HAL Id: jpa-00222383
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/jpa-00222383
Submitted on 1 Jan 1982
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.
HOW LITTLE SCIENCE BECAME BIG SCIENCE IN THE U.S.A.
E. Goldwasser
To cite this version:
E. Goldwasser. HOW LITTLE SCIENCE BECAME BIG SCIENCE IN THE U.S.A.. Journal de Physique Colloques, 1982, 43 (C8), pp.C8-345-C8-355. �10.1051/jphyscol:1982823�. �jpa-00222383�
JOURNAL DE PHYSIQUE
CoZZoque C8, suppZe'ment au n o 12, Tome 43, de'cenzbre 1982 page C8-345
HOW L I T T L E S C I E N C E BECAME B I G S C I E N C E I N THE U n S n A n
E . L . Goldwasser
U n i v e r s i t y of I Z Z i n o i s , 107 CobZe Road, 801 S o u t h Wright S t r e e t , Champaign, IL 61820, 1I.S.A.
How d i d l i t t l e science become b i g science i n t h e U.S.A. d u r i n g t h e p a s t h a l f century? That q u e s t i o n i s r e a l l y o n l y one o f a p e r p l e x i n g s e t o f r e l a t e d questions which a r e o f concern t o most o f us. Others are: Can science, as we have known i t , s u r v i v e t h e e v o l u t i o n from " l i t t l e " t o " b i g " ? Has t h e character o f science been changed? I f i t has, has i t changed f o r t h e b e t t e r o r f o r t h e worse? And what has happened and what w i l l happen t o t h e c r e a t i v e s c i e n t i s t i n t h e w o r l d o f l a r g e and expensibe f a c i l i t i e s , equipment, research, and research groups? These a r e a l l questions w i t h which many o f us have been concerned. This conference i s concerned p r i m a r i l y w i t h t h e past, n o t t h e f u t u r e . I t may be important t o understand t h e p a s t i n o r d e r t o cope w i t h t h e f u t u r e .
The y e a r 1930 i s a p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t one i n t h e w o r l d o f nuclear and p a r t i c l e physics research. Stanley L i v i n g s t o n went t o the U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley t o work under Ernest Lawrence f o r h i s PhD degree. I t was i n May, 1930 t h a t Lawrence assigned L i v i n g s t o n the p r o j e c t o f c o n s t r u c t i n g a small c y c l o t r o n . Work was f i n i s h e d on t h a t p r o j e c t t e n months l a t e r , i n March, 1931, and i t worked, con- f i r m i n g t h e c y c l o t r o n p r i n c i p l e .
So t h e y e a r 1930 i s a good one t o mark t h e beginning o f t h e era o f t h e p a r t i - c l e a c c e l e r a t o r s which became t h e microscopes through which p a r t i c l e physics has advanced so remarkably i n t h e p a s t 50 years. During t h a t same period, p a r t i c l e physics l e d t h e way w i t h regard t o t h e e v o l u t i o n of l i t t l e science i n t o b i g science.
Perhaps t h e most important f a c e t o f t h a t e v o l u t i o n was development o f a new rnodus operandi f o r p a r t i c l e p h y s i c i s t s from t h a t o f a s i n g l e i n d i v i d u a l , s e l f s u f f i c i e n t , working alone, - t o a l a r g e group o f s p e c i a l i s t s , each an e x p e r t i n one o r another area o f equipment o r physics, b u t few having t h e breadth o f view and o f knowledge necessary t o encompass an e n t i r e experiment, i t s m o t i v a t i o n , i t s methods, and i t s conclusions.
To c a r r y t h e Berkeley s t o r y a l i t t l e f u r t h e r , a f t e r completion o f t h e f i r s t c y c l o t r o n i n March, 1931, Lawrence r a i s e d t h e m a g n i f i c e n t sum o f $500 from t h e Research Foundation f o r t h e purpose o f b u i l d i n g a l a r g e r c y c l o t r o n . Work on t h a t second a c c e l e r a t o r s t a r t e d i n A p r i 1, 1931 w i t h L i v i n g s t o n assigned the p r i n c i p a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . The instrument had an 11" magnet and produced 1 MeV protons.
L i v i n g s t o n worked f u l l t i m e on the p r o j e c t and t h e physics department shop provided t h e main support services.
With t h a t l a r g e investment of resources t h e second c y c l o t r o n was successfully completed i n January, 1932. That a c c e l e r a t o r was passed along t o M i l t o n White t o use f o r h i s t h e s i s , and L i v i n g s t o n moved on t o the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a 274" c y c l o t r o n which produced 3 MeV protons and 5 MeV deuterons. The l a t t e r had j u s t r e c e n t l y been discovered t o e x i s t . That same a c c e l e r a t o r was l a t e r expanded t o a 37" machine and t o an 8 MeV energy i n 1936. I n 1939 t h e 60" medical c y c l o t r o n was b u i l t a t Berke- l e y , producing 16 MeV protons, 20 MeV deuterons, and 40 MeV helium n u c l e i i . I n 1939 t h e Nobel P r i z e went t o Ernest Lawrence f o r h i s i n v e n t i o n o f t h e c y c l o t r o n .
The f i r s t f o u r f i g u r e s show t h e e v o l u t i o n t h a t has j u s t been described.
