Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
285790835
label
President's Council on Science and Technology Advisers
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285790835
contentType
document
title
President's Council on Science and Technology Advisers
description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
07087-022
collections
Records of the White House Office of Presidential Personnel (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Vernon B. Parker Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
285790835
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
26531acdec84d88d
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
2005-0336-F
2005-0336-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin: Personnel, White House Office of
Series:
Parker, Vernon, Files
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
07087
Folder ID Number:
07087-022
Folder Title:
President's Council on Science and Technology Advisers
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
17
7
3
1
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
June 29, 1989
Note for Betty Thompson
Re. Nominees for the President's Council of Science and
Technology Advisers (PCAST)
I am attaching the June 16 and June 21 memoranda Dr. Bromley sent
to Governor Sununu, along with the June 23 list of PCAST nominees
Dr. Bromley presented to the President. Please note that the
June 23 list supersedes the June 16 list, as Paul Berg had
declined membership and Dr. Bromley thus nominated Daniel
Nathans.
Also attached are phone numbers for the nominees for the PCAST.
In the interest of speed, I did not take the time to find out
additional numbers for those for whom we have just one number.
Please let me know if I may be of assistance in obtaining further
information to help you process these nominees.
Thank you for your help.
any Sally Sherman
X 7116
attachments
1288
D'C' 30208
OLLICE OL ВСЕЙСЕ VND ДЕСНИОГОСА БОГІСА
EXECUTIVE OLEICE OE THE BHESIDEN1
Nominees for Membership on the
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ADVISERS (PCAST)
Nominee
Telephone Number (s)
NORMAN BORLAUG
011-525-954-2100 (Institute for Maize
and Wheat Improvement in Mexico City,
where Dr. Borlaug is currently)
409-845-3041 Texas A&M
214-387-2315 Texas residence
SOLOMON BUCHSBAUM
201-949-5564 NJ office
201-582-5564 NY office
CHARLES DRAKE
603-646-3338
RALPH GOMORY
212-582-0450 office
914-333-8146 car phone
914-238-8522 residence
BERNADINE HEALY
216-444-3900 office
216-423-0013 residence
PETER LIKENS
215-758-3155
THOMAS LOVEJOY
202-786-2263 office
703-442-0399 residence
WALTER MASSEY
312-702-6021
JOHN McTAGUE
313-322-7105 office
313-747-9034 residence
DANIEL NATHANS
301-955-8445
DAVID PACKARD
415-857-2627 office
HAROLD SHAPIRO
609-452-6100
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
June 27, 1989 - 3:45 PM
Note for Dr. Bromley
Re. Sununu/Untermeyer Action on PCAST
Katie Winklejohn of Governor Sununu's
office called to advise that on June 26
his office forwarded to Chase Untermeyer
your sample letter and list of candidates
for PCAST.
She said that now Chase will take what
action he deems necessary to effect a
Presidential invitation and that Diane
2973
Dracos will likely be the "physical staff
person" who will carry out this action.
Attached is my note to Winklejohn
conveying the memo copies she requested
yesterday.
Sally Any Sherman
CC: Bob Post
Called Deane Dracas on 20th She had
natuet recouned anything firm Chase
office All where The listings and
untermeyer. we should check in Th his
draftletter are now. Their some
then to meethe Presidentsex presse of
argency in movingfar ward mith
Washes.
CHEC
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
June 26, 1989
Note for Katherine Winklejohn
Re. June 16 Memo on PCAST
You requested a copy of Dr. Bromley's
June 16 memorandum to Governor Sununu
re. PCAST.
I enclose a copy of it and Dr. Bromley's
June 21 memo which advises that since
Paul Berg declined membership in the
PCAST, Dr. Bromley is nominating
Daniel Nathans in his place.
Also attached is a copy of the
June 23 list of nominees for the
PCAST -- which is Dr. Bromley's final
listing and would supersede the listing
in his June 16 memo.
Sally Sherman
X 7116
attach.
NOMINEES FOR MEMBERSHIP
ON THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL
OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ADVISERS
(PCAST)
June 23, 1989
NOMINESS FOR MEMBERSHIP ON THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ADVISERS
(PCAST)
The following individuals have agreed to serve as members of the
President's Council if so requested.
1.
NORMAN BORLAUG
Agriculture
Professor, Department of Soils and Crop Sciences
Texas A&M University
Also a Nobel laureate, Borlaug is the father of the Green
Revolution. He has done much of his work at the Institute for
Maize and Wheat Improvement in Mexico City but is a U.S. citizen.
His credentials as an agricultural pioneer, as an
environmentalist, and throughout the Third World are impeccable.
I have worked with him on the Indo-U.S. Presidential Science and
Technology Initiative and found him to be extremely effective.
2.
SOLOMON BUCHSBAUM
Industrial Engineer/
Executive Vice President
Military Science
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Sol Buchsbaum, an ex-Canadian, happens to be one of the wisest
men I know. He served on PSAC for a number of years, was
chairman of WHSC for its entire existence, and is completely at
home both in the private sector world and in Washington. He has
special expertise in matters of military science and technology,
in communication and computer science and in industrial
manufacturing.
3.
CHARLES DRAKE
Earth Sciences
Professor of Geology and Geophysics
Dartmouth College
Drake is one of the nation's most highly respected earth
scientists; he was awarded the National Medal of Science in 1987.
Over the years, he has served with distinction on just about
every significant committee in the earth sciences -- both
nationally and internationally. I have worked with him on
National Academy/National Research Council panels and have been
much impressed by the breadth of his expertise and his
statesmanship.
4.
RALPH GOMORY
Mathematics/Foundation
Senior Vice President
for Science and Technology, IBM
President, Sloan Foundation
Gomory is a very highly respected professional mathematician who
served for many years as IBM's Director of Research -- then Chief
Scientist. He has just retired from IBM to become President of
the Sloan Foundation. His IBM experience in technology transfer,
high-tech manufacturing, international sales, etc., together with
his Foundation connections, would make him a powerful addition to
the Council. I. have worked with him on a number of panels and
have been much impressed by his judgment and creativity.
5.
BERNADINE HEALY
Biomedicine
Director of Research, Cleveland Clinic
President, American Heart Association
A professional cardiologist, Healy held a professorship in the
Johns Hopkins University Medical School before joining Jay
Keyworth as Deputy Director of OSTP for two years prior to
accepting her current post. During the past year she was a
member of Bill Graham's White House Science Council. She is
broadly experienced in the biomedical area, and I have served
with her on a number of panels and committees where I have been
much impressed by her wisdom, common sense and professionalism.
I would suggest that Healy be made Vice Chairman of the Council.
6.
PETER LIKENS
Academic Engineer
President, Lehigh University
An electrical engineer by training, Likens has gained
international visibility as President of Lehigh -- a
representative of an academic constituency that is frequently
neglected but of ever-growing importance: the relatively small,
high quality engineering school. He was a very constructive,
thoughtful member of the Packard-Bromley WHSC Panel on the Health
of U.S. Colleges and Universities and would be a very effective
Council member.
7.
THOMAS LOVEJOY
Environmentalist
Assistant Secretary for External Affairs
Smithsonian Institution
Lovejoy was a student of Evelyn Hutchinson at Yale and was one of
the earliest ecologists. Formerly Vice President for Research at
the World Wildlife Fund, he has gained an international
reputation for his work in international environmental and
ecological science. He has played an important role in current
efforts to retain substantial sections of the Brazilian tropical
rain forests. I have served with him on the President's
U.S./Brazil Blue Ribbon Panel and, during the past year, on Bill
Graham's WHSC. He brings a deep knowledge of environmental
science as well as experience in international activities and
sound judgment to any panel.
8.
WALTER MASSEY
Physicist/National
Vice President for Research
Laboratory
University of Chicago
One of the most distinguished black scientists, Massey is a solid
state physicist/chemist. From Dean of the Graduate School at
Brown University, he became Director of the Argonne National
Laboratory and then took up his present post where he remains
responsible for the management of Argonne. He served for six
years as a member of the National Science Board and is currently
President of AAAS. I have worked with him in many capacities and
believe that he would be a very effective, thoughtful member of
the Council.
9.
JOHN McTAGUE
Chemistry
Vice President and Director of Research
Ford Motor Company
A chemist by profession, McTague was Director of the National
Synchrotron Light Source at Brookhaven before joining Jay
Keyworth's OSTP as Assistant Director for Physical Sciences. On
Jay's retirement, McTague served for almost a year as Acting
Director of OSTP before going on to Ford. He has been extremely
successful in increasing Ford's interest in, and support for,
research. His industrial, Brookhaven and Washington experience
would make him a very effective Council member.
