The Establishment of the Anglo-Australian Telescope: an Historical Case Study in Australian Science Policy Roger Trevor Garland University of Wollongong

University of Wollongong Research Online

University of Wollongong Thesis Collection University of Wollongong Thesis Collections

1987 The establishment of the Anglo-Australian telescope: an historical case study in Australian science policy Roger Trevor Garland University of Wollongong

Recommended Citation Garland, Roger Trevor, The se tablishment of the Anglo-Australian telescope: an historical case study in Australian science policy, Master of Arts (Hons.) thesis, Department of Science and Technology Studies, University of Wollongong, 1987. http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/2232

Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected]

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN TELESCOPE. AN HISTORICAL CASE STUDY IN AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE POLICY.

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS (HONOURS)

from

THE UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG

by

ROGER TREVOR GARLAND Bachelor of Science (University of Sydney) .

DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES

1987 i

CONTENTS

Contents i Abbreviations iii Abstract iv

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 The trend towards a large optical telescope in Australia

Notes and references 5

CHAPTER 2 AUSTRALIAN ASTRONOMY AND SCIENCE 6

2. 1 What is Australian astronomy ? 1 2. 1 . 1 Background 1 2. 1 . 2 Funding 13 2.2 Australian optical astronomy and 16 the high civilization principle. 2. 2. 1 Sky watching 16 2.2.2 Astronomy in Australia 18 1788-1900 2.2.3 Australian Astronomy in 24 the 20th century

2.3 Australian science policy in the 41 1950s and 1960s. Notes and references 47

CHAPTER 3 THE ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN TELESCOPE 52 PROJECT 1950s-DECEMBER 1962

3. 1 Introduction 52 3.1.1 The need for a large 52 southern telescope 3.1.2 A big science project 54 3.2 Advocacy, debate and delay; 63 trying to get the show on the road

Notes and references 100 ii

CHAPTER 4 THE ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN TELESCOPE 105 PROJECT JANUA1V- 1963-0CTOBER 197 4 4 • 1 Procrastination, further debate 106 and alternative proposals January 1963 - May 1967 4.2 Organisation, resolution and 148 construction - building the telescope May 1967 - October 1974 Notes and references 159

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 168 Notes and references 183

APPENDIXES 184 Appendix I The players 185 Appendix II Prominent committees 194 Appendix III Key events 198

BIBLIOGRAPHY 204 Manuscripts 205 Published material 209 iii

ABBREVIATIONS

AAO Anglo-Australian Observatory AAT Anglo-Australian Telescope Academy Australian Academy of Science ANU Australian National University ANZAAS Australia and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science APGC Astronomy Policy and Grants Committee (UK ) [within the SRC's Astronomy, Space and Radio Board] BCSO British Commonwealth Southern Observatory CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization DSIR Department of Science and Industrial Research (UK) ESQ European Southern Observatory JPC Joint Policy Committee Royal Royal Society of London (UK) Society SRC Science Research Council (UK) iv

ABSTRACT This thesis examines the establishment of the Anglo­ Australian Telescope as a case study in Australian science policy. An historical overview of Australian astronomy is developed, followed by an historical account of the telescope project. The latter forms the major part of the work. Attention is paid to the arguments put forward by the astronomical community to justify funding. The role of the Australian Academy of Science as an elite science institution in the decision making process is examined. Also considered is the impact in the 1960s of emerging government science policy machinery. The entrenchment of a high civilisation principle used to rationalise the professional activities of astronomers is also investigated. Cone lus ions are drawn about the complex nature of decision making processes, how decision making in science was affected by a changing context of science policy formation, and the likelihood of a joint astronomy project being undertaken in Australia in the 1980s. 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

":4 2

"astronomers are a queer and quarrelsome lot and unblushingly push their own interests." Marcus Oliphant [1]

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The trend towards a large optical telescope in Australia

The quest for larger and larger optical telescopes in Australia has featured regularly in Australian astronomical work. From the establishment of the first astronomical observatory by Governor Sir Thomas Brisbane in Parramatta in 1821, requests were made to improve facilities by increasing telescopic power. Over the years, such facilities were indeed developed, firstly by the colonies and later by the Federal Government.

In the 1950s, the cyclical claims by astronomers for bigger and better telescopic power were again made. This time, the request was for a major telescope of gigantic optical proportions. However, it was not until the mid- 1960s that funds were made available for a truly major venture and only then after nearly ten years of active lobbying. The outcome was a joint Anglo-Australian facility.

This thesis is located within the field of science and technology studies. In developing a perspective on science policy formation it constructs an historical account of the process followed in the establishment of a 3 large optical telescope in Australia. Included in this approach is an exploration of some of the political interactions between the institutions, philosophies and individuals involved. The general issues in science policy thus arising relate to:

1. the role of elite scientific groups

2. the development of 'big science' projects

3. competition between nations, scientific disciplines and individuals involving prestige, political expediency and world-views (including a pure science philosophy and the high civilisation principle).

While a number of historical accounts of the establishment of the telescope exist [2], there has been little interpretation and analysis of the circumstances that gave rise to support for the project, nor the political interactions underpinning the actions of institutions and individuals involved. Several specific themes emerge relating to the issues listed above. Within the context of broad changes in Australian science policy during the 1950s-1960s these include:

1. the role of the Australian Academy of Science as an elite science institution 4

2. tension between the traditional Australian­ British scientific links in the face of US achievement of a higher scientific status

3. problems of the new large civilian science projects face-to-face with inadequate science policy machinery

4. competition between Australian physical and biological sciences and volatile inter-personal and inter-institutional political relations.

This account principally draws upon primary material held in the archives of the Australian Academy of Science, supported by the holdings of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization as well as material held by the Anglo-Australian Observatory, National Library of Australia and Mt Stromlo Observatory library. 5

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1 Le t t er , O1 i p ha n t to Wh i t e , 7 F e b 1 9 5 6 , ( CSI RO S 4 , CZ/226/6 Part 2). 2 Some of these include: S. C. B. Gascoigne, in Australian Astronomy Since World War Two, (unpublished paper dated April 1986). S. C. B. Gascoigne, 'The Anglo-Australian Telescope', reprint from Endeavour, Vol XXXIV, No.123, September 1975. F. Hoyle, The Anglo-Australian Telescope, (University College Cardiff Press, Cardiff, 1982). Bernard Lovell, 'The Early History of the Anglo­ Aus tr a 1 i an 1 5 0-inc h Te 1 es cope ( AAT ) ' , Qu art er 1 y Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol 26, No.4, 1985, pp.393-455. The Anglo-Australian Telescope Board is currently compiling an official history due for release in 1989. 6

CHAPTER 2

AUSTRALIAN ASTRONOMY AND SCIENCE 7

CHAPTER 2: AUSTRALIAN ASTRONOMY AND SCIENCE

This chapter develops a context for the interpretation of the establishment debate of the Anglo-Australian Telescope. A picture is firstly painted of what astronomy is (2.1), followed by an outline of a history of the science in Australia (2.2). The preservation of the astronomical profession and its funding claims are marked in t hi s history by the entrenchment of the high civilisation principle. Finally, an overview of Austra l i an science policy in the 1950s to 1960s is presented (2.3). From this base, the debate concerning the establishment of the large telescope project itself will then be examined in Chapters 3 and 4. ***

2.1 WHAT IS AUSTRALIAN ASTRONOMY ?

2.1.1 Background Current astronomical activity in Australia can be divided into private, government and public spheres. In the private domain are the activities of both amateurs and the commercial industry which supplies equipment , software and services. At the governmental level, astronomy is directly sponsored within State and Federal departments in areas such as meteorology, defence and navigation. Government also plays a major role in the public domain through irtdirect funding of astronomy undertaken by institutions such as universities, the 8

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Anglo-Australian Observatory (AAO).

Members of .the professional community of astronomers are the chief instigators of knowledge production in the science. The activities of amateurs can, from time to time, contribute to the subject's knowledge base. However, it is the full-time workers geared to knowledge production that contribute most directly to the subject. The professional community is primarily located within the government and public spheres of astronomy.

Astronomy is a physical science covering a wide number of specialised and interrelated activities which broadly fall into theoretical and applied research. On the philosophical approach of physical scientists Elias has written, Present reflections of physicists and philosophers are still tied to a scheme where the universe consists of physical events into which humans are set inexplicably as explorers of objects. [1] In the hegemonistic physical science of astronomy, the whole universe has become an object for study. Thus, as Unsold, one leading 20th century astronomer, has put it, In the second and third decades of our century ••• the universe as a whole, the cosmos in its spatial structure and in its temporal evolution, became an object for exact scientific investigation. [2] In the exploration of the goings on in the universe it has become clear that an understanding of the nature of

matter, energy, time and gravity are crucial to the 9 construction of astronomical knowledge. Thus, the theoretical frameworks of relativistic and quantum physics have been called upon in the development of astronomical cosmologies. This has led to attempted applications of models of science more organic than the mechanistic approach encapsulated in Unsolds statement. Capra, for example, draws upon the experience of modern sub-atomic physics and the quantum theories of Heisenberg, Bohr and Be 11 to dispel the cone ept ion of reality as being comprised of discrete parts joined by local connections [3]. He writes, Heisenberg's contributions to quantum theory imply clearly that the classical ideal of scientific objectivity can no longer be maintained .•• [4] Capra uses this as an argument to advance the claim that modern physics thus challenges the myth of a value-free science. He takes this one step further by drawing parallels between Indian and Asian mystical thought and modern physics. In the dimensions of everyday phenomena classical physics holds true. However, Beyond the dimensions of our everyday environment ••• the mechanistic concepts loose their validity and have to be replaced by organic concepts which are very similar to those used by the mystics. [5] In the end his arguments imply a science which has universal application because, as modern physics reveals, it has a self-reflexive quality which predicts and allows the existence of value-judgments in science. Science as a system of universal thought is saved This organic science is one which recognises that, 10

The patterns scientists observe in nature are intimately connected with the patterns of their minds; with their concepts, thoughts and values. (6]

Between the mechanistic and organic descriptions of the activity of astronomers and the related theoretical fields, astronomical knowledge production is, in essence, based upon the interpretation of information reaching the earth via the electromagnetic spectrum. Thus, branches of specialisation within the science tend to be concerned with slices of this spectrum. Astronomy consequently includes such disciplines as optical, radio, infra-red and x-ray research. The telescopic equipment used to observe a particular band of the electromagnetic spectrum varies from specialty to specialty. As with most scientific activity, sophisticated computer hardware and software, diagnostic tools and specialised pieces of equipment have a fundamental role to play. The equipment itself can be ground-based or indeed underground; airborne in powered aircraft, rockets or balloons; or located in space in orbit or beyond. The theoretical structures used in the production of knowledge draw heavily on the physical and mathematical sciences in the western tradition. At any one time, a number of cosmological models vie with each other in the construction of reality.

While individual specialties often have a strong independence, it is now characteristic of the science that its many branches do exchange and interact in the 1 1

production of knowledge. Thus, for .example, the work of radio astronomy complements research in optical astronomy and vice versa [7].

Historically, astronomy has had practical applications in the areas of navigation, map making, timekeeping and weather forecasting. In agrarian societies, priests and astrologers held a privileged position in part due to their control and interpretation of astronomical information. Such information was crucial to the direction of the agricultural means of production. In the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe, the rise of a strong mercantile class with expanding trade, industrial and military interests helped provide the operational ·"" framework for the production of new astronomical knowledge. The state established the infrastructure to support such needs and observatories were founded and closely allied to the activities noted previously. Such activities are most important in guiding a nation's vessels across the sea, armies across the land or in regulating the daily functions of business and state. Later, seismological work also became incorporated into the activities of these multipurpose observatories.

The traditional practical applications of astronomy have diminished with the development of alternative technologies for measuring time and position on the globe. This trend has accelerated since the end of the 12

1939-45 war. Nowadays, astronomical activity is justified more in terms of the values of pure research.

Astronomy and its technologies have often had links to military processes, Astronomers, as well as military officers, have much to gain from efficient surveillance. Their efforts, of course, have quite different aims, but the technical means may frequently be the same; and that is the fund amen ta l reason for a connect ion between advances in military and astronomical tee hno logy. [ 8] Thus, some of the European observatories were founded under the control of the armed forces. The Royal Greenwich Observatory in England, for example, was within the Admi ra 1 ty and this remained the case un ti 1 1965. In more recent times, the relationship between astronomy, space technology and the military-industrial complex has reinforced this historical link [9]. In the past, astronomical observatories not only provided information to aid navigation, time keeping and weather prediction but also have offered a stand-by reserve of skills that could be more directly employed in the needs of war. Thus, for example, Mt Stromlo Observatory in the Australian Capital Territory was able to provide a base on which to build an optical munitions factory during the 1939-45 war (10]. Perhaps, again, in a time of crisis, war or disaster the astronomical infrastructure - the human skills and the technology (especially computing power and the telecommunication potential of radio astronomy equipment) - could eas i 1 y be diverted to 'the national need'. 1 3

As with other fields of science · in the contemporary world, there is an important international dimension to astronomy. It has been recognised that astronomy has one of the longest and most continuous "histories of international scientific co-operation" [11]. This has affected the definition of areas of research, the flow of ideas and funding commitments to particular projects. Astronomy in Australia is very much an active and integrated component of the world scene. This occurs at the amateur level as well as the professional through such agencies as clubs and societies, national and international publications, conferences, training and travel. It is manifested in contacts between individuals as well as interinstitutional and intergovernmental agreements.

Since 1945, developments in Australia have seen it gain a high profile amongst astronomical nations. Achievements first in the area of radio astronomy and later in optical astronomy contributed to this standing.

2.1.2 Funding As with many capital equipment intensive sciences, astronomy, although a world-wide activity, is dominated by the rich, industrialised, science-oriented nations. It is largely funded by government in block grants or via universities. However, private foundations have played an 14

important role in some cases. While it is primarily perceived as a pure research science, large semi-military organisations (such as space agencies) and defence departments continue to permeate some areas of practical and theoretical investigation [9].

Precise figures for astronomical expenditure in Australia and elsewhere are hard to come by. Table 1 indicates the level of expenditure in Australia during the mid-1970s. On the international scene, similar costs seem to be involved in funding comparable projects and organisations [12].

The level of expenditure on Australian astronomy relative to other sciences is not clear. Again, the unavailability of figures presents a problem in forming an accurate picture. Questions regarding the relative claims between expenditure on other sciences and funding trends in astronomy require further investigation, a task beyond the scope of this work. 15

TABLE 1. ANNUAL EXPENDITURES & SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR ASTRONOMY (13]

ORGANISATION EXPENDITURE FUNDING METHOD $ Million Year

CSIRO 3.5 1975-76 Block grant from Commonwealth via Ministry for Science appropriation.

ANU 1 • 9 1976 Block grant from (Institute Commonwealth based on of Advanced Universit. Commission Studies) recommendations and made via Ministry for Educat. appropriation.

AAT Board 1 • 7 1976-77 Block grant in equal parts by Australian and UK Governments. Australian grant from Ministry for Science appropriations.

Perth 0.2 1976-77 Block grant from WA Observatory Government.

Sydney 0. 1 1976-77 Block grant from NSW Observatory Government. State 1 • 3 1976 Block grant from universities Commonwealth based on and ANU School Universit. Commission of General recommendations and Studies made via Ministry for Educat. appropriation. Project grants esp. Australian Research Grants Committee via Ministry for Science appropriations. 16

2.2 AUSTRALIAN OPTICAL ASTRONOMY AND THE HIGH CIVILISATION PRINCIPLE,

This section traces the history of astronomy in

Australia and highlights the implementation of the

high civilisation principle to justify funding.

2.2.1 Sky watching.

Astronomy in Australia is linked to a European science- based tradition which has developed over the past 200 years. However, the system of knowledge production now denoted by the term 'astronomy' cannot be immediately applied to the activities of fifty years ago let alone

200, 500 or 1 000 years past. Similarly, the term denotes different things in different cultures. Human activities occur within a social context and therefore are in a complex web of socially negotiated meaning.

Fifty years ago, for example, the concepts of x-ray or gamma ray astronomy were barely theoretical possibilities, let alone fields of research. Similarly, while the ancient Chinese, Korean and Japanese cultures observed and recorded supernovae, comets, planetary alignments and the 1 ik e, these observations were incorporated into complex cosmological systems quite different to those of the industrialised nations of the

20th century. Such cosmologies were maintained,

over millennia as a source of vital information by the Chinese imperial court and later also by Korean dynasties and to a less systematic extent by Japanese courtiers and scholars. [14] 17

To directly equate the sky watching science-based disciplines of today with the activities of ancient cultures in Australia, China or India is clearly inappropriate.

The European tradition of astronomy in Australia commenced with the British colonisation of the continent. Over previous centuries visitors, traders, invaders and settlers had arrived on the continent's shores. Whether from the Pacific islands, Asia or Europe some form of astronomical navigation played a part. In the period of 18th and 19th century European imperial expansion, the astronomical observation of the transit of Venus across the disc of the Sun (Venus at inferior conjunction) enabled the accurate determination of the Sun's distance (solar parallax). Such a determination was a crucial step in calculating more precise time and navigational measurements. The importance of transit observations was such that the chief European powers, including France and England, organised astronomical expeditions to examine such events. The English Admiralty sent James Cook on such an expedition to Tahiti in 1769. It was on the exploratory return voyage across the South Pacific Ocean that Cook claimed the east coast of New Holland as English territory in 1770, renaming it New South Wales. 1 8

2.2.2 Astronomy in Australia 1788-1900. In the early years of the penal colony [15], astronomy was an activity more concerned with the applied practices of time-keeping, meteorology and survey work rather than research. The little research actually performed was under the direction of the metropolitan seat of learning in London. Maskelyne, the Astronomer Royal of England, had given an astronomical member of the colony's marine/naval bureaucracy, Second Lieutenant William Dawes, instructions to observe the predicted return of a comet in 1790 [ 16]. The comet was not seen and there is apparently no further record of astronomical research in the colony until the 1820s [17].

Up to the 19th century, science in Europe was largely the domain of financially well endowed individuals and groups. Scientists were usually men of independent wealth or professionals with lucrative incomes capable of sustaining a 'scientific hobby' [18]. However, the practical benefits of astronomy to the state meant that some astronomers were paid scientists. The position of the Astronomer Royal in the English Admiralty is one example. Thus, the practical skills essential to safe navigation, time-keeping, meteorology and surveying became associated with basic research aimed at knowledge production and understanding of the •universe'. Astronomy was becoming established as a profession. 19

In more general terms, signs of an overall transition of the status of science from 'hobby' to 'profession' are to be found in the creation of specialised groups and societies. In England, the Astronomical Society was established in 1820 as part of a trend marked by the formation of others including the Linnean Society (1788), the Mineralogical Society (1799) and the Chemical Society (1804) [19]. The beginning of these societies is a, clear indication that new men were coming to science arid were taking it seriously enough to want to share their particular efforts with others of like training and interest. [20] With the formation of an astronomy profession it can be argued that a power base was developing with an interest in the support of basic research beyond mere practical applications. The strength of professional astronomical interest expanded with the British empire. In 1820 the British established an observatory on the Cape of Good Hope [21] and in 1825 the colonial administration of New South Wales took over Governor Sir Thomas Brisbane's private observatory which had been set up at Parramatta in 1821 [22]. Research aimed at cataloguing southern hemisphere stars and nebulae, as well as work on pendulums, latitude and longitude was performed at this time.

However, Australian astronomical activity declined until the 1850s. This decade was a period of economic, social and intellectual expansion in the Australian colonies marked by gold rushes, new technologies, the beginnings 20

of responsible government and the establishment of universities. Within this climate astronomy research received a boost as more permanent observatories were established by the colonial governments. Williamstown

(1853) and South Yarra (1863) observatories were established in Victoria. In NSW, a Government Astronomer was appointed ( 1856) by the Astronomer Royal of England and Sydney Observatory (1858) was constructed. A private astronomer, John Tebbutt, built his first observatory

(1863) and the Great Melbourne Telescope (23] was completed in 1868.

There were strategic naval and trading imperatives for the support of astronomy. The need for meteorological, time keeping and navigational data meant that astronomy was far from an indulgent pastime for scientists simply seeking to explore the southern skies. Such requirements of astronomy were not lost on the colonial bureaucrats.

The founding of Sydney Observatory, for example, was in part made conditional on the establishment of a time-ball service for maritime and civilian regulation. Thus, Earl

Grey (Secretary of State for the Colonies) authorised

Fitzroy (Governor of NSW) in 1848,

to make over the transit instrument to the Government provided • • • [there was a willingness] .•. to make arrangements for the construction and maintenance of a time ball establishment ••. (24]

Governor Denison, Fitzroy's successor, justified development of the obs er vator y on the further grounds that practical applications of science could be 21

demonstrated to the public and especially students of the new Sydney University; that the observatory would act as an important pivot to the trigonometrical survey of the colony and that it would provide a means of making connections with European and American science [25].

Some of the rhetoric of the debate surrounding the establishment of the Great Melbourne Telescope illustrates the flexing of developing professional astronomical muscles. British funding authorities were more concerned with the practical aspects of astronomy needed in the maintenance of an empire. The newly proposed instrument was, however, intended for research work on the nebulae of the southern hemisphere, Hitherto the examination of Nebulae with powerful instruments, also the measurements of double stars, have been left exclusively or nearly so to the zeal and resources of private Astronomers. The public Observatories being devoted to the more immediate utilitarian branches of cataloguing and of improving the planetary theory by systematic observations .•• [26]

The task of the professional astronomers was to convince the Government of the desirability of funding. The ensuing rhetoric employed strongly espoused the values of basic research and introduced national pride as a higher practical goal in its argument. The written submission to the British Prime Minister carefully set out the aspects of scientific interest and the virtues of continuing Britain's great research work, [nebular astronomy's] origin is almost exclusively ours; the fame which will reward its completion should be ours also .•• This field of research is 22

... still exclusively our own ..• [and] the nation's honour will be sullied if we let it be preoccupied in its most interesting portion by the energy and liberality of any other people. Further, there are some persons who consider the sum L(2 500] a very unprofitable waste of public money ... [however, you know this is not the case if you have] ever drunk of the fountain of knowledge, or added to the domain of the intellect ... If the spirit of the age be such that the most despotic sovereigns of Europe feel that they cannot avoid the necessity of encouraging physical science , much more does it belong to the rulers of the frees t and most enlightened nation of the world. [27]

Literature printed in the USA at about the same time echoed similar sentiments about national pride. A case that the US Government should fund an observatory was made, because one had been established not only in every 'petty German principality' but even in the 'convict land of Botany Bay' the United States should [therefore establish a prime meridian observatory to] free itself from 'degrading and unnecessar y dependence on a foreign nation' [ie. Britain]. (28] Such arguments mark the emergence of a 'greater goals approach' in scientific activity variously referred to in terms of a 'high civilisation principle' or a 'pure science ideal'. In essence, the high civilisation principle justifies research on the grounds that, the search for new knowledge about humanity and nature is intrinsically valuable; it should be supported for its own sake .•• This justification maintains that in view, of its universal nature, those nations who fail to support it at a level commensurate with their wealth are neglecting their responsibilities to the international community ••• (29] The proponents for the ex pans ion of astronomy in Australia beyond the practical routine requirements of 23

navigation, time-keeping and meteorological observation were also to adopt this principle.

By the time the decision was taken to locate the large telescope in Melbourne rather than the Cape of Good Hope, other p rac tic a 1 functions of astronomic a 1 ob se r v a tori es had been developed. Thus a network of meteorological stations was set up which expanded to include the then

high technology telegraphy stations. In the late 1880s seismological observations began at Sydney Observatory, but 1890 was the last year that Australian universities offered a major undergraduate course in astronomy [30].

By the end of the 19th century the British tradition of

astronomy had been firmly entrenched in the Australian colonies. Under the colonial system, the Astronomer Royal of England was asked to make recommendations for the

appointment of the various government astronomers.

Invariably these men brought with them the values and

beliefs of the educated British elite in service of the

Crown. They often had specific astronomical programmes

and guidelines set down by the Astronomer Royal (31].

Australian born appointments later became the norm and often carried on the traditions they learnt within the

British oriented education system or as assistants within

the observatories prior to their elevation. The

foundation was laid for the astronomy profession to

justify ex pans ion of funding in terms of the rhetor ica 1 moral virtues of basic research. 24

2.2.3 Australian astron~my in the 20th century.

By the beginning of the 20th century, Australian astronomy, while strongly linked to British interests , did have some links on a broader international front. This included exchanges with Canada, Germany, Italy and the USA [32]. The northern astronomical nations continued to be interested in possible southern hemisphere observatory sites. In 1903, for example, the US based Carnegie Institution came to Australia looking for suitable locations.

With the Federation of the Australian colonies into a nation state in 1901 came constitutional powers to, among other things, make laws for the peace, order, and good governmen t of the Commonwealth with respect to astronomical and meteorological observations. [33] Discussion ensued within the professional astronomical community regarding the administrative fate of astronomy and meteorology in the new Commonwealth. This led to a conference of State Astronomers in 1905 (held in Adelaide) and a subsequent decision at the 1906 State Premiers' conference that the Commonwealth should direct meteorological activities leaving control of astronomy with the States [34]. While optical astronomy was reasonably active, solar observational work was not performed to any significant extent. In 1905 Dr W.G.

Duffield began lobbying for the creation of a 25

Commonwealth funded solar observatory. At this time, the need for a first class solar observatory to fill the gap between the observatories in India and those in America was keenly felt in international circles. [35] It wasn't the first or last time that the international dimension and standing of Australian astronomy was called into question. Arguments, justifications and rhetoric emanated along the lines that it was necessary to keep up with the scientific Jones' and participate in the world scientific community. This element of the high civilisation principle has subsequently been used time and again in most professional scientific fields in Australia to attract support and funding. In regard to the Commonwealth Solar Observatory, it is worthwhile noting some of the parallels between it and the much later lobbying for a large optical telescope in Australia after 1945.

As with the post 1939-45 war telescope, the advocacy for a solar observatory was a long and protracted affair [36]. It wasn't until 1911 that Duffield was success fu 1 in attracting support and site testing observations were begun at Mt Stromlo in the Federal Capital Territory (later known as the Australian Capital

Territory) [37]. Alluding to the high civilisation principle, the Administrator of the Australian Federal Territory recommended the erection of an observatory on Mt Stromlo in 1914 after the success of site surveys. He 26

made a case for a facility, adequately equipped, staffed and administered for the highest and most important aims of astronomical research ... (38]

The 1914-1918 war interrupted developments but lobbying was resumed at war's end. Interestingly, agricultural interests, an influential political force, chipped in with their support. The Producers' Associations' Central Council wrote to Earle Page, then Commonwealth Treasurer, in May 1923 supporting the proposal for the establishment of a Solar Radio Observatory on the grounds that more reliable weather forecasting would ensue (39]. In the following weeks, Page received correspondence arguing for and against the establishment of a Solar Radio Station at Riverview College in Sydney (40]. Finally, however, in 1924 the Commonwealth Solar Observatory was built on Mt Stromlo [ 41] under the administrative control of the Department for Home Territories and regular astronomical work was undertaken from 1925.

This outcome possibly owed more to practical applications than to the scientific ideal of pure research. With the development of radio telecommunications, there was a very real practical need to investigate, monitor and predict the various natural phenomena affecting the service. In 1926 the Radio Research Board of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) was founded largely to meet these needs. Thus not only did solar 27 astronomical research gain government support but so did related ionospheric and atmospheric work.

During this period, optical astronomy was in a parlous state. The State observatories were again facing a decline in activity as funds for capital equipment were either not forthcoming or cut back by their government masters. In some cases, observatories were threatened with closure [42J. The situation reached a head in 1926 when the Australian National Research Council (ANRC) sent a letter to the Prime Minister (S.M. Bruce) expressing general dissatisfaction with the condition of Australian astronomy funding and concern on future policy. The matter was referred by the Prime Minister to the Executive Committee of the Council for Industrial and Scientific Research (CSIR), which discussed the issues at its July 1926 meeting. According to the Executive Council minutes the ANRC felt, that the whole question of Australian astronomy needs comprehensive reviewing by an authority of high standing who will examine it in relation to international and local requirements uninfluenced by personal or political interests. (43]

In keeping with a continuing Australian characteristic, it was suggested by the ANRC and recommended (in September) by the Executive to ship in an overseas expert, Professor of Astronomy at Oxford University H. H. Turner, to investigate and produce a report on the state of affairs (44]. It was decided to seek responses 28 from the four State Government Astronomers (NSW, Victoria, SA, WA).

One Government (WA) strongly recommended that the Commonwealth take control of its observatory and the Director of the Commonwealth Solar Observatory (Duffield ) hotly disputed the necessity to bring in an overseas ex pert. With the situ at ion becoming more chaotic, the Executive Council decided to, bring the whole matter before Senator Pearce t o point out that some person should be made responsible for a report [45].

Circumstances eventually led to a conference on the fu tu re o f Aust r a l i an as tr on om y held in Me lb o u r n e du ring March 1927. In attendance were the four Stat e astronomers, the Director of the Commonwealth Solar Observatory and the Chair of the CSIR (G.A. Julius) . Apparently the views put forward at the conference varied greatly. Among the resolutions were references to the Commonwealth taking over international obligations in astronomy, with the States continuing to focus activity on local needs [46]. These issues were discussed by members of the CSIR Executive Council with their responsible Minister at the end of the same month [47].

The condition of Australian astronomy seems to have next come under review by a sub-committee of Federal Cabinet which was investigating research in Australia. The Minister for Home Territories apparently urged that the 29

CSIR should take control of the Commonwealth Solar Observatory and the Forestry Bureau. Upon learning of this in early April 1928, the Chief Executive Officer of the CSIR (Professor A.C.D. Rivett) promptly sent a confidential telegram to the Chair of the CSIR (G.A. Julius) explaining the situation. Council opposed such a move and Rivett despatched a telegram declaring that, We must be prepared [to] put case very strongly. Observatory suggestion is even worse than bureau ... (48] Just why Rivett thought that such a suggestion was inferior is not clear from the material at hand. It perhaps had something to do with the perception that the two-year old CSIR already had its responsibilities and funds stretched. Thus the idea that control of the Commonwealth Observatory and Forestry Bureau should be transferred to the CSIR was a notion to be discouraged.

