cold War. In 1957, the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) was estab- lished to "encourage international collaboration among the various high- energy laboratories to ensure the best use of the facilities of these large and expensive installations" (Wilson, 1975~. 1954: The President's Science Advisor The evolution of the office of science advisor to the President was likely influenced by several factors, including Vannevar Bush's key role in World War II, his famous report Science: The Endless Frontier, and Wil- liam T. Golden's report to President Truman recommending the creation of the position. These reports, along with the Soviet Union's successful Sputnik program, motivated President Eisenhower to elevate the status of his scientific advisors by creating the President's Science Advisory Com- mittee (PSAC) and naming lames R. Killian, president of MIT, as his full- time science advisor. Killian's introduction of a group of distinguished scientists into the government process to expand the level of scientific advice offered directly to the President began the tradition of having scientists contribute regularly to the formation of U.S. scientific policy (Kolb and Hoddeson, 1992). Although the office of science advisor to the President and PSAC were abolished by President Nixon in 1972, the advi- sory role was later expanded and reorganized in the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-282), which established the Executive Office of Science Technology Policy (OSTP) that exists today (Dupree, 1986; Kolb and Hoddeson, 1992; OSTP, 2001). 1989: The End of the Cold War The momentum gained in facilities, research, and training as a result of the Manhattan Project and the new government policy measures to support basic science research at universities gave American high-energy physicists a great head start after the war. This momentum continued and increased as a result of the Cold War. The hostility between the Soviet Union and the West compelled 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 Laboratories. In the midst of the Cold War, the field of physics experienced a shift-

244 APPENDIX ing of national priorities similar to that faced by the earth sciences a century before. Similar to the coalition formed in the late 1800s to deter legislators from providing the accustomed funds for earth science re- search, a coalition formed in the 1960s believed that physics was too great an absorber of tax dollars, not attentive enough to social issues, and too much a creature of the military and the war in Vietnam. An attack on big science started in 1964 with the free speech movement on the Berkeley campus of the University of California, where science was seen as the demonic force that had produced the hydrogen bomb (Dupree, 1986~. It was this coalition that forced a leveling of the growth of federal funds for physics. This shift had much more far-reaching effects than the cutbacks of the 1890s, when federal patronage of science had been largely confined to support for work carried out directly by federal agencies. By the mid- 1970s, the federal budget for R&D was 20 percent lower in constant dol- lars than it had been in 1967, but the number of physicists was higher (Kevles, 1995~. Despite the constant dollar fluctuations, particle physics did receive continued funding during the Cold War. However, the land- scape for high-energy physics changed rather abruptly with the conclu- sion of the Cold War, and funding levels in the physical sciences are currently 20 percent lower than they were in the mid-1980s (NRC, 2001~. 1787 1789 1790 1792 1798 1800 1802 Constitutional Convention Organization of the government First patent law; first census The Mint Medical care for merchant seamen Library of Congress Army Corps of Engineers; United States Military Academy, West Point, New York Lewis and Clark expedition Coast Survey Act Federal law establishing vaccine agent Long expedition to the Rockies Navy Depot of Charts and Instruments Reorganization of Patent Office United States Exploring Expedition National Institute for the Promotion of Science Naval Observatory; United States Botanical Garden United States Naval Academy Smithsonian Institute American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

APPENDIX 1863 1866 1867 1869 1870 245 1849 Bache's presidential address before AAAS 1850 President Buchanan's veto of land-grant college bill 1861 Government Printing Office; Outbreak of the Civil War 1862 Department of Agriculture; Homestead Act; Morrill Act for land-grant colleges National Academy of Sciences; Army Signal Corps Navy Hydrographic Office separated from Naval Observatory King's geological survey of fortieth parallel Wheeler's geographical surveys west of hundredth meridian Meteorological work begins in Army Signal Corps; Powell's geographical survey of Colorado River Hayden's geological/geographical survey of the territories U.S. Geological Survey; National Board on Health Founding of Science journal Hygienic Laboratory; Hatch Act for Agricultural Experiment Stations Transfer of meteorological service from Army to Department of Agriculture, creating the National Weather Bureau 1891 Astrophysical Observatory at Smithsonian Institute 1893 Army Medical School 1901 National Bureau of Standards; Bureaus of Chemistry, Plant Industry, and Soils in Department of Agriculture Committee on Organization of Scientific Work Pure Food and Drug Act Public Health Service National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics; Naval Consulting Board National Research Council; National Park Service Entry into World War I Chemical Warfare Service Naval Research Laboratory National Research Fund National Institute of Health Science Advisory Board National Cancer Institute Research: A National Resource National Defense Research Committee Office of Scientific Research and Development; entry into World War II Atomic Energy Commission; Office of Naval Research National Science Foundation Creation of President's Science Advisor 1916 1917 1918 1923 1926 1930 1933 1937 1938 1940 1941 1946 1950 1954 FIGURE A-1 Chronology of government-funded science. SOURCE: Dupree, 1986: 383-86.

