D
Survey of AMO Scientists

As part of the FAMOS panel's assessment, a survey of AMO scientists was conducted by mail, using the questionnaire reproduced at the end of this appendix. The mailing comprised a letter of introduction, the five-page questionnaire and postage-paid return envelope, a Research Specialties Directory (also reproduced at the end of this appendix), and a postage-paid quick-response postcard. This was sent to members of the American Chemical Society, the American Physical Society (APS), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the Materials Research Society, the Optical Society of America, and the Society of Photographic and Instrumentation Engineers who expressed interest in areas related to the present assessment as defined by the division, topical groups, technical interest groups, and so on, to which each belonged. The mailing lists from the different societies were cross-referenced and culled to minimize duplicate mailings to the same person. Budgetary constraints required that the mailing be limited principally to members with PhD degrees.

A total of 19,650 questionnaires were mailed, of which 3,424 were returned completed. Approximately 2,000 recipients responded by stating that they would not complete the questionnaire because they were not practicing AMO scientists. The overall response rate of approximately 28% is typical for surveys of this type. The number of questionnaires obtained, however, is sufficient to ensure a diversity of opinion and circumstance and allows the data to be broken down and analyzed by subgroups. Nonetheless, the possibility exists that the results of the survey will be biased by nonresponse; that is, the opinions of those AMO scientists who did not respond are not represented. It is difficult to estimate what fraction of practicing AMO doctoral scientists actually received and returned a



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



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

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

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future D Survey of AMO Scientists As part of the FAMOS panel's assessment, a survey of AMO scientists was conducted by mail, using the questionnaire reproduced at the end of this appendix. The mailing comprised a letter of introduction, the five-page questionnaire and postage-paid return envelope, a Research Specialties Directory (also reproduced at the end of this appendix), and a postage-paid quick-response postcard. This was sent to members of the American Chemical Society, the American Physical Society (APS), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the Materials Research Society, the Optical Society of America, and the Society of Photographic and Instrumentation Engineers who expressed interest in areas related to the present assessment as defined by the division, topical groups, technical interest groups, and so on, to which each belonged. The mailing lists from the different societies were cross-referenced and culled to minimize duplicate mailings to the same person. Budgetary constraints required that the mailing be limited principally to members with PhD degrees. A total of 19,650 questionnaires were mailed, of which 3,424 were returned completed. Approximately 2,000 recipients responded by stating that they would not complete the questionnaire because they were not practicing AMO scientists. The overall response rate of approximately 28% is typical for surveys of this type. The number of questionnaires obtained, however, is sufficient to ensure a diversity of opinion and circumstance and allows the data to be broken down and analyzed by subgroups. Nonetheless, the possibility exists that the results of the survey will be biased by nonresponse; that is, the opinions of those AMO scientists who did not respond are not represented. It is difficult to estimate what fraction of practicing AMO doctoral scientists actually received and returned a

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future questionnaire. The categories included in setting up the mailing list were purposely kept broad to ensure good coverage of the field, and it was expected that the list would include many non-AMO scientists who might not respond at all. The 1990 APS employment survey reported 2,725 doctoral scientists actively employed in AMO physics in 1989, and that this number had remained essentially constant for several years. The panel's survey indicates that ~41% of AMO scientists hold degrees in physics, suggesting that there are about 6,000 to 7,000 AMO doctoral scientists active today. The completed questionnaires received therefore appear to represent a sampling of the opinions of approximately one-half of practicing AMO scientists. Education And Employment Profile As expected, given the selection criteria applied at the time of mailing, the majority of respondents (93%) had a PhD degree. Forty-six percent indicated that they were employed in universities/colleges, 30% in industry, and 18% in federally funded research and development (R&D) laboratories or government (to be termed simply government). Sixteen percent described their R&D activities as principally atomic, 46% as principally molecular, and 38% as principally optical. Approximately equal numbers of respondents characterized their work as being principally basic or principally applied. Eighty percent described their R&D activities as principally experimental. Of the 20% whose activities were principally theoretical, 76% considered their work computationally intensive. The year that respondents received their highest degree is shown in Figure D.1, broken down by employment sector and principal area of research. The overall distributions reflect the effects of retirement and illustrate disproportionate growth in optical science over the past 30 years. A similar growth in industrial employment is also noted. The distribution of specialties in which respondents working in industry, government, and universities received their highest degrees is shown in Figure D.2. A total of 41% of the respondents received their highest degree in some area of physics, 36% in chemistry, and 23% in engineering or some other field. Respondents with degrees in optical physics, applied physics, electrical engineering, and materials science had the highest probability of being employed in industry. The places in which respondents work is shown in Figure D.3a, broken down by principal area of research. The difference in emphasis between work conducted in industry and in universities is clearly illustrated. In industry the focus is on optical science; in universities molecular science is dominant. The distribution of times for which respondents have been employed by their present employer is presented in Figure D.3b. It is interesting to note that mobility appears highest in the industrial sector and that although some 38% of respondents have changed employers in the past 5 years, only ~18% received their highest degree in this interval.