Further comment on the state of astronomy in Australia during the late 1920s is to be found in the personal notes of Brailsford Robertson (Chief, Division of Animal Nutrition, CSIR). Amongst material on the nature of Australia's international cooperation in scientific research he noted, almost as a text book example of the high civilisation principle, that, Australia's duty, [its] international obligation [is] to provide better facilities for astronomical observation. He went on, Australia has very recently founded an observatory at Canberra but this observatory although it possesses some most valuable instruments possesses 30

as yet no great telescope suitable for stellar observation or comparable with the great telescopes of the northern hemisphere or those at Johannesburg or Valpariso •.. until Australia has equipped herself with one she is herself [as] almost the only great civilised country which has failed to recognize its international obligation to contribute her share to astronomical knowledge. [49]

Such sentiments, however, were lost as the changing economic conditions of the capitalist world plunged Australia into depression. Major optical astronomical expansion was, at this time, out of the question. Those projects which received funding were often of a much more immediately practical nature, such as those related to radio telecommunications, which remained crucial to the activities of business, government and the military. Thus, in the early 1930s the Radio Research Board funded the commencement of ionospheric research at Mt Stromlo and an Atmospheric Research Station was established. Similarly, apart from seismological work, Riverview College Observatory {Sydney) during the mid-1930s was concerned with upper atmosphere and ionospheric physics and ozone layer research. The immediate practical application of this work is indicated by the involvement of the Radio Research Board, the Commonwealth Weather Bureau and the Royal Australian Navy [50].

In 1932 a Commonwealth report suggested that the work of the State observatories should be taken over by two

Federal observatories. However a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers agreed in August 1936 31

that the States should retain responsibility for astronomical work [51]. In May 1937 the Federal Minister for the Interior [52] (T. Paterson) instigated an investigation of the activities of the Commonwealth Solar Observatory [53] which was undertaken in· June of that year [54]. When the report was submitted to the Min i ster in July, its recommendations included one that an, enquiry be made throughout the Empire (and also the United States of America if government polic y permits) for an experienced solar phys i cist competent to direct the work of the Observatory. [55] At a time when sexist values were more firmly entrenched the recommendations went on to state that, It is unsound policy from every point of view, including the economic, for skilled men to be obliged to spend time on tasks which could be equally well discharged by junior people of l ower status and salary We therefore recommend the immediate appointment of two computers, who should be University graduates and perhaps, from certain points of view, preferably women. [56] It was considered that, the work of the Observatory would be greatly stimulated and the control of it by the Department of the Interior considerably facilitated, if the Minister were to appoint a small Board of Visitors ••• to keep the institution under constant and intimate review ••• [its] members [should] act in honorary capacities ••• [This is] not without precedent, one of the most valuable being the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observatory at Greenwich. [57]

As a result of this review, the British astronomi cal tradition in Australia was once again reinforced. The Royal Greenwich Observatory was to act as a model f or some of the reorganised elements of Mt Stromlo. The colonial ties were further strengthened with the 32 appointmerit as Director of the Commonwealth Solar Observatory of British trained and experienced Dr Richard van der Riet Woolley in early December 1939, a position he held until the end of 1955. He played a role in the genesis of the proposed large optical telescope in the early 1950s and, as Astronomer Royal of England, went on to influence British claims to such a facility.

With the outbreak of war in 1939, the activities of science were integrated into war research and were thus exposed to well organised and funded establishments. For scientists this often meant experience in the most sophisticated and advanced techniques of the day and importantly they, learnt how to collaborate with a wide range of scientific and non-scientific disciplines, and they ••• learnt the way of committees and how to use Government machinery. [58]

Astronomy was not immune to this experience. In Australia, demands were placed on astronomy during the 1939-45 war for the calculation of daylight hour durations, navigation, scouting, surveying and compilation of artillery nomograms and tables. Sydney Observatory, for example, published Elementary Astronomy for Service Use in 1942 [59] and the CSIR compiled ionospheric data for the services [60]. Work at Mt Stromlo involved the establishment of the Ionospheric Prediction Service which was important for Australia's national and international military and civilian radio 33

telecommunications. The Mt Stromlo site also became a small factory for the manufacture of fire control equipment and war optics. The workshops and skills thus established became a valuable astronomical resource [61].

At its peak, the observatory had seventy staff [62] and resumed astronomical observation work in September 1942 .

The Observatory also managed to send a small expedition to South Africa to observe a solar eclipse. Meanwhile,

Woolley's involvement in the Army Invention Directorate brought him into close contact with powerful public servants [63].

The character of Australian astronomy continued to change. Urged on by the demands of war, the Commonwealth became more involved in astronomy. In some States the

long periods of neglect led to the closing of observatories and the transferal of activities such as

the National Time Service to Mt Stromlo. This changing state of affairs was marked by the filling of the

position of Commonwealth Astronomer by Woolley in March

1944.

Wartime contact fostered the development of a reserve of

experience and personal contacts between scientists,

including astronomers, and government bureaucrats and

politicians. The achievements of science in general in

the war effort reinforced these newly formed political

alliances. Such alliances in the post war period were to

have a profound effect on science, the perception of it 34 and ultimately its funding. As Johnston and Buckley write of the immediate post-war period, the evident contribution of science and technology to the war effort had enormously raised its visibility, and perceived significance, in the eyes of governments and the general community alike. [64]

This enhanced status of science contributed to increasing Commonwealth activity in astronomy. The optical astronomy

activities of Mt Stromlo underwent an expansion. Daily solar 'patrols' were begun in 1946 (65] and with the February 1947 visit to Australia of the Astronomer Roya l for England, Sir Harold Spencer Jones, plans for imp roved equipment and research programmes received the imperial nod of approval. Similarly, Jones' endorsement of the Sydney Observatory's programme was an important influence on obtaining new equipment and starting new work [66].

From 1948 Mt Stromlo also began improving its optical telescopic power (67]. Government authority was granted for the purchase of a 188 cm telescope (68] and the 127 cm Great Melbourne Telescope of the 1860s wa s acquired and work commenced to improve its performance [69]. In the same year Woolley was elected chair of the International Astronomical Union's (IAU's) Commission 40 on Radio Astronomy. Soon after, he became vice-chair of the Australian national chapter of the International Union of Radio Science (URSI) (70]. It was

during this period that he lobbied for the estab lishm ~ nt of an independent department of radio astronomy on 35

Mt Stromlo [71]. However, he ran into resistance from an already established division of the CSIR.

The creation of the radar laboratory within the CSIR 's

Radio Research Board in 1939 was to have a profound affect on the development of radio astronomy in the immediate post 1939-45 war period. Originally set up under guidance from secret British groups in the tense build-up to war, the laboratory had responsibility for developing radar for the Australian Army, Navy and Air

Force and during hostilities, the US forces in the southwest Pacific [72]. The war over, the radar group actively looked for ways of justifying its existence.

Pawsey, one of the early prewar radar group recruits recounts that,

At the conclusion of the war these men found themselves without definite commitments and anxious to establish themselves in scientific research.

He goes on,

The men were actively encouraged by the executive to develop their science within the organization. [73]

The group consisted of some 200 staff and ranged from,

professors of physics to practical engineers from industry • • • [who] • • • had spent months, if not years, at the best overseas laboratories and were saturated with the most recent electronic techniques. [74]

At war's end, with ace ess to surplus war equipment and with a knowledge base developed through war-time applications, the staff who remained in the Division of

Radiophysics of the CSIR established a new branch of 36

Australian astronomy - radio astronomy. Bowen recounts that this was a rather remarkable feat since there was not,

a single astronomer on the staff, nor, for that matter, anyone who had done a university course in astronomy. [75] With Woolley's lobbying for an independent radio astronomy research group on Mt Stromlo, resistance to the proposal from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) [76] arose. While a detailed analysis of the the ensuing debate is beyond the scope of this work, it is pertinent to summarise the events since the result served to focus the activities of the Mt Stromlo observatory in the area of optical astronomy.

The Commonwealth Solar Observatory on Mt Stromlo was still administered by the Department for the Interior.

However, in 1950 the Commonwealth Astronomer was appointed Honorary Professor of Astronomy in the Research School of Physical Sciences within the recently established Australian National University [77]. In February 1951 with the backing of Oliphant (Director, Research School of Physical Sciences) Woolley notified White (Chairman, CSIRO) that the Board of Visitors of the Mt Stromlo Observatory was proposing to enter the field of radio astronomy [78]. Shortly after, the issue of possible duplication of activities in radio astronomy by the CSIRO and Mt Stromlo Observatory was raised at an 37

Executive meeting of the CSIRO. It was agreed to discuss the conflicting proposals with the other parties [79].

A conference of the Mt Stromlo Board of Visitors, the CSIRO and the Commonwealth Astronomer was held in Sydney in May 1952. It was resolved that since the work of the Mt Stromlo Observatory was focused on the installation of the 188 cm telescope, the extension of work into solar and radio fields was considered beyond the Observatory's current capacity. Woolley backed down from his earlier position and the conference recommended [80] that:

1. CSIRO should undertake solar work in Canberra if possible; 2. CSIRO radiophysics work should not be disturbed; 3. University of Sydney should teach astronomy.

Henceforth, the CSIRO was free to pursue its own objectives and became involved in major radio astronomical work. Its programme for the construction of a large 64m radio telescope in 1954 paved the way for civilian 'big science' projects in Australia. Optical astronomy work in universities became a serious venture in the 1950s with the transfer of administrative responsibility for the Mt Stromlo Observatory from the Department for the Interior to the Australian National University and the creation of a department of astronomy at the University of Sydney. 38

The transfer was not a smooth affair. Woolley strongly advocated the establishment of a Department of Astronomy in the newly created Australian National University in the late 1940s. However, the appointed Director of the School of Physical Sciences, Marcus Oliphant, rejected the idea [81 J. Woolley continued his lobbying and Oliphant later changed his mind as the University recognised the tag of success associated with the work of Mt Stromlo. Nevertheless, the apparatus of Government consistently blocked the proposals and according to Oliphant, this contributed to Woolley's decision to accept the position of Astronomer Royal for England [82].

The attempted transfer of responsibility can be seen as the last step in the ideological establishment of astronomy as an independent professional activity. While it was within the strictures of a government department it remained outside the autonomous realm of pure science. Woolley and (eventually) Oliphant, as members of the scientific elite, strove to establish astronomers within the university structure. Woolley was apparently partly motivated by a commitment to the teaching of astronomy while Oliphant recognised the potential for excellence [83]. In both cases, the scientific objectives of Mt Stromlo were seen to be constrained by the Department. The astronomers had everything to gain through a professional association with the university including new prestige and a new degree of academic freedom. As Woolley later recalled, there was surprising 39 resistance to the contemplated change and after 16 years at Mt Stromlo, I was getting stale ... I needed fresh contacts to get back into the contemporary ideas and Mount Stromlo needed a man who was soaked in them. [84]

The chair of the CSIRO supported Oliphant in the lobbying for the transferal of control of the observatory [85]. Shortly after Woolley's resignation in December 1955, it was clear that the observatory would be transferred [86]. In early January 1957, just before the appointment of the new Director (Bart Bok), the Commonwealth Observatory of the Department of the Interior, ceased to be and the Observatory was transferred by Act of Parliament to the Australian National University. The members of the Observatory's scientific staff were all transferred to the Department of Astronomy of the Research School of Physical Sciences of the Australian National University and the Observatory's name became officially Mount Stromlo Observatory. [87]

By the mid-1950s, Mt Stromlo Observatory was established as the country's leading optical astronomy institution. From this position, its astronomers would begin to lobby for the construction of a large southern hemisphere telescope in Australia.

The professional institutional framework for astronomy was now set for further expansion. In the decades from the 1950s to the 1980s there has been tremendous growth and success in Australian astronomy. There have been many major astronomical projects, including atmospheric rocket 40

exploration programmes; Mills Cross type antenna arrays (1950s and 1960s); the commissioning of three major optical telescopes, the 188 cm, the 127 cm (Great Melbourne Telescope) and the 66 cm (Yale-Columbia, moved from Johannesburg) on Mt Stromlo ( 1955); the Australian .:. . ·· , National Radio Observatory project at Parkes (1961); Narrabri interferometer (1960s); the Culgoora radio heliograph (1960s and 1970s); the Fleurs Synthesis Telescope (1970s); the Anglo-Australian Observatory (1974); a Rotational Synthesis Telescope (1970s); the

Aus tra 1 ia Telescope ( 1980s-90s) and Sydney University's new interferometer project (1980s-90s).

This schema of astronomy in Australia illustrates the entrenchment of a 'high civilisation' philosophy used to attract government funding. Such a philosophy relies ·· · heavily on the pure science ideal which claims that the activities of research are, of themselves, worthy of pursuit. However, since such an approach has consistently failed to guarantee funding, the rhetoric calling for financial support of astronomy has included elements of national pride, international competition and the status of technological and scientific progress. These arguments have been initiated by astronomers as a working expression of their professional interests.

The use of the high civilisation principle and associated rhetoric in the debate for a large optical telescope in Australia will be dealt with later chapters. 41

2.3 AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE POLICY IN THE 1950S AND 1960S.

This section presents a broad overview of Australian science policy for the formative years of the Anglo­ Australian Telescope project.

The development of science in Australia is historically linked to a European (primarily British) and North American background. The growing industrial role of science in the 19th century in Europe and North America had marked effects on the organisation and development of science itself. Some of these effects (88] included:

1. The emergence of science as a social institution on a significant scale as indicated by professionalisation;

2. Increased science and technical education particularly at higher educational levels;

3 • Go ver nm en t nu rt u ring of the a c ti vi ties of science;

4. An extension of the ideology of science to include the distinction between 'pure' or 'basic' and 'applied' research.

While these phenomena were to varying degrees part of the Australian experience, the structuring of science in

Australia included a process of marginalisation. Several 42

authors have drawn attention to this process. Kolm, for example, describes marginal science and technology structures as,

those in which there is little or no connection between science and technology activities and the production sector. Consequently, research is largely a consumption good • . . In other words, though the rhetoric of justification for expenditures on science and technology may be in terms of economic return, the reality is that they are welfare functions, funded by governments because they are considered important needs of the nation (and particularly the needs of the community of researchers). [89] The image of science thus portrayed is one of an activity largely divorced from overall social and economic goals. A detailed examination of the causal factors in this development is beyond the scope of this work. However, it is important to note that events in Australia are a manifestation of broader international socio-economic movements. The emerging world economic order in the period after the 1939-45 war helped reinforce a derivative science and technology culture in Australia. During this time Australia became more dependent on international flows of capital, science, knowledge, technology and skills.

A brief survey of the political economy of Australia in the 1950s and 1960s points to why this occurred. These years were marked by a phase of stable growth, high emp lo ymen t 1 eve ls and inc re as ing 1 iv ing standards [ 90]. To overcome a capital shortage and maintain an expanding 43

economy, foreign investment was encouraged. A new interest in the advantages of US capital over the traditional British sources contributed to a shift away from the Anglo-centrism of the previous century. With tariff protection and US investment the gleaming fruits of the new age were available to the Australian consumer. Modern cars, electrical appliances, growing steel production and engineering activities fuelled economic expansion. This activity in association with assisted migration allowed Australia to obtain modern technology and skills without having to make the effort of developing them (91].

This phenomenon was not new. Of the 1850s McFarlane writes, New technology outside of the agrarian sector has been sustained mainly by foreign capital inflow. This allowed the borrowing of industrial techniques, the production of various goods under license and the import of skills through immigration. (92] While this statement is descriptive of the 1850s it could also be used to capture the spirit of the 1920s, 1930s and, almost equally, the 1950s-60s. The later period is, however, distinguishable from the others by the way in which Australia had been locked into a new multinational corporate economic sys tern inc re as ing 1 y dominated by US based capital. This system has been characterised as one 44

where the,

centralisation of production, technology, marketing and finance in key areas of economic activity [ha ve occurred] on a scale never before realised in the capitalist world economic system. [93]

The structure of Australian science in this period

reflects these broader movements of political economy.

With the large capital and technological inflows, a

d er i vat i v e s c i en t i f i c cu 1 tu re was nu rt u red and fu rt her

marginalised into an activity divorced from overal l

social and economic goals. In this context, science in

Australia attained the status of a showcase intellectual

endeavour [94].

During the period of the Anglo-Australian Telescope

establishment debate from the late 1950s to the mid-

1960s, government civilian science policy was set

according to the decisions or the advice of the

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

Organization (CSIRO), individual universities, separate

government departments on a Federal and State level and

the Australian Academy of Science. Science policy was

thus often greatly influenced by an elite group of

individuals. Scientists were prominent amongst this elite

and had considerable input to science policy and decision

rnak ing as part ic ipan ts on boards, cornrni t tees, councils

and the like.

Consequently, being involved in bureaucratic politics,

scientists were in the thick of negotiations, bargain 45

making and the formation of power alliances. When

Government sought advice from scientific organisations through its various departments, it was not uncommon to be calling on the same individuals who would float between a number of institutional roles.

The Department of the Prime Minister had a particularly

prominent role during the early 1960s. Prime Minister

Menzies was very briefly the Minister-in-Charge of the

CSIRO in late 1961 and early 1962, until responsibility

passed to an assisting Minister of Education and

Research (95]. The years 1962-1966 marked a period o f

transition towards a full Ministry of Science. However,

the effect of the early ministry on science policy has

been seen as minimal. Ronayne writes,

It is true that in 1966 a Ministry for Education and Science was created, but the science branch, though having formal responsibility to work on science policy, concerned itself mainly with the collection of statistics, not with the development of policy. (96]

This situation prevailed into the early 1970s. Until

then,

There was no national scientific advisory body, no science budget, no ministry with responsibility for science an

Johnston and Buckley (98] have described science in

Australia up to 1945 as being in a largely fledgling

state of organisation and institutionalisation. They

indicate that during the years of post-war economic 46

expansion considerable building of the institutions of science in Australia occurred [99]. Over this period, three features of the structure of Australian science emerged [ 100]:

1. A strong autonomous stance by scientists within their ins ti tut ions which promoted the notion that decisions about science were strictly the domain of scientists;

2. A strong commitment to and propagation of elitist goals; 3. A government predilection for decisions on science to be based on the advice and influence of a select band of individuals.

These features helped set the agenda for the debate about

the establishment of a large southern hemisphere telescope. 47

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1 Elias, 1 Scientific Establishments•, in Elias, Martins and Whitely (eds), Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies (D. Reidel Publishing, Dordrecht , 1982), p.67. 2 Albrecht Unsold, The New Cosmos (tr. W. H. McCrea, Springer Verlag, New York, 1969), p.208. 3 Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics, An exploration of the parallels between modern physics and Eastern mysticism (Flamingo, Fontana, London, 1983), p.343. 4 ibid, p.16. 5 ibid, p.336. 6 ibid, p.16. 7 For more on this see Edge and Mulkay, Astronomy Transformed, The Emergence of Radio Astronomy in Britain (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1976), Chapter 8. 8 Martin Harwi t, Cosmic Discovery, The Search, Scope and Heritage of Astronomy (Harvester Press, Sussex, 1981), p.246.

9 See for example: A. C. B. Lovell, 'The Effects of Defence Science on the Advance of Astronomy', Journal for the History of Astronomy, 8, 1977, 151: 173;

A. C. B. Lovell, =T=h~e~~O~r~1=·g~1=·n=s;:;_-=a~n~d~-=I=n~t~e~r~n~a~t~i~o~n~a;;..=.l Economics of Space Exploration (University Press Edinburgh, Edinburgh, 1973); B. Lovell, Man's Relation to the Universe, (1975, p. 23-28 an analysis and comparison with gross national expenditure by NASA in the USA in regard to spending on astronomy after Sputnik; E. Bullard, 'The Effects of W.W. 2 on the Development of Knowledge in the Physical Sciences', Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, A, cccxlii 1975, p. 519-536. 10 For the active creation of a role for astronomers in time of war see David H. Devorkin, 'The Maintenance of a Scientific Institution: Otto Struve, The Yerkes Observatory, and its Optical Bureau during the Second World War', Minerva, Vol.18, 1980, p.595-623 . 11 Review of Observatories, Expert Sub-committee Report, Commonwealth of Australia 1978, (A.G.P.S . , Canberra, 1978), p.18. 12 For a general survey of world astronomy in the late 1970s see ibid pp.18, 21-27, 31-43, 87-97. 13 Based on table in ibid, p. 21. 14 Harwit, op. cit., p.247. 15 In 1786 the British Government instructed t he Admiralty to convey convicts and provisions to Botany Bay. The first fleet of ships arrived in New 48

South Wales in 1788 and a penal colony · was established on the shores of Port Jackson. 16 Edmond Halley had incorrectly predicted the return of this particular comet. This was not the comet now named after him. 17 Harley Wood, Sydney Observatory 1858 to 1958, Sydney Observatory Papers No. 31. (NSW Government Printer, Sydney, 1958), p.3. 18 E. Mendelsohn, 'The Emergence of Science as a Profession in Nineteenth Century Europe', in K.H ill (ed.), The Management of Scientists (Beacon Pres s v Boston, 1964), p.4. 19 ibid., p.27. 20 ibid. 21 A. K. Lojkine, The Mount Stromlo Observatory p Australian National University, Research School of Physical Sciences, (Mt Stromlo Observatory f Canberra, 11 July 1957). 22 Wood, op. cit. 23 There were conflicts and technical problems surrounding the location and use of a large telescope in the southern hemisphere. See fo r example B. Warner, 'The Large Southern Telescope : Cape or Melbourne?', Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol 23, p.505-514, 1982. 24 Quoted in Harley Wood, Sydney Observatory 1858 to 1958, Sydney Observatory Papers No. 31., ( NSW Government Printer, Sydney, 1958), p. 5. 25 Wood, ibid. , p. 6. 26 quoted in Warner, ibid., p.506. 27 quoted in Warner, ibid., p.507-8. 28 G. H. Daniels, 'The Pure Science Ideal and Democratic Culture, Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Vol. 156, June 1967 , p. 1700. 29 Jarlath Ronayne, Science in Government (1984), p.73 30 William Buscombe, 'Research at the Mount Stromlo Observatory', Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 52, 1958. To my knowledge, major undergraduate degree in astronomy still does not exist to this day (June 1987). 31 See for example the biographical sketches of the various Government Astronomers at Sydney Observatory in Wood, op. cit. 32 Wood, op. cit. , p. 18. 33 The Australian Constitution, Chapter I, Section 51, viii). 34 Wood, op. cit., p.18. 35 Lojkine, op. cit. 36 For an account of the process see Rosaleen Love, 'Science and government in Australia 1905-1914: Geoffrey Duffield and the foundation of the Commonwealth Solar Observatory' in Historical Records of Australian Science, 6, 2, (Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, 1985), pp. 171-188. 37 ibid.' p.2. 38 quoted in ibid., p.3. 49

39 Letter, Producers' Associations' Central Council to Earle Page (Commonwealth Treasurer), 1 May 1923, [CSIRO, File 68/269A, Solar Radiation Observation 1923-1925]. 40 See CSIRO, File 68/269A circa May 1923. 41 Gascoigne, Australian Astronomy Since World War Two, (unpublished paper dated April 1986), p.1. 42 See for example Wood, op. cit., pp.20, 22 and D. Branagan and G. Holland (eds.), Ever Reaping Something New, A Science Centenary, (Science Centenary Committee, University of Sydney, 1985), p.238. 43 Minutes, 23rd CSIR Executive Council meeting, 29 July 1926, [CSIRO, S28]. 44 ibid. 45 Minutes, 40th CSIR Executive Council meeting, 22 November 1926, [CSIRO, S28]. 46 Wood, op. cit., p.24 and material on [CSIRO, S28]. 47 Material on [CSIRO, S28]. 48 Telegram, 19 April 1928, [CSIRO, S577, Part I (33)] 49 Thorburn Brailsford Robertson, undated unpublished notes, International Cooperation in Science, c. 1929 [CSIRO S25, 21]. 50 Correspondence circa December 1945 on [CSIRO, CSIR G25/39, Riverview College Observatory 1934-54]. 51 Wood, op. cit., p.24. 52 Previously known as the Ministry for Home Territories. 53 Buscombe, op. cit. 54 Report to the Minister for the Interior on the Commonwealth Solar Observatory Mt Stromlo, 7 July 1937 [CSIRO, S4, CZ/236/6 Part 2]. 55 ibid., p.4. 56 ibid., p.6. 57 ibid., p.7-8. 58 B. Lovell, 'The Effects of Defence Science on the Advance of Astronomy', Journal for the History of Astronomy, viii, 1977, p.167. 59 Wood, op. cit., p.25. 60 See [CSIRO, CZ/226 [7], Ionospheric Data for the Services July 1939-November 1942]. 61 Buscombe, op. cit. 62 Lojkine, op. cit. 63 R. Woolley, 'Mount Stromlo Observatory', Records of the Australian Academy of Science, 1 (3), 1968, p.54. 64 Ron Johnston and Jean Buckley, Science and Politics 1944-1988, unpublished, c. June 1987, p.1. 65 W. T. Sullivan (ed), The Early Years of Radio Astronomy, (Cambridge University Press, 1984), p.35. 66 Wood, op. cit., p.29. 67 Buscombe, op. cit. 68 Woolley, op. cit., p.56. 69 Gascoigne, op. cit., p.11. 70 Sullivan, op. cit., p.37. 71 ibid. 50

72 E.G. Bowen, 'The Origins of Radio Astronomy in Australia', in W.T.Sullivan (ed.) The Early Years of Radio Astronomy (Cambridge University Press, 1984), p.85. 73 J.L.Pawsey 'Radio Astronomy in Australia', The journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, xlvii 1953 p.151, quoted in B. Lovell, 'The Effects of Defence Science on the Advance of Astronomy', Journal for the History of Astronomy, viii, 1977, p.161. 74 Bowen, op.cit. pp.85-86. 75 Bowen, op.cit. pp.86, 87. 76 The CSIR underwent reorganisation in 1949 emerging as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). 77 Buscombe, op. cit. 78 According to the minutes, CSIRO Executive meeting, 22 Feb 1951, p.5, [CSIRO, S467]. 79 ibid. 80 Minutes, CSIRO Executive meeting, 13 May 1951, p.5 [CSIRO, S467]. 81 Susan Davies, 'R. v.d. R. Woolley in Australia', Historical Records of Australian Science, 6, 1, (Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, 1984) p. 60. 82 Letter, Oliphant to White, 21 Jun 1955, [CSIRO S4, CZ/226/6 Part 2]. 83 Davies, op. cit., p. 62. 84 Woolley, op. cit., pp.56-7. 85 See for example letter White to Oliphant, 24 June 1955, [CSIRO S4, CZ/22616 Part 2]. 86 See for example correspondence between Oliphant and White February 1956, [CSIRO S4, CZ/226/6 Part 2]. 87 Royal Astronomical Society, Monthly Notices, 118, 4, 1958. 88 Daniels, op. cit., pp. 1669-1705 and also Mendelsohn, op. cit., pp. 3-48. 89 Quoted in Johnston and Buckley, op. cit., p. 3. 90 Kelvin Rowley, 'The Political Economy of Australia Since the War [1939-1945]', in J. Playford and D. Kirsner (eds.), Australian Capitalism, Towards a Socialist Critique, (Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1977), p.265. 91 Rowley, ibid., pp. 269-272, 281. 92 Bruce Mcfarlane, 'Australia's Role in World Capitalism', in ibid, p. 47. 93 Greg Crough and Ted Wheelwright, Australia: A Client State, (Pelican, Penguin, Ringwood, 1982), p. 11. 94 Johnston and Buckley, op. cit., p. 75. 95 Johnston and Buckley, op. cit., Table 2, p. 45. 96 Ron a yn e , op . c it • , p • 1 4 6 • 97 ibid. 98 ibid., p. 34. 99 ibid. 100 ibid., p. 35. 51

CHAPTER 3

THE ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN TELESCOPE PROJECT 1950S-DECEMBER 1962. 52

CHAPTER 3: THE ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN TELESCOPE PROJECT 1950S-DECEMBER 1962.

3.1 INTRODUCTION.

3.1.1 The need for a large southern telescope Arguments for the construction of large telescopes i n the southern hemisphere have often been justified in terms of the knowledge to be gleaned from an examination of the virgin southern skies. A p roposa 1 in 1850, for example , drew the attention of British Prime Minister Lord John Russell to the novelty of southern astronomical phenomena, The purpose is that the Government be requested to es tab 1 ish a powerfu 1 ref lee ting telescope [to be used] in a review of the Nebulae of t he Southern Hemisphere •.. [for these] mysterious forms on which [nebular astronomy] is employed are at present objects of Universal curiosity •.• [1] As equipment located in the northern hemisphere improved in quality and apertures became larger, new work in the south needed to be done to match the probing of the northern skies. As described in Chapter 2, pressures giving rise to the need for such work stemmed both from the practical imperatives of the state and the professional interests of astronomers.

In Australia, after Federation, the establishment of a Commonwealth Solar Observatory on Mt Stromlo received Government support at a time when the use of the new technology of radio telecommunications was increasing .

The demands of the 1914-1918 war, post-war defence, 53 government and business needs provided stimulus for the prediction and investigation of phenomena affecting the transmission and reception of radio waves.

After the 1939-1945 war, the arguments for larger optical telescopes in Australia again drew upon the relatively unexplored nature of the southern skies. As a result, Mt Stromlo Observatory was successful in commissioning three major optical telescopes in 1955. While this included a 188 cm instrument comparable to the southern hemisphere's then largest optical telescope in Johannesburg, the physical restrictions to viewing at Mt Stromlo promoted the need for a new observing location.

By the mid-1950s, optical astronomers were keen to explore the new scientific horizons opened up by developments in radio astronomy. Drawing upon radio astronomy's new findings and major equipment expansion, a stronger scientific case [2] for a large optical telescope was made. The process of turning this scientific need into the material reality of a large telescope will be traced in this and the following chapter. In so doing, a number of general issues in Australian science policy arise and relate to:

1. the role of elite scientific groups

2. the development of 'big science' projects 54

3. competition between nations, scientific disciplines and individuals involving prestige, political expediency and world-views.

3.1.2 A big science project. The grand vision of building a large telescope with an aperture greater than 250 cm implied a very considerable allocation of material and financial resources. Well before the drafting of detailed plans, it was implicitly understood amongst the astronomers that such an allocation was beyond the means of any one institution. In fact, by the time the first cost estimates of the order of j..5 million were made in the early 1960s, it was clear that the proposal was for a civilian science project on a major scale requiring considerable government funding. By the time the telescope was commissioned in 1974, the capital costs had escalated to almost $16 million [3] (approx. £8.5 million in 1960 terms).

The telescope project exhibits several characteristic features of Australian 'big science'. Firstly, its conception was on a large scale both in terms of physical size and the required level of resource organisation necessary to achieve the operational observatory .

