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 115
Supplement 3
Organization and Support of Physics
In the United States, basic physics is supported by many organizations and
a variety of funding patterns. These patterns reflect such factors as industrial
interest, relevance to agency missions, and degrees of centralization, which
can range from intense concentration in large national facilities to highly
dispersed small research groups.
In this supplement, we describe the funding patterns, their differences and
similarities, and some of their consequences. We point out the increasing need
for centralized facilities in some areas, the increasing need for dispersed
support in other areas, and certain trends in physics funding during the past 15
years.
This supplement focuses on the organization and support of physics as a
whole. Specific problems of the various subfields are highlighted, but the
reader should consult the accompanying panel reports for a thorough discus-
sion of any particular one.
THE DIVERSITY OF INSTITUTIONS FOR RESEARCH IN PHYSICS
At present, more than half (53 percent) of Ph.D. physicists work in academic
institutions; the remainder are in industry (21 percent) and in government and
national laboratories (26 percent). An increasing number of industrial and
governmental physicists use specialized facilities at regional or national
laboratories for part of their research, but most by far of the physical research
in the United States is carried out by small groups, often in universities. As
emphasized in Chapter 3, it is important to recognize that small-group research
represents one of this nation's major strengths in physics. It plays a major role
in the advance of physics, and the research contributes directly to our national
programs and the generation of new technology.
115
OCR for page 116
116 PHYSICS THROUGH THE I990s: AN OVERVIEW
Major Facilities and National Laboratories
It is probably fair to say that big science the collaborative use of large
centralized facilities at national laboratorieshad its origins in the Manhattan
Project. However, even without this wartime stimulus the evolution of physics
would have been, as it is, toward increasingly complex problems whose
solutions frequently require larger, more sophisticated, and more expensive
facilities. Elementary-particle physics has moved farthest in this direction: its
research is concentrated in no more than four accelerator facilities in the
United States. Nuclear physics, while clearly moving in the same direction,
has so far managed to justify the maintenance of a broader base of facilities. Even
in subfields such as atomic physics and condensed-matter physics, which pride
themselves on their independent, self-sufficient, and individually sized research
groups, some of the research now requires user programs with such facilities as
synchrotron light sources, high-voltage electron microscopes, reactors, intense-
pulse neutron sources, and the National Science Foundation's (NSF's) Materials
Research Laboratories.
A very different example of the trend toward centralized facilities has been
the development of national computing centers and associated networks. The
NSF's National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the Depart-
ment of Energy's Magnetic Fusion Energy Computer Center (MFECC) make
available to an individual researcher far more computer capability than could
be justified or afforded on a more local level. Recently, the NSF has conducted
a number of studies of the problem of scientific computing in general and
large-scale scientific computing in particular (Panel on Large Scale Computing
in Science and Engineering, P. Lax, Chairman, December 1982; and Working
Group on Computers in Research, K. Curtis, Chairman, July 1983~. The NSF
has created four centers for computation in order to make large computers
available to the scientific community.
The national laboratories play a vital role in advancing physics in the United
States. They carry forward basic research missions and fill a variety of special
needs. Often they can provide necessary facilities and services in cases where
the size or cost is beyond the scale possible for individual research groups.
They can also provide facilities that are too hazardous or too specialized for
local laboratories. In developing, maintaining, and making these facilities
available to outside researchers, the national laboratories play an important
stewardship role. In order for these laboratories to maintain the quality of
expertise necessary to perform this role, it is important for their staffs to be
permitted and encouraged to spend a reasonable fraction of their time pursuing
their own independent research.
In addition to providing the essential tools for many areas of basic research,
the national laboratories carry out diverse missions of programmatic research
in areas such as metrology, environmental monitoring, and calibration and
standardization. Because of continuing changes in these missions and their
priorities, there has recently been discussion* of the appropriate roles of these
* See, for example, The Department of Energy Multiprogram Laboratories, E.R.A.B.
Report DOEtS-0015 (September 1982), and Report of the Federal Laboratory Review
Panel (D. Packard, Chairman), White House Science Council (May 1983).
OCR for page 117
ORGANIZATION AND SUPPORT OF PHYSICS 1 17
laboratories and of the best way for the federal government to manage these
resources, while maintaining the flexibility to respond to changing research
needs and to exploit new scientific and technical developments.
The Packard report makes a number of recommendations for increasing the
effectiveness of the laboratories. The recommendations are particularly con-
cerned with giving the laboratories more financial stability and flexibility. It is
suggested that a substantial part (5 to 10 percent) of the laboratories' budgets
be earmarked as discretionary funds for the director to use in exploiting
innovative scientific opportunities. While seeking in this way to reduce the
level of micromanagement by the funding agencies, the recommendations
would at the same time make directors more accountable for the quality,
productivity, and relevance of their laboratories.
The Packard report is also concerned with the establishment of clearly
defined missions for each laboratory (beyond simple self-preservation) and
with the strengthening of the interaction of federal laboratories with their users
and with both industrial and university scientists and laboratories. Maintaining
strong national laboratories is vital to the future of physics research in the
United States.
University Research
In addition to their role in educating and training graduate students who will
be the next generation of research scientists, university faculty and their
laboratories carry out much of the basic physics research in the United States.
Free of the responsibilities for programmatic research, the encumbrances of
commercial justification, and, generally, restrictive commitments to large
in-house facilities, the university component of physics research can be
imaginative and flexible in pursuing new ideas. Because of this flexibility, and
because of the diversity resulting from the large number of independent
university researchers with interests covering the full range of physics,
university laboratories have been able to compete successfully with national
and industrial laboratories in spite of the overwhelming advantage that the
other two components frequently have in terms of instrumentation and
facilities.