Article published online by EDP Sciences and available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/jphyscol:1982823
C8-346 JOURNAL DE PHYSIQUE
F i g . 1 : E r n e s t Lawrence h o l d i n g t h e a c c e l e r a t o r p o r t i o n o f t h e f i r s t c y c l o t r o n (1930)
F i g . 2 : E r n e s t Lawrence and S t a n l e y L i v i n g s t o n s t a n d i n g i n t h e magnet yoke o f t h e i r 10 i n c h (1 b!eV) c y c l o t r o n (.L 1931)
F i g . 3 : E n t i r e t e c h n i c a l s t a f f o f t h e R a d i a t i o n L a b o r a t o r y w i t h t h e magnet yoke o f t h e 6C i n c h c y c l o t r o n (2. 1939)
F i g . 4 : R a d i a t i o n L a b o r a t o r y s t a f f i n t h e p o l e space o f t h e -- 184 i n c h c s l c l o t r o n ( % 1947)
C8-348 JOURNAL DE PHYSIQUE
I have h a s t i l y c i t e d t h e above h i s t o r y , because i t has within i t t h e informa- t i o n which c a l l s a t t e n t i o n t o t h e f a c t t h a t p a r t i c l e physics was s t i l l small s c i e n c e a t t h e beginning of t h e a c c e l e r a t o r period. One man b u i l t a cyclotron i n one y e a r , and t h e a s s o c i a t e d c o s t was about $1,000. That was a s t y l e of work which d i f f e r e d l i t t l e from what was common i n physics i n those days.
During t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n of World War 11, an important new development occur- red i n physics i n t h e United S t a t e s . In i t s e f f o r t t o win t h e r a c e t o a nuclear weapon, t h e Manhatten P r o j e c t was organized and t h e Los Alamos Laboratory was e s t a b l i s h e d . F i r s t a handful of s c i e n t i s t s was assembled, but t h a t number was r a p i d l y increased t o meet t h e varied demand o f t h e crash program. S c i e n t i s t s were thus i n i t i a t e d i n t o an experience of working i n an environment t h a t was r i c h i n t h e presence of t h e very b e s t t h e o r i s t s and e x p e r i m e n t a l i s t s who could be assembled.
Most of t h e s c i e n t i s t s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h a t adventure s t i l l remember i t a s a uniquely s t i m u l a t i n g experience.
The success of t h e p r o j e c t was an important i n g r e d i e n t , not only i n t h e f u t u r e thinking o f s c i e n t i s t s , but a l s o i n t h e f u t u r e thinking of t h e f e d e r a l government.
The notion t h a t a l a r g e amount of money i n v e s t e d i n a l a r g e number of t h e b e s t q u a l i f i e d s c i e n t i s t s could bring about t h e s o l u t i o n t o an extremely complicated s c i e n t i f i c - t e c h n i c a l problem was important f o r two, s e p a r a t e reasons. From t h e point of view o f t h e s c i e n t i s t s , i t demonstrated t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of working coopera- t i v e l y on research which t r a d i t i o n a l l y would have been conducted by only a very small number of s c i e n t i s t s and t h e r e f o r e which would have been v a s t l y s t r e t c h e d o u t i n time and l i m i t e d i n scope.
A f t e r t h e war, some of t h e s c i e n t i s t s who had f e l t t h e e x h i l a r a t i o n of working on a tough problem with a l a r g e group of t h e i r peers tended t o look f o r a post-war s i t u a t i o n i n which a powerful group would be formed a t a u n i v e r s i t y f o r t h e purpose of pressing f u r t h e r t h e f r o n t i e r s of b a s i c research on t h e s t r u c t u r e of matter.
Many of t h e Los Alamos s c i e n t i s t s were a t t r a c t e d t o Berkeley where Lawrence's i n i t i a t i v e had a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d a s t a r t . The Radiation Laboratory which had been formed i n 1931 e v e n t u a l l y became t h e Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
From t h e point o f view of t h e government, t h e notion took r o o t t h a t an i n v e s t - ment of federal d o l l a r s i n a group of s c i e n t i s t s could bring about t h e s o l u t i o n of any problem, whatsoever. The "atom bomb" appeared t o be a s impossible a problem a s one could pose. Yet, simply by i n v e s t i n g a l a r g e number of d o l l a r s and r a l l y i n g a l a r g e number of s c i e n t i s t s a s o l u t i o n had been found.
This i l l u s i o n tended t o propagate i t s e l f a f t e r t h e war w i t h e f f e c t s t h a t were both good and bad. On t h e one s i d e , having become convinced t h a t i t was i n t h e national i n t e r e s t t o be i n t h e f o r e f r o n t o f r e s e a r c h , t h e f e d e r a l government in- vested l i b e r a l l y i n research a f t e r t h e war. On t h e o t h e r s i d e some e n t e r t a i n e d t h e notion t h a t t h e government, i t s e l f , could choose t h e d i r e c t i o n in which i t wished research t o progress and t h a t by i n v e s t i n g funds i n t h a t d i r e c t i o n , progress would, p e r f o r c e , follow.
