APS NewsA P S N E W SJULY 1997 THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY VOLUME 6, NO 7

Try the enhanced APS News-online: [http://www.aps.org/apsnews]

IN THIS ISSUE

Highlights from Washington, DC ..................................................................... 1APS Spring Meeting Incorporates CAM’97 .................................................... 1Scientists Report First Experimental Results from Jefferson Lab ................. 2APS Units Have Option of Holding Electronic Elections ................................ 2Inside the Beltway .......................................................................................... 3In Brief ............................................................................................................ 3Researchers Report on New Results for BEC Experiments ........................... 4DPB/FIAP Session Explores Industrial Applications of Neutrons ................... 4Gamma Rays Provide Detailed Energy Spectrum of AGN ............................. 4Carl E. Anderson Distinguished Academic-Industrial Fellowship .................... 5President Announces 1997 Medal of Science Winners .................................. 5APS Matching Memberships Aid Physicists in Developing Countries ............ 5Opinion ........................................................................................................... 61998 General Election Preview ...................................................................... 9Announcements ........................................................................................... 11The Back Page ............................................................................................. 12

Approximately 1,500 physicistsassembled in Washington, DC, for

the 1997 Joint Spring Meeting of theAPS and the American Association ofPhysics Teachers (AAPT), 18-21 April.The most varied of APS meetingsbecause of the number of APS divisionsrepresented in the program, the SpringMeeting explored current topics inparticle physics, astrophysics, fluids,particle beams, physics of beams,nuclear physics, applications, andatomic, molecular and optical physics.

Topics of technical sessions includedthe first experimental results from theThomas Jefferson National AcceleratorFacility, formerly CEBAF (see page 2);the first detailed energy spectrum ofan active galaxy nucleus (see page 4),and the world’s first atom laser, usinga Bose-Einstein condensate as its cen-ter (see page4). General interestsessions included such topics as thebiological effects of low-dose radiation,the future of science and technologyin North America (see page 4), trendsin federal support of science education,and highlights of the 100-year anniver-sary of the discovery of the electron. Inaddition, the AAPT organized several ses-sions devoted to issues in education, somein conjunction with APS committees orunits, including a Monday morning ses-sion devoted to national science educationstandards, co-sponsored with the APS Fo-rum on Education (FED).

Another prominent feature was aspecial plenary session on Sunday af-ternoon. The session was led off by astirring memorial of C.S. Wu by col-league T.D. Lee. This was followed byan address by APS Past President Rob-ert Schrieffer of the National HighMagnetic Field Lab in Florida, review-ing the many ways in whichhigh-temperature superconductivity ismore complicated than its colder coun-terpart. Michael Turner of the Universityof Chicago and Fermilab addressedwhat he calls the two most pressingissues in cosmology today: the natureof dark matter and the origin of thetiny inhomogeneities (perhaps starting

out as tiny quantum disruptions or fluc-tuations) that would later grow into thegalaxy clusters observed in the presentuniverse. Finally, Mark Spano of theNaval Surface Warfare Center discussedprogress in understanding, and evencontrolling, chaos. These studies havealready been usefully applied to actualphysical systems such as lasers, chemi-cal reactions, combustion engines,hearts, and brain tissue.

On the Wednesday evening prior tothe start of the meeting, the APS orga-nized an exhibit and reception featuringrecent applications of fundamental phys-ics. Scientists from laboratories aroundthe nation presented information on glo-bal positioning, medical instrumentationand optical communications, as well assuch future technologies as laser twee-zers, Bose condensates, scanningtunneling microscopy, andnanotechnologies.

The traditional ceremonial banquetfor the bestowal of prizes and awardswas held Saturday evening, precededby a reception hosted by APS Presi-dent D. Allan Bromley (YaleUniversity). Fourteen APS prizes andawards were presented, and the recipi-ents gave lectures on their respectiveaward-winning topics at various ses-

sions throughoutthe week. Cita-tions and briefbiographies of

the recipients appeared in the April1997 issue of APS News.

Technical SessionsSearch for Neutrino Oscillations

Two years ago at this meeting agroup of physicists from Los Alamospresented evidence for neutrino oscil-lation, the transformation of neutrinosfrom one type to another, in an experi-ment in which a beam of neutrinosstrikes a target. The Los Alamos team,represented by William Louis, and thecollaboration at the Super-Kamiokandeneutrino detector, represented by Ken-neth K. Young of the University ofWashington, recently concluded majornew data analyses. Kamiokande alsosearches for neutrinos from the sun,from distant supernovas, and from thedecay of protons. Based on the first100 days of research in Japan, Youngreported that there are hints that notonly does the neutrino have mass andcan change its form (“flavor”), but itmay also be more abundant at nightthan during the day, and more plenti-ful during certain times of the year. Ifthe neutrino is found to have mass, itcould constitute part of the dark mat-ter that is believed to comprise as muchas 90% of the universe.

Anti-Hydrogen AtomsDavid Christian of Fermilab reported

on an experiment in which anti-hydro-gen atoms are produced when a gasjet is passed through an antiprotonbeam. Anti-atoms are produced at a rateof about one atom a day when the

Highlights from Washington, DC

Atom Laser, CEBAF Results Mark 1997 Spring Meetingmachine is on. Although these atoms(like those produced at the CERN labin Geneva) have not been captured, aplan has been formulated at Fermilabfor both increasing the production rateand for passing newly-made anti-H’sthrough a strong magnet which willhelp to differentiate different excited-state species. At a later session, WalterOelert of the Julich Institute of NuclearPhysics, a participant in the CERN ex-periment, reported on further analysisof his data and discussed the future ofanti-hydrogen research at CERN, whichrecently announced that it will build anew facility, the Antiproton Decelera-tor, partly for this purpose.

Proton-Neutron CorrelationsIt is a little-known fact that all nu-

clei are superconductors, with protonsthat pair up with other protons andneutrons that form pairs with otherneutrons. In nuclei with equal num-bers of neutrons and protons, physicistsbelieve that neutron-proton pairs canform to create a new kind of super-conductivity. According to Stuart Pittel,who spoke at a Saturday morning ses-sion, these superconducting effects arebelieved to influence the mass of nucleisuch as Chromium-48 or Tin-100 (withequal numbers of protons and neutrons)and affect the rate at which proton-neu-tron pairs flow between nuclei whichare close together. The proton-neutroncorrelations are also expected to be im-portant for single- and double-betadecays, radioactive processes in which

APS Spring Meeting Incorporates CAM’97Beginning in 1994, the APS, the

Sociedad Mexicana de Fisica (SMF)and the Canadian Association of Physi-cists (CAP) agreed to hold periodic jointmeetings for the purpose of bringingtogether the North American physicscommunity. Held concurrently with theusual program of the Joint APS/AAPTApril Meeting in 1997, CAM97 (for Ca-

About 1,000 APS Spring Meeting attendees going to the CAM reception at the Smithsonian Institution.

nadian-American-Mexican physical so-cieties) represents the third in a series ofthese joint meetings. The first was held inCancun in September 1994, followed by asecond meeting, held in Quebec City, June1995, in conjunction with the 50th anni-versary congress of CAP.

At CAM97, physicists from the threeNorth American Societies participatedin a variety of sessions and forums onscience and society. A special plenarysession honoring these cooperativeventures was held on the first day ofthe meeting (see page 8). Entitled “TheFuture of Science and Technology inNorth America,” the session’s keynotespeaker was Dr. Mary L. Good, undersecretary for technology of the U.S.Department of Commerce’s TechnologyAdministration. Good stressed the need

for initiating and strengthening partner-ships among the public and privatesectors and academia as a means ofenhancing US participation in the rapid

CAM session speakers Beverly Robertson,Mary Good, D. Allan Bromley, and CarmenCisneros (at microphone).

(continued on page 2)

(continued on page 8)

Margaret Mary Murnanereceived the MariaGoeppert-Mayer Award

APS News July 1997

2

APS NewsCoden: ANWSEN ISSN: 1058-8132Series II, Vol. 6, No. 7 July 1997© 1997 The American Physical Society

Editor: Barrett H. RipinNewswriter: Jennifer OuelletteProduction: Elizabeth Buchan-Higgins

Adrienne VincentCoordinator: Amy Halsted

APS News (ISSN: 1058-8132) is published 11X yearly, monthly,except the August/September issue, by The American PhysicalSociety, One Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740-3844, (301)209-3200. It contains news of the Society and of its Divisions,Topical Groups, Sections and Forums; advance information onmeetings of the Society; and reports to the Society by its com-mittees and task forces, as well as opinions.

Letters to the editor are welcomed from the membership. Lettersmust be signed and should include an address and daytime tele-phone number. The APS reserves the right to select and to editfor length or clarity. All correspondence regarding APS News shouldbe directed to: Editor, APS News, One Physics Ellipse, CollegePark, MD 20749-3844, email: letters@aps.org.

Subscriptions: APS News is an on-membership publication de-livered by Periodical Mail. Members residing abroad may receiveairfreight delivery for a fee of $20. Nonmembers: Subscriptionrates are: domestic $160; Canada, Mexico, Central and SouthAmerica, and Caribbean $180; Air Freight Europe, Asia, Africaand Oceania $210.

Subscription orders, renewals and address changes shouldbe addressed as follows: For APS Members—Membership De-partment, The American Physical Society, One Physics Ellipse,College Park, MD 20740-3844, membership@aps.org. For Non-members—Circulation and Fulfillment Division, American In-stitute of Physics, 500 Sunnyside Blvd., Woodbury, NY 11797.Allow at least 6 weeks advance notice. For address changes,please send both the old and new addresses, and, if possible,include a mailing label from a recent issue. Requests from sub-scribers for missing issues will be honored without charge onlyif received within 6 months of the issue’s actual date of publi-cation.

Periodical Postage Paid at College Park, MD and at additionalmailing offices. Postmaster: Send address changes to APS News,Membership Department, The American Physical Society, OnePhysics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740-3844.

APS COUNCIL 1997

PresidentD. Allan Bromley, Yale UniversityPresident-ElectAndrew M. Sessler, Lawrence Berkeley LaboratoryVice-PresidentJerome Friedman, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyExecutive OfficerJudy R. Franz, University of Alabama, Huntsville (on leave)TreasurerThomas McIlrath, University of Maryland (on leave)Editor-in-ChiefMartin Blume, Brookhaven National LaboratoryPast-PresidentRobert Schrieffer, Florida State University

General CouncillorsDaniel Auerbach, Virginia Brown, Jennifer Cohen, Charles Duke,Elsa Garmire, S. James Gates, Donald Hamann, William Happer,Anthony M. Johnson, Zachary Levine, Paul Peercy, Susan Seestrom,Virginia Trimble, Ronald Walsworth, Sau Lan Wu

Chair, Nominating CommitteeGerard Crawley

Chair, Panel on Public AffairsRobert M. White

Division and Forum CouncillorsFrank C. Jones (Astrophysics), Eric Heller, Gordon Dunn (Atomic,Molecular and Optical), Robert Callender (Biological), StephenLeone (Chemical), Joe D. Thompson, David Aspnes, Lu J. Sham,Zachary Fisk (Condensed Matter), Warren Pickett (Computa-tional), Guenter Ahlers (Fluid Dynamics), James Wynne (Fo-rum on Education), Albert Wattenberg (Forum on History of Phys-ics), Matt Richter (Forum on Industrial & Applied Physics), ErnestHenley (Forum on International Physics), Dietrich Schroeer (Fo-rum on Physics and Society), Andrew Lovinger (High Polymer),Daniel Grischkowsky (Laser Science), Howard Birnbaum (Ma-terials), John Schiffer, Peter Paul (Nuclear), Henry Frisch, GeorgeTrilling (Particles and Fields), Hermann Grunder (Physics ofBeams), Roy Gould, William Kruer (Plasma)

ADVISORS

Sectional RepresentativesJohn Pribram, New England; Peter Lesser, New York; Perry P. Yaney,Ohio; Joseph Hamilton, Southeastern; Stephen Baker, Texas

Representatives from Other SocietiesRonald Edge, AAPT; Marc Brodsky, AIP

Staff RepresentativesBarrett Ripin, Associate Executive Officer; Irving Lerch, Director ofInternational Affairs; Robert L. Park, Director, Public Informa-tion; Michael Lubell, Director, Public Affairs; Stanley Brown, Ad-ministrative Editor; Reid Terwilliger, Director of Editorial OfficeServices; Michael Stephens, Controller and Assistant Treasurer

Certain to be one of the mostimportant new experimental

nuclear physics facilities in the world,the Thomas Jefferson NationalAccelerator Facility in Newport News,Virginia, produces high energy electronbeams that collide with nuclei in orderto study the boundary between thephysics of the nucleus and the physicsof protons and neutrons (composed ofquarks held together by particlesknown as gluons). At a Fridayafternoon session at the APS/AAPTSpring Meeting in Washington, DC,researchers presented some of the firstexperimental results obtained fromJefferson Laboratory by four large team-conducted projects. The experiments,selected by a panel of internationallyprominent physicists, focused onachieving a definitive quark-basedunderstanding of the atomic nucleus.