Industrial Research
Industrial research in the United States is concentrated in condensed-matter
physics; in atomic, molecular, and optical physics; and in interdisciplinary
areas such as materials science and biophysics. In condensed-matter physics,
industrial research constitutes nearly one third of the total effort in the United
States. Industrial interest in these fields is due to the close relationship between
basic discoveries in these areas and commercial application in electronics and
optics. Industrial laboratories in the United States are responsible for much
basic research, and they also provide a bridge between the research commu-
nity and the development of new technologies. Such advances have allowed
the United States to lead the world in the area of high technology.
Industrial laboratories like those at Bell and IBM are unique in the world,
and they represent a national resource that could not easily be replicated. In
interface areas, industrial research laboratories can provide unique opportuni-
ties and instrumentation for basic research. Industrial laboratories can fre-
OCR for page 118
118 PHYSICS THROUGH THE ~990s: AN OVERVIEW
quently apply a broader range of techniques to a particular problem than is
possible in universities. This can be crucial in materials work, where several
characterization measurements are important in uncovering the physics of a
specific problem.
THE COMPLEMENTARY ROLES OF OUR RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS
Industrial laboratories, national laboratories, and university laboratories
have their particular strengths, which complement each other and should be
used to ensure the vitality of our national research effort. As discussed further
in the last section of this supplement, an important strength of U.S. physics
research is the flexibility that results from the collaborative interaction and
constructive cross-fertilization among the university, industrial, and national
laboratory sectors.
A constructive, complementary relationship also exists between the large
national facilities and the independent individual research groups. As dis-
cussed in Chapter 3, balances must be achieved and maintained between the
needs of large national facilities and those of individual group researchers and
between a several-billion-dollar, 20-40 TeV Superconducting Super Collider to
explore the nature of matter and energy and a $200,000, ultrahigh-vacuum
system for hyperthermal (1-1000 eV) ion-beam studies of the atomic structure
of metal surfaces. One difficulty in maintaining such balances is the different
visibility inherent in the different components and the absence of opportunities
for launching major research initiatives in small-group research. A new, larger
accelerator or a major new telescope can have an invigorating effect on an
entire field, which extends far beyond the immediate users. It is difficult, if not
impossible, to launch such an initiative when the goals of a field are diverse and
the major need is not for a central facility but for increased support of small
groups.
The growing role of research in the user mode at large national facilities can
cause tensions. The situation was summarized in the 1970 report of the Physics
Survey Committee,* and the description is just as valid today:
. . . As experimental work shifts from smaller local facilities to larger ones of national or
international significance, it is clear that the pressures for the greatest possible efficiency
in the use of the facility mount rapidly, as does competition for access to it. Under these
circumstances it is difficult to allow a student a major role in the overall design of an
experiment, its execution, and its analysis. It also is difficult, when scheduling is tight
and long-term, to offer sufficient time and flexibility to allow a student to follow his
curiosity into whatever new channels unfold during the course of an experiment. What
is involved here is a different style of experimental educational experience and one that
is intrinsically more specialized than has been traditional in physics. But there is little or
no choice; physics departments must accept such changes if they are to remain active at
the research frontiers that attract some of the most able students.
* Physics in Perspective (National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1972),
Vol. I, p. 599.
OCR for page 119
ORCAN/ZA7~ON AND SUPPORT OF PHYSICS 1 19
1.0
-
=0 0.8
~5
o
o 0.6
. _
. _
Q
-
Cl)
z 0.4
o
-
~ 0.2
J
m
o
o
_
.....
.......
...........
/
.....
, .
..... :
....
\
it\
.......
......
,, .
_
.:..:...
..........
_
if/
/
in
.....
.....
.,
/
/
it
.....
....
...... L
........
..........
, . .
........
......
...... '
/A
ace,.,
.: 1
..... 1
... ~
i
~1
~1
~1
~1
~1
Wall
K41
1 ,l,
[ ! 1
I. ... ..t
t::::::::::l I
: 3
. 1
. 3
,:::::::::1
1 1 ~ : 3 1
I ~ i ' ~
1::::::::::1 I::::::::::il I
,. . ,.'
, . ....
,::::::::::1
r/;
r/;
I .....
1'..:.':
I ]
,:::::::::i
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984
YEAR
NSF ~ DOE ~ NASA ~ DOD ~ Other
FIG U RE S3. I Federal obligations; for basic research in physics. FY I 967-FY I 9X4.