The f a c t i s t h a t no one i s a s well f i t t e d t o choose t h e d i r e c t i o n of research a s t h e s c i e n t i s t s who a r e involved i n t h e research. The most important s k i l l of a good s c i e n t i s t i s t h e a b i l i t y t o choose t h e r i g h t problem a t t h e r i g h t time. I t i s t h e s c i e n t i s t who knows when a research idea i s ready t o bear f r u i t , when work should be postponed, when t h e d i r e c t i o n should be changed o r when i t should be given up e n t i r e l y . On occasion, s i n c e t h e war, t h e government has attempted t o take more than i t s a p p r o p r i a t e s h a r e of i n i t i a t i v e , with t h e r e s u l t t h a t time and money and people may have been wasted pursuing an u n p r o f i t a b l e d i r e c t i o n of explora- t i o n . Fortunately t h o s e cases have been r a t h e r few. For t h e most p a r t t h e support of s c i e n c e has been generous and wise. I t has leaned upon peer review f o r i t s evaluations and judgments.
A f t e r t h e war t h e most powerful s i n g l e group of n u c l e a r / p a r t i c l e p h y s i c i s t s was assembled a t t h e University of C a l i f o r n i a i n Berkeley. However, a t t h e same time, cyclotrons began t o blossom a t u n i v e r s i t i e s and i n s t i t u t e s a l l a c r o s s t h e
country. The c o s t o f such a machine, given t h e new government i n t e r e s t i n sponsor- i n g research, was w i t h i n t h e means o f many i n s t i t u t i o n s . The manpower r e q u i r e d t o b u i l d a machine was w i t h i n t h e means o f a s i n g l e i n s t i t u t i o n . The p o t e n t i a l r e - search o u t p u t o f one o f those machines was well-matched t o t h e group o f s c i e n t i s t s which one might f i n d a t most f i r s t - c l a s s u n i v e r s i t i e s . Among t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s i n t h e U.S. a t which c y c l o t r o n s blossomed ~ o t h before and immediately a f t e r the Uarwere:
t h e B a r t o l l I n s t i t u t e , Carnegie I n s t i t u t e o f Washington, Carnegie Tech, Columbia U n i v e r s i t v , Cornell U n i v e r s i t y , Karvard U n i v e r s i t y , filassachusetts I n s t i t u t e o f Tech- nology, P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y , Purdue U n i v e r s i t y , Rochester U n i v e r s i t y , U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicaso, U n i v e r s i t y of I 1 1 in o i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Indiana, U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan, and Washingtonuniversity.
During t h i s p e r i o d developments were a l s o being made on l i n e a r a c c e l e r a t o r s I n 1948 L u i s Alvarez completed a 32 MeV proton l i n a c a t t h e Radiation Laboratory.
I n 1955 c o n s t r u c t i o n was s t a r t e d on a l a r g e e l e c t r o n l i n a c a t S t a n f o r d (SLAC).
During t h e same p e r i o d t h e p r i n c i p l e o f phase s t a b i l i t y was developed by MacMillan a t Berkeley and Veksler i n t h e USSR. The f i r s t synchrotron was b u i l t , and the b e t a t r o n was developed by Kerst a t I l l i n o i s .
This p e r i o d was marked by a pro1 i f e r a t i o n o f f a c i l i t i e s and a burgeoning o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f p h y s i c i s t s who were i n t e r e s t e d i n b u i l d i n g and using t h e f a c i l i - t i e s . As t h e p r o j e c t s became p h y s i c a l l y l a r g e r and as t h e costs became s i g n i f i c a n t - l y h i g h e r t h e s i z e o f t h e group o f i n v o l v e d s c i e n t i s t s a l s o tended t o become l a r g e r . S p e c i a l i z a t i o n became common, i f n o t a necessity. T h e o r i s t s and e x p e r i m e n t a l i s t s had long ago formed f a i r l y d i s t i n c t , s p e c i a l i z e d groups. Now, however, i n most places, a c c e l e r a t o r b u i l d e r s e s t a b l i s h e d an i d e n t i t y q u i t e d i s t i n c t from t h a t o f t h e s c i e n t i s t s who wanted t o use t h e a c c e l e r a t o r s . A t t h e same time t h e s i z e o f experimental equipment which was needed i n order t o d e t e c t p a r t i c l e s and t o do an i n t e r e s t i n g experiment grew even f a s t e r than t h e a c c e l e r a t o r s .
The proton-synchrotron concept made i t p o s s i b l e t o b u i l d a r i n g o f magnets t o c o n t a i n an a c c e l e r a t i n g beam i n s t e a d o f b u i l d i n g a s o l i d , continuous poleface.
And so t h e GeV generation o f a c c e l e r a t o r s was i n i t i a t e d . The c o s t was one o r two m i l l i o n d o l l a r s per GeV. (Taking i n f l a t i o n i n t o account, a lower u n i t c o s t than t h a t which a p p l i e d f o r t h e f i r s t c y c l o t r o n , $1,000 f o r 1 MeV). The Cosmotron a t Brookhaven was f i n i s h e d i n 1952. The Bevatron a t Berkeley soon followed, and the 1959 Nobel P r i z e went t o Segre and Chamberlain f o r t h e discovery o f t h e a n t i p r o t o n a t the Bevatron.