The main machine at the $600 mil-lion laboratory is the ContinuousElectron Beam Accelerator Facility(CEBAF), an underground tunnel al-most a mile in circumference whichaccelerates continuous streams of elec-trons to energies of 4 GeV. A maximumenergy of 8 GeV is planned for the fu-ture. The electrons are then divertedto one of three experimental hallswhere they collide with fixed targetscontaining nuclei, while house-sized

arrays of electronic data-gatheringequipment track, measure and recordwhat occurs. Director Hermann A.Grunder describes it as a research tooldesigned “not so much to smash at-oms as to dissect them.” Because thebeams are continuous rather than in-termittent, experimenters can avoidunwanted, confusing signals (“back-ground noise”) in the electronicevidence they are studying. “Instead,they can dissect nuclei with a scalpel-like precision unattainable in previous‘atom smashers,’” said Grunder.

Exploring how gamma rays break updeuterons, Haiyan Gao of Argonne Na-tional Laboratory presentedmeasurements showing that the quarksubstructure inside the deuteron mustbe taken into account to properly un-derstand the breakup process, knownas “photodisintegration.” The deuteronis a simple nucleus consisting of just aproton and a neutron, each made upof three quarks, which enables it to beprobed for useful data without toomuch complexity. The probing wasdone with photons extracted from theelectron beam. When a photon disin-tegrates a deuteron, all of thedeuteron’s quarks are temporarilyforced into a cluster of pure quarkmatter. Deuterons were thus probed in1968 at SLAC to provide proof that quarks

Scientists Report First Experimental Results from Jefferson Labexist. According to Gao,her experiment repro-duced the old 1968 picture,enlarged it and clarified itsdetails.

Describing experi-ments in which electronscollide with hydrogen,deuterium, and carbonnuclei, Keith Baker ofJefferson Lab and Hamp-ton University reportedon the production of ka-ons, two-quark states thatcontain a strange quark.The experiments ob-served the transfer ofelectron energy to clusters of three or-dinary quarks: two “up” and one“down.” As the deposited energycauses one of these ordinary quarks tobe stretched away from its partners, twoexotic new quarks are formed: a“strange” quark and an “antistrange”quark. Together, the antistrange quarkand the stretched “up” quark form aneasily detectable kaon, Baker reported.And when detected in the precise ex-perimental environment of JeffersonLab, kaons yield vital new data abouthow quarks are made out of energyand how antimatter is produced.

Finally, Rolf Ent of Jefferson Labdescribed how electron collisions with

nuclei are ejecting protons at a greaterrate than anticipated by theory, basedon the recently completed baseline-es-tablishing experiment on photonpropogation in nuclei. This informationis crucial to future experiments to testand validate quantum chromodynam-ics at high energies, where nuclei oftenbehave differently than they do at lowerenergies. A team of scientists fromCaltech conducted an inclusive elec-tron scattering experiment from nucleiwhich also helped prepare a baselinefor interpreting deviations from con-ventional expectations that QCDpredicts will appear at high energy.

The APS Executive Board approveda motion at its April meeting au-

thorizing APS units to conductelectronic elections, provided that unitmembers are assured of the opportu-nity to vote whether or not they haveWeb access, and that procedures arein place to prevent members from in-advertently voting more than once. Thedecision was based on a report fromthe APS Forum on Physics and Society(FPS). FPS requested permission lastNovember to conduct an experimentfor one election with a combined pa-

APS Units Have Option of Holding Electronic Electionsper and Web page ballot, which tookplace between December 1996 andearly March 1997. The experiment wasvery successful. Voter turnout rose to18 percent, compared with the 5 to 8percent in recent years, and the proce-dure did not prove to be excessivelytime-consuming.

The turnout for annual APS electionswithin the units is generally low, usu-ally below 20 percent of the eligiblemembership, according to Barrett Ripin,APS Associate Executive Officer. MarcSher of William & Mary College, a mem-

ber of the FPS Executive Committee ini-tiated the electronic election effort. Hebelieves a significant factor in the lowmember participation is the large num-ber of steps it takes in order to vote.“One must get the ballot, find the can-didate statements, read them, vote, findan envelope, and address, stamp andmail it,” he said. “Allowing voting viathe Web reduces the number of neededsteps, thus improving participation.” Anonline ballot enables voters to maketheir choices with a few clicks of themouse, with candidate statements andbiographies linked to their names onthe ballot. The Texas Section of the APStried a different approach to electronicballoting. In their election last fall, theysent email ballots to members withemail addresses on file and paper bal-lots to all others. Their ballot return ratealso approximately doubled from tra-ditional paper-only elections.

Of course, issues about security andanonymity when voting electronically

were of paramount concern. To thatend, Sher designed a system in whichtwo files are made when processing avote. One contains the name and emailaddress of the voter, as well as the ma-chine IP number they voted from andtime of vote, and assigns a voter num-ber. The other file contains only thevoter number and which votes werecast. Because one can’t determine forwhom any individual voted withoutlooking at both files, Sher believes it isat least as anonymous as the currentpaper system. The system also auto-matically checks for duplicate votes.Requiring an APS membership numberwould further improve security, butsince many APS members don’t knowwhat their number is, this would de-feat much of the purpose of electronicelections, according to Sher.

Units interested in holding electronicelections may contact APS ExecutiveOfficer Judy Franz for guidance. Sherhas software available for this purpose.

globalization of today’s R&D climate.She was followed by remarks from thethree CAM Society presidents: Dr.Carmen Cisneros (SMF), Dr. Beverly E.Robertson (CAP) and Dr. D. AllanBromley (APS).

A special reception honoring theCAP and the SMF was held at the Na-tional Museum ofAmerican History ofthe Smithsonian Insti-tution on Saturdayevening of the secondday of the meeting.Exhibits includedcommemorative dis-plays celebrating the100th anniversary ofthe electron and the50th anniversary ofthe transistor. The re-ception was open toall meeting registrantsand featured a short

program which included remarks by thethree society presidents and reminis-cences about J.J. Thompson, discovererof the electron, from Dr. Samuel De-vons of the Nevis Laboratory atColumbia University and Dr. NormanF. Ramsey of the Lyman Physics Labo-ratory at Harvard University.

Norman Ramsey addressing a crowd of physicists attending theApril Meeting Smithsonian Institution Reception.

CAM’97 (Continued from page 1)

CEBAF Large Acceptance Spectrometer

July 1997 APS News

3

IN BRIEF• A tentative program for the centenary celebration of the APS, to be held

20-26 March 1999 in Atlanta, Georgia, was presented to the APS Councilat its April meeting. Plans currently include a symposium on the globalimpact of 20th century physics, two plenary sessions on the contributionsand future of physics, and as many as 30 centennial symposia organizedby individual APS units. Special events contemplated for the centennialinclude a Nobel Prize exhibit and dinner at the Fernbank Museum ofNatural History honoring Nobel Laureates in attendance, a ceremonialdinner with a keynote address on the cultural impact of physics in the20th century, physics exhibits and other events for students, teachers andthe public throughout the week.

A number of special projects are also under development to com-memorate the event. For example, the APS is developing a centennialspeakers booklet containing a list of individuals willing to give interest-ing colloquia with an emphasis on the historical, social, cultural and politicalimpacts of physics. The list will cover a broad range of topics and includespeakers from around the country and from academia, government, andindustry. The booklet will be distributed to all physics departments andother interested institutions in the spring of 1998. A wall chart is beingdesigned to point out highlights of physics advances of the past century.The wall chart, which will be quite large, four feet by twenty-seven feet, willbe given to all high schools in the U.S. as a gift. In addition, the APS and AIPare jointly working to produce a coffee table book intended to capture theessence of 20th century physics, designed for the general public and distrib-uted through commercial bookstores. Anyone with wonderful pictures ofphysics related activities should contact APS Executive Officer, Judy Franz.

• At its April meeting, the APS Executive Board approved a request by theAPS Committee on Minorities (COM) to provide $5,000 to support an on-line archive of minority physicists, similar to the archive under developmenton contributions of 20th century women to physics. The site will be imple-mented at Hampton University. According to Cynthia Keppel, a COMmember and professor at Hampton University who will be responsiblefor the archive, the APS funds will go toward purchasing a computer tohouse the website and providing a small stipend for a part-time student tohelp maintain the site, adding links, upgrades and managing any paperworkrequired to back up research reports. Hampton will hire a consultant at nocost to the APS to design the site, and will send out an initial call for submis-sions. The university’s local Society of Physics Students club and its advisor(Keppel) will help research the submissions.

• In 1993, APS Council approved a motion to include the presidents ordesignees of certain foreign physical societies at Council meetings as in-ternational advisors. The original group included the Canadian Associationof Physics (CAP), the European Physical Society, The Physical Society ofJapan (JPS) and the Sociedad Mexicana de Fisica (SMF). This policy wasrevised last year. CAP and SMF, neighboring societies, will have permanentadvisor status. But beginning this year, the president of the APS designatesadditional international advisors on an annual basis for his or her term ofoffice. In addition to the presidents of CAP and SMF, APS President D. AllanBromley invited the current president of the Chinese Physical Society (CPS),Dr. Chen Jia-er, and the president of JPS, Dr. Fumiko Yonezawa, to partici-pate at Council at both the April and November 1997 sessions.

• Nine new members of the National Science Board (NSB) were confirmedby the Senate in May, and were sworn in by Jack Gibbons, PresidentClinton’s science advisor. The newly confirmed members include: JohnA. Armstrong; Mary K. Gaillard; M.R.C. Greenwood; Stanley V. Jaskolski;Eamon M. Kelly; Jane Lubchenco; Vera C. Rubin; Bob Suzuki; and Rich-ard Tapia. The National Science Board was established by Congress in1950 to serve both as an independent national science policy body and tooversee and guide activities of the National Science Foundation (NSF).The board consists of 24 members and the NSF director, who is an ex-officio member. Members serve six-year terms. Full titles and affiliationsof all NSB members may be found at http://www.nsf.gov/home/nsb/members.htm

• The median physicist is 46 years old and makes $65,000 a year, accordingto a report issued in April by the AIP Education and Employment StatisticsDivision, entitled, “Society Membership Survey: Salaries 1996.” Those whowork at federal labs made the most (median $78,500), even more than inindustry (median $77,000); those at 4-year colleges made the least, with amedian of $49,200. Geographically, median salaries ranged from $70,000(Pacific states) to $56,200 (East South Central). New PhD’s earn $31,000 atuniversities and $39,600 at federal labs. Salaries for female physicists whohave earned their PhD in the past 10 years are comparable to salaries formale physicists with similar experience. A copy of the report can be ob-tained from the AIP Education and Employment Statistics Division,301-209-3069; email: rchu@aip.acp.org.

• The American Institute of Physics has signed an agreement with Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. under which Springer will publish and distributeAIP Press books worldwide. Springer will build upon its physics bookpublishing programs by this new addition. Under this agreement, Springeracquired the AIP Press current and backlist titles and will distribute theminternationally under the dual logos of Springer and AIP Press.

For politicians as well as physicists, lifeafter the end of the Cold War is fraughtwith complications. Public attitudeshave changed dramatically, and woeunto anyone who fails to recognize it.

For more than four decades thethreat posed by Communism providedan umbrella under which physics re-search flourished in America. What wasgood for physics was good for nationaldefense and good for the nation. Thepublic forgave the scientific elite theireccentricities and their arrogance solong as America remained secure.

American politicians also had aneasier time during this era. The IronCurtain might have been maintainedby our Soviet adversaries to keep theRussian and Eastern European peoplein the dark, but it also provided won-derful political cover for our ownelected officials. So long as theycloaked their actions under the guiseof national security, they could expectthe average American voter to forgivethem many of their transgressions.

Welcome to the 1990’s. The exter-nal threat is gone and the publicmemory is short. American voters havebecome more fickle and less tolerantof actions they don’t immediately per-ceive as being in their best interest.For scientists and politicians, alike, themessage is clear: Shape up or be shownthe door.

The message seems to be gettingthrough. For both communities, 1997is rapidly becoming a watershed year.Scientists have long been known inWashington for building protectivewalls around their individual disci-plines and, when necessary, takingdead aim at their colleagues in otherallied areas. But last March, in an un-precedented display of unity, theleaders of 23 professional societiesagreed to break down the internal bar-riers and endorse a Joint Statement onScientific Research.

By June, the list of endorsementshad grown to 46. Members of the me-dia and members of Congress, manyof whom had greeted the initial an-nouncement with skepticism, hadbegun to take notice. And with goodreason.