Secondly, funding claims were well beyond the scope of 55 any one institution. Thirdly, sponsorship of the project by government was necessary. One more sign of the scale of the project is that funding ex tended beyond nation a 1 limits to include an international contribution. The figures in Table 2 indicate the scale of the scheme in relation to other astronomical capital expenditures i n Australia of the period.

The proposed telescope's size along with its construction, scientific and administrative organisation had a projected level of expenditure twenty times greater than any Australian optical project then experienced. A survey of the astronomy institutions of the time gives an indication why a government funding grant was required [4]. Of the likely candidates, the CSIRO was historically more involved in radio than optical astronomy. The state optical observatories were not well located, either physically or financially, to undertake major research. Of the universities, the Australian National University (ANU) was effectively at the forefront of Australian optical astronomical research once it took control of Mt Stromlo Observatory from the Federal Department of the Interior in 1957. The values and needs of the Mt Stromlo organisation thus became internalised within the ANU. This consequently placed the university in a position to make legitimate demands for involvement in such a major scientific proposal. However, its annual outlays could not fund such a proposition without special sponsorship. 56

TABLE 2

SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR SOME MAJOR TELESCOPES IN AUSTRALIA [5]

TELESCOPE INITIAL SOURCES OF INITIAL CAPITAL and CAPITAL FUNDS OPERATIONAL COST DATE ($ million)

188cm 0.5 Funded in whole by Optical Australian Government Mt Stromlo 1955

Earth rotational 0.5 Almost wholly funded by synthesis Australian Government Fleurs 1961 ~ 64m 1 • 5 Equal contributions from Radio the Australian Government Parkes and private US foundations 1961

Stellar 0.5 Equal contributions from Interferometer private Australian Narrabri foundations and UK 1963 Government Mills Cross 0.9 Bulk of funds from US Mo long lo National Science Foundation 1965 remainder from private Australian foundations

Radioheliograph 1 • 1 More than half by private Culgoora US foundations remainder 1967 from Australian Government

122cm 1 • 5 Wholly funded by UK Schmidt camera Government Siding Spring 1973 381cm 16.0 50% Australian Government AAT soi UK Government Siding Spring 1975 64m 20.0 Wholly funded by NASA of Radio the USA Tidbinbilla 1973 57

It was clear to the telescope's proponents in Australia that such sponsorship would have to partly come from the Government. Just what percentage remained uncertain as various international joint ventures proposing foreign government and private foundation contributions were canvassed. The notion of a foreign contribution reflects the environment of the period where the involvement and support of foreign expertise and money in major projects was the trend. The influence of the British was conspicuous in such activities as atomic energy research, the Woomera missile facility and nuclear weapons tests.

Money and expertise from the USA was involved in the

Australian National Radio Observatory (radio telescope

located in Parkes, NSW) and the Snowy Mountains Scheme.

A range of small international projects such as the Dutch

participation in radio astronomy hydrogen line work was

also occurring. An indication of the foreign involvement

in major astronomy ventures in Australia for the period

1955-73 is given in Table 2. This milieu, in combination with active foreign interest in a major southern

observatory, promoted the idea that some form of

international partnership would be possible, perhaps

inevitable.

As described in Chapter 2, Australian science policy in

the 1950s and 1960s was a rather ad hoc affair. There was not a centralised authority planning nor implementing science policy strategies [6]. The Commonwealth

Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) 58 dominated non-defence scientific research and had the major role in influencing government policy [7]. Outside of the CSIRO, the apparatus for assessing special government funding consisted of advisory re lat ion ships between the Australian Academy of Science, some universities and a series of interconnected private contacts with Federal Departments, primarily the Department of the Prime Minister. There was not any one body with the resources and responsibility to assess or set national science policy priorities.

As this case study of the Anglo-Australian Telescope project will show, a small group of influential scientists and government bureaucrats at tempted to attract or thwart funding. Some of the prolonged political processes of lobbying, negotiation and debate will be followed here. However, this path alone was not enough to effect a decision to proceed.

The scientists involved were caught in an institutional paradigm shift at two levels. The first was a diminution of traditional British colonial authority in the face of competition with the manifest superior astronomical achievements of the USA. The traditional authority was characterised by the privileged influence of a local Australian and foreign British elite. Members of this elite could mutually act on intergovernment representatives of both countries. 59

The second aspect was that Australian science was beginning to incorporate new structures face-to-face with government bureaucracy. This development is signalled by the creation of ministerial responsibility for science which occurred transitionally from 1963 to 1966. So, by the time government committed funds in 1967 to the telescope proposal, the assessment of Australian science projects was markedly different from when the telescope was first mooted in the 1950s.

The ultimate political goal of the astronomers was to convince government to commit funds to the capital development of the telescope. However, to achieve this goal the Australian Academy of Science, the CSIRO and members of the Department of the Prime Minister had to be won over. In an attempt to arouse the necessary support a scientific argument was developed. This study shows that, as might be expected, the scientific case for the telescope, within itself, was insufficient to recruit the patronage of the required parties.

Such propositions may have been successful in rallying peer support within the domains of astronomy. However, outside the discipline, this reasoning was in competition with alternative proposals and political positions. In other words, the astronomical argument had to compete with and be adapted to knowledge from other institutional frames of reference (8]. That the participants in the debate were aware of this is clear since, for example, 60

c arefu 1 cons id era t ion of rhetoric to se 11 the proposa 1 was given. This is evident by the inclusion of an appeal to a 'greater goals' approach where recourse to the language of prestige, progress and national identity was used. In a quaintly old-fashioned way this occasionally reminded participants of their traditional imperial duty. But, as this study reveals, a number of complicating factors arose and thus hindered a resolution of the goal. These factors included:

1 • competition between elite members of the physical and biological sciences

2. wavering government and bureaucratic interest including changing suggestions about foreign involvement

3. changes in government personnel and their responsibilities

4. a change in the structure of science assessment

5. competing and often non-committal foreign offers of involvement

6. tensions between the protocols of expert advice of the Academy and evolving government machinery for the assessment of science policy 61

7. competing political interests of various institutions and individuals in Australian science

8. an ideological paradigm shift from the British colonial tradition to one more open to the new economic and intellectual power of the United States

In examining these factors an historical overview of the proposals for a large telescope in Australia is developed. An Anglo-Australian Telescope project eventually emerged and the overall history can be divided into four periods. In summary, these are:

1. 1950s - Dec 1962 a period of advocacy, debate and delay.

A time during which the astronomical community initially and informally discussed the idea of a large telescope in Australia. From about 1957 the community engaged in active lobbying and debate to es ta bl ish funding for the project. From the start, international astronomical interests had a part to play.

2. Jan 1963 - May 1967 a period of procrastination, further debate and alternative proposals. 62

These years were initially marked by continued debate and the formalisation of telescope assessment committees. Procrastination on behalf of the

government ~ and Academy featured in the decision making process. Eventually a genera l intergovernment Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement was signed in April 1967.

3. May 1967 - Oct 1974 a period of organisation, resolution and construction.

Marked by the construction and political manoeuvring for operational control of the telescope.

4. Oct 1974 - 1988 an era of the AAT in action.

A period of scientific operation and growth of the telescope.

The study in this and the following chapter focuses primarily on the first two periods. The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, the establishment debate itself covering the processes leading to eventual government funding are of interest. Secondly, the access to primary research material has helped define this limit. 63

Interestingly, this reflects the changing structure for the assessment of Australian science policy. Since the chief source of research material has been the archives of the Australian Academy of Science, available material diminishes as a result of the Academy's lessening role. This occurred with the ascendancy of a formalised government science bureaucracy. The later part [9] of the story has been pieced together from other primary sources as well as secondary and oral accounts.

3.2 ADVOCACY, DEBATE AND DELAY TRYING TO GET THE SHOW ON THE ROAD 1950s - DEC 1962

The desire for larger and larger optical telescopes has a history as long as the telescope itself. Put simply, the wider the aperture of the telescope, the greater the light gathering power of the instrument and the more information about the universe can be made available for research. In Australia of the 1950s, the gains of radio astronomy, increasing wealth of the country and the expansion of scientific activity nurtured an environment in which informal discussion and conjecture on new and better astronomical equipment could conceivably lead to the materialisation of dreams. In this section, the history of the large optical telescope project will be traced from initial informal murmurings expressing the desire for a larger telescope in Australia through to the public criticism of delay 64

and allegedly poor assessment of the proposals by the Australian Academy of Science.

During the early 1950s informal discussion was occurring amongst professional physical scientists in Australia for a large optical telescope. The stress here on scientists in Australia is deliberate. It is important in analysing the processes at work in the establishment of the telescope, that all of the influential individuals received their post-graduate scientific training from places away from Australia [ 10]. There was not a postgraduate research school in astronomy or the physical sciences until 1950, when the Research School of Physical

' ~ Sciences was established at the Australian National University (ANU). The then Commonwealth Astronomer, Richard van der Riet Woolley, was appointed Honorary Professor of Astronomy in in the new School [11].

As part of their foreign education, future members of the top of the Australian science hierarchy often adopted some of the values of the scientific culture in which they were finding themselves immersed. Professional links and ideological values were often maintained upon their return or introduction into Australian society. The educational status and employment of these individuals placed them into an upper middle-class social hierarchy. This often meant they were able to gain access to 65 government and bureaucratic networks through the protocols, world views and language of this class.

Richard van der Riet Woolley (Director, Commonweal th Solar Observatory, Mt Stromlo) and Professor Sir Marcus

Oliphant (Director, Research School of Physical Scie nc e s ~ Australian National University) were two of the more prominent promoters during the early 1950s, of the idea of locating a large southern hemisphere telescope i n Australia. The cause was to be taken up in a dynamic way by Woolley's replacement, Professor Bart Bok.

Bart Bok dropped into the cozy world of Australian science as Woolley's successor at Mt Stromlo in 1957 . Described as an "energetic, ebullient man who nobody ever forgot" (12], Bok was a vocal Dutch-American who was to create quite a stir in the club-like world of Australian scientists and the equally staid atmosphere of establishment circles in Canberra. He quickly became identified with Australian astronomy of the period and became a major lobbyist for the concept of a lar ge optical telescope.

To the Mt Stromlo astronomers it was obvious that the encroaching lights of Canberra were an ominous sign of the limits to optical astronomy on that site. Combined with poor seeing conditions, due to high incidence of night cloud, the need to find new sites for optical work was becoming urgent. Before his official appointment as 66

Director in March 1957, Bok wrote to the the Vice­ Chancellor of the ANU outlining policy and future directions for the Mt Stromlo Observatory. He noted, There must be in Australia far better sites for optical research than our present one [and] ••. we should look forward in five years or so to the establishment of a Field Station, located in the best possible spot in the country He was emphatic in stating that "we must start the site survey of the continent now" [13].

In fact, two North American universities, Yale and Columbia, organised a joint Australian site survey from 1957-1959 [14]. Their activities were brought about by the need of the universities to maintain a southern hemisphere 66 cm telescope observatory. Similar to the situation at Mt Stromlo, the existing Yale-Columbia site near Johannesburg in South Africa was threatened by the city's rapid growth and industrial activity [15]. Combined with an atmosphere of political instability, there was a need to find a new, safe, southern haven. What better than 'white' English speaking Australia ? This survey provided an opportunity for scientists at Mt Stromlo to cooperate in the exploration of sites for the possible erection of specialised optical telescopes [16]. It also whetted their appetite for a new observatory.

The desire of the optical astronomers was articulated in one of their journals, no one will consider bringing a large telescope to Australia unless the site for it has been thoroughly tested and found adequate. [17] 67

This statement and the activities of the Yale-columbia team draw attention to two features of Australian astronomy which characterised the setting for the future development of a large optical telescope. Firstly, the international dimension to astronomical activity, previously identified in Chapter 2, is marked by the co- operation with the Yale-Columbia site survey. The related second aspect is the apparent assumption that Australia would not actually construct a large telescope by itself. The last quote implies that any large telescope is going to be brought in from the 'outside': it would not totally be an Australian project. On the onehand, this indicates a predisposition by astronomers to be outward looking; seeking foreign support and legitimation of their plans. On the otherhand, the author of the statement may have been capitalising on the existing parameters of the telescope discussions - particularly in the idea of UK involvement.

The Australian National University actively promoted its intentions to overcome the observing limits on Mt

Stromlo. In an early 1959 press release, Bok declared, The intention is not to transfer major equipment from Mount Stromlo to the Field Station, but the University may want to place some future new equipment there rather than at Mount Stromlo. There is no question of transferring any of the research, teaching or administrative activities to the site of the Field Station. [18] This release characterises Bok's willingness to publicise the activities of astronomers. His approach was to become a feature of the telescope establishment debate. In the 68

following years of lobbying, Bok cleverly promoted the large telescope cause on numerous occasions through speeches, private lobbying, editorial contacts, press releases and media interviews. On occasions, his aim was to circulate ideas and establish a profile for the proposals amongst, not only the general public, but also decision makers, politicians and bureaucrats. At other times, Bok used this technique to prod people into action.

A statement here, a view expressed there, anticipated the astronomers' wishes. Bok contributed to the anticipation in another press release by stating that, Astronomers in various parts of the world, notably in the United States, in Europe and the United Kingdom and in Australia, have been asking where in Australia south of the 26th parallel there are potential good sites for major observatory developments. (19] As a result of site surveys by the Yale-Columbia Site Testing Expedition and Mt Stromlo's own state surveys he went on to say there was, hope to select within two ·years a permanent site for a Field Station for Mount Stromlo Observatory ••• (20] 69

Foreign interest in a large southern telescope did indeed involve a number of countries. Apart from the US Yale­ Columbia group, a European consortium were developing plans for a European Southern Observatory (ESO). Since 1953, representatives of a core group of countries involving France, West Germany, Holland, Belgium and Sweden [21] had been meeting to promote the idea. The British Government had been asked to participate, but that country's astronomers weren't so keen. From thei r perspective, they preferred more viewing time than would be available on a share basis with the large number of contributing countries. Traditionally, the British had been reluctant to become involved in anything European and the telescope was no exception. It was within this environment that a British Commonwealth Southern Observatory (BCSO) proposal was mooted.

Back in Britain Woolley still retained visions of a large telescope in Australia from his years of service at Mt Stromlo. Early in July 1959 Woolley, now the prestigious Astronomer Royal in England, formally lobbied some influential Australians about the possibility of establishing a BCSO. Having failed to meet Menzies during one of the Prime Minister's London sojourns, Woolley wrote to the Australian Deputy High Commissioner to London, interestingly on first name terms, and to Professor Sir Marcus Oliphant at the ANU [22]. Woo lley advocated prompt action to allow a proposal for a BCSO to survive in the face of recommended British involvement in 70

the ESO project. The European governments were applying pressure on the British Government to become more involved in joint scientific and commercial schemes. Asserting the need for a large southern hemisphere telescope, Woolley established his world-view by writing, Further development of the south can proceed by a continuation of the •colonial' system whereby European and North American astronomers operate observatories in the south ... With British self-interest at heart he went on to divulge that, English [sic] astronomers would prefer the Commonwealth scheme if the money could be switched to it. [ 23]

Another characteristic of the project which was to : feature time and again is thus revealed. By appealing to

the colon ia 1 tr ad i ti on in existence at the time between

the north and the south (UK and Australia by implication), Woolley hoped to influence a more desirable outcome for British astronomy. So convinced of the preferable option for British astronomy, he suggested that the Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies, due to his influence in Britain, could express an opinion to the

Lord President of the UK Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, whose office was investigating the ESO scheme [24].

Woolley thus demonstrates he was not adverse to pulling a few of the traditional colonial strings. In a strategy to provide favourable British access to a large telescope in 71

Australia attempts were thus made, through his contacts, to engage members of Australian scientific and governmental elites. Woolley' s influence is verified by Lovell (25] who indicates that Woolley's authority as the chair of the Royal Society of London's National Committee for Astronomy, led to the formation of a sub- committee to consider the issue of British involvement in the ESO. Subsequently, the National Committee resolved, that important needs of British Astronomy could not be met from present resources and it was essential to have access to a large telescope in the southern hemisphere. That the most desirable way of achieving this would be through a British Commonwealth Observatory located in Australia and managed jointly with Australia and such other Commonwealth countries and other scientific interests as may wish to participate. That the Chairman be empowered to enter into discussion with appropriate Australian authorities. Should this means of gaining access to a large telescope fail, the Committee favoured joining the ESQ scheme. [26]

Up to this point, the discussions in Australia and the UK about a large optical telescope had chiefly been in an uncoordinated fashion between individuals. The British astronomers overcame this handicap by prompting for an organised front to push for funding of a BCSO proposal.

Success fu 1 lobbying in Canada resu 1 ted in a supporting resolution in late November 1959 by the National Committee of the International Astronomical Union (!AU) for such a proposal [27]. By December, the Royal Society of London (Royal Society) was seeking the views of the Australian Academy of Science (Academy) (28]. 72

Hot debate ensued within the Academy. After its February 1960 Council meeting, the Academy informed the Royal Society that it considered any funding of a l arge telescope would throw "scientific development [in Australia] out of balance." However, the Academy wanted to reserve its decision until the March Council meeting to which Bok and 01 iphan t would be invited to at tend as expert advisers (29]. Undeterred, the Royal Soc iety quickly responded with an urgent request for an expression of interest from the Academy (30].

At the March Council meeting, Bok and Oliphant eloquently made their case. Concerns of some Council members and t he fact that the Academy's National Committee on Astronomy was yet to be consulted, led to a reserved stance as the cabled response to the Royal Society shows, Council endorses Commonwealth Telescope scientifically. Would require more time and information to consider finance and administration. (31] Armed with this somewhat qualified support, the Royal Society consulted with the UK Government Advisory Counci l on Scientific Policy which, in turn, authorised a thorough exploration of the proposed BCSO. The Roya l Society's National Committee for Astronomy was subsequently asked to consider the matter (32].

In Australia, discussion and promotion of a large telescope continued amongst individuals and sepa r a t e institutions. But it was not until February 1961 that t he 73

Academy's Australian National Committee on Astronomy passed a resolution noting, with approval, proposals for establishing a BCSO. It urged the Council of the Academy •to do everything in its power to foster the prompt realization of the plan' (33].

That there was continuing doubt about the project within the Academy up to, and past, this time is clear. Its qualified response to the Royal Society in March 1960 implies that there wasn't unanimous Council support for a BCSO project. In some sc ien ti f ic c ire les there was, in fact, outright hostility to the idea. The Academy's secretary of the biological committees, Professor F.J. Fenner, received a letter from seven outraged biologists proclaiming, we are appalled at the magnitude of the capital and operating costs that would have to be met from the limited funds available for scientific research in Australia, especially in the universities, and that would be devoted to what amounts to a single project in the physical sciences. We • • • view with alarm the gigantic expenditures on space research and on projects such as this contemplated telescope; for it is inevitable that the funds available for work in other fields will be further restricted if these projects are undertaken. [34] This conflict of interest provides an important insight into Australian science of the period. The statements reflect the extent to which biologists saw themselves in competition with physical scientists for funds. Their outrage, and disagreements about funding priorities, can be seen as an expression of the insecurity brought about 74 by the lack of co-ordinated institutional mechanisms to assess overall Australian science policy.

With the advent of 'big science' projects came the possibility that support of a project in one scientific field could greatly distort funding opportunities in another. The Academy was acting as the de facto science policy adviser to government. Yet, it didn't have the resources or full-time capability of assessing priorities and national goals. The lack of a coordinating body meant that power politics between competing institutions, scientific factions and lobbying individuals dominated science policy formation. Without clear government and social goals such political interactions were effectively setting the direction of Australian science policy in an ad hoc fashion.

The conflict between biologists and physicists was exacerbated by the internal organisation of the Academy itself. Within the Academy, science subjects were restricted to those of the two natural categories of the biological or physical sciences. The resulting factionalism tended to place the two groups in competition with each other.

This competition is further illustrated by the formation of a counter policy to fund biology in preference to the physical sciences. Under pressure from members of the

Australia and New Zealand Association for the Advancement 75 of Science (ANZAAS) and continued lobbying by biologists, the Academy set-up a Fauna and Flora committee in August 1960. This body had a mandate to assess proposals for an Australia wide biological research and survey project. The committee finalised its report to Council in March 1961. To support its funding claims the committee invoked the 'science for science sake' ideal. It stated, [the fauna and flora projects] would help to correct the impression, now prevalent overseas, that Australian science is too largely of a narrowly applied type and that in any case it neglects the specifically Australian problems that cannot be studied anywhere else. [35] The justification was continued in terms of the high science principle, •.. Australia has an opportunity to make a contribution of a unique and distinctive kind which will be respected and admired throughout the world. Even though the cost of the developments we advocate is substantial, it is not large by comparison with numerous projects in the physical sciences or with the scale of applied research in agriculture. [36] The report was discussed at the annual general meeting of the Australian Academy of Science in April and was warmly endorsed by Counc i 1. In July, the president of the Academy, Professor T.M. Cherry, sent a copy of the report to the Vice-Chancellor of the ANU. In his cover letter, Cherry appears to give support for biological over astronomical work, It should be emphasised that the fauna and flora of Australia are unique, to a greater degree even than the southern heavens which are being so effectively studied by Australian astronomers. [37] Now, this apparently innocuous remark would have in fact been contended by astronomers. The well-known claim by the astronomical community for a large telescope was 76 chiefly based on their perception that they were falling behind the new opportunities opened-up by radio astronomy, and the plans of foreign governments to establish their own large southern observatories.

Cherry would have been aware of this situation thr ough the astronomy lobby and from discuss ions within his own Academy. On the one-hand, the President of the Academ y claimed that the southern skies were being effectively studied. On the other, the astronomical community clai me d the precise opposite. This political tension within the science establishment was to surface on a number of occasions. Even when the decisions of the Council had been shifted in favour of the telescope, tens i ons continued to emerge. One of the ongoing conflicts centred on the the conduct and role of members of the various scientific elites.

During these deliberations, the Mt Stromlo site surveys continued. The Mt Stromlo astronomers with support of the Director of the Research School of Physical Sciences (Oliphant) proceeded with their forward planning. So by March 1961, the ANU Council was addressing the issue of the legalities of the University acquiring land and establishing itself outside of the Australian Capital Territory (38]. These discussions signify the serious intentions of the University to establish an astronomica l field station. Without new legislation, the ANU would be

unable to proceed with its astronomical ambitions. This 77 formal discussion by the ANU Council marks the beginning of lobbying and approaches, largely by Bok, to the Government and Opposition which culminated in amendments to the ANU Act in 1963. This bill would allow the University to purchase and own land outside of the Australian Capital Territory for astronomical and meteorological purposes (39].

A number of Commonwealth countries received a formal enquiry in late March 1961 from the UK Government. The Australian, Canadian, Indian and New Zealand Governments were asked for their views on participation in a BCSO project (40]. The enquiry included a detailed memorandum on the proposals and indicated that UK astronomers had been asked to rejoin the ESO planning meetings in late 1960 and early 1961 [41]. Thus prompted, the Australian Department of the Prime Minister requested information on developments from the Academy's Australian National Committee on Astronomy (42]. In reply, the committee referred to pending international discussions (43] on the proposal, outlined the site testing programme and suggested that financial support from the USA might be forthcoming should British Commonwealth funding be lacking (44].

Shortly after the Academy Council had endorsed the Fauna and Flora Committee's report, a meeting concerned with an entirely different topic was being held in London. In the Office of the Minister for Science, eight individuals 78

'informally' (as the minutes record) discussed the British Commonwealth Southern Observatory. Bok was present with five British government officials, Woolley (Astronomer Royal) and Sir Harrie Massey (University of London) [45]. Soon after, Bok lost no time in compiling a confidential report based on the discussions for despatch and wide circulation amongst 16 Australian officials, astronomical stars and scientific luminaries. Thus he proceeded with his lobbying. His main points [46] were:

1. that the majority of British astronomers favoured British participation in a Commonwealth scheme over a European one. The overriding argument against the UK participation in ESO was that there were too many participants in the scheme already and that British astronomers would have little time individually on the single large telescope.

2. as a basis for further discussion, participation in the project would be divided into three. Under this scheme the UK and Australia would have equal participation with the remaining third share being divided amongst the rest of the Commonwealth, probably India and Canada. "I did not encourage our thinking ••• seriously about New Zealand since [they are] lacking in research astronomers." 79

3. The suggestion that the United States join in the plan was originally made from [the] British side, but no one seemed to favour it.

4. that prompt action from the Australian Government was now necessary so that "other Governments might be encouraged to follow suit." The representatives at the meeting were made aware that, "There were indications that the Australian Government would endorse the views which Professor Bok and his colleagues were urging, and would accept the financial consequences."

Bok apparently thought it desirable for the BCSO to be separate from an Australian observatory on the same site. Quoting from the minutes, Bok though[t] that if a Commonwealth telescope was to be situated in Australia, it would be advantageous for an Australian Observatory to be built in the same neighbourhood so that work could be undertaken in collaboration. [47] In fact, Bok already with this view in mind, had, arranged that equipment currently delivered at his present observatory was installed in such a way as to facilitate removal to another site. [48] However, the issue of control lay mostly dormant until a much later stage when the telescope was under construction. At that time, when Bok was no longer the Director of Mt Stromlo, the ANU was to fight bitterly and unsuccessfully for control of the new large telescope. 80

The meeting proposed that talks be arranged for the coming British summer in London between British Commonwealth astronomers and officials "to clarify the scheme" [49].

In June, the British Government again requested a response from the Australian Government on the BCSO proposal. The British indicated they had been invited to participate in the ESQ and before a decision was made, they wanted to know about Australia's interest in a Commonwealth scheme. In turn, having no other body from which to seek advice, the Australian Government again approached the Academy at the end of the month for its views asking it to include an assessment of, national scientific priority which should be accorded the proposed British Commonwealth Observatory in relation to other outstanding scientific needs in Australia. (50] It was six days later that the Academy President sent his letter of support for biology over astronomy to the Vice- Chancellor of the ANU.

Discussions within the Academy during July 1961, led to the drafting of discussion papers and, eventually, to an official Council statement. These documents summarised

in format ion according to a number of genera 1 head in gs including scientific need, geographical location, cost and advantages to Australia. Some of the sentiments and ideological content expressed would re-emerge time and again in the coming years. This was to occur not only in 81 official papers but also in scientific journals, newspaper articles, speeches, government briefing papers, parliamentary talks and notes of conversation.

The central motivating factor driving the lobbying process and the accompanying dissemination of information, was the professional interest of the optical astronomers. To them, the telescope symbolised the progress of astronomy and by implication, their scientific future. It was not government policy, nor national social goals that initiated the idea for a large telescope. It was the astronomical profession. As such, the information put out by the astronomers provides a view of what they thought about science and how they might go about attracting funds.

The chief propagandist in this dissemination process was Bok, with assistance from some of his Mt Stromlo colleagues (51]. A closer look at some of the rhetoric here provides an insight to some of the ideas thought useful to justify the funding of astronomy. The language chosen, the ideas evoked and the world views assumed, act powerfully to define the limits of debate to the notions of pure research and the high civilisation principle.

There are statements reflecting on the position of Australian science in relation to traditional colonial ties. Thus, 82

An outright rejection of the proposals will almost certainly result in UK participation in the European scheme with the consequent severance of a link in the traditional connections between British and Australian science. [52] Other comments warn of impending decline in Australian science, Such a rejection would be an overwhelmingly grave set-back to the rapidly developing Australian astronomy, for it is unlikely that [the Australian Government] .• '. would produce funds for a completely Australian telescope of comparable size. [53] and Australian astronomy would move right back from its present place in the Southern Hemisphere, because it would just not have the facilities to compete [with other proposed large southern telescopes]. [54] Other statements suggest more positive outcomes: The proposal has the triple advantage for Australia of securing a fine telescope, of ensuring a stimulating flow of overseas astronomers and of maintaining scientific prestige in a branch of pure science - all at a minimum cost. [55] and A large instrument would attract further first-class men [sic] [56] or such telescopes in the south would provide opportunity for fruitful international cooperation of a type for which the subject of astronomy has long been famous. [57] Bok put forward the need to support astronomy, ••• [since] Australia as a civilized nation has the responsibility to promote developments in pure science. (58] Bok took his arguments one step further to explain why there were practical ad vantages of funding astronomy in the modern world, 83

One should not ••. overlook the fact that astronomy makes use of the most advanced optical, electronic and photographic techniques and related problems of instrumentation; the developments in astronomy often serve as a stimulus and a showcase for technical developments. [59] The presentation of the scientific case for the telescope is usually an expansion of the following statement of "essential facts and reasons" taken from the Academy Council's official paper, All the largest existing telescopes ( 100 inch [250 cm] or greater) are located in the northern hemisphere and many astronomical objects of great significance (magellanic clouds; centre of the galaxy) are either invisible to them or appear too low in the horizon for useful study. The southern heavens are not only richer in objects of interest but they have received less systematic study. [60] Then there are those claims that optical astronomy will not be able to keep up with radio astronomy, A large optical telescope situated in Australia would [compliment] the results which are expected to flow from the 210-foot (64 m] CSIRO radio telescope at Parkes ••• Without such a telescope, the high degree of cooperation which exists between Australian optical and radio astronomers could scarcely be maintained ••• (61] And then there are the statements concerned with the passing on of knowledge to the up and coming young students and scientists. With the increase in student interest, more PhD candidates and new university departments, there would be no lack of Australia astronomers who would be able to make successful use of a large telescope ••• (62] Such statements as these reinforce the image of astronomy as a science worth pursuing, not only for its own sake, but for international prestige, as a symbol of progress, a sign of modernity and a rallying point for national 84

pride. The astronomers in presenting these arguments have identified those values of interest to the continuation of their professional activities and selected appropriate language to convince others of their claims. In turn, these arguments also reflect the prevailing relations of the political environment of science (63]. Arguabl y~ these relations have been set by the marginalisation of science activities into "a showcase intellectual endeavour" (64]. Thus the rhetoric attains a currency which might not otherwise have occurred.

Within the domains of the Academy such rhetoric did not necessarily aid the decision making process. It would not be unreasonable to assume that similar arguments for the support of basic research in biology, medicine, geology or any other scientific field would have been just as valid. Charged with the responsibility to pass judgment on national scientific priorities, the Academy needed to bring to bear an alternative evaluative framework. This it was not equipped to do. As a result, elite power politics was in ascendance.

The Academy formally responded to the Australian

Government's June request by sending a Council statement [65] to the Department of the Prime Minister.

