279 



(1) The purpose, objectives, and tools required for high-energy physics 

 research. 



(2) Achievements of the United States and in other countries, and the place 

 of high-energy physics in the context of the total U.S. research effort. (This will 

 involve, he said, "an exploration of the relationships of high-energy physics to 

 other fields of research and education and an evaluation of the effects, if any, 

 that allocation of funds and scientific manpower to high energy physics may have 

 on other fields of Government-supported research.") 



(3) Examination of the AEO National Policy Report of January 24, 1965, 

 "Policy for National Action in the Field of High-Energy Physics." 



The Chairman noted that research in the field entailed large and 

 costly equipment, for which the Federal Government was "practically 

 the sole source of funds.*' (In the fiscal year 1965, he said, the outlay 

 for Government support of high-energy physics would reach an 

 estimated $173 million.) He then presented the following points: 



(1) The burden * * * rests with the scientists in this field to communicate 

 to the Congress and the public, the objectives, the needs and the social benefits 

 of high-energy physics research. 



(2) Scientists should not forget that if society pays for the research, there 

 must be adequate repayment to society. 



(3) To assist the public understanding. * * * proponents of any field of fed- 

 erally supported re.«earch should make an effort to evaluate their research in 

 terms of public benefits.^ 



In response to this challenge, the representatives of the scientific 

 discipline under examination produced for the subcommittee an im- 

 pressive array of witnesses and testimony. The AEC policy statement 

 before the JCAE itself consisted of 48 pages of detailed discussion and 

 fact about the long-range plans for research and research hardware 

 development, to which were added an analysis by Luke C. L. Yuan of 

 Brookhaven National Laboratory on the relevance of a 1,000-Bev. ac- 

 celerator for the many unresolved questions about elementary particles. 

 Six appendixes to the report contained texts of previous panel re- 

 ports on national policy in high-energy physics. 



The hearings themselves occupied 4 days, and produced some 800 

 pages of testimony and supplementary exhibits. They included: (a) a 

 panel discussion of two AEC commissioners, the AEC research direc- 

 tor, and the President's science adviser : Dr. Glen T. Seaborg, Chair- 

 man, AEC: Dr. Paul W. McDaniel, Director, Division of Research, 

 AEC; Dr. Donald F. Hornig, Director, Office of Science and Tech- 

 nology; and Dr. Gerald F. Tape, Commissioner, AEC; (b) a round- 

 table discussion of eight leading scientists ^^ under the chairmanship 

 of Dr. Frederick Seitz, president of the National Academy of Sciences ; 

 (c) statements by 32 witnesses, including 11 from universities having 

 high-energy physics research programs, 17 from AEC (mainly from 

 the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Brookhaven National Labora- 

 tory, and Argonne National Laboratory) ; plus Dr. Haworth, Director 

 of NSF; Dr. Hornitr; and Dr. Weisskopf, Director General of the 

 European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN). 



=»Ibid., p. 2. 



^ Dr. Frederick Seitz. President. National Academy of Sciences, chairman ; Dr. Pliilip H. 

 Abelson. director. Geopliysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washinjerton ; Dr. Oeorge 

 Kistiakowsky. professor of chemistry, Harvard University ; Dr. William McElroy, professor 

 of biology, Johns Hopkins T'niversity : Dr. Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky director, Stanford 

 Linear Accelerator Center ; Dr. Emanuel R. Piore. vice president for research and engi- 

 neering. International Business Machines Corn. ; Dr. Charles Townes, provost, Massachu- 

 setts Institute of Technology : Dr. Eugene P. Wigner, professor of physics, Princeton Uni- 

 versity : Dr. C. N. Yang, professor of theoretical physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, 

 Princeton, N.J. 