The message had substance. Thesciences are interdependent, and fed-eral investments in research, which arecritical to our nation’s future economyand quality of life, have been on a pre-cipitous downward slide. What isneeded is a commitment to reverse thetrend, beginning with a 7 percent in-crease for Fiscal Year 1998.

The message also had clout. Morethan 1.5 million scientists, mathemati-cians and engineers were singing fromthe same score. Translate those num-bers into votes and you can see whyCapitol Hill might pay attention.

Fortuitously, the message struck apolitical resonance. After two years oflobbing grenades at each other, bothparties paused to take stock of thedamage they had inflicted and discov-ered that neither had suffered so muchin the eyes of the public as had theinstitution of democracy itself. For hispart, after the 1996 ballots had beencounted, President Clinton said that hewas committed to seeking common

INSIDE THE BELTWAYScientists and Politicians Joined at the Hipby Michael S. Lubell, APS Director of Public Affairs

(continued on page 5)

ground. So too did the Republicans,but they called it “bipartisanship.”

Although science had not escapedthe partisan battles of the 104th Con-gress, it had the advantage of a legacyof bipartisan support, lasting for almosthalf a century. It became a natural pointaround which both political partiescould once again unite. The ScienceCommittee, under the guidance of itsnew chairman James Sensenbrenner(R-WI), reported out a series of autho-rization bills with virtually no internaldissent. The committee recommendedincreases for R&D that averaged 3 per-cent, with some basic researchprograms exceeding 7 percent.

The Senate, too, began to respondto the science drum beat. At the sug-gestion of Bill Frist (R-TN) and withthe cooperation of Joseph Lieberman(D-CT), a bipartisan Senate S&T Cau-cus came to life, its initial membershipfilled out by Pete V. Domenici (R-NM)and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). And earlyin the congressional session, PhilGramm (R-TX) offered a resolution thatwould double federal investments incivilian research over ten years, whichamounts to a 7 percent annual boost.

The President also began to sendout strong signals. Having barely men-tioned science during his first term, hebegan to interject it into his speeches.By late spring it had achieved suffi-cient prominence to become a centraltheme of his Morgan State commence-ment address. (see Back Page, pg 12)

Of course, speeches, resolutionsand even authorization bills do notproduce tangible results. It’s the ap-propriations bills that tell the real story.As 1996 Oscar winner Cuba Gooding,Jr. said in Jerry Maguire, “Show me themoney!”

And here science is on a collisioncourse with the political realities of the1990’s. Without the cover of a foreignthreat, lawmakers are under the do-mestic gun to reduce taxes, cut thedeficit and preserve popular programs,all at the same time. Omit one of these,and you’re dead politically.

Ask George Bush, who preservedentitlements and put into place a 5-year $593-billion deficit reduction plan.But he raised taxes, and he lost thePresidency as a result.

Ask Bill Clinton, who preserved en-titlements and put into place a 5-year$487-billion deficit reduction program.But he did not deliver a middle-classtax cut, and the Democrats lost con-trol of Congress in 1994.

Ask Newt Gingrich, who pushedbills through the 104th Congress to cuttaxes and reduce the deficit. But healso made entitlements a target, andBill Clinton swept to a second term in1996, with the GOP nearly losing con-trol of the House in the process.

Three lessons taught; three lessonslearned. The result is the bipartisanbudget deal that cleared Congress inJune. It cuts taxes, purportedly shaves$204 billion from the deficit over 5years and essentially preserves entitle-ments.

It also squeezes all the juice out ofthe discretionary orange, leaving sci-ence to vie for the remaining pulp with

APS News July 1997

4

Since 1995, scientists have beencreating a new state of matter, Bose-

Einstein condensates of atoms, inwhich a sufficiently densely packedcollection of gas atoms is cooled tosuch low temperatures that they entera single quantum state and effectivelyact as a single entity, or “superatom.”During a Sunday morning session atthe APS/AAPT Spring Meeting inWashington, DC, three researchersspoke on the latest results from recentexperiments using BEC condensates,which were first predicted by AlbertEinstein in 1925.

Randy Hulet of Rice University re-ported that BECs of lithium atoms aredifferent from other BECs in that thelithium atoms attract rather than repeleach other, and are limited to a size ofapproximately 1500 atoms. Accordingto some predictions, adding more at-oms than this would cause the BEC toundergo a “macroscopic quantum tun-neling,” in which the condensate would

Researchers Report on New Results for BEC Experimentscollectively transform from a low-densityto a high-density state, forming moleculeswhich would then release excess heat andcause the BEC to blow apart.

Hulet said that the observation of alimited condensate number is alreadyan indication that this phenomenon ishappening, but the Rice team is at-tempting to directly observe thecollapse and its aftermath. “Physicistsare excited because of the opportunityto study quantum mechanics on a mac-roscopic scale,” he said, adding that thistunneling effect usually applies only tosingle microscopic particles, not to col-lections of many atoms, like a BEC.

Studying BECs of rubidium atoms,Eric Cornell of NIST and the Universityof Colorado discussed experimentsconfirming that BECs are significantlymore uniform in density than compa-rable clouds of cold atoms in anon-BEC state. He also described howthe frequencies of sound waves inBECs unexpectedly depend upon tem-

perature, something which cur-rent theory does not explain.The results were obtained us-ing a double-magneto-optic trap(MOT) system, which increasesthe number of atoms in the con-densate by multiple transfersbetween two connected MOTs.Cornell’s team also condensedboth spin states of rubidiumusing a sympathetic coolingtechnique, and studies the in-teractions between them.

Using laser light to excite aspecific spot on his cigar-shaped BECof sodium atoms, Wolfgang Ketterle ofMIT described how the resulting dis-turbance in a typical condensatepropagates at about 5 millimeters persecond, roughly 70,000 times slowerthan the speed of sound in air. In oneexperiment, two condensates were cre-ated in a double-well potential formedby magnetic and optical forces. Afterswitching off the potential and letting

the condensates expand and overlap,the MIT group observed high contrastmatter-wave interference fringes, dem-onstrating that Bose condensed atomsare coherent and show long-range cor-relations. Ketterle presented videos ofthe world’s first “atom laser,” first an-nounced in January 1997 — a devicethat produces coherent beams of atomshighly analogous to laser light beams.

S ince the earliest experimentsdefining the properties of the

neutron, accelerators have played animportant role in providing neutronsfor research and applications. Variousresearchers described specificexamples of how neutrons are usedfor engineering magnetic materials, formeasuring stress in machine parts, andfor studying polymer processes in real-time during a Sunday morning sessionat the APS/AAPT Spring Meeting inWashington, DC. The session wasjointly organized by the APS Divisionof Physics of Beams and the APS Forumon Industrial and Applied Physics.

Neutrons have provided an incisivetool for investigating the structure andmorphology of materials ranging fromcomplex fluids to magnetic multilayersto superconductors. Virtually every mi-croscopic-level detail that is knownabout magnetic materials has beenlearned by scattering neutrons fromthem. For example, little would beknown about excitations in quantumfluids, the spin-density- wave state ofchromium, electronic back-donation inthe bonding of organometallic com-

DPB/FIAP Session Explores Industrial Applications of Neutrons

Eric Cornell and Wolfgang Ketterle accepting the 1997 APSI.I. Rabi Prize from APS President D. Allan Bromley.

pounds, or the conformation of pro-teins and DNA in nucleosomes withoutneutron scattering. This is because neu-trons not only can penetrate deeply intomaterials, but they also have a mag-netic moment which can probe anobject’s magnetic properties.

For many years, neutrons producedat accelerator facilities have comple-mented capabilities available fromreactor-based sources. Now, however,according to James B. Ball (Oak RidgeNational Laboratory), with the decliningavailability of reactor facilities, upgrades ofexisting accelerator facilities and proposednew, more powerful accelerator-basedsources will be called upon to provide thenecessary neutron capabilities. In April1997, the APS Council issued a statementthat expressed concern about an impend-ing shortage of state-of-the-art neutronsource facilities in the U.S. The text of thisstatement may be found on the APS homepage (www.aps.org) under the Gover-nance button.

Argonne’s IPNS and the ISIS facilityat Rutherford Appleton Laboratory inthe U.S. are the two most powerfulexisting sources. The addition of an-

other target is under discussion for ISIS,but Ball reported that the prognosis forapproval was “not too promising.” Overthe next few years, several new neu-tron scattering spectrometers will bebuilt at the Los Alamos Neutron Sci-ence Center (LANSCE), with plans toincrease the neutron flux by a factor ofthree. Ball also discussed plans for next-generation facilities, namely theEuropean Spallation Source, and theNational Spallation Neutron Source, anext-generation facility at Oak Ridgeproposed to be constructed by 2004.

According to Thomas Russell of theUniversity of Massachusetts, Amherst,unique insight into the characteristicsof bulk materials can also be gainedby neutrons. More recently, neutronreflectivity has emerged as a premieretool for the study of surfaces and in-terfaces. However, the flux limitationsof current reactor and spallation sourceshave limited studies to the static, equi-librium behavior of materials. The nextgeneration of neutron sources will in-crease neutron flux levels by more thanan order of magnitude, leading to un-precedented advances in

understanding not only the static be-havior, but also kinetic and dynamicresponses of materials.

Increasingly in recent years, neu-trons are being applied to strategic orapplied research, and product devel-opment. Roger Pynn of Los AlamosNational Laboratory described severalrecent experiments conducted atLANSCE in temperature and particle ve-locity measurement in reacting highexplosives; radiographic imaging withprotons; chemical bonding in metal-dihydride complexes; and the structureof thin adhesive layers. These experi-ments have found many diverseapplications, from the manufacture ofbeer cans, the development of new ce-ramic-reinforced metallics for theaerospace industry, and dynamic im-aging of weapons hydrotests.

Joel McKeown of AECL Acceleratorsreported on recent advances in linac-based technology for industrialradiation processing, including appli-cations such as sterilization and foodirradiation. There are currently threesuch machines in operation, two ofwhich are being used commercially.

An excess of TeV-energy gamma raysfrom galaxy Markarian 421 may

oblige astronomers to revise their mod-els of active galactic nuclei (AGN). Thediscovery challenges existing conceptsof the acceleration processes close toblack holes and how radiation is ab-sorbed in space, and indicates that theuniverse is not as opaque as previouslythought.

Last year Mrk421 rewarded patientobservers with the most explosivegamma display ever, with a flux tentimes higher than that of the muchcloser Crab Nebula, the strongestknown steady gamma source in thesky. At a Friday afternoon session atthe APS/AAPT Spring meeting in Wash-ington, DC, Trevor Weekes of theWhipple Observatory presented thefirst detailed spectrum for Mrk421. Hereported that the flux of gammas fallsoff at the highest energies (up past 6TeV), but not nearly as fast as onewould have expected. Weekes sug-

Gamma Rays Provide Detailed Energy Spectrum of AGNgested that the anticipated effect of twosources of attenuation, dust near theAGN and the amorphous populationof infrared photons in intergalacticspace, may have been overestimated.

The very-high-energy gamma raysfrom galaxies are produced in the in-teraction of cosmic particles of evengreater energy with ambient particlesor photons in the jets apparently ema-nating from each pole. These cosmicparticles are accelerated by a processderived from the enormous gravity of ablack hole to energies in excess of thoseattained by man-made particle accelera-tors. Theoretical astrophysicists have yetto explain the processes involved.

Even more difficult to explain is howthe gamma rays, once produced, canescape from the jet without interactingwith lower energy photos and degrad-ing in energy as a result. Once clear ofthe galaxy, the gamma rays musttraverse vast regions of intergalacticspace, where they could be absorbed

by interacting with infrared radiationfrom galaxies formed in the early uni-verse. However, the recentobservations suggest that the densityof infrared photons is much less thanpreviously predicted.

“We saw many more very high en-ergy gamma ray photons from thissource than we thought we would,”said James Gaidos, a professor of as-trophysics at Purdue University and amember of the research team. “We hadbelieved there were more low-energyphotons out there to absorb the gammarays, but so many are getting throughto us from such a large distance that itappears there’s much less interactiontaking place.” Since low energy pho-tons were created in the universe atthe time of galaxy formation, the num-ber of observed photons impartsinformation on how the galaxies formed.A reduced number of such photons thushas direct implications for current theo-ries of the history of the universe,

particularly for galaxy formation.Many suspect that AGNs, quasars,

and indeed all the most violent celes-tial objects in the universe share acommon energy-production architec-ture: a black hole, supplied by asurrounding accretion disk, broadcast-ing powerful jets of matter in two polardirections. Mrk421 (400 million lightyears away) is the closest such objectwhose jet axis is aimed directly at us.

Because of the shielding effect ofthe earth’s atmosphere, gamma raysmust generally be detected by earth-orbiting gamma ray telescopes such asthe Compton Gamma Ray Observatory.However, if the energy is sufficientlygreat (TeV) they can be seen indirectlywith sensitive telescopes on mountaintops. Gamma ray collision with an airmolecule generates a cascade of light-emitting particles which can bedetected by large optical detectors suchas the Whipple Observatory’s 10- meteroptical reflector.