F compa
F i g . 5 : Lawrence, F i d l e r , Brobeck and Cooksey i n t h e a p e r t u r e o f one o f t h e many Bevatron magnets (% 1953)
C8-350 JOURNAL DE PHYSIQUE
F i g . 6 : View from the a i r o f t h e Fermilab s i t e showing t h e 1 k i l o ~ i l e x e r r a d i u s c i r c l e below which the a c c e l e r a t o r i s housed (.L 1977)
The newer, l a r g e r machines were n o t n e c e s s a r i l y associated w i t h a s i n g l e u n i v e r s i t y e i t h e r i n name o r i n f a c t . However t h e U.S. Atomic Energy Commission made a conscious e f f o r t t o m a i n t a i n t h e s t y l e o f university-based research so, along w i t h t h e AGS a t Brookhaven and the ZGS a t Argonne came t h e Cambridge E l e c t r o n A c c e l e r a t o r a t Harvard-M.I.T. and a proton synchrotron a t Princeton. Cornell, w i t h NSF support, maintained i t s s p e c i a l , R.R. Wilson t r a d i t i o n o f a s e r i e s o f u n i v e r - sity-based a c c e l e r a t o r s . However i t became c l e a r t h a t i t was n o t a sound investment o f research funds t o support any f a c i l i t y which served p r i m a r i l y t o extend a way of doing physics and which d i d n o t a c t u a l l y represent an advancement o f some f r o n t i e r o f p a r t i c l e physics.
"National Laboratories" became the new fashion. The philosophy was q u i t e simple. When t h e physical s i z e o f a f a c i l i t y , i t s cost, and i t s s c i e n t i f i c o u t p u t become t o o g r e a t t o be supported by a s i n g l e u n i v e r s i t y , a n a t i o n a l l a b o r a t o r y should be used t o house the f a c i l i t y and t o operate i t f o r t h e use o f s c i e n t i s t s a t many u n i v e r s i t i e s . That new s t y l e o f doing science made i t p o s s i b l e t o s t a r t t h e move toward a r e d u c t i o n i n t h e number o f f a c i l i t i e s . The t r e n d became one o f fewer f a c i l i t i e s , on t h e one hand, w h i l e each f a c i l i t y served many more experimenters, on t h e o t h e r . B u t along w i t h t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i n v e n t i o n came a s e t o f new prob- lems. S c i e n t i s t s a t u n i v e r s i t i e s became concerned t h a t t h e n a t i o n a l l a b o r a t o r i e s would gain research i d e n t i t i e s of t h e i r own and, s i n c e a n a t i o n a l l a b o r a t o r y s t a f f would c o n s i s t o f s c i e n t i s t s who would be f u l l - t i m e r e s i d e n t s , t h a t they would cap- t u r e t h e predominant use o f t h e f a c i l i t y , l e a v i n g l i t t l e o r no research time f o r o u t s i d e r s .
The s o l u t i o r , t o t h a t problem i n v o l v e d a major p o l i c y d e c i s i o n . I n t h e United States, t h e s t y l e o f doinq science has been one i n which research has been wedded t o an academic s e t t i n g . I n general, we have found t h a t , f o r us, research f l o u r i s h e s b e s t i n t h a t s e t t i n g , because the u n i v e r s i t y environment assure< a perpetual flow o f new, b r i g h t young s c i e n t i s t s , always ready t o challenge t h e comfortable b e l i e f s o f t h e p a s t and f r e e of t h e p r e j u d i c e s and commitments which can keep established, permanent, s t a f f s c i e n t i s t s i n p u r s u i t o f narrow, unchanging goals, even when i n t e r e s t i n those goals may have dwindled considerably.
Given t h a t philosophy, i t became a m a t t e r o f g r e a t importance t o s e t up t h e management o f n a t i o n a l l a b o r a t o r i e s i n such a manner t h a t they would be responsive
t o t h e needs o f t h e u n i v e r s i t y s c i e n t i s t s whom they were intended p r i m a r i l y t o serve. The idea o f a u n i v e r s i t y consortium was born. Brookhaven National Labora- t o r y became one o f t h e f i r s t examples o f a successful management consortium. A group o f u n i v e r s i t i e s i n t h e eastern U n i t e d States j o i n e d together t o form Associa- t e d U n i v e r s i t i e s Incorporated (AUI) t o c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e Atomic Energy Commission f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n and management o f Brookhaven. Associated Midwest U n i v e r s i t i e s was formed t o p l a y a r o l e i n p o l i c y f o r m u l a t i o n f o r t h e Argonne N a t i o n a l Laboratory.
That consortium was l a t e r f o l l o w e d by Argonne U n i v e r s i t i e s Association which, w i t h t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago a c t i n g as manager, p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f p o l i c y a t Argonne f o r a number o f years.
The l a r g e s t o f such c o n s o r t i a was formed i n 1966 t o b u i l d and manage t h e l a r g e s t o f t h e a c c e l e r a t o r s . Fermilab was b u i l t and i s r u n by U n i v e r s i t i e s Re- search Association, a consortium o f more than 50 u n i v e r s i t i e s throughout t h e United States and Canada.