In this document, the Academy recognised the merit of a large telescope for Australia. It went on to recommend that further investigation occur on whether or not this should be a British Commonwealth scheme. On the issue of 85 scientific priorities, the Academy did not feel qualified "to give a direct answer". This did not stop it, however, from declaring that preference should be given to a proposed fauna and flora project over the telescope.

This issue is worth examining. The Council ·had decided that the fauna and flora project was more advanced in its planning and that it deserved support over any telescope scheme. Council evidently thought that the biological project was jeopardised by the telescope proposal because it was seen as a competitor for funds. In a preliminary draft of the statement [66] a more direct approach to the matter was taken than in the final version. The draft concluded, The Council of the Academy ••• would not wish the establishment of a new observatory to result in the elimination of other projects to which it accords high priority. [67] Particular reference was made to "the rapidly

disappearing Flora and Fauna of this country" [68] and the need to establish a National Biological Survey and Museum of Australian Biology. Other potential projects received a cursory two sentences.

The Council's final carefully worded statement, however, included a more well thought-out reply on scientific priorities. After stating it was unable to directly answer the issue of priorities, the Council requested that government consider expanded funding of science in light of the growth in wealth of the country, 86

The rate at which the wealth of Australia is expanding is now quite great, and we believe that i t is great enough for the Government to envisage the initiation of new projects in pure or applied science as a normal occurrence. [69] Thus the Academy confirms the status of Australian science as a marginal endeavour by implying that members of the Academy did not consciously link the production of wealth with a nationally coordinated science policy. Rather, funding for both basic and applied research was justified in economic terms. This approach is similar t o the overheads principle of science funding where proponents tend to justify funding claims, usually for basic research, in economic terms [70].

After then urging "critical study and planning" of projects, a process "that will seldom take less than a year and often take much longer", it was thought "improper to try to formulate an immutable order of priority between projects". Somewhat contradictorily the Council then said, We are at present working on a major project regarding the study of Australian fauna and flora, which we are inclined to regard as more urgent than that of the Telescope. [71] Because of the allegedly more advanced stage of the fauna and flora study the Council rationalised its position on the premise that the biological project would ante-date rather than clash with the telescope proposal [72]. Council evidently thought that the biological project was jeopardised by the telescope proposal because it was seen as a competitor for funds. 87

Whether the Council sought advice from the biology committees or was swayed by the biological representation on the Council is not clear. However, that the Council seemed to ignore the earlier advice of July 1961 and did not seek any further opinion from the Academy's National Committee on Astronomy is certain. This was a point later acknowledged by Cherry,

I comment on the fact that the Council did not formally consult the National Committee on Astronomy of the Academy. You may have a point here; it is a question whose judgment is right .•. [however] Council had advice from a number of sources, which it judged to be sufficient to underpin a report . . . (73] Council's statement to Government indicates conscious attempts by Council members to be seen to reconcile conflicting priorities between different scientific groupings. In the conflict between biological and physical sciences, the former dominated for the moment, as the clear preference for the fauna and flora project indicates.

Without having seen Government files on the telescope, it is not possible to exactly trace the Prime Minister's Department's responses to the Council's report. However, through secondary sources it appears that it did contribute to that Department's negative view on the proposal. Lovell relates that this view was recounted by Bok in a letter to Woolley, The Prime Minister's department clearly feels that this is not a good time to proceed with a new and expensive Commonwealth scheme ••• (74] 88

The attitude of the Prime Minister's department was also possibly partly due to the image brought back to Australia by Menzies of the European political pressure on the UK to become involved in joint projects. Lovell [75] indicates that Oliphant had briefed Menzies on the BCSO proposal before the Prime Minister's 1959 visit to the UK. Oliphant was informed upon Menzies' return that "'the Prime Minister has decided not to proceed'" with support for the proposal [76].

The momentum for biology was maintained in October 196 1 when the Council of the Academy communicated recommendations of the Fauna and Flora Committee's April report to the Prime Minister's Department. This included a list of suggested priorities for establishing an Australian fauna and flora project. In summary, the chief recommendations were that:

1. a national biological survey be established in association with a Canberra based Museum of Australian Biology

2. an editor and staff be appointed for a new Flora of Australia

3. a Research School of Biology be established at the ANU.

The fate of the telescope project remained in a state of flux. By the end of March 1962, the British Government 89 had decided not to participate in the ESQ project. It had also found that there was a lack of support amongst Commonwealth governments for a joint BCSO scheme. Thanks to the lobbying of British astronomers, however, the UK Advisory Council on Scientific Policy was still quite keen to support involvement in a telescope somewhere i n the southern hemisphere. Their preference lay with a joint UK-Australia scheme. If this, "proved impracticable, possible participation in a United States scheme located in Chile" was to be considered [77]. Before informing the Commonwealth countries of their final decision and undaunted by the non-committal views of the Academy, an expression of interest in a possible joint bi-national Anglo-Australian [78] project was sought from the Australian Government in early April

1962, The British authorities invite the Australian authorities to give preliminary thought to ••• [the idea of a joint UK-Australia project] and suggest that advantage be taken of the presence in Australia in April of Sir John Cockcroft, for an informal and unofficial exchange of views. [79] At the end of May, the Australian Government informed the UK Government that it was not prepared to support the bi- national proposal [80]. Further evidence that the Academy had persuasive influence on the Prime Minister's Department is revealed by Cockcroft' s report to the UK Minister for Science. According to Lovell [81], Cockcroft said that amongst the several reasons [for cool response on joint telescope proposal] were that Australian scientists could not agree that this should be given priority over other projects. 90

Frustrated by the lack of action and the Academy's lack of consultation, Bok made a provocative Presidential Address to Section A (Astronomy, Mathematics and Physics) of the August 1962 AN ZAAS con fer enc e in Sydney. In his speech, Bok criticised the lack of co-ordination in government planning of Australian scientific research. He pointed to the Academy Council's inadequate evaluation of science projects and the consequent ill-advice to government. Bok illustrated the problem with the case history of the large telescope proposal. Through his outspokenness Bok was successful in attracting widespread press coverage.

In the context of the Academy Council report and Bok' s ANZAAS address the following interpretation of events can be made. To optical astronomers their professional future appeared to be under threat from the less than forthright support of their interests by the Academy. The Academy, while declaring its elitist goal to recommend projects according to 'scientific merit', made decisions according to representations on its committees by sectional scientific interests. In effect, an elite group of scientists were advising government on science policy in terms of the outcome of power politics between their own competing professional goals.

In the confrontation between the biological and physical sciences, the biologists were in ascendancy. Thus, the astronomers had to continue to lobby beyond the 91 institutional structure of the Academy in order to keep their case alive. Bok's ANZAAS speech marks the presentation of a newly rationalised case and was a way of publicising the cause of science in general and astronomers in particular to decision makers.

These events were partly symptomatic of problems in the assessment of science through the lack of government machinery responsible for science policy. Scientists recognised this problem as repeated calls for such bodies as a science advisory council, national science foundation or a Federal Department of Science were mad e in this period. Bok made one of these calls when he declared in his ANZAAS speech that there was need for, a special governmental organization charged with the responsibility for planning the national development of science and for the disbursement of funds. (82]

Somewhat up-set by Bok's public statements, the President of the Academy, Professor Thomas Cherry, wrote Bok a personal and confidential letter taking him to task on his ANZAAS address. Cherry asserted that Bok's criticisms were not responsible, called into question Bok's argument regarding a separate Department of Science (asking him to test it as an exercise in scientific method) and made five specific refutations. Concerned how the British might interpret events, Cherry asked whether Bok had sent a copy of his address to Woolley, the Astronomer Royal of England (83]. In fact, Bok had taken the thoughtful p~ecaution of passing copies of his speech in advance to 92

not only the Astronomer Royal [84] but also the Prime

Minister, Academy, radio and press. Bok recollected in 1978 that Cherry's attitude over his ANZAAS speech was in essence,

that I had committed the sin of having spoken publically on a subject that should not have come out in the open and that by doing so I had 'offended the Establishment' ... [85]

Bok did in fact acknowledge some of Cherry's claims. In a personal letter to Cherry, Bok responded that the simplest way in which to correct misrepresentations wa s to append a note to the original address in publication [86]. This note was attached to the letter and rather pointedly named President Cherry as having requested certain changes which were then listed. Bok, however, only acknowledged correction of two matters. The first that the Academy was the only advisory body on

Australian science. Secondly, that the Academy had only two major functions [87].

Cherry rather curtly responded in another letter which was divided into two statements. One was on the official academy level and the other on a personal and informal level. The President's official response was to state:

1. it is entirely your own responsibility to decide ••• what you shall publish

2. as regards a publication which criticizes the Academy, the Academy has of course the right to make such a public reply as it wishes

3. it is not appropriate that such a reply be represented as an appendix, over your name, to your main publication. [88] 93

The President's personal and informal statement was more of an attack in which he questioned Bok's reputation, there has been an undoubted reaction against your own reputation amongst a number of responsible and influential people. [89] Cherry went on to warn that Bok should rewrite the ANZAAS article for publication, you play the major part in looking after astronomy in Australia, and your reputation must have an important bearing on the future development and well-being of that subject. It is with this in mind that I suggest that you should consider, with very close attention to detail, what you are to publish ... [90] Cherry was rather busy writing letters on the 20 September 1962. He not only wrote to Bok but also to the Vice-Chancellor of the ANU (Huxley) and the Astronomer Royal of England (Woolley). Cherry was so concerned about the affair that with his personal and confidential letter to Huxley he sent copies of the correspondence between himself and Bok [91]. Cherry suggested Huxley might be able to advise Bok on the error of his ways as "he surely seems to need advice" [921. Cherry seems to have been somewhat flabbergasted over Bok's treatment of his request to alter the published version of the ANZAAS address, ••. I am astonished that he (Bok) can be so naive as to propose not merely a paraphrase from my previous personal and confidential letter to him, but also to state that this communication was personal and confidential. [93] In his own personal and confidential letter, Woolley was informed of the Academy's attitude to Bok's address, Some of these statements are inconsistent with what I know about this transaction and to get your record 94

straight I enclose a copy of my letter on the subject to Bok. (94] Cherry makes it clear that Bok has done the 'wrong thing',

Copies of Bok's address reached the Academy office, and my [personal] office in Melbourne (I being in Sydney), about two hours before he delivered the address, and he had taken no prior steps to check with the Academy such of his statements as concern it. (95]

Woolley's reply of the 24 September 1962 was more concerned in clearly expressing his sense of hopelessness

over the possibility of any co-operation between

Australia and the UK on a southern telescope project.

Almost incidently he very briefly acknowledged Cherry's

correctness in calling Bok to task (96].

By early October, the pressures placed on Bok had been

successful in forcing him to rewrite Section 4 of his

address (97] • .Cherry was informed of this move. At the

same time Bok expressed his hurt over Cherry's reference

to the damage to his reputation amongst •responsible and

influential people'. Bok reaffirmed his position by

stating that his address aimed to,

show forcibly that Australian science would suffer if key organizations like the Academy do not act with vigour and promptness • • • [on] development of science in the nation. (98]

Shortly after, the first of a number of newspaper

articles and editorials were written on the lack of a

firm decision in favour of the telescope proposal. A spate of papers on the scientific needs for a large optical telescope also appeared in science journals. In 95 an article headed "'War' of the telescopes, An Astronomer Throws a Stone at Academy" a Sydney Morning Herald correspondent wrote,

Scientific fights are rare in this country ... what makes the affair of the optical telescope rather unusual • . . [is that] it has been taking place above the surface. [99] By his criticism and outspokenness Bok had broken the Academy's hold on public utterances on science. The fact that the Academy set the rules and the limits of proper behaviour was not missed by the correspondent's report, if he had been a Fellow, he would never have spoken out publicly, for the Academy is a very circumspect body. [100]

The fact that Bok was not a Fellow of the Academy emphasises the exclusiveness of the organisation. Fellowship was at the time restricted in a peculiarly discriminatory way to candidates fulfilling British

sub j e ct status • Bok , be in g a US c it i z en , co u 1 d not be admitted. Given his volatile nature, it is a matter of

conjecture that he would have remained silent anyway !

Such exclusiveness signifies the peculiar status of the Academy in Australian science which, in turn, helps understand the behaviour of the President of the Academy. As the correspondent recognised, the Academy was indeed a rather 'circumspect' body. Its position in Australian science had been built on a particular model of science that claimed scientific knowledge and the scientific method as the only and correct way of interpreting and 96 acting on the world. The Academy from its inception had been imbued with an elite goal through Royal Charter, To promote, declare and disseminate scientific knowledge, to establish and maintain standards of scientific endeavour and achievement in the natural sciences in Australia, and to recognise outstanding contributions to the advancement of science. [101] Through its commitment to pure research as a goal within itself and the associated principle that such activity was worthy of an advanced civilisation, the Academy commanded a privileged place in Australian science. It spoke to Government with the voice of authority. It was a symbol of the general professional interests of research scientists. Its behaviour reflects one of the signs of the high civilisation principle in action where, a self-governing scientific community, selecting projects that will advance scientific knowledge and distributing funds on the basis of scientific merit, would be the most appropriate and effe,ctive form of organization. [102] Bok was essentially an outsider to that part of the Australian elite scientific establishment. His actions tended to undermine the authority of the Academy by calling into question its abilities and procedures of review. The volatile Dutch-American did not fit the mould of those "conditioned to the quieter gro-ves of English academia" [103].

*** In summary, this chapter has traced the history of the large telescope project from the 1950s to the end of 1962. Over this period, the telescope idea expanded from initial discussion amongst professional astronomers to 97 involve the Australian Academy of Science, the Royal Society of London and government bureaucrats in both Australia and Britain.

At one stage, the concept was for a British Commonwealth Southern Observatory to be be supported by member countries of the Commonwealth. Lacking support for such a venture, the British proposed a joint Australia-UK telescope. The chief motivating factor of both Australian and British astronomers was the desire to have access to a large southern hemisphere telescope.

In studying the astronomers attempts to attract support of not only the Australian Government but also members of the scientific elite, a number of science policy issues have emerged.

The first of these was the conflict of interests between the physical and biological sciences. Behind this conflict was a perception that supporting 'big science' projects in one discipline imposed a distortion on funding the other. The ad versar ia 1 stance between the biological and physical scientists was exacerbated by the structure of the Australian Academy of Science. The representation of the sc ienti fie disc ipl in es within the Academy was based on a carve up between these two natural sciences. 98

Underpinning this conflict is a second issue treated in this chapter, namely the apparently ad hoc determination of Australian science policy. Lacking clear coordinated government policy machinery, the interplay of institutional and personal politics became the dominan t determining force in science policy. This will be a recurring topic of scrutiny. Here the complex interplay of power politics was hinted at in interactions such as those between the astronomers and the Academ y , astronomers and government, physic al sc ien tis ts and biologists and, the Academy and the government.

The professional interests of the astronomers surfaced as a third issue. Concerned with their role in astronomy and scientific future if a large telescope was not made available, the debate became interwoven with rhetoric aimed at attracting and justifying funding. Based upon the high civilisation principle, the value of pure research 'for its own sake' was promoted.

Leading on from this, optical astronomy as a marginalised science appears as a fourth feature. Having developed more and more as a pure research activity in the post 1939-1945 war period, optical astronomy in many ways came to represent the ideal marginalised science.

Overlaying all these points was the volatile public exposure of the debate between institutions and individuals. 99

The next chapter proceeds with the historical development and analyses further some of the issues of science policy formation. 100

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1 Quoted in B. Warner, 'The Large Southern Telescope: Cape or Melbourne?', Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 23, 1982, p. 507. 2 A basic presentation of a scientific case is given in Section 3.2. For a more detailed case see S. C. B. Gascoigne, 'Towards a Southern Commonwealth Observatory', Nature, 197, 30 March 1963, pp. 1240- 1241 • 3 Anglo-Australian Telescope 1974/75. Report of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board 1July 1974 to 30 June 1975, (AGPS, Canberra, 1976), p. 22. 4 For an elaboration on the organisation of Australian astronomy see Chapter 2. 5 Review of Observatories, Expert Sub-committee Report, Commonwealth of Australia 1978, (AGPS, Canberra, 1978), p. 25. 6 Jarlath Ronayne, Science in Government, (1984), p. 1.46. 7 Ron Johnston and Jean Buckley, Science and Politics 1944-1988, unpublished, c. June 1987, p. 5. 8 For more on competition between institutional frameworks see Weingart 'The Scientific Power Elite - A Chimera; the De-institutionalization and Politicization of Science' in Elias, Martins and Whitely (eds), Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies (D. Reidel Publishing, Dordrecht, 1982). 9 I have not had access to the Department of Technology, Commerce and Industry files on the subject. I understand that the Department of the Prime Minister files on the telescope were transferred to the science bureaucracy upon its creation. The relevant department is now the one mentioned. 10 The first Australian trained PhD was awarded in 1948 [ W• T • Su 11 i van ( e d ) , .-.T=h'""'e__ E"""a_.r_.l ... Y'---'Y __ e __ a=-r..___s ___o __f__..R'"'"ao..-do..-i;..;;..o Astronomy, (Cambridge University Press, 1984). 1 1 William Buscombe, 'Research at the Mount Stromlo Observatory', Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 52, 1958. 12 Gascoigne, Australian Astronomy Since World War Two, (unpublished paper dated April 1986). 1 3 Letter , Bok to Me 1 vi 11 e , 2 4 Sep 1 9 5 6 , p . 7 , [CS IR O S4, CZ/226/6 Part 2]. 14 Royal Astronomical Society, Monthly Notices, 118, 4, 1958, p. 367 and Bok, 'A Search for New Observatory Sites in Australia', Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 54, 6, December 1960, p.258. 15 Buscombe, op. cit. Apparently, Woolley had encouraged the interest of Yale and Columbia universities as early as 1948 (see Susan Davies, 'R. v .d. R. Woolley in Australia', Historical Records of Australian Science, 6, 1, (Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, 1984), p. 68). 16 Buscombe, op. cit. 101

17 Royal Astronomical Society, op. cit., p. 368. 18 ANU press release 152/1959, 17 March 1959, signed Melville but apparently including material attributable to Bok, [CSIRO S4, CZ/226/6 Part 2]. 19 Press release by Bok 24 July 1959, p. 2, [CSIRO S4, CZ/226/6 Part 2]. 20 ibid., p. 3. 21 UK memorandum, Southern Hemisphere Telescope Projects, point 4, dated 23 March 1961 and attached to letter Bunting to Cherry, 28 June 1961. [Academy] 22 Letter, Woolley to Brown (Australian Deputy High Commissioner to the UK), 6 July 1959. [Academy] 23 ibid. 24 ibid. 25 For a British perspective on the history of the AAT see Bernard Lovell, 'The Early History of the Anglo­ Aus tra lian 150-inc h Telescope ( AAT)' , Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 26, 4, 1985, pp.397-398. 26 ibid. 27 Resolution passed at a meeting of the National Committee for Canada, International Astronomical Union, held at the Dominion Observatory on Friday, November 27, 1959. [Academy] 28 Letter, Hinshelwood (President, Royal Society) to Eccles, 21 December 1959. [Academy] 29 Letter, Academy to Hinshelwood, 22 Feb 1960. [Academy] 30 Letter, Hodge (Secretary, Royal Society) to Eccles, 4 Mar 1960. [Academy] 31 Telegram, Eccles to Hodge, 23 March 1960. [Academy] 32 Letter, Hodge to Huxley, 23 April 1960. [Academy] 33 Letter, Hogg (Convener, Australian National Committee on Astronomy) to Bunting, 18 April 1961. 34 Letter to Fenner, 18 March 1960. [Academy] 35 Report, Australian Academy of Science Fauna and Flora Committee, 14 March 1961, p. 9, [ANU Council 132A/1962]. 36 ibid. 37 Letter, Cherry to Huxley, 4 July 1961, [ANU Council, 132/1962] 38 Minutes, 58th Meeting of the Australian National University Council, 10 March 1961. 39 Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 28 March 1963, pp. 159-160; 10 April 1963, pp. 579-592, Australian National University Bill 1963. 40 Confidential note, Southern Hemisphere Telescope, Note of informal meeting on 25 April 1961 at the Office of the Minister for Science, Appendix 1 p. 1, dated 2 May 1961 and attached to confidential report by Bok on the British Commonwealth Southern Observatory dated in turn 8 May 1961. [Academy] 41 UK memorandum, Southern Hemisphere Telescope Projects, op. cit., Appendix 1 European Southern Observatory Scheme, point 1. [Academy] 102

42 The committee replied directly to the Department unbeknown to the Academy President who latter drew Hogg's (Convener of the Committee) attention to matters of protocol. Revealed in content of letter Hogg to Cherry, 21 July 1961. [Academy] 43 This probably refers to Bok's London meeting of 25 April 1961. 44 Letter, Hogg to Bunting, 18 April 1961. [Academy] 45 Confidential report by Bok on the British Commonwealth Southern Observatory dated 8 May 196 1 . [Academy] 46 Bok's report, ibid., p. 1 ; Confidential note, Southern Hemisphere Telescope, 25 April 1961, op. cit. [Academy] 47 Confidential note, Southern Hemisphere Telescope, 25 April 1961, ibid. [Academy] 48 ibid.; it is not clear whether 'his present observatory' meant Mt Stromlo or the Field Control Station at Mt Bingar. 49 ibid. 50 Letter, Bunting to Cherry, 28 June 1961. [Academy] 51 For examples see bibliography for some of the material published by Gascoigne and Hogg. 52 Comments on the British Commonwealth Observatory Proposals, attached to letter from Hogg to Cherry, 21 July 1961, p. 4. [Academy] 53 ibid. 54 ibid. 55 ibid. 56 Australian Academy of Science statement C 82/61, Proposed British Commonwealth Southern Observatory, 1 September 1961, p. 2. [Academy] 57 Comments on the British Commonwealth Observatory Proposals, op. cit., p. 2. [Academy] 58 Bart J. Bok, 'The Future of ,Astronomy in Australia', The Australian Journal of Science, 25, January 1963, p. 283. This is the published version of Bok's August 1962 ANZAAS speech. 59 ibid. 60 Australian Academy of Science statement C82/61 , op. cit., p. 1. 61 Comments on the British Commonwealth Observatory Proposals, op. cit. 62 ibid., p. 3. 63 For more on this idea of the selection of values see Michael Mulkay, Science and the Sociology of Knowledge, (George Allen and Un win, London, 1985) , pp. 13 ff. 64 Johnston and Buckley, op. cit., p. 75. 65 Australian Academy of Science statement, C 82/61, op. cit. 66 Draft statement, Proposed British Commonweal th Southern Observatory, undated, p. 3. [Academy] 67 ibid. 68 ibid. 69 Australian Academy of Science statement, C 82/61 , op. cit., p. 3. 103

10 Ronayne, op. cit., pp. 83-87. 71 Australian Academy of Science statement, C 82/61, op. cit., p. 4. 72 ibid. 73 Letter, Cherry to Bok, 3 September 1962. [Academy] 74 Lovell, 'The Early History of the Anglo-Australian 150-inch Telescope (AAT)', op. cit., p. 404. 75 ibid., p. 398. 76 ibid. 77 Telegram, UK Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to the High Commissioner for the UK , Canberra, 28 March 1962, p. 1. [Academy] 78 The term 'Anglo-Australian' seems to have been first officially used in relation to telescope about this time in the telegram ibid. and subsequently in a letter from the UK High Commission to the Australian Prime Minister's Department (see nex t reference); the placing of the 'Anglo' in relation to 'Australia' gives some indication of the thinking of the time; the name Australia-UK telescope could equally have been used ! 79 Telegram, ibid., p. 2 and letter, from UK High Commission to the Australian Prime Minister's Department, 5 April 1962 ; Interestingly, shortly after the request for an expression of interest, the ANU announced that Mt Stromlo Observatory's Field Station site would be at Mt Woorut nea r Coonabarabran, the future location of the AAT. 80 Letter, Prime Minister's Department to UK High Commission, 23 May 1962. [Academy] ~ · - 81 Lovell, 'The Early History of the Anglo-Australian 150-inch Telescope (AAT)', op. cit., p. 405. 8 2 Bok , ' The Fut u re o f As tr on om y in Aust r a 1 i a ' , op. cit. p. 286. 83 Letter, Cherry to Bok, 3 September 1962. [Academy] 84 Letter, Bok to Cherry, 12 September 1961, p. 1. [Academy] 85 Recollection by Bart J. Bok on the early days of the AAT when the Australian Academy tried to slow down the march, 8 September 1978, [unpublished, Anglo­ Australian Observatory library], p. 3. 86 Letter, Bok to Cherry, 12 September 1961, p. 1. To this letter was attached Note Added 12th September 1962 (Draft). [Academy] 87 The Academy's Royal Charter declares nine specific objects and purposes. Generally they relate to the promotion of science as a worthwhile endeavour. For the details see Section 3 (1-9) of the Charter reprinted in the Academy's year books. 88 Letter, Cherry to Bok, 20 September 1962. [Academy] 89 ibid. 90 ibid. 91 Letter, Cherry to Huxley, 20 September 1962 . [Academy] 92 ibid. 93 ibid. 104

94 Letter, Cherry to Woolley, 20 September 1962. [Academy] 95 ibid. 96 Letter, Woolley to Cherry, 24 September 1962. [Academy] 97 In the final version published in January 1963, Bok wrote, Some of my conjectures regarding the Academy's report to the government on the British Commonwealth Southern Observatory were in error and I have therefore rewritten parts of section 4. Bok, The Future of Astronomy in Australia', op. cit., p. 281. 98 Letter, Bok to Cherry, 5 October 1962. [Academy] 99 Circular note, Bok, Revised version of text of part 4 of Presidential Address for Section A of ANZAAS, p. 12. [Academy] 100 ibid. 101 The Charter, Section 3 (1), Australian Academy of Science Yearbook 1986-87, (Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, September 1986), p. 69. 102 Ronayne, op. cit., p. 82. 103 S. C. B. Gascoigne, 'Bart Bok at Mount Stromlo', Mercury, Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, XIII, 2, March-April 1984, p. 46. 105

CHAPTER 4

THE ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN TELESCOPE PROJECT JANUARY 19q~.-OCTOBER 197 4 106

CHAPTER 4: THE ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN TELESCOPE PROJECT JANUARY 1963-0CTOBER 1974

This chapter continues the historical account and analysis of science policy issues affecting the establishment of the Anglo-Australian Telescope. I t covers the period from January 1963 to October 19 74 .

Australian optical astronomers continued to promote the building of a large telescope as a necessity for <., their scientific survival. However, it was to be over ten years from the compilation of the fi rst comprehensive paper on the proposals in July 1964 ta inauguration of the telescope in October 1974. ***

4.1 PROCRASTINATION, FURTHER DEBATE AND ALTERNAT IVE PROPOSALS JANUARY 1963-MAY 1967

This section draws attention to the complic at i ng factors in the attempts to establish government funding of the telescope. Prominent amongst these was the recurring issue of possible us part ic ipa t ion, Academy dithering and Government reassessment of the machinery of science policy. The beginning of the period is marked by the formalisation of the telescope's assessment by the creation of various committees. *** 107

Following the confrontation between Bok and the Academy, more newspaper comment on the telescope proposals occurred in early January 1963. At this time, Hermann Bondi (Professor of Mathematics, University of London) was visiting Australia to lecture at the Nuclear Researc h Foundation's Summer Science School. Bondi was influential on UK astronomy policy through the Royal Astronomical Society, the Royal Society National Committee on Astronomy and from 1965 the UK Science Research Council . His public comments on the need for a large telescope were reported in the Australian news media in conjunction with the delays and concerns expressed in Bok's Aug ust ANZAAS speech.

Prompted by Bondi's press, TV and editorial coverage and with further context given by Bok's ANZAAS address, a meeting was arranged at short notice between the two scientists and a representative of the Prime Minister's Department. The discussions focused on the the topic of 'The Present and Future Status of Proposals for a British Commonwealth Southern Observatory'. A report of the meeting indicates that the Australian Government was now interested in the telescope plan, UK astronomers need not feel discouraged the door had definitely not been shut on the plan. [1] The British astronomers were evidently still most keen to get their southern observatory, preferably a British- Australian rather than a British-European one. The report 108

records three main reasons for the British astronomers' preference,

1 • the fear of political instability in South .. Africa where the ESQ was proposed to be stationed 2. not wanting to be seen as scientific colonialists by placing an entirely foreign scientific team in a country that had little if any work of its own proceeding in the field a problem that the British encountered in the southern hemisphere outside Australia. 3. participation in the ESQ would .•. give far too little time for the astronomic potential of the UK. [ 2]

At the meeting, the issue of possible US involvement was again raised. It was agreed that a bi-national Australia-

UK project would be preferable. However, it was postulated that once such a bi-national agreement was in place, US interests might then be engaged. Organisations like the Ford Foundation were seen as potential candidates for the purpose of upgrading some aspect of the telescope [3].

Once again, the British astronomers were seeking to exert influence through an agent empowered by colonial intellectual and quasi-government ties with Australia. From the British perspective, Australia had the advantages over other southern hemisphere countries of presenting a stable, safe, white majority English speaking society. A bi-national agreement would be much to the liking of the British. They knew they were on a good thing if only the Australia government could be convinced of the advantages in supporting the project . 109

Some of the rhetoric, possibly used to flatter the potential host, evoked images of prestige, international standing and even suggested by association, that Australia would be part of space exploration - a potentially attractive notion given the contemporary spectacle of USSR and USA 'space race' activities. Thus , further investment in astronomy would complement the work of the radio astronomers and, give Australia a leading place in the world of science, for example, space research. [4] The British were unashamedly exerting their influence on Australia in an attempt to convince the Government of t he desirability of committing funds to a bi-national telescope project. Opportunity was knocking for both countries' astronomers who willingly played along.

