Vol. 35, No. 4 October 2006 Physics& Society A Publication of The Forum on Physics and Society • A Forum of The American Physical Society

IN THIS ISSUE 1 Editor’s Comments Editor’s Comments Articles It’s been almost a full year since Wolfgang Panofsky and Edwin Salpeter kicked off 1 Reflections of a Science Advisor: our series, in the October 2005 issue of P&S, on science advice & policy formulation General Considerations, the in the White House. With this issue we bring you three more articles in the series, all Superconducting Supercollider (SSC) written by men who either have been, or are now, the science advisor to the President and the Space Station, John H. Gibbons of the United States: Jack Gibbons served as science advisor to President Clinton 4 Personal Observations on Science starting in 1993. Neal Lane succeeded Gibbons in the Clinton Administration. John Advice to the President, Neal Lane Marburger is currently serving President Bush as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. In their articles in this issue of P&S, Gibbons and Lane both 6 Science and Policy, John Marburger shed light on policy making surrounding many specific issues, and they give us a taste Nuclear Energy in France: Public of the “family dynamics” among the advisors and other public servants within the Perception (2006), Michel Lung and White House. We hope that these articles, as well as those of Panofsky and Salpeter Berol Robinson from last year, are viewed as an important contribution to the discussion of science Commentary advice to the President. 13 Creating an Effective Message on Intelligent Design, T. Jeremy Gunn and David G. Cooper ARTICLES Letters Reflections of a Science Advisor: 14 Response to Norsen: the Enigma General Considerations, the Superconducting Supercollider (SSC), Remains, Fred Kuttner and Bruce Rosenblum and the Space Station John H. Gibbons Response to “Monitoring Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Explosive Materials”, Jim Fuller In the October 2005 issue of this periodical, Professor Wolfgang Panofsky provided an News excellent introduction to a planned series of articles for Physics and Society designed 16 A.I.P. State Department Science to illuminate the intricate and sometimes obscure relations between science and Fellowship technology and national policy. The interplay might be described as “war” (or forced marriage) between the two interdependent but disparate worlds of facts (science) and 16 Student Fellowship in Physics and faith (politics). In this article, I offer some general reflections regarding this liaison, Society including a bit of history. Then, I focus attention on two issues that needed attention 16 Orbach Sees Promising Future for right after I joined the Clinton Administration in January 1993: the Superconducting Science at the Dept. of Energy Supercollider (SSC) and the Space Station. Is Congress Getting the S&T Analysis It Needs? Reflections Reviews Science and technology (S&T) have been part and parcel of the passions of 18 National Science Foundation Facility Americans since Benjamin Franklin so brilliantly and uniquely led our birth as Plan, September 2005, reviewed by Juan both a democracy and an exploratory society. Right from the outset, enlightened Pablo Pardo- Guerra public leadership fostered public investment in education, exploration, technology development, and intellectual property protection. The freedom of inquiry provided 19 Military Nanotechnology: Potential applications and preventive arms control, under the Constitution energized people to unheralded inventiveness. by Jürgen Altmannn, reviewed by As a result of many decades of sustained support, forward surges in the 20th Matthew Sharp century of discovery (knowledge) and invention (technology) dwarfed other factors See Reflections on Page 2 Reflections from Page 1 I had the unique opportunity to direct President Clinton, from the outset of his both OTA (1979-1993) and OSTP (1993- administration, had a close and comfortable affecting health, conflict 1998); some think that this extensive relationship with Vice President Gore, resolution, and prosperity. Public support experience should make me “educated” and he recognized Gore’s broad, in-depth enabled S&T to blossom during World in S&T policy. My response is that (1) interest and understanding of science and War II and to be the dominant factor in “education consists of the progressive technology. Thus, he naturally depended enabling advances in human aspirations. discovery of one’s ignorance” (Will Durant), heavily on Gore in such matters. The It continues unabated today, but the very and (2) in public policy “…science has the bright side of that comment for me is that success of S&T has led inexorably to the first word on everything and the last word both championed my work, and I, in turn, need for new forms of governance and on nothing” (Victor Hugo). The political enthusiastically supported their priority of new requirements for science literacy in importance of science derives not simply using S&T to achieve over-arching goals: our people. This need for enhanced science from science itself but from the implications strenghening the economy and creating literacy was foreseen in a letter that James of that knowledge for national needs (e.g., jobs, improving education and health care, Madison wrote to W.T. Barry in 1822. security, economy, health, environment, and enhancing the quality of the environment, Madison wrote: “A popular government, knowledge itself) and social norms (e.g., harnessing information technology, and without popular information, or the means stem cell discoveries). Most public policy maintaining national security. They also of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce decisions are as complex and convoluted as fully supported the establishment of or tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge are the horde of stakeholders. Science, per councils, panels, and advisors to provide will forever govern ignorance, and a people se, is seldom the dominant factor in making themselves with wisdom on science, similar who mean to be their own governors, must a “science policy” decision. This claim is to the advisory panels successfully utilized arm themselves with the power which not meant to diminish the importance of at OTA. knowledge gives.” scientific judgment, but rather to highlight Advising on Inherited “Big Science” the importance of other factors in political Sadly, however, science knowledge Programs: The SSC and the Space Station seems to be advancing faster than our decision-making. The President chose to science literacy, and this situation puts our appoint me as “Assistant to the President For “Big Science” projects, one democratic society at risk: To the extent for Science and Technology” (in addition presidential term – or even two – is short. that our literacy lags behind our science, to my OSTP title) as did President Bush in When I came to the White House in January we become vulnerable to the making of 1989 for my predecessor Allan Bromley. 1993 two large science policy issues were poor decisions. This is particularly the The visibility bestowed upon me by that on my plate for immediate attention - the case for those charged with public policy title was a clear signal of the commitment of Superconducting Supercollider (SSC) decisions. the Clinton-Gore Administration to strong and the Space Station. The inauguration support of science and technology, and to of a new Administration is very near the In response to the widening gap between the influence of S&T considerations in the deadline for the annual federal budget to be the availability of information resources and formulation of national policy. submitted to the Congress. Both the SSC the ability of citizens and elected officials and Space Station projects were carrying a A lesson to be drawn from these reflections to effectively utilize them, several actions lot of political commitments and both were is the importance of the science advisory have been taken during our history to help in serious trouble. Within only days of my apparatus being effectively engaged in our citizen governors. Congress chartered Senate confirmation, I had to help devise the policy decision-making process. The the National Academy of Sciences in a sensible strategy to brief and advise the science advisor’s job is primarily that of 1863, during the Lincoln Administration, President and Vice President on the status, bringing the content, implications, and to give better public access to rapidly options, and recommended actions for these political relevance of scientific aspects of accumulating scientific knowledge. It projects. remains a vital private and non-profit asset, public issues to the President in a timely, providing expert and non-partisan advice helpful, and authoritative way. A necessary (1) The SSC: In the preceding years on technical issues of government. By but not sufficient requirement for the science this accelerator was a very popular project the end of World War II it became clear advisor is to be familiar not only with the for politicians because it was viewed as a that help which could be directly useful in subject but also with key individuals and large construction project and also a way framing and guiding public policies was processes in the Administration that must be to create a massive high-tech complex needed. It began with William Golden’s party to decisions. A close understanding aimed at extending the frontiers of science.. recommendation to President Truman of the priorities and perspectives of the Almost all states weighed in to be the site that a science advisor to the president President (and Vice President) was always of the accelerator, but Texas had just won be appointed. This evolved to a mostly required of me so that I could comfortably the contest. The previously widespread unbroken mechanism (Congress established be a surrogate for them in my areas of political interest quickly reduced to the Office of Science and Technology Policy responsibility without overtaxing my call Texas. In addition, in the previous two [OSTP] within the Executive Office of the on their time and attention. Effective administrations, the notion of the United President) to assist the Executive Branch, communication and cooperation with States “going it alone” was seen as a point followed later by the establishment of the Executive offices (White House, Cabinet, of national pride; therefore not much effort bi-partisan, bicameral Congressional Office and sub-Cabinet agencies) is mandatory for had been spent on recruiting substantial of Technology Assessment (OTA) in the the science advisor. international financial partners. Questions Legislative Branch. Personalities are very important! See Reflections on Page 3

 • October 2006 PHYSICS AND SOCIETY, Vol. 35, No.4 Reflections from Page 2 beyond the Moon, the Reagan and Bush key early funding measure was won by a now were being raised about construction I Administrations had pushed the U.S. single vote! Station as a challenge to the U.S.S.R.’s Cold management and the cost/performance of As the newly formed project War Space Station, i.e., as our counter to the superconducting focusing magnets. On evolved we worked out a cooperative the notion of U.S.S.R. space dominance. top of these issues the new mood in the arrangement with Russia to use their Remember the aerospace industry-sponsored White House and Congress for more fiscal existing space station to gain joint operating TV ads in the 1980’s depicting a massive, constraint made the SSC a choice target, experience and refine practical aspects such menacing Russian space station hovering especially since few people saw a persuasive as equipment repair, fire control, emergency over the Free World? By January 1993, connection between this “big science” management, and environmental controls. roughly $20 billion had been spent on our project and broad public benefits. Experience gained from the Russian station design of the Station named “Freedom.” proved highly valuable; it also unexpectedly The “ball” landed in my court, No hardware had been built. The pre-1993 engendered a close sense of community and simultaneously with responsibility to design orbit for our Station had been chosen deep trust between the U.S. and Russian figure out what to do about the Space to exclude access to and from former Soviet participants—on the ground as well as in Station (…more on that below). I was Union territory. International participation orbit. urged by several people, including the in the venture was meager. Popularity was previous science advisor, Allan Bromley, to on the wane because the Station was seen Why was so much of the oversight for go quickly overseas and seek financial aid more and more as a Cold War relic short this work laid upon OSTP? There was not for the SSC. In my judgment such a move of great scientific promise. On the other a lot of science, per se, involved, but a lot could have been too little, too late, in the hand, the U.S. already had made a massive of technology. Close communication was face of a resolute attitude in Congress and psychological and fiscal investment, along required among federal agencies, including genuine concern of the President to reduce with political commitments. NASA, State, Defense, Commerce--a expenditures in the face of an inherited $300 natural role for OSTP to represent the What to do? This challenge to the new billion-plus deficit that, in those days, was President’s interest. a lot of money! At the same time it became Clinton Administration had forced its way clear that the scientific rationale for SSC to the top of the pile of urgent matters for In summary, we won the struggle to was solid and that the magnet problem budgeting resources. We were committed continue support of the Space Station—the could be resolved. We decided to mount a to a strong and enduring space program largest and most complex peacetime modest campaign for the SSC budget but but also to fiscal restraint. In the form we international venture in high technology— not to fall on our budget sword over it. I inherited the program it could not pass the and built new bonds with prior antagonists. testified with passion [See my book This test of scientific rationality. Accordingly, Just as we had inherited the torch from Gifted Age: Science and Technology at the with the encouragement of members of earlier administrations, we passed the torch Millennium, New York: Springer-Verlag, Congress from both sides of the aisle we to the next Administration. 1997, pp. 191-195] on the promise of decided to re-orient the plans for the Station in a massive way: down-size the project, It could be argued that we’d have been scientific discovery and on the inevitable better served if the U.S. Space Station effort (but unpredictable) practical benefits that make it a truly international venture, and bring in Russia as a full partner. had been dropped as an anachronistic Cold could accrue from the SSC. The effort failed War investment. It is instructive to think in Congress, primarily because of lack of Under the new cabinet-level National back to Jim Fletcher’s time when, as NASA conviction about the SSC’s importance to Science and Technology Council (NSTC) , Administrator under President Nixon, the nation and the sharply rising resistance a Station redesign committee was appointed he virtually abandoned, with very little to federal deficits. In retrospect, one positive by the President to reduce the size and cost analysis, development of all new expendable tradeoff of the retreat from the SSC was (and improve safety) of the Station. Headed launch systems in favor of the Shuttle (which increased political support for sustained U.S. by Chuck Vest, then President of MIT and has been a financial disaster). That decision participation in international high-energy a member of the President’s Committee discloses the historic inordinate emphasis on physics studies centered at CERN. of Advisors on Science and Technology manned space exploration rather than on Lessons learned: (PCAST) , the redesign committee comprised robotic and tele-operated space systems. I key experts from government, industry, and strongly pushed this latter orientation with (a) Big Science requires Big academia. Following their recommendations very limited success, despite the support Participation! we worked out a new orbit to allow the formalized for it in 1996 by the President Station to be serviced and controlled from (b) The fiscal condition of our country bears and also by NASA Administrator Dan launch sites in Russia as well as in the U.S. heavily on “discretionary expenditures,” Goldin. A decade later in 2003 it became clear that and this change enabled the Station to survive As later events showed, we would have (c) The popularity of political support the loss of the Shuttle Columbia. Much lost more than gained had we cancelled for science reflects the perceived value political and diplomatic as well as technical the Space Station entirely. In retrospect the to our security, economy, health, and maneuvering and accommodation went on Space Station decision was beneficial and environment. as the new consortium worked out a modus- multifaceted in its effects: it incorporated vivendi. And at least as much energy was goals of space engineering of complex (2) The Space Station: Long-viewed consumed in negotiations between the systems, advances in international as the next step in human exploration Clinton Administration and Congress. One See Reflections on Page 4