10. DANIEL NATHANS
Microbiology
Boury Professor of Microbiology
Johns Hopkins University
A Nobel laureate for his work in microbiology, Nathans is one of
the true pioneers in the field of recombinant DNA and its
offspring, biotechnology. He has devoted much of his research to
the understanding of tumor viruses and their role in the
induction of cancer. He has an outstanding reputation throughout
his field both for research and for statesmanship.
11. DAVID PACKARD
Industrial Engineer
Chairman of the Board of the
Hewlett-Packard Company and of the
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
As one of the fathers of Silicon Valley, with an enviable track
record both in industry and government (Defense Department), and
as a member or chairman of a great number of influential panels
and commissions, Packard brings a unique background to any
deliberation. He was a very effective member of the White House
Science Council during the Reagan Administration, in addition to
his many individual activities for President Reagan, e.g., his
study of contracting in the Defense Department.
12. HAROLD SHAPIRO
Academic/Social Science
President, Princeton University
Economist
An economist by profession, Shapiro was formerly President of the
University of Michigan. He has participated actively in science
and technology related studies for NAS and AAAS and is one of the
very few social scientists known to me who finds it easy to work
effectively with scientists and engineers. I believe that it
will be important symbolically for us to have a social scientist
of impeccable repute on the Council. The absence of such a
person damaged the credibility of the WHSC and the later PSACs.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 21, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR .JOHN H. SUNUNU
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Allan
SUBJECT:
PCAST
1. Unfortunately Paul Berg of Stanford is unable to serve on
PCAST. After consultation with some leading bio folk, I
recommend that we replace him with Professor Daniel Nathans of
Johns Hopkins University -- also a Nobel laureate in
microbiology, as the attached bios indicate. He has an
outstanding reputation as one of the true pioneers in modern
microbiology and biotechnology.
2. Norman Borlaug of Texas A&M will be happy to serve. His
letter of invitation should be addressed to him at the following
address:
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
Lisboa 27, Postal 6-641
Col. Juarez Delg. Cuauhtemoc
06600, Mexico
where he will be during the summer break at Texas A&M.
This then completes the roster for PCAST that I forwarded in my
June 16 memo to you. I should appreciate it if you would let me
know when the President sends out his letters of invitation so
that I can be prepared to follow up with additional detail and
begin planning to make PCAST operational. There are several
outstanding problem areas where I would like to put them to work
as soon as possible.
Attachment
from American Men and Women of Science, 15th ed., 1982
NATHANS. DANIEL, b Wilmington. Del. Oct 30. 28: m 56: C 3.
MICROBIOLOGY. MOLECULAR BIOLOGY. Educ: Univ Del. BS. 50:
Washington Univ, MD. 54. Prof Exp: Resident. Columbia-Presby Med Ctr.
57-59; from asst prof to prof microbiol. 62-76. Boury prof microbiol. 76-80.
BOURY PROF MOLECULAR BIOL & GENETICS. JOHNS HOPKINS
UNIV. 80-. DIR. 72- Concurrent Pos: USPHS grant. Rockefeller Univ. 59-62.
Honors & Awards: Nobel Prize Cowinner in Med. 78. Res: Tumor viruses.
Mailing Add: Dept of Microbiol Johns Hopkins Univ Baltimore MD 21205
from Who's Who in America, 45th ed., 1988-89
NATHANS. DANIEL, biologist: b. Wilmington. Del.. Oct. 30. 1928: S.
Samuel and Sarah (Levitan) N.: m. Joanne E. Gomberg. Mar 4, 1956:
children: Eli, Jeremy, Benjamin. B.S., U. Del., 1950; M.D. Washington U.,
1954. Intern Presbyn. Hosp., N.Y.C., 1954-55: resident in medicine Presbyn.
Hosp., 1957-59: clin. assoc. Nat. Cancer Inst., 1955-57: guest investigator
Rockefeller U., N.Y.C.. 1959-62: prof. microbiology Sch. Medicine. Johns
Hopkins. 1962-72. prof.. dir. dept. microbiology. 1972-82. Univ. prof..
1982- sr. investigator Howard Hughes Med. Inst., 1982- Recipient
Nobel prize in physiology or medicine. 1978. Fellow Am. Acad. Arts and
Scis.: mem. Nat. Acad. Scis. Office: Johns Hopkins Univ Dept Molecular
Biology & Genetics 725 N Wolfe St Baltimore MD 21205
June 16 the
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
listing
June 16, 1989
Supereded by
tune 23rd list
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN H. SUNUNU
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Man
SUBJECT:
President's Council of Science and
Technology Advisers (PCAST)
Enclosed herewith is a listing of those whom I have contacted
informally and confidentially about their willingness to serve as
members of PCAST if invited to do so. I have emphasized that
membership will entail very real work, substantial time
commitment and that the members serve without remuneration apart
from their out-of-pocket expenses.
All have agreed, enthusiastically, to serve if invited. I have
not discussed with you exactly how these invitations are to be
extended but am assuming that the President will wish to do this
himself. Is it your intention, and his, that members of PCAST
would undergo full FBI clearances and perhaps other screening?
I have given you here a list of 12 individuals, and I, as
chairman, would make up a total of 13.
Since sending you my last memorandum that included an estimate of
$365, 400 for the annual operating cost of PCAST, I have had an
opportunity to discuss this with Bob Grady of OMB and have
requested that this amount be added for this purpose to the
amendment that I am requesting Bob to forward to the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees requesting additional operating
funds for OSTP in FY 1990.
I have discussed these questions at some length, as you
suggested, with Dick Darman and Bob Grady, as well as with my
senior OSTP staff, and we have worked out an intermediate
position that will allow me to bring aboard the senior
professionals whom I want to nominate as Associate Directors of
OSTP, as well as make a substantial start toward assembling the
team that will enable OSTP to live up to the President's
expectations.
I continue to be extremely gratified by the quality of those who
have indicated a desire to join us.
Attachments
NOMINEES FOR MEMBERSHIP ON THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ADVISERS (PCAST)
The following individuals have agreed to serve as members of the
President's Council if so requested.
1.
PAUL BERG
Microbiology/ Professor,
Microbiology
Biotechnology
Stanford University
A Nobel laureate, Berg, together with a number of his colleagues,
formed one of the original biotechnology companies (DENAX), which
was subsequently sold to Schering-Plough, on whose Scientific
Advisory Board Berg still is a member, although he has returned
full-time to his university position. Berg is very widely
respected and is recognized both for his pioneering contributions
to microbiology and for his leadership in bringing his scientific
community together to consider the possible hazards involved in
recombinant DNA research.
2.
NORMAN BORLAUG
Agriculture
Professor, Department of Soils and Crop Sciences
Texas A&M University
Also a Nobel laureate, Borlaug is the father of the Green
Revolution. He has done much of his work at the Institute for
Maize and Wheat Improvement in Mexico City but is a U.S. citizen.
His credentials as an agricultural pioneer, as an
environmentalist, and throughout the Third World are impeccable.
I have worked with him on the Indo-U.S. Presidential Science and
Technology Initiative and found him to be extremely effective.
3.
SOLOMON BUCHSBAUM
Industrial Engineer/
Executive Vice President
Military Science
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Sol Buchsbaum, an ex-Canadian, happens to be one of the wisest
men I know. He served on PSAC for a number of years, was
chairman of WHSC for its entire existence, and is completely at
home both in the private sector world and in Washington. He has
special expertise in matters of military science and technology,
in communication and computer science and in industrial
manufacturing.
4.
CHARLES DRAKE
Earth Sciences
Professor of Geology and Geophysics
Dartmouth College
Drake is one of the nation's most highly respected earth
scientists; he was awarded the National Medal of Science in 1987.
Over the years, he has served with distinction on just about
every significant committee in the earth sciences -- both
nationally and internationally. I have worked with him on
National Academy/National Research Council panels and have been
much impressed by the breadth of his expertise and his
statesmanship.
5.
RALPH GOMORY
Mathematics/Foundation
Senior Vice President
for Science and Technology, IBM
President, Sloan Foundation
Gomory is a very highly respected professional mathematician who
served for many years as IBM's Director of Research -- then Chief
Scientist. He has just retired from IBM to become President of
the Sloan Foundation. His IBM experience in technology transfer,
high-tech manufacturing, international sales, etc., together with
his Foundation connections, would make him a powerful addition to
the Council. I have worked with him on a number of panels and
have been much impressed by his judgment and creativity.