The report indicates that "considerable attention wa s paid to the methods of procedure in order to revive the project" [5]. As part of the strategy it was decided t o hold further meetings in March 1963 to take advantage of the visit to Australia of Sir John Cockcroft (UK Advisory Council on Scientific Policy; atomic physicist at University of Cambridge and Chancellor of the Australian National University) and Sir Richard Woolley (Astronomer Royal). Bok made sure that the necessary leading lights of Australian science were to be at that meeting. At last there seemed to be renewed hope for the project. 110

Over the coming weeks both Australian and British science and government bodies put procedures in motion in preparation for the March meeting. The Department of the Prime Minister decided that government officials would not be involved and thus left the Australian scientists to determine the directions and report on the outcome [6]. When the array of high ranking scientists [7] did meet, they, agreed unanimously that there was a strong scientific case for a large optical telescope in Australia. [8] The meeting outlined the scientific case and also [9]: 1. proposed increasing telescope aperture from 305 cm to 381 cm

2. mentioned site studies underway with particular reference to Siding Spring and Mt Singleton,

ind ic at ing that a further 2 years was required for adequate completion of the survey

3. agreed that the next step was for the UK Advisory Council on Scientific Policy to approach the UK Government since, the administrative machinery for bringing scientific proposals to the Government was better developed in the UK than in Australia ••• [~] and should firm proposals including an outline of funding be forthcoming, thence a joint project approach to the Australian Government would be made. 1 1 1

Finally, the meeting, 4. considered that a request to the US Ford Foundation for additional funding might be made after project approval in principle had been

received from the Australian and UK Governments.

The public airing and promotion of the large telescope continued. In the journals, more articles were appearing [10] but the most prominent venue for discussion was Federal Parliament. In late March, early

April and May 1963 the ANU amendment bill [11] recei ved bi-partisan support in both houses [12]. Speakers had obviously been briefed by Bok. The content of t he speeches and the themes they dwelt upon reflect very much the effectiveness of Bok's lobbying. Indeed, Bok wa s bubbling over with enthusiasm with the positive response. In a letter to Cockcroft, Bok wrote that, the ANU and Mt Stromlo have many good friends in the House of Representatives. [13] He noted that the Parliamentary debates on the ANU Bill were to be used as an occasion for full-scaled discussion on a BCSO, as he still called it. In fact, Bok indicated that he prepared three documents and briefed Members of Parliament about astronomy and the need for a large southern telescope [14]. Riding on the crest of a wave,

Bok received expressions of support from the International Astronomical Union [15] and from newspaper articles and editorials [16] as well as Federal Membe r s 112

and Senators [ 17]. Not one to let an opportunity pass,

Bok c i r cu 1 ate d a 1 et t er to the in f 1 u en t i a l c i r c 1 e o f Australian science bureaucrats noting that the recent Australian Parliamentary debates, give us now very firm foundation from which to proceed with a more formal plan. (18]

During this volatile period, Bok kept up the momentum on the development of the large telescope proposals by also circulating a detailed memorandum. Addressed to the

Australian contingent who attended the March 1963 meeting with Cockcroft and Woolley, recipients of the memo were informed of Woolley' s recent application for a giant

telescope design study grant from the UK Department of Science and Industrial Research (DSIR). Woolley's application reveals once again, a number of interesting perspectives on the situation. He emphasised the importance of the UK Government taking the lead to show that the UK actually meant business. Further, he declared that success in the urgent problems of galactic research, will overtake all the arrears that have kept British astronomy lagging behind the Americans for the past half-century. [ 19]

Thus, from the British perspective, international competition with the USA was of sufficient concern to be expressed in support of an application to government for design study funds. The ideological role of such a declaration is difficult to pin to any one explanation. However, it is probable that this conscious use of

\ 11 3 nationalism as an amplifying tool for one's cause, suited well an environment where US scientific, intellectual and economic might had displaced the previous hegemonic position of the UK. Here was a chance for the British to catch up and even possibly come out on top.

By the end of May, Woolley was successful in attracting /._10 000 from the UK DSIR Astronomy Sub-Commit tee for a design study on the large telescope proposal. A working party of astronomers was subsequently set-up to consider possible design specifications (20].

Following this trend to form.alise the project, Oliphant used his position of influence as Director of the ANU Research School of Physical Sciences. He advised the Academy Council to form a committee to be responsible for telescope design study issues and to also investigate the form of the proposed UK-Australia co-operation. Importantly, Oliphant stressed two points (21]: 1. that the Academy should take an important role in handling the project 2. that Australia should take more initiative in the matter as a part of national dignity

These po in ts seem to under 1 ine the past claims by Bok that the Academy was indeed slow off the mark in lobbying and promoting the interests of the astronomers. By mid-

June 1963, the Academy Council endorsed Oliphant's proposal and set up the Academy Standing Committee on a Giant Optical Telescope. The terms of reference of the committee were to advise the Council on, 1 1 4

1. The justification for the giant telescope 2. The optimum size, focal length and other desirable specifications 3. Capital and running costs 4. Selection of site 5. Possibilities of collaboration with members of the British Commonwealth or with others 6. Management and staffing. (22] The first meeting of the Academy's Standing Committee on

' -., a Large Optical Telescope was held at the end of August 1963 [23]. At this meeting several project options were discussed and ranked in order of desirability. Th e committee's predilections were firstly for an all- Australian project. This was followed by a preference for a Commonwealth plan, which effectively meant a joint Australia-UK venture. Of least interest was a project with US involvement [24]. A formal recommendation to Council expressing the ordered options was to be prepared by Huxley and Oliphant. Apparently this act ion was seen as a step towards changing Council's past attitude which, to quote Oliphant, "had 'damned the project with faint praise'" [25].

The committee decided to support a visit by Bok and Rodgers to the UK to attend informal meetings arranged by the Astronomer Roy a 1 . At Bok ' s behest , this tr i p was to include inspections of US observatories on the way to the UK [26]. The Academy committee also agreed at its inaugural meeting that proposals should be developed for 11 5 a telescope aperture of 381 cm based on a Kitt Peak type design (27]. The committee estimated a total project cost of the order of £7 million putting it firmly in the big science stakes. Other outcomes of the meeting included the creation of a number of sub-committees to investigate various aspects of the telescope proposals. Thus, working groups were formed to consider the scientific justifications for the project and matters regarding site testing.

Shortly after this first meeting the Academy seems to have taken the lead (for once) in requesting that the Royal Society set up a similar telescope committee of its own (28]. The Royal Society in fact acted on this advice.

In spite of the strong expressions of support from sections of the scientific world for an Australia-UK telescope, the Large Telescope Committee expressed a first preference for an all Australia scheme. Whether there was really any chance of this occurring is doubtful, given the vast amount of money that was required and the history of lobbying based on at least a bi-national undertaking. None-the-less, there were a number of individuals who expressed uncertainty about British involvement. Bolton, for example, wondered about the suggested co-operation with the British (29] and Oliphant indicated that the ANU should be prepared to go it alone [30J. 11 6

During September and October 1963, Bok and Rodgers undertook an investigation of observatory projects and participated in a series of meetings in the USA and the

UK. While in the US, the two scientists visited the Kitt

Peak National Observatory in Tucson, Arizona. They found the Kitt Peak astronomers most obliging in the provision of design study information of their own 381 cm telescope. After lengthy discussions, Bok was convinced that the quickest and best way to get the Anglo-

Australian Telescope off the ground was to adopt a Kitt

Peak type design (31). Bok's enthusiasm and sense of urgency again comes across in his report,

If Australia and Great Britain act promptly, ours can be the first large reflector of the Southern Hemisphere ••. Our astronomers can still be the first to have access with a [381 cm] to the Magellanic Clouds and the far southern Milky Way. (32]

It is through statements like this that a sense of international competition is revealed. This competition is often expressed in two ways. One implies, like the above, that to be first with a large southern hemisphere instrument is a worthy goal. Another takes the form that if the astronomers of the various countries are to remain in the same scientific league they simply must have a large telescope. Woolley's statement quoted above, implying a chance to catch up with the Americans after lagging for nearly a half-century, is one British example. From Australia,

We shall need it ••• simply because such instruments are being built elsewhere in the world ••. [33] and in a peculiarly assertive way from the US, 117

Progress will be made by clever and aggressive use of telescopes of the largest size (34] The position of leadership that the United States enjoys in optical astronomy has been won as a direct result of its superior observing facilities. (35]

The need for an expansive US programme is finally justified with reference to the ESO and BCSO, A [381cm] reflector for the Southern Hemisphere is being planned by a group of European countries and another one of similar size for the Southern Hemisphere is being discussed by British Commonwealth nations. The momentum of the American observatories will not be quickly overcome, but inevitable continuation of a position of leadership should not be assumed. (36] Thus each of these three national groups of astronomers used similar arguments at the same time as their alleged competitors to claim funds. However, once all the nations were actually building their prized instruments, competition seems to have focused on pride of achievement. On the construction of the Anglo-Australian Telescope its elf, one engineer has said in an interview with this author that, competition was not quite the correct word the world astronomical engineers being a rather small and close-knit group meant that the exchange of ideas was relatively free and open; yes there was a satisfaction in achieving tasks before or better than others but not to the extent that secrecy became paramount. It was give and take. (37]

After visiting the USA, Bok and Rodgers travelled on to the UK for a series of meetings. In the first UK meeting held over 3-4 October, many issues were covered with leading astronomers and officials. Very much the propagandist, Bok pointed out that a group of Australian 11 8

Members of Parliament were urging speedy development of the project. He summarised the Academy's large telescope commit tee's preference for a convent ion al telescope design and ad vised on the complete access given to the Kitt peak design study. Memories were vivid amongst the British astronomers of the delays encountered on the Isaac Newton Telescope as a result of the adoption of an unconventional design. Consequently there was general agreement that the southern telescope should indeed be

based on a conventional design [38]. ,··

The rhetoric of eagerness and competition surfaced a ·.·. ~: number of times. Gascoigne stressed, the urgency of the project and said that the first ._, \ ' ,' ~ in the field with so large a telescope in the southern hemisphere would reap a rich harvest [39] and Woolley conjectured, It should be possible to build a control structure that would enable us to be the first in the field with a big telescope in the southern hemisphere [40] Indeed, by a later meeting held on the 9 October, this rhetoric had grown to encompass the international standing of the two countries, It was generally agreed that the urgency of completion of the project was crucial to the status of British and Australian astronomy. [41]

The discussions in Britain gave rise to eight specifically agreed conclusions. In summary, these points [42] indicated, Point 1 agreement for a joint 'British and Australian' project of equal funding 11 9

Points 2-7 an outline of the general technical specifications of the telescope

Point 8 the desire for specialist committees to act as advisory bodies on main design issues. Executive construction control was recommended to be vested

...... in one person .

Shortly after their return to Australia, Bok and Rodgers reported the outcome of the US and UK trip to the second meeting of the Academy's large telescope committee. It was now considered time to prepare a draft submission to the Australian Government for initial consideration by the Academy Council [43]. It was decided to largely build the submission on Bok and Rodger's report with the incorporation of a scientific justification based on a published paper by Gascoigne.

Careful attention was paid to wording, revealing that the scientists were quite prepared to manipulate language to their political advantage. Thus, it was decided to delete from Bok and Rodger's report the word 'con ven ti on a 1' in relation to telescope design so as to, avoid the inference that the project depended entirely on British cooperation [44] and to alter, the emphasis from 'being first' [with a telescope] to 'danger of being left behind' [45] 120

This close attention ~o rhetoric is evident elsewhere in the discussion of strategies between scientists to convince parliamentary decision makers. Bolton advised, Scientifically I think Gascoigne made out a very good case. However, in order to put things up to a parliamentary committee it should be preceded by a more general introduction on the desirability of pure research in a technological society and in particular the importance of astronomical research. [46]

Bok, as eager as ever to get on with it, continued to push the project along. In mid-November he wrote to the Chair of the Academy's telescope committee urging the prompt ordering of the telescope's mirror blank from the US Corning Glass Works. Bok' s argument was that cos ts would be considerably reduced if advantage was taken of the impending demand for such blanks from the company for the US Kitt Peak and the European Southern Observatory telescopes. Ever the provocateur, Bok's circular was headed, "Statement of Intent to Order from the Corning Glass Works a Fused Quartz Blank for a 150-inch [381 cm] Mirror for the Australian Telescope" [47].

It didn't take long for the Academy's alarm bells to again start ringing. Shortly after the circulation of Bok's memo, the Academy's Treasurer, Sir Hugh Ennor, alerted president Cherry to an unspecified matter of grave concern. In his letter, Ennor alluded to, trends which have developed in connexion with the deliberations of the Academy's Committee on a large Optical Telescope. (48] 121

Ennor pointed out that Huxley, as Chair of the committee, was also concerned. A meeting was called to sort out the 'problems' [49J. While these 'problems' remained unspecified, subsequent developments point to concern over Bok's influence and actions.

In early December 1963 the Academy's telescope committee submitted a paper to the Council, recommending the erection of a joint equal sharing Australia-UK telescope. The estimated expenditure was £6 million over 5-7 years. The paper concluded, If the Australian Government acts promptly we will not lag in the completion of our project with respect to comparable projects overseas. [50]

However, the Counc i 1 was not yet prepared to act. The President explained in an informal confidential letter to to the chair of the committee in mid-December that there were two reasons why Council could not, contemplate an immediate submission to the Australian Government. The first reason is that discussions earlier this year unambiguously envisaged a joint UK­ Australia project. Hence it seems essential that we should make no formal move until we have exchanged views and information about proposals with the Royal Society. [51] The second reason pointed to the need to prepare documented cost estimates.

Just before Christmas, Cherry sent a personal and confidential letter to Sir Howard Florey, President of the Royal Society of London, outlining his more "intimate account of the situation" (52]. It seems that Cherry was 122 cone erned at Bok' s apparent eagerness to push a long the mirror blank order and the project in general, Bok [seems to have been] arriving too fast at conclusions, on incomplete evidence, and that he is by way of carrying with him our committee under Huxley's chairmanship [sic J. [53 J Cherry went on to explain that since the project wa s envisaged as a joint Australia-UK activity, both formal and realistic considerations necessitate that we make no submission to our Government until we have heard from your Council. (54] Furthermore, questions remained unanswered as to the possible involvement of US astronomers. Cherry wrote, Our report from Bok (with the concurrence of Gascoigne and Rodgers) on his meetings in Octob er with Woolley' s group states that they began with significant differences of opinion, but finished by agreeing to satisfactory compromises on all the essential questions. The original proposal tha t American astronomers might be present at this meeting was not implemented and it seems that the possibility of US participation in the project .•. has not been discussed with them •.• We naturally have not heard directly from Woolley an d Redman about their considered views, which will properly be given, in the first instance, to your committee; if we can be apprised in due course about these views it will help us to form our own critical appraisal. [55]

Once again, the Academy deferred action pending consultation with the Royal Society. Rather than boldly take any initiative with the Australian Government, as cons is ten tly ad voe ated by the 1 ikes of Bok, the Academy continued on its cautious wait-and-see approach. By these actions, the Academy once again defined its relationship to the Royal Society as one of a lower status. It simply was not prepared to act without approval from the Royal Society. 123

Both organisations collaborated in their business of asserting elite control of science in their respective countries [56]. That this shared reason for existence was consciously recognised is revealed in Florey's reply to Cherry early in the new year. Like Australia, the UK had a vocal group of astronomers eager to get their projects off the ground. Both countries also had an elite science institution wanting to control all that was going on. Florey personally and confidentially wrote, By our present arrangements at this end we think we have some of the contestants in good control and if there is any real trouble we can crack down. I don't know whether you are in the same happy position at your end yet. [57] Further he declared, We cannot go in for arrangements being made over the pub-counter as they seem to have been done in the past. [58] Florey continued, even if the Government should come forward with ~.100 000 for a design study this could not in any circumstances be taken as a firm commitment to go on with the project. It seems hard for astronomers to get this into their heads, but such is the case here, and I have no doubt at your end too. Florey placed the onus back on the Academy, we think that progress in assessing the prospects and possibly in obtaining finance for it can best be met at this end by having a joint committee with the DSIR •.• We don 1 t like to go ahead until we know that this suits you and whether you would like to do something similar with your CSIRO. Florey made quite clear, I think the next move is with the Australian Academy ... do you, or do you not approve of our joint committee with the DSIR ..• 124

In response to the Royal Society's request, the Academy Council decided in March 1964 to abolish the Standing Committee on a Large Optical Telescope and replace it with the Large Telescope Committee [59]. This new committee met for the first time in May and had expanded to include greater representation by influential members of various institutions concerned with astronomy. Similar to the previous body's mandate, the new group was to advise Council on all aspects of the Southern Telescope. This included technical matters, policy questions, tactics to ensure support for the project and the organisational structure of the authority which would control the telescope. The new body also had the responsibility to liase with the UK Royal Society-DSIR Joint Committee. Gradually, it seems the politic al alliances within the Academy had been shifting towards support for the telescope plans. However, time still seemed to pass leisurely by without any positive announcement.

Bok kept pressure on the Academy to speed developments along. In early February there was another Sydney Morning Herald Editorial declaring that it was "high time for a decision to be made" [60]. At the end of March, Bok drew Cherry's attention to the importance of forthcoming large telescope meetings on the future activities of Mt Stromlo Observatory. This incident exemplifies the uncoordinated nature of Australian science policy of the period. Worried that there was still no firm indication that 125

government would approve funding for the telescope, Bok was in the position of having to make submissions to the Universities Commission for 1967-1970 research funding,

We would like to do our planning on the assumption that by 1970 a large reflector will be available to Australian astronomers it will be well for the fu tu re o f opt i c a 1 as tr on om y in Aust r a 1 i a that we should know fair 1 y soon if th is assumption were to be wrong. [61]

The project again received widespread press exposure in

reports covering the annual meeting of the Australian

Academy of Science. Some reference was also made in these

reports of the criticism Cherry made at the meeting of

the several Federal Government's 'failures'. These

included lack of support for the establishment of a

research museum of Australian biology; no provision of

rockets for upper atmosphere research and no action to

set up a national science fund for support of

research [ 62].

The first meeting of the new Large Optical Telescope

Committee was held on 1 May 1964, the day of the

widespread press reports. The Committee resolved that

"negotiations be conducted on the basis of joint equal

UK-Australian" participation [63]. Thus the previous

committee's recommendation to develop a pure Australian

scheme as a first priority was superseded.

The issue of publicity over the project and the impending

June visit of a British delegation was discussed at the

second meeting of the new Committee at the end of the 126

month. Cherry stepped in to take control of information by asking that all publicity be dealt with by the Executive Secretary of the Academy or himself [64]. This control was to extend to the British as well. Before his arrival in Australia, Woolley was cautioned not to give a lecture to publicise the telescope project. The argument was that, we are in danger of being regarded by the Government as being a pressure group which is operating before the Government has even had a submission to consider. On the whole the less said to the press the better at this stage. [65]

An indication of the Academy's perspective on preparing submissions to government is shown by Cherry in a confidential letter when he advised Florey that, On consideration, we now query whether our Government would give the money for [the design study] unless it was prepared to make a conditional commitment for the whole project. We therefore regard it as necessary that the plan for the whole project be drawn up and agreed between us, before we launch it on our respective governments. [66]

At this time, an Academy paper outlined the possible forms of administrative organisation for the construction and operation of the telescope. Three possibilities were envisaged [67].

1. Total ANU control

2. Semi-independent body within the ANU administrative structure 3. Independent board or institute answerable to both governments.

The optical astronomers based within the ANU saw a strong role for their institution in the administration and 127 control of the planned observatory. While an in depth assessment of the political manoeuvrings and alliances between the Australian (the ANU, other universities and the CSIRO) and the British interests is not possible here, it is important to note that friction was to arise on a numb er o f fu tu re o cc as ions . The Aus tr a 1 i ans we re largely keen on some form of Australian National University control while the British were vying for an independent board or institute [68].

The issue of US involvement still hovered in the background. In early June 1964 Mt Stromlo Observatory 's interim site testing report was compiled by Dr A.W. Rodgers. The report indicates an openness amongst Mt Stromlo staff to possible US participation in a large telescope project. Two Californian groups (the University of California and the Carnegie Institution of Washington) were noted as showing interest in site surveys in Australia. The University of California group were credited with being well-planned, organised and having adequate financial backing [69]. ·Rodgers pointed out, Complete co-operation and the mutual sharing of collected data would appear to be a profitable attitude for Australian astronomers. [70] An understanding of this apparent openness can be gleaned from one possible scenario of the circumstances in which astronomers at Mt Stromlo Observatory found themselves. There was a perceived danger that Mt Stromlo Observatory would not be able to compete on the international astronomical scene unless it soon upgraded i ts 128 facilities. As has been seen, this view was consistently articulated by Bok. Furthermore, a real sense of frustration must have evolved through the extended delays on the large telescope proposal. Combined with the uncertainties of university funding it is conceivable in such circumstances that the astronomers would be open to any proposal which might realistically bear fruit.

The notion of openness, even perhaps preference, that US institutions might become involved is reinforced by the structure of the interim site testing report. The admiration of US planning referred to above is expres s ed in a section entitled '2. Site-testing projects by

American observatories'. This is sandwiched between '1. The current Mt Stromlo programme' and '3. Proposals for fu tu re s it e-testing ' . In this 1 as t sec t ion em p has is wa s placed on a warning that the Anglo-Australian proposals were inadequate for determination of site observing properties. Remedies for this situation needed to be undertaken. In particular, the allocation of money was suggested. By implication, the message was that it would be wise to encourage and seek US involvement in Australian site testing.

Such activity and the achievements of US optical astronomy must have played on the minds of Australian astronomers. This is evident through the recurring nature of the question of US involvement. The notion of some form of bi-national Australia-UK proposal was largely the 129 legacy of traditional links with British institutions and individuals. The concept received a natural ally in the strongly Anglo-centric historical traditions and ideological machinery of the Academy. However, in an environment where the UK was receding relative to the intellectual and scientific advances of the USA, potential involvement with the US may have been more appealing. Participation by US optical astronomical interests would present an opportunity to tap the advanced state of knowledge and activity in this field.

The Australian astronomers wanted their new piece of equipment. The future development of Australian astronomy was at stake. However, they remained frustrated in attainment of their professional goal by the dithering mechanisms of Australian science policy making. Which country was in a better position to help them realise their goal ? The USA or the UK ? As one newspaper article reported on the question of us vs. UK participation, Australian scientists say they are happily impartial - they do not mind with whom they share the telescope if approval is given for its construction. [71] It would eventually emerge, however, that in the end, the most probable avenue for success would be through collaboration with the British. The question of US participation, though, would remain unresolved until well into 1967. 130

From late June to mid-July 1964 a British astronomy delegation [72] was funded through a/:_100 000 grant given

in March by the UK DSIR to visit Australia to discuss the large telescope project with Australian astronomers [73]. In between numerous meetings with the Academy Large Telescope Committee and its various sub-committees, the delegation visited the three proposed observatory sites [74].

A joint paper for submission to the Councils of the Australian Academy of Science and Royal Society of London was prepared by the Academy Large Telescope Committee and the British Royal Society-DSIR delegation before it left Australia. The paper urged for a final decision to be made as soon as possible on the issue of support for the 'Anglo-Australian' project. For the first time, a comprehensive paper was available detailing a broad range of aspects of the project. The joint discussions had produced unanimous agreement on five areas of the proposed 381 cm telescope project [75]: 1. The scientific case and a potential list of programmes 2. Technical specifications for the telescope an d facilities 3. Site-testing plans 4. Administrative structure 5. Estimated costs The advisory committees had decided to support an Australian-United Kingdom Astronomy Research Institute. It was proposed that this institute would be set up by a 1 31 legal convention between the two national governments. Administration was the anticipated responsibility of a board representing the governments. Projected expenditu r e over eight years was of the order of~4.5-5 million (76]. All indications are that many of the points had to be hammered out in intense and vociferous debate . From previous attitudes evident in the primary material, the ANU forces must have battled fiercely against the concept of the Institute.

Eventually, however, agreement was reached, the report submitted to the Academy and copies prepared for sending to the Royal Society. The Executive Secretary of t he Academy in his covering note with the shipment to his. counterpart at the Royal Society underlined the conflicts. In an allusion to Kipling, he wrote, The tumult and the shouting has died, the captains, kings and Astronomer Royal have departed. (77]

However, it was to be nearly a year before the Academy and the Royal Society finally placed a joint submission with their respective governments seeking funding and support for the telescope. It was another year of frustration and cone ern for the astronomic a 1 community. Through further speeches, press articles and journal papers the issue was kept alive. As might have been expected, Bok continued to be one of the most prominent in the telescope lobby. Some of the reasons for the del ay were the changes in government assessment of science 132 funding both in Australia and the UK. Other causes involved the inertia of the Academy, reflecting its part- time operation and the recurring issue of possible participation by US astronomical interests. A closer look at the year in detail illustrates these developments.

Involved discussions continued on the matter of telescope design and site-testing appraisal [78]. As to the matter of possible US involvement in the telescope project, a British assessment of the situation in August 1964 recorded that the California Institute of Technology and the National Science Foundation were clearly not interested [79]. Both organisations were committed to raising funds for other projects and the UK DSIR concluded, at present the Anglo-Australian proposals will have to proceed on their own which, of course, is what the astronomers would prefer. [80]

However, Ennor, the Academy Treasurer [81], wasn't convinced that US involvement might not be forthcoming. He wrote to the Academy from London urging a further examination of a tripartite Australia-UK-USA telescope project [82]. From the correspondence it can be deduced that Ennor had been talking to members of the Royal Society. Apparently Florey (President, Royal Society) was concerned that a tripartite option might have been threatened by statements and articles attributed to Woolley during the British delegation visit to Australia in June and July. 133

The official statements by the Academy telescope committee strongly supported an Australia-UK project. Similarly, such an agreement was the underlying assumption of the joint report of the Academy and UK Royal Society-DSIR group. As has been seen, however, some Australian astronomers remained somewhat ambivalent as delays continued and the positive aspects of us participation were considered. Now, some members of the scientific elite still wanted to exhaust a tripartite option. Even though the UK DSIR assessment of such involvement was negative, it appears that such an option was possibly still viable since the University of California was undertaking a site survey in South Australia sponsored by the US National Science Foundation.

The joint submission to the Councils of the Academy and the Royal Society received delayed approval. While the Academy in fact endorsed the submission in August 1964, the Royal Society postponed consideration until October the same year [83]. Council of the Royal Society generally approved of the content of the submission but required agreement from the Academy on certain amendments before it would consider a government submission [84]. Whether or not Ennor's wish to probe a tri-partite agreement was overruled by the Academy Council's endorsement of the joint report is not clear [85]. Either

way, the issue of US funding was not dead. Importantly, 134

Ennor, as Deputy Vice Chancellor had a powerful professional role to play in promoting the interests of the ANU. His views on US participation seem to be consistent with that institution's ambivalence regarding foreign involvement and how that might affect control of the telescope. A collaborative project with us ins ti tut ions may have offered the chance for the ANU to administer the new observatory.

By November, Bok had written another letter to the

Academy expressing his concern "about the apparent lack of action on the project over the past five months" (86].

Bok's rhetoric again warned that Australian astronomy was being left behind and was in danger to "lose a great deal ••• unless we can have a decision very soon" [87].

His planning for the future of Mt Stromlo development was still at stake. Apologetically he wrote,

I am sorry to have to bother you again about these matters, but I hope that you will understand, Tom, that I am seriously worried and concerned. The whole future of optical astronomy in the country is at stake. [88]

The Academy remained silent. Exasperated, Bok's annual report noted,

There is vast scope for future telescope development on Siding Spring Mountain ••. If the 150-inch [381 cm] reflector does not pass the discussion stage soon, then Mt Stromlo Observatory, as a simple act of scientific survival will have to undertake the planning of its own reflector with an aper tu re of at least 100-inches [254 cm], preferably greater. Without such an instrument our whole astronomical future looks dim indeed. [89]

There followed a spate of nationwide press articles in the first months of 1965 reporting the lack of progress 135 on the large telescope project [90]. In early March, Bok was reported as saying, practically nothing had happened - at least to his knowledge - since last July ..• [91] The Academy refused to comment [92]. However, at the beginning of the month (March), the Academy indicated t o the Royal Society that the Council had not been able to agree to the suggested revisions [93]. A matter of days later the Academy prepared its first draft submission to the Prime Minister on the 'Proposed 150" Telescope in

Australia' [94]. This draft was revised after discussion at the Large Telescope Committee meeting of the 16 March. By the end of the month a second draft submission had been prepared [95].

Not one to let things rest, Bok circulated a personal and confidential memorandum to Lawler (1st Assistant Secretary, PM Department), Sir John Cockcroft (Chancellor, ANU), Mt Stromlo colleagues, representatives of the CSIRO Division of Radiophysics, and W. C. Wentworth (MP) summarising the status of the large telescope project [96]. Thus briefed, a number of further public criticisms of inaction were to follow.

At the 5 April opening of the ANU's Siding Spring Observatory, Chancellor Sir John Cockcroft publically urged support for a large telescope. He expressed concern that the submitted proposal had not eventuated in any progress to date [97]. Unbeknown to Cockcroft, the 136

Academy Council had finally approved of revisions and informed the Royal Society of this on 1 April. However, that there had been delays on the Academy's part was still a relevant issue. The Academy apparently continued to be secretive about its dealings which must have added to the frustration of Australian astronomers. Bok' s outspokenness suggests that the Academy was not keeping the Australian interested parties informed. Public criticism and probing about delays concerning the telescope must have added to the Academy's irritation.

Further to Bok's memorandum, another incident no doubt contributed to concern within the Academy. At the end of the month a series of questions were put to the Pr ime Minister in Parliament by conservative Government MP W. C. Wentworth. These questions probed issues on the status of a possible large telescope including the query, [will] the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America ••. be helping in the provision and construction of this facility ? (98] In his response the Prime Minister, R. G. Menzies, acknowledged that the Government was supporting a site survey through the ANU and that the US Carnegie Institute was also . site testing in South Australia. Menzies reinforced the status of the Academy as scientific advisor to government when he deferred further comment pending receipt of advice from the Academy and its British counterpart [99]. 137

In the context of these public statements obviously based on Bok's confidential briefing paper, the President of the Academy was somewhat upset with the freedom of information. Always a stickler for the rules, Cherry reminded Bok that once again he had broken with protocol, I am sorry that my last action before retiring from the Presidency should be to protest to you (not for the first time) over your assumption of other people's responsibilities for the Telescope Project. The particular point of present complaint is that in a 'confidential circular note' you have quoted largely from a Report of the Academy's Telescope Committee, which is confidential to that Committee and to the Council. For such quotation, prior authorization from the Council should have been obtained. [ 100] In the no-nonsense rebuke, Cherry continued,

Will you never realize, Bart, (1) that by the Academy and Royal Society taking over the sponsorship of the Telescope Project the chances of success have been vastly increased, and (2) that through your back seat driving you are in the op1n1on of your Academy friends biting the hand that feeds you. (101]

Thus, in a volatile environment of public discussion and debate, the President of the Academy reasserted that institution's superior role of science advisor to government. This approach included a claim to be the authoritative voice on the telescope project. From this position concerted attempts to suppress public utterances by individuals followed. Earlier, this was justified by the President in terms of a desire that the Academy not be seen as a pressure group. This time round, more direct claims to authority were expressed by the President in the above blunt correspondence to Bok. Such attempts to control information through authority appears to be • 138 symptomatic of a confident, perhaps arrogant, attitude of the elite heads of the scientific hierarchy.