FUNDING SUPPORT FOR PHYSICS RESEARCH
As shown in Figure S3. 1 and Table S3. 1' during the 14 years since the last
Physics Survey, federal funding for basic research in physics (when expressed
in c an.st``nt dollars ) went through an initial decline from which it has gradually
~ In order to provide what we hope is ~ consistent set of rc w duct and to make the
connection with historical records more convenient. the tables in this supplement list the
various detailed funding data in current dollars (referenced to the fiscal ye or tor which
they were appropriated). For the purposes of making meaningful comp`~ri,;vnx between
the data for different years. wherever rea>;on`~ble and possible throughout this; >;upple-
ment we have tabulated and gr speed c~ggregc~te finc~nci`~l support figures referenced to
FY 19X3 dollars. To make this conversion. we h eve m ode use of the CPI-W index (urban
and clerical workers); this decision was made partly On the b axis th it the largest fraction
of this support is directly or indirectly rel Ted to these ~ dories and p tartly on the b axis of
consistency since this index has been widely used in previou.`; studies. A much more
detailed index has been developed (His,~l' Lamp Pl'!.si<.s An~'l.~.si.s `'f C`~.s~ `~n~1 Pri< `,
CI'`'n~,,~.s. HEP-X14()2 Division of High Energy Physics DOE). which tracks sep or lately
the inflation of salaries. power scientific equipment. construction. etc. A comp orison Of
these two indices (CPI-W versus HEP) shows th it ~Ithough the weighted ever age of the
HEP (Operc~ting/Capital Equipment/Cvn~itruction) indices m By differ trom the CPI-W
index by a!< much ~s +~/ percent in any given ye or when averaged Over the period
1976-l9XI (tor which complete comp orison dot ~ exist). the two indices agree tv within
les!; th In (). I percent.
OCR for page 120
120
o
Cq
o
-
._
so:
._
-
Go
Cal
-
Ct
C)
Cal
._
CJ.
._
Cal
PA
a:
._
~
C)
50
Ct
._
Ct
m
{40,
Cal
a:
o
._
Ct
0£
._
-
~9
o
-
Ct
En
~ Cal
m ~
~ O
Ct
'~
Ct
C~
.'
-
00
-
x
-
-
x
-
o
x
-
C~
-
00
-
-
0\
_
_
0\
_
_
_
_
C~
_
O
_
ax
_
00
_
\0
_
V) ~
~ 00
_ ~
O ~
_
_
00 00 ~
. . .
_ ~ 00
d"
~ O
O ~
_ _
r~
00
_
I~ ~ ~ X
. . . .
X X
O ~D ~ _
. . . .
X
~C ~
I. . . . .
x oo ~ ~ -
x ~
c~ -
. ~
r~
oo ~
- ~lo
. .
- ~
~ -
c,7
50
'e
o
-
. . .
- - - )
c~ ~ ~
~ - ~
~ ~ o ~
. . . .
oo oo - ~
- oo ~ ~
x - ~
~ oo ~
. . .
o - o
crx
~ - ~
oo
~D
v~
I- , ~ X
. . . .
~ X
oo ~
~ r~ ~
. . .
oo
~ o
. . .
o
~ r~
o
. .
oo
r~ crx
. .
~ oo
I C~ ~
. .
X X
. .
o ~
Io ~ ~ ~ oo
. . . . .
o~ ox
~ ~ ~ oo
. . . . .
~ oo ~ ~ ~
-
~ o ~ ~ ~
. . . . .
~ ~ o
-
~ ~ ~ ~ o
. . . . .
O ~ r~
oo
-
I oo ~ ~ ~ o
. . . . .
~ oo ~ ~
-
r~
~ 3
. ~
oo ~
X C)
o~
o ~
r~ _
s~
. Ct
o _
~ o
r~ ~
~ _ X ~
~ o o o~
_ Ct
~D =:
o
o~
x
r~
~o
I~ ~ ~ o ~ o co
. . . . . . .
~ ~ o ~ ~
o ~ o
. . .
d"
I ~D _ _ ~
. . . .
~ ~ o
o ~ V
5
.
X oo oo
X
oo
oo
. . .
X ~
oo
oo
. . .
o ~
X
oo
x
. . . . .
~ ~ o ~ ~
d
cr,
oo
r~
-
o
. X
,
X
. . .
o ~ o
~ o~
. . . . .
o~ C~ ~ o ~
o ~
. .
r~ X
r~ X
~ ~ o
. . .
~ ~ o
~,
I~ o oo
. . .
~ ~o ~
-
x ~ ~
. . .
o o o
-
. . . .
oo
o
. . . .
X
~ ~ o
- , X U~
. . . .
o~
o
d. _ _
r~ v~ ~ ~
. . . .
V~ oo
- , ~
d. _
o ~ ~ o
. . . .
- , ',
oo ~ ~ ~
d. _ _
C~ ~ oP ~ ~
. . . . .
X X o
X o o ~ ~
- 1
. l .
Xl
1 ~1
1
- 1
. l .
- 1
- 1 ~
1 t
r~1 0
. l .
~l x
~11 0
1 oo
Irn
r~ ~
x
xl
., .
=1 0
- 1 r
1 oo
oo
x
.
~o
IX ~ o ~
. . . . .
~ ~ X X
O ~ ~ rn ~
~o ~ oo
. . . . .
X
o
_ In ~
oo oo ~ ~
. . . · .
~ ~ ~ ~1
_ _ t ~ 1
~ <~ 1
Ct Ct G Ce
, oa~a
~ ~ ~ a ~ ~0 ~ 0 ~ 0
zazoo ~ zazo
1 ~
1
1 ~1
1 o
1
1 ~
1
1 ~
1 o
1
~:
a c,
Ct
O
0 ~
OCR for page 121
ORGANIZATION AND SUPPORT OF PHYSICS 121
0.04
0.03
LL
o
UJ
0.02
By
UJ
0.01
o
if.
1
. :
1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1 978 1980 1982 1 984
YEAR
FIGURE S3.2 Federal obligations for basic research in physics (as percentage of GNP
FY 1967-FY 1984).
recovered in recent years. This pattern, and particularly the recovery, has not
been uniform among the subfields. Furthermore, it should be realized that the
CPI-W price index, like all such indices, does not adequately account for
inflation, because of the need for more sophisticated and expensive equipment.
