DOCSLIB.ORG

William T. Golden October 1950 – April 1951

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
William T. Golden October 1950 – April 1951 Impacts of the Early Cold War on the Formulation of U.S. Science Policy Selected Memoranda of William T. Golden October 1950 – April 1951 Edited with an Appreciation by William A. Blanpied Foreward by Neal Lane Copyright © 1995, 2000 American Association for the Advancement of Science 1200 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005 The findings, conclusions, and opinions stated or implied in this publication are those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Directors, Council, or membership of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. William T. Golden Contents Contents Foreword....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Preface ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................ 7 A Brief Biography ........................................................................................................................................ 8 William T. Golden’s Chronicle of an Era: An Appreciation ....................................................................... 9 Decision Memorandum F.J. Lawton, Decision Memorandum for the President, October 19, 1950................................................ 34 Conversations: 1950 Herman Spoehr and Walter Rudolph, October 20...................................................................................... 36 Vannevar Bush, October 24........................................................................................................................ 38 Lee DuBridge, James Killian, and Irvin Stewart, October 25.................................................................... 42 Kenneth Pitzer, November 1 ...................................................................................................................... 44 I. I. Rabi, November 16 .............................................................................................................................. 46 Detlev Bronk, November 22....................................................................................................................... 48 Alan T. Waterman, November 29............................................................................................................... 51 Vannevar Bush, December 5 ...................................................................................................................... 52 Lee DuBridge, December 13 ...................................................................................................................... 54 James B. Conant, December 14.................................................................................................................. 55 Leslie Groves, December 17 ...................................................................................................................... 58 James Killian, December 19....................................................................................................................... 60 Theodore von Karman, December 21......................................................................................................... 62 J. Robert Oppenheimer, Robert Bacher, and Charles Lauritsen, December 21 ......................................... 64 Conversations: 1951 James Conant, Charles Stauffacher, Elmer Staats, and William Carey, January 5.................................... 68 I. I. Rabi, January 5..................................................................................................................................... 69 Lee DuBridge, January 8............................................................................................................................ 71 Lucius Clay, January 19 ............................................................................................................................. 73 Detlev Bronk, February 20 ......................................................................................................................... 74 Oliver E. Buckley, February 22.................................................................................................................. 75 J. Robert Oppenheimer, February 26.......................................................................................................... 76 Vannevar Bush, March 1............................................................................................................................ 78 J. Robert Oppenheimer, March 14 ............................................................................................................. 80 Oliver E. Buckley, March 22...................................................................................................................... 81 James Killian, March 24............................................................................................................................. 82 Oliver E. Buckley, April 8.......................................................................................................................... 83 Oliver E. Buckley and Charles Stauffacher, April 10 and 11 .................................................................... 84 2 William T. Golden Contents Memoranda Letter to the President, December 18, 1950 ............................................................................................... 87 Memorandum for the President- Mobilization of Science for War: A Scientific Adviser to the President, December 18, 1950........................................................... 88 Memorandum on Program for the National Science Foundation, February 15, 1951 ............................... 90 Letter from the President to Oliver E. Buckley, April 19, 1951 ................................................................ 94 Appendices Dramatis Personae ...................................................................................................................................... 97 Notes on Selection of Memoranda ........................................................................................................... 104 Repositories .............................................................................................................................................. 105 Glossary of Abbreviations........................................................................................................................ 