29 



Dr. Weisskopf. I would like to make one remark. In Europe, 

 things went so easy and, I must say, astonishingly well because of 

 two reasons. First, I think the idea of European unity which, espe- 

 cially at the beginning, was strong — now it is a little weaker — but 

 because the largest distance between member states is 2 hours by 

 airplane from Stockholm to Geneva. Mostly, it is only one hour. 



Now, that, of course, is a big difference. If Americans have to 

 work at CERN or CERN people have to work at wherever that is, 

 in Texas or somewhere, this is 8 to 10 hours. So that makes this 

 international exploitation a little more difficult, and that is why 

 people often are very doubtful whether this is the right solution. 



Mr. FuQUA. Let me ask you another question. Should the United 

 States try to maintain superiority or be the leader in all disciplines 

 of science? And then, what impact would that have on internation- 

 al cooperation, if we decided as part of our national policy that it 

 was important to us to be the world leader? 



Dr. Weisskopf. Let me perhaps first answer this in high energy 

 physics. First, I am more competent there, and second, it is easier 

 to answer. 



I don't think it would even be possible to be the leader in the 

 sense that every single approach and direction in high energy 

 physics has the best and most active instruments in the United 

 States. That is not so. It was not even so for the last decade. 



Therefore, I think the right policy is to divide up. Still, I would 

 hope that in the most important and highest energy frontier, we do 

 have the leadership. This is why I think the SSC is so important. 



But certainly, for example, in the electron-electron collision ap- 

 paratus that is now built at CERN, I don't think America should 

 compete; or HERA, where it is proton-electron. Let them do this, 

 and, of course, with international exploitation. 



So I do think leadership does not mean leadership in every field. 

 But I do think that America owes itself, as the strongest industrial 

 nation, to be at the frontier in the sense that the most important 

 things, we are able to do. Now, in other fields, I am, of course, not 

 so competent, and therefore perhaps I should not comment on it. 



Mr. FuQUA. In other words, those areas that other countries have 

 an apparent lead in or are very knowledgeable would lend itself, 

 then, to cooperation in those fields rather than trying to excel in 

 every field in the United States? 



Dr. Weisskopf. Yes. But this is, of course, very difficult because 

 of nationalistic or regionalistic tendencies, both in Western Europe 

 and here and in Japan. 



For example, of course, the Europeans would like to have also a 

 proton-proton collider, in particular since the Europeans were the 

 first to introduce that system. It is now all over. So these are diffi- 

 culties. 



As you can read in my written statement, I am against a regula- 

 tory agency that says, "You do this and you do that," because that 

 dampens initiative. But a certain understanding should be reached, 

 and I am very optimistic on this. 



At present, you know, they both want, of course, the highest, but 

 I do believe that in a few years they will see that both financial 

 and scientific reasons will bring them to divide up the world in a 