PHYSICS AND SOCIETY, Vol. 35, No.4 October 2006 •  See Reflections from Page 3 Personal observations on science advice to the President cooperation, a mechanism to Neal Lane transform a Cold War relic into an on-going contribution In his article which introduces this series, Wolfgang Panofsky has done an excellent job of to U.S.-Russia relations, reviewing the manner in which science advice has been provided to the President over the years economic continuity in a vital and has outlined some issues or “tensions” that need to be kept in mind as one examines the U.S. sector, and technological present system and how to improve it. His list includes: possible conflicts of interest (e.g. discipline progress. bias) on the part of scientific advisors; the question of who “owns” the President’s Advisor (the President or Congress); accountability on the part of the Advisor to the President and Congress; I chose these two examples access of the Advisor to the President; Science Advisor vs. spokesman for science policy; conflict of the SSC and Space Station of scientific advice with preconceived policy. Dr. Panofsky has suggested that the subsequent to illustrate but one facet of the articles in this series provide detailed examples, with particular emphasis placed on what he calls role of Science Advisor. In a “science in government”, e.g. the application by government of scientific knowledge in developing succeeding article I will further public policy. There have been a number of well publicized examples in the current G.W. Bush Administration where policy has not followed sound scientific advice. Panofsky argues that what illustrate the activities with the he calls “government in science”, e.g. the Federal government’s funding and regulation of science, hope that the reader will gain is less controversial, at least less politically charged. An exception, of course, is the current G.W. appreciation of the challenges Bush Administration’s policy severely restricting NIH-supported research on embryonic stem cells and psychological rewards of and banning NIH support for somatic cell nuclear transfer (human cloning). being a science advisor. In this paper, I will limit my comments to the matter of how a Science Advisor gets his or her scientific advice to the President – personal access, in particular – and use a few examples from D r. J o h n H . “ J a c k ” my own experience in the White House as well as discussions with prior Science Advisors. Since Gibbons, President, Resource access is often connected with the other “tensions” Panofsky lists, I will comment on those as Strategies, and Chairman appropriate. of the Board, Population Action International, is Fragile Visibility of the Science Advisor in the White House a member of advisory and working committees of The First a few general observations about single-focus threat of the Soviet Union faded National Academies, the U.S. working in the White House, some of which, I and, simultaneously, science and technology suspect, have been invariant over time. emerged as fundamental to many areas of Department of Energy, and societal importance and national need, e.g., the Massachusetts Institute The White House is a very busy place. The energy, health and medicine, environmental of Technology, among others. number of issues being dealt with on any given protection, economic competitiveness day is enormous, and the pace is pretty much as Following White House tenure (including Federal R&D funding and regulation depicted in the popular TV show “West Wing.” as well as tax laws and trade relations). Under (1993-1998) he served as the But, the priorities of the President’s senior staff, Karl T. Compton Lecturer, such circumstances, more decisions were including the Science Advisor, and everyone being made at the agency level, and often MIT; Senior Advisor, U.S. else in the White House are clear – they are set the President was only peripherally involved. Department of State, and by the President’s agenda. They often include Certainly, there have been exceptions, e.g. Senior Fellow, National such policy-related areas as national and some of former President G.H.W. Bush’s Academy of Engineering. domestic security, the Nation’s economy and initiatives (global change research, information employment, natural disasters and other crises, technology, biotechnology) and those of former Before he served in the Clinton Congressional activity (or inactivity), front-page Administration as Assistant President Clinton (climate change science news, campaign promises and other items high and technology, Kyoto negotiations, and the to the President for Science on the President’s policy agenda. Whatever the National Nanotechnology Initiative, among and Technology and Director President is doing on any given day is, itself, others). These involved the Science Advisor, of the Office of Science and news. But the White House wants that news to but they also required more consensus building Technology Policy (OSTP), be good news and carefully plans Presidential among the President’s advisors on economic, events, travel and meetings, “message” of domestic, environmental and national security Dr. Gibbons was Director of the week or month, press communications, the U.S. Congressional Office policy, all of whom are perceived as having interactions with the Congress, and so forth, to portfolios that are more “politically” important of Technology Assessment maximize the good news for the President and than that of the Science Advisor. (OTA)(1979-1993). During the his Administration. An effective White House early 1970’s “energy crisis” he staff works as a team to provide the President initiated and directed the first with the advice he needs to make decisions on Access to the President a range of topics, often with some urgency. work on energy conservation The Science Advisor, if he or she expects to be Let me turn now to the importance of the and policy for the federal effective, needs to be at the table, as a valuable, Science Advisor having personal access to the government. reliable and trusted member of the team. President. Given the fact that White House science policy is no longer focused on a single See also johnhgibbons.org During WWII and early cold-war years, when issue – nuclear weapons and strategy – but the immediate value of science and technology rather relates to a host of other policy issues, [email protected] required no amplification or explanation, one hence to the work of most of the President’s can understand why the Science Advisor would other advisors, one challenge is simply not to have more immediate and frequent access get lost or ignored in the huge array of topics to the President. But in recent decades, the See Access on Page 5

 • October 2006 PHYSICS AND SOCIETY, Vol. 35, No.4 Access from Page 4 issues. As mentioned above, when the agencies and scientific community to get of everyday business and the cacophony advisors disagree, they need to be able accurate information, e.g, by developing that surrounds the President. The Science to provide the President with reasoned and coordinating interagency programs; Advisor can be effective only if he or she can arguments for their different opinions and advising the Office of Management and be sure that his or her advice – untouched recommendations. A balance between Budget staff on science and technology by others – actually gets to the President. collegiality and assertiveness is required. components of the budget; and helping to educate their counterparts in the other policy The title “Assistant to the President” is very In my own case, as Assistant to the helpful in that regard, since it sends the councils (economic, domestic, national President for Science and Technology, I security) and offices of the White House message that the Science Advisor reports was assured direct access at the outset, directly to the President. about the science and technology issues initially by the Vice President and later and their importance to important policy In addition to the formal title, the White by the President himself. I found that I considerations. Doing all this successfully House staff and agency officials also need was able to establish very good working requires outstanding individuals who have to know that the President considers science relationships with President Clinton, Vice access to the appropriate people in other and technology to be important and that President Gore, and senior White House parts of the White House and agencies. the President wants to see his Science staff. In large measure this was because Usually, the Science Advisor briefs the Advisor from time to time. But, of course, my predecessor, Jack Gibbons, who was President, but on occasion, while I was having access does not mean dropping by. particularly close to Vice President Gore, serving in the White House, other OSTP The President’s calendar is a competitive had assembled a fine staff, and had produced staff would be included. I was fortunate arena with lots of participants; and the high quality products and valued advice. to have outstanding staff during the time President’s scheduler has to determine the Gibbons’ legacy enormously facilitated my I served at OSTP, most of whom had been relative priorities of competing requests ability to function effectively. recruited by Jack Gibbons. for appointments, speeches, interviews, It was also fortuitous that President In the end, it must be recognized that the trips and other demands on the President’s Clinton’s Chief of Staff during the latter part time. The Office of Science and Technology President’s agenda is always oversubscribed. of the Administration, John Podesta, was Personal access to the President is a privilege Policy (OSTP) staff are good at identifying (and still is) personally interested in science possible science and technology events, that should be used sparingly. In my own and technology, which he had studied in case, I requested personal meetings with the budget initiatives, policy innovations, school. He was particularly helpful in and other opportunities for the Science President on rare occasions and was always advising me on the workings of the West granted those meetings. Most of my direct Advisor to get the President’s attention on Wing, which allowed me to move forward some important matter of science policy. interactions with President Clinton were with some issues I felt were particularly to brief him on some upcoming meeting, If this sounds a little like marketing, that important (e.g., research budgets). perception would not be far off the mark. interview, speech, or other timely matter. I should also note here that the late On a few occasions, there was time to chat In addition to having personal access Allan Bromley, who was the first Science about whatever was on the President’s to the President, it is also important for Advisor to have the title “Assistant to the mind – on one occasion, dark matter and other senior advisors around the President President for Science and Technology”, also black holes, on another, some geological (the other “Assistants”) to understand understood the importance of having a good features in Antarctica – or a policy issue something about the Science Advisor’s working relationship with the President’s that was pending. Those meetings were issues, why they should be important to Chief of Staff. Indeed he worked well with as frequent as several in a single week; on the President, and the rationale for science- John Sununu and, as a result, was able to other occasions weeks could pass without based recommendations. establish a very good relationship with my seeing the President. I sent the President former President Bush. weekly reports, which he always read, That requires that the Science Advisor often making marginal comments (which establish a good working relationship with The importance of access also includes his private Secretary, Betty Curry, would the other Assistants. One way to do that the OSTP Associate Directors (Senate sometimes have to help decipher). On some is to offer the services of OSTP to help confirmed Presidential appointees) and their matters, he would have questions or would them with their issues. The President’s staff, who assure the effective operations of request a more complete memorandum advisors serve him best if they work as a OSTP in several ways: working with the on a topic. He seemed to read and digest team and reach consensus on important

A few specific President Clinton’s National Nanotechnology Initiative examples from The first example, the National and the doubling of Federal Texas at Dallas) so I will only the Clinton Nanotechnology Initiative funding for nanometer-scale briefly summarize it. The NNI (NNI), is one of “government science and engineering research, was a grass-roots effort, built Administration in science” rather than the other was twofold: to promote a on years of impressive research way around. But it illustrates promising, perhaps potentially leading to new knowledge and Perhaps the points made several of the points I have revolutionary new technology tools at the nanometer scale. in the earlier paragraphs made about personal access to of the future and to increase Before the White House got can be best illustrated with the President, teamwork with research funding of the physical formally involved, NSF and a few examples of how other Assistants to the President sciences and engineering. The other agencies convened (in particular policy matters and Federal agencies, and the history of the NNI has been 1996) an interagency working were handled during the importance of identifying and recounted elsewhere (Neal Lane group, which (in 1998) was time I served as President “marketing” an initiative. and Thomas Kalil, in “Issues raised to the Presidential level, Clinton’s Science Advisor The motivation and the in Science and Technology,” under the authority of the (from the summer of 1998 Summer 2005, p 49-56, National National Science and Technology to mid- January 2001). rationale for the NNI, with its bold set of “grand challenges” Academies and University of Council, formally chaired by See Clinton on Page 6

PHYSICS AND SOCIETY, Vol. 35, No.4 October 2006 •  Clinton from Page 5 the U.S. military has scaled back its efforts, that illustrate how at least one of President the President. That body developed a adding the word “Limited.” In 1996, DOD’s Clinton’s Science Advisors advised the proposal to the President for the NNI. It Ballistic Missile Defense Office was tasked President. Other advisory issues included: was reviewed by the President’s Council to develop a deployable system within three stem cell research and human cloning; of Advisors on Science and Technology, years; and President Clinton, under pressure a string of failed NASA Mars missions; which, along with the Science Advisor, from a Republican controlled Congress, a string of failed expendable launch recommended the Initiative to the President. agreed that he would make a decision by vehicles (rocket) mishaps; food safety and My involvement with the NNI, as Science the year 2000 on whether to deploy the environmental (lead, mercury, arsenic) Advisor, was to work closely with several system. While the principal White House regulations; the international space station; key people and organizations: the technical responsibility for advice on military matters U.S. participation in the Large Hadron advisor to the National Economic Council, rests with the National Security Council Collider accelerator construction and Tom Kalil, who reported to Gene Sperling, (NSC), OSTP was expected to provide experiments; human genome project; gene one of the President’s key senior advisors; advice on the “technical capability” of such patenting, energy R&D and tax incentives the interagency coordinating group, systems; and that occurred during the time to promote energy efficiency; genetically chaired by NSF’s Mike Roco; the Office I was in the White House. A string of failed modified foods and crops and related trade of Management and Budget; and PCAST, tests of system components were highly negotiations, Kyoto follow-up negotiations; which I co-chaired with John Young publicized. Also, APS and many other international S&T agreements; science and (former President and CEO of Hewlett organizations and individuals criticized security at DOE weapons laboratories; Packard). I briefed the President at several the proposals on the grounds that rather disposal of nuclear waste; science and budget meetings (…including one to which straight forward countermeasures could engineering education and workforce I had not been invited!) and formally be deployed to further reduce the system’s issues; and others. recommended the NNI to the President defensive capability. Members of the My conclusion, at least my experience, along with unprecedented increases in OSTP staff who were knowledgeable about is that the Science Advisor remains a key overall research funding, which he included defense technology and missile defense, in advisor to the President. But, perhaps, in his budget request for FY2001. While particular, developed briefing material, in unlike the early cold-war days, the Science there was much support for the NNI and cooperation with NSC staff, and arranged Advisor has to compete for attention with increased funding for the physical sciences, meetings with appropriate government other players whose agendas are often of in general, among White House Advisors, officials. On the basis of those briefings and more immediate political importance. staff recommendations, I sent the President there were also some strong feelings about Dr. Neal Lane, Malcolm Gillis other budget needs, which resulted in some a classified assessment of the technical capability of the proposed system. The University Professor at Rice University, heated internal debates and some personal holds appointments as Senior Fellow of scars and bruises. memo was shared with the NSC in advance to assure factual accuracy, as well as to avoid the James A. Baker III Institute for Public surprises, but it was not subject to clearance Policy and in the Department of Physics Nuclear Missile Defense or editing by NSC staff. I am not aware that and Astronomy. there were any substantial differences in the My second example, nuclear missile Prior to returning to Rice University views of OSTP and NSC on the technical in January 2001, Dr. Lane served in the defense, is an example of “science (and assessment. The President, weighing all technology) in government”. Clinton Administration as Assistant to the advice he received, decided that it was the President for Science and Technology Ballistic missile defense has been a not appropriate to deploy the system at that and Director of the White House Office politically divisive issue and an area of time. The G.W. Bush Administration has of Science and Technology Policy, and questionable policy, at least since President deployed a limited missile defense system, before that as Director of the National Reagan rolled out his “Star Wars” proposal in spite of further failed tests and technical Science Foundation. in 1983. The APS, based on a study carried criticism. The arguments appeared to be out by the APS Panel on Public Affairs He was Rice’s Provost and Professor of “get it up and work out the bugs later!” It Physics prior to his time in Washington. (POPA), took a strong stand, questioning is not clear whether OSTP had any role in the technical capability of any effort to put advising President Bush on his decision. [email protected] in place a shield to protect the U.S. from These are two among many examples ballistic missile attacks. In recent years, “Science and Policy” John Marburger A talk given at the D. Allan Bromley Memorial Symposium in New Haven, Connecticut, December 8, 2005 My interactions with Allan Bromley were was there to defend it, but of course the Brookhaven, and I used Congressman Bill limited to a few brief periods, but they were history of that project is complicated, with Carney’s conservative credentials to arrange close encounters and I was grateful for his many contending forces. My experience a visit with Reagan’s budget director David friendship and advice. The first time I met with the SSC actually began about a decade Stockman in 1981. But it was too late. Allan was during my term as chairman of earlier when the proton collider ISABELLE The subsequent phoenix-like emergence Universities Research Association. URA at Brookhaven Lab was in balance. Its fate of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider from had the Department of Energy contract was sealed when the heavy weak interaction the abandoned ISABELLE infrastructure to build and operate the Superconducting vector bosons were discovered in 1983 at probably owes something to the regional Super Collider in Texas starting in 1989, the CERN, and the particle physics community strength in nuclear physics to which Allan year Allan became President George H. W. realized that President Reagan would Bromley, of course, was a significant Bush’s science advisor. Congress voted to support the construction of a much larger contributor. terminate the project in 1993, the year Allan next generation machine. While the collider Bromley always seemed to be at gatherings left Washington to return to Yale. You could was still in play, Stony Brook colleagues say that the SSC survived as long as Allan had urged me to help make the case for See Science and Policy on Page 7