Thus a constant level of funding over a decade can actually portray a
deteriorating research condition.
While the overall federal support for basic physics research appears to have
largely recovered to its level in the late 1960s and early 1970s when expressed
in FY 1983 dollars, this support has not kept pace with the increasing GNP
(Figure S3.21. Since 1967, federal support for basic physics research has fallen
from nearly 0.044 percent of the GNP (1967) to a current level of 0.027 percent
(1984~.
Federal support for applied physics research (Figure S3.3 and Table S3.2)
shows an initial decline after 1967, followed by a very striking real increase to
a level that in FY 1984 is nearly twice what it was in FY 1970 (when expressed
in constant dollars). It should be noted, however, that this real increase in
support for applied physics is not broad; it is almost all due to the increase in
the DOE fusion program beginning in FY 1976 and to more recent increases at
DOD. Without these specific projects, the overall trend in Figure S3.3 would
look similar to that portrayed in Figure S3.1. It should also be noted that these
two sets of data (basic research and applied research) are aggregates reported
as such by the individual agencies; they are not summations of the subfield data
OCR for page 122
122 PHYSICS THROUGH THE I990s: AN OVERVIEW
1 .0
- o 0.8
~5
o
o 0.6
. _
. _
Q
-
z 0.4
o
-
0.2
o
o
NSF ~3 DOE
it.
~ _
)
~ .
. _
. ~
,.......
/
/
1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984
YEAR
NASA ~ DOD ~ Other
FIGURE S3.3 Federal obligations for applied research in physics FY 1967-FY 1984.
presented below. The two different sets of data (basic and applied versus
subfields) are each internally consistent; inconsistencies between the two sets
are largely due to questions of definition. With this disclaimer in mind, we can
use Figures S3. 1 and S3.3 and their respective tables (Tables S3. 1 and S3.2) to
characterize the trends in the overall support for basic and applied physics
research.
As discussed earlier, research is also performed in industrial laboratories and
supported by private industry, particularly in the areas of condensed-matter
physics and of atomic molecular, and optical physics. Because of the problem
of distinguishing between basic and applied research and development, finan-
cial support in this sector is generally not so easy to identify and define. The
expenditures plotted in Figure S3.4 and listed in Table S3.3 were compiled by
the NSF Division of Resource Studies. While the absolute level of this support
may be open to question because of problems associated with definition, the
level represented by these NSF statistics is quite consistent with the facts,
noted earlier in this supplement, that 21 percent of the working physicists are
in industry and that approximately 26 percent of the papers by U.S. authors
published in Play sic Cal Ret it's Letters and Applied Phi sic s Letters are written
by industrial physicists. In any case. these statistics should be internally
consistent. They indicate that the 30 percent decline over the period 1970-1981
is real. This is a particular cause for concern in areas where the support is
concentrated, such as in condensed-matter physics and atomic, molecular, and
optical physics, because industry may in fact represent as much as one third of
the total basic research.
OCR for page 123
-
-
Go
-
e~
c)
~
us
c)
A:
~ -
He
By
-
s~
an
{Jo"
v)
o
~ -
ct
04
-
-
c~
rat
i
oo
char
~1
x
or
He
-
o
x
x
ret
He
Al
i
cry
-0
_
cr
Cal
~ ID
-
.= Cr.
- 1 AN ~
r-, ~ ~ r] ~
lo. ret ~ ret
X ~ O
r~ r~
r - , C`]
~,
O
r`~
C~ ~1 C~1
. . .
O t ~1
.
r - ,
X - ,
. . .
_ _ r~.
~1
r - ,
. . .
r', ~ - .
X
~1
~1
. . .
1 ~ 1 r',
~1
r ~ 1 OG
. . .
~ t r~
- ,
~1
_
. . .
~1 0 ~0
X
-
O ~ 0N
~ O r'; - ,
O
O
_ . . .
O ~D ',
~ ~S,
U - . r~ 0
. . .
O ~1 \0
r~ ~ cr~ X
. . . .
x oo ~l ~
-
o ~ ~ ')
. . . .
o ~ - ]
~ - ~
r~
x
-
~o
x
-
x
~l
-
-
x
1
~1 X ~C
.
x ~ ~d
~1 ~1
- ~
X ~ OG
.
o~ ~ x
C`1 ~
_ r,
~; x x
.
~ r-, O
0 ~1 ~1
_ r,
o ~ o
.
O r~ _
r~
X ~ r-,
.
~ r`~ C~
-
O O tr,
.
- ' c`]
o ~ ~
- -
-
-
-
oo
- ~
-
-
. .
~ r - ,
00 r-,
o x
. .
~ -
r - , r - ,
r-.
. .
o ~
C~1 ~1
~1
~1 ~1
. .
oc ~
V-, ~1
-
. .
~ ~1
oo x ~ ~ ~
. . . . .
r~ ~ ~ 1
r~ C~
v~l ~
X r~ O
. . .
r - , - ) _
r~ - 1
- d - -
. . .
r - , - . C~1
~ - ~
. . .
O ~ C`1
r - ,
- 1 ~ X
. . .
1 '. ~t
cr~
r-.
~1 ~1
. . .
~ - v'
o
0 ~1
. . .
~ ~ o
Oc 5~ oN
. . .
_ r] <~1
r~
5 - .
1
~ ~ O C~ ~ 1
_ _ _
~1 C~
t4 - , _
. _
O 0N ~ r-,
o
_ , o
~,, _ r]
~ o X ~ o
_ . . . .