6.
BERNADINE HEALY
Biomedicine
Director of Research, Cleveland Clinic
President, American Heart Association
A professional cardiologist, Healy held a professorship in the
Johns Hopkins University Medical School before joining Jay
Keyworth as Deputy Director of OSTP for two years prior to
accepting her current post. During the past year she was a
member of Bill Graham's White House Science Council. She is
broadly experienced in the biomedical area, and I have served
with her on a number of panels and committees where I have been
much impressed by her wisdom, common sense and professionalism.
I would suggest that Healy be made Vice Chairman of the Council.
7.
PETER LIKENS
Academic Engineer
President, Lehigh University
An electrical engineer by training, Likens has gained
international visibility as President of Lehigh -- a
representative of an academic constituency that is frequently
neglected but of ever-growing importance: the relatively small,
high quality engineering school. He was a very constructive,
thoughtful member of the Packard-Bromley WHSC Panel on the Health
of U.S. Colleges and Universities and would be a very effective
Council member.
8.
THOMAS LOVEJOY
Environmentalist
Assistant Secretary for External Affairs
Smithsonian Institution
Lovejoy was a student of Evelyn Hutchinson at Yale and was one of
the earliest ecologists. Formerly Vice President for Research at
the World Wildlife Fund, he has gained an international
reputation for his work in international environmental and
ecological science. He has played an important role in current
efforts to retain substantial sections of the Brazilian tropical
rain forests. I have served with him on the President's
U.S./Brazil Blue Ribbon Panel and, during the past year, on Bill
Graham's WHSC. He brings a deep knowledge of environmental
science as well as experience in international activities and
sound judgment to any panel.
9.
WALTER MASSEY
Physicist/National
Vice President for Research
Laboratory
University of Chicago
One of the most distinguished black scientists, Massey is a solid
state physicist/chemist. From Dean of the Graduate School at
Brown University, he became Director of the Argonne National
Laboratory and then took up his present post where he remains
responsible for the management of Argonne. He served for six
years as a member of the National Science Board and is currently
President of AAAS. I have worked with him in many capacities and
believe that he would be a very effective, thoughtful member of
the Council.
10. JOHN McTAGUE
Chemistry
Vice President and Director of Research
Ford Motor Company
A chemist by profession, McTague was Director of the National
Synchrotron Light Source at Brookhaven before joining Jay
Keyworth's OSTP as Assistant Director for Physical Sciences. On
Jay's retirement, McTague served for almost a year as Acting
Director of OSTP before going on to Ford. He has been extremely
successful in increasing Ford's interest in, and support for,
research. His industrial, Brookhaven and Washington experience
would make him a very effective Council member.
11. DAVID PACKARD
Industrial Engineer
Chairman of the Board of the
Hewlett-Packard Company and of the
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
As one of the fathers of Silicon Valley, with an enviable track
record both in industry and government (Defense Department), and
as a member or chairman of a great number of influential panels
and commissions, Packard brings a unique background to any
deliberation. He was a very effective member of the White House
Science Council during the Reagan Administration, in addition to
his many individual activities for President Reagan, e.g., his
study of contracting in the Defense Department.
12. HAROLD SHAPIRO
Academic/Social Science
President, Princeton University
Economist
An economist by profession, Shapiro was formerly President of the
University of Michigan. He has participated actively in science
and technology related studies for NAS and AAAS and is one of the
very few social scientists known to me who finds it easy to work
effectively with scientists and engineers. I believe that it
will be important symbolically. for us to have a social scientist
of impeccable repute on the Council. The absence of such a
person damaged the credibility of the WHSC and the later PSACs.
from Who's Who in America, 45th ed., 1988-89
BERG, PAUL biochemist. educator: b N.Y.C. June 10. 1920. Harry and
Sarah (Brodsky) B.. m. Mildred Less. Sept. 13. 1947. I son. John B.S.. Pa
State U. 1948. Ph.D (NIH fellow 1950-52). Western Res U., 1952: D.Sc
(hon.). L'. Rochester. 1978. Yale U. 1978. Wash U. St. Louis. 1980
Postdoctoral fellow Copenhagen (Denmark) U., 1952-53: postdoctoral fellow
Sch. Medicine. Washington U., St Lows. 1953-54: Am. Cancer Soc. scholar
cancer research dept. microbiology Sch. Medicine. Washington U., 1954-57.
from asst to asso prof microbiology. 1955-59: prof. biochemistry Stanford
Sch Medicine. 1959 Sam. Lula and Jack Willson prof. biochemistry. 1970.
chmn. dept.. 1969-74. dir Stanford L Beckman Ctr for Molecular and
Genetic Medicine. 1985. non-resident fellow Salk Inst.. 1973: adv bd NIH.
NSF. MIT. VIS. com. dept. biochemistry and molecular biology Harvard
U.. bd SCI advisors Jane Coffin Childs Found Med. Research. 1970-80:
chmn. SCI. adv com. Whitehead Inst. 1984: internat adv. bd Basel Inst
Immunology Contbr profl jours.. Editor Biochem and Biophys. Research
Communications. 1959-68: editorial bd Molecular Biology. 1900-69 Served
to It (Jg) USNR. 1943-46 Recipient Eh Lilly prize biochemistry, 1959:
VD Mattia award Roche Inst Molecular Biology. 1972. Henry J Kaiser
award for excellence in teaching. 1972 Disting Alumnus award Pa State U.
1972: Sarasota Med. awards for achievement and excellence. 1979. Gairdner
Found. annual award. 1980: Lasker Found award. 1980: Nobel award in
chemistry. 1980: N.Y. Acad SG award. 1980. Sci. Freedom and Respon-
sibility award A.A.A.S. 1982. Nat Library Scr. medal. 1986: named Calif
Scientist of Yr Calif. Museum SG and Industry. 1963: numerous spl. and
disting lectureships including Harvey lects. 1972. Lynen lectr. 1977. Pn-
estly lectrs P3 State u.. 1978. Drevfus Disting lectrs. Northwestern U..
1979. Lawrence Livermore Dir 's Disting lectr. 1983. W.H. Stein Meml
lectr. Rockefeller U.. 1984. Charles E Dohme Meml lectr. Johns Hopkins
U., 1984. Weizmann Inst. Scr. Jubilee lectr. 1984. L. Houston Nobel Prize
Winners Senes. 1985 Mem Inst. Medicine. Nat Acad. Sets. (council
1970 editorial bd proc. 1980). Am. Acad Arts and Scis.. Am. Soc. Biol.
Chemists (pres 1974-75). Am. Soc. Microbiology, Am. Philos. Soc. (Nat.
Medal of Sc: 1983). Japan Biochern Sox 'elected fgn mem. 1978). French
Acad Sci. (elected fng mem 1981). Office: Stanford Sch Medicine 838
Santa Fe Ave Stanford CA 94305
from Who's Who in America, 45th ed., 1988-39
BORLAUG, NORMAN ERNEST. agricultural scientist; b. Cresco, lowa.
Mar. 25, 1914; S. Henry O. and Clara (Vaala) B.: m. Margaret G. Gibson.
Sept. 24, 1937; children: Norma Jean (Mrs. Richard H. Rhoda), William
Gibson. BS in Forestry, U. Minn.. 1937, MS in Plant Pathology, 1940. PhD
in Plant Pathology, 1941: ScD (honoris causa), Punjab (India) Agrl. U.,
1969, Kanpur U., India, Royal Norwegian Agrl. Coll., Luther Coll., 1970.
Mich. State U., Univ. de la Plata. Argentina. Uttar Pradesh Agrl. U., India.