 • October 2006 PHYSICS AND SOCIETY, Vol. 35, No.4 Science and Policy from Page 6 useful to a policy neophyte, and they served default, or to be pre-empted by the group me well as I contemplated my task in late with the most skillful publicity department. where physics and politics converged, and I 2001. At the time three issues – you might We should have extensive debate on these saw him off and on at events in Washington call them “meta-issues” impressed me as over-all questions of scientific choice: we during the next seven years. When the important for science policy today. should make a choice, explain it, and then news broke that President George W. Bush The first thing that struck me, as I looked have the courage to stick to a course arrived had nominated me as his science advisor, back over the history of the U.S. government at rationally.” Allan was among the first to contact me and involvement with science, was how reactive Such a debate has never occurred in the offer his advice and assistance. He traveled the pattern of support was to more or less science community, although Frank Press across Long Island Sound to join me for a random external events. The mother of all (who had served as President Carter’s long lunch at a restaurant near Brookhaven such events was World War II, which came science advisor) tried to get one started in National Laboratory, and afterwards we serendipitously on the heels of the discovery 1988 when he divided science programs into continued our conversation by phone. of nuclear fission, and brought science three priority categories and “named names” Looking back on those conversations, I forcibly into contact with national affairs. It of projects that should be in each, urging realize that some of the most useful things created an opportunity for Vannevar Bush, scientists to take responsibility for setting he told me were anecdotes (which he very Bill Golden, and others to insert science priorities. It was not a popular proposal. much enjoyed telling) about his experiences. permanently into the federal establishment, Quotes from the subsequent media coverage He appreciated that each administration is a at least within the Executive branch, and it make interesting reading. Here’s Al world unto itself, but that people are people set the stage for science policy through the Trivelpiece, then Executive Director of the and politics is politics, and his anecdotes cold war and into the period when Bromley American Association for the Advancement illuminated a corner of the Washington scene served the first President Bush. of Science: “Nobody asks farmers whether with which I had no experience at all. As they want price supports for wheat rather it turned out, Bromley and I were drawn to As the nation’s discretionary budget grew during this period, the science budget initially than for cotton. Why should scientists be different aspects of the science advisory role treated any differently and be required to (with respect to style in public affairs, I am a increased exponentially after Sputnik to a peak during the Apollo program, and then choose from among several worthy projects? minimalist, he was a maximalist), and when I think the issue for scientists should be the I finally arrived on the scene that role had settled down to a relatively predictable pattern. Non-defense science funding held quality of the research.” And a congressional been altered further, if only temporarily, by staffer: “I hope we can forget his words and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. to a nearly constant fraction of the domestic discretionary budget, the share of the total move on.” And an official of the American But we thought alike on substantive issues, Association of Medical Colleges: “It’s and maintained contact until his untimely rising and falling slightly about a slowly rising mean in a pattern roughly coincident a question of strategy. Why should we and unexpected death, and exchanged views assume that there’s a fixed pot of dollars? on a wide variety of topics. with the solar sunspot cycle. Big science projects have come and gone, each with its I prefer the idea that support for science is My title, Science and Policy, encompasses own story, while the NIH budget ascended not fixed, at least not until we get to a level two distinct areas to which Allan was monotonically to its present dominance. that represents a reasonable proportion of passionately devoted, and today I would like Today NIH consumes nearly half the non- our GNP.” Whatever you may think of the to reflect on these concepts and their mutual military federal research budget. NASA wisdom of Frank’s statement, it was a call relationship from my own perspective. consumes about fifteen percent. NSF, for rationality in the midst of a very irrational Before the White House personnel office DOE, and DOD basic science share nearly battle for federal funds. Part of that battle called to suggest that I should be a candidate all the rest. I have struggled to identify a ended in 1993 when Congress voted the for this position, my interest in science rational basis for this distribution of funds, International Space Station up and the SSC policy was very narrow and wholly selfish. I and failed. Many observers, including down. Neither was at the top of Frank’s list. wanted tools for physics, and more generally the President’s Council of Advisors on Science advisors do not have the luxury of for the science programs I was trying to Science and Technology4 and a recent panel ignoring the need for prioritization. In a time build, first at the University of Southern sponsored by the National Academy of of tight budgets it can be the most important California, then at Stony Brook, and finally Sciences, 5 point to an imbalance in federal issue in science policy. at Brookhaven. I was an advocate for my research support to the physical sciences The second “meta-issue” that seemed institutions, and I worked for their success, as compared with the life sciences. And significant to me in 2001 was the interplay not for the success of science overall, or indeed there are many more imbalances between basic and applied science and of the larger purposes it serves. So in the than this one, depending on what you mean technology. During most of history, summer of 2001, at the age of sixty, I began by “balance”. technology got on without science. We to think seriously about policy for the first The potential irrationality of federal should keep in mind that nearly the whole time. Allan Bromley’s example was an of the industrial revolution occurred while important guide. funding patterns was apparent early on the leading edge of the huge increase in science scientists still thought heat was a material Bromley had set forth his admirably budgets in the early 1960’s. Alvin Weinberg, fluid. That changed toward the end of the structured views of the aims and operation in a 1961 Science magazine article that nineteenth century, and the relationship of the office of the science advisor in Yale’s should be better known, 6 said “…it is between science and technology has been Silliman lectures of 1993, given while presumptuous for me to urge that we study changing ever since. his memory was still fresh and his notes biology on earth rather than biology in space, Much of value has been written intact.1 (One had the impression that Allan’s or physics in the nuclear binding-energy about the relationship between basic notes were always intact.) Supplements region, with its clear practical applications and applied science. Congressman Vern appeared later in books edited by William and its strong bearing on the rest of science, Ehlers emphasized the value of “targeted Golden, 2 the guru of science advice to rather than physics in the Bev region, with its basic research” in his important 1998 U.S. presidents, and by the Technology and absence of practical applications and its very report7 sketching a new post-cold war Policy Program at MIT in the proceedings slight bearing on the rest of science. What I science policy. Gerald Holton spoke of of a symposium celebrating the 25th am urging is that these choices have become “Jeffersonian science” in a 2000 conference anniversary of the legislation that established matters of high national policy. We cannot on Science for Society whose proceedings8 the current version of the Office of Science allow our over-all science strategy, when it See Science and Policy on Page 8 and Technology Policy. 3 These books were involves such large sums, to be settled by

PHYSICS AND SOCIETY, Vol. 35, No.4 October 2006 •  Science and Policy from Page 7 definitions are weak and not keeping pace we see in our national behavior are a direct with the changing practice and content of result of the complexity and chaos of events Lewis Branscomb sent me in the summer of science. I think the situation is most serious to which the Administration and Congress 2001 as I was meditating on these things. in resolving questions about science and must respond. That first surprising discovery Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School dean engineering workforce policy. What are the Allan made, that the people in government Donald Stokes wrote an entire book titled implications of globalization of technical are able, dedicated, and hardworking, “Pasteur’s Quadrant – Basic Science and work, rates of graduation in engineering should give us hope that with better tools Technological Innovation”9 where Vannevar and science programs in other countries, for understanding the chaos of events and for Bush’s “linear model” of the continuum of and the impact of information technology mapping out effective plans, our government basic to applied research to technology on research, design, and manufacturing? – even in its present form – can do a better was replaced by a two dimensional space. Empirical and theoretical bases for policy job of focusing its resources. Who better Probably more than two dimensions are suggestions in this area are surprisingly than the science community itself to provide needed here. The evolving complexity of weak. Some of these concerns surfaced in these tools? this relationship was an important theme a recent NRC study I cited in my AAAS of an excellent and influential report10 Allan Bromley’s willingness to dedicate talk13, and OSTP strongly supports the much of his life to the improvement of produced in 1995 by a National Research recommendations in that report. Council Committee chaired by Frank Press science policy formation will make it easier that I want to dwell upon for a moment. In reading over the key policy documents for others to follow his example. I am This report introduced the new category of the past decade in preparation for this very pleased to be able to contribute to this of “Federal Science and Technology,” or talk, I came across a statement by former symposium in his memory. FS&T, into the science policy lexicon. The House Science Chairman George Brown 1. The 1993 Silliman lectures are Office of Management and Budget decided bound with Vern Ehlers’ 1998 report7 as expanded in “The President’s Scientists to adopt such a category for the first time in a “Supplemental View.” Brown declined – Reminiscences of a White House Science the President’s FY2002 budget proposal to to sign onto the report “because it does not Advisor” D. Allan Bromley, Yale University Congress. The authors of the NRC report sufficiently probe the depth of the problems Press, New Haven 1994 facing our scientific enterprise. Any new stated that “The committee’s definition of 2. “Science Advice to the President” 2nd FS&T deliberately blurs any distinction policy should adhere to three principles which require more study. First, it should Edition, enlarged, William T. Golden, Ed. between basic and applied science or AAAS Press, 1993. between science and technology. A complex reflect our understanding of the process of relationship has evolved between basic creativity and innovation. Second, it should 3. “White House Office of Science and and applied science and technology. In articulate the public’s interest in supporting Technology Policy – 25th Anniversary most instances, the linear sequential view science – the goals and values the public Symposium” Proceedings, Massachusetts of innovation is simplistic and misleading. should expect of the scientific enterprise. Institute of Technology, 2001. Basic and applied science and technology are Finally, a new science policy should point 4. “Assessing the U.S. R&D Investment” treated here as one inter-related enterprise, towards decision-making tools for better Report of the President’s Council of Advisors as they are conducted in the science and investment choices.” These three principles on Science and Technology, Office of engineering schools of our universities and align well with the three “meta-issues” that Science and Technology Policy 2002. seemed important to me in 2001. in federal laboratories.” 5. “Rising Above the Gathering Storm” This report is one of the more important I will conclude with a few remarks on National Academies of Science, Report of science policy documents of the past decade, concluding remarks that Bromley made the Committee on Prospering in the Global and it needs to be taken even more seriously in “The President’s Scientists,” the book1 Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda than it has been. It bears on the significance based on his 1993 Silliman Lectures. “I for American Science and Technology, of “development” (the “D” in R&D), and of was asked toward the end of my stay in National Academies Press, Washington, industrial research, which are being given Washington,” he wrote, “what my biggest D.C. 2005 surprises had been. The answer was far too little credit in today’s advocacy briefs 6. “Impact of Large Scale Science on the for increasing federal support for science. surprisingly obvious. First, the people with whom I had the privilege of working, both United States” Alvin M. Weinberg, Science As Alvin Weinberg realized already in 1961, Vol 134, p 161 (1961) it would be possible for us to double or in the Administration and in the Congress, triple funding for the overall basic research were much more able, dedicated, and 7. “Unlocking Our Future: Toward a category and still not address the need for hardworking than I expected. Second, it New National Science Policy” Committee substantial investment in the kind of basic took longer to make anything happen than Print 105-B, Committee on Science, U.S. research that most effectively addresses I could have believed possible!” House of Representatives, 105th Congress, societal needs. I had the impression, talking “There are some truly fundamental September 1998 with Allan Bromley, that he understood better problems that require attention in 8. “Science for Society” Report on the than most the complex processes that lead to Washington,” he continued, “Perhaps the November 2000 Conference on Basic innovation or economic competitiveness. most important is the balkanization of Research in the Service of Public Objectives, The third “meta-issue” in science policy Congress. We have too many committees Lewis Branscomb, Gerald Holton, Gerhard that caught my eye four years ago is just and subcommittees, and there is no rational Sonnert, (Publication sponsored by The how weak the tools of science policy really distribution of responsibility among them. David and Lucille Packard Foundation and are. I made this point earlier this year in my What is needed is a complete restructuring of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, 2000) the way Congress does its business … “ address to the AAAS Science Policy Forum 9. “Pasteur’s Quadrant”, Donald E. Stokes, in April11, and in a subsequent editorial in Congress did implement a minor Brookings Institution Press, Washington, Science magazine. 12 In contrast with tax reconfiguration of its appropriations D.C. 1997 policy, where economic policymakers have subcommittees this year, and it is too early 10. to say whether it will help science. But “Allocating Federal Funds for Science a substantial body of ongoing scholarship to and Technology” Report on the Committee guide them, science policymakers have very reorganizing Congress is not going to be the solution to problems of irrationality in our on Criteria for Federal Support of Research few resources that help make choices among and Development, Frank Press, Chairman. policy options. We have more data than we federally supported science and technology have models for interpreting it, and the data programs. I think many of the irrationalities See Science and Policy on Page 9