O o o
_ _
_ ~]
r - ,
X ~ C`]
o~ . . .
O r~ r~
~ r~
C~ c] _ _
~ Cr~ ~ ~ o
_ _ _ ,~,
_ r~
O r', ',
. . . .
o X _ O
r - >
_ ~
r~ 0
. . . .
o v~ ~ ~
- ~ ~
_ r~
o oo oo oo
. . . .
o ~ - -
O r~ oo
- ~
o ~ o ~
. . . .
o ~ ~ o
C~ r''
.
c~
o
-
r] ~ ~
.
r~ r~ O0
00 r-,
r-,
v-.
.
]
r-, ~
r-. o0
.
'd oo ~
.
r~
r-,
~1
oc c ~
.
\0 r-,
r-, r - .
- ~
~ ~ -
.
- c,c -
- d mi oc
C~1 sD
'. O r-.
.
~1 ~.
x ~ u~d
- ~
~ ~ -
.
r~ r-, cr~
d
_ ~D
r - , 1 o
.
=] c
~. oN
.
<; - o
~ o
.
- ~d
'}
r~
.
o
~l
x
-
o
.
oo ~
- 1
· 1
<1
- 1 1
1 ~
~o
.
c~] _ c~ v~, ~ 1
. . . . . l
o ~ ~ ~ 1
~ _ ~ 1
_ 1
o ~ ~ - 1
. . . . . ~ -
O oo X 0 1 X
r'~ - ) ~ 1
1
o ~ ~ ~ ol o
. . . . . ~ .
o ~ ~ c~ 1
,_, r 1 ~
1 - 1
o ~ ~ 1 ~ c r~ oo ~ r~ 1
. ~ . . · . · · 1
o ~ oo t t1 oo C ~ ~ 0 - 1 1
~ ~ 1 ~ 0 - 1 ~ - 1 1
_ 1 ~ 1
~ ~ U) ~ ~ Ct
V) O ~ O _ 0
zazao ~
123
~ ~ Ct ~ ~
eo fi ~ fi ~
=~cQa ~
~ 0 <: 0 ~
z a z ~ 0
-
Ct
~:
a
-
~ 1
o 1
E~ 1
1 ~
1 ~
~ _
1 ~
1
1 c~
1
1
1
1
1 ~
1 cd
1
1
1 .
1 ~
1 v:
1 ~o
1.o
1 ~7
1 -
| a
1 ~
1 v:
1 Z
1 ·-
1 L~
1
1
1 ~
o
OCR for page 124
124 PHYSICS THROUGH THE 1990s: AN OVERVIEW
240
200
160
o
. _
`,, 1 20
CC
0 80
40
o
YEAR
FIGURE S3.4 Industrial expenditures on basic research in physics, 1970-1981.
_~
1970
1972
it,
1974
1 976
1978
;
~ _
1980 1981
Two subfields for which complete, detailed data are available covering this
entire period (FY 1970-FY 1984) are elementary-particle physics and nuclear
physics; the data for these subfields are presented in Figure S3.5 and Table
S3.4, and Figure S3.6 and Table S3.5, respectively. These data include the
operating and equipment funds for both the experimental and theoretical
components of the fields. Because of the different ways in which the agencies
organize and report their research support, it was necessary to work with the
program officers to separate out the different components and combine them in
consistent ways. NSF normally reports Theory as a separate aggregate
undifferentiated by subfield, and so we had to develop a consistent way of
apportioning this. Although it would be desirable to present investments in
TABLE S3.3 Industrial Expenditures for Basic Research in
Physics, 1971-1981 (in Millions of Dollars)
71 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 81 81
Physics 111 112
Physics Deflated 258 251
94 83 91 92 116
223 186 181 171 185
SOURCE: NSF Division of Science Resource Studies.
a Parentheses indicate estimated amounts.
121 (133) 146 (155) 165
197 (212) 211 (189) 181
OCR for page 125
ORGANIZATION AND SUPPORT OF PHYSICS 1 25
capital equipment separately from operating expense, neither NSF nor DOE
handle Equipment consistently as a separable item. DOE has an equipment
category, but this is used primarily for its national laboratories; the purchase of
similar items by its contract universities is included inextricably in their
operating funds, as in the case of NSF grants. Therefore, in order to be
consistent in our tables and graphs, we have included all equipment funds
together with operating funds. Although NSF likewise does not differentiate its
Construction funds in its reports, these funds are usually more easily identifi-
able, and we have been able to separate them from the operating funds.
Construction funds are discussed separately later in this supplement.
The elementary-particle physics data, Figure S3.5, reveal a more uniform
level of support for operating funds than is shown for all of physics in Figure
S3. 1, although there were large fluctuations in the equipment fund. For nuclear
physics, the plot of funding data in Figure S3.6 also shows a relatively more
uniform pattern of support over the 15-year period than Figure S3. 1 shows for
physics as a whole.
The relatively constant funding levels ~$370 million (+10 percent) for
elementary-particle physics and ~$157 million (+7 percent) for nuclear physics
during this period should not be taken to mean that the facilities and operations
have been static. In fact, in both of these subfields, there have been major
facility closings and realignments of funding support. Of the seven elementary-
particle accelerators operating in the United States in 1970, four (PPA, CEA,
400
_ 300
o
. _
. _
-
cn 200
cr
J
o
Hi 100
o
,
,............
-
......
............
_
//
i.......
................
:::::::::::::
,/
//
.............
.............
....
7,
.,
...........
...........
...... ,
...........
::::::
by,
r//
/
'
. ~
.....