But even w i t h t h e i n v e n t i o n o f these c o n s o r t i a , s c i e n t i s t s a t u n i v e r s i t i e s were s t i l l concerned t h a t a c c e l e r a t o r s might be designed and f a c i l i t i e s b u i l t i n such a way t h a t some o f t h e more i n t e r e s t i n g experiments might n o t be a b l e t o be accommodated. Therefore t h e i d e a o f a "Users Group" was invented. An e a r l y group o f t h a t k i n d was s t a r t e d a t Brookhaven National Laboratory, b u t t h a t group was headed by and e s s e n t i a l l y r u n by t h e Laboratory management. An Argonne Users Group was formed i n 1958 i n response t o p e r s i s t e n t demands by midwest p h y s i c i s t s t h a t t h e i r needs and plans be heard as t h e ZGS was designed, b u i l t , and p u t i n t o operation. This p a r t i c u l a r case commanded s e n a t o r i a l and even p r e s i d e n t i a l a t t e n - t i o n .
I n a l e t t e r o f t h a t t i m e Senator Humphrey wrote t h a t he "placed g r e a t empha- s i s .... on t h e n e c e s s i t y of t a k i n g a l l p r a c t i c a l steps t o g e t t h e Midwest u n i v e r - s i t i e s behind t h e Argonne National Laboratory and t o f i n d ways t o g i v e them a g r e a t e r v o i c e i n t h e program f o r management a t t h e Argonne N a t i o n a l Laboratory."
And a l e t t e r dated January 16, 1964, from President Johnson t o Senator Humphrey, s t a t e d ( i n those days p r e s i d e n t s were r e a l l y w o r r i e d about h i g h energy p h y s i c s ) :
"I would hope and expect t h a t the f i n e s t a f f o f MURA would be a b l e t o continue t o serve t h e Midwest through t h e u n i v e r s i t i e s and a t Argonne, and I have asked Glen Seaborg t o use h i s good o f f i c e s i n t h a t d i r e c t i o n . I have a l s o asked him t o take a l l p o s s i b l e steps t o make p o s s i b l e an increase i n t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f t h e academ- i c i n s t i t u t i o n s o f t h e Midwest i n t h e work o f t h e Argonne Laboratory. He has out- l i n e d f o r me a concrete proposal t o accomplish t h i s . I share f u l l y your s t r o n g d e s i r e t o support t h e development o f centers o f s c i e n t i f i c s t r e n g t h i n t h e Midwest, and I f e e l c e r t a i n t h a t w i t h t h e r i g h t cooperation between government and t h e u n i v e r s i t i e s we can do a g r e a t deal t o b u i l d a t Argonne t h e nucleus o f one o f t h e f i n e s t research centers i n t h e world."
With t h e formation o f t h e Argonne Users Group as a quasi-independent e n t i t y came t h e idea t h a t major f a c i l i t i e s which were t o become an i n t r i n s i c p a r t o f a l a b o r a t o r y ' s program could be constructed a t u n i v e r s i t i e s and & u n i v e r s i t y groups f o r use a t t h e n a t i o n a l l a b o r a t o r y . A 3OU-6ubble chamber was b u i l t a t Wisconsin and used a t Argonne by p h y s i c i s t s from many u n i v e r s i t i e s .
While t h e r e was a genera1 t r e n d toward National Laboratories, t h e Stanford Linear A c c e l e r a t o r Center and t h e R a d i a t i o n Laboratory a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i - f o r n i a a t Berkeley remained major l a b o r a t o r i e s i n t h e s i n g l e u n i v e r s i t y management format. I n t h e S t a n f o r d case, safeguards were b u i l t i n t o t h e AEC c o n t r a c t i n an attempt t o assure user access. But n e i t h e r Stanford n o r Berkeley had as much user p a r t i c i p a t i o n as was c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e consortium-operated l a b o r a t o r i e s . An associated l a c k o f confidence o f the user community was a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n t h e s i t i n g o f t h e National A c c e l e r a t o r Laboratory (now Fermilab) o u t s i d e o f C a l i f o r n i a .
Although t h e Radiation Laboratory a t Berkeley remained under s i n g l e u n i v e r - s i t y management, w i t h t h e advent o f t h e 72" bubble chamber i t became c l e a r t h a t more data c o u l d be produced than c o u l d p o s s i b l y be handled, even by t h e l a r g e group a t Berkeley. Accordingly a few experimental proposals were accepted from p h y s i c i s t s
C8-352 JOURNAL DE PHYSIQUE
from u n i v e r s i t i e s , and bubble chamber runs were made which d e l i v e r e d f i l m t o those user groups.
As user groups were formed, new l i a i s o n s began t o be made between p h y s i c i s t s a t d i f f e r e n t u n i v e r s i t i e s . The complexity o f apparatus i n experiments became such t h a t l a r g e r groups were necessary i n o r d e r t o cover a l l o f t h e various techniques which were i n v o l v e d i n the design and o p e r a t i o n o f an experiment. A t y p i c a l experiment, i n a d d i t i o n t o r e q u i r i n g a very complex a c c e l e r a t o r f a c i l i t y , a l s o r e q u i r e d a complicated l i n e o f beam t r a n s p o r t t o b r i n g p a r t i c l e s from t h e accelera- t o r t o t h e experimental equipment.