 • October 2006 PHYSICS AND SOCIETY, Vol. 35, No.4 Nuclear Energy in France :Public Perception (2006) Michel Lung and Berol Robinson

In this essay, we shall try to analyze the fast neutron reactor, was built at Cadarache Franco-Belgian power plant at Chooz development of the public’s perception under the direction of Georges Vendryes and (1967), essentially a Westinghouse PWR, of nuclear energy from the beginning went critical in 1967. a “committee of wise men” meeting upon until today (April 2006). We will follow In that pioneer period we were already the initiative of Marcel Boiteux, Director the fluctuations of public opinion as they concerned about the proper way to handle General of EdF and a leading figure in the reflect national and international events, highly radioactive long-lived nuclear waste. nuclear program, decided to abandon the public policy as well as known and hidden With the cooperation of the glass industry, line of gas-cooled graphite-moderated light influences. Therefore we shall take a the CEA perfected the Piver method of water reactors in favor of the Westinghouse historical path. vitrification (1969), later transformed into PWR (1969). This decision also took into the continuous AVM process. Starting as account the fact that enriched uranium was already available from the plant at 1. The beginnings – 1945 to 1960 early as 1954, first at Saclay and then at Cherbourg, the CEA trained a corps of Pierrelatte, and that more would eventually At the end of the war, everything had to engineers specialized in the design and safe come from Tricastin. It was decided then be rebuilt. The Marshall Plan helped us do operation of nuclear reactors. to focus on the PWR, which was bit by bit that. Influenced by a few scientists who “Frenchified” by the builder Framatome, had contributed to nuclear physics before In brief, it was a euphoric time and initially a joint venture of the Westinghouse the war and during the war in the USA the public and the media enthusiastically and the Belgian group Empain-Schneider, and Canada, General de Gaulle founded greeted the success of our engineers, led by later CEA and Empain-Schneider. the graduates of our Ecole Polytechnique. the “Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique” Public opinion followed these (CEA) in 1945. ZOE, the first experimental Even our mineral waters advertised their slight radioactivity as a desirable quality. developments with interest and passion. pile, went critical in 1948. It was a great However, atmospheric weapons testing, boost for the public reputation of French We must not forget President Eisenhower mainly American and Soviet, led to science and engineering, and it led us to and his Atoms for Peace initiative (1954) medical concerns about radioactive fall- entertain great hopes for the future. “Atomic which led to the organization of the well out, especially radio-strontium; and the energy”, as we called it then, seemed to known Geneva conferences on civilian tests went underground starting about 1966. have fair sailing. Every country wanted its applications of nuclear energy (1955, 1958, Furthermore, prominent people began to reactor, even tiny Luxembourg. In 1956, the etc.), the creation of the International Atomic worry about the proliferation of nuclear first nuclear electricity in France was widely Energy Agency (IAEA) at Vienna (1957), weapons, with talk and rumors from Israel, acclaimed. The first gas-cooled graphite- and the spread of swimming pool research Pakistan, India and Argentina. moderated reactors with natural uranium reactors for universities The Euratom Treaty, fuel produced weapons-grade plutonium, parallel to the Treaty of Rome founding the The May 1961 Oslo Conference against which was separated in the reprocessing Common Market of six European countries, the Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons gave plants at Marcoule (1958) and at La Hague was also signed in 1957. Nikita Khrushchev the occasion to adopt (1960). De Gaulle wanted a nuclear defense a pacifist position, and high level clubs and his successors, whether Socialist or like Pugwash (founded in 1957) began to Communist, were of the same opinion. The 2. Continuity – 1960 to 1970 ask questions. In brief a certain pacifist first bomb was tested in 1960. Strengthened by popular approval, the movement was born which surreptitiously began to shake the blind faith in this new But that plutonium was also to be used in government of France continued to invest in nuclear energy, following the examples form of energy, in France as elsewhere. breeder reactors because it was already clear Among great voices, that of Linus Pauling to our leaders that we ought not be satisfied set by the USA, Canada, its neighbors in Europe, especially the United Kingdom (Nobel Peace Prize 1962) had a strong with the one part in 140 (0.7%) represented impact on the public opinion. by the fissionable isotope U-235, but rather and Germany, and by the Soviet Union. that we should extract all the nuclear energy Their resolve was further strengthened from natural uranium. Rapsodie, the first by the scarcity of domestic coal and 3. The period from 1970 to 1981 oil resources and by the fact that dams had already This period was a turning point in France Science and Policy from Page 8 been built on most of the and probably in the whole Western world. potential hydroelectric Civilian nuclear energy was keeping its promises; one had confidence in it. The National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1995 sites. The CEA opened uranium mines in France oil shocks of 1973 and later, the lack of 11. Keynote Address, John Marburger, 2005 AAAS and invested in uranium domestic fossil fuel reserves in France, a Science and Technology Policy Forum, Washington, mining abroad. The rapidly expanding economy and a highly D.C., April 21, 2005 (Available at www.ostp.gov) state-owned electricity centralized and technocratic government monopoly, Electricité de under President Pompidou led to a forced 12. “Wanted: Better Benchmarks” John Marburger, march to build nuclear plants in order to Science Vol 308 p 1087 (2005) France (EdF), was urged to invest in the new power. free the country of its dependence on foreign 13. “Measuring Research and Development sources of energy which might compromise Expenditures in the U.S. Economy” Lawrence D. Brown, After the success of its economic growth. EdF and Framatome Thomas J. Plewes, Marisa A. Gerstein, Eds., National Admiral Rickover with began an “assembly line” of PWR reactors, Academies Press, Washington, D.C. (2005) nuclear submarines, the to the point of starting four a year, first 900 pressurized water reactor John Marburger MW, then 1300 MW. It was a major financial (PWR) at Shippingport and industrial effort, but the country was Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy PA and General Electric’s proud it. EdF was able to site reactors with Executive Office of the President boiling water reactor, and no great difficulty, profit-sharing grants [email protected] in view of the satisfactory performance of the small See Nuclear Energy on Page 10

PHYSICS AND SOCIETY, Vol. 35, No.4 October 2006 •  Nuclear Energy from Page 9 The French managed to resist these support nuclear power as he had years before sentiments pretty well, perhaps on account as minister in diverse functions during the to nearby towns helped, new installations of the military component in the national IV Republic (1945-58). The nuclear industry brought well paying jobs, the government nuclear industry. At the request of President had had a near miss. But public convictions supported it all, and the Communist Party, Carter, whom he met on a Concorde visit were shaken by the sight of the government’s powerful in France and in control of the CGT to Martinique, President Giscard d’Estang, hesitations and its inability to keep the new labor union, approved of the investments. himself a Polytechnician, stopped all ministers in line on the question of nuclear The first reactor went on grid in 1977; French aid to Pakistan, but refused to halt energy. The ideas of the Greens took center it was a 900 MW PWR at Fessenheim reprocessing in France. At the same time he stage and their simplistic point of view in Alsace, on the Rhine. It was followed launched the construction of Superphenix pleased the media. “Scientific matters are by over fifty more in the space of twenty (December 1976), a liquid-sodium cooled not a dogma, one had better beware.” years. The fast neutron reactor Phenix had breeder reactor of 1200 MW, declaring that Then there was the unfortunate affair of gone on grid in 1973 and was running very “with this new type of reactor and domestic the Rainbow Warrior in 1985. It was a small well; the next step would be Superphenix. uranium resources, the country possessed sailboat, used by Greenpeace to protest Reprocessing and enrichment, too, were as much energy as Kuwait with all its French weapons testing in the Pacific; and going well. “Everything was for the best in oil.” Although correct, it was a regrettable it was torpedoed by a French secret service the best of all worlds”. The French public statement; for it led more than one oil-rich commando in Auckland harbor (NZ), killing was satisfied and nuclear energy was country to reflect upon its implications for one man and injuring several others. That welcomed. its own relations with France. The result was episode contributed to a weakening of not long in appearing: in July 1976 tens of But a dark cloud loomed on the horizon the image of the “authorities” in nuclear thousands of demonstrators from all over matters. about 1970 with the founding of Greenpeace Europe were mobilized on the site of the and a number of concerns which had begun future Superphenix, by then an international Thus public opinion began to waver around to appear a few years earlier in certain project including Italy, Germany and 50% for or against “le nucléaire”. In spite of circles. Pacifism began to invade the West Benelux. And the following July there were it all, but more discretely than before, newly and people began to draw a parallel between over 100 000 demonstrators; one person died built reactors were put on the grid. The two civilian nuclear power and nuclear weapons and several were injured, one seriously. new reprocessing plants at La Hague, each and the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. one able to treat 800 tons a year, were built Pacifist movements and the distrust of In 1979 the Three Mile Island (PA) normally under the direction of COGEMA, all technocracy became fashionable. The accident cost its owner dearly, but no one created by the CEA in 1977. Superphenix student movements of 1968, especially was injured or even much irradiated, thanks went into operation in 1986 after having be widespread in France, had a lot to do with to the confinement structure of the PWR, like subjected to a rocket attack in 1982 (rockets this state of affairs; and we see the effects those built in France. But what a racket! A supplied courtesy of the international among the French media and especially catastrophe! The “China Syndrome” and all terrorist Carlos). Greenpeace went from among the French governing class to this (the film with Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon demonstration to demonstration at reactor very day. had just appeared!). One is reluctant to sites. Greenpeace-France spoke man-to- believe that all this public reaction was man with the minister of the environment. The 1972 fire in the Windscale spontaneously generated. (Look for the reprocessing plant (UK) had strong Its “bêtes noires” were carefully and “master mind” directing traffic. Your strategically targeted: the reprocessing plant repercussions, although there had been suggestions are welcome.) hardly a murmur 15 years before when a at La Hague, the Superphenix reactor, the plutonium production reactor on the same transport of radioactive material; if any site suffered a dangerous and disabling fire In France, public opinion favorable to were stopped the nuclear industry would with extensive radioactive pollution. In 1976 nuclear power received a blow. On the be strangled. President Ford deferred the opening of the political scene, the Socialist Party led by It was at this moment that the slogans Barnwell (SC) commercial reprocessing Mitterrand sought to replace the liberal appeared which are well known to the plant, citing the risk of proliferation. The government of Giscard [N.B. in France “nuclear lobby”: “we don’t know what to do next year his successor, Jimmy Carter, ended “liberal” means “market economy.”]. In with nuclear waste, there are no solutions, all work on reprocessing by permanently their program, besides the alliance with the we will leave it to future generations”, etc. abandoning Barnwell; and he tried to Communists and the Greens, the nuclear These slogans hit a bull’s eye in the press convince the British, the French and the question appeared in the form of a vow and media, and the public fell for it. We Japanese to do the same, to no avail. But to stop the nuclear power program and have seen that the farther the public is from the measure was widely acclaimed in especially reprocessing (without which a nuclear plant, the easier it is to make pacifist and socialist circles, as well as by nuclear is not viable for the long term). an impression on them; people who live Greenpeace, WWF and others, including nearby, familiar with the industry, have more the Aga Khan at Geneva. The Green confidence in it. movement grew fat, supported by the leftist 4. The Socialist period – 1981 to 1986 movements (“Besser Rot als tot” [Better – a period of “resistance”. Red than dead] as they said in Germany). The presidential elections of 1981 brought 5. The thunder clap of Chernobyl – 26 It was at the height of the Cold War with the Socialists to power under President April 1986 tactical nuclear weapons installed in Europe, Mitterrand, and everything nuclear in It would take volumes to recount the nuclear-armed bombers crashing with local France began to shake in its boots. But the exaggerations in the press and television contamination. All this contributed to public Communists and the CGT (Communist- of this “soviet” accident and the political concern. It was at this time, for example, that dominated trade union) would not agree and media fallout. The Central Service International Physicians for the Prevention to stopping the on-going program or for Protection against Ionizing Radiation of Nuclear War (IPPNW,) was founded to interrupt construction in progress. (SCPRI), an agency of the Ministry of (1980). Environmental concerns were Mitterrand, as a concession to his party Health, was among the first, after Sweden, growing, and in the 1980s the Norwegian members, immediately cancelled the plans to detect the radioactive cloud thanks to Gro Brundtland launched her famous notion for a power station at Plogoff on the coast monitors installed on international air liners of “sustainable development”, following the of Brittany, which had been the subject of See Nuclear Energy on Page 11 ideas of the Club of Rome. demonstrations for years, but he continued to