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future The principal job positions of respondents employed in industry, government, and academe are shown in Figure D.4. In total, only 5% of respondents indicated that they held temporary positions. The professional societies to which respondents belong are indicated in Figure D.5. The number of different societies included in Figure D.5 illustrates the breadth of AMO science and the range of interests of its practitioners. On average, each respondent is a member of 2.3 societies. Figure D.6 illustrates how the breakdowns between atomic, molecular, and optical, basic and applied, and experimental and theoretical R&D activities depend on employment sector. In industry, 87% of respondents are involved in applied work, whereas in universities 75% undertake basic research. The relative emphasis on basic and applied work is about equal in government laboratories. Theoretical activity is greatest in universities and significantly less in industry. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND TRENDS The research specialties of respondents are shown in Figure D.7, broken down by employment sector. The emphasis on optical science in industry and on molecular (and atomic) science in universities is again evident. The enabling aspect of AMO science is also demonstrated in that a large majority of respondents in industry noted that their work interfaced with other areas of science and technology. A substantial fraction of respondents (66% in industry, 77% in government, and 73% in universities) indicated that they are involved in collaborative programs with other groups in the United States. A smaller but still sizable fraction (32% in industry, 41% in government, and 45% in universities) reported collaborations with groups outside the United States. Of those respondents involved in collaborative research, 64% in industry, 62% in government, and 55% in universities described their work as cross-disciplinary, which further emphasizes the breadth of AMO science and its many applications. Their level of involvement in collaborative programs is illustrated by Figure D.8. Approximately 50% described themselves as being very involved, whereas only ~10% showed their involvement as peripheral. The large majority, over 85%, indicated that in the past 5 years their level of involvement has remained the same or increased; indeed, ~30% indicated that their involvement has increased substantially. This may reflect the broadening impact of the field and/or changes occurring in response to funding pressures. The utilization of user facilities by respondents is shown in Figure D.9a. Only ~20% indicated that more than 50% of their experimental or computational work is undertaken at user facilities, whereas approximately 50% do not utilize such facilities at all. The utilization patterns change little between employment sectors (or major research area). A weighted average of the responses suggests that some 22% of the work in AMO science is undertaken at user facilities. The

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future responses also suggest that computational theorists are somewhat more likely to use user facilities than are experimenters. The data indicate that ~29% of computational work is undertaken at user facilities. Figure D.9b shows how the respondents' utilization of user facilities has changed in the past 5 years. No strong trends are evident. Approximately 17% indicated their activities at user facilities have increased, whereas 9% said these have decreased. Figure D.10a shows the countries that respondents listed as having significant R&D activities in their major area. It is apparent that only a few respondents work in areas in which there is no competition from outside the United States. Competition from Japan is especially strong in optical science and from Germany in atomic and molecular science. Figure D.10b indicates how respondents believe the U.S. contribution to the total worldwide effort in their major area has changed in the past 5 years. Clearly, the perception is that in all areas of AMO science the U.S. contribution has decreased somewhat in this interval. Figure D.11 shows how respondents rated R&D efforts in their area in the United States in comparison to those in other countries in terms of innovation, productivity, equipment, and facilities. The U.S. effort ranks well in each area, especially in innovation, where ~72% of respondents rated U.S. performance as strong/very strong, that is, a rating of 1 or 2. The rating in terms of productivity, equipment, and facilities is somewhat lower, but 48%, 50%, and 45% of respondents, respectively, still believe that the U.S. position is strong/very strong. How respondents regard the balance between theory and experiment is illustrated in Figure D.12. It is apparent that researchers in all three employment sectors, and in each major research area, believe the balance between theory and experiment to be about right. To explore this question further, the data were sorted according to whether the respondents' interests were principally experimental or principally theoretical, but as is evident from Figure D.12, even theorists feel that the present balance between theory and experiment is reasonable. The sources of R&D funding for the groups or teams to which respondents belong are shown in Figure D.13. A large percentage (~80%) of the university research groups represented receive support from federal agencies, highlighting the importance of federal funding in maintaining a strong university research effort. However, a significant number of university groups receive funding from other sources. In particular, ~19% and 13% receive support from industrial contracts and corporate donations, respectively (the largest number of these going to support optical and molecular science). Approximately 82% of industrial groups represented in the survey receive internal support, although ~35% also obtain funding from federal agencies. As expected, federal monies support the bulk of the research effort in government laboratories. The total amounts and sources of annual support for AMO science listed by respondents are presented in Figure D.14a, which shows an aggregate annual support of $610M. This figure, however, does not include industrial funding from internal sources. Approximately 71% of university respondents served as