1971; Sc.D. (honoris causa), U. Anz. 1972, U. Fla., 1973, Univ. Católica de
Chile, 1974, Univ. Hohenheim. Fed. Republic Germany, 1976. U. Agr.,
Lyallpur. Faisalabad, Pakistan, 1978. Columbia U., N.Y.C., 1980, Ohio State
U., 1981, U. Minn., 1982. U. Notre Dame, 1987; L.H.D., Gustavus
Adolphus Coll., 1971; LL.D. (hon.), N.Mex. State U., 1973; D. Agr. (hon.),
Tufts U., 1982; D. Agrl. Scis. (hon.)., U. Agrl. Scis., Hungary, 1980, Tokyo
U. Agr., 1981, Univ. Nacional Pedro Henriques Turena, Dominican
Republic, Univ. Cen. del Estes. Dominican Republic, 1983; D. Honoris
Causa, Univ. Mayor de San Simón, Bolivia, Univ. de Buenos Aires, 1983,
Univ. de Cordoba. Spain, Univ. Politécnica de Catalunya. Barcelon. Spain,
1986. With U.S. Forest Service. 1935-38; instr. U. Minn., 1941; microbiolo-
gist E.I. DuPont de Nemours, 1942-44; research scientist in charge wheat
improvement Coop. Mexican Agrl. Program. Mexican Ministry. Agr. Rock-
efeller Found Mexico, 1944-60; assoc. dir. assigned to Inter-Am. Food Crop
Program Rockefeller Found., 1960-63; dir. wheat research and prodn.
program Internat. Maize and Wheat Improvement Ctr., Mexico City,
1964 cons. Internat. Maize and Whest Improvement Ctr., 1982-: cons.,
collaborator Inst. Nacional de Investigationes Agricolas. Mexican Ministry
Agr., 1960-64; cons. FAO, North Africa and Asia, 1960: ex-officio cons.
wheat research and prodn. problems to govts. in, Latin Am., Africa. Asia.:
Mem. Citizen's Commn. on Sci., Law and Food Supply, 1973 Commn.
Critical Choices for Am., 1973. Council Agr. Sci. and Tech., 1973
Presdl. Commn. on World Hunger U.S.A., 1978-79; dir. Population Crisis
Com., 1971; asesor especial Fundacion para Estudios de la Poblacion A.C.,
Mexico, 1971-; mem. adv. council Renewable Natural Resources Found..
1973 A.D. White Disting prof.-at-large Cornell U., 1983 Disting prof.
Internat. Agr., Dept. Soil & Crop Scis., Tex. A&M U., Jan.-May, 1984
advisor The Population Inst., U.S.A., 1978; bd. trustees Winrock Internat.
U.S.A.: life fellow Rockefeller Found., 1983 Recipient Disting Service
awards Wheat Producers Assns.. and state govts. Mexican States of
Guanajuato, Queretaro. Sonora. Tlaxcala and Zacatecas. 1954-60; Recogni-
tion award Agrl. Inst. Can., 1966; Recognition award Instituto Nacional de
Tecnologia Agropecuaria de Marcos Juarez. Argentina. 1968; Sci. Service
award El Colegio de Ingenieros Agronomos de Mexico. 1970; Outstanding
Achievement award U. Minn., 1959; E.C. Stakman award. 1961; named
Uncle of Paul Bunyan. 1969; recipient Disting. Citizen award Cresco
Centennial Com.. 1966; Nat. Disung Service award Am. Agrl. Editors
Assn., 1967; Genetics and Plant Breeding award Nat. Council Comml. Plant
Breeders, 1968; Star of Distinction Govt. of Pakistan. 1968; citation and
street named in honor Citizens of Sonora and Rotary Club. 1968; Internat
Agronomy award Am. Soc. Agronomy, 1968: Distinguished Service award
Wheat Farmers of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. 1969: Nobel
Peace prize, 1970: Diploma de Mento El Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios
Superiores de Monterrey, Mexico, 1971: medalla y Diploma de Mento
Antonio Narro Escuela Superior de Agricultura de la U. de Coahuila.
Mexico, 1971; Diploma de Mento Escuela Superior de Agricultura
Hermanos Escobar. Mexico. 1973; award for service to agr Am. Farm Bur.
Fedn., 1971: Outstanding Agrl. Achievement award World Farm Found.,
1971; Medal of Ment Italian Wheat Scientists. 1971: Service award for
outstanding contbn. to alleviation of world hunger 8th Latin Am. Food
Prodn. Conf., 1972; Nat. award for Agrl. Excellence in So. Nat. Agri-Mktg.
Assn.. 1982. Disting. Achievement award Council for Agrl. Scis. and Tech.,
1982; inaugural lectr., medal recipient Dr. S.B. Hendrick's Meml. Lecture-
ship., 1981, other honored lecturships: named to Halls of Fame Oreg. State
U. Agrl., 1981. Agrl. Nat. Ctr., Bonner Springs. Kans., 1984, Scandinavian-
Am., U.S.A., 1986; dedicated in his name Norman E. Borlaug Centro de
Capitación y Formación de Agrs., Santa Cruz, Bolivia. 1983. Borlaug Hall
U. Minn., 1985. Borlaug Bldg Internat. Maize and Wheat Improvement
Ctr., 1986: numerous other honors and awards from govts., ednl. instns.
citizens groups. Hon. fellow Indian Soc. Genetics and Plant Breeding: mem.
Nat. Acad. Sci., Am Soc. Agronomy (1st Internat. Service award 1960. 1st
hon. life mem.). Am. Assn. Cereal Chemists (hon. life mem., Meritorious
Service award 1969). Crop Sci. Soc. Am. (hon. life mem.). Soil Sci. Soc Am.
(hon. life mem.), Sociedad de Agronomia do Rio Grande do Sul Brazil
(hon.), India Nat Sci. Acad. (fgn.), Royal Agrl. Soc. Eng. (hon.), Royal Soc.
Edinburgh (hon ). Hungarian Acad. Sci. (hon.) Royal Swedish Acad. Agr.
and Forestry (fgn. Academia Nacional de Agronomia y Veterinana
(Argentina): hon. academician N.I. Vavilov Acad. Agrl. SCIS. Lenin Order
(USSR.), Am. Council on Sci. and Health (trustee 1978 Internat. Food
Policy Research Inst. (trustee 1976-82), Royal Soc. Office: Tex A&M Univ
Dept Soil & Crop Sci College Station TX 77843
from Who's Who in America, 45th ed., 1988-89
BUCHSBAUM. SOLOMON JAN, physicist: b. Stryj, Poland. Dec. 4. 1929:
came to U.S. 1953. naturalized. 1957: S. Jacob and Berta (Rutherfoer) B.:
m. Phyllis N. Isenman. July }. 1955. children: Rachel Joy. David Joel. Adam
Louis. B.S., McGill U. 1952. M.S. 1953: Ph.D. Mass. Inst. Tech., 1957.
Mem. tech staff Bell Labs. Murray Hill. N.J.. 1958-61: dept. head Bell
Labs. 1901.05. dir. 1905-08. :p. Sandia Labs. Albuquerque. 1968-71: exec.
dir. Bell Labs. 1971-76. ..p.. 1976-79. exec. v.p., 1979- sr cons. Def. Sci.
Bd.. chmn. 1972-77. 81- mem. AEC Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion
Com., 1965-72. Pres.'s Sch Adv Com.. 1970-73. Pres.'s Com. on Scl. and
Tech.. 1975-76: mem. fusion power coordinating com. ERDA. 1972-76. adv.
group SCI. and tech. NSF. 1976-77: chmn. Energy Research Adv Bd.. 1978-
81: mem. Naval Research Adv Com. 1978-81: mem. its. com. M.I.T.,
1977- mem corp. devel. com.. 1980 cons Office Sci. and Tech.. 1976-
82; chmn. White House Sc: Council. 1982-: trustee Rand Curp.. 1982-
mem. Draper Lab. Corp. 1983- bd. dirs.. bd. Govs. Argonne Nat. Lab..
1985- Assoc. editor: Revs. Modern Physics. 1968-72. Jour. Applied
Physics. 1968-70. Physics of Fluids. 1963-64. co-author. Waves in Plasmas.
1963. contbr. numerous articles to profl. yours. Trustee Argonne Univs.
Assn.. 1979-82 Moyse traveling fellow. 1953-54: IBM fellow, 1954-56:
recipient Anne Molson Gold medal, Sec. of Def. medal for Outstanding Pub.
Service. 1977. Sec. of Energy 3ward for Exceptional Pub. Service. 1981: Nat.
Medal of So. 1986. Fellow Am. Phvs. Soc. (chmn. div. plasma physics
1968. mem, council 1973-76). IEEE (Frederk Philips award 1987). Am.
Acad. Arts and Sets., A.A.AS. mem. Nat. Acad. Engring. (exec. com. 1975-
-6). Nat Acad Sels. Cosmos Club. Research in gaseous and solid state
plasmas. communications Research in gaseous and solid state plasmas.
communications Office AT&T Bell Labs Crawfords Corner Rd Hoimdel
NJ 07733
from Who's Who in America, 45th ed., 1988-89
DRAKE CHARLES LUM. geology educator: 0 Ridgewood NJ. July 13.