10 • October 2006 PHYSICS AND SOCIETY, Vol. 35, No.4 Nuclear Energy from Page 10 the National Assembly, is elected for five a French terrorist organization. President years, but the president may dissolve it and of Eurodif and COGEMA, he had built and a centralized automatic network of call new elections. The president selects the uranium enrichment plant at Tricastin monitors covering all of France. Professor the prime minister from the majority in the and imparted a remarkable impetus to our Pierre Pellerin, director of SCPRI, following Chamber, and the ministers who constitute nuclear industry; his perception and human the measurements closely over the long the Government must be approved by the qualities were appreciated by all. May 1 weekend (Labor Day in Europe), Chamber. The Socialist Mitterrand was In 1991, Mitterrand’s Socialist Prime observed that the radioactive “cloud” had president from 1981 until 1995 (7 + 7) and Minister Rocard wanted to find an indeed reached France, but judged that was succeeded by the liberal Chirac whose underground site for highly radioactive long the radioactivity was not strong enough term ends in 2007 (7 + 5) (liberal means lived waste, but a unanimous popular protest, to imperil the public health. In some of market-economy oriented). During this inflamed by the Greens, led him to put off all the neighboring countries, the conclusions period, the government alternated between decisions for 15 years. Well, here we are, in were different, coming close to panic. The Socialist-Communist-Green coalitions and 2006, and nothing is less uncertain, although French media, supported by the “anti- liberal majorities in the Chamber. From the present government favors a reasonable nuclears”, seized upon the question to say 1981 to 1986 the regime was Socialist. solution for an underground repository, that Pellerin had lied, that he obeyed the From 1986 to 1988 the socialist President with deposits being reversible for a certain “nuclear lobby” to protect the industry, Mitterrand had to live with a liberal majority period of years. that he was responsible for hundreds of in the Chamber. From 1988 to 1993 the thyroid cancers. (A steady increase in the regime was Socialist again. From 1993 to During these years we have seen Italy occurrence of thyroid cancers dates from 1995 the government was again liberal. In renounce its nuclear program; activities 1975, ten years before Chernobyl, and it is 1995 the new President Chirac had a liberal frozen in Germany, Belgium, and Spain; observed even in places like Canada, never majority, but from 1997 he had to live with and the entry into the European Community touched by Chernobyl fallout.) Law suits a Socialist government. Finally, in 2002, of some violently anti-nuclear countries were pressed and Pellerin won them all; but Chirac was re-elected with a liberal majority, – Austria, Denmark and Ireland. So the even so, on this twentieth anniversary of which is still in office. European Commission has become very discrete about nuclear energy, in spite of the accident, the media are still persuaded In 1986, the reactor program was well that the government lied to the French, the efforts of the remarkable Commissioner under way, and it was completed despite Loyola de Palacio. and it’s a veritable witch hunt against the the alternation of governments, largely due nuclear lobby, the “nucleocrats”, with many to the presence in all governments of some In 1995, Jacques Chirac became president films, lectures by visitors from Ukraine and perceptive ministers. With a certain amount of France and wanted to show his mettle Belorus, regions which obviously suffered of beating around the bush, the four big through a series of weapons tests in the directly from the catastrophe. The movement PWRs (1450 MW) were completed, two at Pacific, before the test center at Mururoa in France is so intense that one has become Chooz and two at Civaux; the last one went would be permanently closed. This gratuitous suspicious: Why? And especially whose on grid at the end of 1999. decision was not appreciated in world at money is paying for the propaganda? large and was received in various ways in But one could feel a certain growing When they are shown pictures of deformed France. It certainly did not strengthen the distrust in French public opinion, stoked by public image of civilian nuclear energy, babies, the well-meaning public has doubts: anti-nuclear attitudes of the media, fed by Are they hiding something from us? Suppose while the Greens and Greenpeace were only Greenpeace, the Greens, WWF and other too happy to take advantage of the occasion our reactors exploded like Chernobyl? Is it organizations, branching out in neighboring true that the storage pools at La Hague have to connect nuclear power with the bomb. countries, at the headquarters of the European On the other hand, the Navy’s arrest of the the equivalent of hundreds of Chernobyls? Community in Brussels, and especially in The IAEA estimates that Chernobyl will Greenpeace commando at Mururoa was the European Parliament. Some anti-nuclear rather well received. have caused at most 4000 cancers: but organisms appeared, such as WISE, Sortir du maybe Greenpeace is right with 100,000, Nucléaire (“Let’s get out of nuclear power”) But in 1997 the Green Minister of the or even 6 million ? And now comes our which claims to coordinate the operations of Environment, Dominique Voynet, (1997 French Nobelist Georges Charpak and 700 anti-nuclear associations, CRIIRAD (an – 2001) struck a devastating blow at the his American friend Richard Garwin who “independent commission” on information French nuclear program. She demanded that recently published a book in French entitled about radiation) and others. The Ministry of her Socialist Prime Minister Jospin agree to “De Tchernobyl en Tchernobyls”. This the Environment and ADEME, its agency the permanent and definitive closure of the appears to be a translation of their successful for energy conservation, became hot beds Superphenix, without consulting France’s “Megawatts and Megatons”. When asked of the anti-nuclear movement. During the European partners, Italy, Germany and about the title, Garwin replied “One is not years of Socialist government, the Greens Benelux. She monitored the operation herself in complete control of one’s publisher”. managed to place their friends in various to be sure that the reactor would never run So much for today’s hard sell anti-nuclear organs of the administration and most are again. All efforts to save the machine were publicity campaign. What’s next? still in place. Greenpeace mounted some in vain, although it had functioned well In any event, Chernobyl has turned out to incredible demonstrations to protest the La after a difficult start up period. This act cost be an extraordinary lever, and it has been Hague reprocessing plant, and to impede the the French taxpayers the tidy sum of 15 powerfully exploited against nuclear energy, transport of spent fuel domestically and from billion Euros (US$18B) and set the country at least in Western Europe, and especially Japan and Germany and the return of the back fifty years. (Dominique Voynet now in France. waste to those countries. But public opinion represents the Green Party in the French did not completely follow; the program Senate.) ran out of steam and demonstrations were This period of uncertainty, after Chernobyl 6. The period from 1986 to 2002: in the end abandoned, not without leading decline and distrust and Dominique Voynet, was very unfortunate one participant to die on a railroad track for the public image of nuclear energy. It will help to say a few words about the in France. Already in 1977, the residence Henceforth it would not be “honorable” structure of the French government. The of Marcel Boiteux, president of EdF, had to defend it; a journalist would call you president used to be elected for a term of been blown up with a plastic bomb; but the devil’s advocate, or a “nuclearist”” or seven years, reduced to five years starting the culmination was the horrible murder in 2002. The Chamber of Deputies, now called 1986 of Georges Besse by Action Directe, See Nuclear Energy on Page 12

PHYSICS AND SOCIETY, Vol. 35, No.4 October 2006 • 11 Nuclear Energy from Page 10 talk nuclear in France and President Chirac Germany, Spain and the UK are weighing approves. About 70 % of the public are the possibility of returning to nuclear energy. even worse a “nucleocrat”. Leaders in the aware of France’s advantageous position; Mr Putin’s natural gas will cost more, while government would hardly mention nuclear but the public, the students, the ordinary China and India are competing for oil. In the energy at all, as if the industry were taboo. medical doctors, are very little informed. West, France is still the pioneer and leader But a few voices were raised against Many people still believe that a few wind in nuclear energy, and it’s not by chance this ostracism. In particular, AEPN turbines can replace a central power station. that France is the principal target of the (l’Association des Ecologistes Pour le The teaching profession is invaded by the anti-nuclear movement. Nucléaire) founded in 1996, which has Left and the Greens, and most teachers The parliamentary debate on the future thousands of supporters, which is spreading refuse to offer objective information about of long-lived nuclear waste will take place world wide and which works in coordination energy. And every year in April the media at the end of 2006. We can therefore expect with similar organizations abroad (EFN, serve up afresh the story of Chernobyl continued activity all year long. With the Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy). with ever more cancers and deaths (up to election of a president scheduled for May Other organizations, mostly of retired six million!). This year, on the twentieth 2007, it would be surprising if any firm engineers, are equally active in informing anniversary, they are presenting a veritable decisions were taken before then. But we the public. The SFEN (Société Française festival of films and “documents”. In public are moving forward, if only slowly, toward d’Energie Nucléaire), the SFR (Société debates, the unfortunate “nuclearists” more objective information on the major Française de Radioprotection), the Academy have to face crowds of anti-nukes who problem worrying the public: What to do of Science and the Academy of Medicine are generally know very little but who are firmly with nuclear waste? convinced that simplistic arguments will playing an increasingly active role. They are In summary, the weight of reality will well known in scientific circles, but it is a move the audience, repeating incessantly their claims that the government as well as gradually be felt in France and those in favor struggle to get their voice heard by the media of nuclear energy will be able to speak out who are still distrustful. the IAEA and WHO are lying to protect a “nuclear lobby”. Except for the Minister of more freely, in spite of the powerful anti- Research, the government has been silent. nuclear propaganda, for one must call it that. 7. From 2002 until now We may expect the French public, especially Quite recently however (April 21, 2006) the older citizens and the youth, to massively We now have a “liberal” government in three ministers who supervise nuclear come around to the cause of nuclear energy, France, a “right wing” government, under activities in France, the Ministers of which has faithfully provided 80% of President Chirac and his Prime Ministers Industry, Environment and Public Health, their electricity in a most satisfactory way. Raffarin, then de Villepin. We speak have declared in a press release that thyroid Objections will still be raised on the basis more and more these days of the likely cancers in France cannot today be attributed of proliferation and terrorism, but nowadays consequences of an enhanced greenhouse to the fallout of the “Chernobyl cloud”. But the French people know how to distinguish effect (Kyoto 1997, Johannesburg 2002), the press didn’t pay much attention to it. between accepted technical risks, inherent of the end of oil and gas in this century AREVA and EdF are similarly silent, as is in any activity, which must be minimized and the associated price increase. Yet when the Parliament. Their reluctance to speak as much as possible, and political risks, Roselyne Bachelot, the new Minister of the may be due to the fact that a group of thyroid which are left to the government leaders Environment, thoughtlessly suggested that sufferers are now suing the government for to tackle. nuclear energy might make up for a shortage not having taken measures to protect them of oil, she was rebuked by her prime minister from the disease, a disease which specialists As often occurs in Old Europe, the signal for having said an unseemly word. The rule say cannot have been caused by Chernobyl’s will come from America. Their attitude is is “conservation and renewable energies”, fallout. The law suit is advancing, and the more straightforward than ours. It will also especially to build wind turbines, following anti-nukes are taking full advantage of it. come from the new countries of Eastern Europe, which have brought the European our neighbor Germany, the world champion. The recently organized international The new Minister of Industry, Nicole Community to its current strength of 25, antinuclear demonstration in Normandy, and from countries which hope to join soon. Fontaine, supported Mme Bachelot, and she at the site proposed for the EPR, recalls to was similarly called to order by Raffarin. For them nuclear energy is the key to their mind those mounted against Superphenix economic growth and well being. But she managed to organize a series of thirty years ago. But things are different public debates on energy around the country. now and it seems that these demonstrations They were well received by an informed will not be taken as seriously as they were Michel Lung is former Director in public, and led up to the National Debate in the past, especially with current alarming the Areva group, He is a chemical on Nuclear Energy ending late 2005, dealing talk about running out of oil and the price of engineer (MS, University of Washington, with nuclear waste and the proposal to build gas at the pump. Seattle) and received the MS in nuclear an EPR – European Pressurized Reactor (a engineering from Saclay, France. He is Generation III reactor) to begin to replace We should also note with satisfaction that the Socialist Party, now in opposition, a founding member of AEPN-EFN, and the aging reactors of the 1970’s. Although treasurer of EFN-USA. not widely followed, the Debate had the has prudently declared that if they were virtue of making the media speak of energy elected next year (May 2007), they would [email protected] problems and to help extract nuclear power not phase out nuclear energy in France, only in France from its (self-imposed) ghetto. rearrange it somewhat. UDF, the centrist party, followed suit. Berol Robinson (PhD Hopkins ‘53) The USA with President Bush’s recent is former science and science education announcement, and Finland starting officer of UNESCO, member of APS, early construction of an EPR, its fifth reactor, Conclusion member of AEPN-EFN and president of have given a push. China and India have Am I trying to tell you that this is the EFN-USA. announced nuclear ambitions; in view of swan song of the anti-nuclear movement in [email protected]. their enormous needs it seems inevitable. France? I feel that the anti-nukes are more Japan, South Korea and Russia are moving and more running into the wall of physical forward. The USA had initiated and and economic reality; and that the public is, supported the Generation IV International in spite of all, beginning to have a feeling for Forum. Government people are beginning to energy problems, if only in their wallet. Italy,

12 • October 2006 PHYSICS AND SOCIETY, Vol. 35, No.4 COMMENTARY Creating an Effective Message on Intelligent Design T. Jeremy Gunn and David G. Cooper