105 Chronologies: May 1950 to April 1951.................................................................................................... 106 Persons Consulted by William T. Golden, with Dates of Conversations................................................. 109 3 William T. Golden Forward Foreword Marquis’ Who’s Who refers to William T. Golden simply as “Trustee.” First and foremost, he has been and remains a trustee for science. As Who’s Who goes on to note, Bill has served, or is currently serving, on the boards of such institutions as the American Museum of Natural History and Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. He is a recent president of the New York Academy of Sciences, a cochair (with Joshua Lederberg) of the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government, and, of course, the perennial treasurer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The long-term character of that trusteeship is demonstrated by his role in helping to shape three important U.S. government science organizations: the Atomic Energy Commission (whose functions have now been largely absorbed by the Department of Energy), the presidential science advisory system and, of course, the National Science Foundation. On May 8, 1991, the National Science Board presented Bill with a one-of-a-kind citation for Sustained and Exemplary Contributions to Science Policy, which begins as follows: For his seminal leadership in the articulation and implementation of national science policy, and for his contributions to preserving the historical science policy record. As a White House consultant during the Korean conflict, he diligently advanced the concept that science advice is essential to governance at the presidential level. As a trusted confidant to both science and government, he helped determine the substance and direction of the newly established but still undefined National Science Foundation. As both student of, and contributor to, contemporary scientific affairs, he has provided, by means of three published volumes, a rich archive on the evolution of science policy for the benefit of future historians. The selection of memoranda in this volume, written 45 years ago, demonstrate that Bill’s sense of trusteeship extends to preservation of the historical record. We are fortunate in that respect, since the pains he took to record his activities at that time provide fascinating insights into a period of less than a year during which the National Science Foundation was activated, the first presidential science advisory system was created, and what we now sometimes call the Cold-War science policy model was firmly established. We are also fortunate that the AAAS, by arranging to publish this selection, has made these first hand insights available to a wide audience. Briefly: in September 1950, with the Korean War three months old and the threat of a
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DOCUMENT RESUME ED 266 C35 SE 046 420 International
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 266 C35 SE 046 420 TITLE International Cooperation in Science. Science Policy Study--Hearings Volume 7. Hearings before the Task Force on Science Policy of the Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives, Ninety-Ninth Congress, First Session (June 18, 19, 20, 27, 1985). No. 50. INSTITUTION Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C. House Committee on Science and Technology. PUB DATE 85 NOTE 1,147p.; Photographs and pages containing small and light print may not reproduce well. For related documents, see SE 046 411-413 and SE 046 419. PUB TYPE Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (09G) EDRS PRICE MF08/PC46 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Financial Support; Hearings; Higher Education; *International Cooperation; *International Programs; Mathematics; Physics; Policy Formation; *Program Content; Psychology; Research Needs; *Sciences; *Scientific Research; *Technology; Training IDENTIFIERS Congress 99th; *Science Policy; UNESCO ABSTRACT These hearings on international cooperation in science focused on three issues: (1) international cooperation in big science; (2) the impact of international cooperation on research priorities; and (3) coordination in management of international cooperative research. Witnesses presenting testimony and/or prepared statements were: Victor Weisskopf; Sandra D. Toye; Walter A. McDougall; Harold Jaffe; Herbert Friedman; Joseph C. Gavin, Jr.; H. Guyford Stever; Kenneth S. Pedersen; John P. McTague (accompanied by Wallace Kornack); Charles Horner (accompanied by Jack Blanchard); John F. Clarke; Eugene Skolnikoff; and Rans-Otto Wuster. Witnesses' questions and answers are also included. Two appendices are provided. The first is the record of the briefing of the task force staff by the American Association for the Advancement of Science Consortium of Affiliates for International Programs (with these participants: Richard D.
    [Show full text]
  • H. Guyford Stever 1916–2010
    NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES H. GUYFORD S TEVER 1 9 1 6 – 2 0 1 0 A Biographical Memoir by BY T. K E N N E TH F O W L E R Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences. Biographical Memoir COPYRIGHT 2010 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES WASHINGTON, D.C. H. GUYFORD STEVER October 24, 1916–April 9, 2010 BY T. KENNET H FOWLER FTER A DISTINGUISHED CAREER OF SERVICe in academia, govern- Ament, and industry, Guy Stever died on April 9, 2010, at his home in Gaithersburg, Maryland. He was 9. During 1965-1976, he served as president of Carnegie Tech, then Carnegie-Mellon University; director of the National Science Foundation; and science adviser to Presidents Nixon and Ford. He was a member of Section 1 of the National Academy of Sciences, elected in 197, having already been elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1965. He was awarded the National Medal of Science in 1991. I knew Guy best when I served with him on the Fusion Policy Advisory Committee of 1990, which played an important role in enabling Princeton finally to conduct experiments with tritium that yielded the first definitive demonstration of controlled fusion power, in 199. Guy was chair, a frequent role for him after his years in the White House. Just the year before, in 1989, he had completed a far more difficult assignment as chair of a panel overseeing booster-rocket redesign following the Challenger disaster.