I n a d d i t i o n t o beam t r a n s p o r t t h e r e were o f t e n complicated cryogenic systems, very 1 arge and complicated detectors, complicated computer systems, as we1 1 as conceptually complicated physics. I t became impossible f o r most p a r t i c i p a t i n g s c i e n t i s t s t o be f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e whole t h i n g . S p e c i a l i z a t i o n became e s s e n t i a l .
Fig. 7 : I n s i d e of one piece of the Time P r o j e c t i o n Chamber a t SLAC (1962)
Figure 7 shows the i n s i d e o f one piece o f a new d e t e c t o r , the Time Projec- t i o n Chamber, j u s t going i n t o o p e r a t i o n a t SLAC. The main d e t e c t o r performs a p u l s e h e i g h t a n a l y s i s o f s i g n a l s c o l l e c t e d i n 16,000 d i f f e r e n t data channels each o f which i s subdivided i n t o two hundred t i m e b i n s c o v e r i n g a p e r i o d o f t e n micro- seconds. I t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s provided by t h e elements o f t h e t o t a l d e t e c t o r be ~ r o c e s s e d immediately i n order t o screen events and then s t o r e them f o r l a t e r more complete a n a l y s i s . That i n v o l v e s a p r o d i g i o u s comDuter programming j o b .
By 1960 a number o f such s p e c i a l i z e d experts i n t h e various techniques were r e q u i r e d by a given experiment. So a whole new sociology o f research developed.
S c i e n t i f i c papers which used t o be signed by one o r two people f r e q u e n t l y c a r r i e d t h e names o f dozens o f authors. Today, 100 o r even 200 authors loom as a common occurrence. No one b e l i e v e s any longer t h a t each such author has a fundamental r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e whole experiment, Names are i n c l u d e d i n authorship as a means o f p r o v i d i n g r e c o g n i t i o n and reward t o a l l people who c o n t r i b u t e i n an i m p o r t a n t way t o an experiment.
Cornpl i c a t e d problems about pub1 i c a t i o n o f r e s u l t s f r e q u e n t l y a r i s e . P a r t i c u -
l a r l y as c o l l a b o r a t i o n s have begun t o encompass s c i e n t i s t s from d i f f e r e n t i n s t i t u - t i o n s and from d i f f e r e n t nations, questions have a r i s e n concerning t h e readiness o f one subgroup t o p u b l i s h a c e r t a i n r e s u l t w h i l e another subgraup may n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e s u l t i s w e l l enough e s t a b l i s h e d f o r p u b l i c a t i o n .
As l i t t l e science became b i g science, c o m p e t i t i o n f r e q u e n t l y became exceed- i n g l y sharp. The CERN PS and the Brookhaven AGS had almost i d e n t i c a l c a p a b i l i t i e s . The same has been t r u e o f t h e Fermilab a c c e l e r a t o r and the CERN SPS. I t i s a l s o t h e case f o r PETRA a t DESY and PEP a t SLAC. With these redundant f a c i l i t i e s came c e r t a i n advantages. They simultaneously accommodated e x p l o r a t i o n s o f a given physics problem through t h e use o f e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t approaches and techniques.
Thus t r u l y independent checks and measurements were provided, and t h i s f r e q u e n t l y l e d t o c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f some issue o r t o t h e avoidance o f what otherwise c o u l d have been misleading confusion.
Only r e c e n t l y have we reached t h e p o i n t where i d e n t i c a l f a c i l i t i e s a r e n o t l i k e l y t o be b u i l t a t two d i f f e r e n t l a b o r a t o r i e s - even i n two d i f f e r e n t n a t i o n s . No one proposes t o b u i l d an analogue t o CERN's LEP anywhere else, and no one i s designing an Energy Doubler s i m i l a r t o t h e one under c o n s t r u c t i o n a t Fermilab.
I n t h e era o f redundant f a c i l i t i e s , along w i t h r e a l advantages came an i n - crease i n pace. Competition became severe, and t h e r u s h toward p u b l i c a t i o n be- came intense. The w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d s c i e n t i f i c method of p u b l i s h i n g complete a r t i c l e s d e s c r i b i n g equipment and method as w e l l as r e s u l t s gave way t o s h o r t e r a r t i c l e s , " l e t t e r s t o t h e e d i t o r " which i n t h e i r t u r n gave way t o p r e - p r i n t s as a p r i n c i p a l method o f communication and o f s t a k i n g o u t claims. And f i n a l l y pre- p r i n t s even gave way t o t a l k s a t c o n f e r e n c e ~ as a p r i n c i p a l means o f i n i t i a l
"pub1 i c a t i o n " o f r e s u l t s .
That reminds me o f a p r a c t i c e t h a t dates back as f a r as G a l i l e o . He i s r e p o r t e d t o have published one r e s u l t o f h i s work i n code i n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h primacy i n addressing t h a t problem w h i l e s t i l l keeping s e c r e t a r e s u l t about which he was n o t y e t c e r t a i n . Sometimes some of t h e a r t i c l e s t h a t I t r y t o read seem a l s o t o be i n code, but, i n f a c t , I d o n ' t t h i n k we a r e y e t commonly using t h a t technique.