Courtroom Victory expect that any conscientious schools) and that the next wave This is a social fact that we Scientists, teachers, and civil school board or legislator will will more shrewdly say nothing ignore at our peril. Similarly, libertarians scored a major think more than twice before at all about God, creationism, or when Americans are given the victory last December when trying to promote ID in the same intelligent design. It will focus stark choice between “religion” Federal District Court Judge John fashion as Dover. on “the problems of evolution” or “science,” they are likely to E. Jones III ruled that the school If any local school board or and the “gaps in Darwin’s choose religion. Thus scientists board of Dover, Pennsylvania, state legislator might be thinking theory” and that “evolution is and civil libertarians actually crossed the constitutional line of promoting ID, the opinion only a theory.” help proponents of creationism by promoting “intelligent lays out in detail everything So how do we respond to when they, like the creationists, design” (ID) in public schools. that is wrong with such an this? suggest that this is a battle between science and religion. (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/ action. In addition, the voters It is not sufficient for us to be kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf) of Dover, having been given a complacent in our self-assurance Second, although an impressive The American Civil Liberties chance to think over the issue, that the facts are on our side and percentage of Americans will Union, in close cooperation subsequently threw out the that we can rest on our litigators’ choose religion over science, with Americans United for board that foolishly promoted laurels. Public opinion polls they do not want the government the Separation of Church and ID and even elected a new fairly consistently show that to be in the business of choosing State, the Philadelphia law board that included several the majority of our fellow one religious doctrine over firm of Pepper Hamilton LLP, Kitzmiller plaintiffs. (The citizens believe that some form another. So if they see the and the National Center for newly elected Board reversed of creationism should be taught choice as religion versus science, Science Education, laid out the the ID policy, accepted Judge in public schools, despite the religion wins. But when the facts in such telling detail that Jones’s ruling, and stated that Supreme Court’s rulings to the choice is government preferring there could be no doubt about it will not appeal.) These legal contrary. [1] With the majority one religion over another, then either the motivations or the and electoral victories offer a of the public on the other side, they have second thoughts. methods of proponents of ID, powerful warning to those who we can continue to expect wave The importance of these two an idea that has failed to gain might have considered adding it after wave of this until our aspects of American opinion the support of any legitimate to the curriculum. position can be formulated in a cannot be overemphasized for scientific organization in the more persuasive way. We need creating a convincing message United States. Court of Public Opinion to be wise enough to understand to a public that thinks it wants ID asserts that some aspects that litigation by itself, no matter creationism to be taught in of biological life are so complex Our legal strategy showed how effective, should not be the schools. The message is simple: that they could not possibly significantly greater intelligence only tool in our box. “creationism (and its relatives) and design than did the latest have arisen through natural For biology teachers, it are disputed religious opinions biological mechanisms (such incarnation of creationism. But that divide people of faith, and perhaps the most important is crucial to teach evolution as natural selection and random effectively and work to confront the government has no business variation), and that these question is what will happen choosing one religion over next. the misconceptions students complex biological systems often have about evolution another.” required the intervention of an Those who wish to insert their which may undermine their Thus we need to show the “intelligent designer.” For most personal religious views into the willingness to accept it.[2] fact that creationism and ID objective observers, including public school science curriculum For all science teachers, and and “anti-evolutionism” are Judge Jones, “intelligent design” are not necessarily going to be for scientists speaking to non- controversial religious beliefs is little more than a dressed-up dissuaded by the evidence, a scientist audiences, it is essential that divide people of faith. version of “creationism” and the well-reasoned judicial opinion, to instill a basic understanding The Catholic Church supports “intelligent designer” is simply or even a sobering electoral of what a scientific theory is and the teaching of evolution in a euphemism for “God.” defeat. The losing ID lawyers what differentiates science from schools and does not accept The case, Kitzmiller v. Dover from the Thomas More Society religion.[3] ID as a correct formulation. Area School District (400 F. are already looking for another [4] Many of America’s leading unfortunate school board that But in order to be more efective Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)), and persuasive to the public, biological scientists are very was the first full-scale test of will be willing to follow its lead religious and they see no conflict over a cliff. we should all formulate our intelligent design in court. The arguments while bearing in mind between their faith and their litigators shrewdly undertook While the ACLU does not two different but interrelated religion. Thousands of members a comprehensive investigation have a department of prophecy, aspects of American popular of the clergy are opposed to of the facts underlying the we nevertheless can predict with opinion about religion. teaching ID, as is shown by the controversial idea and then some assurance that this will not Clergy Letter Project (http:// laid them out before Judge be the final effort to promote First, a high percentage of www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/ Jones. The Judge’s 139-page creationism in the classroom. Americans consider themselves clergy_project.htm). The fact opinion exhaustively analyzed Our best guess is, however, to be very religious, and public that so many people of faith and dismissed the wide range that creationism’s proponents opinion polls repeatedly do not accept ID shows just of arguments proponents of ID will cast yet another obscuring show that Americans identify how controversial it is and the have conjured, and the decision veil over their real agenda themselves with religion more government has no business is so comprehensive that we may (promoting religion in public than the citizens of any other See Commentary on Page 14 developed country in the world.

PHYSICS AND SOCIETY, Vol. 35, No.4 October 2006 • 13 COMMENTARY from Page 13 and Religion, PHYSICS TODAY, July 2006, at 46. promoting the religious beliefs of some at the expense of others. [4] See Eugenie C. Scott, Creationists and the Pope’s Statement, Indeed, the genius of the American founders was to recognize that both religion and government prosper best when religious issues http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1480_creationists_ are not made the subject of legislative controversy. Keeping the and_the_pope39_12_22_2003.asp; Pope John Paul II, Message to government away from taking sides in religious controversies is Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Oct. 22, 1996, good for religion, good for civil discourse, and eminently more fair http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8712_message_from_ for all people – whatever their beliefs. the_pope_1996_1_3_2001.asp; [1] See, e.g., CBS News, Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution, T. Jeremy Gunn, Nov. 22, 2004, Director, ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/ [email protected] main657083.shtml [2] See Brian J. Alters & Craig E. Nelson, Teaching Evolution in David G. Cooper Higher Education, Evolution 56(10), 1891 (2002) Law Student, University of Michigan [3] For a description of one physicist’s efforts to reach out to Former Science Policy Fellow, APS Washington Office skeptical members of the public about issues relating to science and [email protected] religion, see Murray Peshkin, Addressing the Public About Science LETTERS

Response to Norsen: Design,” is replaced by But according to Norsen, Re: “Monitoring Nuclear Weapons and The Enigma Remains! the Bohm interpretation, there is no mystery Nuclear Explosive Materials” t h e p r o b l e m w e a r e to explore. The Bohm Ordinarily, this journal Physics and Society, Vol. 35, No. 3. (14 concerned with disappears. interpretation tells us that July 2006) is not a proper venue The Bohm interpretation, that instead of particle or for a discussion of the according to Norsen: wave (yielding the wave/ Regarding the subject article by Steve fundamentals of quantum “…avoids completely the particle paradox) we have Fetter and Ben Rusek, and thus too the mechanics. But the issue unscientific baggage and particle and wave. “And associated 2005 CISAC-National Academy here is how the teaching subjectivist implications that’s that. The paradox report, several technical means are described of quantum mechanics can o f t h e C o p e n h a g e n is resolved: there are that would make it seem that multiple counter the use of quantum approach… In short, it has two entities, a wave and tools are in-hand to reliably and securely mechanics to provide none of the subjectivist- a particle,” says Norsen. monitor, as part of some cooperative arms support for pseudoscience. epistemological ‘human Not quite so fast. The reduction agreement, nuclear weapons, In the April edition of this implications’ which Kuttner Bohm interpretation also dismantled components and other sensitive journal we argued that by and Rosenblum urged on requires a third entity, nuclear explosive materials. This is not properly dealing with us, in the previous issue of a “quantum potential” not quite the case, yet. While there are the human implications this journal, to explore with yielding a quantum force numerous technical approaches that would of quantum mechanics, our students.” guiding particles to obey seem to have merit, implementation is we leave that field to the the Schrödinger equation. very problematic, to the point of being purveyors of pseudoscience. We believe the usual prohibitive. It is these implementation presentation of quantum The quantum potential We cited the movie “What is otherwise completely problems that need the real attention. the Bleep?” as an example. mechanics based on the Copenhagen interpretation undetectable. This potential There is probably no more worthy goal We noted that while a provides the required for physicists and other technical specialists biology student is able to is just fine for all practical purposes, as long as instantaneous connection working on nonproliferation and arms effectively refute Intelligent of a particle with all other reduction problems than that of developing Design’s challenge to Copenhagen is recognized as one of several current particles with which it viable nuclear arms reduction monitoring evolution, a physics has ever interacted, in techniques. And there is a concomitant high student, with a typically interpretations of quantum mechanics. While each principle, with everything- degree of responsibility for policymakers to limited understanding of -including the conscious support research and development of these the quantum enigma, is not interpretation of quantum mechanics recognizes observer. (Is this well- technical means, and to educate themselves similarly prepared to refute established interaction on their efficacy and security. quantum nonsense. We can human implications, each shows how the physics mysterious? Einstein called That said, we are not served well if we provide that preparation it “spooky.”) by briefly confronting discipline need not deal are led to believe that the technical means those human implications with them. Students should, The Bohm interpretation to solve some of the most important nuclear when we teach quantum however, understand that thus does not avoid the arms reduction monitoring and inspection mechanics. if we explore beyond subjectivist implications of issues are readily available and waiting practical purposes, quantum quantum mechanics. In fact, for responsible policy makers and security Travis Norsen takes mechanics presents us with the mysterious implications specialists to use them. Examining two of issue with this. He an unresolved mystery. of quantum mechanics can the areas mentioned in the article elucidates maintains that if the Understanding the nature never be resolved by any some of the more difficult problems: use of Copenhagen interpretation of that mystery, students mere interpretation of the nuclear weapons radiation signatures, and of quantum mechanics, will know the limits to what quantum theory. The use of tags and seals. which he calls “just as can legitimately be implied unscientific as Intelligent from it. See Enigma on Page 15 See Monitoring on Page 15

14 • October 2006 PHYSICS AND SOCIETY, Vol. 35, No.4 Enigma from Page 14 Monitoring from Page 14 enigma arises directly from the (quantum) theory- Radiation Signatures: In are not as sensitive. Examples of neutral experiment, which is logically prior to the a cooperative monitoring and such attributes include presence of quantum theory. inspection environment, radiation Pu239 or U235, threshold NEM mass, The Bohm interpretation is sometimes discussed signatures are useful for validating Pu240/Pu239 mass ratio maximum as eliminating the involvement of the observer. It declarations by the inspected party value, lack of fissile material in is usually not clear in such discussion whether this about the nature of the nuclear item oxide form, NEM configuration not elimination of the observer is supposedly true in being examined. This is particularly consistent with powder or rubble principle or merely for all practical purposes. In the true for the fundamental task of pieces, and Americium content former case, the complete determinism of the Bohm counting warheads, for example. (age). US and Russian governmental interpretation would deny the observer’s free will. (Accurately verifying the numbers technical specialists have been David Bohm himself considered the elimination of of warheads will become much cooperatively working for more the observer to be only for all practical purposes. He more important in the future if the than a decade to develop, certify, and has written: “…the intuition that consciousness and weapons states agree to further demonstrate systems based on the quantum theory are in some sense related seems to substantial reductions, and in fact attribute approach. be a good one…” may only do so if secure and effective But even using an attribute technical means of accounting exist.) John Bell is sometimes quoted, and is by Norsen, as approach, a gamma radiation Warheads and components are often spectrum is recorded. If it is from implying the Bohm interpretation resolves the wave- in secure containers, or their form is particle paradox. Actually, Bell’s opinion (which a weapon, a weapon component, or not particularly sight-sensitive nor (in the case of Russia) raw NEM, we share!) is that Bohm is one of the “roads open … unique. Radiation signatures can towards a precise theory…,” but that theory has not this spectrum is classified sensitive be useful to verify not only that an information. Special information yet been achieved. In one of the last papers he wrote item has the basic form of a nuclear Bell speculates that we might find “… an unmovable protection (information barrier) weapon, but also something about techniques will most likely need to finger obstinately pointing outside the subject, to the its uniqueness, and if dismantled, mind of the observer…” be incorporated into the design and something identifiable about the assembly of the measurement system. Discussion of the human implications of quantum dismantled parts. But also, the measurement system mechanics increases today as interpretations proliferate. There are two basic approaches will need to be owned and operated It is unfortunate that the subject also is increasingly to employing radiation signatures: by the host country. Authentication fodder for the promoters of pseudoscience. In such template matching and fundamental of the measurement system results presentations even many physics students can have attribute measurement. The article thus becomes the critical issue. How trouble telling where the real quantum weirdness describes template matching as does the inspecting party verify ends and the quantum nonsense begins. It is our viable. Problems with template that the complicated inspection responsibility in teaching physics to deal openly with matching include the fact that one first system, owned and operated by the mystery physics has encountered, which has been has to verify the master is as declared, the inspected party (because once called our “skeleton in the closet.” This can be done and the associated gamma-spectrum it is used for the first time it will in a single lecture or two, even in a “physics for poets” template contains a copious amount henceforth be a classified data course. In fact, that level might be where we would of weapon design information and is acquisition system) yields valid and get the most bang for the buck. We have been able to thus very sensitive. The TRIS system trustworthy results? It is this issue present it at that level in courses and in a book. described in the article was developed that must be demonstrably solved F. Kuttner and B. Rosenblum, “Social Responsibility for US safeguard, security, and other before a radiation signature system is and the Teaching of Quantum Mechanics,” Forum on unilateral activities. It may not be available to monitor nuclear warheads Physics and Society of the American Physical Society, appropriate for an arms reduction and their associated components and Vol. 35 No. 2, April 2006 regime that requires high levels of materials cooperatively. The good 2 T. Norsen, “Intelligent Design in the Physics assurance. It is probably not the right news is that the United States and the Classroom?,” Forum on Physics and Society of the tool for cooperatively validating the Russian Federation are making good American Physical Society, Vol. 35 No. 3, July 2006 reference item signature, and it is very cooperative progress on this problem, problematic to discuss measurement but we are not there yet. B. Rosenblum and F. Kuttner, “The Observer in the system design and efficacy with Tags and Seals: It is true that Quantum Experiment,” Foundations of Physics, Vol. a partner state when both parties 32 No. 8, August 2002 there are a wide variety of tags and are under a mandate to protect seals that can be in principle applied S. Goldstein, “Quantum Mechanics Without their weapons design information. to such items as launchers, warhead Observers-Part Two,” Physics Today 51(4), 38-42 Currently it is impossible, within containers, and storage rooms, and (1998) existing legal constraints, to share that some can even be interrogated weapons signatures, particularly remotely. But there are only a very, D. Bohm and B. J. Hiley, The Undivided Universe, the differences that would have to Routledge, London, 1993, p. 381 very select few of these types of be accounted for in order to make devices that can be trusted, because J. Bell, “Against ‘Measurement,’” Physics World, the measurement system reliable. of their very high degree of tamper August 1990, pp. 33 - 40 How is that accomplished without resistance, to be worth much in a B. Rosenblum and F. Kuttner, Quantum Enigma: fear of revealing weapons design nuclear arms reduction environment. Physics Encounters Consciousness, forthcoming from information? Yes, the use of most any tag or seal Oxford University Press, August 2006 The much better approach is the use typically brings with it the right of fundamental, unclassified nuclear of inspection, and therefore an Fred Kuttner and Bruce Rosenblum weapons and nuclear explosive inspecting party occasional on-site material (NEM) attributes. Some presence. This right should not be Department of Physics attributes can be discussed quite under-valued. But to believe that University of California, Santa Cruz openly in significant detail, and the there is a wide variety of tags and Santa Cruz, CA 95064 associated radiation signals generally See Monitoring on Page 16