Perhaps aware of this, Bok wrote to the Prime Minister's Department freely quoting from Cherry's castigating letter. Playing the game he concluded, In view of Sir Thomas's complaint, I have no choice but to request that the Memorandum in your possession should be destroyed. [102] All the while, continued press publicity and journal articles promoted the need for a large optical telescope in Australia [103].

On the 30 June 1965, · the Academy and the Royal Society finally placed simultaneous submissions with their respective national governments advocating a bi-national telescope project [104]. The Australian submission was to Senator the Honourable John Gorton, Minister-in-C harge, Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research [105].

Soon after, a newspaper reported that a possible deferra l of the project by the Australian Government might o cc u r [ 1 O6 ] • The Govern men t was off i c i a 11 y s i 1 en t u n ti 1 October when Gorton wrote [ 107] in response to the June submission to the new President of the Academy, Sir Macfarlane Burnet. Gorton indicated that the Commonwealth needed to give careful consideration to the proposal since it now had a detailed case for the first time. He pointed out that the Government would also have to seek the views of the British Government as well as assess the 139

funding priorities of Australian science. Pending the appointment of a new Government advisory body, Gorton went on to request from the Academy an indication of fund in g pr i or i t y for the telescope in rel at ion to other major science projects. Gorton's reference to a "new Government advisory body" is an indication that serious review of the bureaucratic procedures affecting science was underway [ 108]. Fore-shadowing future debate, Gorton queried the proposal for placing the day-to-day control of the telescope in the hands of the 'telescope institute' s' own staff. He suggested that the ANU might be the best operating agent for the telescope.

The Academy responded [109] that it was not aware of any ··~· competing projects. Whereas there had been a proposal for a Museum of Australian Biology, it had been made clear by Prime Minister Menzies that this would not be instituted. As suggested by the Academy to the Prime Minister's Department in September 1961 , the letter reiterated the need for funding new pure and applied science projects as a normal occurrence. As to the matter raised by Gorton regarding ANU control of the telescope, the Academy implicitly agreed with the strong British preference for independent staff.

Time passed and from Bok's perspective, enough was enough; there had been too long a delay. With his pending retirement as Director of Mt Stromlo Observatory and amid

proposals to build a 210 cm optical telescope by the 140

Cornell-Sydney University Radio Astronomy Centre he again publicly spoke out. It was reported that, Bok broke an enforced silence to criticize procrastination on the proposal to build a 150-inch (381 cm] telescope in Australia •.. the Academy .•. told him to stop making statements on the issue and 'rocking the boat' [he] has decided to ignore this demand .•• (110] He was quoted as saying, in now familiar words, ... Australia must start giving serious consideration to starting the project alone ••• Unless the project began soon optica l astronomy in Australia would slip to an inferior position in world science - ~·· (111] With his time in Australia fast drawing to a close, Bok wrote a number of articles (112] on the project and compiled his final annual report. His sense of frustration comes through in an unpublished draft. After summarising the positive aspects of his years in Australia, he grimly recorded, I have also been exasperated and saddened to no t e that prompt and adequate support is often lacking just at the moment when the peak of achievement seems to be within our reach. Australia may have to learn the hard way that, to achieve eminence, one must act on certain proposals without delay, and that, by delaying action, much of value can be lost. (113] This statement did not to appear in the final · published report. Bok' s edited exasperation can be appreciated in light of his perception that Government had had a submission from the Academy in June 1965 and that lack of action on the Government's behalf was not being pursued by the Academy. From the Academy's perspective it considered that any direct responsibility ceased with the handing over of the telescope submission to

Government (114]. Contradictorily however, the Academy 1 41

did decide it had a role to play when the possible participation of the US was again raised.

In mid-March Sir Harry Melville (Chair, UK Science and

Research Council) informed Professor Huxley (Vice-

Chancellor, ANU) that the UK SRC had decided to su pport the large telescope project and allocate funds for its development. Melville indicated that the Br itish

Government would shortly again seek the views of the Australian Government (115].

Meanwhile, during March and April 1966, the ques t i on of

US involvement once more became an issue. At this time the Australian Government was considering the possib ility of involvement with the USA in a telescope venture . Why it was still open to this notion is not clear. However p the most probable explanation might be that ANU or CSI RO representatives had kept the issue alive through continued private lobbying of the Government.

The Academy was not impressed by the news. In a letter from the Academy to the Royal Society it was made clear that officers of the Academy were "perturbed" that the

Australian Government was seeking involvement of the USA in the project. Whereas the Academy had seen its role in the project to be minimal once it had presented its submission to government, it now felt the necess i t y o f fostering its preferred submitted recommendations. The need for urgent Australian and UK Government discussions 142 was raised "if the original form of the project is to be preserved" [116].

The background to these events is indicated by Lovell [117]. Apparently Gorton initiated a comparison of the proposed Australia-UK project with a potential joint Australia-US telescope. In November 1965, about five months after Government had received the Australia-UK proposal, E. G. Bowen (Chief, CSIRO Division of Radiophysics) had been briefed and sent to the USA on a tour of exploration. Bowen found that the University of California showed a strong positive interest in an Australia-US telescope idea.

In light of the Government's reassessment of science policy machinery, it is pertinent to note that Burnet also expressed in his letter the Academy's interest in how the relationship worked between Government and Science in the UK. The Academy had been asked by the Holt Government to look at the possible bureaucratic structures by gathering impressions of the UK system.

That the British were seriously worried Australia would at best bring in the US as a third partner, or at worst opt for an Australia-US bi-national project is confirmed by Lovell [118]. The UK astronomers were still very keen on an Anglo-Australian scheme. The British pursued their lobbying through high powered visits, meetings and correspondence. 143

During June and July 1966 a series of international visits to and from Australia and extensive letter wri ting on behalf of the UK joint venture proponen·ts kept the

Aus tra 1 ia-UK telescope project alive. Burnet (Pres id en t, Academy) visited London and shortly after Harrie Ma ssey and Blackett (President, Royal Society) came to

Australia. By this time, the role of both the elite science establishment societies in Australia and the UK had been reduced as a result of respective Government's reorganisation and assessment of science policy procedures.

In Australia, the Ministry of Education and Research , and later Education and Science, had taken on more and more of the responsibility for directly investigating and assessing the telescope project. With the creation of more immediate ministerial responsibility for science, Government was less reliant on advice from the Academy. In turn, this allowed more relative freedom for the representatives of the CSIRO and ANU to lobby for their interests. The British situation placed the Science Research Council as the significant Government authority.

Gorton informed the UK SRC in July 1966 that he intended to proffer three options to Cabinet [119],

1. an Australia-UK bi-national project as per the Academy and Royal Society submission 144

2. an Australia-US bi-national scheme with the University of California

3. an Australia-UK-US tri-national proposal

In July Bok left his post at Mt Stromlo Observatory to take up a position at the University of Arizona in the USA. Olin Eggen from Mt Wilson and Palomar Observatories shortly took over the directorship of Mt Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatories. According to Hoyle, Eggen brought with him a bias towards his former US colleagues and a desire to further explore their possible involvement in the large Australian telescope [120].

The issue of US interest was further nurtured by the visit of the Di rec tor of the Lick Observatory, Albert Whitford, in August 1966. He came to discuss possible joint collaboration on a southern telescope project between the University of California and the Australian National University. That he came to Australia suggests that there was sufficient Australian interest in US collaboration to warrant a visit. This seems to support the previous evidence that the astronomers' preference had shifted towards US involvement. As already seen, this may have been partly due to the perceived advanced status of US astronomy. Perhaps more importantly, the possibility of a major role for the ANU in the administration of any new facility was of overriding 145 concern. Combined with the procrastination and conflict over the arrangements worked out with the British, it may have appeared that collaboration with the US was the better way to get a large optical telescope iti. Australia.

By mid-October, Prime Minister Holt made clear in answering a question in Parliament that Cabinet had yet to d ec id e on financial support for the large telescope [121]. A sign of the cause for these deliberations appeared in a newspaper report, Academic sources ••• say the British proposal has come up against some [Australian] Government opposition because it involves setting up a new instrumentality to provide joint British-Australian control. The American proposal would leave control of the telescope in the hands of the University of California and probably the Australian National University. Australian scientists say they are happily impa rtial they do not mind with whom they share the telescope if approval is given for its construction [122] As has been seen, while astronomers may have been supposedly 'impartial', the Academy was not. The Academy definitely preferred the Australia-UK concept. However, just how 'impartial' were the astronomers ? As will be recalled, there had been great debate over the administrative controls for the telescope. The astronomers at Mt Stromlo seemed to have preferred a major role for the ANU. The British definitely wanted an independent body to oversee and run the observatory. The various plans for US collaboration seem to have been of added attraction to the Australian astronomers because of 146 the university administrative relationship embedded in the proposals.

In a bid to preserve the Australia-UK project W. L. Francis (Secretary, UK Science Research Council) visited Australia at the end of October 1966 for explorator y talks with the Government. Francis indicated that a tripartite project involving the USA would be better than no project at all. He was quoted as saying, 'What Senator Gorton wants to do is wait for the proposal from the University of California and then consult his colleagues as to whether they will go for a 50-50 partnership with Britain o r America.' (123] Apparently, a cabinet decision was not expected until early 1967 (124]. In late 1966, the UK's Science and Research Council's Astronomy, Space and Radio Board formally requested that the Australian Government provide a definite reply regarding a joint Anglo- Australian project. The Government, however, remained silent. Two senior Australian scientists again lobbied the Government in early 1967. Bowen (CSIRO) and Huxley (ANU) met with Gorton to discuss the fate of the large telescope project. Contrary to past indications and delays, Gorton expressed support for the bi-national Australia-UK project (125].

The lack of response from the Australian Government to the UK SRC's offer of half-share in a large telescope led to the airing of a range of alternative projects in the

UK (126]. In March 1967 the Astronomy Policy and Grants 147

Committee (APGC) of the SRC Astronomy, Space and Radio Board discussed some of these options. It was proposed to proceed with development of an Anglo-American 508 cm project in Chile or a UK 213 cm telescope for the Mediterranean (127]. It was decided that if a definite positive response was not forthcoming from the Australian Government by June, then the Mediterranean project would be considered at the July APGC meeting (128].

After possible US offers remained vague and under further pressure from the British, the Australian Government decided to commit itself to an Anglo-Australian Telescope project. It drafted out an intergovernment agreement with the British in meetings held in London in late April ~ ~: 1967. Finally, after years of lobbying, discussion and delay, the Australian and British Governments were able to announce at the end of the month that they would jointly fund an $11 million Anglo-Australian Telescope project (129). The chosen site was next to the ANU's NSW observatory on Mt Woorut near Coonabarabran or as it was now known, Siding Spring Mountain. 148

4.2 ORGANISATION, RESOLUTION and CONSTRUCTION - BUILDING THE TELESCOPE MAY 1967-0CTOBER 1974

The signing of the inter-government agreement on the Anglo-Australian Telescope marks the end of the establishment debate for a large optical telescope in Australia.

From May 1967 to the commissioning of the telescoµe

in October 1974, the chief events revol ved around the construction and political manoeuvring for operational control of the telescope. Wh i l e t his period is itself worth a detailed investigation, i t is not the intention of this account to do so . Th e focus on the establishment debate has been large ly the result of selecting a manageable topic combined with the availability of primary research material.

Once the Academy had dropped out of the official negotiations, Government and a new group called the Joint Policy Committee played the dominant roles. An analysis of later developments would need to include

a review of the correspondence, minutes and memoranda kept on the files of these bodies. However, the following overview has been pieced together as a general illustration of subsequent events. Similar to the previous period, t he indications are that a rich case study in the a rea 149

of science and technology policy awaits a more thorough investigation.

Following the announcement that the Australian and UK Governments would finally support the construction and operation of a large optical telescope a bi-national Joint Policy Committee (JPC) was formed in May 1967. This committee was responsible to both Governments and wa s empowered to supervise all stages of design, manufacture and erection of the telescope. It was to also prepare administrative arrangements for construction and operation of the completed facility (130]. Once the agreement was finalised at the initiative of the Australian Government in September 1967, the JPC had the legal power to make decisions governing the fate of the project. The Committee was convened between August 1967 and February 1971 (131] when its duties were absorbed into the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board (AATB) which now continues to administer the operation of the Anglo­ Australian Observatory (AAO) (132].

The project phase of the Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT) was punctuated by a series of decisions and conflicts. A further study might provide insights into these and develop links with changes in Australian science policy. Issues such as the design to be adopted, hardware specifications, tender arrangements and, perhaps most importantly, operational control of the completed 150 observatory gave rise to much discussion and at times, bitter debate. A number of key project staff with experience of large science projects, such as the Parkes radio telescope, were drawn into the __ .construction phase (133].

The first JPC meeting was held in mid-August 1967. The meeting decided that the AAT should adopt a telescope design based on the Kitt Peak Observatory arrangemen t in the USA (134]. In fact, design matters were to largely preoccupy the members of the JPC until the end of 1970. By then, the original Kitt Peak based design had been greatly altered. Apparently, ·much time was spent agonising over design decisions which resulted in a facility designed beyond any astronomical application then conceivable. Hoyle concludes that this was the result of the need to preserve reputations and careers, a design quite far from the best will often prove adequate. The problem for every engineer (and in this case for the Telescope Board) is that, if something really bad does happen, the resulting white elephant becomes a lifelong disgrace. (135]

The JPC established a project office in January 1968 with responsibility to oversee the day-to-day construction of the telescope. By the time of its next meeting held in London in March, the JPC was ready to discuss the issue of the drive and control mechanisms for the telescope.

There was a distinct resistance from the older established astronomers to the new technologies now 151

available. Hoyle records that with the advent of computerised telescope control it was now, a trivial process compared to the tribulations of old-fashioned astronomers. It is perhaps no wonder they were reluctant to have the younger generation let in on a soft opt·ion, with their own painfully­ acquired skills suddenly redundant. [136]

This second meeting of the JPC also decided to open up the project to international tender [ 137]. This lead to conflicts of self-interest on both the Australian and

British sides. In February 1970, disputes arose on the

JPC regarding the dome, telescope-mounting costs and design matters [138]. The conflict was centred on whic h company should be awarded the contract to build the telescope mount. The Australians were in favour of the

Japanese company Mitsubishi, while the British wanted to favdur their own company, Vickers. Bowen writing to Jones from London said, Hosie made it clear to me that he would be under pressure to go to a British contractor. I pointed out that in the same way it would be advantageous for us [Australia] to go to what is now Australia's major trading partner. We should have an interesting debate at the next JPC. [139) That their was antagonism between the 'sides' is clear from the correspondence and statements kept on the AAO files. However, the precise nature and extent of this conflict remains unclear without further investigation.

Conceivably, national interests would have been forthrightly argued on both sides. No doubt, these included various professional goals of different groups of astronomers. 152

Perhaps the most important of the issues regarding the politics of the telescope was the protracted dispute over

the organisation which should have operational control of

the completed observatory. The issue itself has roots

back to the establishment debate period. As has been

seen, the issue of control was discussed quite early in

the negotiations between the members of the Academy and

Royal Society joint telescope committee. In fact, the

question of US participation was kept alive partly

because, at one stage, the ANU saw a way to retain a

large degree of control of the proposed observatory. Two

commentators on the project agree that during the early

1970's debate was quite heated, if not venomous. Gascoigne recalls that over the period the dispute was,

exacerbated by personal and institutional rivalries which created a deep rift in Australian astronomy and were serious enough to cause anxiety. (140]

and according to Hoyle,

The negotiations concerning the operation and maintenance of the telescope ••• ran as a protracted dog-fight from 1970 until its resolution in the summer of 1973. (141]

A more detailed study of the minutes and papers of the

JPC, departmental files as well as the oral histories of

individuals involved (all beyond the scope of this work)

would provide a deeper insight into the particulars of

this part .of the telescope's history. According to the

available secondary sources the JPC meetings must have

been rather heated affairs. Hoyle, for example, indicates 153 that by the time of the sixth JPC meeting held in London in early August 1970, Eggen was strongly advocating that the control of the telescope be vested in the Mt Stromlo Observatory. Such a position was diametrically opposed to British interests.

The issue, no doubt, was pursued between meetings of the JPC. Lobbying would have been just as active and controversial during this period as it was during the early part of the establishment debate. The matter of control arose at the inaugural meeting of the Anglo­ Australian Telescope Board in February 1971. Once again , Eggen strongly advocated that the control of the telescope be based in the Mt Stromlo Observatory.

The Vice Chancellor of the ANU, Sir John Crawford, was a powerful figure also pushing for ANU control under the auspices of its Mt Stromlo Observatory. Hoyle records that Crawford adamantly believed Article 4 of the intergovernment agreement permitted such control [ 142]. Crawford interpreted the Article to mean that the Commonwealth Government had the right to impose its will by force on the Board. Crawford was an influential bureaucrat and had contacts among high ranking politicians and public servants. Hoyle goes so far as to say, "his reading of documents and situations was everywhere accepted as infallible" (143]. 154

The debate over control of the the AAT reached a head in 1972. In February, Minister for Science and Education, Malcolm Fraser, made it clear to the Board that the Government did not want to duplicate funding for astronomical activities by supporting both the work of the ANU and a separate AAT Board (144]. The Australian Government's preference for ANU control was in direct opposition to the wishes of the UK representatives. They insisted on separate management of the AAT from the ANU. As a result, Fraser declared that he intended to recommend to his UK counterpart, Margaret Thatcher (145], that the UK members of the Board be dismissed (146].

After the election of the Whitlam Labor Government i n December 1972, Crawford continued his lobbying for ANU control of the telescope. The Government canvassed opinion from a number of Australian universities and concluded that a separate management structure from the ANU was desirable.

By the end of 1972, the telescope building and dome were complete. The Board needed to appoint a scientific director and staff. Hoyle claims that "the Board's business had been systematically leaked for several years " which led to the astronomical world knowing about the heated conflicts. This gave the telescope a reputation which Hoyle goes on to claim led to difficulty in the Board finding a Di rec tor [ 14 7]. The relationship 155 between the Board and the ANU was sour and remained so for some time.

By April 1974 Gascoigne was able to take the first photographic plate at prime focus of the telescope. Government was informed that the telescope was ready for inauguration. Shortly after the appointment of the Anglo­ Australian Observatory's first Director, E.J. Wampler, the project office was replaced by a scientific directorate and staff which now officially constituted the Anglo-Australian Observatory. The telescope was inaugurated on 16 October 1974. ***

The protracted decision making process on the telescope meant that an Australian Government commitment to the project did not occur until 1967. In the period covered in this Chapter, a number of factors contributed to this drawn out process. Important amongst these was the recurring issue of possible US participation, Academy dithering and Government reassessment of the machinery of science policy. These factors were already of importance in the establishment debate during the period covered in Chapter 3. As in that period, the professional status of Australian astronomy in the world scene, conflicts within the scientific elite, and public exposure of conflict continued to be prominent. 156

This chapter traced the organisation of the optical astronomers in early 1963 into formalised committees for the assessment and promotion of the large telescope concept. It was shown how this organisation allowed the astronomers to better promote their scheme. Motivated by a scientific survival drive, a number of intensive lobbying activities emerged. These included a series of international visits to and from Australia, the granting to British astronomers of design study and travel funds by the British Government, and an enhanced public exposure of the project in Australia through the media,

Parliament and conferences.

As noted, much of the publicity was generated b y confrontation between the Academy and the ANU astronomers. In the early 1960s this emerged in personal friction between Cherry (President, Academy) and Bo k

(Director, Mt Stromlo Observatory). This antagonism was partly an expression of conflict between a traditiona l

Anglo-centric world-view of the Australian science es tab lishmen t and the more aggressive pursuit of goals familiar to the US scientific scene. Later, the issue of administrative control lead to conflict between the ANU and the Academy aligned with the British astronomers.

The necessity for foreign involvement in the telescope seems to have been primarily due to its massive projected cost. However, the needs of British astronomers combined with the traditional Australia-UK professional and 157 scientific links to promote the concept of a large optical telescope in Australia as a joint international affair. In the context of other developing projects with the US, such as the Parkes radio telescope, and the greater scientific status of that country, the notion of possible US participation in an optical telescope received much attention.

The reassessment of Australian science policy formation during the early 1960s contributed to the drawn out telescope establishment debate. As Government moved towards the creation of departmental responsibility for science, the Australian Academy of Science had a less direct role in the formulation of advice on the telescope project. It was, however, much criticised for neglecting to follow through on the Government's delays in assessing the project. Nevertheless, it was spurred into action once it became aware that the original Australia-UK notion was under threat with alternative suggestions of US contribution. The efficacy of the Academy at this stage seems minimal since it appears that US involvement died a natural death due to lack of a firm commitment.

Once the Australian-UK project was finally under construction and on the way to realisation, conflict again arose. Much of this centred on the wishes of the distinct national camps. Prominent amongst the arguments were the debates over tendering arrangements and the 158 nature of the administrative control of the finished observatory.

There were wrangles over which companies of what national origin should receive contracts outright or through a tender process. Other conflicts over control of the telescope were laboured for years, particularly during the early 1970s. The Australian National University fought hard for such control in oppo§ition to the primarily British desire for a separate research institute. The arguments for the latter prevailed and the Anglo-Australian Observatory was established and mad e answerable to the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board. 159

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1 Bok and Bondi, A report on a visit by Bok and Bondi to Mr P. J. Lawler of the Prime Minister's Department. Subject of discussion: the present and future status of proposals for a British Commonwealth Southern Observatory. Canberra, 11 January 1963, File AST/63/12, pp. 1. [Mt Stromlo file and Academy] 2 ibid. 3 Lovell, ('The Early History of the Anglo-Australian 150-inch Telescope (AAT)', op. cit., p.405) records that Oliphant and Woolley "had made an unofficial and direct approach" to the director of the US National Science Foundation in May 1962. Their enquiries centred on "wh~ther the US would consider joining with Australia and the UK in building a telescope in Australia ••. "· Apparently the Foundation "did not have much faith in the Australian project" (p.406). For more on other UK- USA proposals see Lovell pp.403-406. 4 Bok and Bondi, op. cit., p. 1. 5 ibid., p. 2. 6 Letter, Lawler to Cherry, 15 March 1963. [Academy] 7 Cherry President AAS Cockcroft UK Advisory Council on Scientific Policy Woolley Astronomer Royal England. Huxley Vice-Chancellor ANU Oliphant ANU Bok ANU (Mt Stromlo) Gascoigne ANU (Mt Stromlo) Bowen Director CSIRO Radiophysics Mills University of Sydney 8 Draft report, (by Cockcroft ?), [UK] Advisory Council on Scientific Policy Southern Hemisphere Telescope, p. 1. [Academy] 9 ibid. , PP. 1-6. 10 For example, S.C.B. Gascoigne 'Towards a Southern Commonwealth Observatory', Nature, pp. 1240-1241, 197, March 30 1963. 11 For background see Chapter 3, pp. 76-77. 12 The bill was debated in the House of Representatives on 28 March 1963 and 10 April 1963 and in the Senate on 8 May 1963. 1 3 Letter, Bok to Cockcroft, 11 April 1963. [Academy] 14 ibid. The documents in question were Mt Stromlo references: AST/63/100 Check list of astronomical activities in Australia. AST/63/102 Notes on the proposed British Commonwealth Observatory AST/63/102 Progress report on Mount Stromlo filed station 15 Letter, Ambartsumian (President, IAU) to Bok, 25 April 1963. [Academy]

16 Some of these included: 160

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, Editorial, 'Telescopes, Small and Large'. (3 February 1964).

ADELAIDE ADVERTISER, 'S. A. May Have Big Telescope' , (1 May 1964).

BRISBANE TELEGRAPH , ' Aus t • Ma y Have Huge Te 1 es cope ' , (1 May 1964).

H0 BART MERCURY , ' Sc i en t is ts P 1 an L 5 Mi 11 . Telescope for Australia', (1 May 1964).

LAUNCESTON EXAMINER, 'Aust., U.K. Merge on Big Telescope Plan', (1 May 1964).

MELBOURNE SUN, 'Plan for L5m. Telescope' ( 1 May 1964).

PERTH WEST AUSTRALIAN, 'W .A. Site May Be Picked for Observatory', ( 1 May 1964).

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 'Scientists in New Move for Telescope', (1 May 1964).

AUSTRALIAN, ''Threat to Astronomy', Where is that big Telescope?', 30 January 1965.

CANBERRA TIMES, 'Telescope Delay Criticised', 5 March 1965.

MELBOURNE HERALD, •Questions in the House', 27 April 1965. CANBERRA TIMES, 'Telescope . . . ' ' 28 April 1965. MELBOURNE AGE, Reports on the question in the House, 28 April 1965.

SYDNEY TELEGRAPH, Reports on the question in the House, 28 April 1965.

MELBOURNE AGE, More publicity about the need for a large telescope, 1 May 1965.

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 'New Telescope', 1 May 1965.

17 Bok mentions this source of support in a letter to Cockcroft, 2 May 1963. [Academy] 18 Letter, Bok to White (CSIRO), 23 May 1963. [Academy] 19 Letter, Woolley to UK Department for Scientific and Industrial Research. [Academy] 20 Letter, Woolley to Bok, 27 May 1963. [Academy] 21 Letter, Oliphant to Cherry, 4 June 1963, pp. 1-2. [Academy] 1 6 1

22 Letter, Huxley to Roderick (Academy Secretary , Physical Sciences), 20 June 1963. [Academy] 23 What follows is based on the Minutes of the first meeting of the Academy's Standing Committee on a Large Optical Telescope held in Canberra on Augus t 29th 1963; Academy reference AC 9, pp.1-3. [Academy] 24 ibid., appendix A, p. 4. 25 Ennor; Notes on a meeting of Telescope Committee held in Council Room Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, at 2.00 p.m. on Thursday August 29, 1963 ; 30 August 1963, p. 2. [Academy] 26 Funds for this "side excursion ..• [should] ..• be met from ANU .•. " ibid., p. 3. 27 The proposal to adopt a design similar to the US Kitt Peak Observatory telescope was primarily to take advantage of existing technology and construction methods. Apparently members of the Australian Parliament strongly and informally urged using existing large telescope designs [Letter, Ennor to Academy Executive Secretary, 6 September 1963, Academy]. The legacy of problems associated with the UK Isaac Newton telescope partly due to the use of unconventional designs also influenced the thinking on the AAT. 28 Letter, Academy to Royal Society, 2 October 1963. [Academy] .; 29 Letter, Bolton to Wood, 9 September 1963. [Academy ] 30 Ennor; Notes on a meeting . • . op. cit., p. 3 . [Academy] 31 Letter, Bok to Woolley, 26 September 1963, Mt Stromlo reference AST/63/290 (also AST/63/300 appendix IV)_ (Mt Stromlo reference AST/63/300 is actually Bok and Rodgers, Report on discuss ions in the UK 3-11 October 1963 and related visit to USA 16 September-1 October 1963). 32 Bok and Rodgers, Report on a Visit to Tucson September 24-30 1963; Mt Stromlo reference AST/63/293. 33 Bart J. Bok, 'The Future of Astronomy in Australia', The Australian Journal of Science, 25, January 1963, p. 284. 34 US National Academy of Sciences, 'Ground Based Astronomy a Ten Year Program', A report prepared by the Panel on Astronomical Facilities for the Committee on Science and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S. National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, Washington, 1964), p. 3. 35 ibid., p. 14. 36 ibid., p. 15. 37 Herman Wehner, interviewed by author 19 January 1984, notes p. 73. 38 Minutes, Proposed large reflector for the southern hemisphere; meeting held at Herstmonceux Castle , UK 3-4 October 1963; Mt Stromlo reference AST/63/297 (also appendix VI to AST/63/300). 162

39 ibid. 40 ibid. 41 Gascoigne and Rodgers, Report on meeting held at Herstmonceux on Wednesday October 9 1963; 11 October 1963 (also appendix VII to AST/63/300). 42 ibid. 43 Minutes, Academy Large Telescope Committee 2nd meeting held on 29 October 1963, (Academy reference AC 15/63); p. 2. [Academy] 44 ibid. 45 ibid. 46 Letter, Bolton to Wood, 9 September 1963. [Academy] 47 Circular note, Bok, Statement of Intent to Ord er from the Corning Glass Works a Fused Quartz Blank for a 150-inch [381 cm] Mirror for the Australian Telescope, 18 November 1963, [Mt Stromlo referenc e AST/63/328]. 48 Letter, Ennor to Cherry, 27 November 1963. [Academy] 49 ibid. 50 Submission to the Counc i 1 of the Academy from the Committee of the Academy on a large optical telescope, (Academy reference AC 17 /63), p. 3. 51 Letter, Cherry to Huxley, 19 December 1963, p. 1. [Academy] 52 Letter, Cherry to Florey, 23 December 1963, p. 1. [Academy] 53 ibid. 54 ibid. 55 ibid. 56 The parallels between the two elite science institutions extends to relatively trivial aspects. Thus, the Academy's crest includes a rampant vicious swan and crown mimicking the Roya 1 Society's griffin. A colonial intellectual relationship is revealed. Through symbol and association, the prestige of the imperial institution is sought by and imparted onto the aspiring colonial outpost. 57 Letter, Florey to Cherry, 2 January 1964, p. 1. [Academy]. 58 ibid. 59 Memorandum to Large Optical Telescope Commit tee, 10 March 1964, (Academy reference AC 2/64). 60 Sydney Morning Herald, Editorial, 'Telescopes, Small and Large'. (3 February 1964). 61 Letter, Bok to Cherry, 20 Apr 1964. [Academy]

62 Newspaper coverage included the following:

Adelaide Advertiser, 'S.A. May Have Big Telescope', (1 May 1964).

Brisbane Telegraph, 'Aust. May Have Huge Telescope', (1 May 1964).