246 APPENDIX PART II: ISSUES IN CONDUCTING LARGE SCALE COLLABORATIONS IN HIGH-ENERGY PARTICLE PHYSICS In 1967, Alvin Weinberg, Director of Research at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, wrote in reference to his term "big science" that "many of the activities of modern science nuclear physics, or elementary particle physics, or space research require extremely elaborate equipment and staffs of large teams of professionals" (Weinberg, 1967~. Weinberg contin- ued by noting a series of conflicts and problems created by the emergence of big science, including the need to establish criteria for allocation of resources; to mediate among the interests of competing laboratories and individuals; and to provide for equitable distribution of funds (and as a result talent) between large-scale and small projects, as well as among different regions of the country. Since Weinberg first called explicit atten- tion to big science, the phenomenon and the resulting difficulties have only increased and intensified. The results of some of the larger physics projects now being pursued are reported in papers listing hundreds of individual coauthors. The funding of the Human Genome Project, the dissolution of the Superconducting Super Collider, research on AIDS and cancer, and the hotly debated fiscal year 2002 science appropriations are some of the better-known examples of the current tensions in our society over the question of the proper niche for the social institutions of science (Goldberg, 1995~. Alvin Weinberg coined the phrase "big science" and some of the issues associated with it in 1961. Since then, many fields have made claims to pursuing 'big science' projects. The following section discusses some of the issues associated with large-scale research projects in par- ticle physics. The term large-scale, in the following section, is loosely defined to include projects that are multi-institutional collaborations over a long period of time (5+ years), and receive multi-million dollar funds each year, directed primarily toward building and maintaining advanced-technology research facilities. Surprisingly, after 40 years of bigger and more expensive science, the issues of how best to prioritize, fund, organize, manage, and staff large projects and train students in- volved in these Projects remain in many fields that conduct large-scale 1 J research projects. In an attempt to understand and pinpoint specific issues associated with big science, the American Institute of Physics (AIP) conducted a three-phase Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations, phase I of which was devoted entirely to the field of high-energy particle physics. Study- ing trends in collaborations in particle physics essentially means studying trends within the field itself. The majority, if not all, of significant projects in particle physics involve a multi-institutional collaboration. Within the

APPENDIX 247 AIP study, the expectation was that each specialty would have particular traditions and needs that would shape the character of its collaborations. In other words, AIP expected to discern some sort of pattern in the con- duct of large-scale projects. According to the AIP study, however, "we searched for a characteristic pattern within each specialty; we rarely found one. Instead, we found significant variations in collaborations within each field. Subsequent analysis of a database covering all three phases of the AIP Study bore out the conclusion that discipline-specific styles of multi- institutional collaborations do not exist" (1992~. The following discussion relies to the extent possible on information available specifically for the field of particle physics, but when necessary draws on information available from the general and broad field of phys- ics, as described by government agencies and policy makers. The discus- sion is largely a summary of AIP's relevant survey findings regarding such large-scale research issues as funding, organization, management, staffing and training, and intellectual property, with some related infor- mation gathered from other sources. It should be noted that there is sig- nificant overlap among many of these issues, and this overlap is reflected in the discussion here. Funding Within the U.S. democratic system, the process of appropriating fed- eral funds has been, and will most likely continue to be, highly complex. Determining funding priorities in a fluctuating social and economic envi- ronment is bound to leave some happier than others. A major issue the United States government faces in relation to its science and technology effort is how much money to allocate to science and technology as a whole, and how to divide that money among the various claimants in the science and technology community (Green, 1995~. Even within a disci- pline, the distribution of funds can be contentious, as demonstrated in the 1995 National Research Council report Setting Priorities for Space Research: An Experiment in Methodology, in which there is no consensus on how to make these allocations. Several specific funding issues are associated with big-science projects, including the government's general allocations to a particular field, the specific allocations within a field between large and small projects, and the allocation of funds between basic and applied research programs. Allocation of Federal Science Research Funds The process of allocating federal funds in the United States is much more complex and detailed than the following summary (see Figure 4.1~.