, .
_
a/
a/
~ .
....
...........
...........
~ .
.........
_
, ~ .
.....
.........
...
_
~ .
....... !
/,~
l Ail
: :::::: 1
/
............
,...........
-
............
............
-
1970 1972 1974 1976 1 978 1980 1982 1 984
YEAR
DOE Op. ~ DOE Eqpt.
~ NSF Op.
FIGURE S3.5 NSF and DOE funding for elementary-particle physics, FY 1970-FY
1984. Funding is expressed in FY 1983 dollars using CPI-W inflation factor. Construction
funds are not included.
OCR for page 128
OCR for page 129
OCR for page 130
OCR for page 131
OCR for page 132
OCR for page 133
OCR for page 134
OCR for page 135
OCR for page 136
OCR for page 137
OCR for page 138
Representative terms from entire chapter:
nuclear science
128
o
Ct
_4
s~
~o
V,
a~
o
oo
C~
-
o
-
V)
-
C~
-
C)
V)
. _
~n
._
s~
C~
-
3
z
5
=0,
0
._ ~
5~
Ct
~=
o
LU
00
O
~:
O
ct · _
~_
V)
Z ~
._
-
.
- , _
V) ~
0D
.=
_
_ _
Ct ~
.= ~
O O O ~ r~ ~ oo ~ r~ r~ ~
. . . . . . . . . . .
ORGANIZATION AND SUPPORT OF PHYSICS 129
TABLE S3.6 Federal Obligations (Excluding Construction) for
Subfields of Physics, Fiscal Years 1980-1984 (in Millions of Dollars)
Fiscal Year
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
Elementary-Particle Physics
DOE Operations 207.2 235.0 255.6 308.6 324.6
DOE Theory 10.7 12.4 13.6 17.2 17.9
DOE Equipment 36.0 37.5 40.7 47.5 51.5
DOE Subtotal 253.9 284.9 309.9 373.3 394.0
NSF Operations + Equipment 22.6 25.2 26.2 28.7 35.9
NSF Theory 3.7 4.5 4.7 5.2 6.0
NSF Subtotal 26.3 29.7 30.9 33.9 41.9
Total Current 280.2 314.6 340.8 407.2 435.9
Total Deflated (CPI-W) 345.1 348.9 352.5 407.2 422.2
Nuclear Physics
DOE Operations 88.2 95.7 104.7 107.9 122.0
DOE Theory 6.1 7.0 7.7 8.2 9.0
DOE Equipment 8.7 9.9 9.5 10.4 11.3
DOE Subtotal 103.0 112.6 121.9 126.5 142.3
NSF Operations + Equipment 21.3 23.2 23.5 25.6 30.8
NSF Theory 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.2 2.5
NSF Subtotal 23.1 25.0 25.8 27.8 33.3
NASA Int. Energy 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Current 126.2 137.8 147.8 154.4 175.7
Total Deflated (CPI-W) 155.4 152.8 152.9 154.4 170.2
Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
DOE 5.3 5.7 6.0 6.4 6.9
NSF 5.6 7.1 8.0 8.7 10.9
NASA 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.5
ONR 6.0 7.4 7.7 7.3 9.3
AFOSR 4.4 5.0 6.1 6.4 7.0
ARO 8.3 9.5 10.1 10.1 10.3
DOD Subtotal 18.7 21.9 23.9 23.8 26.6
Total Current 29.9 34.8 38.3 39.4 44.9
Total Deflated (CPI-W) 36.8 38.6 39.6 39.4 43.5
Condensed-Matter Physics
DOE 34.9 38.9 40.6 46.0 50.3
NSF 30.7 34.6 36.2 36.4 43.7
NASA 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.5
ONR 11.4 14.5 16.0 17.2 19.9
AFOSR 1.5 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2
ARO 5.8 7.9 8.4 8.9 9.1
DOD Subtotal 18.7 24.2 26.3 28.1 31.2
Total Current 84.6 97.8 103.5 111.0 125.7
Total Deflated (CPI-W) 104.2 108.5 107.1 111.0 121.8
1 30 PH YS/CS THROUGH THE / 990.s: A N O VER V/K W
TABLE S3 .6 Continued
Fiscal Year
t980 198' 1982 1983 1984
Plasmc' and Fluid Physics
DOE 287.7 325.1 417.3 491.2 529.4
NSF 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.6
NASA 12.7 14.4 15.5 17.3 17.3
ONR 1.8 1.7 2.3 3.4 4.2
AFOSR 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3
DOD Subtotal 2.7 2.7 3.4 4.6 5.5
Total Current 304.8 344.1 437.8 514.6 553.8
Total Deflated (CPI-W) 375.4 381.6 452.8 514.6 536.3
Gravitation, Cosmology, and Cosmic -Ray Phy s it s
NSF 3.2 3.8 4.5 4.8 6.0
NASA 1.4 1.3 1.9 2.3 2.3
Total Current 4.6 5.1 6.4 7.1 8.3
Total Deflated (CPI-W) 5.7 5.7 6.6 7.1 8.0
meets, for example; the increases over the past years are a continuation of real
increases over the past decade, which have approximately tripled the funding
support in this subfield since FY 1974. Although Figure S3.7 shows substantial
real growth in the subfield of plasma and fluid physics, there is concern
(discussed more specifically in the Plasma and Fluid Physics volume of this
Survey) that because of the mission-oriented goals of a large part of this
subfield, most of the growth is directed toward the applied and development
aspects of the work, with the result that sound basic research programs are not
keeping pace with the rest of the subfield. Although the approach may be
effective in achieving short-term goals, it is clearly not a wise long-term policy.
