264 



measure in early 1964:.^ The Weston accelerator generated a brief flurry 

 of controversy as to its site — both in general, as a matter of competition 

 for the privilege of receiving it, and later with particular reference 

 to open housing ordinances in nearby communities. However, none 

 of these controversies seriously interrupted the continuation and even 

 expansion of the national elfort in high-energy physics. Today an 

 important fraction of the total Government investment in basic re- 

 search (more than one-third of all Federal outlays for physics; more 

 than one-tenth of all outlays for the physical sciences) is being chan- 

 neled into this field. At no time has the research eifort encountered a 

 serious setback ; if the decisions to retard the program somewhat, taken 

 in 1967 and again in 1968, should be continued in future years, the 

 effect — although encountering criticism from the scientists in this 

 field — will nevertheless leave high-energy physics still in a command- 

 ing position relative to other scientific claimants for Government 

 sponsorship. 



The underlying issue of high-energy physics is as to the allocation 

 of funds to basic research in this costly field. This issue leads in turn 

 to a considerable range of related issues : 



(1) As to the division of funds for new starts of construction 

 on accelerators to extend research capability versus full use of 

 accelerators already in being (and the subsidiary question as to 

 the rate of effort and suj)port to hasten new construction already 

 authorized) ; 



(2) As to the effect of the generous support for basic research 

 in high-energy physics, as a discipline that is already strongly 

 established, manned, supported, and productive, upon less favored, 

 new or lagging disciplines that may be judged to have more 

 important potential implications for social or technological 

 contributions ; 



(3) As to the broader question of allocation of funds for basic 

 research versus support for applied research and technological 

 development having more direct and immediate social utility ; 



(4) As to the feasibility of measuring basic scientific productiv- 

 ity, so as to apply cost /effectiveness criteria in the evaluation of 

 programs in competition for public support ; 



i|The unsuccessful campaign to obtain Federal funding of the FFAG (fixed field alternat- 

 ing gradient synchrotron) accelerator, developed under the auspices of MURA (Midwest 

 TTniversities Research Association) consortium is described in considerable detail by 

 Daniel S. Greenberg. "The Politics of Pure Science" (New York, The New American 

 Library, 1967), chapter X, High Energy Politics, pp. 209-260. The FFAG was a hisrh- 

 intensity beam device, of 12..o-Bev. energy level, employing a colliding particle principle, 

 to be located at the University of Wisconsin. An estimate of its cost was .f170 million, 

 although uncertainties as to design made this figure less than firm. Issues concerning the 

 FFAG, in addition to that of budget, were: the relative merits of a beam of high particle 

 density versus a beam of high energy, the relative merits of a new technological concept 

 versus" a more conventional approach, the question of a national laboratory versus one 

 managed by a university consortium, and the regional Issue of Midwest versus east /west 

 coast as locus for a research center. Location of the 200-Bev. accelerator in Illinois may 

 have served as a part-compromise of some of these issues. 