248 APPENDIX Simplified, the process begins when the President writes and submits a detailed budget that includes many line-item requests about 15 months prior to the start of the budget's fiscal year. The President's budget is submitted to Congress, to both the House and Senate budget committees. The two budget committees review and make changes to broad funding areas, called functions, in the areas of health, defense, civilian R&D, and so on. Congressional authorizing committees may then authorize or not authorize (as it did when it came close to not authorizing funds for the space station) the use of the funds for specific government agencies and programs. The revised budget is next given to the House and Senate full appropriations committees and is divided among the 13 corresponding appropriation subcommittees, which are mirrored on the House and Sen- ate side (see Table 4.1~. Although specific budget items may have been outlined by the President, the budget committees, and the authorizing committees, the appropriations committees also have some say in the amount of funds distributed to each of the agencies that falls under their jurisdiction. (In 1994, for example, the VA, HUD, and Independent Agen- cies appropriations conference committee chose not to appropriate funds to the Office of Technology Assessment, and essentially terminating that agency.) At this stage, several different agency budgets could be in com- petition for the funds available under the jurisdiction of an individual appropriations committee. Each of the 13 appropriations subcommittees from the House and Senate writes a bill that is submitted back to the respective full committee. The bills are taken to the House or Senate floor. Once approved, they next move to a congressional conference committee made up of House and Senate members from the corresponding appro- priations subcommittees. The further-revised budget, a compromise of sorts between the House and Senate made up of 13 individual bills, is taken back to the floor and voted on. If approved, the bills (budget) go back to the President. When the President signs the final budget, it be- comes law (U.S. Congressional Yellow Book, 2001~. The priorities set by the government and used to distribute the limited funds are determined by a variety of issues that usually reflect the most pressing needs of the nation, such as the state of domestic or foreign affairs and national security. Within the individual science funding agen- cies and the specific disciplines, mechanisms in place that help in setting priorities include the individual agency advisory committees, peer re- view mechanisms, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and vari- ous other White House advisory committees, and the National Research Council system. Even with these mechanisms in place, however, there is no avoiding competition among the various claims on federal funds, and there is no policy in place for what to do when there is just not enough money to go around when the political system decides it has other pri-

APPENDIX 249 orities. According to former Representative Bill Green (New York), "We are, after all, dealing with a perfectly normal situation in which the useful things on which we can spend money require more money than we have to spend" (Green, 1995~. Traditional University Funding Mechanism Continuing a practice that dates back to World War II, university physics departments have traditionally administered the federal research funds they receive for their high-energy physicists. This process makes it difficult to calculate and compare the cost of individual experiments because the university's contributions are embedded in all other high- energy physics activities. The benefits of this system have been the stabil- ity of universities relative to transitory collaboration groups and the uni- versity regulation of individual faculty activities (American Institute of Physics, 1992~. This approach has also encouraged multi-institutional and international collaborations; a group with the ambition to build an expen- sive experiment must convince physicists from other institutions or coun- tries to contribute support. An interesting find of the AIP survey was that most academic physicists expected their contracts with the funding agen- cies to cover travel and the operation of university laboratories and facili- ties, and to support postdoctoral and graduate students. The funds they were most concerned about acquiring were for the expensive materials and services needed to construct major new detector components (Ameri- can Institute of Physics, 1992~. The larger, more recent collider experiments have not followed this tradition. In these cases, the government has provided the large accelerator laboratories with funds for detector development, and the laboratories have distributed the money among the collaborations with approved experi- ments. This laboratory-centered approach to funding experiments appears to be part of a trend to make the laboratories responsible for overseeing the collaborations that perform large, expensive experiments (AIP, 1992~. Large-Scale Versus Small-Scale Research The debate over whether to fund large or small projects in the field of high-energy particle physics is somewhat moot because the expense asso- ciated with pursuing research in this area has mandated ever-larger col- laborations that are almost always considered big science. It was reported within the AIP survey that one high-energy physicist had actually left the field so as not to have to work in a large collaboration. The concern about smaller science projects losing funds to big science has been voiced in other fields. In the wake of the Human Genome Project,