    [Show full text]
  • Ira Sprague Bowen Papers, 1940-1973
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf2p300278 No online items Inventory of the Ira Sprague Bowen Papers, 1940-1973 Processed by Ronald S. Brashear; machine-readable finding aid created by Gabriela A. Montoya Manuscripts Department The Huntington Library 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2203 Fax: (626) 449-5720 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org/huntingtonlibrary.aspx?id=554 © 1998 The Huntington Library. All rights reserved. Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington Collection Inventory of the Ira Sprague 1 Bowen Papers, 1940-1973 Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington Collection Inventory of the Ira Sprague Bowen Paper, 1940-1973 The Huntington Library San Marino, California Contact Information Manuscripts Department The Huntington Library 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2203 Fax: (626) 449-5720 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org/huntingtonlibrary.aspx?id=554 Processed by: Ronald S. Brashear Encoded by: Gabriela A. Montoya © 1998 The Huntington Library. All rights reserved. Descriptive Summary Title: Ira Sprague Bowen Papers, Date (inclusive): 1940-1973 Creator: Bowen, Ira Sprague Extent: Approximately 29,000 pieces in 88 boxes Repository: The Huntington Library San Marino, California 91108 Language: English. Provenance Placed on permanent deposit in the Huntington Library by the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington Collection. This was done in 1989 as part of a letter of agreement (dated November 5, 1987) between the Huntington and the Carnegie Observatories. The papers have yet to be officially accessioned. Cataloging of the papers was completed in 1989 prior to their transfer to the Huntington.
    [Show full text]
  • Hugh L. Dryden's Career in Aviation and Space
    MONOGRAPHS IN AREROSPACE HISTORY #5 Hugh Dryden's Career Hugh L. Dryden's Career in Aviation and Space by Michael H. Gorn NASA History Office Code ZH NASA Headquarters Washington, DC 20546 Monographs in Aerospace History Number 5 1996 Hugh Dryden's Career Foreword This account of the life of Dr. Hugh Latimer Dryden is especially appropriate now. The NASA Hugh L. Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC) was named in his honor exactly 20 years ago. This year we also celebrate 50 years of flight research here. It is fitting that people associated with the Center, with NASA as a whole, and those outside of NASA who are interested in the history of aviation and space, be reminded of Hugh Dryden’s enormous contributions. Hugh Dryden was a research scientist of the highest order, an aeronautics pioneer, the Director of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), and then the first NASA Deputy Administra- tor. Dr. Hugh Dryden’s special relationship to the Dryden Flight Research Center goes far beyond its name. Among Hugh Dryden’s first actions after becoming the NACA’s Director of Research in September 1947, was to inform Walt Williams, the director of the flight research operation here in the desert, that the NACA Muroc organization, formed the previous year, would now become a permanent facility known as the NACA Muroc Flight Test Unit. Hugh Dryden strongly supported the flight research conducted here with the early rocket-powered aircraft. He represented the NACA on the interagency Research Airplane Committee that supervised the beginnings of the critically important X-15 research at the High Speed Flight Station.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Military Nuclear Strategy And
    The Development of Military Nuclear Strategy and Anglo-American Relations, 1939 – 1958 Submitted by: Geoffrey Charles Mallett Skinner to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History, July 2018 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. (Signature) ……………………………………………………………………………… 1 Abstract There was no special governmental partnership between Britain and America during the Second World War in atomic affairs. A recalibration is required that updates and amends the existing historiography in this respect. The wartime atomic relations of those countries were cooperative at the level of science and resources, but rarely that of the state. As soon as it became apparent that fission weaponry would be the main basis of future military power, America decided to gain exclusive control over the weapon. Britain could not replicate American resources and no assistance was offered to it by its conventional ally. America then created its own, closed, nuclear system and well before the 1946 Atomic Energy Act, the event which is typically seen by historians as the explanation of the fracturing of wartime atomic relations. Immediately after 1945 there was insufficient systemic force to create change in the consistent American policy of atomic monopoly. As fusion bombs introduced a new magnitude of risk, and as the nuclear world expanded and deepened, the systemic pressures grew.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright by Paul Harold Rubinson 2008