The weakening of the interface between the Department of Defense (DOD)
and basic physics research was triggered by the Mansfield Amendment in 1969.
The reduction of DOD sponsorship for basic research had an effect on most of
the subfields in physics, but it seems to have been particularly severe in
atomic, molecular, and optical physics (~20 percent funding loss) because the
initial DOD support had been such a large fraction (~33 percent) of atomic,
molecular, and optical physics funding and because other agencies did not pick
up many of those grants and contracts. Although the Mansfield Amendment
was no longer in effect by 1971, the connections between basic scientific
research and national defense have still not been re-established. This problem
has also been compounded by the shift of the defense research agencies away
from long-range research or even development, so that not only has the
quantity of effort been reduced, but at the same time a smaller fraction of the
reduced effort is directed toward long-range research. This is an important
concern both to the basic science community and to the national defense
community; and it is important for both communities that their interconnection
be re-established as expeditiously as possible, not only to provide much-
needed support for basic research to expand man's horizons, but, just as
ORGANIZATION AND SUPPORT OF PHYSICS 131
(a} 120
100
80
60
40
20
o
(b) 9
8
7
6
5
a
o
(+ 17%)
~ . , ,
1980 1981 1982
YEAR
3
2
1
1983 1984
- . .
c>6~
o
(+ 40%)
1980 1981 1982
YEAR
1983 1 984
FIGURE S3.7 Federal funding support (excluding construction) for subfields of phys-
ics, FY 1980-FY 1984. This is the only period for which complete and consistent data
could be extracted for all six subfields. Funding is expressed in FY 1983 dollars using
CPI-W inflation factor. Percentages in parentheses are cumulative change^in funding
from FY 1980 to FY 1984. (a) Condensed matter; (b) cosmology, gravitation, and
132 PHYSICS THROUGH THE 1990s: AN OVERVIEW
(C)
o
. _
. _
-
~n
c::
o
40
30
20
10
o
{d} 600
500
o 400
. _
=
. _
-
300
200
100
(+ 18%)
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
YEAR
o
(+ 43%)
1980 1981 1982
YEAR
1983 1984
cosmic rays; (c) atomic, molecular, and optical; (d) plasmas and fluids; (e) elementary
particles; (f) nuclear.
Note: Because of different definitions (e.g., what is '`basic" versus what is "applied")
the data in Figure S3.7, although internally consistent, do not add up to give the data in
Figures S3. 1 and/or Figure S3.3. [The data in Table S3.6 and Figure S3.7 were supplied
ORGANIZATION AND SUPPORT OF PHYSICS 133
(e}
400
300
An
CE:
200
100
t~,~-7oJ
o ~~
o
(I) 180
160
140
In
o 120
. _
. _
-
cn
o
00
80
60
40
20
o
1980 1981 1982
YEAR
(+ 22%)
1980 1981 1982
YEAR
(+ 10%)
1983 1 984
;~
1983 1 984
directly by the relevant program officers or administrators who are closer to the actual
detailed disbursement of the funds than are the sources of Tables S3. 1 and S3.2 (Figures
S3.1 and S3.3, respectively).]
134 PHYSICS THROUGH THE 19g0s: AN OVERVIEW
TABLE S3.7
Construction Projects
Fiscal
Year
Total
Construction
Cost (Millions
of Dollars)
PlasmalFusion Physics
Inertial Fusion
Shiva (LLNL) 74-76 25.0
Antares (LANL) 75-82 62.3
NOVA (LLNL) 78-82 176.0
Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator (SNL):
PBFA I
PBFA II
Target Fabrication Facilities:
(LANL)
(LLNL)
Magnetic Fusion
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL):
Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor
PDX Neutral Beams
Mirror Fusion Test Facility (LLNL)
Doublet III Neutral Beams (General Atomic)
Elmo Bumpy Torus (ORNL)
Elementary Particle Physics
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL):
200 GeV Accelerator
Energy Saver/Doubler
Tevatron I
Tevatron II
Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC):
75-78
81 -85
14.2
45.7
80-82 15.3
80-82 7.6
76-84
79-80
78-86
79-80
80-82
68-74
79-82
81 -86
82-85
313.6
15.1
246.2
20.9
17.8
243.5
50.8
82.5
49.0
Positron-Electron Project (PEP) 76-83 80.3
SLAC Linear Collider (SLC) 84-86 112.0
Cornell Electron-Positron Storage Ring (Cornell) 77-79 19.6
Isabelle/CBA~ (BNL) . 78-83 124.0
Nuclear Physics
SuperHILAC/Bevalac Upgrades (LBL) 70-80 12.4
Holifield Heavy-Ion Research Facility (ORNL): 75-79 17.2
National Superconducting Cyclotron Lab. (MSU):
Phase I 75-79 2.9
Phase II 80-85 33.0
SUNY (Stony Brook) 77-82 4.1
Bates Linear Electron Accelerator (M1T):
Experimental Facilities 77-79 5.0
Beam Recirculator 80-83 1.9
Argonne Tandem-Linac (ATLAS) (ANL) 82-83 7.7
Florida State University 83-85 2.8
Indiana University Cyclotron Facility 83-86 6.0
University of Washington 84-87 8.0
Yale University 84-87 11.0
ORCA NIZA TI ON A ND S UPPOR T OF PH YSI CS 1 3 5
TABLE S3.7 Continued
Fiscal
Year
Total
Construction
Cost (Millions
of Dollars)
Multidisciplinary Facilities
National Synchrotron Light Source (BNL)
Intense Pulsed Neutron Source (ANL)
Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab (SSRL)
Aladdin Synchrotron Radiation Center (SRC)
78-80
79-80
73-80
77-80
24.0
8.8
7.9
3.5
a Canceled.
important, to provide expert advice and communication between these sectors
and to provide new ideas and concepts for future technological developments.