PHYSICS AND SOCIETY, Vol. 35, No.4 October 2006 • 15 Monitoring from Page 15 seals that could be used to uniquely identify, NEWS and therefore accurately count, launchers, warheads or their containers is wrong because most are too-easily counterfeited, or too easy American Institute of Physics State generation of technically literate to remove and replace without detection. The Department Science Fellowship policy researchers, analysts, and use of any such technology in a cooperative leaders. environment will require that all the features Experience a unique year in Washington, of the tag or seal be known -- making it that DC! Make a personal contribution to • Second, there are many more much more vulnerable to tampering. There U.S. foreign policy while learning how technical issues on the interface are only two passive methods that have passed the policy-making process operates. between physics and society muster in the US technical community and This Fellowship is open to qualified than there are physicists working were once accepted by the US Government members of all ten AIP Member Societies on them. Putting talented young for use on strategic items in an arms reduction (for list, see http://www.aip.org/aip/ people to work on these problems environment (investigated for the original societies.html.) All ages and career will help society and the physics START agreement): a tag made of a uv-cured levels welcome to apply. By sponsoring community. slurry containing micaceous hematite that at least one Fellow a year in the State produced a highly unique and acceptably Department, this program benefits the • Finally, students involved in invulnerable light pattern that could be government, the science community, and projects applying physics to recorded, and a tag based on the unique intrinsic the individual Fellows. Qualifications social issues will communicate sub-surface ultrasonic reflection pattern of the include U.S. citizenship; membership in their excitement to fellow interrogated item, similar to technology used one or more AIP Member Society; and students and faculty members in in medical and NDT applications. It is the PhD or equivalent in physics-related their institutions and nationally, new generation of active (electrically powered) field. Applicants should possess interest thus raising the awareness of the tags and seals that offer the greatest resistance or experience in scientific or technical entire physics community. to tampering using embedded cryptographic aspects of foreign policy. keys and other tamper sensors. However, they For more information, go to: have a huge fundamental problem: there are Application Deadline: Nov. 1, 2006 http://www.aps.org/units/fps/index.cfm no long-lived batteries or other miniature power For details on how to apply, please sources for these devices. Thus, they have to be visit http://www.aip.org/gov/sdf.html or Orbach Sees Promising Future for maintained too frequently (2-3 years), offering contact [email protected] Science at the Department of Energy an excuse for frequent access and change-out that run counter to the whole purpose of tags Student Fellowship in Physics and “Both the Senate and the House have or seals. Society expressed their confidence in you, the Sponsored by the APS Forum on Physics scientific community,” Under Secretary for While CISAC, including the authors of the and Society in partnership with the Science Ray Orbach told the Basic Energy published article, and the National Academy of Society of Physics Students and the APS Sciences Advisory Committee on August Science are to be truly lauded for their effort Forum on Graduate Student Affairs. 3. Orbach made a number of important to comprehensively assess the (cooperative) points during his 45-minutepresentation monitoring of nuclear weapons and nuclear- Application Deadline: Nov. 15, 2006 about the FY 2007 appropriations outlook, explosive materials, the problems are not as his new position, how basic and applied easily solved as portrayed. In several critical research programs at the Department areas, in contrast to what has been suggested, The American Physical Society Forum will improve their communications and the problems have not yet been solved and on Physics and Society (FPS) is proud coordination in the future, and ITER. the technologies do not yet meet the inherent to announce the Student Fellowships in Orbach was very pleased with how standards required. Physics and Society. The Fellowships the House and Senate appropriations are open to undergraduate or graduate committees have fully funded the Jim Fuller students in physics who will be awarded 14.1% requested increase for the Office 2003-present--Affiliate Professor, Henry up to $4,000 each to support a project that of Science (see http://www.aip.org/ M. Jackson School of International Studies, applies physics to a societal issue. fyi/2006/088.html.) Of particular note University of Washington, Seattle was how the committees added additional 1998-present--Participant, US-Russia Warhead The primary goal of the Student Fellowship money for congressionally-earmarked Safety and Security Exchange Agreement in Physics and Society is to provide projects above the President’s request, 1986-2003--Member of the scientific staff research opportunities for undergraduate something that Orbach had not seen and Sector Leader, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation and graduate students interested in physics in the last five budget cycles. These Programs and society, and to raise the awareness of recommended increases demonstrate 1988-2003 --Member/Chairman, Information applying physics to problems in society as the confidence and commitment that Barrier Working Group, US DOE a career and as an important undertaking Congress has in the Office of Science, he 1997-1998 --Chairman, Nuclear Warhead by members of the physics community. said, adding that the consequences of a Radiation Signatures Peer Review Group, US doubling of the Office’s budget over ten DOE There are three objectives of the years would be “phenomenal.” 1991-1993 --Chairman, Tagging Laboratory program. When the Congress will finish work on Advisory Group, US DOE the FY 2007 funding bill is uncertain, with 1990-1992 --Executive Secretary, President’s • First, some students who are it looking “increasingly likely,” Orbach Warhead Dismantlement and Fissile Material exposed to issues where physics told the committee, that the legislation will Control Advisory Group (Robinson Committee) impacts societal issues will not be finished until after the November 509-627-2839 choose to make careers in election, at least a full month into the new [email protected] this area. These students will budget year. ”We don‚t know” what the provide a badly needed younger See News on Page 17

16 • October 2006 PHYSICS AND SOCIETY, Vol. 35, No.4 NEWS (continued) consequences of that delay would be on that the federal government has not dealt make reviving it a difficult task. Science DOE’s science programs, he added. If stop- effectively with research in this area, adding Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert gap funding continued at the current level that a task force report on the opportunities (R-NY), who had supported OTA, remarked, it “would really hurt the new initiatives‰” in this field is due in December. “I think we need to get beyond the debate the department wants to start. Regarding ITER, Orbach said the about reviving it”. He also pointed out that agreement has now been sent to Congress in many cases the problem was not that The Energy Policy Act, now one year for its review. He anticipated there will be Congress lacked sound analyses, but that old, established the position of Under a formal signing of the document in mid to it did not have the political will to make Secretary for Science. For the remainder late November of this year. the appropriate policy decisions. “You can of this Administration, Orbach will “dual lead a horse to water but you can’t make it hat” this position and that of the Director FYI drink,” he said. of the Office of Science (Orbach explained The American Institute of Physics Bulletin “Much of the information we receive that future Energy Secretaries will have to of Science Policy News comes from advocates selling their point decide how to staff these positions.) On July Number 101: August 7, 2006 of view,” said Ranking Minority Member 3, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman sent Richard M. Jones Bart Gordon(D-TN), adding that Congress Orbach a memorandum stating: “the primary Media and Government Relations Division could certainly use an in-house entity to help responsibility of the Under Secretary for The American Institute of Physics „in sorting through the conflicting expert Science is to advance the science portfolio at [email protected] http://www.aip.org/gov opinions.” Of the other sources of policy the Department of Energy and to strengthen (301) 209-3095 analysis available to Congress, Jon Pehaof the contributions of science to all of the Carnegie Mellon University noted that Department’s activities in collaboration broad, comprehensive assessment of S&T with the Under Secretary and the Under Is Congress Getting the S&T Analysis topics was beyond the traditional purview of Secretary for Nuclear Security.” In addition, It Needs? the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the memo stated, “to work collaboratively “We do not suffer from a lack of the Government Accountability Office with the UnderSecretary and Under information here on Capitol Hill, but from a (GAO), and the Congressional Budget Secretary for Nuclear Security to review all lack of ability to glean the knowledge and to Office (CBO). Peter Blair of the National applied research programs in the Department gauge the validity, credibility, and usefulness Academy of Sciences explained that while to better coordinate these programs with of the large amounts of information and Congress relies heavily on the National the Department’s basic research programs. advice received on a daily basis.” Academies and the associated National . . .” - Rep. Rush Holt Research Council (NRC) for their reports on This memo, Orbach explained, gives him S&T issues, the NRC generally uses a time- the mandate to work with the Department’s On July 25, the House Science consuming process to form a committee of applied research programs. It is his goal Committee heard from Rep. Rush Holt(D- expert volunteers who review the issue and to develop better communications between NJ) and four other witnesses that Congress present consensus recommendations. This basic and applied research programs at lacks an effective mechanism for sorting process, Blair said, “is less well equipped the Department, while maintaining the through the vast amounts of scientific to elaborate on the broader context of an integrity of the Office of Science. He and technical information that it receives issue” and analyze “thepolicy consequences quickly added that he does not want to on many issues, and identifying various of alternative courses of action, especially “fuzz” the boundaries between Office of policy options and their ramifications. those that may involve value judgments and Science programs and applied research They discussed the sources of S&T policy trade-offs.” He suggested that the NRC programs. Reaction within the Department analysis currently available to Congress, as might be able to expand its role to take to increasing communications has been well as the benefits and shortcomings of the on that type of analysis. Blair and others “very positive,” he said. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), a also had positive comments about a pilot Orbach gave a number of examples of congressional support office that conducted program of technology assessment by GAO, what he envisions. The National Ignition such analyses from 1972 until 1995, when its but warned that such a program would have Facility is scheduled to come on line in funding was terminated as a budget-cutting to compete for resources with GAO’s more 2010. Operation of this facility will provide measure. traditional role. unanticipated “surprises,” and Orbach wants The purpose of the OTA, Holt said, “Do adequate resources exist for basic research scientists to be involved. was to “inform the policy debate with Congress to address these issues? From our He said it is not clear where stockpile assiduous and objective analysis of the perspective, the answer is no,” declared stewardship ends and science begins policy consequences of alternative courses of Al Teich of the American Association when the NIF achieves ignition. Other action” and consider “the various outcomes for the Advancement of Science examples of areas requiring collaboration given particular policy choices,” without (AAAS).”Information is abundant, but and coordination between basic and making any recommendations. When OTA objective, timely, policy-relevant analyses, applied research programs are advanced was eliminated, Members of Congress which is what Congress really needs, are in nuclear energy systems, alternative energy, believed “technical assessment could come . short supply.” Teich and Catherine Hunt of hydrogen, materials, high-performance . . through committee hearings, CRS reports, the American Chemical Society described computing, and carbon sequestration. “We experts in our district, think tanks, and the efforts by scientific societies to inform can learn a lot” at the interface, he told the National Academy of Sciences,” he said. Congress, including briefings, testimony, committee. “In the ten years . . .[since the OTA was letters, reports, and other interactions. In response to a question, Orbach said eliminated] we have not gotten what we Boehlert and other members of the the department is still in the process of need in order to do the people’s work.” Holt committee praised the AAAS for its Science responding to the Senate Appropriations has been active in trying to resurrect some and Technology Policy Fellowships as a Committee report language calling for version of the technology assessment office. valuable source of S&T advice for Congress. the establishment of a new Office of High However, witnesses and Members alike Through this program, many scientific Energy Density Physics (seehttp://www. acknowledged that negative perceptions of aip.org/fyi/2006/088.html.) He explained OTA’s timeliness and responsiveness would See News on Page 18