250 APPENDIX many life scientists, expressed a fear of "centralized control, bureaucracy and political considerations inevitable in big science, and the possibility that major appropriations for a large project in biology would diminish the funds available for small-scale activities in other fields of biological research" (Heilbron and Kevles, 1988~. These concerns are voiced prima- rily by scientists who associate big science with an applied research ap- proach and smaller projects with basic research. These scientists fear that funds will increasingly be directed toward applied science, inevitably decreasing the funds available for essential basic science research (King, 1991~. (See the discussion in the next section.) Scientists have also ex- pressed concern that funding large-scale research rather than small projects will result in a loss of research independence to more directed research projects. These concerns are not as great among high-energy particle physicists because most of the experiments conducted at accelera- tors are attempting to explore unknown frontiers and answer fundamen- tal questions, and research pursuits are seldom directed by the facilities. Basic Versus Applied Research Several noteworthy scientists have emphasized the importance of al- ways maintaining a solid basic science research program (Bush, 1945b; Price, 1962; Smith, 1998~. Vannevar Bush stressed the necessity of pursu- ing such research to ensure a supply of solutions for present and future problems (1945b). He believed this type of research was best suited for an academic setting, but that it should be funded by the government. He also believed that while universities had the responsibility of pursuing this basic research, government and industry were responsible for translating its results into applied technologies. The system has developed much differently, however, with all three institutions involved in an evolving overlap of both types of research. The importance of basic research in high-energy particle physics can be demonstrated by the devices and techniques resulting from funda- mental research projects. According to a recent National Research Coun- cil report on the current state of physics: [It is] widely recognized that the federal government should take prima- ry responsibility for the support of basic research in science, research that is vital for the needs of our nation. Such research is often too broad and distant from commercial development to be a sensible industrial investment. This is particularly true for physics. As a fundamental sci- ence, it tends to have a long time lag between discovery in the research lab and impact on the lives of citizens, but by the same token its impact can be all the more profound. Ten to twenty years is a typical interval between a fundamental physics discovery and its impact on society. This

APPENDIX can be seen with the laser, magnetic resonance imaging, the optical-fiber transmission line, and many other examples. Much of today's high-tech economy is being driven by the technology that grew out of physics research in the early 1980's. (National Research Council, 2001~. 251 Other contributions, along with various medical imaging technolo- gies, include developments in cancer therapy; radiation processing; food, medical, and sewage sterilization; national security technology; and the World Wide Web, developed at CERN (Smith, 1998~. These developments are positive examples of the law of unintended consequences (Groopman, 2001). Organization Most of the large collaborations in high-energy physics are organized before a proposal has been written and submitted to the accelerator labora- tory. In general, a proposal is written after the collaboration has been orga- nized, and is produced by a group of scientists who have, or are building, a detector. The proposal is submitted to the accelerator laboratory; if it is approved, the collaboration will be able to use its detector at the laboratory facility. Organizers of experiments need to attract enough physicists to an experiment to convince the large accelerator laboratory administrators that the experiment, if approved, could be built and run as proposed. These large accelerator facilities require detailed contracts called Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), covering the responsibilities of both the labora- tory and each of the institutional members of the collaboration performing the experiments. This relatively new requirement is indicative of the cur- rent trend in the shifts of power and accountability mentioned above in the section on funding (American Institute of Physics, 1992~. The responsibilities of an experiment organizer vary depending upon the specific experimentts), but in general, all organizers must determine the size of the consortium, choose the collaborators, organize experiment strategies, and ensure appropriate communication. International collabo- rations have become almost the norm in high-energy physics experiments and generate a unique set of issues, as discussed below. Size and Personnel The need for additional, larger, and increasingly sophisticated instru- ments has increased the number of physicists a potential experiment or- ganizer must mobilize, while at the same time competition for the field's funds and personnel has been a factor in keeping collaborations lean in relation to the tasks undertaken. As a result, experiment organizers tend