Construction fund budgets are subject to large fluctuations in response to
other pressure in the federal budget process. For example, the budget in 1974
was ~$15 million compared with ~$190 million in 1979. For this reason, it is
not useful to plot construction funding on a year-by-year basis. Instead, in
Table S3.7 we have listed the major facility construction projects over the past
15 years together with the period of their construction and their total cost in
current (i.e., actual) dollars.
Several large new projects for construction during the next 10-12 years are in
the planning and proposal stages. These are listed earlier in Table 3.2; their
characteristics are discussed in the appropriate panel reports of this Survey.
The BCX facility is proposed as the next major step in magnetic fusion
research beyond the TFTR tokamak. The SSC, CEBAF, and RNC accelerator
facilities are proposed as the next steps in upgrading the energies available for
elementary-particle physics and nuclear physics' respectively.
ORGANIZATION AND DECISION MAKING
As each of the subfields of physics continues to evolve toward more
centralized big science, the specific decisions made by funding organizations
have a larger and more direct effect on the subfield. In a broad research
program, each group inevitably tends to regard its own efforts as undersup-
ported relative to their importance, and thus there is constant pressure to
reallocate resources. The simplest administrative response is to maintain the
status quo, and it requires intelligent, objective oversight to recommend
constructive changes. There is, therefore, a need for the individual subfields to
take on more active and responsible roles in developing a consensus within the
subfield itself about priorities and directions of development in order to provide
the funding organizations with the informed critical advice that they need to
make allocation decisions.
At the highest level this involves advisory groups such as the White House
Science Council, the National Science Board (NSF), and the Energy Research
Advisory Board (DOE). Each of the funding agencies also frequently makes
use of ad hoc advisory committees related to specific decisions affecting
specific subfields. For example' beginning in the 1950s with the need for
136 PHYSICS THROUGH THE Riggs: AN OVERVIEW
making decisions about new accelerator facilities at MURA, Argonne, and
Stanford, the government found it necessary to seek advice from so many ad
hoc advisory panels in the area of elementary-particle physics that, in 1967, the
AEC formed the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) as a standing
committee to provide advice and expertise regarding the issues to be con-
fronted in making decisions in this subfield. Ad hoc panels and committees are
still frequently formed when necessary, but these are now generally advisory
to HEPAP, which considers reports and then funnels its own conclusions to
the agencies. It is also worth noting that the European particle-physics
. CERN is governed by a council
comprising scientific and political representatives from the CERN member
community has analogous institutions
nations. A Scientific Policy Committee is advisory to the CERN administra-
tion. In addition, there is a standing European Committee on Future Acceler-
ators (ECFA), which considers long-range planning issues for Europe.
In 1977, following one of the recommendations of the NRC Ad Hoc Panel on
the Future of Nuclear Science in its report Future of Nuclear Science (National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1977, p. 791:
In a frontier field such as nuclear science, priorities and directions change rapidly with
time, new discoveries spawn new programs and may make old ones obsolete, and
funding constraints are not immutable. All these factors make it essential that a Nuclear
Science Advisory Panel be established to advise the funding agencies on a continuing
rather than an ad hoc basis.... We believe that nuclear science has suffered by not
having had an active body to advise, on a continuing basis, on the needs and status of the
field and on the balance between various programs.
ERDA and the NSF established the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee
(NSAC) to play the same role for the subfield of nuclear physics that HEPAP
plays for elementary-particle physics. More recently a similar Magnetic Fusion
Advisory Committee (MFAC) has also been formed.
Advisory committees such as these can provide funding agencies with
evaluations and recommendations concerning both the long-range objectives
and priorities of their subfield and its specific needs for funding, manpower,
instrumentation, and facilities. It seems clear, from our discussions within the
Steering Committee for the Physics Survey, that the other areas and subfields
of physics would benefit by having an active body to advise, on a continuing
basis, on the needs and status of the subfield and on the balance between
various programs. It is also important (on a broader scale) for the various
Divisions of the American Physical Society (APS) to monitor the needs of their
subfields as well as any changes in the budgets of the various funding agencies
and to develop their own expertise in analyzing and understanding such
information. It is a healthy sign that in some subfields the respective APS
Divisions have started to take more active roles in policy issues.
In comparing research in Europe and in the United States, the 1982 NRC
report Outlook for Science and Technology: The Next Five Years (Chapter 13)
notes that one organizational difference between Europe and the United States
is that the European countries generally have many more centralized funding
and decision-making processes. This can have the advantage of providing
greater funding stability (something that many research groups in this country
would like to see), but at the same time it has the disadvantage of reducing the
ORGANIZATION AND SUPPORT OF PHYSICS
137
flexibility and diversity of the system. By removing decisions from the local
operating level, the more centralized European mode has the disadvantage of
reducing its ability to respond readily to new, unexpected opportunities. In the
trade-off between greater budgetary stability and flexibility, the U.S. system
shows greater diversity and competitiveness, which gives us a greater ability to
respond to new research opportunities and provides a wider range of oppor-
tunities for young scientists.