Hobart Mercury, 'Scientists Planlf.5 Mill. Telescope for Australia', (1 May 1964). 163

Me 1 b o u r n e Sun , ' P 1 an for "-5 m. Te 1 es cope ' ( 1 May 1964). Also see the Australian Academy of Science Annual Report 1962-63. 63 Minutes, first meeting of Large Telescope Committee 1 May 1964, (Academy reference AC 8/64). 64 Confidential note, Bok, Mt Stromlo reference AST/64/112, 29 May 1964. 65 Letter, Huxley to Woolley, 28 May 1964. [Academy] 66 Letter, Cherry to Florey, 29 May 1964. [Academy] 67 Paper, Possible forms of administrati ve organization, large optical telescope; (Acad em y reference AC 10/64), 29 May 1964. 68 See a brief discussion on this in section 3.2. 69 Rodgers, Interim report on site-testing in Australia, June 3rd 1964; (Mt Stromlo reference AST/64/116), p. 2. 70 ibid. 71 Melbourne Sun, 'Big telescope plan: Nations seek share', 20 October 1966. 72 Comprised of Sir Richard van der Riet Woolley , Professor "R.O. Redman, Dr A. Hunter, J.D. Pope and Dr W.L. Francis 'ffli 73 Press releases, Academy, Southern hemisphere telescope, (Academy reference GE 12/64), 24 June 1964; Royal Society, Southern hemisphere telescope , (Royal Society reference NA/10/RWJK/PB). 74 The sites were Mt Woorut (Siding Spring), NSW ; Mt Serle, SA; Mt Singleton, WA. 75 Joint submission to the Councils of the Academy and Royal Society, Proposed 150" [381 cm] telescope in Australia, 7 July 1964, (Academy reference C 28/64) . 76 ibid. 77 Letter, Executive Secretary Academy to Executive Secretary Royal Society, 14 July 1964. [Academy] 78 Richard Woolley, 'The Stars in Their Courses, Building a 150-inch telescope in Australia', Bulletin, 8 August 1964, p. 28. 79 Francis (UK DSIR), Southern hemisphere telescope discussions July 21-31 1964; (UK DSIR ? reference B/75/01 Pt 2), 11 August -1964, p. 3. [Academy] 80 ibid. 81 Ennor also had extensive professional links with t he ANU. 82 Letter, Ennor to Secretary A (Academy) 19 August 1964. [Academy] 83 Lovell, 'The Early History of the Anglo-Australian 150-inch Telescope (AAT)', op. cit., p. 412 points to the impending British election as a factor in t he Royal Society's delay. 84 ibid.' p. 413. 85 That it was overruled by circumstances seems to the case since the Academy adopted a strict Australia-UK 164

policy. See for example, letter, Burnet to Blackett, 24 March 1966. [Academy] 86 Le t t e r , Bok to Cher r y , 1 3 No v em b e r 1 9 6 4 , p . 1 . [Academy] 87 ibid.' pp. 1-2. 88 ibid., p. 2. 89 Annual Report, Mt Stromlo Observatory, 1964, p.5 90 For example: Australian, ''Threat to Astronomy', Where is that big telescope?', 30 January 1965. Canberra Times, 'Telescope Delay Criticised', 5 March 1965. 91 Canberra Times, ibid. 92 ibid. 93 Lovell, 'The Early History of the Anglo-Australian 150-inch Telescope (AAT)', op. cit., p.413 94 Proposed 150" Telescope in Australia, Draft submission to the Prime Minister, (AC 4/65), 10 Mar 1965. 95 Proposed 150 11 Telescope in Australia, Draft submission to the Prime Minister, (AC 7/65), 22 Mar 1965. 96 This document has not been seen by the autho r . Apparently it was prepared mainly to brief Cockc roft before the opening of the new site. The existence and content of such a paper is surmised from numerous references around this time. In particular letters [Academy]: Cherry to Bok, 30 April 1965 Bok to Lawler, 7 May 1965 Bok to Cherry, 1 May 1965 • 97 Australian, 'We need a telescope to keep in front, 6 April 1966. 98 Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 27 April 1965, pp. 851-852. 99 ibid., p. 852. 100 Letter, Cherry to Bok, 30 April 1965. [Academy] 1O1 ibid. A copy of the letter was despatched to Lord Florey, President of the Royal Society. It is interesting to question why. Was it to confirm past comments on Bok's behaviour or was it simply a member of the scientific establishment elite keeping a peer informed ? It is probable that it was a bit of both. 102 Letter, Bok to Lawler, 1 May 1965. [Academy] 103 For example, the Melbourne Age on 1 May and 9 June 1965 and Sydney Morning Herald 1 May 1965. Also the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 6, ,2, 1965, pp. 215-216. 104 It is ironic to note, that while the Academy annu al report did not mention this it did note the Government's apparent refusal to support the 165

proposal for a Museum of Australian Biology and preparation of Flora of Australia. 105 Responsibility for science policy was also being restructured in the UK. As Lovell points out ('The Early History of the Anglo-Australian 150-inch Telescope (AAT)', op. cit., p. 394) by March 1965 UK science was being reorganised and, "the influence on astronomy previously concentrated in the Astronomer Royal, the Royal Society and t he Royal Astronomical Society diminished significantly and the affairs of the Anglo-Australian Telescope were subsequently handled by [the] new Science Research Council." 106 Canberra Times, 'Telescope decision delay, 8 Ju ly 1965. 107 Letter, Gorton to Burnet, 22 October 1965. [Academy] 108 The greater contextual changes to the machinery of Australian science policy over the period 1962-66 were outlined in Chapter 1. Up to the end of 1963, ministerial responsibility for science in Australia effectively fell to the Minister-in-Charge of the CSIRO. A departmental structure for science began t o emerge from 1963 when a portfolio of Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Education and Research was created. However, a full departmental structure for science was still some years off. Even though a Department of Education and Science wa s established in early 1966, the effect on science policy of this bureaucracy has been seen as minimal , (see Chapter 2; also see Johnston and Buckley , op. cit., Table 2, p. 45 and Ronayne, op. cit., p. 146). 109 Letter, Cherry to Gorton, 10 November 1965, p. 1. [Academy] 11 O Australian, 'Big 'scope an urgent need - Bok speaks out', 22 November 1965. 111 ibid. 11 2 For exam p 1 e , B. J • Bok , Moun t Strom 1 o 0 b s er vat or y , draft of an article for Hemisphere, 7 January 1966. 113 From material kept on Mt Stromlo Observatory annual report files. 114 Letter, Burnet to Blackett, 24 March 1966. [Academy] 115 Letter, Melville (Chair UK SRC) to Huxley, 17 March 1966. [Academy] 1 1 6 Le t t e r , Bu r n et to B1 a ck et t , 2 4 Marc h 1 9 6 6 . [Academy] 117 Lovell, 'The Early History of the Anglo-Australian 150-inch Telescope (AAT)', op. cit., p. 421. 118 ibid., p. 422-23. 119 ibid., p. 422. 166

120 F. Hoyle, The Anglo-Australian Telescope, (University College Cardiff Press, Cardiff, 1982).

121 Based on newspaper reports: Canberra Times, 'Telescope', 14 October 1966.

Melbourne Age, 'Telescope', 14 October 1966.

Sydney Morning Herald, '$22m Telescope', 14 October 1966.

Canberra Times, 'Talks soon on new telescope', 20 October 1966.

Melbourne Sun, 'Big telescope plan: Nations seek share', 20 Oct 1966.

Australian, 'UK offers $5m to build telescope', 26 October 1966.

Canberra Times, 'Three may share big telescope', 26 October 1966.

122 Melbourne Sun, ibid., 20 Oct 1966. 123 Canberra Times, ibid., 26 Oct 1966. 124 W. L. Francis quoted in ibid. ·l 125 The Anglo-Australian Telescope Project', The Australian Academy of Science, The First Twenty Five Years, p. 52. 126 See Lovell, 'The Early History of the Anglo- Australian 150-inch Telescope ·(AAT)', op. cit., pp. 424-425 and Hoyle, op. cit., pp. 5, 54. 127 Lovell, ibid., pp. 425-426. 128 Hoyle, op. cit., p. 5 and Lovell, p. 426. 129 Press re lease, Sena tor the Honourable J. G. Gorton, Minister for Education and Science, 30 April 1967. 130 Report of the Joint Policy Committee 1 September 1967-30 June 1970, p. 1. ·131 See Appendix 2 for the dates and locations of JPC and AATB meetings. 132 The Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement between the Governments of Australia and the United Kingdom was signed in Canberra in September 1969. This agreement provided for the establishment of the Anglo­ Australian Telescope Board under an act of the Australian Parliament [Report of JPC 1967-70, op. cit., p. 4]. This act, the Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act, passed through the Australian Parliament and received Royal assent in September 1970. However, it was not proclaimed until February 1971, thus abolishing the JPC and formally constituting the AATB [Report 1970-71, Anglo­ Australian Telescope Project, (Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1973), pp. 1-2J. 167

133 Bowen and Jeffreys, for example, had had experience on the Australia National Radio Observatory at Parkes. 134 An alt-azimuth design was discussed but not adopted. Hoyle claims that such a design was defeated upon political rather than technical grounds [Hoyle, op. cit., p. 6]. Further investigation might reveal what he meant. Hoyle also claims that "a majority of British astronomers would have preferred not to have gone with the AAT project." Just what he meant is again not clear. 135 Hoyle, op. cit., p. 12. 136 ibid., p. 8. This seems to be a pointed reference to Woolley who had a reputation for being resistant to the implementation of new technology. 137 .. ibid., p. 9. · 138 Letters, Bowen to and from Jones (Department of Education and Science), February 1970, (Ang lo­ Australian Observatory unmarked file). [Academy] 139 Letter, Bowen to Jones, 23 February 1970, (Anglo­ Australian Observatory unmarked file). [Academy] 140 Gascoigne, Australian Astronomy Since World War Two, (unpublished paper dated April 1986), p. 16. 141 Hoyle, op. cit., p. 11. 142 ibid., p. 14. 143 ibid. 144 ibid., p. 15. 145 Both people went on to become major conservative Prime Ministers of their countries. 146 Hoyle, op. cit., pp. 15-16. 147 ibid., p. 17. 168

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION 169

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

Big science and the complexity of decision making Science as 'big science' calls for a major marshalling of resources. Since this involves attracting money, various services of government, or the professional clout of learned societies and institutions, active lobbying proves to be essential. Without lobbying, the process of turning a desired outcome into a material reality simply will not occur. In order to effect the decisions crucial to the fulfillment of the goal, a demand is placed on the proponents to successfully manipulate various tee hn iques of the decision making process.

Thus, to attract the financial and moral support of government and other institutions, the decision making process demands appropriate formal committee work and requires the nurturing of goodwill amongst diverse individuals and institutions. Often much informal effort is required, including publicity at the right times and the tapping of social networks - attendance at the correct social functions can be very important. Both the formal and informal demands of big science inject a high degree of complexity into the decision making process.

When the large optical telescope was proposed in the 1950s, the protagonists were operating in an environment where the experience of large scale civilian science projects was minimal. Up to this time such projects in 170

Australia were rare. Consequently, a culture readily ab l e to develop, assess and support worthwhile proposals did not exist. This added to the normal complexities of the decision making process.

The chief ideologues of the prevailing science culture were an elite executive of scientists. Supported by such

institutions as the Australian Academy of Science, they took a strongly autonomous professional stance and adhered to elite principles. They had a cozy relationship with government, which meant that government tended t o seek and take this group's advice in the formation of science policy. To become a reality, the telesco pe project needed the approval and support of this elite .

However, the prevailing culture, while familiar with ways of attracting support from government for smaller

financial undertakings, was unable to cope with the scale

and complexity of the competing demands of the new big science proposals.

This culture was forced to adapt to the changing claims of science in society. During the late 1950s and earl y

1960s, the Academy, various other institutions and certain individuals noted the need for an independent science advisory organisation responsible for the assessment of the role of science in society. Government attempts to review science policy formation in the early

1960s reflect the growing awareness of the potential of science as a major social and productive enterprise. 171

In this context decisions on a major investment in a large optical telescope languished. The goal of the optical astronomers was to convince government to commit funds to the capital development of the telescope. Operating from a power base at Mt Stromlo Observatory , the Australian optical astronomers expended a great deal of effort in seeking to influence the decision making process. First, the inertia of the scientific elite had to be overcome, followed by the problems presented by government bu reauc racy. Throughout, the profess ion a 1 motives of the astronomers tended to be concealed by t he neutralising, 'objective' language of science. However , behind the rhetoric was a volatile political environment charged by the conscious self-interest of scientists.

The pool of lobbying skills and bureaucratic contacts brought to bear by the physicists was considerable. In many cases, these attributes were a legacy of the involvement of physics in the 1939-1945 war effort. Such techniques drew upon scientists' experiences in Australia and elsewhere. Prominent individuals also played an important role. Bok, for example, brought with him from the USA, a more forthright approach to •staking one 's claim'. In spite of these powers, several peculiar aspects of the telescope proposals added further complexities to the lobbying process. 172

As the period of lobbying became more extended, changes to the personnel involved occurred. Thus, the formation and dissolution of committees, as well as changes in their membership, created continuity problems. There were also changes in government bureaucratic staff and ministerial portfolios. Another contribution to the moo d of uncertainty was the possibility of a change to Government in late 1961. Within the ranks of the optical astronomers, indi victual prime movers, such as Bok, came and went and were frustrated in their attempts to achieve their goal.

A further level of complexity was provided by the international dimension. The tradition of international cooperation in astronomy and the British imperial imprint on Australian science played a part in this. Conceived on a grand scale in both monetary and resource terms, the big telescope/big science project was tied from its conception to the status of being an international joint venture. Thus, there was not only an Australian dimension to the project but also a situation coloured by historical international connections dominated by Britain.

While British interests prevailed throughout much of the establishment debate for participation in a large telescope in Australia, other national concerns did play a significant role. At one stage a European consortium contemplated erecting an instrument here. However , 173

Australian interest in US institutions was, in the end, the main rival to British designs.

Australian astronomers seemed prepared to accept participation with whomsoever was most likely to support the telescope. However, the Academy tended to favour the British interests despite occasional leaning towards the US as internal politics swayed the course of events. Private lobbying by some astronomers to engage US institutions and their supporters within the Australian Government undermined the efforts of the Academy. Government took on a more active role and the old power of the Academy was challenged. The debate was drawn out.

In these ways the project was complicated by both national and international political interplays. These interplays manifest various political groupings within Australian science. Individuals were set against individuals, institutions and bureaucracies interacted with competing claims, protocols and inertia. The players were in some way affected by an awareness of the changing status of the UK relative to the USA. Australian science, as a culture largely derived from British sources, was confronted with the reversal of the hegemonic role of the UK with the USA in the capitalist world order. 174

Changes to the context of Australian science policy

Internationally, science was increasingly being harnessed by government and corporate powers as a major productive force. In Australia, at this time, science was still, in effect, being treated largely as a welfare recipient. As the Australian Government attempted to review its science policy machinery and move towards planning the allocati on of funds to research, it received a submission for the Anglo-Australian Telescope project. The Government postponed a final decision, resulting in yet another extension of the already protracted lobbying process.

The rhetoric of the submission echoed the justifications used throughout the preceding period of advocacy. Similar language remains in circulation today. Historically , astronomy in Australia has drawn away from practical applications and has approached the ideal science where knowledge is pursued for its own sake. The limits to practical applications in the modern world have been turned to astronomy's advantage through the adopt ion of the high civilisation principle. This ideology underpinned the arguments used by the optical astronomers in the presentation of their claim on public funds.

According to this belief, the funding of pure science is a highly worthwhile endeavour and a mark of the advanced state of a culture. The principle has been invoked as the primary argument for funding optical astronomical 175

research since the 1950s, but could it in fact be any

other way ? Stripped of its traditional navigation and time-keeping applications, optical astronomy in Australia became largely a pure research activity. Its knowledge production processes are now primarily aimed at cosmological interpretation of the universe. As such, the professional position of the astronomers has become one where practical applications are no longer of great concern. The high civilisation principle is, of itself, justification enough for continued funding.

The Government decision to provide funds was effected by a powerful science lobby wielding this potent ideological principle. The associated international and nationa l ~: status enhancing potential of astronomy as an intellectual showcase proves to be attractive in the eyes of government. The success of the high civilisation principle seems to lie in its appeal to a liberal ethos of high-mindedness and intellectual pursuit of truth, a world-view to be found amongst government decision makers and bureaucrats.

The Government assessment of the machinery of science policy and the receipt by the Government of the telescope submission, marks a change in the context of science policy decision making in Australia. With the growth of a professional government science bureaucracy, conflicts and lobbying, such as those surrounding the Anglo- Australian Telescope, tended to be internalised within 176 that bureaucracy. In the past, lobbying was undertaken by scientists as outsiders to government. Now professional government mechanisms were leading towards a more controlled development of science policy.

This is not to deny the previous existence of s pecial relationships between individual scientists and government bureaucrats and politicians. Indeed, s uch relationships were the hallmark of science decision making up until this time. It is also not to deny that such relationships continued to be important. Rather, the change signifies a trend towards the incorporation of more direct responsibility for science decision making within the normal activity of government.

The changing context of science decision making in Australia in the 1960s contributed significantly to the fate of the proposed large optical telescope. In essence , the main sign of change was the emergence of a professional government bureaucracy responsible, at least in name, for science policy. This new formalisation of the role of government in science indicates a transition away from policy generation dominated by scientists.

Traditionally, scientists themselves had great influence on national science policy. Power politics prevailed and involved science institutions and individual scientists . This is not to say that such interactions do not always

play a role in the formation of policy. Rather, it is to 177

indicate that the political interactions amongst scientists were determining policy outcomes largely unchecked by guiding government policy or administrative machinery. The creation of a formal bureaucratic structure altered this situation.

One result of this development was that the privileged authority of the Australian Academy of Science was diminished. As far as the telescope project was concerned, this prolonged the element of uncertainty over with which country Australia would participate in the project. Once the Australian Government had received the joint submission on the telescope from the Academy and

Royal Society, the influence of the pro-US lobby helped delay government commitment. An exploration of possible

US involvement from within government ensued, much to the chagrin of the executive officers of the Academy. The

Academy marshalled its forces and influence, while the strong British interests launched a final barrage of experts onto the Australian mainland. However, us institutions could not be drawn on a commitment- and the

Australian ·Government eventually decided to support the

Australia-UK proposal. 178

Would it happen in the 1980s ?

Since observation programs began in 1975, the Anglo­

Australian Observatory has been a resounding technical and scientific success. It has indeed fulfilled many of the claims made by astronomers in the early days of lobbying. The work of the observatory continues to make important contributions to the science of astronomy.

In ending, it seems appropriate to raise the question

'Would an Anglo-Australian telescope be built today ?' , or to rephrase this query, 'Would a major contemporary project in astronomy be a joint Australia-UK undertaking ?'. The simple answer is probably not. That is to say, big science schemes involving major capital commitments now tend to be considered as national projects. Current developments in radio astronomy serve to reinforce this point.

In the early 1980s the CSIRO developed proposals for a networked array of radio telescopes spread out over many hundreds of kilometres. The resulting telescope would have a large aperture with which to probe the southern skies. Known as the Australia Telescope it is expected to 179 cost more than $30 million [1] when complete. The rhetoric used to justify the project has a familiar ring, Australia is a privileged observing platform for the unique riches of the southern skies, and we have an international obligation to contribute to the world effort in astrophysics and space research. No other country in the southern hemisphere has the scientific and engineering skills and the industr ial resources to conceive and complete such a project. [2]

As with the Anglo-Australian Telescope 20 years earlier , the high civilisation principle has been invoked. Reference in the previous quote to 'Australia's obligations to the rest of the world' makes this obvious. Like the arguments put forward for the large optical telescope, emphasis has again been placed on the unique location of Australia as a wealthy southern nation. Also , as previously, there is the threat of being left behind international developments, the requirements of modern astronomy cannot be satisfied by the existing generation of Australian telescopes ••. [since] New radio telescopes have been built in the northern hemisphere .•. it is clear that a new radio telescope, designed fo r future needs, is essential to preserve the vitality of Australian radio astronomy. [3]

Further comparison is beyond the scope of this work. However, it is clear that astronomy continues to

success fu 11 y appeal to the notion of being an activity marking a high level of civilisation.

It is interesting to contemplate some of the reasons why a large radio telescope in 1980s Australia should be 180 conceived in terms of a national project, as compared to the large optical telescope joint venture of the 1960s.

It is probable that Australia's increased wealth has a major part to play. The country is now more able to totally finance such big science projects. Australia has also become more independent and confident as a nation . This change in the self-image permeating Australian society may have had an effect on the terms in which contemporary projects are conceived. Perhaps a further sense of independence is generated by the existence of a larger national pool of expert knowledge and technical skills: this resource draws upon a greater number of locally trained and experienced people.

Markedly different from the 1960s is the existence in the 1980s of a differentiated government science bureaucracy. As a result, the procedures for establishing funding for major science projects have changed dramatically. The effect of this bureaucracy on big science decision making compared to the earlier period is worthy of analysis. Once again, it is not the intention of this work to do so: a few comments, however, are in order.

There are now quite formalised structures for dealing with science project proposals. As always, social networks remain important in lobbying processes. Howev er , the scale of the scientific enterprise is now such that a 181 small elite can no longer oversee policy development as it could in the 1950s and early 1960s.

Importantly, there is now also a 'language of science policy' promoting sophisticated analysis and debate in government, academic institutions, some corporate bureaucracies and occasionally in society at large. Thus, knowledge of the various roles of science in society as a productive force, or an agent of social change, or as an international status symbol exists. Included in this is a more developed awareness of distinctions between the types of research beyond the simple categories of bas ic and applied.

The current appreciation of science amongst sectors of government, academia and corporations differs from the early 1960s. Science and technology are being strongly promoted as a means of economic growth. One strongly advocated position is that science must become more geared to national economic goals in order to compete with foreign nations and corporations. The will to do this exists amongst an influential body of government and corporate representatives and there are mechanisms available to assist in the pursuit of such goals.

An influential body of decision makers and lobbyists would prefer not to see the bulk of science activity as a welfare recipient. This view was only beginning to emerge when the large optical telescope was first mooted. Since 182

then science decision making has become too important to be left solely in the hands of scientists. While government and corporate interests have increased their

power in the development of science policy, community groups and other less influential bodies remain outside

the decision making arena. The effect of present trends

to force science into the mould of a 'productive

resource' rather than a 'welfare consumer' remains to be

assessed. Perhaps, in this environment, the case for

astronomy as a mark of high civilisation will be made, or

indeed have to be made, more forcefully than ever. 183

NOTES AND REFERENCES 1 H.C. Crozier (Secretary, Finance and Administration, CSIRO) in The Australia Telescope, Statement of CSIRO Evidence to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, p.B1, (CSIRO, undated). 2 J.P. Wild (Chairman, CSIRO) in The Australia Telescope, _S_t_a_t_e_m_e_n_t~~o_f~~C_S_I_R_O~~E_v_i_d_e_n_c_e~~t_o~_t_h_e_ Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, p.A8, (CSIRO, undated). 3 ibid, p.A3. 184

APPENDIXES 185

APPENDIX I THE PLAYERS

This Appendix identifies those people who figure most prominently in this account of the establishment of t he Anglo-Australian Telescope. It includes individuals mentioned in the overview of Australian astronomy. Whe r e possible biographical information is given. The information reflects the positions held by the individuals at the time of the debate. Unless otherwise indicated, the positions filled by the individuals were located in Australia.

Lord Professor Patrick H. S. BLACKETT President Royal Society of London November 1965-November 1970

Professor Bart BOK Wheeler Professor of Astronomy Harvard University 1946-1956 Director Mt Stromlo Observatory Australian National University 1957-1966

John BOLTON Division of Radiophysics Counc i 1 of Scientific and Industrial Research and then the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization 1939-1950s

Professor Hermann BONDI Secretary UK Royal Astronomical Society 1956-1964 Department of Mathematics King's College University of London 1966 Chairman Astronomy Committee UK Science Research Council 1966 186

Chair UK National Committee for Astronomy 1966 Member of the Joint Policy Committee very briefly in 1967

Dr E. G. 'Taffy' BOWEN Chief Division of Radiophysics Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization from 1948 Member of the Joint Policy Committee 1967-?

Sir Allen BROWN Deputy High Commissioner Australia House London c. 1959

E. John BUNTING Secretary Department of the Prime Minister from 1959

Sir Macfarlane BURNET President Australian Academy of Science 1965-?

Professor Thomas M. CHERRY President Australian Academy of Science c. 1961-65 Department of Mathematics University of Melbourne from 1929

Sir John COCKCROFT University of Cambridge (Atomic energy work) England c. 1963 UK Advisory Council on Scientific Policy c. 1962 187

Chancellor Australian National University c. 1962-65(?)

Sir John CRAWFORD Vice-Chancellor Australian National University c. 1971

J. DEEBLE Executive Secretary Australian Academy of Science from 1956

Dr Geoffrey DUFFIELD Director Commonwealth Solar Observatory Department for the Interior 1923-1929

Professor Sir John C. ECCLES Department of Physiology Australian National University from 1951 President Australian Academy of Science 1957-1961

Olin J. EGGEN University California 1948 Mt Wilson and Palomar Observatories 1961-1963 1965-1966 Royal Greenwich Observatory 1956-1961 Chief Assistant to the Astronomer Royal of England 1963-1965 Director Mt Stromlo Observatory 1966-?

Professor Sir A. Hugh ENNOR Bioc he mis try Institute of Advanced Studies Australian National University from 1948 188

Dean John Curtin School of Medicine Australian National University from 1953 Treasurer Australian Academy of Science 1963 Deputy Vice Chancellor Australian National University from 1964 Secretary Department of Science c. 1973-1977 AAT Board January 1973-0ctober 1977

Professor F. J. FENNER Microbiology Australian National University from 1949 Secretary Biological Sciences Australian Academy of Science c. 1960

Sir Howard W. FLOREY later Lord President Royal Society of London November 1960-November 1965

Dr W. L. FRANCIS UK Department of Scientific and Industrial Research c. 1964 Secretary (?) UK Science Research Council c. 1966

Malcolm FRASER Minister for Science and Education c. 1972

S. C. B. GASCOIGNE Assistant Director (Research) Mt Stromlo Observatory Australian National University from 1960 189

Senator the Honourable John GORTON Minister-in-Charge Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research 1965-1967(?) Minister of Education and Science from 1967

Sir Cyril HINSHELWOOD President Royal Society of London November 1955-November 1960

Arthur R. HOGG Deputy Director (Administration) Mt Stromlo Observatory Australian National University from 1961 Convener National Committee on Astronomy Australian Academy of Science c. 1961

Professor W. V. D. HODGE Secretary Royal Society of London c. 1960

Professor Fred HOYLE Plumian Professor of Astronomy & Ex perimental Philosophy Cambridge University c. 1967 Member of the Astronomy, Space and Radio Board UK Science Research Council c. September 1967 Chair Astronomy Policy and Grants Committee c. September 1967

Professor Leonard G. H. HUXLEY Vice-Chancellor Australian National University from 1960 190

Secretary Physical Sciences Australian Academy of Science c. 1960

P. J. LAWLER 1st Assistant Secretary Department of the Prime Minister from 1962

D. C. HARTIN Executive Secretary Royal Society of London c. 1964

Sir Leslie MARTIN Professor of Physics University of Melbourne from 1959 University Grants Commission c. 1961

Sir Harrie W.S. HASSEY Chairman British National Committee for Space Research c. 1959 Quain Professor of Physics University of London c. 1961 UK Department of Scientific and Industrial Research Research Grants Committee Royal Society of London Council 1959-60 Chairman Council for Scientific Policy 19·65-?

Sir Harry W. MELVILLE Secretary UK Department of Science and Industrial Research

Chairman UK Science and Research Council c. 1965 191

Sir Robert Gordon MENZIES Prime Minister 1949-1966

Bill MORRISON Minister for Science 1972-1975(?)

Professor Sir Harcus OLIPHANT Research School of Physical Sciences Australian National University from 1950

J. L. PAWSEY Assistant Chief Division of Radiophysics Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Chairman National Committee on Astronomy Australian Academy of Science c. 1961

Professor R. O. REDMAN Professor of Astrophysics and Director of Observatories University of Cambridge c. 1963-1970 UK National Committee on Astronomy c. 1960s UK representative to the European Southern Observatory c. 1961-1963

Professor Thorburn Brialsford ROBERTSON Chief Division of Animal Nutrition Council for Scientific and Industrial Research late 1920s

Professor J. W. RODERICK Challis Professor of Civil Engineering University of Sydney from 1951 Secretary Physical Sciences Australian Academy of Sci~nce c. 1963 192

Dr A. W. RODGERS Mt Stromlo Observatory Australian National University involved in Australian Academy of Science c. 1963

Margaret THATCHER UK Minister for Science and Education c. 1972

Sir Fred W. G. WHITE Chief Executive Officer Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization c. 1956 Board of Visitors Commonwealth Observatory Mt Stromlo c. 195?-1956 Chairman Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Re search Organization from 1959

Albert WHITFORD Director Lick Observatory University of California USA 1966

Harley Weston WOOD Assistant, Sydney Observatory 1936-1943 Government Astronomer of NSW Sydney Observatory 1943-1979(?) 193

Sir Richard van der Riet WOOLLEY Director Commonwealth Solar Observatory Department for the Interior 1939-1956 Astronomer Royal of England 1956-1971 UK National Committee on Astronomy UK representative to the European Southern Observator y c. 1961-1963

.. " 194

APPENDIX II PROMINENT COMMITTEES

These membership lists are guides to some of the prominent committees involved in the Anglo-Australian Telescope during its establishment debate. Their composition was generally in a state of flux so some uncertainty is inherent in this information.

AUSTRALIA. Australian National Committee on Astronomy Australian Academy of Science c . 1961 Dr J. L. Pawsey CSIRO Dr J. P. Wild CSIRO Dr B. Y. Mills University of Sydney Mr H. w. Wood Sydney Observatory Mr Spigl (?)