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future principal investigator or co-principal investigator on one (or more) grant, contract, or donation. This fraction was somewhat smaller in government (~60%) and much less in industry (~29%). The largest individual source of support is DOD, with an annual support level of $204M, followed by DOE ($103M), NSF ($59M), and NASA ($52M). Other federal support totals $48M. Industrial contracts ($69M) are also a significant source of funding. Private foundations, corporate donations, and state funds contribute ~$48M. Given that not all AMO scientists responded to the questionnaire, these numbers represent lower bounds to the annual funding level for AMO science, which is likely to be ~$1B. Nonetheless, it is clear that DOD is a major supporter of AMO science and that changes in its funding patterns could have a major impact on the field, especially in the industrial sector, where DOD support is dominant. In contrast, the present survey indicates that NSF is the largest supporter of university-based AMO R&D (~25%, $55M), followed by DOD (~21%, $47M), and DOE (~12%, $26M). Thus the fate of university-based AMO research is strongly tied to that of NSF. The total federal support listed by university-based researchers is $165M. The mean and median values of the annual support that individual respondents receive from NSF, DOE, DOD, and NASA are shown in Figure D.14b . These may not reflect the true median/average grant sizes for those agencies, however, because a given respondent may have combined support from more than one grant/contract from a given agency or may be co-principal investigator and thus may have reported only his/her share of the total. It is apparent that the mean/median support levels provided to individual investigators by NSF and NASA are significantly lower than those provided by DOD and DOE. The large differences between the median and the mean values in the case of DOE, DOD, and NASA result because these agencies support a number of multimillion dollar projects that significantly increase the mean. Approximately 76% of respondents receiving direct research support indicated that they were involved in mission-oriented research. The distribution of responses among the mission categories (energy, health and the environment, space science, defense, and commerce and technology) is shown in Figure D.15. R&D related to defense dominates in industry and is important in university and government laboratories, where, however, it is almost equaled by energy-related R&D. There are also significant activities in the areas of health and the environment, and space science. In optical science, defense dominates mission-oriented R&D. For atomic and molecular science, energy is the most important category, with defense a close second. AMO science is, however, clearly important in all mission areas. The percentage of the total R&D funding that respondents receive that is used in salary/stipend support is shown in Figure D.16. Clearly, such support accounts for a major fraction of the research budget in each sector, leaving little flexibility, especially as regards purchase of major new research instrumentation. This inability to upgrade equipment can limit R&D progress and output