July 1997 APS News

5

In May, President Clinton announcedthe nine 1997 winners of the National

Medal of Science, recognizing exem-plary work in such diverse fields ashuman genetics, mathematics, physicalscience, and cognition and learning. Thewinners include four long-standing APSmembers. Including this year’s recipients,the Medal has been awarded to 353 dis-tinguished scientists and engineers.

NSF Director Neal Lane, in announc-ing the names of the recipients of thenation’s highest honor forgroundbreaking scientific research,noted “It is important that the nationpublicly repay its debt to these outstand-ing men and women, whosecontributions to science have helped toadvance human learning, fight diseaseand provide insight into the centralquestions of the nature of universe andhumanity’s place in it”.

The National Medal of Science wasestablished by Congress in 1959, and

is administered by the NSF. The Medalof Science winners were announced si-multaneously with those of theNational Medal of Technology, admin-istered by the U.S. Department ofCommerce.

The four APS members receiving theMedal of Science this year are: DarleaneC. Hoffman, director of the Glenn T.Seaborg Institute for Transactinium Sci-ence at the Lawrence BerkeleyLaboratory, University of California atBerkeley, was recognized for her discov-ery of plutonium in nature and for hernumerous contributions to the under-standing of radioactive decay, notablyof heavy nuclei.

Harold S. Johnston, professor emeri-tus of chemistry at the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, was cited for hisunderstanding of the chemistry of ni-trogen compounds and their role andreactions in the earth’s stratosphere andin urban areas. His chemical and envi-

President Announces 1997 Medal of Science Winnersronmental research, have resulted incontributions to the understanding andconservation of the earth’s atmosphere.

Marshall N. Rosenbluth, professorand research physicist, University ofCalifornia, San Diego, was honored forhis fundamental contributions toplasma physics, his leadership in thequest to develop controlled thermo-nuclear fusion, and his wide-rangingtechnical contributions to national se-curity. He is noted for his theoreticalstudies of the behavior of plasmas andtheir instabilities.

Shing-Tung Yau, professor of math-ematics at Harvard University, wasrecognized for his profound contribu-tions to mathematics that have had agreat impact on fields as diverse as to-pology, algebraic geometry, generalrelativity and string theory. His workhas resulted in the solution of severallong-standing and important problemsin mathematics.

APS MatchingMemberships AidPhysicists inDevelopingCountries

In many parts of Africa, Asia, Europeand Latin America access to informa-tion about physics and physicists isseverely limited due to local economicconditions. Scientific meetings are faraway and costly to attend, local uni-versity libraries are not well-stockedand telecommunication infrastructuresare not widespread. A membership inthe APS can help to bridge these gapsbut, for most in this situation, a mem-bership is simply beyond their means.

For example, at the current mem-bership rate of $90 a year, a physicistat a university in Ukraine might haveto pay a full month’s salary - if he orshe was actually paid during thatmonth. Since 1983, the APS has offeredan opportunity for these colleagues toparticipate in Society affairs and learnabout other working physicists fromaround the world through the APSMatching Membership Program. Cur-rently, over 250 physicists in 28countries from Argentina to Uzbekistanparticipate in the Program.

Applications for Matching Member-ship are accepted at any time fromphysicists in eligible countries. Enroll-ment in the Program is based on agraduated dues structure or via thegood will of an individual or institu-tional sponsor. Full APS membershipbenefits are included with some restrictionsand membership in the Program is lim-ited to six years to allow as many aspossible to participate. In some cases,Matching Members continue theirassociation with the APS and become fullmembers when economic circumstancesimprove. Detailed information and appli-cations are available from the Membershipoffice (membership@aps.org).

The APS supports the matchingmembership program through membercontributions to the APS Matching Mem-bership Fund. Additional contributionsto the Fund are needed and may bemade by desigating it on the dues re-newal invoice or by sending a check toThe American Physical Society, OnePhysics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740-3844 USA, Attn.: Accounting Department- Matching Membership Fund.

A special APS Executive Board luncheon programwas held on April 18, 1997 to announce the

Carl E. Anderson Distinguished Academic-IndustrialFellowship which will be made possible through agenerous bequest by Dr. Charlotte Anderson inmemory of her late husband. The program was heldat the J. W. Marriott in Washington, DC and includeda number of special guests who gathered with theBoard to pay tribute to the accomplishments of CarlE. Anderson.

The annual fellowship will allow for academic-industrial interaction by many outstanding physicistsin the field of lasers and optics, which was CarlAnderson’s primary field of research. As chair of the

special program, Allan Bromley applauded Charlotte Anderson for her apprecia-tion of the opportunities afforded by greater academic-industrial interface. Havingknown Carl and Charlotte Anderson for 30 years, Allan Bromley related numer-ous examples of Carl’s achievements in the field of laser technology. Othersspeaking on Carl Anderson’s accomplishments and the importance of this fel-lowship included Nobel laureate, Nicolaas Bloembergen; Inge-MariaLadenbauer-Bellis; Thomas Karras; Thomas McIlrath and Harry Lustig. In a briefbiography of Carl Anderson written for the luncheon program by Thomas Karras,

Announcing the Carl E. Anderson Distinguished Academic-Industrial Fellowship

D. Allan Bromley, Charlotte Anderson and Harry Lustig review the program to commemoratethe occasion.

Inside the Beltway(continued from page 3)

CORRECTIONThe article on Cuban scientists

who were denied U.S. visas in theMay 1997 issue of APS News errone-ously maintained that Dr. CarloTrallero-Giner of the University ofHavana was among those denied vi-sas to attend scientific conferencesin the U.S. This is incorrect. Dr.Trallero-Giner had not yet appliedfor a visa at the time of the article’spublication.

Carl E. Anderson

veterans hospitals, highways, waterprojects, housing and urban develop-ment, military personnel, and so onand so on. Who ultimately picks thefruit clean depends upon who can pro-duce the greatest political muscle.

Scientists are learning how to com-pete, but, as Science CommitteeChairman Sensenbrenner noted, “Onepress conference [on the Joint State-ment] isn’t going to change things verymuch.” It’s the follow through thatcounts, and that depends upon everyresearcher and every educator. Like itor not, scientists and politicians arefinding themselves joined at the hip.

On our planet, we inhabit a calm little oasis of ordinary solids, liquids and gases that is immersedin a perpetually blowing, roiling, flaring, erupting substance of a very different kind, called plasma.

The Division of Plasma Physics has published a lively 10 page brochureentitled The Pervasive Plasma State that describes the broad range of currentareas of plasma science and technology research. This highly illustrated bro-chure is intended to give the educated nonspecialist an appreciation of theintellectual challenges in plasma research, as well as its many applications.Topics range from the role of plasmas in astrophysics to semiconductor pro-cessing. The text was written by James Glanz, who is currently a staff editorfor Science magazine. The brochure was developed by the DPP’s Interdivi-sional and Public Affairs Committee, chaired by Herbert Berk, University ofTexas. The first printing of ten thousand copies has been widely distributedto government and agency personnel, scientists, colleges and schools. A sec-ond printing is underway. The brochure may be found on the DPP webpagewhich may be located through the APS home page [www.aps.org] under theDivision button. Printed copies may be requested from Saralyn Stewart, DPPadministrator, via email at: stewart@hagar.ph.utexas.edu.

who was both a colleague and friend of Carl’s, he states “Charlotte’s desire toestablish an APS fellowship in memory of Carl that emphasizes his area of workwould certainly have pleased him. It encourages the work he enjoyed by peopleeducated in the discipline he believed in.”

Plasma Physics Brochure Available

APS News July 1997

6

OPINIONLETTERSAPS VIEWS

The 1981 APS statement on creation-ism, which was recently reaffirmed bythe APS Executive Board (APS News,May 1997) is essentially correct. It goestoo far, however, in seeming to ruleout any conversation between scienceand religion.

It is appropriate for the Society totake a public position on this matter.However, the last sentence of the state-ment is unhealthy overkill, neithernecessary or accurate, and I hope thatthe Executive Board will give seriousconsideration to its omission: “Attemptsto present [scientific inquiry and reli-gious beliefs] in the same context canonly lead to misunderstandings ofboth.” Taken at face value, this meansthat science and religion simply have

While Michael Lubell, in his “Insidethe Beltway” column (May 1997)praises the Congress for the across-the-board increase of 7% in researchfunding, it avoids altogether the criti-cal question of how the research moneyis distributed. This unduly shifts the ac-cent on the total funding andobfuscates the fundamental flaws of thepeer review model in the allocation ofthe research funds.

It is getting progressively clear thatthe dominant model of funding alloca-tion through the peer review“competition” between “proposals”adopted by NIH, NSF in the U.S., andthe NSERC and MRC in Canada, has acoercive effect towards the sure-fireprojects (“safe science”) and all claimsto the contrary notwithstanding, dis-

The cynical and destructive proseused by Michael Lubell in his “Para-lytic Federalitis” article is of the exacttype that leads countries straight intofacism. Stale jokes and cynicism deprivethe youth of hope. We get so much ofthat flippant, information deprived jour-nalism from television and most of thepress, that we do not need to havemore from the APS. When an appara-

Research Funding: An Increase, but for Whom?

courages real risk taking. As a result,many trendy grantsmanship empiresare actually overfunded, while scoresof other talented and capable research-ers have no funds whatsoever.

To reflect the fundamental error-proneness of the peer review, thefunding system needs to be radicallyredesigned towards the principle “Fundresearchers, not proposals.” In order toboost the efficiency of the researchdollars we need to fund a lot more re-searchers (especially, junior) but onlower average levels. Such a reform,however, will threaten the power con-trol of the grantsmanship elite andpaper-shuffling bureaucracy and henceit is fiercely resisted by both of them.Alexander A. BerezinMcMaster University

tus in our laboratories is malfunction-ing, we sit down to discuss how torepair it, and we do not just sit thereand laugh our heads off. If our politi-cal engine is sputtering, let us fix it orrebuild it, possibly starting from ourown backyard.Giacinto ScolesPrinceton University

Science and Religion Can Still Converse

nothing to say to one another, in anycontext.

“Creation” is a religious, not a sci-entific, concept. But religious beliefsabout creation involve the naturalworld, which science describes. Thus,religion and science have some sub-ject matter in common, though theyspeak of it in different ways. To denythat religion and science have anythingin common would mean that religionmust be relegated to a purely interiorspirituality or eliminated completely.Those are undoubtedly the privateviews of some APS members, but theSociety as a whole should not endorsethem.George L. MurphyTallmadge, Ohio

The Board’s statement, “…Scientificinquiry and religious beliefs are twodistinct elements of the human experi-ence. Attempts to present them in thesame context can only lead to misun-derstandings of both.”, is seriouslyflawed. Both of these world views arefoundationally philosophical and reli-gious, not scientific - creationismstarting with a belief in God (theism),and evolution starting with no God (therecognized religion of atheism). Nei-ther creation nor evolution canultimately be proven or disproven bythe scientific method, since no scien-

tist was around to observe the originof life.

I cannot think of a better way tostimulate thinking and discussion in aclassroom than to present two sides ofa controversial issue! Statements likethat of the APS Executive Board aresigns that evolutionists are beginningto panic as the scientific evidence con-tinues to mount against their theory.As the theory of evolution falls apart atthe seams, the only logical alternativeis creation.John M. CimbalaPennsylvania State University

In your May issue on the Back Page,Senator Pete Domenici set up someconvenient straw men to contend thatthe US faces an inescapable conflictbetween support for science and en-titlement programs. He then attemptedto recruit APS members in the effort toroll back entitlements. There is noth-ing inescapable about this choice. Itstems from other more fundamental

choices made by our political leadersfor the nation.

As a minor example, discussing theavailability of discretionary funds in thebudget he states that, “Because defenserequires almost half of the discretion-ary funds, we are left with about 17percent to fund all the non defense pro-grams, including the non defense scienceprograms.” “Required” is misleading.

We Have Funding Choices

[Courtesy of AIP Education and EmploymentStatistics Division, Report R-151.33]

First year graduate student enrollmentand PhD production at U.S. Doctorate-granting

departments, 1980-1996

How Many Physicists are Enough?by Barrett Ripin, APS Associate Executive Officer

Our colleges and universities are currently experiencing dramatic drops in thenumber of students enrolled in physics degree programs. While this appears tobe a normal reaction to the well publicized difficulties young physicists havehad gaining traditional physics employment, some fear that we may be experi-encing an overreaction that may ultimately do a disservice to individuals, theacademic infrastructure, and society.