252 APPENDIX to worry about gathering enough collaborators for an experiment. They do not, however, according to the AIP survey, worry about compiling a complementary blend of skills and subspecialties. They assume that indi- vidual American physicists are familiar with, if not expert in, all phases of an experiment, and that a university group has all the skills needed for an experiment, with graduate students participating in the full range of work as part of their training (American Institute of Physics, 1992~. Interest- ingly, other scientists participating in the survey expressed contradictory sentiments regarding current graduate education, expressing concern that large projects were limiting the breadth of education students received, constraining their participation to isolated segments of the experiments. Because academic particle physicists in the United States are funded as university groups with limited resources, and the accelerator labora- tory groups are few in number, collaborations become larger only by including more domestic academic institutions or foreign groups. The addition of institutions does bring collaborations the needed additional resources, but also increases organizational complexity. This fundamen- tal trade-off between increased resources and collaboration complexity, accompanied by the inevitable internal competition, has probably been the greatest source of daily friction within the large collaborations (Ameri- can Institute of Physics, 1992~. fed Choosing Collaborators Most of the collaborations in high-energy physics form to take advan- tage of a new accelerator facility or component, for detector construction, for data analysis, or for computer programming. AIP's survey found no formula that organizers could use for choosing compatible collaborators, though logistical convenience, the availability of appropriate personnel, and technical expertise were primary factors in producing a collaboration for building a detector. Preexisting professional relationships and per- sonal contacts played a significant role as well. Would-be experiment organizers have also used summer programs and open meetings to en- large their circle of colleagues. Other collaborations have been formed when large accelerator facilities combined separate teams of scientists who had submitted similar research proposals into "shotgun marriages." One element cited as key in forming a workable collaboration was the ability of experimenters to work harmoniously with the accelerator laboratory's staff. Scientists concur that they have better relations with laboratory staff by including physicists from the laboratory's research division in the collaboration. Most university-based experiment organiz- ers surveyed had consciously tried to include accelerator physicists as collaborators (American Institute of Physics, 1992~.

APPENDIX 253 Despite an organizer's best efforts, AIP concluded that characteristics of the available instrumentation can constrain the social and organiza- tional options physicists confront in collaborative research. It was also found that collaborations are relatively less productive compared with the small facilities at universities and the small research groups that oper- ate the accelerator laboratories. This lower productivity can limit the short- or long-term willingness of physicists to work together in particular col- laborations (American Institute of Physics, 1992~. Communication Intracollaboration communications have become increasingly formal (collaboration-wide mailings and memoranda) and increasingly electronic in the larger, more recent experiments. Even though organizers of col- laborations try to keep them as small as possible, the larger collaborations have created administrative positions and subgroups to deal with matters that were handled collectively or by individuals in smaller collaborations. For large and small groups, the collaboration meetings have remained the key communication mechanism used by physicists to discuss decisions concerning the tactics and results of experiments. Even scientists who found such meetings unpleasant did not suggest alternatives to their use as the preferred way of debating and resolving the physics issues in- volved in an experiment (American Institute of Physics, 1992~. International Collaborations International collaborations have increasingly become necessary to make experiments feasible. Reasons for forming these consortia include the desire to use and learn an experimental technique developed by a foreign group, the need of a domestic experiment for more manpower and money, a brokered merger by a facility director between domestic and foreign collaborators who had submitted similar proposals, and the desire of U.S. scientists with a working detector for more beam time than a U.S. accelerator would provide. These collaborations have experienced several problems beyond the language barrier, including technical, cul- tural, logistical, and political-legal issues (American Institute of Physics, 1992~. Management Management of a high-energy physics collaboration may include such matters as designing, building, maintaining, adjusting, and running ac-