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future and reduces the exposure of graduate students to state-of-the-art equipment and techniques, a vital part of their training. The distribution of the number of different sources from which individual respondents with R&D funding receive that funding is shown in Figure D.17a. Approximately 60% indicated that they receive support from only one or two sources. Fewer than 10% obtain funding from more than five sources. Figure D.17b shows how the number of sources from which respondents receive funding has changed in the past 5 years. This number appears to have remained largely unchanged in recent years. The change in respondents' R&D support in the past 5 years is shown in Figure D.18. Approximately 51% indicated that in real terms their support has decreased, and only ~25% that it has increased. The situation appears to be worst in government laboratories. These figures may also underestimate the real decrease in funding, because respondents who had no current R&D funding but may have had support within the past 5 years were instructed not to answer this question. No significant differences in the funding history for each specialty area, that is, atomic, molecular, and optical, were evident. As demonstrated in Figure D.19, a large majority, ~71%, of respondents believe that funding for strong programs should not be increased at the expense of the total number of programs supported. The percentage of time that respondents spend pursuing R&D support is shown in Figure D.20. Although ~61% of respondents reported spending less than 20% of their time seeking funding, a significant number, ~12%, stated that they spend greater than 50% of their time in this pursuit. However, researchers in universities tend to spend a somewhat larger average fraction of their time seeking support than do their colleagues in industrial or government laboratories. The averaged relative priorities assigned to different categories are shown in Figure D.21, broken down by employment sector, and exhibit a number of prejudices. Respondents in all sectors, but especially universities, assign high priority to support of single-investigator, small-scale programs, which are the very heart of AMO science. Similarly broad support exists for funding young investigators, graduate students, and postdoctoral/research associates. It is also agreed that capital equipment items deserve strong support. There is unanimity that new user facilities, advanced computer facilities, centers of excellence, and soft-money positions are not of the highest priority. Respondents in government and industrial laboratories feel that existing user facilities and consortia/multi-investigator programs/interdisciplinary research deserve quite high priority, but workers in universities are somewhat less enthusiastic. HUMAN RESOURCES AND DEMOGRAPHICS The size of R&D groups or teams to which respondents belong is shown in Figure D.22. As might be expected, interaction with graduate and undergraduate

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future students is greatest for respondents at universities/colleges. Indeed, ~67% of such respondents reported that they interact with one or more undergraduate research students, and 79% indicated that their research group contains one or more graduate students. Approximately 27% of respondents from government indicated interaction with undergraduate students, and ~41% involvement with graduate students. The corresponding numbers in industry are much lower, ~13% and ~18%, respectively. University and government laboratories also provide continued training for postdoctoral/research associates; ~56% and ~65% of respondents, respectively, in these sectors noted that they interact with one or more such researchers. In contrast, only ~23% of workers in industrial laboratories reported such interactions. A large fraction of the respondents in all these employment sectors reported interactions with one or more other research staff/faculty, although this is particularly high in government laboratories. Technical support is strongest in industrial and government laboratories, where somewhat more than 70% of respondents interact with one or more technicians. This figure is substantially smaller in universities (~35%). Clerical and administrative support in all three sectors appears comparable. The fractions of respondents reporting changes in the major emphasis of their R&D activities in the past 5 years is shown in Figure D.23. Only ~45% of university researchers have changed their major R&D emphasis in this interval, which contrasts with the ~66% of industrial researchers who did. The major reasons for change appear to be changes in institutional direction/emphasis (except in universities), identification of new problems, funding and employment opportunities, and the availability of new technologies. Taken together, funding difficulties, employment difficulties, and the availability of new computer or user facilities do not appear to be major driving factors for changes in emphasis. These responses indicate that the evolution of the field is being governed principally by new scientific opportunities. Information regarding hiring in the past 3 years to fill temporary positions is presented in Figure D.24. These data may be biased in that multiple returns from a large research group could result in an overestimation of available positions. However, given an overall response rate of only ~50%, and the typically small size of AMO R&D groups or teams, this effect should be relatively small. Also, comparisons of past and future trends are not affected by this bias. The data suggest that a majority (~60%) of R&D groups in government laboratories have hired, or tried to hire, AMO scientists to fill temporary positions. This figure is somewhat less (~46%) in universities. In industrial laboratories the situation is different, with only ~23% of such laboratories having attempted to fill temporary positions. Typically, in each sector groups that have sought to fill temporary positions have had only one, two, or possibly three openings. These positions appear to arise equally from refilling a temporary position and from creation of new positions. Anticipated recruiting patterns for temporary positions for the next 3 years