According to surveys conducted by the AIP, physics bachelor degree produc-tion declined by more than 9% from 1994 to 1996. [See APS News, October 1996,pg. 5] Estimates, based on last year’s junior physics major enrollments, are thatthe number of graduates this year will be smaller still, or about two-thirds of thepeak production year, 1969. First-year physics graduate students, both of U.S.and non-U.S. origin, are also in steep decline, as can be seen in the figure below.The number of new PhDs awarded in the U.S. peaked in 1994 after a quartercentury of steady rise. A further decline of new PhD production (greater than25%) is projected over the next six years. Physicists are getting older, collectivelyas well as individually. The average age of full-time employed physicists is 46,up slightly from 44 in 1990.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist (pardon the expression) to identify forcesdriving this. Prospective physics students are now well aware of lengtheningtimes-to-PhD-degree and postdoctoral terms as well as the difficulties obtainingpotentially permanent physics jobs in recent years. Competition from other ex-citing emerging areas, such as biological sciences, engineering, and informationtechnology, etc., may also draw some talent away from physics.

Many think that these declines are a natural and necessary drop to a lower,more sustainable, level - a supply/demand thing. Others argue that we are vastlyoverreacting and are in danger of the pendulum swinging too far. They fear thatoverly publicizing past employment trends may cause unnecessary hysteria thatwill lead to a shortage of physicists, even in academia, in the near future. So,who is right?

There is no question that there has been a gross mismatch between careerhopes of those entering physics programs and real world jobs. But, most physi-cists are not employed in academia, do not do basic research, and have a verydiverse array of careers (applied or interdisciplinary research, technology andproduct development, engineering, management, government, law, finance, toname a few). This includes many of our best and brightest. Surveys show thatphysics degree holders at all levels typically express high satisfaction with theircareers and that they become successful. This is true even when their jobs rarelycall for their specific technical training. A recent Sigma Pi Sigma survey showsthat BS physics recipients are in a particularly wide range of fields, perhaps dueto their broad technical ‘liberal-arts’ training.

Should we counsel students to embark on a physics degree? Certainly thosewith a strong desire and capability to learn and do physics should be encour-aged. At the same time, each needs to be made fully aware of employment/career trends and helped to develop a broad outlook on how they might ulti-mately use their physics training.

For more information see the APS Task Force on Career and Professional Devel-opment report (APS Home Page , www.aps.org, under the Career/Employmentbutton). Comments and suggestions are welcomed.

July 1997 APS News

7

OPINION

Remember those boundary valueproblems from your electricity and

magnetism course, the ones we alsoran into in classical and quantummechanics? I loved those problems.Really, I did. A well-defined boundaryvalue problem has a unique answer,one you can find by standardtechniques, and one whose validity youcan easily check at the end.

There are many boundaries in thereal world. Some are physical, somepsychological, some bureaucratic, somesociological. Some are real, and someare imagined. Some we construct tomake life simpler for ourselves, or toavoid the uncertainties beyond thatborder. There is a boundary to our“comfort zone,” and until we cross thatboundary, we do not grow. I want totalk about the boundaries I see in oursystem of physics education, and howsome of these can truly get in the wayof our goal of giving our students thevery best we can.

Some of the physical boundaries thatexist in physics education are the wallsof our departments and buildings, orthe confines of our company. Indus-trial scientists who want to have animpact on education are finding waysto reach beyond their institutions, bygoing out into the public schools, orby bringing the public into their out-reach programs. Physicists atuniversities are finding they can learnfrom collaborations with other scien-tists and engineers, and that educationfaculty can teach us something abouthow students learn. They, too, arereaching out beyond the confines ofthe campus.

Blurring the Boundaries in Physics Educationby Stan Jones

These physical boundaries are well-defined; it is clear what is inside ourdepartment or company, and where theoutside world begins. The issue is howwe define “our job.” We can’t make themistake of allowing these boundariesto become barriers to our involvementin the larger world. There is a greatneed for better public understandingof science, and we serve not only thepublic, but ourselves as well if we ven-ture beyond our “walls” to make ourcontribution.

At the undergraduate and graduatelevels of physics education, I seeboundary problems that are artificiallyset up; problems where the boundariesare not well-defined, and perhaps donot exist at all: the boundary betweenpure and applied research; betweenphysics and other disciplines, such aschemistry; and between teaching andresearch. People have set up theseboundaries in order to make physicsand physics education a well-definedproblem. They began disappearingsome time ago in physics, but remnantsremain, and for some educators theycontinue to get in the way.

In graduate training, we must de-cide what classroom experiences, andwhat research experiences, to give ourstudents. What role should physics ap-plications play? What is pure and whatis applied physics is not always easy toidentify. Many of the interesting re-search problems just happen to havereal-world significance, such as mate-rials, atmospheric physics, magneticresonance, and so on. Many physicistshave learned that there is no particularvirtue in avoiding a problem just be-

cause it has applications. As fundingsources have evolved, many scientistshave recognized the wealth of inter-esting new physics discoveries waitingto be made in supposedly “applied”areas. In a sense, we have found thatthe need to define a problem as pureor applied is no longer significant. Froman educational point of view, the factthat research has an application doesnot necessarily diminish its value asphysics. Our graduate curricula mustrecognize and incorporate this reality.

In exploring the interesting proper-ties of matter in its varied forms,physicists have found common inter-ests with chemists, engineers,mathematicians, biologists, and more.To say that a problem is physics andnot, for instance, chemistry, is often adistinction we cannot make. Tech-niques are also blurred. There are someways of approaching a problem thatare clearly physics, some that are clearlychemistry; but the importance of mak-ing this distinction has faded. Insistingthat the distinction be made can inter-fere with our ability to recognize andaddress very fundamental and intrigu-ing questions. And many problemsrequire an integrated, multi-disciplin-ary approach if we want to trulyunderstand them.

Physics is a discipline where changeis rapid and exciting. As educators, wemust always be open to this same rateof change. If what we do changes rap-idly, what we teach, and how we teach,must also be flexible enough to change.We must be ready to provide our stu-dents with an introduction to the newinterdisciplinary ways of thinking. We

must also beready to helpthem exploreproblems thatmay not be asclearly “phys-ics.”

The thirdboundary is that between teaching andresearch. One of the finest ways to learnis by doing, and whenever students canbecome part of a research project, ev-eryone benefits. Research can beteaching, and teaching can be research.We should be learning from our stu-dents: how they think, how theyunderstand or misunderstand the prin-ciples we discuss. In so doing, weourselves increase our understanding,and as we learn how students learn,we should be changing how we teachin order to be more effective. The de-bate over the relative priority ofteaching and research, which has lastedthrough the ages, is based on a falsedichotomy; the two go hand in hand.

I would argue that whether or notboundaries exist, increasingly it is thosewho go beyond the boundaries whoare making the changes in this world.Willingness to ignore boundaries,whether real or imagined, marks thecreative person. Defense of the bound-aries is often a decision which bindsone to the past.

Stan Jones is a professor of physics atthe University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.An earlier version of this article ap-peared in the Spring 1997 issue of theForum on Education newsletter.

Letters continued

“Gets” would be more accurate. The pro-portion of discretionary funding thatgoes to defense is a free will choice; nopolitical equivalent of the second law ofthermodynamics requires it. It deservesserious thoughtful debate.

More major choices are that in this,the richest nation on earth, we chooseto have one of the lowest tax ratesamong industrialized nations and themost skewed distribution of wealth. Asa result, the wealthy can wallow in everincreasing affluence and necessary in-vestments in research, education andother areas important to the generalwelfare of the nation are not made.These are choices that we have freelymade, they were not imposed upon us.

There are long term consequencesto these choices that do have a bit of a

second law about them. For one, if wechoose to tightly restrict funds for fun-damental research, our scientificcommunity and its productivity will at-rophy as we evolve from scientificleaders to followers to also rans. Foranother, if we choose to continue toskew the distribution of wealth andignore public investment, we will havean increasingly apathetic and cynicalcitizenry that will further debilitate usas a nation and may eventually pro-duce violent reactions.

We have choices. As a nation thechoices that we make, more than ourresources, will dictate our future. Sena-tor Domenici adopted a convenientlymyopic view.David W. BlairPrinceton, New Jersey

Alarmed by the prospects foraspiring physicists, a senior

student at Georgetown Universitylaunched a Congressional letter writingcampaign in May through the Societyof Physics Students (SPS) to enliststudents in a grassroots effort to securetheir own futures.

A combined physics and govern-ment major who plans to pursue

graduate study in public policy atRutgers University, Daniel Benson con-ceived of the campaign as his seniorproject, fueled by his growing concernover declining federal funding for sci-ence and what he perceived to be acorresponding “anti-science” atmo-sphere in Washington. As the scientificcommunity began to speak out in de-fense of science, “I thought there

needed to be an equal effort on thepart of the science majors, the stu-dents,” he said. Georgetown’s physicsdepartment sponsored the effort.

After receiving approval from theAmerican Institute of Physics to usetheir nationwide SPS mailing list,Benson sent letters to the presidentsof all SPS chapters asking them to rallytheir members to write letters to theirCongressional representatives in sup-port of increased science funding,through such legislation as Senator PhilGramm’s proposed National ResearchInvestment Act, for example, whichproposes a 7% increase in science fund-ing each year for ten years. “Don’t letCongress balance the budget by sacri-ficing your future,” his letteradmonished. He is still waiting for wordon the response nationwide from thevarious SPS chapters.

Similar letters and accompanyingbackground materials were sent to allGeorgetown physics majors, andBenson wrote an article on the subjectfor the student newspaper. While re-sponse overall was positive on campus,Benson admits that, given their tightschedules, “it’s hard to get [students]to write letters. It was more successfulthan I was expecting, but not as suc-

Georgetown Senior Rallies Students for Support of Science Fundingcessful as it could have been.”

However, he did receive strong sup-port from students enrolled in a newcourse on science and public policy,recently instituted by the physics de-partment, and believes the campaignwas especially useful in terms of edu-cating students about how theirgovernment operates. “One of the mainreasons for doing this was just to getthe undergraduates to start thinkingabout their voice in Congress,” he said.“It’s been extremely successful in let-ting people know that there aredecisions being made that affect theirfuture, and they need to be alert andnotify their representatives about whattheir wishes are.”

Benson is following up the initialmailing with a similar mailing to sci-ence professors, but is concerned thatrecent positive developments on thefederal funding front could hinder hisefforts. “A lot of people are now read-ing that things are looking up andfigure it’s being done for them,” he said.“But it’s only the authorization that’sunderway now, we haven’t actuallygotten the appropriations bills out. Sothere still needs to be an effort. Peopleneed to understand this crucial differ-ence.”

APS News July 1997

8

a nucleus emits electrons or positronsalong with neutrinos.

Black Hole FormationMatthew Choptuik of the University

of Texas, whose computer simulationsof “naked singularities” (essentially thegravitational centers of black holeswithout their event horizons) obligedStephen Hawking to pay off a famousbet, discussed critical phenomena inblack hole formation at a Saturdaymorning session. Specifically, his de-tailed studies of various models ofclassical gravitational collapse revealedstrong-field solutions which dominatethe collapse dynamics at the thresholdof the black hole formation, whichexhibit such phenomena as universal-ity and scaling. Other speakers at thesession discussed such issues aswhether black hole entropy arises fromboundary states, horizon fluctuations,and quantum mass gap at the thresh-old of black hole formation.

Search for Life on MarsAt a Friday evening session, Jack

Farmer of the NASA Ames ResearchCenter reviewed the aims of presentand future efforts to search for life onMars. He believes that robotic field sci-ence will play a fundamental role inadvancing current understanding of theplanet’s history. In particular, capablerovers are needed to survey a broadarray of Martian rock types for in situmineralogy and chemistry as a basis forinterpreting remote sensing data ob-tained from orbit. “In situ mineralogicalanalysis will be crucial for selecting thebest materials for sample return,” hesaid, adding that rovers will need to beequipped with a suite of instrumentscapable of identifying acqueously-de-posited sediments, as well as thecapability to access rock interiors andcache small subsamples. There are stillcompelling reasons to mount humanmissions to Mars, however. While a deepsubsurface hydrosphere is believed tobe the most likely haven for living or-ganisms, such exploration will requiredrilling to depths of tens to hundreds ofkilometers. Robotic platforms are likelyto provide very limited subsurface ac-cess to depths of only a few tens ofmeters; hence, deep subsurface drill-ing will most likely require a humanpresence.

Gamma Rays from a Free ElectronLaser

Physicists at Duke University scat-ter ultraviolet photons from 500-MeVelectrons inside a free electron laser fa-cility to produce much higher energy(12 MeV) gamma-ray photons. Bycollimating the gamma flux, one canachieve a nearly mono-energetic beam.At a Saturday morning session, EricSchreiberl reported that the emittance(the divergence) of the beam is so lowthat even after collimation the intensityof the gamma beam is 1000 times greaterthan that produced with conventionallaser systems. A beam like this will beuseful for cancer therapy and for high-precision gamma-ray transmissionradiography. It can also be used to pro-duce positrons and to perform sensitivestudies of the atomic nucleus.

