Page images
PDF
EPUB

construction of non-severables in the amount of approximately $5.5 million. I have authorized the Navy to commit this amount for these facilities out of their FY 1968 funds. This construction is deemed essential to an appropriate modernization of the Stanford Mark III accelerator, consistent with projected plans for a superconducting accelerator exploiting certain advances in cryogenic technology.

I want to specifically reaffirm our position as stated in Dr. Larsen's letter of June 9, 1967, indicating that no authorization has been given for DoD participation in the final stages of the construction and subsequent operation of the superconducting accelerator proposed at Stanford University. We are, however, increasingly interested in Stanford's excellent low-temperature research which has advanced significantly during the past two years. In fact, we anticipate sunporting this research on a continuing basis through the Office of Naval Research. While it is probable that this low temperature research will contribute directly to the technology needed to build the superconducting accelerator, we do not intend to support work required for the superconducting accelerator which is not an integral and necessary part of Stanford's low-temperature physics research.

The future construction and operation of the superconducting accelerator as proposed by Stanford University is totally dependent upon funding by other agencies outside of the Department of Defense. As I have said before, however, we are prepared to continue partial support of the Stanford high-energy physics program during a transition period of about two years so that necessary budgetary arrangements can be made in an orderly manner.

We anticipate a severe reduction in the funds for the Navy's Nuclear Physics Program. I believe you have recently received word directly from Dr. Frosch on this point. At the present time, the Office of Naval Research has about $4.1 million in their nuclear physics program, exclusive of the Stanford and NRL activities. In FY 69 this program will be reduced to approximately $1.7 million, while the Stanford and NRL activities will remain about constant. The present level of effort is possible only through the use of carry-over funds from previous years and longevity funding, neither of which will be available in FY 69. It was necessary to sacrifice longevity funding for future years to build the non-severable facilities (tunnel and target room) for the Stanford Mark III superconducting accelerator. In FY 1970, we now plan to fund Stanford at about $2.0 million, largely in the cryogenic technology area.

The AFOSR Nuclear Physics program will probably remain about constant in FY 1969 unless there are further cuts in their budget.

We are looking at all possible sources of funds to continue the ONR Nuclear Physics Program. But the recent budget cuts dictated by the Mahon Committee. along with the protection of certain other high priority programs, dictate that no relief will be possible through the DoD budget. If it is not possible to resolve these problems within the next few weeks, we feel it essential to notify the uni. versities affected by this rather drastic reduction in funding, and we will proceed to do so. I sincerely hope it will be possible for the Atomic Energy Commission and the National Science Foundation to continue support of at least some of these fine nuclear physics programs.

I am aware that your staff has had discussions with my staff and appropriate staff at NSF, BOB, and OST, concerning FY 1969 and FY 1970 budgetary plans. I urge you to continue these discussions, and to assist us in arranging for a substantial AEC and/or NSF contrbution to the Stanford superconducting accele rator program by no later than FY 1970.

I hope that this letter clarifies any possible remaining uncertainty about our position on these matters. Sincerely yours,

JOHN S. FOSTER, Jr.

U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION,

Washington, D.C., October 26, 1967., Hon. CHARLES L. SCHULTZE, Director, Bureau of the Budget.

DEAR CHARLIE: The Commission has recently been advised by the Director of Research and Engineering, Department of Defense, of DOD's intention to phase out support of high energy accelerator physics research and substantially reduce support of basic nuclear physics research in Universities.

In recognition of our role as Executive Agent for the nation's High Energy Physics program and the fact that nuclear physics research is central to our major missions, DOD is looking to AEC for assistance in continuing these programs. These programs, although of high quality and with strong justification for continued support, cannot be accommodated within the funding levels currently in the Commission's FY 1969 budget. The estimate of the FY 1969 funding required to continue the aforementioned programs is summarized below: 1. High-energy physics :

In millions (a) Standard research program.

$2. 200 (b) Other university programs.

2. 050

Total high-energy physics

4. 250 2. Medium and low-energy physics--

2. 100 Total funding---

6. 350 In my letter of October 3, 1967, transmitting the Commission's budget estimates for FY 1969 (page 7), we referenced DOD termination of high energy accelerator physics programs as one of the items for which we required additional funding to fulfill our role as Executive Agent for the U.S. high energy physics program. The estimate of $4.250 million for high energy physics reflected above is identical to the requirement contained in our letter of October 3.