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future are illustrated in Figure D.25a. A large fraction (~70%) of researchers in industrial laboratories do not anticipate any new hires in the next 3 years. The situation is somewhat better in government and university laboratories, where ~60% and 50% of respondents, respectively, anticipate new openings. Again those groups that anticipate having positions to fill expect typically only one or two openings. Comparison of Figure D.24 and D.25a provides little optimism that the availability of temporary positions will increase in the near future. Taken together, respondents in government, industry, and universities estimate there will be 740, 540, and 1,330 temporary positions, respectively, in these sectors in the next 3 years; that is, respondents expect an average of 870 temporary positions in AMO science per year. This availability is slightly lower than that reported (~930 per year) for temporary positions in the past 3 years. Figure D.25b shows the distribution of specialties in which recruitment is considered likely. These distributions vary according to employment sector; industry emphasizes interfaces with other areas of science and technology, and optical sciences in general. Government laboratories place emphasis on interface areas, but areas such as atomic and molecular collisions and structure, and their optical interactions and spectroscopy, are also considered important. Universities place emphasis on these latter areas. As illustrated in Figure D.26, somewhat over one-half the respondents from each employment sector indicated that their research group or team hired, or tried to hire, new faculty/staff to long-term or permanent positions in the past 3 years. Few respondents, however, reported more than two openings. In universities, only ~13% of openings are associated with failure to get tenure, the remainder arising approximately equally from retirement and creation of new positions. In government and industrial laboratories the majority of openings resulted from the creation of new positions. Anticipated recruitment patterns for permanent or long-term positions are shown in Figures D.27a-d. Less than one-half the respondents in each employment sector anticipate hiring within the next 3 years, and comparison with Figure D.26 suggests that the job market in the immediate future will be tougher than in the past. Indeed, respondents in government, industry, and universities expect the availability of 360, 980, and 910 long-term positions, respectively, in these sectors. This corresponds to an average of ~750 positions per year, significantly less (~30%) than the average of ~1,070 positions per year reported for the past 3 years. Researchers in government laboratories are most pessimistic about the future, perhaps a response to uncertainties concerning the future role of government laboratories. The distribution of specialties in which recruiting is considered likely is shown in Figure D.27b. The emphasis in industry is on applications and optical science, and that in government and universities is more on atomic and molecular collisions and structure and their optical interactions and spectroscopy. As indicated in Figure D.27c, the majority of openings in universities (~51%) will be nontenured faculty positions, with ~31% tenured positions.

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future Only ~11% will be for research faculty/research scientist positions. In industry and government, most openings will be for members of technical staff or research scientists. The likely R&D interests of the persons to be recruited are shown in Figure D.27d. The emphasis in industrial hiring will be on people with a background in optical science, and, to a lesser degree, molecular science. A similar bias is evident in the case of government laboratories. Molecular science will lead recruitment efforts at universities, which are more evenly divided among the three AMO categories. As expected, emphasis in industry will be on applied science, and in universities on basic science. In each employment sector, fewer than 16% of anticipated openings will be in theory, corresponding to a total of ~110 positions per year. Of these theorists, it is expected that ~80% will work on computationally intensive problems. As indicated in Figure D.28, a substantial majority of respondents, especially those in industry, believe that human resources in AMO science are adequate to meet existing and future needs in terms of both quantity and quality. As demonstrated in Figure D.29, respondents do not believe that the importance of AMO science is decreasing. Indeed, researchers in universities believe that, at least in this setting, its importance is increasing significantly.

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future FIGURE D.1 The year respondents received their highest degree, broken down by (a) employment sector and (b) principal area of research. The bars represent the percentage of respondents in each sector or area who obtained their highest degree in the time intervals indicated.

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future FIGURE D.2 The specialty in which respondents obtained their highest degree. The bars represent the number of respondents in each employment sector who obtained their degree in the specialties indicated.

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future FIGURE D.27c The nature of future permanent positions, broken down by employment sector. The bars represent, for each sector, the percentage of available positions in each category. FIGURE D.27d Anticipated principal R&D activities and interests of likely candidates for permanent positions, broken down by employment sector. The bars represent the percentage of likely candidates with the different characteristics indicated.

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future FIGURE D.28 Adequacy of human resources. The bars represent the percentage of respondents in each employment sector who believe that the human resources in their major research area are adequate (yes) or inadequate (no) to meet existing and future needs in terms of quantity and quality. FIGURE D.29 The importance of AMO science. The bars represent the percentage of respondents in each employment sector who believe that AMO science in their organization is becoming more or less important, or remaining about the same.