Developing a New CryogenicTemperature Scale

In the past few years, more and morephysicists have gotten closer and closerto absolute zero, with the proliferationof experiments in such fields as lasercooling, Bose-Einstein condensation,and atom lasers. The International Tem-perature Scale of 1990 (ITS-90) allows

laboratories around the world to matchtheir measurements to an internation-ally accepted scale. However, thistemperature scale does not go belowtemperatures of 3 Kelvins, because therewas not enough data in these low-tem-perature regions at the time ITS-90 wasdeveloped. On Saturday afternoon, re-searchers reported on the development ofwhat some may consider a holy-grail fordefining temperature in this region: themelting curve of helium-3, a liquid whichsolidifies at different temperatures depend-ing on the amounts of pressure that areapplied to it.

Low-Temperature Glow DischargePlasmas

Low-temperature plasmas havegained prominence in recent years inrapidly developing high technology ar-eas, such as the etching ofmicrostructures which form the basisof computer chips and other devices;the deposition of thin films used ashigh-tech coatings; the clean-up ofvolatile organic compounds; and moregenerally, the controlled modification ofsurfaces. Most commonly used for pro-cessing purposes is low-temperatureglow discharge plasmas, which are usu-ally sustainable only below atmosphericpressure because of instabilities such asthe glow-to-arc transition, which createsa high-current, spatially confined arcbetween the two electrodes of a plasmadevice, making them inefficient for tech-nological applications.

However, at a Friday morning ses-sion, researchers at the Stevens Instituteof Technology in Hoboken, New Jer-sey, reported on a new method forsuppressing the glow-to-arc transitionin dc and rf glow discharges, thus ex-tending their operating range toatmospheric pressures. While therehave been previous reports of stableglow discharges at atmospheric pres-sures, the Stevens method has severaladvantages over other approaches, in-cluding active versus passivestabilization, low energy consumption,simple engineering design, and easyscaling to larger plasma volumes. Thenew method will allow the efficient useof flow discharges for large-scale pro-cessing purposes without the need forcostly vacuum equipment. It is alreadybeing used at Stevens to generate largevolume atmospheric pressure plasma,and for the remediation of gaseous pol-lutants from waste streams. Otherpotential applications include novellighting devices and discharge-en-hanced combustion.

Chemical Sensor DesignOn Monday morning, Steve

Semanchik of NIST’s Chemical Scienceand Technology Laboratory reportedon recent major advances in gas sens-ing with the use of micromachinedstructures called “microhotplates,”which he describes as “platforms forthin sensing films of oxide materialsdecorated with ultrathin islands of cata-lytic metals.” In addition to enablingkinetic selectivity, arrays of multiplemicrohotplates with different activeoverlayers can be used to obtain thevaried adsorption/ desorption/reactioncharacteristics needed for gas multi-component analyses.

At the same session, A.J. Ricco ofSandia National Laboratories reportedon efforts to detect volatile organiccompounds using a six-device array of97-MHz, ST-quartz-based SAW delaylines in combination with chemicallysensitive interfaces, including self-as-sembled monolayers, plasma processed

films, dendrimer-based films, and con-ventional polymers. His group has alsoapplied chemical sensor array technol-ogy to investigate the surprising reactivityof Martian soil reported by Viking Landerexperiments. Specifically, an instrumentusing an array of fiber optic micromirror-based chemical sensors was designedand built, using an array of chemicallysensitive thin films, including metals,organometallics, and organic dyes toproduce a pattern of reflectivity changescharacteristic of the species interactingwith these sensing layers.

General Interest Sessions.Biological Effects of Low-DoseRadiation

On Monday morning, the Forum onPhysics and Society (FPS) organized asession presenting diverse views on thebiological effects of ionizing radiationat low doses. According to session chairJohn Cameron (University of Wiscon-sin-Madison), current national andinternational radiation protection policyis based on the assumption of a “linearno-threshold” (LNT) model relating apopulation’s frequency of cancer andheritable ill-health to radiation dose.The LNT model specifically predicts thatany increase in dose produces an in-crease in probability of cancer.Speakers included Dr. Arthur Upton(New York University), chair of theNAS/NRC committee that produced a1990 report supporting the wide useof the LNT model; Ludwig Feinendegen(Brookhaven National Laboratory) andMyron Pollycove (University of Califor-nia, San Francisco), who offeredcontradicting evidence to the LNTmodel; and Daniel Strom (Pacific North-west National Laboratory), whoaddressed the use and abuse of mod-els in radiation risk management.

Trends in Federal Support ofScience Education

The FPS and FED co-sponsored aFriday morning session reviewing re-cent trends in federal support for K-12and undergraduate math and scienceeducation. Current initiatives includeopportunities for science teachers toparticipate in research internships orrelated programs at federal and univer-sity research laboratories. Agenciescovered in the session included theNSF, NASA, the Department of Energy,the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAgency, and the Department of De-fense research agencies. According toRichard Stephens, a science educationconsultant, cross-agency initiatives inmath and science education present thepotential for new K-12 and undergradu-ate science initiatives developing fromthe recently enacted National OceanicPartnership legislation administered bythe Office of Naval Research, whichinvolves nine federal research agencies.At the same session, Tom Weimer, staffdirector of the Subcommittee on BasicResearch for the House of Representa-tives’ Committee on Science, reportedthat the subcommittee is planning acomprehensive review of K-12, under-graduate, graduate, and post-graduatefederal science education programs, inlight of the FY 98 agency authoriza-tion bills reviewed this spring.

National Science Education StandardsAt a joint AAPT/FED session on

Monday morning, Bruce Alberts, presi-dent of the National Academy ofSciences, urged that the wider commu-nity of scientists help to implement thecomprehensive program of scienceteaching standards promulgated a yearago by the National Research Council.“For the first time in our history we have

a coherent national vision of where wewant to go in science and math educa-tion, but the changes called for in the[standards] will be difficult to imple-ment and take more than a decade tobuild,” he said. “Science must becomethe fourth R in every school year, start-ing in kindergarten, not the drymemorization of science terms, but anexciting and empowering experiencein problem-solving that takes advan-tage of the curiosity in children andincreases each student’s understandingof the world.” Other session speakersdiscussed the implications of the newstandards, such as its likely effect onteaching at the K-12 level.

Forum Session Award LecturesPhysicists do more than research. As

administrators and citizens they areoften involved with governmental andsocial issues of national and interna-tional importance. At a special Saturdayafternoon session, the FPS recognizedthe work of Martin Gardner, essayistand a longtime editor at ScientificAmerican, with the APS Forum Award.Accepting on Gardner’s behalf wasJames Randi, a notable debunker ofpseudo-scientific claims. The APS LeoSzilard Award Lecture was presented byThomas Neff of MIT, who reported on thedangers posed by the still-potent nuclearstockpiles of the US and Russia. The APSNicholson Medal Lecture, on the sub-ject of scientists and totalitarian societies,was given by Li-Zhi Fang, a former dis-sident in China and now a professor atthe University of Arizona. ManuelCardona from Max-Planck-Institut FürFestköperforschung gave the APSWheatley Award lecture on physics inLatin America

1997 Spring MeetingProgram Committee

Chair: Virginia Brown, National Science Foun-

dation

Vice-Chair: Paul Grannis, SUNY-Stony Brook

AAPT Program Chair: Thomas L. O’Kuma, Lee

College

APS Program Committee: John Ahearne,

Sigma Xi (FPS); Beverly Berger, Oakland Uni-

versity (GTG); Bunny Clark, Ohio State

University (DNP); L. Craig Davis, Ford Research

Laboratory (FIAP); Gordon W.F. Drake, Univer-

sity of Windsor (DAMOP); Nathaniel Fisch,

Princeton University (DPP); James Friar, Los

Alamos National Laboratory (FBSM); Howard

Georgi, Harvard University (DPF); Daniel

Heinzen, University of Texas-Austin (FCTG);

William Herrmannsfeldt, Stanford Linear Accel-

erator Center (DPB); Wendell T. Hill, III,

University of Maryland (COM); Rush Holt,

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (FED); Paul

Houston, Cornell University (DLS); Marvin Kalos,

Cornell University (DCOMP); Richard

Lingenfelter, University of California-San Diego

(DAP); Laurie McNeil, University of North Caro-

lina (CSWP); Roberto Merlin, University of

Michigan (FIP); John Rigden, American Institute

of Physics (FHP); Robert Soulen, Jr., Naval Re-

search Laboratory (IMSTG); John Weiner,

University of Maryland (DCP).

Canadian Association of Physicists: Eric C.

Svensson, AECL/Chalk River Laboratories (CAP

vice president); See L. Chin, Universite Laval

(DAMOP); David A. Clarke, Saint Mary’s Uni-

versity (DAP); Janis McKenna, University of British

Columbia (DPF); Ann C. McMillan, Atmospheric

Environment Service (CSWP, DCOMP, FIP, FPS);

Louis J. Dube, Universite Laval (DAMOP); Rene

Roy, Universite Laval (DNP); Roberto D. Connor,

University of Manitoba (FHP).

Sociedad Mexicana de Fisica: Jose L. Moran-

Lopez, UNAM (1994-96 SMF president); Silvia

Torres, UNAM (DAP); Juan C. D’Olivo, UNAM

(DPF); Carmen Cisneros, UNAM (1996-98 SMF

President, DAMOP); Maria-Ester Brandan, UNAM

(DNP); Miguel A. Perez, Centro de Investiga-

tion y Estudios Avanzado (FIP).

Highlights from Washington, DC (continued from page 1)

July 1997 APS News

9

The membership of The American Physical Society will elect a Vice-President,a Chair-Elect of the Nominating Committee, and four General Councillors in the1998 General Election. Ballots must be received by the 5 September deadline inorder to be valid. A slate of candidates has been prepared by the NominatingCommittee, and biographical summaries for each are provided below. Full bio-graphical information and candidates’ statements are printed in the ballot.

Vice President

James S. LangerUniversity of California, Santa Barbara

James S. Langer was born in Pittsburgh in 1934. He re-ceived his PhD in mathematical physics under thesupervision of R.E. Peierls at the University of Birmingham,England in 1958. He joined the Physics Department atCarnegie Mellon University in 1958. In 1982, he becameprofessor of physics and a member of the Institute for Theo-retical Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara,serving as its director from 1989 to 1995. The 1997 recipientof the APS Oliver E. Buckley Prize, Langer’s research generally has been in thetheory of nonequilibrium phenomena in condensed matter. His specific areas ofinterest have been quantum many-body theory of transport in solids, the kinet-ics of first-order phase transitions including nucleation and spinodaldecomposition, dendritic pattern formation in crystal growth and, most recently,the dynamics of earthquakes and fracture.

Langer’s most recent national committee service includes stints as chair of theAPS Division of Condensed Matter Physics; chair of the APS Nominating Com-mittee (1995); chair of the Physics Section of the AAAS (1992); and chair of thePanel on Research Opportunities and Needs, Materials Science and EngineeringSurvey, National Research Council (NRC) (1986-89).

Paul MartinHarvard University

Martin was born in Brooklyn, New York in 1931, andreceived his AB and PhD in 1951 and 1954, respectively,from Harvard University. After a postdoctoral fellowship atthe University of Birmingham and the Bohr Institut forTeoretisk Fysik in Copenhagen, he joined the Harvard fac-ulty in 1957, where he has remained ever since, serving asa professor, Physics Department chair, Dean of the Divi-sion of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and Associate Dean of the Faculty ofArts and Sciences. He has been extensively involved in bringing high-speedelectronic communication to Harvard students and faculty. Martin’s research intheoretical physics includes work on quantum field theory, nuclear physics, andatomic physics, statistical and condensed matter physics, and fluid mechanicsand non-linear dynamical systems.

Martin was the first chair of the Advisory Board for the Institute for Theoreti-cal Physics at Santa Barbara. He served as an APS Councillor and Chair of theAPS Nominating Committee. As Director of the Massachusetts MicroelectronicsCenter and the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative he has worked withindustry and state government in areas including electronics, communications,and medical instrumentation. He has also played a large role in directing theNew England Consortium for Undergraduate Science Education (NECUSE) — aconsortium, headquartered at Harvard, of four New England universities andtwelve colleges — and in organizing the Northeast Center of the National Insti-tute for Global Environmental Change (NIGEC).

Chair Elect of the Nominating Committee

Barbara Goss LeviPhysics Today

Levi received an MS and a PhD in particle physics fromStanford University in 1967 and 1971, respectively, andstarted working for Physics Today in 1969 as an associateeditor. From 1970-76 she taught physics at FairleighDickinson University in Madison, New Jersey, and from1976-1980, she was a lecturer at Georgia Tech. In 1981, shebecame a member of the research staff at PrincetonUniversity’s Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, returning to PhysicsToday full time in 1987, where she is a senior editor. Levi’s career has focusedprimarily on problems of physics and society, including studies of nuclear prolif-eration and the future of nuclear power, energy conservation in homes andautomobiles, and arms control. She has served as chair of the APS Forum onPhysics and Society and Committee on Committees,as well as a member of theCommittee on Education and the Committee on Committees, APS ExecutiveBoard and Forum on Education.