254 APPENDIX celerators and detectors, and determining the priority of experiments to be conducted. The national accelerator laboratories have always been re- sponsible for supporting university research (by providing "beam time"), as well as their own research groups. Traditionally, interuniversity col- laborations have been formed to provide enough physicists to build and run experiments to ensure that a proposal would be approved and funded by an accelerator facility. The collaborators would design and build the detector at their home institutions without oversight from the national laboratories. Over the past few decades, as experiments have increased in size and expense and as the quality of university laboratories and shop facilities has declined, there has been an increase in the fabrication of detector components at the accelerator sites, resulting in tighter control over the experiments by the national laboratory facilities. As a result, funding is increasingly likely to come directly to the government labora- tories for distribution to the collaboration groups. Most collaborations must choose a manager (known as the spokesperson) from their staff who may be required to remain on site for the duration of the experiment, and collaborations must also submit an MOU detailing the responsibilities of consortium members in relation to the experiments. The loss of a collaboration's administrative autonomy to large facilities, in conjunction with the dependence on using the instrumentation provided by the facili- ties that is crucial to high-energy physics, has affected all phases of col- laborative research (American Institute of Physics, 1992~. The Spokesperson The spokesperson is an individual designated as a liaison between the collaboration and the accelerator facility. Spokespersons usually fa- miliarize themselves with all aspects of the experiments. Although the spokesperson is posed as an administrative role, collaborations usually make the experiment's instigator their spokesperson, and the role carries connotations of scientific initiative and leadership. Because of the dimin- ished powers to reward and discipline members of a collaboration, spokespersons reason and persuade their way through conflicts and mis- understandings, and retention of their position is treated as evidence of leadership and scientific judgment. Junior faculty on experiments desire the office of spokesperson in the belief that it will help their tenure cam- paigns (American Institute of Physics, 1992~. Management Issues Collaboration dynamics raise several problems cited by the AIP sur- vey respondents. The following were the problems most commonly noted:

APPENDIX 255 when a narrowly focused experiment involved more faculty than it had physics topics to address, it was prone to divisive disputes over credit for the results obtained; when a physicist could use a detector to address multiple topics but only one topic at a time, other faculty would usually adopt one of the possible lines of inquiry and then fight over whose interests deserved collaboration-wide support; and when a productive but aging detector needed an upgrade, it became difficult to regulate competition within the collaboration for building a new component. In all these situations, unilateral actions or perpetual debate could preempt collective decision making (American Institute of Physics, 1992~. In April 2001, the National Research Council released its physics sur- vey findings in a report entitled Physics in a New Era: An Overview. In conjunction with the release of that report, NRC sponsored a public web- cast where it presented and discussed the survey findings and the report's recommendations. A major recommendation addressed the need for greater emphasis on appropriate training at all levels in physics education, from elementary education through postdoctoral training. During the question- and-answer segment following the summary of findings and recommenda- tions, a question was posed about the recommendations made concerning physics education. The question specifically asked whether the committee had addressed the obvious need to train physicists to manage all the com- plexities involved in large-scale research projects. The committee spokes- person responded by saying this had been recognized as an issue, but the committee had not addressed it in detail, suggesting in the report the use of joint programs between business schools and physics departments. A1- though large-scale physics projects have been around for decades with the same issues, the problem of how to train scientists to manage these complex collaborations persists. Compensation, Career Advancement, and Academic Recognition According to AIP (1992), "The collaborations in our sample lacked the administrative powers to reward and discipline their faculty-level mem- bers. Promotions, pay raises, hiring privileges, the administration of re- search grants, and access to a machine shop or research and development laboratory all rested with the several institutions that employed the col- laborators." Other constraints besides a lack of administrative authority may inhibit career progression. According to a former Fermilab director, the growth of big science is shrinking the job market. "We get fewer scientists per dollar" because more money is going into the construction of massive experimental apparatuses, and less into salaries (Flam, 1992~. Along with the issue of low salaries is that of receiving credit for contribu- tions to experiments. Journal papers in high-energy physics can some-