In view of the circumstances outlined above, we strongly urge that the Bureau of the Budget provide sufficient funds in the DOD budget to continue support of this research. If the Bureau does not consider this to be feasible, then we believe the Commission's FY 1969 budget allowances should be increased by an equivalent amount and we will budget for these programs in future years. We can supply separately to your staff, the specific amounts and contracts involved in this problem.

If we can be of any further assistance in this regard please do not hesitate to call upon us. Cordially,

GLENN T. SEABORG, Chairman.

NOVEMBER 8, 1967. Dr. DONALD F. HORNIG, Director, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.

DEAR DR. HORNIG: The enclosed material which provides detailed backup for the Atomic Energy Commission High Energy Physics Executive Agent Needs was prepared by this Division and transmitted to Mr. Fred Schultze of the Bureau of the Budget (BOB) on November 1, 1967, following the hearings on the Physical Research Program held at the end of October 27, 1967. For your convenience there is enclosed also a copy of the Chairman's letter of October 3, 1967, to the Director of the BoB which briefly discusses on pp. 7–8 the AFC's additional funding needs to meet its role as executive agent for the country's high energy physics program.

You will note that we have not discussed in these documents the needs of the High Energy Physics program of certain other Federal Agencies. Currently, we are asking these other agencies to let us know of their plans and needs for the support of research in the high energy physics field. We will keep you informed of the pesults of these efforts. Sincerely yours,

PAUL W. MCDANIEL, Director, Division of Research.

REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 1969 SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING FOR AEC-HEP

EXECUTIVE AGENT NEEDS

(As outlined in Chairman Seaborg's October 3, 1967, budget transmittal letter to

the Bureau of the Budget) The FY 1969 budget transmittal letter of October 3, 1967, from Chairman Seaborg to BOB Director Schultze, pointed out that the Commission as executive agent for the nation's high energy physics program cannot effectively discharge its responsibilities to that program within the limitations of the submitted Commission Budget. The minimum additional funding requirements for FY 1969 were stated to be :

Operating expenses
Capital equipment
Construction

In thousands

$12, 250

7, 300 24, 400

Detail on the Chairman's request for addition funding consideration Summary

In thousands I. Operating expenses-

$12, 250

Terminated DOD high-energy-physics programs.
SLAC attainment of 21 shifts (from 15)-
Support of university user groups---
Cryogenic engineering and superconductivity R. & D.
Effective use of existing accelerators_

4, 250 2, 200 2, 100 1, 700 2, 000

7, 300

II. Capital equipment--

Procurement of additional equipment necessary to support re

search activities. III. Construction

24, 400

SLAC electron-positron storage ring----
Universit yof Pennsylvania particle physics building---
BNL technical services building-
Additional accelerator improvements.

18, 200 2, 300 2, 400 1,500

I. OPERATING EXPENSES

Terminated DOD high-energy-physics programs

The ONR high energy physics contract research efforts support outstanding experimental and theoretical groups. Some of these groups have recently been given notification of termination of support by ONR and their funding needs are not included in ONR's presentation. However, these groups continue to function and remain viable on carryover funds from prior year ONR support and are currently requesting support from the AEC and NSF. ONR plans to terminate support of the remaining high energy physics contract research in FY 1969.

In determining FY 1969 funding needs for the ONR high energy physics groups, FY 1967 has been taken as a reference year since ONR funding uncertainties have resulted in undefined FY 1968 and 1969 levels of support. The ONR FY 1967 contract support level for high energy physics, however, is considered to be sub-minimal for FY 1969 needs and a modest increase (about $170,000) has been added to the FY 1967 base to achieve a more realistic level of support.

The level of $2.2 million to support the high-energy-physics research at Stanford is an estimate of minimal needs required to support the high energy physics program associated with the Mark III accelerator and the superconducting accelerator research which cannot be justified by the ONR in its cryogenic research support at Stanford. The ONR supported Stanford high energy physics research as well as the research and development program associated with the proposed superconducting accelerator (SCA) effort are considered excellent programs and deserving of support. The level of $2.2 million indicated above includes no funds for the construction of the SCA suggested in Dr. Foster's May 8, 1967 letter. The official Stanford proposal for construction of this accelerator is to be submitted in late October 1967 and consideration will be given to it at that time. The following funds are required for FY 1969 :

In thousands Stanford high-energy-physics research..

$2, 200 Other ONR high-energy-physics research (fiscal year 1967 level).

2, 050

Total high-energy physics--

4, 250

A breakdown of “Other High-Energy-Physics Research” follows: A. Experimental :

In thousands Northwestern (Block)'

$330 ANL-Northwestern Helium BC?