PHYSICS AND SOCIETY, Vol. 35, No.4 October 2006 • 17 NEWS (continued) societies sponsor scientists and engineers sides of a scientific issue debating it here be ”scrupulously nonpartisan,” and Peha to spend a year in Washington, providing in front of us.” Teich responded that the recommended that it receive funding for expertise to the federal government many competing sources of information more than one year at a time and have (seehttp://www.aip.org/fyi/2006/104.html are “part of the problem.” Boehlert and careful oversight of how topics for analysis for details on such Fellowships, including Gordon defended the OTA’s record, saying were chosen, to ensure that both the two run by the American Institute of that it never received sufficient resources majority and minority “feel their issues are Physics). Speaking “on behalf of the entire to respond promptly to all the requests it represented.” committee, both sides,” Boehlert called the received. Citing a list of OTA reports, Holt After OTA’s demise “we have made due, Fellowships “a wonderful program, warmly said they were so timely and relevant that not particularly well, but not particularly embraced by all.” While some former many are still useful today. badly either” said Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) Fellows stay on Capitol Hill to aid Congress Gordon asked the pros and cons of in closing. He concurred with the value of as permanent staffers, he noted, others return resurrecting OTA; all agreed that any an organization like OTA, and wished Holt to the scientific community with a better new technology assessment organization luck in reviving it, but warned that it would appreciation for how the political process should learn the lessons of OTA and react be hard work “to make it come about.” works. That is “good for science,” Boehlert more nimbly, interact more regularly FYI said, ”because I find that in most instances . with congressional staff, provide more The American Institute of Physics Bulletin ...scientists are not effective at lobbying for interim results, and collaborate with other of Science Policy News their interests.” congressional support agencies and outside Number 106: August 28, 2006 Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) experts. Rep. Al Green (D-TX) questioned Audrey T. Leath criticized the OTA for being a slow, how such an entity could avoid becoming a Media and Government Relations Division inefficient, added layer of bureaucracy. victim of a “shoot the messenger” reaction The American Institute of Physics He instead advocated the use of outside if it produced analyses that one party or [email protected] or www.aip.org/gov consultants, and having “people on both other did not like. Holt stated that it must (301) 209-3094 REVIEWS National Science Foundation Facility well-known within the scientific community. Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Plan, September 2005 They include such things as the need to Observatory, that might allow researchers Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/ understand the manner in which biological to detect for the first time gravitational publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_ systems assemble themselves; the processes waves. key=nsf05058 through which new material structures and (2) Earth and environmental sciences, nanoscale devices can be manufactured including EarthScope, the High-performance efficiently; the properties of new states of Instrumented Airborne Platform for As a fairly general report, the National matter; the behavior of the Sun and other Environmental Research, the National Science Foundation Facility Plan does celestial bodies; the fundamental nature Ecological Observatory Network, the not contain any revolutionary piece of of physical forces and of the elements and Network for Earthquake Engineering information – nor should it, since that is not structure of the universe, just to mention Simulation, the Scientific Ocean Drilling its primary purpose. However, this sixty-odd a few. Of particular interest, however, the Vessel, the South Pole Station, the Ocean page report presents an accurate overview of report opens with a reference to the areas Observatories Initiative, and the Alaska some of the trends in the development of the of science studying mesoscale phenomena, Region Research Vessel, altogether part of material basis of the sciences, namely, the including complex social, economic and the quest for a better understanding of the technological platforms upon which major environmental processes that require dynamic nature of our planet. research projects will be conducted in the “researchers to view holistically different (3) Supercomputing, including the years to come. Dealing with phenomena that kinds of interrelated phenomena that have occur on a vast range of temporal and spatial development of Terascale Computing never been regarded as systems” (p. 8). In Systems, a project that funded the scales, the research equipment showcased in this sense, the NSF Facility Plan mirrors the NSF Facility Plan is a testament to the construction of the Extensible Terascale a relatively recent premise of science, Facility, aimed to increase the simulation diversity of science’s interests and areas of that is, the search for an interdisciplinary application. But perhaps more importantly, it and analysis capabilities of a growing understanding of planetary processes and community of researchers who rely on state- is evidence of the magnitude of NSF-funded their relation with human societies. scientific endeavors and of the growing of-the-art computation either for research or integration of different strands of knowledge The third section of the report summarizes education purposes. in elaborate large-scale interdisciplinary some of the current and projected facilities Perhaps symptomatic of the bloated projects. financed by the NSF. With an estimated budgets that have characterized high- expenditure of nearly 1.5 billion dollars for The NSF Facility Plan consists of three energy particle physics over the last two the 2004-2010 period, the thirteen MREFC decades, the report mentions the cancellation sections, the first being an introduction to projects include research in the following in August 2005 of the Rare Symmetry the financial nature of the Foundation’s three areas: Violating Processes project which sought operations (in essence, a brief description of (1) Astronomy and astrophysics, including to explain the predominance of matter over the Major Research Equipment and Facilities antimatter as well as the physical differences Construction account, the MREFC). The the Atacama Large Millimeter Array which will produce “the world’s most sensitive, between the electron and the muon. Other second section presents a fairly general projects that are still in the exploratory phase description of some of the scientific questions highest-resolution, millimeter wavelength telescope” (p. 20), the IceCube Neutrino (such as the Coherent X-Ray Light Source, that have been identified in projects dealing the Interferometric Synthetic Aperture with different scales of nature, from the Observatory, the world’s “first high-energy subatomic to the cosmological. Most of the neutrino observatory” (p. 24) located under See Reviews on Page 19 challenges mentioned in this section are the ice of the South Pole, and the Advanced

18 • October 2006 PHYSICS AND SOCIETY, Vol. 35, No.4 REVIEWS (continued) Radar, and the Petascale Earth System meant to be included in the initiative, but devices are largely ignored; Altmann is Collaboratory) are also mentioned in the with somewhat less prominence) will fund interested only in arms control implications. final part of the report. well over $1 billion in research this year, He challenges governments that are paying Some of the overarching themes that split among 23 agencies. One of a short dearly to develop these new technologies permeate the report merit attention since list of items that have been supported with to weigh the benefits against the dangers of they confirm some of the current trends in equal enthusiasm by Presidents Clinton proliferation. Altmann believes that the best large-scale research projects. International and Bush, the National Nanotechnology way to prevent the proliferation of weapons collaboration is a recurring characteristic Initiative (NNI) has grown rapidly over the is to avoid developing them in the first place. in several of the projects mentioned in the past decade. He offers specific criteria for determining NSF Facility Plan. Based in Chile’s northern The NNI represents an agreement among which technologies should be allowed and region, the Atacama Large Millimeter scientists, policymakers, and the technology- which should not. A technology worth Array serves as a good example of how the based industries that have lobbied for it. In developing should not endanger existing arms control agreements or humanitarian convergence of researchers, knowledge, exchange for the money disbursed, which laws; it should promote stability, and not technologies and funds from different is on the scale of the math and physical arms races; and it should protect people, the countries leads to the materialization of an sciences budget of the National Science environment, and society. Altmann judges ambitious project that would otherwise be Foundation or the high energy physics the list of technologies he has compiled difficult to attain. The IceCube Neutrino budget of the Department of Energy, by these criteria. For example, non-metal Observatory is likewise the product of nanotechnology researchers have promised weapons are likely to be more useful to international collaboration, since it involves to deliver a product. terrorists than to soldiers; he advocates that the participation of American, Belgian, Computers are at the center of this promise. no such weapons be developed. German and Swedish institutions. The With Moore’s Law quickly edging towards Some cases are more ambiguous; small, National Ecological Observatory Network physical limitations, faster computers will also considers international participation self-sufficient sensors could help arms soon require new technologies at small control through verification. However, through the counsel of Argentinean, scales. Coupled with speculative ideas Canadian and Mexican organizations. Altmann worries that undetectably small of self-assembly and massive parallelism, sensors would be destabilizing—such Education and outreach are also stressed many suspect that nanotechnology will sensors could improve targeting so that a in the report, in particular as significant dominate a new economy; governments are counter attack becomes impossible, and outputs of the equipments and facilities. scrambling to ensure that they are included the incentive for preemptive attacks or hair- The Atacama Large Millimeter Array, for in that economy. trigger responses would consequently grow. instance, is planed to be used by nearly 300 However, the nanoscientists’ promise He also acknowledges that already existing students annually, thereby playing a “central has a darker side. This year one-third of technology must be permitted to remain role in the education and training of U.S. American nanotechnology research was in use for his prescription to be practical. astronomy and engineering students” (p. 20). funded by the Department of Defense; From these concerns, Altmann arrives at In this sense, the equipments and facilities nanocomputers may be closely followed by a carefully worded ban of self-sufficient envisioned by the NSF will not only provide nano-weapons. sensors below a certain size, leaving the existing scientists with the capability to way open for verification tools and existing undertake revolutionary research but will These military applications attract devices. also allow a new generation of researchers Jurgend Altmann’s attention in “Military to become familiarized with the tools of the Nanotechnology: Potential applications Speculative systems that integrate small trade. In this way, the projects developed and preventive arms control.” Altmann, machinery within a human body for the under the NSF’s auspices are defining and a physicist by training, is an arms control purpose of improving memory, reaction time, endurance, or even controlling moods securing the road for the science of the expert, and this book is part of the German joint projects on preventive arms control, are discussed, but Altmann shies away from future. tackling questions that quickly become Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra an effort to guide policy makers to consider the future proliferation implications of ethical ones. He advocates a moratorium on Science Studies Unit such systems until civilian society can reach University of Edinburgh) decisions they make today. Altmann gives a history of nanotechnology and a detailed a consensus on what is appropriate. overview of funding trends, proceeding For each type of military nanotechnology, Military Nanotechnology: Potential to exhaustively list and describe potential Altmann finds possible realizations that could applications and preventive arms military applications. His dry style and break his rules of stability and protection, control attention to detail make this a reference book and he suggests a strategy for outlawing the Jürgen Altmannn, Contemporary Security for policy-makers, but not a pleasure read. worst implementations. He carefully avoids Studies, 2006, $105, 229 pages, ISBN 0- Altmann refers to specific goals of military interference with helpful devices or products 415-37102-3 groups such as DARPA, but he considers any already in use, as such interference would physically possible technology. Computers make his proposals difficult to accept. To Nanoscience, the study of interactions and these recommendations he helpfully adds dynamics at the scale of a few to a hundred for simulating nuclear weapons tests and codebreaking seem unimaginative next to suggestions for verification of compliance, nanometers, is hardly a new field. Materials rounding out a complete arms control scientists, chemists, and biochemists can clothing that provides camouflage in any surroundings, delivers medication to injured paradigm for nanotechnologies yet to be lay claim to having helped uncover the invented. workings of nature at these small scales. body parts, and stiffens to brace broken bones On the other hand, nanotechnology—the or increase a soldier’s strength. Wilder ideas Many would argue that it is impossible effort to apply this knowledge to produce include armies of tiny self-replicating robots to develop the good technologies without useful products—is a field that has exploded that can destroy equipment or fly undetected the bad, and that chance will determine into a building for surveillance. in recent years. The American National See Reviews on Page 20 Nanotechnology Initiative (nanoscience is Ethical or legal concerns raised by these

PHYSICS AND SOCIETY, Vol. 35, No.4 October 2006 • 19 AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY Forum on Physics and Society One Physics Ellipse College Park, MD 20740-3844

Physics and Society is the quarterly of the Forum on Phys- ics and Society, a division of the American Physical Society. It presents letters, commentary, book reviews and reviewed articles on the relations of physics and the physics community to government and society. It also carries news of the Forum and provides a medium for Forum members to exchange ideas. Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum. Contributed articles (up to 2500 words, technicalities are encouraged), letters (500 words), commentary (1000 words), reviews (1000 words) and brief news articles are welcome. Send them to the relevant editor by e-mail (preferred) or regular mail. Co-Editors: Al Saperstein, Physics Dept., Wayne State Uni- versity, Detroit, MI 48202, [email protected].; Jeff Marque, Senior Staff Physicist at Beckman Coulter Corpo- ration, 1050 Page Mill Rd., MSY-14, Palo Alto, CA 94304, [email protected]. Reviews Editor: Art Hobson, [email protected]. Electronic Media Editor: Andrew Post-Zwicker, azwicker@ pppl.gov. Layout at APS: Kerry G. Johnson, [email protected] Web Manager for APS: Sara Conners, [email protected]. Web Layout for APS: Joanne Fincham, [email protected]. Physics and Society can be found on the Web at http://www. aps.org/units/fps

REVIEWS (continued) the products of the nanotechnology initiative rather than design. But physicists have entered into a dangerous bargain in selling nanoscience as a product-driven endeavor. When research is so tightly linked to technological results, researchers accept a greater obligation to consider the real-world consequences of their work. One cannot justify research with promises of positive technologies, and then refuse to take responsibility for negative technologies resulting from the same science. There is a price to be paid for the generous NNI budget: ensuring that the work is driven by products that society wants to have. Altmann’s attempt to identify worthwhile nanoresearch within the military is a clear framework by which to judge the impact of technology before it has arrived, and to better steer our efforts towards positive outcomes. As such, it offers a good starting point for informing a necessary discussion on the goals of nanotechnology. Matthew Sharp University of Chicago

20 • October 2006 PHYSICS AND SOCIETY, Vol. 35, No.4