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future RESEARCH SPECIALTIES DIRECTORY ATOMIC AND MOLECULAR STRUCTURE AND PROPERTIES 01 RF, microwave and IR spectroscopy 02 Visible and UV spectroscopy 03 Oscillator strengths, transition moments, Franck-Condon factors 04 Fluorescence and Phosphorescence, internal conversion 05 Behavior in static fields 06 Excited-state lifetimes 07 Relativity, QED and parity violation effects 08 Electron correlation effects 09 Fundamental theory OPTICAL INTERACTIONS WITH ATOMS AND MOLECULES 10 Radiative transport, opacity 11 Level crossing and optical pumping 12 Photodissociation/molecular dynamics 13 Photoionization/photodetachment, photoelectron spectroscopy 14 Inner shell ionization, Auger processes 15 Mechanical effects of light on atoms and molecules 16 Intense field effects 17 Photo-induced reactions, photochemistry ATOMIC AND MOLECULAR COLLISIONS AND INTERACTIONS 18 Ultracold collisions 19 Transport phenomena, diffusion 20 Interaction potentials and forces 21 Rotational and vibrational energy transfer 22 Reactive scattering, chemical kinetics 23 Excitation, dissociation 24 Charge transfer collisions, recombination 25 Reaction rate constants and cross sections 26 Electron impact excitation/ionization 27 Polarization and orientation studies 28 Development of special beam sources for AMO science 29 Computational modelling, simulation 30 Fundamental collision theory INTERACTION OF ATOMS AND MOLECULES WITH SOLIDS AND SURFACES 31 Channelling 32 Atom/molecule-surface scattering 33 Ion-surface scattering 34 Properties of adsorbed atoms and molecules   STUDIES OF SPECIAL ATOMS AND MOLECULES 35 Highly excited species 36 Highly charged ions 37 Exotic atoms and molecules 38 Atomic and Molecular clusters LASER SPECTROSCOPY 39 Precision spectroscopy/Fundamental measurements 40 High field effects in matter 41 Multiphoton processes 42 Trapping and cooling of atoms and molecules 43 Novel techniques and concepts in spectroscopy 44 Frequency measurement/absolute standards NONLINEAR OPTICAL PHENOMENA 45 Fundamental nonlinear optics 46 Nonlinear optics in fiber, guided wave, and other structures 47 Nonlinear optics at interfaces 48 New nonlinear optical materials 49 Phase conjugation 50 Nonlinear spectroscopy QUANTUM OPTICS 51 Methods of production and properties of squeezed states 52 Quantum aspects of light/Cavity QED 53 Noise 54 Nonlinear dynamics/Instabilities/Chaos 55 Applications to fundamental measurements

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future OPTICAL INTERACTIONS WITH CONDENSED MATTER 56 Interactions with liquids 57 Interactions with solids, composites, superconductors 58 Interactions with semiconductors and heterostructures 59 Optical processes at surfaces and interfaces   ULTRAFAST OPTICS 60 Methods for generation of ultrashort light pulses 61 Ultrafast optical measurement techniques 62 Ultrafast optical spectroscopy 63 Applications of ultrafast optical pulses   PHYSICS OF COHERENT LIGHT SOURCES 64 New sources and physical mechanisms, multiwave mixing 65 XUV and X-ray lasers 66 Gas lasers 67 Solid state lasers 68 Laser materials 69 Free-electron lasers 70 Semiconductor and quantum well lasers 71 Non-linear dynamics in lasers INTERFACE WITH OTHER AREAS OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 72 Computational methods 73 Detector and imaging technology 74 Materials characterization 75 Laser materials processing 76 Industrial applications of lasers 77 Medical applications of lasers 78 Application of lasers in biosciences 79 Optical damage 80 Optoelectronics 81 Optical communications device design/fiber optic media engineering 82 Optical data storage 83 Microlithography, nanotechnology 84 Holography 85 Optical diagnostics 86 Metrology 87 Combustion science 88 Laser-produced plasmas 89 Plasma processing (CVD, etching, …) 90 Fusion (MFE and ICF) 91 Isotope separation 92 Solar energy conversion 93 Environmental/health science 94 Aeronomy/Planetary science 95 Astronomy and astrophysics 96 Surface characterization 97 Surface chemistry/catalysis 98 Chemical analysis

OCR for page 163
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Science: An Investment in the Future This page in the original is blank.