One problem t h a t has developed i n t h e U.S. w i t h t h e advent o f user-oriented n a t i o n a l l a b o r a t o r i e s may be very s e r i o u s i n t h e f u t u r e . Whereas t h e user group concept has k e p t experimental h i g h energy physics i n t h e u n i v e r s i t i e s , a c c e l e r a t o r physics has l a r g e l y l e f t t h e u n i v e r s i t i e s . With t h e decrease i n t h e number of a c c e l e r a t o r s and w i t h t h e i r absence from u n i v e r s i t y campuses, students have gener- a l l y n o t been a t t r a c t e d t o t h e problems and techniques o f a c c e l e r a t o r physics.
T h i s has l e f t a h o l e i n ranks o f U.S. h i g h energy physics.
One may ask whether b i g science s t i l l leaves i t p o s s i b l e f o r a young student t o g e t a "proper" education as a s c i e n t i s t . I s he n o t l i k e l y simply t o become a t e c h n i c i a n w i t h one o r another s p e c i a l i t y ? An a r t i c l e which r e c e n t l y appeared i n Science Magazine r a i s e d t h i s question i n connection w i t h the LEP a c c e l e r a t o r being b u i l t a t CERN. "How w e l l w i l l t h e huge experimental c o l l a b o r a t i o n work? . . . . One can conclude t h a t each LEP d e t e c t o r w i l l weigh 2,500 tons o r more, c o s t $30 m i l l i o n , and be b u i l t by a group o f 200 o r more p h y s i c i s t s . . . . . And t h e r e a r e many ques- t i o n s . How do you t r a i n students t o be p h y s i c i s t s i n such a l a r g e group where s p e c i a l i z a t i o n reaches an extreme? During t h e years-long c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r i o d p h y s i c i s t s w i l l have few o r no p u b l i c a t i o n s on t h e s u b j e c t on which t h e i r careers depend. F i n a l l y , an o l d question, b u t one exacerbated by t h e complexity of t h e new d e t e c t o r s i s , who i s t o r u n and m a i n t a i n t h e instrument once i t i s b u i l t ? The n a t u r a l tendency, already i n evidence, i s f o r c o l l a b o r a t i o n members t o r e t r e a t t o t h e i r home l a b o r a t o r i e s f o r more o r l e s s independent data a n a l y s i s . . . . . One possi- b i l i t y i s t h a t elementary p a r t i c l e a c c e l e r a t o r s have reached t h e i r n a t u r a l l i m i t and t h a t t h e era o f ever l a r g e r machines i s drawing t o a close."
Indeed, one may q u i t e p r o p e r l y be concerned about a l l o f these questions.
C8-354 JOURNAL DE PHYSIQUE
However, i t i s my b e l i e f t h a t what we a r e seeing i s simply an e v o l u t i o n , n o t a r e v o l u t i o n . P a r t i c l e physics i s no longer done i n t h e same way as i t was done 50 years ago. The problems a r e d i f f e r e n t , t h e technologies a r e more s o p h i s t i c a t e d , and t h e means f o r meeting those problems and f o r p r o v i d i n g those technologies have had t o be discovered and improvised. Graduate students s t i l l g r a v i t a t e toward one o r another a c t i v i t y , depending upon t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s and a b i l i t i e s . C e r t a i n l y t h e r e a r e some graduate students who g e t swallowed up i n t h e computer i n t r i c a c i e s o f an experiment and never r e a l l y become exposed t o o t h e r f a c e t s o f t h e e n t e r p r i s e . But t h e w o r l d o f h i g h energy physics research has become a w o r l d i n which such people a r e needed j u s t as much as s e n i o r members o f any group. Thus t h e graduate t r a i n i n g t h a t such a student receives w i l l serve w e l l f o r t h e new k i n d o f career which has been created f o r t h e new way o f doing research.
F i n a l l y I should l i k e t o c a l l a t t e n t i o n t o one tough problem which i s j u s t now becoming s h a r p l y apparent. Not o n l y have h i g h energy physics f a c i l i t i e s become so l a r g e t h a t they a r e many fewer i n number, b u t a l s o t h e i n d i v i d u a l experimental d e t e c t o r s a r e so l a r g e and expensive t h a t a much s m a l l e r number can be mounted a t any given f a c i l i t y . Furthermore t h e l a r g e f i x e d - t a r g e t a c c e l e r a t o r s o f t h e past provided numerous e x t e r n a l beams and even more numerous s t a t i o n s a t which t h e r e c o u l d be independent experimental a c t i v i t y . As c o l l i d i n g beams become t h e ex- perimental technique o f t h e f u t u r e t h e number o f t a r g e t l o c a t i o n s w i l l become severely l i m i t e d . It i s t r u e t h a t t h e new, mammoth d e t e c t o r s t h a t a r e being planned and b u i l t f o r t h e s h a r p l y l i m i t e d number o f i n t e r s e c t i n g beam regions have a complexity which r e q u i r e s more p a r t i c i p a t i n g s c i e n t i s t s than ever before.
Yet t h a t number should be e s t a b l i s h e d by need and n o t by sociology o r t h e physics w i l l s u f f e r . I t w i l l be i n t e r e s t i n g t o see how t h e w o r l d o f h i g h energy physics a d j u s t s t o t h i s new phase o f i t s e v o l u t i o n .