Daniel KleppnerMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Kleppner received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in1959, where he participated in the invention of the hydro-gen maser with Norman F. Ramsey. He joined the facultyof M.I.T in 1966, where he is now the Lester Wolfe Profes-sor of Physics and Associate Director of the ResearchLaboratory of Electronics. A past recipient of the Davisson-Germer Prize and the Lilienfeld Prize of the APS, his research

interests are in experimental atomic physics, high precision measurements andquantum optics. Current research includes quantum chaos, studies of hydrogenat extremely low temperatures, and ultra precise spectroscopy. He is the co-author of two textbooks. Within the APS, Kleppner has served as chair of theDivision of Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, as a Councillor-at-Large, andon several other committees including the Physics Planning Committee, whichhe joined in 1988 and chaired from 1992-96.

General Councillor

Cynthia McIntyreGeorge Mason University

McIntyre is a theoretical physicist and a CommonwealthAssistant Professor of physics at George Mason University.Her research focus is on the electronic and optical proper-ties of semiconductor heterostructures. Most recently shehas investigated electron-phonon scattering in structurallymodified semiconductor heterostructures. She received herPh.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology in 1990, and was awarded the Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Fellowship tostudy at the University of California, San Diego, and the National ResearchCouncil’s Research Associateship Award for postdoctoral study at the Naval Re-search Laboratory. She has served on the Research Associateship ProgramsAdvisory Committee for the National Research Council, the APS Committee onthe Status of Women In Physics, and the American Institute of Physics AdvisoryCommittee on Physics In Two Year Colleges.

Douglas F. FinnemoreIowa State University

Finnemore received his Ph.D. in physics from the Uni-versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He became anAssistant Professor at Iowa State University in 1963, a Pro-fessor in 1968, and a Distinguished Professor in 1988, andcurrently chairs the Department of Physics and Astronomy.He was Program Director for Condensed Matter Physics inthe Ames Laboratory/ISU from 1977-83 and was AssociateDirector of the Ames Laboratory/ISU from 1983-88. Finnemore’s long time re-search interests are in superconductivity and magnetism. He has won theDepartment of Energy Materials Science Award for outstanding research threetimes, for superconducting materials research, for research in magnetostrictive

1998 General Election Preview

Members To Choose New Leadership for 1998

Nomination Ballot�1998 Bylaw Committees

To be Completed Only by Members of The American Physical Society(please complete both sides)

The Committee on Committees has the responsibility for nominating elected mem-bers of the Publications Oversight Committee and the Lilienfeld Prize Committee andfor advising the President concerning suitable candidates for service on other BylawCommittees appointed by the President. Information on the Committees and theirpresent membership appears on the APS home page under Governance.

The Committee needs input from the membership. Please provide the name andaffiliation of nominees and attach information on career highlights and suit-ability of the nominee for the particular committee indicated. Nominees mustbe APS members. Self-nominations are strongly encouraged.

The deadline for receipt of nominations is 8 August 1997.

For Membership on the Committee on Applications of Physics:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

For Membership on the Committee on Constitution & Bylaws:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

For Membership on the Committee on Education:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

For Membership on the Committee on Fellowship:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

For Membership on the Committee on International Freedom of Scientists:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

For Membership on the Committee on International Scientific Affairs:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

For Membership on the Investment Committee:

______________________________________________________________________________________________

For Membership on the Lilienfeld Prize Committee:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Continued on Reverse

(continued on page 10)

APS News July 1997

10

CAUGHT IN THE WEB

Notable additions to the APS Web Server. The

APS Web Server can be found at http://www.aps.org

materials, and for studies of the motion of a single superconducting vortex in athin film. From 1989-93, he served as councillor for the APS Division of Con-densed Matter Physics.

Roberto D. PecceiUniversity of California, Los Angeles

Peccei is Dean of the Division of Physical Sciences ofthe College of Letters and Science at UCLA, a position hehas held since November 1993. He is a particle theoristwhose principal interests lie in the area of electroweakinteractions and in the interface between particle physicsand cosmology. Born in Italy, completed his secondaryschool in Argentina, and came to the U.S. in 1958 to pur-sue his university studies in physics. He obtained a Ph.D. from MIT in 1969.After a brief period of postdoctoral work at the University of Washington, hejoined the faculty of Stanford University in 1971. In 1978 he returned to Europeas a staff member of the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany. He joined theDeutsches Elektron Synchrotron (DESY) laboratory in Hamburg, Germany, asthe Head of the Theoretical Group in 1984 before returning to the U.S. in 1989,joining the faculty of the Department of Physics at UCLA. Within the APS, Pecceiserved for three years on the Division of Particles and Fields Executive Commit-tee, chairing the unit in 1993.

Kevin T. LeskoLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Lesko received his Ph.D. in physics in 1983 from theUniversity of Washington. As a postdoctoral fellow heworked in heavy-ion nuclear reactions and weak interac-tion physics at Argonne National Laboratory (1983-85). Hemoved to Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in 1985 to pursueastrophysics and weak interaction physics. He became astaff scientist at LBNL in 1987, receiving the laboratory’sOutstanding Performance Award in 1994. He is a groupleader in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory collaboration, and leads a group inneutrino astrophysics at LBL. His research interests include neutrino astrophys-ics, nuclear astrophysics, and weak interactions. He is currently involved with thesolar neutrino problem and the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory. His extensive in-volvement with the APS Division of Nuclear Physics (DNP) includes serving onnumerous meeting program committees, and as a member of the DNP PhysicsNews Committee.

Beverly K. BergerOakland University

Berger has been a faculty member at Oakland Univer-sity since 1977. She received a Ph.D. in physics from theUniversity of Maryland in 1972 and held postdoctoral posi-tions at the University of Colorado (JILA) and YaleUniversity. Berger’s research is in the area of theoreticalgravitational physics. Recent work includes Monte Carlosimulations for quantum cosmology, chaotic dynamics ofMixmaster universes, and the application of symplectic PDE solvers to the nu-merical study of cosmological singularities. She is a member of the APS Divisionsof Astrophysics, Computational Physics, and Particles and Fields. During thepast two years, she founded and served as the first chair of the APS TopicalGroup in Gravitation. She has also served on organizing committees for interna-tional conferences and on an NSF panel on future directions in gravitationalphysics.

Helen QuinnStanford Linear Accelerator Center

Quinn is a theoretical particle physicist at Stanford Lin-ear Accelerator Center, where she also leads the laboratory’seducation and outreach efforts. She received her PhD fromStanford University in 1967 and held positions at DeutschesElectronen Synchrotron and Harvard University before re-turning to SLAC in 1977. Her research is focused onunderstanding the nature of the breaking of CP symmetryin weak interaction processes, as well as the mechanisms that ensure its mainte-nance in strong interaction processes. She is currently an active participant in thedevelopment of the experimental program for the SLAC B-factory, designed par-ticularly to study CP violation in the decays of B mesons, where it is expected tomanifest itself in a variety of decays and thus provide tests of Standard Modelpredictions and probes for beyond Standard Model effects. She has served in theAPS Division of Particles and Fields Executive Committee and as a member ofthe Panel on Public Affairs, and is currently on the Executive Committee of theForum on Education.

Elaine S. OranNaval Research Laboratory

Oran received her Ph.D. from Yale University in 1972and promptly joined NRL as a research physicist in thePlasma Physics Division. She has been the Senior Scientistfor Reactive Flow Physics since 1988, responsible for de-veloping, supervising, advising on, and carrying outtheoretical and numerical research in areas such as compu-tational sciences and numerical analysis; high-performance computing and parallelarchitectures; chemically reactive flows; flame, deflagrations, and detonations;turbulence in reacting and nonreacting flows; astrophysical phenomena, par-ticularly supernovae; rarefied gas flow, such as reentry flows and microdynamicalflows; and shocks and shock interactions in gas and condensed phases. Shecoordinates a number of programs involving industry, government laboratories,and universities. Within the APS, she is a past chair and founding member of theDivision of Computational Physics, past Vice-Chair of the Division of Fluid Dy-namics, and has served on the Committee on the Status ofWomen in Physics.

Christopher StubbsUniversity of Washington

Stubbs is an experimentalist working on a variety ofastrophysical problems. He is a principal investigator onthe MACHO project, a search for galactic dark matter usinggravitational microlensing. In addition, he is working withan international team to determine whether supernovaecan be used to probe the evolution of the geometry of theUniverse. He earned his Ph.D. in experimental gravitational physics with theEot-Wash group at the University of Washington. In 1989 Stubbs was named theCenter Fellow at the Center for Particle Astrophysics (CfPA) at the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, where he served as Associate Director for Education andOutreach. He joined the faculty of the University of California at Santa Barbara in1991, returning to Seattle in 1994. He also holds adjunct appointments at theUCSB and at the Mt. Stromlo Observatory in Australia.

1997 General Election Preview (continued from page 9)

APS News Online latest edition

APS Committees and Governance• APS Task Force Report on Careers

and Professional Development onthe Careers/Employment Page

• Text of speech by Dr. Mary Good,Undersecretary of Commerce

• Updated Centenary pages• POPA: The Current Energy Situation

& Background Papers

Units• DCMP updated Operating Proce-

dures and Meetings• FHP: Birthday of the Electron• New York State Section pages updated

Meetings• Shock Compression, PC97, and Ohio

Section Meeting Programs• DFD: Meetings information updated• APS Meeting Calendar updates

For Membership on the Committee on Meetings:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

For Membership on the Committee on Membership:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For Membership on the Committee on Minorities

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

For Membership on the Committee on the Status of Women in Physics:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

For Membership on the Publications Oversight Committee:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

For Membership on the Physics Planning Committee:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Please provide brief biographical material on your candidates.

Nominator�s Information

Name:_____________________________________________________________

Address:_____________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

Signature: _________________________________________________________

Please Address Your Envelope to:The American Physical Society

ATTN: AMY HALSTEDOne Physics Ellipse

College Park, MD 20740-3844Fax: (301) 209-0865

Email: halsted@aps.org

The deadline for receipt of nominations is 8 August 1997.

July 1997 APS News

11

Announcements

Nobel Lectures in Physics and ChemistryD.M. Lee, D.D. Osheroff and R.C. Richardson describe their discovery of thesuperfluid phases of liquid 3He. R.F. Curl, H. Kroto, and R.E. Smalley describetheir discovery of molecular C

60, buckyballs. These authors were awarded the

Nobel Prize in Physics and in Chemistry, respectively, for their discoveries.

Random-matrix theory of quantum transportC.W.J. Beenakker reviews for nonexpert readers the applications of random-matrix theory in diverse areas of physics. Particularly emphasized are recentdevelopments in the theory of conductance in mesoscopic systems.

The ground-state phase diagram of the one-dimensional Kondolattice modelH. Tsunetsugu et al. review the theory of strongly correlated electrons in acontext where many results are known: the one-dimensional Kondo lattice.

Based upon recommendations from the Committee on Constitution and Bylaws,the APS Council provisionally approved six Bylaws revisions at the 19 April meet-ing. Four are related to the structure of the Society’s committees, one to the submissionof papers to APS meetings, and one to the reporting of unit councillor electionresults. Members are invited to comment upon the revisions (address below).Taking member comments into account, the Council will take a second vote onthese revisions in the fall and those it approves will be adopted into the Bylaws.The present APS Constitution & Bylaws are available at http://www.aps.org/exec/bylaws/apsbylaw96.html or from APS Headquarters. Revisions appear be-low with text proposed for deletion in strikeout and new text in italics.

1) Reduce the size of the Committee on Education from 12 members to 9.Although the bylaws presently state that the COE has 12 members, in fact ithas been operating with nine members, as do almost all of the other outreachcommittees. The size was set at 12 while the committee was setting up theForum on Education, which is now well established.

Suggested Revision: Committee on Education. - The membership of theCommittee on Education shall consist of nine twelve members appointed bythe President to staggered three-year terms…

2) Reassign responsibilities formerly carried out by the disbanded Com-mittee on Membership Publications (COMP). When it was in existence,COMP was charged with oversight of APS News, which is now a responsibil-ity of the Committee on Membership, and with that of the APS Bulletin,which is now assigned to the Committee on Meetings.

Suggested Revision: Committee on Membership. - …The Committee shallsuggest to Council means for improving the relationship between the Societyand its members, and for improvement in services the Society provides to itsmembers including APS publications members receive on payment of theirmembership dues, and for other activities in the area of membership as del-egated to it by the Council. Committee on Meetings. -… The Committee shallpropose guidelines and rules for the organization and operation of all meet-ings of the Society and its units and shall provide oversight for meetings-relatedpublications, including the Bulletin of the American Physical Society. TheCommittee shall recommend procedures for the Society sponsorship of othermeetings.