1924. S. Ervin Thaver and Elizabeth (Lum) D. m Martha Ann Churchill.
June 24. 1950: children-Mary Asken. Caroline Elizabeth. Susannah
Churchill. B.S. in Engring. Princeton. 1948. Ph.D. Columbia. 1958.
Research assoc. Lamont Geol Obs. Columbia L. N.Y.C., C., 1948-56.
scientist Lamont Geol Obs 1956-58. acting asst dir Lamont Geol Obs., S:
1967-09 prof dept. geology Dartmouth Coll., Hanover. N.H., 1960
1963-65. mem faculty geology dept.. 1958-69. prof geology. chmn dept.,
chmn dept geology. 1978.79 dean grad studies. assoc. dean SCI div.
Dartmouth Coll.. 1979-82. mem coms. Nat Acad Sci.. NSF. Nat Aero
Space Adminstrn., 190480. mem Nat Adv Com. on Oceans and
Atmosphere. 1971-74: chmn earth sels div NRC. 1973-76. mem geophys.
research bd., 1968-82 Trustee Village S. Nyack. N.Y. 1903-05. 00-09. dep.
mavor. 1968-69. Served with AUS. 1943-40 NSF postdoctoral fellow. 1005.
00 Mem. Internat. Council So Unions (pres. interumion commn on
odynamics 1970-75. chmn US Geodynamics com. 1970-78. chmn. US nat. ge-
commn. geology 1979-81). Am. Geophys Union (pres 198486). A.A.A.S.
Am. Assn. Petroleum Geologists. Geol Soc Am (pres 1976-77). Geol Soc.
Geophysicists. Manne Tech. Soc., Sigma XL Club Cosmos Home: RFD I
France (hon.), Seismol Soc Am.. Royal Astron. Soc., Soc Exploration
East Thetford VT 05043
from Who's Who in America, 45th ed., 1988-89
GOMORY, RALPH EDWARD, mathematician. business machines
manufacturing company executive: b. Brooklyn Heights. N.Y.. May 7. 1929:
S. Andrew L. and Marian (Schellenberg) G., m. Laura Dumper. 1954 (div.
1968): children: Andrew C., Susan S.. Stephen H B.A.. Williams Coll..
1950. Sc.D. (hon.). 1973: student. Kings Coll. Cambridge U.. Eng.. 1950-51:
Ph.D., Princeton U. 1954. LHD (hon.), Pace U.. 1980. DSc (hon.). Poly. U..
1987 Research assoc. Princeton U., 1951-54. asst. prof math.. Higgins
lectr., 1957-59. with IBM. Yorktown Heights. N.Y., 1959-80. Armonk. N.Y..
1980 dir. math. SCIS., research div IBM. 1968-70. dir research. 1970-86.
y p.. 1973-84. sr. v.p.. 1985- sr. v.p. for SCI and tech.. 1980 also mem.
corp. mgmt. bd., dir. Asia Pacific Group: Andrew D White prof. at-large
Cornell U., 1970-76: dir Indsl. Research Inst.. Bank of N.Y. Nova Pharm.
Corp.: mem adv council dept. math. Princeton. 1982-. chmn.. 1984-85:
mem adv. council Sch. Enging.. Stanford U. 1978-85; chmn. VIS. com. div.
applied SCIS. Harvard U., 198- mem. White House SC7. council Council on
Fgn Relations: chmn. 3dv com to Pres on High Temperature Supercon-
ductivity, 1987- Trustee Hampshire Coll.. 1977-86. Princeton U., 1985
Alfred P. Sloan Found.. 1988- mem governing bd Nat. Research
Council.. 1980-83 Served with USN. 1954-57 Rarpiem Laachester prize
Ops Research Soc Am.. 1904. Harry Goode Meml award Am Fedn. Info
Processing Socs.. 1984. John Von Neumann Theory prize Ops Research Soc.
Am and Inst. Mgmt Sets. 1984. IRI medal Inds! Research Inst.. 1985:
IBM fellow. 1964. Fellow Econometric Soc.. Am. Acad Arts and Scis.,
mem. Nat. Acad Scis. (council 1977-78. 80-83). Nat. Acad. Engring.
(council 1986 Am. Philos. Soc. (council 1986-). Research integer and
linear programming. non-linear differential equations. Home 260 Douglas
Rd 10504 Chappaqua NY 10514 Office: IBM Corp Old Orchard Rd Armonk NY
from Who's Who in America, 45th ed., 1988-89
HEALY. BERNADINE P. physician. cardiologist. educator: b. N.Y.C.,
Aug. 2. 1944. d. Michael J and Violet McGrath) Healy: m. Flovd Loop.
Aug. 17, 1985. : children by previous marnage. Bartlett Bulkley, Mane
McGrath Loop AB summa clum laude. Vassar Coll., 1965: MD cum laude
Harvard Med Sch.. 1970 Diplomate Am Bd. Med Examiners. Am Bd.
Cardiology. Am Bd Internal Medicine (bd dirs. 1983-87): lic physician.
Md., D.C. Intern in medicine Johns Hopkins Hosp.. Balt.. 1970-71. asst.
resident. 1971-72 staff fellow sect pathology Nat. Heart. Blood & Lung
Inst., NIH. Bethesda. Md. 1972.74 fellow cardiovascular div. dept.
medicine Johns Hopkins U Sch. Medicine. Balt.. 1974-76. fellow dept.
pathology. 1975-76. asst. prof. medicine and pathology. 1976-81. assoc. prof.
medicine. 1977-82. asst. dean for postdoctoral programs and faculty devel.
1979-84. assoc. prof pathology. 1981-84. prof medicine. 1982-84. active staff
medicine and pathology Johns Hopkins Hosp. 19:6 dir CCU. 1977-84:
dep dir. Office So and Tech. Policy. Exec. Office of White House. Wash-
ington. 1984-85. chmn research Cleve Cinic Found.. Ohio. 1985 co-dir.
Mary Elizabeth Garrett Symposium. 1980: regional rep. com. admissions
Harvard Med. Sch., Boston. 1974 steering com.. 1981- co-dir. short
course in Ischemic Heart disease. Internat Acad. Pathology. 1977-81: chmn.
Office of Tech. Assessment Panel in Devels in Biotech.. U.S. Congress.
1980 bd dirs Stetler Research Fund for Women Physicians, 1979
cons Nat. Heart. Lung and Blood Inst.. NIH. 19:0 cardiology adv com..
1978-82. others. Editonal cons numerous ours.. abstract reviewer: editorial
bd Jour Cardiovascular Medicine. 1980 Am Jour. Medicine. 1976
Am. Jour Cardiology. 1981-82. Circulation. 1981- Jour. Am. Coll. Cardi-
ology. 1982- Contbr articles 10 profl. jours. Matthew Vassar scholar.
1962-65. Harvard Nat. scholar. 1965-70: Eleise Ellery fellow. 1965-00. Stetler
Research fellow, 1976-77 recipient Ohio State award. Network for Con-
tinuing Med. Edn. Program. 1980; Nat Bd Ann. award for Medicine. Med.
Coll. Pa., 1983: Spl award for service. Am. Heart Ass.. 1983. 84 Mem. Am.
Fedn. Clin. Research (pres. 1983-84). Am Heart Assn. (fellow Council on
Clin. Cardiology. Council on Circulation. dir. 1983-84). Am. Coll. Cardi-
ology (bd. govs. 1979-82). ACP. Assn. Am. Med. Colls., Internat. Acad.
Pathology. Am. Med Women's Assn.. Assn for Women in Sci.. Am Soc.
Clin. Investigation Office: Cleveland Clinic Research Div 9500 Euchd Ave
Cleveland OH 44106
from Who's Who in America, 45th ed., 1988-89
LIKINS. PETER WILLIAM. university president: b. Tracy. Calif.. July 4.
1936; S. Ennis Blaine and Dorothy Louise (Medlin) L..m. Patricia Ruth
Kitsmiller. Dec. 18. 1955: children: Teresa. Lora, Paul. Linda. Krista.
John. B.S. in C.E. Stanford U., 1957. Ph.D. in Engring. Mechanics. 1965;
S.M. in C.E. MIT. 1958: hon. doctorates, Lafayette Coll., 1983. Moravian
Coll.. 1984 Devel engr Jet Propulsion Lab., Pasadena. Calif.. 1958-60; asst.
prof. engring. UCLA. 196409. assoc. prof., 1969-72. prof.. 1972-76. asst.
dean. 197475 asso. dean. 1975-76: dean engring. and applied SCI. Columbia
U., N.Y.C. 1976-80: univ. provest Columbia U., 1980-82: pres. Lehigh U.,
Bethlehem. Pa. 1982- engring. cons. U.S. and fgn. corps. and govt. agys.,
1965 Author: Elements of Engineering Mechanics, 1973. Spacecraft
Dynamics. 1982: Contbr. articles to profl. jours. Ford Found. fellow. 1970-
72; named to Nat. Wrestling Hall of Fame. Fellow AIAA. mem. Nat. Acad.