    Copyright by Paul Harold Rubinson 2008 The Dissertation Committee for Paul Harold Rubinson certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Containing Science: The U.S. National Security State and Scientists’ Challenge to Nuclear Weapons during the Cold War Committee: —————————————————— Mark A. Lawrence, Supervisor —————————————————— Francis J. Gavin —————————————————— Bruce J. Hunt —————————————————— David M. Oshinsky —————————————————— Michael B. Stoff Containing Science: The U.S. National Security State and Scientists’ Challenge to Nuclear Weapons during the Cold War by Paul Harold Rubinson, B.A.; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin August 2008 Acknowledgements Thanks first and foremost to Mark Lawrence for his guidance, support, and enthusiasm throughout this project. It would be impossible to overstate how essential his insight and mentoring have been to this dissertation and my career in general. Just as important has been his camaraderie, which made the researching and writing of this dissertation infinitely more rewarding. Thanks as well to Bruce Hunt for his support. Especially helpful was his incisive feedback, which both encouraged me to think through my ideas more thoroughly, and reined me in when my writing overshot my argument. I offer my sincerest gratitude to the Smith Richardson Foundation and Yale University International Security Studies for the Predoctoral Fellowship that allowed me to do the bulk of the writing of this dissertation. Thanks also to the Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy at Yale University, and John Gaddis and the incomparable Ann Carter-Drier at ISS.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2013.Pdf
    ATOMIC HERITAGE FOUNDATION Preserving & Interpreting Manhattan Project History & Legacy preserving history ANNUAL REPORT 2013 WHY WE SHOULD PRESERVE THE MANHATTAN PROJECT “The factories and bombs that Manhattan Project scientists, engineers, and workers built were physical objects that depended for their operation on physics, chemistry, metallurgy, and other nat- ural sciences, but their social reality - their meaning, if you will - was human, social, political....We preserve what we value of the physical past because it specifically embodies our social past....When we lose parts of our physical past, we lose parts of our common social past as well.” “The new knowledge of nuclear energy has undoubtedly limited national sovereignty and scaled down the destructiveness of war. If that’s not a good enough reason to work for and contribute to the Manhattan Project’s historic preservation, what would be? It’s certainly good enough for me.” ~Richard Rhodes, “Why We Should Preserve the Manhattan Project,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May/June 2006 Photographs clockwise from top: J. Robert Oppenheimer, General Leslie R. Groves pinning an award on Enrico Fermi, Leona Woods Marshall, the Alpha Racetrack at the Y-12 Plant, and the Bethe House on Bathtub Row. Front cover: A Bruggeman Ranch property. Back cover: Bronze statues by Susanne Vertel of J. Robert Oppenheimer and General Leslie Groves at Los Alamos. Table of Contents BOARD MEMBERS & ADVISORY COMMITTEE........3 Cindy Kelly, Dorothy and Clay Per- Letter from the President..........................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Thephysiologist
    Published by the American Physiological Society – Integrating the Life Sciences from Molecule to Organism THEPHYSIOLOGIST March 2016 • Vol. 59/No. 2 89th President of APS Jane F. Reckelhoff A Matter of Opinion I am very honored and humbled to have Warning: Watch been chosen by the members of the American Out for Predatory Physiological Society to represent them as the 89th President beginning in April 2016. I would Publishers like to thank the membership for their support. I would also like to thank the mentors I have had Because of the publication schedule for along the way who have shaped my career as a The Physiologist, I am writing this piece physiologist. I have been a member of APS for the shortly after the New Year! Hopefully, past 25 years, and the Society has not only shaped each of you had an opportunity to relax, Jane F. Reckelhoff my scientific career but given me opportunities to enjoy family and friends, and, most be of service to fellow physiologists by allowing importantly, begin considering how to me to serve on various APS committees. I consider take advantage of the 6.6% increase in the role of President as another opportunity to serve the Society and am the NIH budget. While I too am looking excited to begin the task. forward to 2016, I was also pleasantly surprised to discover that even predatory As I read the editorials by my predecessors, I believe the Society faces Open Access (OA) publishers took some old challenges and also some new ones. I just listened to Ben time off over the Holidays.
    [Show full text]
  • The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) Analyst: C
    St. John’s University Undergraduate Student Managed Investment Fund Presents: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) Analyst: Christopher Inderjit ([email protected]) Teng-Yi (Jason) Huang ([email protected]) Kreshnik N. Sadiku ([email protected]) Alexis Miranda ([email protected]) Recommendations: Buy 150 shares (Limit Order @ $215.00) Share Data: Fundamentals: Price (5/3/07): $221.56 P/E (11/30/06): 9.893 Shares outstanding: 408.47 Forward P/E, 2007 (E): 10.68 Market Cap: 90.50B Diluted EPS, 2006: 19.69 Beta: 1.2307 Diluted EPS, 2007 (E): 29.98 52 Week High: $226.61 Dividend Yield: .63% 52 Week Low: $136.79 Last Dividend: (4/30/07) $0 .35 Corporate credit rating S&P Short-term Debt: A-1+ Long-term Debt: AA- Subordinate Debt: A+ Preferred Securities: A 1 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY After conducting an analysis on Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. financial statements, business operations and business environment as a whole, we recommend that 200 shares be added to the Student Managed Investment Fund portfolio. We based this decision on a number of factors: Increasing corporate activity that will lead to a surge in mergers and acquisitions activities. An increase in investment banking services for established companies and companies looking to issue an initial public offering. Goldman Sachs has established itself as a leader in the investment banking and securities brokerage industry and has shown that it will continue to grow due to the expansion of global equity markets and the need for new sources of financing for firms considering to buy an interest in other companies or acquire target companies.