COWWENTS AFTER THE ROUND TABLE
F. CERULUS.- How d i d N. Bohr, i n a small country w i t h o u t s p e c i a l t r a d i t i o n i n phy- s i c s , manage t o surround h i m s e l f w i t h a l a r g e group o f c o l l a b o r a t o r s ? How many research p o s i t i o n s d i d he have and who funded them ? How was a l l t h e t r a v e l 1 in g among the d i f f e r e n t i n s t i t u t e s financed ?
V.F. WE1SSKOPF.- That i s a very i n t e r e s t i n g question. F i r s t o f a l l , l e t me answer the l a s t question, namely t h e t r a v e l expenses. The idea t h a t you g e t your t r a v e l p a i d i s a very new idea. A t t h a t time, I remember myself t h a t I had t o go t o my f a t h e r t o g e t some money t o go from Z i i r i c h t o Copenhagen. T h a t ' s number one.
Number two, i t i s n o t q u i t e t r u e t h a t Denmark d i d n o t have a s c i e n t i f i c t r a - d i t i o n . Indeed t h i n k o f Oersted, which was q u i t e a long time ago ; b u t t h e r e was a s c i e n t i f i c t r a d i t i o n . I t d i d n o t cone o u t o f nothing. However, t h e tremendous s t r e n g t h of t h e p e r s o n a l i t y o f N i e l s Bohr cannot be over-estimated ; he n o t o n l y had t h e strength o f t h e p e r s o n a l i t y , b u t he was a l s o a v e r y good money g e t t e r , two t h i n g s which n o t always go together. F o r example, he g o t a l o t o f money from t h e Rockfeller f o n d a t i o n i n the e a r l y twenties, and t h a t money helped him t o b u i l d the famous I n s t i - t u t e o f T h e o r e t i c a l Physics, the Copenhagen I n s t i t u t e , and a l s o t o pay f o r v i s i t o r s and f o r permanent and non permanent jobs. L a t e r on o f course, he g o t support from t h e Danish government, when t h e Danish government saw t h a t t h i s was an asset. L e t ' s n o t f o r g e t t h e i m p o r t a n t support o f Copenhagen physics, an unusual source, t h e Carlsberg beer bewery. This again speaks f o r Idiels Bohr tremendous t a l e n t t o convince people t o spend t h e i r money. Indeed, t h e money from Carlsberg beer was used f o r a very important purpose a t t h a t time, namely t o support many refugee p h y s i c i s t s from H i t l e r ' s Germany and A u s t r i a . I was one o f then. Bohr used h i s connections i n many c o u n t r i e s , and went several times t o America i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e jobs f o r those refugees a t u n i v e r s i t i e s i n America and i n England.
He d i d t h i s most s u c c e s s f u l l y ; most o f these people g o t jobs through Bohr somewhere i n western u n i v e r s i t i e s ; I, m y s e l f , i s an example. Bohr's success as an a d m i n i s t r a t o r and manager was due t o h i s tremendous enthousiasm. He was a persona- l i t y who c o u l d impress people.
G. von DARDEL.- I f e e l t h a t a mention o f t h e East-West c o l l a b o r a t i o n i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e between CERN and DUBNA, i s v e r y a p p r o p r i a t e a t t h i s session since i t was s t a r - t e d by Professor LJeisskopf and pursued very v i g o r o u s l y by t h e l a t e Bernard Gregory.
V.F. WEISSK0PF.- You mean t h e c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h the s o v i e t s . T h i s i s a g r e a t problem t o which probably Goldwasser and o t h e r people have something t o say too. A l l I can say i s t h i s . When I was D i r e c t o r o f CERN from 1960 t o 1965, we t r i e d t o extend t h e c o l l a b o r a t i o n a t CERN, beyond the 12 member s t a t e s . Among o t h e r things, we introduced observer s t a t e s l i k e Poland and Turkey. I n p a r t i c u l a r t h e c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h Poland was extremely useful and l e a d t o t h e discovery o f the double-hypernuclei by Danysz and Pniewsky. Also a t t h a t time we s t a r t e d t o have a c o n t a c t w i t h t h e s o v i e t gover- nment t o have some c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h Dubna and l a t e r w i t h Serpukhov. A t t h e begin- n i n g e v e r y t h i n g went q u i t e we;l, b u t as you know, negociations w i t h the s o v i e t s take time and e f f o r t and have some d i f f i c u l t i e s . A t t h e beginning, e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e s i x - t i e s , i t was n o t t o o bad, and i t r e a l l y began t o be e f f e c t i v e under Gregory. A t t h a t time about 12 t o 20 r u s s i a n p h y s i c i s t s were working i n d i f f e r e n t groups a t CERN which c o n t r i b u t e d apparatus t o Serpukhov. For example, an RF separator was constructed a t CERN and used a t Serpukhov. L a t e r on t h i n g s turned o u t t o become d i f f i c u l t , i t was hard t o g e t people f o r a l o n g e r t i n e and o f t e n t h e persons we asked t o come were n o t t h e ones who were then sent. So we had o u r ups and downs. Obviously, t o day t h e s i - t u a t i o n i s somewhat c r i t i c a l because o f t h e d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f t h e East-Clest r e l a t i o n s .