250 Michigan (Jones):_

340 Princeton (Reynolds).

640 Princeton (O'Neill)

130 Syracuse (Leitner)

250 Total

1, 940 B. Theoretical: Bureau of Standards (Meshkov)

30 Colorado (Dreitlein)

30 Harvard (Glashow).

50 Total

110 1 Fiscal year 1968 termination date. Contractor has been notified.

2 The 20Helium BC was constructed by Northwestern University under ONR sponsorship. Argonne National Laboratory has proposed to operate the chamber in conjunction with research at the ZG'S accelerator, and indicates a $250,000 incremental funding need, 3 Fiscal year 1969 termination date. Contractor has been notified.

DECEMBER 16, 1967. Dr. John S. FOSTER, Jr., Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.

DEAR JOHNNY: The Commission has recently received notification on the current status of the FY 1968 and FY 1969 Atomic Energy Commission budgets. While we do believe that the DOD programs in elementary particles, nuclear structure, and nuclear astrophysics, currently scheduled for termination, as indicated in your letter of October 10, 1967, are deserving of continued support, this is to notify you that it will be difficult if not impossible to accommodate any of this research in the Atomic Energy Commission budget for FY 1968 or FY 1969.

This is to urge that you do whatever possible to maintain the viability of your university programs. Cordially,

GLENN T. SEABORG, Chairman. Mr. DADDARIO. Well, beyond a blow-by-blow account, as you look back on it and see these things happening and you recognize that it does cause pain and anguish in various places, all of this is proof of the necessity of putting our science house in better order. Our question really goes to how we might do better. What we are looking for is recognition of these events and foresight in preventing the anguish which comes at a time when an agency wishes to get rid of something which this country needs.

I think it is important, Dr. Seaborg. This committee, when it looked into the restructuring of the National Science Foundation, as a result of the hearings, did conclude that many of the mission-oriented agencies should maintain their own research abilities. I guess that this committee would not be in favor of one central science agency now; however, it does appear that there is something that needs to be done about this general overall theory that everybody ought to do as much basic research as they want to do, because when the squeeze comes on many things not so important to their mission

objective that they will transfer the funds so that it be done somewhere else.

Dr. SEABORG. Well, I agree that there is a problem that is exemplified by this transfer of the support for certain functions from the DOD to, as it finally happened, the NSF. And I can give you another example that is of concern to me, and that is the closedown, or the impending closedown of the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory near San Francisco.

I think that this is a laboratory with a great potential, a long history of accomplishment, and staffed with very competent people who are going to be—whose ability to produce I think will be diminished as a result of the process. And it would have been nice to have had a better mechanism for deciding whether it was indeed to the advantage of our country to close down that laboratory at this time.

I don't deny that better coordination is required. I rather feel that perhaps at this time it might be accomplished by giving more power, somehow, to the Office of Science and Technology, more strength, more ability to operate in this area. Perhaps even to the extent of being involved somewhat in the budgeting process for the support of science in the United States.

Mr. DADDARIO. We certainly cannot continue to dump things onto the OST without giving it the tools to do the job, additional people, facilities, equipment, can we?

Dr. SEABORG. I agree with you. Additional people and budget would be required in order to do this. But not a large number in comparison, in terms of cost, with the $16 billion, is it, research and development that the Federal Government is supporting, or more relevant, the $2 billion or so basic research that the Federal Government is supporting throughout the country. It could be a small increment to that cost and would help probably save more than the additional cost would come to.

Mr. DADDARIO. Dr. Seaborg, you made a point earlier about the coordinating mechanism which exists, AEC-NASA.

Dr. SEABORG. Yes.

Mr. DADDARIO. That would appear to be a particularly simple one, because NASA has an objective and AEC has the power capability. I think the creation of that office where Dr. Finger worked for many years

Dr. SEABORG. Milt Klein is the head of it now.

Mr. DADDARIO. Milt Klein is presently, the head-has been a wise move. I have been particularly interested in seeing how Dr. Finger will transfer these talents to the creation of new housing at HUD.

Dr. SEABORG. I have talked to Dr. Finger about that, and he feels that the background and experience he gained in that' AEC-NASA position has made him familiar with tools of management of programs in science and technology that will stand him in good stead in his present very difficult and important assignment.

Mr. MOSHER. Applying those tools to what is essentially social problems is going to be a very interesting experience.

Dr. SEABORG. Yes. I was thinking more of the system's analysis approach to social and administrative work. He, of course, will not be administering technology to the extent he was in the AEC-NASA

« PreviousContinue »