    [Show full text]
  • How Goldman Sachs Turned the Great Recession Into Competitive Advantage Using Strategic Management
    How Goldman Sachs Turned the Great Recession into Competitive Advantage Using Strategic Management Mine Doyran The City University of New York Abstract What are the strategic questions confronting Goldman Sachs in the wake of the Great Recession? Goldman Sachs has been considered the most prestigious investment banking firm on Wall Street. Since September 2008, Goldman operates as a bank holding company and financial holding company regulated by the Federal Reserve. It gives advice on how to achieve long-term financial goals in times of both prosperity and crisis. This case reveals how Goldman Sachs became the quintessential global firm for the current period, which combines both growth and weaknesses. It further argues that Goldman Sachs has adopted innovative strategies one step ahead of its competitors, thus surviving the worst of times and redefining the traditional investment banking field. Background Founded in 1869, Goldman Sachs has been considered the most prestigious investment banking firm on Wall Street. Its clients include both public and private institutions seeking funding for expansion to meet the needs of their clients and advice on how to achieve long-term financial goals in times of both prosperity and crisis. Indeed, Goldman would be the quintessential firm for the current period, which combines both growth and weakness. Currently, Goldman Sachs operates as bank holding company and a financial holding company. It is regulated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. It has an American depository institution subsidiary, Goldman Sachs Bank USA, which is a “New York State-chartered bank.”1 The business of investment firm includes help in planning corporate mergers, Rutgers Business Review Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Trinity Site July 16, 1945
    Trinity Site July 16, 1945 "The effects could well be called unprecedented, magnificent, beauti­ ful, stupendous, and terrifying. No man-made phenomenon of such tremendous power had ever occurred before. The lighting effects beggared description. The whole country was lighted by a searing light with the intensity many times that of the midday sun." Brig. Gen. Thomas Farrell A national historic landmark on White Sands Missile Range -- www.wsmr.army.mil Radiation Basics Radiation comes from the nucJeus of the gamma ray. This is a type of electromag­ individual atoms. Simple atoms like oxygen netic radiation like visible light, radio waves are very stable. Its nucleus has eight protons and X-rays. They travel at the speed of light. and eight neutrons and holds together well. It takes at least an inch of lead or eight The nucJeus of a complex atom like inches of concrete to stop them. uranium is not as stable. Uranium has 92 Finally, neutrons are also emitted by protons and 146 neutrons in its core. These some radioactive substances. Neutrons are unstable atoms tend to break down into very penetrating but are not as common in more stable, simpler forms. When this nature. Neutrons have the capability of happens the atom emits subatomic particles striking the nucleus of another atom and and gamma rays. This is where the word changing a stable atom into an unstable, and "radiation" comes from -- the atom radiates therefore, radioactive one. Neutrons emitted particles and rays. in nuc!ear reactors are contained in the Health physicists are concerned with reactor vessel or shielding and cause the four emissions from the nucleus of these vessel walls to become radioactive.
    [Show full text]
  • The Endless Frontier 75Th Anniversary Edition
    the endless frontier 75th Anniversary Edition VANNEVAR BUSH Reprinted in celebration of the National Science Foundation’s 70th anniversary1 | 1950-2020 Book cover photo: © Arnold Newman Collection via Getty Images SCIENCE THE ENDLESS FRONTIER A Report to the President by VANNEVAR BUSH Director of the Ofce of Scientifc Research and Development July 1945 Foreword by France A. Crdova, 14th Director of NSF Reissued by the National Science Foundation in celebration of the agency’s 70th anniversary and the 75th anniversary of Science—the Endless Frontier CELEBRATING NSF’S 70th BIRTHDAY By France A. Crdova, 14th Director of NSF “...basic research is the pacemaker of technological progress.” That statement is as relevant today as it was in 1945 when Vannevar Bush wrote it in his landmark tract, Science—the Endless Frontier. In the report, submitted to President Harry S. Truman, Bush made the case for creating a new agency that he and others felt was needed to support the underlying basic research essential for combatting disease, ensuring national security, and increasing the standard of living, including supporting new industries and jobs. Bush drew an important lesson from directing the Office of Scientific Research and Development during World War II: “The most important ways in which the Government can promote industrial research are to increase the flow of new scientific knowledge through support of basic research and to aid in the development of scientific talent.” Bush desired that the benefits of scientific re- search realized during the war could have even wider application postwar. He advocated for government funding of basic research in universities, colleges, and research institutes because that’s where the talent was.
    [Show full text]