3) Permit Audit Committee members to serve the third year of their termswhen they are no longer members of Council. The Bylaws require thatmembers of the Audit Committee be Councillors who are not otherwise in-volved in the Society’s governance. Candidates are best selected from amongsophomore councillors who are not serving on the Executive Board. Thatway, continuity in the Audit Committee is preserved because members canserve a full three year term without being disqualified from further service bytheir election to the Board. New Audit Committee members would begintheir service in January of the third year of their Council terms, and continuethrough one year past the end of their service on Council. So that the AuditCommittee Chair is a member of Council, the revision specifies that the AuditCommittee member in his or her second year of service shall ordinarily chairthe committee.

Suggested Revision: Audit Committee. - The membership of the AuditCommittee shall consist of three members of the Council, who are not mem-bers of the Executive Board or are not otherwise directly involved in the businessmanagement of the Society, elected by Council to staggered three-year termswhich may extend one year beyond the term on Council. Council shall elect theChairperson from among these three members. The member in his or her secondyear of service shall ordinarily chair the committee.

4) Make one of the two new members of the Publications Oversight Com-mittee (POC) appointed, instead of elected. Due to the importance of thePublications Oversight Committee, the bylaw has specified that Council electits members. However, the election of members leaves much to chance andthe POC has occasionally been left with significant gaps in representationamong subfields and/or types of workplace. To balance the importance ofCouncil’s input with the need for technical balance within the POC, it isproposed that one of the new members be elected by Council, and the otherappointed thereafter by the APS President.

Suggested Change: Publications Oversight Committee. - The membershipof the Publications Oversight Committee shall consist of the Editor-in-Chief,the Executive Officer, the Treasurer, and eight four members elected by Councilto staggered four-year terms, and four members appointed by the president tostaggered four year terms…

5) Change in the number of contributed papers at a meeting. This revisionallows a meeting attendee to present one technical paper (invited or contrib-uted) at regular meeting session and one non-technical paper at a sessionorganized by one of the Forums or APS Committees, with both papers ap-pearing on the regular program.

Suggested Revision: ARTICLE XII - PAPERS AT MEETINGS Presentation.- The first author of a contributed paper submitted for a Meeting of the Soci-ety is expected to present the paper in either an oral or a poster session. Anindividual may normally present only one technical contributed paper dur-ing the regular program of a Meeting. One additional contributed paper on anon-technical topic may also be presented during the regular program at anon-technical session where said session has been explictly approved as anexempt session by the appropriate program committee and/or program com-mittee chair upon the advice of the Executive Officer of the APS. If an individualwishes to present any additional more than one contributed papers at aMeeting, the individual must specify which paper(s) shall be presented in theregular program, and the rest will be assigned to the supplementary programupon approval of the Executive Officer. A second contributed paper shall beassigned to the supplementary program. The inclusion of additional contrib-uted papers in the program requires the approval of The Executive Officer,who is empowered to schedule these supplementary any such additional con-tributed papers as either an oral or a poster papers after making a reasonableeffort to satisfy an expressed preference of the author(s). If poster presenta-tion space is limited, the Executive Officer may require some or all additionalposter contributed papers with the same first author to be presented in aspace normally intended to accommodate one such paper.

6) Change reporting date of Division and Forum councillor election re-sults. The Bylaws require Divisions and Forums to report the results of theirelections for new Councillors by September 1, but due to their annual schedulessome units are unable to comply with this provision. A more reasonable dead-line for reporting councillor election results is January 1, so that new Councillorscan start their terms on time and attend the spring Council meeting.

Suggested Revision: Each Division and Forum shall conduct its nomina-tions and elections for the position of Councillor in conformance with therules specified hereinafter and shall communicate the results of their elec-tions to the Executive Officer before 1 January 1 September of the year priorto that in which they assume office.

Comments on the bylaw revisions should be sent to Amy Halsted, APS, OnePhysics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740-3844; email: halsted@aps.org; commentsmust be received prior to the 23 November Council meeting.

COUNCIL RECOMMENDS BYLAWS REVISIONS

Now Appearing in RMP…

Reviews of Modern Physics is a quarterly journal featuring review articles and colloquia on a wide range of topics in physics.Titles and brief descriptions of the articles in the July 1997 issue are provided below.

Nonlinear dynamics and breakup of free-surface flowsJ. Eggers reviews the formation of droplets on liquid surfaces. There has beenrecent progress in the theory with a discovery of scaling solutions near thesingular point of droplet formation.

Long-scale evolution of thin liquid filmsA. Oron et al. discuss the many kinds of fluid dynamics that arise in their filmflow. The equations depend of course on the driving forces, and in manycases little is known about the solutions.

RMP Colloquium:

Independent particle motion and correlations in fermion systemsI. Sick et al. discuss the very successful independent-particle model in nucleiand its quantitative testing by electron-scattering measurements.

APS News July 1997

12

THE BACK PAGE

The Back Page is intended as a forum to foster discussion on topics of interest to the scientific community. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the APS, its elected officers, or staff. APS News welcomesand encourages letters and submissions from its members responding to these and other issues.

THE FOUR GUIDEPOSTS OF SCIENCEBy William J. Clinton, President of the United States(Excerpted from his commencement address at Morgan State University on May 18, 1997.)

I ask you to imagine the new century,full of promise, molded by science,

shaped by technology, powered byknowledge. These potent transformingforces can give us lives fuller and richerthan we have ever known. They canbe used for good or ill. If we are tomake the most of this new century, wemust work to master these forces withvision and wisdom and determination.The past half-century has seen mankindsplit the atom, splice genes, create themicrochip, explore the heavens. Weenter the next century propelled bynew and stunning developments.

Just in the past year we saw the clon-ing of Dolly the sheep, the Hubbletelescope bringing into focus dark cor-ners of thecosmos neverseen before, inno-vations incomputer technol-ogy andcommunications,and now cures forour most dreadeddiseases — diabe-tes, cystic fibrosis,repair for spinalcord injuries. Thesweep of it is trulyhumbling. Why, just recently we saw acomputer named Deep Blue defeat theworld’s reigning chess champion. I re-ally think there ought to be a limit tothis. No computer should be allowedto learn to play golf. But, seriously,my friends, in science, if the last 50years were the age of physics, the next50 years will be the age of biology.

We are now embarking on our mostdaring explorations, unraveling themysteries of our inner world and chart-ing new routes to the conquest ofdisease. We have not and we must notshrink from exploring the frontiers ofscience. But as we consider how to usethe fruits of discovery, we must alsonever retreat from our commitment tohuman values, the good of society, ourbasic sense of right and wrong.

Science must continue to serve hu-manity, never the other way around.The stakes are very high. America’sfuture — indeed, the world’s future —will be more powerfully influenced byscience and technology than ever be-fore. Where once nations measuredtheir strength by the size of their armiesand arsenals, in the world of the fu-ture knowledge will matter most. Fullyhalf the growth in economic produc-tivity over the last half-century can betraced to research and technology.

But science is about more than ma-terial wealth or the acquisition ofknowledge. Fundamentally, it is aboutour dreams. America is a nation alwaysbecoming, always defined by the greatgoals we set, the great dreams wedream. We are restless, questingpeople. We have always believed, withPresident Thomas Jefferson, that “Free-dom is the first born daughter ofscience.” With that belief and with will-power, resources and great national

effort, we have always reached our farhorizons and set out for new ones.

Let us resolve further to work withother nations to deal with great prob-lems like global climate change, tobreak our reliance on energy use de-structive of our environment, to makegiant strides to free ourselves and fu-ture generations from the tyranny ofdisease and hunger and ignorance thattoday still enslaves too many millionsaround the world. And let us alsopledge to redouble our vigilance tomake sure that the knowledge of the21st century serves our most enduringhuman values.

Science often moves faster than ourability to understand its implications,

leaving a maze ofmoral and ethicalquestions in itswake. TheInternet can be anew town squareor a new Towerof Babel. Thesame computerthat can put theLibrary of Con-gress at ourfingertips can alsobe used by pur-

veyors of hate to spread blueprints forbombs. The same knowledge that isdeveloping new life-saving drugs canbe used to create poisons of mass de-struction. Science can enable us to feedbillions more people in comfort, insafety, and in harmony with our earth;or it can spark a war with weapons ofmass destruction rooted in primitivehatreds.

Science has no soul of its own. It isup to us to determine whether it willbe used as a force for good or evil.We must do nothing to stifle our basicquest for knowledge. After all, it haspropelled from field to factory tocyberspace. But how we use the fruitsof science and how we apply it to hu-man endeavors is not properly thedomain of science alone or of scien-tists alone. The answers to thesequestions require the application ofethical and moral principles that haveguided our greatdemocracy to-ward a moreperfect union formore than 200years now. Assuch, they are theprovince of everyAmerican citizen.

We must de-cide together howto apply theseprinciples to thedazzling new dis-coveries of science. Here are fourguideposts. First, science and its ben-efits must be directed toward makinglife better for all Americans — neverjust a privileged few. Their opportuni-ties and benefits should be availableto all. Science must not create a newline of separation between the haves

and the have-nots, those with and thosewithout the tools and understandingto learn and use technology.

Science must always respect the dig-nity of every American. We must neverallow our citizens to be unwittingguinea pigs in scientific experimentsthat put them at risk without their con-sent and full knowledge. Whether it iswithholding a syphilis treatment fromthe black men of Tuskegee or the ColdWar experiments that subjected someof our citizens to dangerous doses ofradiation, we must never go back tothose awful days in modern disguise.We have now apologized for the mis-takes of the past; we must not repeatthem — never again.

Second, none of our discoveriesshould be used to label or discriminateagainst any group or individual. In-creasing knowledge about the greatdiversity within the human speciesmust not change the basic belief uponwhich our ethics, our government, oursociety are founded. All of us are cre-ated equal, entitled to equal treatmentunder the law.

With stunning speed, scientists arenow moving to unlock the secrets ofour genetic code. Genetic testing hasthe potential to identify hidden inher-ited tendencies toward disease andspur early treatment. But that infor-mation could also be used, for example,by insurance companies and others todiscriminate against and stigmatizepeople.

We know that in the 1970s, someAfrican Americans were denied healthcare coverage by insurers and jobs byemployers because they were identi-fied as sickle cell anemia carriers. Wealso know that one of the main rea-sons women refuse genetic testing forsusceptibility to breast cancer is theirfear that the insurance companies mayeither deny them coverage or raise theirrates to unaffordable levels. No insurershould be able to use genetic data tounderwrite or discriminate against anyAmerican seeking health insurance.This should not simply be a matter ofprinciple, but a matter of law, period.

Third, technology should not beused to breakdown the wall ofprivacy and au-tonomy freecitizens are guar-anteed in a freesociety. The rightto privacy is oneof our most cher-ished freedoms.As society hasgrown more com-plex and peoplehave become

more interconnected in every way, wehave had to work even harder to re-spect the privacy, the dignity, theautonomy of each individual.

Today, when marketers can followevery aspect of our lives, from the firstphone call we make in the morning tothe time our security system says we

have left the house, to the video cam-era at the toll booth and the chargeslip we have for lunch, we cannot af-ford to forget this most basic lesson.As the Internet reaches to touch everybusiness and every household and weface the frightening prospect that pri-vate information — even medicalrecords — could be made instantly

available to the world, we must developnew protections for privacy in the faceof new technological reality.

Fourth, we must always rememberthat science is not God. Our deepesttruths remain outside the realm of sci-ence. We must temper our euphoriaover the recent breakthrough in ani-mal cloning with sobering attention toour most cherished concepts of human-ity and faith. My own view is that eachhuman life is unique, born of a miraclethat reaches beyond laboratory science.I believe we should respect this pro-found gift. I believe we should resistthe temptation to replicate ourselves.But this is a decision no Presidentshould make alone. No President isqualified to understand all of the im-plications.

These, then, are four guideposts,rooted in our traditional principles ofethics and morals, that must guide usif we are to master the powerful forcesof change in the new century. One,science that produces a better life forall and not the few. Two, science thathonors our tradition of equal treatmentunder the law. Three, science that re-spects the privacy and autonomy of theindividual. Four, science that neverconfuses faith in technology with faithin God. If we hold fast to these prin-ciples, we can make this time of changea moment of dazzling opportunity forall Americans.

“Science often movesfaster than our ability tounderstand its implica-tions, leaving a maze of

moral and ethicalquestions in its wake.”

“But science is aboutmore than material

wealth or the acquisitionof knowledge.

Fundamentally, it isabout our dreams.”

“�in science, if the last50 years were the ageof physics, the next

50 years will be the ageof biology.”