Engring.. ASME: Am. Soc. Engring Edn. Phi Beta Kappa. Sigma Xi, Tau
Beta Ph. Office: Office of Pres Lehigh L Bethlehem PA 18015
from Who's Who in America, 45th ed., 1988-89
LOVEJOY, THOMAS EUGENE. biologist. association executive. con-
servationist: b. NYC. Aug 22. 1941.s. Themas Eugene and Audrey Helen
(Paige) L.. B.S. (scholar). Yale U. 1904. PhD in Biology. 1971. m.
Charlotte Seymour. 1000 (div 1978). children-Elizate:t Paige and
Katherine Seymour (twins). Anne Williams. Research assec in biology U.
Pa. 1971-74. exec. asst to or dir Acad Natural Scis. Phila. 1972-73. asst
to y p for resources and planning. 1972-73. program fir World Wildlife
Fund-US. Washington. 1973-78. " p for sen. 1978-85. are 'P.. 1985-87
asst external affairs Smithsonian Inst. Washington. 1987- 5d. dirs.
Manhattan Life Ins Co., N.Y.C. chmn. 1980- research assoc. in
ornithology Acad. Natural Seis.. 1971- chmn. bd dirs Whidhfe Preserva-
non Trust Internat.. 19 treas Internat Council for Bird Preserva-
tion-Pan Am. Sect.. 1973-84: SCI fellow NY Zool Soc. 1978 mem
adv Rd Environ Assessment Council. 1980 VIS lectr on tropical ecology
Yale L Sch Forestry and Environ. Studies. 1982: dir Manhattan Life Corp.,
1975-86. chmn 1980. chmn. exec com.. 1982- mem Smithsonian Council.
1982-87. trustee Millbrock Sch.. N.Y. 1971- Rocky Mountain Biol. Lab.
1984 Acad. Natural Seis. Phila 198- mem. US.-Brazi panel White
House Office of Sei and Tech.. Washington. 1980- chmn U.S. Man and
Biosphere Com.. 198- sec. J Paul Getty Wildlife Conservation prize.
Washington. 1974-87: co-prin. investigator World Wildlife Fund INPA.
North Manaus. Brazil. 1979- bd govs NY Botanical Garden. NYC.
980 dir Ctr for Plant Preservation. 1987- Grantee NJI Geog. Soc..
NIH. NSF. Meilon Found.. Rockefeller Found.: recipient Ibere-Am award
II Ibero Am Ornithological Congress. 1983. Cert of Ment. Goeldi Mus..
1985. named comdr Order of Ment of Mato Grosso. 1987 Fellow NY
Zoel Soc.. A.A.AS wildlife panel 1981). Linnean Soc Lenden. mem. Am.
Inst Biol. Seis.. Am. Ornithologists Union (elective). Ecol Soc Am.. Bnt.
Ecol Soc. Bnt. Ornithologists Union. Cooper Ornithol Soc. Sex Study of
Evolution. Internat Union for Conservation of Nature species survival
commn.). Clubs: Century. Cosmos. Knickerbecker. New Haven Lawn Co-
author Nearctic Avian Migrants in the Neotropies. 1983: co-editor Key
Environments: Amazonia. 1985. Conservation of Tropical Forest Birds. 1985.
conter articles. chpts to profl. publs. Home: 8526 Georgetown Pike
McLean VA 22102 Office: Smithsonian Inst Washington DC 20560
from Who's Who in America, 45th ed., 1988-89
MASSEY, WALTER EUGENE, physicist. university official. b. Hatties-
burg, Miss.. Apr S. 1938: s Almar Clevel and Essie (Nelson) M.. m. Shirley
Streeter. Oct. 25. 1909. children: Keath Anthony. Enc Eugene B.S.,
Morehouse Coll. 1958: M.A.. Washington U. St. Louis. 1900. Ph.D. 1000.
Physicist Argonne (III.) Nat. Lab.. 1960-08. asst. prof. physics U III..
Urbana: 1968-70: assoc prof. Brown U. Providence. 1970-75. prof. dean
Brown U (Coll.), 1975-79: cons. Argonne Nat. Lab., dir., 1070.34. v.p.
1984 yp. for research U. Chgo.. 1982- mem. NSB. NSF. 1978-84 cons.
Nat. Acad Sets.. 1973-76. Contbr. articles on SCI. edn. in secondary schs.
and in theory of quantum fluids to profl. jours. Trustee Brown U. 1930
Mus Scr. and Industry. Chgo., 1980 bd dirs. Urban League R.I. 1972-
74. NSF fellow. 1962 NDEA fellow. 1959.60. Fellow AAAS 'pres. elect
1987- 5d. dirs. 1981->: Mem. Am. Phys. Soc. (councillor-at-large 1980-
33). Am. Assn. Physics Tchrs. (Disting Service award 1975). Sigma Xi.
Home 4950 Chicago Beach Dr Chicago IL 60615 Office: Univ Chgo 5801 S
Ellis Chicago IL 60637
from Who's Who in America, 45th ed., 1988-89
MCTAGUE. JOHN PAUL automobile manufacturing company executive.
chemist. b Jersey City, Nov 28. 1938 James Aloysius and Teresa Eugenia
(Hanley) MeT. m Carole Frances Relly. Dec 30. 1901. children Kevin W.
Catherine E. Margaret A.. Maureen E BS in Chemistry. Georgetown U.
1960. PhD. Brown U.. 1965 Mem tech staff N Am Rockwell Sei Ctr.
Thousand Oaks. Calif. 190+ prof chemistry mem Inst Geophysics and
Planetary Physics UCLA. 1970-82 chmn nat synchrotron light source dept
Broökhaven Nat Lab. Upton. NY 1982-83 jer dir Office Se: and Tech
Policy. Exec Office of Pres. Washington. 1983-30. acting is advisor 10
Pres Reagan. 1980. ip research Ford Motor Co.. Dearborn. Mich.. 1980
adj prof chemistry Columbia L. 1982-83 Alfred P. Sigan Research fellow.
1971-73 NATO Sr fellow. 1973 John Simon Guggenheim Meml fellow.
1975-70 Fellow Am Phvs Soc mem Am Chem Soc Calif sect award
1975). AAUP. Soc. Automotive Engrs. Engring Soc Detroit. Sigma Xi
Club Barton Hills Country (Ann Arbor. Mich.) Office Ford Motor Co
Dearborn MI 48121
20000 Rotunda Dr Room S2106 So Research Lab Bldg PO Box 1003
from Who's Who in America, 45th ed., 1988-89
PACKARD, DAVID. manufacturing company executive. electrical engineer.
former deputy secretary of defense. b. Pueblo. Colo., Sept. : 1912: S. Sperry
Sidney and Ella Lorna (Graber) P. m. Lucile Salter. Apr. 3. 1938 ida:.,
1987): children: David Woodley, Nancy Ann Packard Burnett. Susan
Packard Orr. Julie Elizabeth Stephens. B.A., Stanford U. 1934. M.E.E.,
1939: LLD (hon ). L. Calif.. Santa Cruz. 1906. Catholic U.. 1970. Pepperdine
U. 1972: DS: (hon.). Colo. Coll., 1964: LittD (hon.). So Colo. State Cell.,
1973. D in Eng. (hon.). U. Notre Dame. 1974. With vacuum tube engring
dept. Gen. Electric Co., Schenectady. 1936-38: co-founder. ptnr. Hewlell-
Packard Co., Palo Alto. Calif., 1939-47. pres., 1947-64. chief exec. officer.
196408. chmn. bd., 1904.68. 72-: U.S. dep. sec. defense Washington. 1960.
71. dir. Genetech. Inc., 1981- bd dirs. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 1972-83.
Chevron. 1972-85: chmn. Presdl Commn on Del. Mgmt., 1985-86; mem.
White House Scr. Council. Mem. President's Commn. Personnel In-
terchange. 1972-74. Inlateral Commn.. 1973-81: pres. bd. regents Uniformed
Services U. of Health Scis., 1975-82: mem. U.S..USSR Trade and Econ.