Standing Committee on a Large Optical Telescope Australian Academy of Scienc~ Aug 1963-May 1964 Professor B. J. Bok ANU (Mt Stromlo) Dr J. Bolton CSIRO (Radiophysics) Professor T. M. Cherry AAS (President ) Professor Christiansen CSIRO (Radiophysics?) Professor A. H. Ennor AAS (Treasurer) Dr S. C. B. Gascoigne ANU {Mt Stromlo) Professor L. G. H. Huxley ANU (Vice Chancellor) Dr B. Y. Mills Univ. of Sydney (Phy.) Professor Sir Marcus Oliphant ANU (Physical Science ) Professor Roderick AAS (Physical Science) Dr Waterhouse (?) Mr H. W. Wood Sydney Observatory

Sub-Committee (Scientific justification) Dr J. Bolton Professor Christiansen Professor Roderick Dr B. Y. Mills Mr H. W. Wood Professor A. H. Ennor was nominated to have input as an 'intelligent layman'

Sub-Committee (Site Testing) Dr A. R. Hogg (Convener) Dr Giovanelli Dr Priestly or Mr Swinbank Mr H. W. Wood 195

Large Telescope Committee Australian Academy of Science May 1964-? Professor T. M. Cherry AAS (President) Professor B. J. Bok ANU (Mt Stromlo) Dr J. Bowen CSIRO (Radiophysics) Professor L. G. H. Huxley ANU (Vice Chancellor) Dr Rees ( ? ) Professor Roderick AAS (Physical Sc.) Dr Waterhouse ( ? ) Sir Frederick White CSIRO (Chairman)

Sub-Committee (Site Testing) (Re-appointed) Dr A. R. Hogg (Convener) Dr Giovanelli (Deputy Convener) Dr A. W. Rodgers Mr Swinbank Mr H. W. Wood

Sub-Committee (Technical) Professor B. J. Bok (Convener) Dr S. C. B. Gascoigne Dr J. Bolton Mr H. Wehner

UNITED KINGDOM. Joint Committee on the Southern Hemisphere Telescope Royal Society of London and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research c. 1964 Sir Howard Florey (Chair) Sir William Hodge (Physical Secretary, RSL) Sir Richard Woolley (Astronomer Royal) Professor D. E. Blackwell (University of Oxford) Professor H. Bondi (University of London) Professor H. A. Bruck (?) Dr W. L. Francis (DSIR) Dr J. S. Hey (?) Professor F. Hoyle (University of Cambridge) Professor W. H. McCrea (?) Professor J. D. McGee (?) Sir Harrie Massey (University of London) Sir Harry Melville ( SRC) Professor R. O. Redman (University of Cambridge) Professor M. Ryle (?) 196

British astronomy delegation to Australia June-July 1964 Sir Richard Woolley (Astron. Royal) Professor R. O. Redman (University of Cambridge) Dr A. Hunter (?) J. D. Pope (?) Dr W.L. Francis (DSIR)

AUSTRALIA-UK Joint Policy Committee 1967-1971 Australian Membership Professor O. J. Eggen Director Mt. Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatories Australian National University Dr E. G. Bowen Chief Division of Radiophysics CSIRO

K. N. Jones First Assistant Secretary Department of Education and Science UK Membership Sir Richard Woolley Astronomer Royal of England Professor Fred Hoyle Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy Cambridge University J. F. Hosie Director Astronomy, Space and Radio Division SRC

Note: Hoyle replaced Professor Hermann Bondi after the first meeting. Bondi was appointed Director-General of the European Space Research Organization.) Meetings 15-18 Aug 1967 London 21-26 Mar 1968 Canberra 11-14 Mar 1969 Canberra 6-10 Oct 1969 Canberra 23-26 Mar 1970 Canberra 3-5 Aug 1970 London 22 Feb 1971 Canberra 197

ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN TELESCOPE BOARD 1970-1972 Same as the JPC membership. For later membership see the AAT annual reports.

Meetings 1971-1974 22 Feb 1971 Canberra 23-27 Aug 1971 London 21-25 Feb 1972 Canberra 27-29 Apr 1972 La Jolla, California 9-11 Jul 1973 London 27 Aug 1973 Sydney 23-26 Nov 1973 Canberra 8-10 Apr 1974 Canberra 198

APPENDIX III KEY EVENTS IN THE HISTORY OF THE LARGE OPTICAL TELESCOPE 1950-1974

DATE EVENT

1950s General discussion amongst professional astronomers in Australia on a large optical telescope. 1953 First meeting of countries interested in the European Southern Observatory (ESO) project. 1957 Bok becomes director of Mt Stromlo Observatory.

1957-59 Yale-Columbia Universities site survey. Jul 1959 From the UK, Woolley lobbies influential Australian scientists and bureaucrats on the idea of a British Commonwealth Southern Observatory (BCSO). Feb 1960 Academy Council expresses concern that telescope funding would throw Australian scientific development out of balance. Mar 1960 Academy Council scientifically endorses the BCSO concept. Formal protest by biologists against further large funding of the physical sciences. Aug 1960 Academy sets up Flora and Fauna Committee. Feb 1961 The Academy's Australian National Committee on Astronomy passes a resolution supporting a BCSO. Mar 1961 UK Government seeks the views of a number of Commonwealth countries on their possible involvement in a BCSO. Australian National University (ANU) begins to address the issue of acquiring land outside the Australian Capital Territory for astronomical purposes. Flora and Fauna Committee finalises its report to the Academy Council on biological science in Australia. 199

Apr 1961 Academy Council endorses Flora and Fauna Committee report. Bok meets seven British scientists and government officials in London to d iscuss the proposed BCSO.

Jun 1961 UK Government again seeks response from Australian Government on the proposed BCSO.

Ju 1 1961 The Academy's Australian National Committee on Astronomy advises Council on the merits of a BCSO.

Sep 1961 Academy Council issues an official statement about the BCSO scheme.

Oct 1961 Council recommends to Government major support of biological projects.

Mar 1962 UK Government decides not to participate in the ESQ project. Concludes that there is little international support for a BCSO.

Apr 1962 UK Government once again seeks views of Australian Government on a large telescope project. This time a joint Australia-UK venture is proposed. May 1962 Australian Government decides not to support a joint Australia-UK project. Aug 1962 Bok delivers provocative ANZAAS speech. Sep 1962 Bok and Cherry confrontation over the ANZAAS address.

Jan 1963 Some interest from the Australian Government in a telescope project. Possible US involvement on the agenda. Mar 1963 Meeting in Australia of leading scientists and bureaucrats with British officials on telescope proposals. Unanimous agreement expressed on the scientific necessity f or a large optical telescope. Plans made t o promote telescope concept. Consideration given to US participation.

Mar-May 1963 Federal Parliament 'debates' ANU amendment bill. Proposal for a large optical telescope gets bi-partisan support. 200

May 1963 UK DSIR Astronomy Sub-committee makes £10 000 grant to Woolley for a telescope design study. Jun 1963 Academy Council, on advice from Oliphant, establishes the Standing Committee on a Large Optical Telescope to oversee developments. Aug 1963 First meeting of Standing Committee. First preference for an all Australian telescope expressed ahead of a Commonwealth (effectively Australia-UK) venture and an alternative project involving USA. Steps taken to alter Council's past resistance to telescope. Sep-Oct 1963 Mt Stromlo scientists (Bok and Rodgers) visit US on fact finding miss ion before proceeding to UK for a series of meetings on the telescope. Oct 1963 Royal Society of London establishes a telescope committee. Standing Committee prepares a draft submission on a telescope for Council and the Australian Government. Dec 1963 Standing Committee submits paper to Council recommending proceeding with joint Australia-UK telescope. Council claimed it is too early to submit the report to Government since no exchange has occurred with Royal Society and documented cost estimates are lacking. Jan 1964 Royal Society proposes establishment of joint committee with the UK DSIR to coordinate project. Mar 1964 Academy Council replaces its Standing Committee with the Large Telescope Committee which has greater representation from various institutions interested in astronomy.

UK DSIR grants c:!100 000 to fund a UK astronomy delegation to Australia. May 1964 First meeting of Large Telescope Committee resolves that negotiations be conducted on the assumption of a joint, equally shared Australia-UK project. 201

Jun-Jul 1964 UK astronomy delegation visits Austral i a. Joint paper for submission to Counc ils of Academy and Royal Society prepared . Effectively the first comprehensive paper on the project. Aug 1964 British assessment of possible US participation produces a negative conclusion. Academy Treasurer urges f urther examination of tri-partite Australia-UK- USA project. Academy Council endorses joint paper produced by Australia-UK meetings in Ju ne and July 1964. Oct 1964 Royal Society Council generally approves content of joint paper. However, i t requires amendments and agreement to these by the Academy. Mar 1965 Academy Council informs Royal Society Council that it had been unable to ag ree to amendments. Apr 1965 Australian National University officially opens its Siding Spring Observatory. Academy Council approves amendmen ts t o joint paper. Questions in Australian Parliament regarding UK and USA participation in t he telescope project. Apr-May 1965 Further confrontation between Bok and Cherry. Jun 1965 Simultaneous submissions to Australian and UK Governments ad voe at ing a j oint telescope project.

Oct 1965 Gorton requests Academy assessment o f Australian science funding priorities.

Nov 1965 Bowen (Director, CSIRO) sent by Austral i an Government on exploratory tour of USA t o assess potential US involvement.

Mar-Apr 1966 Possible US involvement in telescope discussed by interested parties.

Jun-Ju 1 1966 Intensive lobbying by British to kee p Australia-UK project on the Austra lian Government agenda. 202

Jul 1966 Bok retires as Director of Mt Stromlo. Eggen soon becomes Director. Aug 1966 Whitford (Lick Observatory, USA) visits Australia to discuss possible US collaboration on telescope. Oct 1966 Francis (UK SRC) visits Australia to lobby for UK involvement in telescope. c.Dec 1966 UK SRC Astronomy, Space and Radio Board requests definite reply from Australian Government on status of proposed Australia-UK project. c.Jan 1967 Gorton indicates to Bowen (CSIRO) and Huxley (ANU) that Australia-UK project has his support. Mar 1967 UK SRC Astronomy, Space and Radio Board's APGC canvasses alternative telescope options in case the Australia-UK project falls through. Apr 1967 Having decided to support Australia-UK project, the Australian Government drafts an agreement with the British. It is signed by the end of the month. May 1967 Formation of bi-national Joint Policy Committee (JPC) to oversee design, manufacture, erection and administrative arrangements of the telescope.

Aug 1967 First JPC meeting. Sep 1967 Finalisation of legal status of JPC. Jan 1968 Project Office established by JPC to oversee day-to-day telescope construction. Sep 1969 Signing of intergovernment agreement to establish the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board.

1970-73 Continuing debate between Australian and British camps on the issue of telescope control.

Feb 1970 Disputes between Australia and UK on the tendering arrangements for aspects of the telescope.

Sep 1970 Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act passes through Australian Parliament and receives Royal assent. 203

Feb 1971 Proclamation of the 1970 Ang lo-Aus tra 1 ian Telescope Agreement Act. JPC disbanded and Anglo~Australian Telescope Board (AATB) formed to administer the telescope's operation. Feb 1972 Fraser aligns himself with the advocates of ANU control of the telescope, directly in opposition to the British who wanted an independent institute. late 1972 Telescope building and dome complete. Apr 1974 First photograph taken at prime focus. Oct 1974 Inauguration of Anglo-Australian Telescope. 204

BIBLIOGRAPHY 205

BIBLIOGRAPHY MANUSCRIPTS

Manuscripts are referred to in the 'Notes and References' section of each chapter by an abbreviation in square brackets. Thus, for example, [Academy] means the item referenced is on file in the Australian Academy of Science.

ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN OBSERVATORY FILES Press Clippings file, late 1974 - early 1975. Un-numbered file marked 'CONFIDENTIAL' (Dome and mount tenders; British proposals to cut costs) 67/2544 1, Anglo-Australian Telescope Staff, Letters etc, August 1967 - 21 November 1967 67/2544 2, Anglo-Australian Telescope Staff 14 November 1967 - July 1969

AUSTRALIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE PAPERS Australian Academy of Science Southern Telescope Files 1039-1044, SI20 1039 21 Dec 1959 - 22 May 1962 1040 21 Aug 1962 - 9 Jan 1963 1041 21 May 1963 - 1 Jul 1964 1042 1 Jul 1964 - 30 Mar 1965 1043 1 Apr 1965 - 10 May 1967 1044 1963 - 1964

Australian Academy of Science Year Books 1956-1970.

Notes by Professor A.H. Ennor taken during first meeting of Large Telescope Committee, 29 August 1963.

Large Optical Telescope, Possible Forms of Administrative Organization, 29 May 1964, AC 10/64. 206

Minutes: Standing Committee on a Large Optical Telescope 29 Aug 1963 AC 9/63 29 Oct 1963 AC 15/63 Large Optical Telescope Committee 1 May 1964 AC 8/64 16 Mar 1965 AC 3/65

Minutes Large Reflector Sub-Committee on Site Testing 4 March 1964 (Sydney Observatory).

A Search for Potential Observatory Sites in Australia, July 1961, (Possibly Academy or Mt Stromlo).

Reports: Report for Large Telescope Committee, Site Testing Proposals for 1964 [includes summary of site testing results (1958-1963), AST/63/308.

Reports on 16 September-1 October 1963 visit to · USA. by Bok and Rodgers: Report I Lick Observatory AST/63/28 3 Report II Pasadena AST/63/284 Report III Tuscon (24-30 Sep 1963) AST/63/293

Reports on 3-11 October 1963 visit to UK by Bok and Rodgers: Report om Discussions Held in the UK 3-11 October 1963 and Related Visit to USA. (16 September-1 October 1963) by Bok and Rodgers [with appendices I-VII] AST/63/300 .

Submissions First draft submission to the Prime Minister on the 'Proposed 150" Telescope in Aus tra 1 ia', 1O March 1965, (AC 4/65). Second draft submission to the Prime Minister on the 'Proposed 150" Telescope in Australia', 22 March 1965, (AC 7/65). 207

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY MS 1618 (Manuscript File, National Library). Minutes ANU 58th Meeting of Council 10 March 1961. Minutes ANU 66th Meeting of Council 1 3 Ju 1 y 196 2. ANU Standing Committee, Attachments to Agenda 9 February 1962. Australian Academy Flora and Fauna Committee report.

BOK, Bart J. 'The Future of Astronomy in Australia', * original transcript of section 4 of the actual speech [Academy file 1040] * also revised draft submitted to the Academy on 17 October 1962 [Academy file 1040].

BOK, B.J., 'Recollection by Bart J. Bok on the early days of the AAT when the Australian Academy tried to slow down the march', dated 8 September 1978, [Anglo-Australian Observatory Library folder R 520.18 S1]. BOK and BOND'!, 'Report on a Visit Paid by Bok and Bondi to Mr P.J. Lawler of the Prime Minister's Department . Subject of Discussion: The Present and Future Status of Proposals for a British Commonweal th Southern Observatory', (Canberra, 11 January 1963), [Mt Stromlo AST/63/12]. BOK and RODGERS, Reports on 16 Septemb er-1 October 1963 visit to USA. by Bok and Rodgers: Report I Lick Observatory AST/63/283 Report II Pasadena AST/63/284 Report III Tuscon (24-30 Sep 1963) AST/63/293 Reports on 3-11 October 1963 visit to UK by Bok and Rodgers: Report om Discussions Held in the UK 3-11 October 1963 and Related Visit to USA. (16 September-1 October 1963) by Bok . and Rodgers AST/63/300. Commonwealth Solar Observatory Inspection report July 1937, [CSIRO, S4 CZ/226/6 Part 2]. 208

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RES EA RC H ORGANIZATION ARCHIVES CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Executive Minutes [CSIRO, S467] 22 Feb 1951 13 May 1952

CSIR (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research) Executive Minutes [CSIRO, Series 28] 29 Jul 1926 22 Nov 1926 9 Dec 1926 30 Mar 1927

ENNOR, A. H., Notes taken during first meeting of Large Telescope Committee 29 August 1963, [Academy file 1044]. GASCOIGNE, S. C. B., Australian Astronomy Since World Wa r Two, dated April 1986. JOHNSTON, Ron and BUCKLEY, Jean, Science and Politics 1944-1988, c. June 1987. MOUNT STROM LO OBSERVATORY (Australian National University) Official papers emanating from the Mt Stromlo Observatory are annotated with the abbreviation 'AST' which seems to mean the Australian Southern Telescope. Two examples found on Academy files follow: Proposed Large Reflector for the Southern Hemisphere, Informal Meeting, Herstmonceux Castle, UK, 3-4 October 1963, AST/63/297. Percentage Frequency of Occurrence of Zero Cloud 9 p.m. January 1960-December 1963, AST/65/27.

Annual Report 1966 14 Jan (draft version) 7 Feb (edited draft version)

A Search for Potential Observatory Sites in Australia, July 1961, (Possibly Academy or Mt Stromlo). ROBERTSON, Thorburn Brailsford, 'Comments and Notes on Australia's international obligations in astronomy' c. 1929 and related background biography etc., [CSIRO, S25]. 209

PUBLISHED MATERIAL

ALLEN, D., 'Journey to Coona', pp. 9-11, QUEST, House Journal of the Science Research Council, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1976 (SRC, London, 1976). The Anglo-Australian Telescope, Achievements and Future Prospects, (AAT Board, Canberra, June 1980). Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act 1979 (Australia), No. 57 of 1970 and amendments under the

Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act 1971, No. 51 of 1971 and the Statute Law Revision Act 1973, No. 216 of 1973.

ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN TELESCOPE BOARD Annual Reports - Joint Policy Committee JPC 1 SEP 1967 - 30 Jun 1970 . JPC 1 JUL 1970 - 22 FEB 1971 thence AATB 22 FEB 1971 - 30 JUN 1971. Annual Reports - Anglo-Australian Telescope Board 1971-1972 to1982-1983 inclusive. Technical Reports No. 1, June 1967 (GASCOIGNE,. POPE, REDMA N, WEHNER). No. 3, March 1968 (REDMAN, R. 0. and WEHNER).

Anglo-Australian Telescope Board User's Manual,Second Edition, (Project Office, 3 May 1974). The Anglo-Australian 3.9m Telescope, AAT Board, October 1974, (Australian Department of Science, Canberra, 1974). The Australia Telescope, Statement of Evidence to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, prepared by CSIRO, c. 1983/4. 210

AUSTRALIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE National Scientific Activities: Physical Sciences, 'The Anglo-Australian Telescope Project', The Australian Academy of Science, The First Twenty Five Years, pp.47-54.

Yearbooks 1956-1970 AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY (also see Mount Stromlo Observatory) ANU Annual Report 1960 BERRY, A., A Short History of Astronomy (1961). BOK, Bart J. 'A Search for New Observatory Sites in Australia', The Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Vol 54, No.6, December 1960, pp.257-268. BOK, Bart Jan : memorial articles See Mercury, Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol. XIII, No.2, March-April 1984. BOK, Bart J. 'The Future of Astronomy in Australia', Th e Australian Journal of Science, pp. 281-288, Vol.25 , January 1963. BOK, B.J., Mount Stromlo Observatory, Draft of an article for Hemisphere, 7 January 1966. BOK, B.J., 'Proposed British Commonwealth Southern Observatory', Australian Journal of Science, pp. 6-7, Vol.26, No. 1, 1963. BRANAGAN, D. and HOLLAND, G. (eds.), Ever Reaping Something New. A Science Centenary, (Science Centenary Committee, University of Sydney, 1985). BRODA, J., Astronomy, Cosmo vision and Ideology in Pre­ Hispanic Meso-America (1978). BULLARD, E., 'The Effects of W.W. 2 on the Development of Knowledge in the Physical Sciences', Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, A, cccxlii 1975, pp. 519-536. BUSCOMBE, William, 'Research at the Mount Stromlo Observatory', Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 1958, Volume 52.

CHARON, Jean, Cosmology [Translated from the French by Patrick Moore] (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970).

1 CSIRO and Astronomy', CSIRO Information Service Leaflet No. 2, January 1978. 211

DANIELS, G.H. 'The Pure Science Ideal and Democratic Culture, Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Vol. 156, June 1967, pp. 1669- 1705. DAVIES, Susan, 'R. v.d. R. Woolley in Australia', Historical Records of Australian Science, 6, 1, (Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, 1984), pp . 59- 69. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE Annual Reports 1967 - 1968 to 1971-1972 inclusive. DeVORKIN, David H., 'The Maintenance of a Scientific Institution: Otto Struve, The Yerkes Observatory, and i ts Optical Bureau during the Second World War', Minerva, Vol.18, 1980, pp.595-623. DOUGLAS, MarY, Natural Symbols; Explorations in Cosmology , (The Crescent Press, Barrie and Rockliff, London, 1970), (Reprinted Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1973). EDGE, David, 'The Sociology of Innovation in Modern Astronomy' , Quarterly Journal of the Roya 1 Astronomical Society, Vol. 18, 1977: 329. EDGE, D. O. and MULKAY, M. J., Astronomy Transformed, (Wiley Interscience, New York, 1976). ELIAS, MARTINS AND WHITELY (eds) , Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies, (D. Reidel Publishing, Dordrecht, 1982). EXPERT SUB-COMMITTEE, REPORT, 'Review of Observatories', Commonwealth of Australia 1978, (AGPS, Canberra, 1978). GASCOIGNE, S. C. B., 'An Observer's-Eye View of the Anglo-Australian Telescope', Proceedings A.S.A., Vol. 2 (6), October 1975, Reprint. GASCOIGNE, S. C. B., 'Bart Bok at Mount Stromlo', Mercury, Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, XIII, 2, March-April 1984, pp. 45-47. GASCOIGNE, S. C. B., 'The Anglo-Australian Telescope', reprint from Endeavour, Vol XXXIV, No.123, September 1975. GASCOIGNE, S. C. B., 'Some Recent Advances in the Optics of Large Telescopes', Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, pp. 98-115, 9, 1968. GASCOIGNE, S. C. B., 'Towards a Southern Commonwealth Observatory', Nature, 197, 30 March 1963, pp. 1240-1241. 212

GASCOIGNE, POPE, REDMAN, WEHNER, Anglo-Australian Telescope, Technical Report No. 1, June 1967. GI LL I NG HAM , P • R • , ' As tr on om er s ' Fa c i 1 i ties on the 150- Inch Anglo-Australian Telescope', Invited Papers, Proceedings ASA, Vol. 2 (3), October 1972. HANSARD, Australia, House of Representatives, 28 March 1963, pp. 159-160; 10 April 1963, pp. 579-592, Australian National University Bill 1963. HANSARD, Australian Senate, 8 May 1963, pp. 332-335, Australian National University Bill 1963. HARWIT, Martin, Cosmic Discovery, The Search, Scope and Heritage of Astronomy (Harvester Press, Sussex, 1981). HOYLE, F., The Anglo-Australian Telescope, (University College Cardiff Press, Cardiff, 1982). HOYLE, Fred, 'The Anglo-Australian Telescope', Astrophysics and Relativity, Preprint series, No. 71, August 1981. JOHNSTON, R., 'Contextual Knowledge', Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, Vol. 12, pp. 193-203. KENNEDY, P. M., 'Siding Spring Observatory', The Journal, Astronomical Society of Victoria, pp. 12-17, February 1965. KING, H. C., The History of the Telescope. LOJKINE, A. K., The Mount Stromlo Observatory, Australian National University, Research School of Physical Sciences, (Mt Stromlo Observatory, Canberra, 11 July 1957). LOVE, Rosaleen, 'Science and government in Australia 1905-1914: Geoffrey Duffield and the foundation of the Commonwealth Solar Observatory' in Historical Records of Australian Science, 6, 2, (Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, 1985), pp. 171-188. LOVELL, A. c. B., 'The Effects of Defence Science on the Advance of Astronomy', Journal for the History of Astronomy, 8, 1977, 151:173. LOVELL, A. C. B., The Origins and International Economics of Space Exploration (University Press Edinburgh, Edinburgh, 1973). LOVELL, B., Man's Relation to the Universe, (1975, pp. 23-28, [an analysis and comparison with gross national expenditure by N.A.S.A. in the USA. in regard to spending on astronomy after Sputnik]. 213

LOVELL, Bernard, 'The Early History of the Anglo­ Australian 150-inch Telescope (AAT)', Quarterly Jou r nal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol 26, No.4, 1985, pp.393-455. MENDELSOHN, E., 'The Emergence of Science as a Profession in Nineteenth Century Europe', in K. Hill (ed.), The Management of Scientists, (Beacon Press, Boston, 1964), pp.3-48. MOUNT STROMLO OBSERVATORY (Department of the Interior) (Commonwealth Solar Observatory) Annual Report: 1955. MOUNT STROMLO OBSERVATORY (ANU) PUBLICATIONS Annual Reports: 1958, 1960-1968. MULKAY, Michael, Science and the Sociology of Knowledge , (George Allen and Unwin, London, 1985). MULKAY, M. J. and WILLIAMS, A. T., 'A Sociological Study of a Physics Department, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 22, pp. 68-82, 1971.

NEWSPAPERS *In Chronological Order* SYDNEY MORNING HERALD 'Reform Sought in F inane ing Research', (22 August 1962). CANBERRA TIMES 'Science Planning Here "Haphazard"', ( 22 August 1962). SYDNEY TELEGRAPH 'Plea for Govt. Science Body', ( 22 August 1962). MELBOURNE SUN 'Planning 'haphazard in science•, 22 August 1962). SYDNEY MORNING HERALD ''War' of the Telescopes, An Astronomer Throws a Stone at the Academy' by a Staff Correspondent. (Early and Late Editions, 22 Novemb er 1962). SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, Report, '120-in Telescope Urged For Southern Skies', (8 January 1963). 214

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, Editorial, 'Giant Telescope Needed Here', (9 January 1963).

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, Editorial, 'Telescopes, Small and Large', ( 3 February 1964).

ADELAIDE ADVERTISER, 'S .A. May Have Big Telescope', (1 May 1964).

BRISBANE TELEGRAPH, 'Aust. May Have Huge Telescope' , (1 May 1964).

HOBART MERCURY, 'Scientists Plan £_5 Mill. Telescope for Australia', (1May1964).

LAUNCESTON EXAMINER, 'Aust., UK Merge on Big Telescope Plan', (1 May 1964).

MEL B0 UR N E SUN , ' P 1 an f o r t,5 m • Te 1 es c ope ' ( 1 Ma y 1 9 6 4 ) •

PERTH WEST AUSTRALIAN, 'W.A. Site May Be Picked for Observatory', ( 1 May 1964).

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 'Scientists in New Move for Telescope', (1 May 1964).

AUSTRALIAN, ''Threat to Astronomy', Where is that big 1 telescope ? , 30 January 1965.

CANBERRA TIMES, 'Telescope Delay Criticised', 5 March 1965.

MELBOURNE HERALD, 'Questions in the House', 27 April 1965.

CANBERRA TIMES, 'Telescope ••• ', 28 April 1965.

MELBOURNE AGE, Reports on the question in the House, 28 April 1965.

SYDNEY TELEGRAPH, Reports on the question in the House, 28 April 1965.

MELBOURNE AGE, More publicity about the need for a large telescope, 1 May 1965.

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 'New Telescope', 1 May 1965.

MELBOURNE HERALD, More publicity about the need for a large telescope, 9 June 1965.

AUSTRALIAN, report on the forthcoming telescope submissions to Australian and UK Governments. Bok to retire in July 1966, 18 June 1965.

CANBERRA TIMES, 'Telescope decision delay', 8 July 1965. 215

AUSTRALIAN, 'Big 'Scope an Urgent Need - Bok Speaks Out' , 22 November 1965.

CANBERRA TIMES, 'Telescope', 14 October 1966. MELBOURNE AGE, 'Telescope' , 14 October 1966.

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, '$22m Telescope', 14 October 1966.

CANBERRA TIMES, 'Talks soon on new telescope', 20 October 1966.

MELBOURNE SUN, 'Big telescope plan: Nations seek share', 20 October 1966.

AUSTRALIAN, 'UK offers $5m to build telescope', 26 October 1966.

CANBERRA TIMES, 'Three may share big telescope', 26 October 1966.

SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 'Siding Spring reaches for the stars, A 14 year battle is won and Australia gets an •eye' on space', 2 May 1967.

CANBERRA TIMES, 'An eye for the universe', 4 May 1967 .

PANNEKOEK, A., A History of Astronomy (1961).

PLAYFORD, J. and KIRSNER, D., (eds.), Australian Capitalism, Towards a Socialist Critique, (Pengu in, Harmondsworth, 1977).

RAVETZ, J.R._, Scientific Knowledge and its Socia l Problems, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1971 ~ reprinted 1972). REDMAN, R. o. and WEHNER, Anglo-Australian Telescope, Technical Report No. 3, March 1968.

RODGERS, A. W., Interim Report on Site Testing in Australia, June 3rd, 1964, [AST/64/116].

RONAYNE, Jarlath, Science in Government, (1984).

ROSE and ROSE, The Political Economy of Science (1976).

ROSENBURG Robert, American Physics and the Origins of Electrical Engineering, Physics Today, The American Institute of Physics, Vol. 36, No. 10, Oct 1983, pp.48- 54. 216

ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY PUBLICATIONS Monthly Notices of R.A.S. Vol. 116, No. 2, 1956 Vol. 117, No. 3, 1957 Vol. 118, No. 4, 1958 Vol. 119, No. 4, 1959.

Quarterl:t Journal of R.A.S. Vol. 1 ' No. 2, 1960 Vol. 2' No. 3' 1961 Vol. 3, No. 3, 1962 Vol. 4' No. 2, 1963 Vol. 5, No. 3' 1964 Vol. 6, No. 2, 1965 Vol. 7, No. 1 , 1966. EDGE, David, 'The Sociology of Innovation in Modern Astronomy', Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 18, 1977: 329. STARK, W., The Sociolog:t of Knowledge. STEBBINS, R. A., 'Amateur and Professional Astronomers - A Study of their Interrelationships', Urban Life, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 433-454, 1982 (Sage Publishing , California). STRUVE, O. and ZEBERGS, V., Astronomy of the 20th Century. SULLIVAN, W. T., (ed.) The Early Years of Radio Astronomy, Cambridge University Press, 1984. US NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, 'Ground Based Astronomy a Ten Year Program', A report prepared by the Panel on Astronomical Facilities for the Committee on Science and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences (US National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, Washington, 1964). WALLACE, P. T., Telescope Pointing Investigations at the Anglo-Australian Observatory, (AAO, 25 September 1979). WAMPLER, E. J., 'The 153-Inch Anglo-Australian Telescope', Sky and Telescope, October 1975. WAMPLER, E. J. and MORTON D. C. , 'The Anglo-Australian Telescope' , (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1977), reprinted from Vistas in Astronomy, Vol. 21, Issue 3, pp. 191-207, 1977. WARNER, B. , 'The Large Southern Telescope: Cape or Melbourne?', Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol 23, pp.505-514, 1982. 217

WILLIAMS, Neville, 'A Visit to Siding Spring', Reprint from Electronics Australia, June 1977 issue.

WOOD, Harley, Sydney Observatory 1858 to 1958, Sydney Observatory Papers No. 31., (NSW Government Printer, Sydney, 1958).

WOOLLEY, R. , 'Mt Stromlo Observatory' , Records of the Australian Academy of Science, 1 (3), 1968.

WOOLLEY, Richard, 'The Stars in Their Courses , Building a 150-inch telescope in Australia', Bulletin , 8 August 1964.