256 APPENDIX times have hundreds of authors. Even with smaller publications, collabo- rations attempting to recognize an individual's contributions by placing that individual's name at the head of the author list for the paper invari- ably provoke contention, especially when students are vying for the dis- tinction. AIP suggests that collaborations should probably abandon this practice, especially with students, because word of mouth, letters of rec- ommendation, and participation in conferences can effectively build repu- tations within the high-energy physics community (American Institute of Physics, 1992~. This recommendation may be appropriate for the field of high-energy particle physics because of its relatively small size and the common practice of large collaborations. It would not be feasible within biomedical science as the number of scientists is several times that found in particle physics, and the research is most often practiced on a much smaller scale. According to the AIP survey, to help graduate students and junior faculty gain recognition, a collaboration would carefully distribute con- ference talks to confer credit and provide exposure to the collaboration's lesser-known members. Managers and organizers who were "more en- lightened and self-secure" would grant leadership opportunities to more junior people with the inspiration and ambition to organize and run an experiment within a collaboration. The most desired role of junior fac- ulty was the office of spokesperson, which, as noted, was believed to be a great advantage for gaining tenure (American Institute of Physics, 1992~. Finally, despite the above-noted report of a physicist leaving the field of high-energy physics rather than working in ever-expanding collabora- tions, many scientists on the inside indicated in the AIP survey that they had found satisfaction in large collaborations even when they had ex- pected to feel uncomfortable (American Institute of Physics, 1992~. Universities Research Association (URA), Inc. President Lyndon Tohnson's Science Advisory Committee and the National Academy of Sciences initiated the not-for-profit URA Corpora- tion in 1965 for "the management and operation of research facilities in the national interest." These laboratories have traditionally been associ- ated with expensive large-scale physics projects conducted at accelerator facilities. Specifically, URA was organized to create the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab). Since January 1967, URA has been the prime contractor to DOE for the design, building, and operation of Fer- milab, which houses the Tevatron, currently the world's highest-energy accelerator for elementary particle physics research. Presidents of partici- pating universities designate their scientific and administrative talent to

APPENDIX 257 participate within the URA governing structure. URA is a consortium of 89 leading universities located primarily in the United States (including Cornell, Caltech, Berkeley, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, and MIT), with mem- bers also in Canada, lapan, and Italy. URA's charter is ". . . to acquire, plan, construct, and operate ma- chines, laboratories, and other facilities, under contract with the Govern- ment of the United States or otherwise, for research, development and education in the physical and biological sciences . . . and to educate and train technical, research and student personnel in said sciences" (URA, 2001~. The corporation acts under the authority of its governing body, the Council of Presidents of its 89 member universities. A board of trustees appoints boards of overseers for each major research activity. URA's head- quarters in Washington, D.C., coordinates the activities of the council and boards. URA's most notable responsibility is for oversight and gover- nance of Fermilab and for corporate relations with the Federal Govern- ment, industry, academe, and the general public in matters of physics. For fiscal year 2001, DOE funding for URA's contracts was approxi- mately $289 million, National Science Foundation (NSF) funding was about $2 million, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) funding was about $2 million (URA, 2001~. Staffing and Training With a national policy for publicly funded science research having been developed only decades ago (Bush, 1945a), it is not surprising that career trends and associated issues in the field of high-energy particle physics have paralleled, with a small time lag, the availability of federal funding (see Figures A-2 and Am. There is no policy in place to amelio- rate the effects of shifting federal funds on programs and personnel in- volved in government-supported science research. In the words of Bozeman (1995), many scientists "have been the victims of social and political forces over which they have no control." Described below are several events involving government decisions and their effects on the projects, training, and careers of physicists. It is difficult to isolate one particular issue from others, and just as difficult to trace specific effects to specific causes. Thus, the events outlined below have also most likely influenced the funding levels, management, and organization of large science research projects, and the discussion here may note aspects of these other areas as well. As with many decisions, there is a lag time between when a decision is made, and when its effects become apparent; this is true for fiscal budget decisions, making it difficult to predict and manage the effects of federal funding decisions. Government investment in large-scale university physics research

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).

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

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-

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.

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-

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

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.

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.

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.

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~.

Next: Index »
Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Future Research Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $65.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The nature of biomedical research has been evolving in recent years. Technological advances that make it easier to study the vast complexity of biological systems have led to the initiation of projects with a larger scale and scope. In many cases, these large-scale analyses may be the most efficient and effective way to extract functional information from complex biological systems.

Large-Scale Biomedical Science: Exploring Strategies for Research looks at the role of these new large-scale projects in the biomedical sciences. Though written by the National Academies’ Cancer Policy Board, this book addresses implications of large-scale science extending far beyond cancer research. It also identifies obstacles to the implementation of these projects, and makes recommendations to improve the process. The ultimate goal of biomedical research is to advance knowledge and provide useful innovations to society. Determining the best and most efficient method for accomplishing that goal, however, is a continuing and evolving challenge. The recommendations presented in Large-Scale Biomedical Science are intended to facilitate a more open, inclusive, and accountable approach to large-scale biomedical research, which in turn will maximize progress in understanding and controlling human disease.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!