Council. 1975-82: trustee The Ronald Reagan Presdl. Found.. 1986 mem.
bd. overseers Hoover Instn., 1972- bd. dirs. Nat. Ment Scholarship Corp.,
1963-69: dir Found. for Study of Presdl. and Congl. Terms. 1978- Alliance
10 Save Energy. 1977-87. Atlantic Council. 1972-83. (vice chmn. 1972-80).
Am. Enterprise Inst. for Public Policy Research. 1978-. Nat. Fish and
Wildlife Found.. 1985-87. Hitachi Found. Adv. Council. 1986 trustee
Herbert Hoover Found.. 1974 dir. Wolf Trap Found.: vice chmn. The
Calif. Nature Conservancy. 1983- trustee Stanford U., 195469. (pres. bd
trustees 1958-60). Hoover Instn., The Herbert Hoover Found. Decorated
Grand Cross of Ment Fed. Republic of Germany, 1972: recipient numerous
awards including Medal of Honor Electronic Industries Assn.. 1974. Silver
Helmet Defense award A.MVETS. 1973. Washington award Western Soc.
Engrs., 1975. Hoover medal ASME. 1975. Gold Medal award Nat. Football
Found. and Hall of Fame. 1975. Good Scout award Boy Scouts Am., 1975,
Vermilye medal Franklin Inst., 1970. Internat. Achievement award World
Trade Club of San Francisco. 1976. Ment award Am. Consulting Engrs.
Council Fellows. 1977. Achievement in Life award Ency. Britannica. 1977.
Engring. Award oi Distinction San Jose State U., 1980. Thomas D. White
Nat. Def. award U.S. Air Force Acad.. 1981. Disting Info. Sois. award Data
Processing Mgmt. Assn.. 1981. Sylvanus Thayer award U.S. Mil. Acad..
1982. Environ. Leadership award Natural Resources Def. Council. 1983.
Dollar award Nat. Fgn. Trade Council. 1985. Fellow IEEE (Founders
medal 1973). mem Nat Acad Engring. Founders award 1979). Instrument
Soc Am. (hon lifetime mem.). Wilson Council. The Bus. Roundtable. Bus.
Council. Am. Ordnance Assn. (Crozier Gold medal 1970). Sigma Xi. Phi
Beta Kappa. Tau Beta P1. Alpha Delta Phi (named Disting Alumnus of Yr.
1970). Clubs Bohemian. Commonwealth. Pacific Union. World Trade.
Engrs (San Francisco): The Links (N.Y C.): Alfalfa. Capitol Hill (Wash-
94304 ington). Office: Hewlett-Packard Co 3000 Hanover St Palo Alto C.A
from Who's Who in America, 45th ed., 1988-89
SHAPIRO. HAROLD TAFLER. economist. university president. b Mon-
treat. Que. Can. June 8. 1935. $ Maxwell and Mary (Tafler) S., m. Vivian
Bernice Rapoport." May 19. 1957. children: Anne. Manlyn. Janet.
Karen B Comm.. McGill L. Montreal. 1956: Ph.D in Econs (Harold
Helm fellow. Harold Dodd Sr fellow Princeton U. 1000 Asst prof econs.
L Mich.. 100407. assoc. prof. 1967.70. prof. 1970- chmn. dept. econs..
1974-77. prof econs and pub policy from 1977. VP acad affairs. 1977-79.
pres. 1980-87. research adv Bank Can.. 1965-72. prof econ and pub
policy. pres Princeton U.. 1988- cons forecasting U.S. Treasury. 1905-08.
dir Unisys Corp. Kellogg Co., Dew Chem.. mem tech. adv council Ford
Motor Co. 1985- Trustee Alfred P Sloan Found.. 1980- chmn. Spl.
Presdl Com.. The Research Libranes Group. 1980- mem Gov.'s High
Tech Task Force. Mich. 1980-87 mem Gors Commn. on Jobs and Econ
Devel (Mich). 1983-87. mem Nat Acad Seis Council of Govt Univ..
Industry Research. 1981 mem Carnegie Commn on Coll Retirement.
1984-86 mem 301 bd to bd dirs Six: for Advancement Behavioral
Econs. 1984- mem adv. panel on technology transfer. intelligence com
CIA. 198436 bd advisors Am Be Internal Medicine. 1985- mem exec.
com Assn Am Univs.. 1985- chmn mid-decade rev. com program in
edn and culture The Ford Found Recipient Lt. Gov is medal in commerce
McGill U.. 1950 Fellow Mich Soc Fellows (sr.). Office Princeton UI
Nassau Hall Princeton NJ 08544
Document Originally
Attached to
Following Page
27 May 89
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
,
TO: Jan N.
FROM:
CHASE UNTERMEYER
Assistant to the President
and Director of Presidential Personnel
Please call B53
to find out about
This Council.
I worldn't be
surprised if B53
were the inventor,
having put it into a
campaign speech.
Chase
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT STATES UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
o
MEMORANDUM FOR CHARLES G. UNTERMEYER
FROM:
ROBERT GRADY bb
SUBJECT:
Appointments to the New Presidential Council of
Science and Technology Advisors
The President has now announced his intention to appoint Dr.
D. Allan Bromley as the Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy. In "Building a Better America", the President
also announced his intention to establish a Council of Science
and Technology Advisors drawn from distinguished scientists,
engineers, and executives.
Before the process to select the members of this Council
progresses too far, I want to bring to your attention a concern
voiced by Rep. Silvio Conte in a recent letter to the President.
Rep. Conte argues that in the past biomedical sciences, and life
sciences generally, have been relegated to a secondary status
within the White House science advisory apparatus. To a large
degree he is correct. The current White House Science Council
(of which Dr. Bromley is a member) has only two members (out of
17) whose field is primarily within the life sciences or
biomedical disciplines. This is an increase over the one "life
sciences" member in the last several years. In addition there
have only been a few periods since 1981 where a permanent (i.e.,
not an agency detailee) senior OSTP staff member has had the life
science/biomedical portfolio on a full-time basis.
Rep. Conte suggests that the solution to this is to establish
a separate Advisor for Life Sciences. While we cannot support
that notion, we believe that his concerns can be largely
addressed by more evenly balancing the membership on the new
advisory council among physical sciences, engineering, and life
science, and perhaps by appointing an OSTP Deputy Director with
explicit responsibility for life sciences/biomedical issues. We
would, of course, expect that the Science Advisor and his staff
would continue to work closely with the relevant agencies and
offices within EXOP on life sciences/biomedical issues.
I have attached a copy of Rep. Conte's letter to the
President. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this
matter further.
Attachment
CC:
Richard Darman
Allan Bromley
Jan Naylor
WASHINGTON ADDRESS:
2300 RAYBURN OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
PHONE 202-225-8335
MATIONS
MINDEA
MITTES
Congress of the United States
DISTRICT OFFICES:
FEDERAL BUILDING
WALTH AND HUMAN
AVICES-EUU.
House of Representatives
78 CENTER STREET ARTERIAL
PITTSFIELD. MA 01201
inansportation
PHONE: 413-442-0948
LEGISLATIVE
Ex OFFICIO MIMBER
Mashington, DC 20515
187 HIGH STATET
or ALL SUBCOMMITTEES
HOLYOKE. MA 01040
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
PHONE: 413-532-7010
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
PROCUREMENT. IRNOVATION, AND
MINDRITY ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT
MIGRATORY BIRD
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
BOARD OF REGENTS
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
March 1, 1989
President George Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I have reviewed your budget proposal for "Building A Better
America" and, of the many excellent proposals you have
presented, there is one in particular that I would like to
single out. That is your proposal to upgrade the President's
Science Adviser to Assistant to the President, and to involve
him actively in the Economic Policy Council.
While I fully support that initiative, there is an
additional step you could take that would correct a longstanding
weakness within the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
that is the appointment of a Science Adviser to the President
for Life Sciences.
Recent White House Science Advisers have had very little
effect on the place of biomedical research in the federal
science effort. They have acted instead as advocates for
physical science or "hard" science projects like the Strategic
Defense Initiative or the superconducting supercollider. The
most effective way to correct this situation, I believe, is to
create a separate adviser for life sciences.
this office to find someone qualified to speak out on biomedical
Too often in the past, the White House has had to go outside
issues. Just last year, when the President's AIDS Commission
published its recommendations, the White House had to turn, not
Abuse Policy Adviser, in order to find someone with the
to its Science Adviser, but to Dr. Donald Macdonald, the Drug
biomedical expertise necessary to analyze the recommendations
and respond with knowledge and credibility.
You have the opportunity now to restructure the science
advisory structure and to guarantee that this Administration,
of biomedical interests.
and those to follow, has the benefit of a strong representative
esident Bush
age two
The relative inattention that is paid to biomedical sciences
under the current structure of the Adviser's office even crops
up in your budget plan for "Building A Better America" -- it
describes your plan to create a President's Council of Science
and Technology Advisers, to be composed of leading scientists,
engineers and distinguished executives from the private sector.
What's missing from this configuration is biomedical science.
The reasons for assuring a spokesperson for life sciences
and biomedical research are obvious. Let me list just a few.
Many of the most critical needs, and most promising
opportunities, are now presenting themselves in the life
sciences. In the past fifteen years, we have seen a revolution
in this country in the field of biotechnology. However, U.S.
preeminence in this field is being increasingly challenged by
Japan and several European countries. We can't allow ourselves
to fall behind.
Furthermore, rapid advances in biomedical research have
brought us to a threshold as important and as promising as the
first launch into space -- but this threshold involves a plunge
into a single cell, in order to map the human genome and to
unlock the key to the genetic disorders that will plague our
children and grandchildren. This effort will eventually require
a massive commitment of dollars, as well as coordination among
various agencies, and a decision as to what rate of growth is
appropriate -- all complex decisions which will face you.
In addition, the biomedical research field is facing a
critical need for infrastructure improvements -- including new
construction, renovation, instrumentation, and diagnostic
equipment -- improvements that will be necessary not only to
preserve the quality of research being done, but also to equip
researchers to handle the changing nature of biomedical
research. These needs will have to be addressed if continuing
support for biomedical research grants is to be meaningful.
Finally, the effect that AIDS will have on this country,
even if a cure is developed tomorrow, adds to the urgency of
responsibly addressing the other critical life science issues.
sident Bush
age three
Your guidance in these areas will be essential in the coming
years. I call upon you to create, preferably, a White House
Science Adviser for Life Sciences, or, as a less preferable
alternative, to divide the mandate of the new Science Advisor
equally between life sciences and physical sciences, and to
include those interests on the Council you have planned to
create. By doing SO, you could send a strong and reassuring
signal to the research community, and to the American people,
that the health and well-being of this Nation are recognized as
a science issue whose importance is second to none.
With my warmest personal regards, I am
Cordially yours,
fill Silvio O. Conte Carter
Member of Congress
CC: John Sununu, Chief of Staff to the President
Richard Darman, Director, Office of Management and Budget
Don M. Newman, Acting Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services
Dr. Frank Young, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration
Dr. James Wyngaarden, Director, National Institutes of
Health
Dr. Frederick Goodwin, Administrator, Alcohol, Drug Abuse,
and Mental Health Administration
RECEIVE THE OFFICE UNITED STATES
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
MEMORANDUM FOR CHARLES G. UNTERMEYER
FROM:
ROBERT GRADY
SUBJECT:
Appointments to the New Presidential Council of
Science and Technology Advisors
The President has now announced his intention to appoint Dr.
D. Allan Bromley as the Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy. In "Building a Better America", the President
also announced his intention to establish a Council of Science
and Technology Advisors drawn from distinguished scientists,
engineers, and executives.
Before the process to select the members of this Council
progresses too far, I want to bring to your attention a concern
voiced by Rep. Silvio Conte in a recent letter to the President.
Rep. Conte argues that in the past biomedical sciences, and life
sciences generally, have been relegated to a secondary status
within the White House science advisory apparatus. To a large
degree he is correct. The current White House Science Council
(of which Dr. Bromley is a member) has only two members (out of
17) whose field is primarily within the life sciences or
biomedical disciplines. This is an increase over the one "life
sciences" member in the last several years. In addition there
have only been a few periods since 1981 where a permanent (i.e.,
not an agency detailee) senior OSTP staff member has had the life
science/biomedical portfolio on a full-time basis.
Rep. Conte suggests that the solution to this is to establish
a separate Advisor for Life Sciences. While we cannot support
that notion, we believe that his concerns can be largely
addressed by more evenly balancing the membership on the new
advisory council among physical sciences, engineering, and life
science, and perhaps by appointing an OSTP Deputy Director with
explicit responsibility for life sciences/biomedical issues. We
would, of course, expect that the Science Advisor and his staff
would continue to work closely with the relevant agencies and
offices within EXOP on life sciences/biomedical issues.
I have attached a copy of Rep. Conte's letter to the
President. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this
matter further.
Attachment
CC:
Richard Darman
Allan Bromley
Jan Naylor
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Jan
June 26, 1989
Date:
FOR:
CHASE UNTERMEYER
Following Page
Attached to
FROM:
GOVERNOR JOHN H. SUNUNU
Document Originally
XXX
Action
Your Comment
Let's Talk
FYI
The attached PCAST nominees are fine with
me. Please process the invitation as
appropriate and keep Dr. Bromley informed.
Document Originally
Attached to
Following Page
NOMINEES FOR MEMBERSHIP
ON THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL
OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ADVISERS
(PCAST)
June 23, 1989
NOMINESS FOR MEMBERSHIP ON THE
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ADVISERS
(PCAST)
The following individuals have agreed to serve as members of the
President's Council if so requested.
1.
NORMAN BORLAUG
Agriculture
Professor, Department of Soils and Crop Sciences
Texas A&M University
Also a Nobel laureate, Borlaug is the father of the Green
Revolution. He has done much of his work at the Institute for
Maize and Wheat Improvement in Mexico City but is a U.S. citizen.
His credentials as an agricultural pioneer, as an
environmentalist, and throughout the Third World are impeccable.
I have worked with him on the Indo-U.S. Presidential Science and
Technology Initiative and found him to be extremely effective.
2.
SOLOMON BUCHSBAUM
Industrial Engineer/
Executive Vice President
Military Science
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Sol Buchsbaum, an ex-Canadian, happens to be one of the wisest
men I know. He served on PSAC for a number of years, was
chairman of WHSC for its entire existence, and is completely at
home both in the private sector world and in Washington. He has
special expertise in matters of military science and technology,
in communication and computer science and in industrial
manufacturing.
3.
CHARLES DRAKE
Earth Sciences
Professor of Geology and Geophysics
Dartmouth College
Drake is one of the nation's most highly respected earth
scientists; he was awarded the National Medal of Science in 1987.
Over the years, he has served with distinction on just about
every significant committee in the earth sciences -- both
nationally and internationally. I have worked with him on
National Academy/National Research Council panels and have been
much impressed by the breadth of his expertise and his
statesmanship.
4.
RALPH GOMORY
Mathematics/Foundation
Senior Vice President
for Science and Technology, IBM
President, Sloan Foundation
Gomory is a very highly respected professional mathematician who
served for many years as IBM's Director of Research -- then Chief
Scientist. He has just retired from IBM to become President of
the Sloan Foundation. His IBM experience in technology transfer,
high-tech manufacturing, international sales, etc., together with
his Foundation connections, would make him a powerful addition to
the Council. have worked with him on a number of panels and
have been much impressed by his judgment and creativity.
5.
BERNADINE HEALY
Biomedicine
Director of Research, Cleveland Clinic
President, American Heart Association
A professional cardiologist, Healy held a professorship in the
Johns Hopkins University Medical School before joining Jay
Keyworth as Deputy Director of OSTP for two years prior to
accepting her current post. During the past year she was a
member of Bill Graham's White House Science Council. She is
broadly experienced in the biomedical area, and I have served
with her on a number of panels and committees where I have been
much impressed by her wisdom, common sense and professionalism.
I would suggest that Healy be made Vice Chairman of the Council.
6.
PETER LIKENS
Academic Engineer
President, Lehigh University
An electrical engineer by training, Likens has gained
international visibility as President of Lehigh -- a
representative of an academic constituency that is frequently
neglected but of ever-growing importance: the relatively small,
high quality engineering school. He was a very constructive,
thoughtful member of the Packard-Bromley WHSC Panel on the Health
of U.S. Colleges and Universities and would be a very effective
Council member.
7.
THOMAS LOVEJOY
Environmentalist
Assistant Secretary for External Affairs
Smithsonian Institution
Lovejoy was a student of Evelyn Hutchinson at Yale and was one of
the earliest ecologists. Formerly Vice President for Research at
the World Wildlife Fund, he has gained an international
reputation for his work in international environmental and
ecological science. He has played an important role in current
efforts to retain substantial sections of the Brazilian tropical
rain forests. I have served with him on the President's
U.S./Brazil Blue Ribbon Panel and, during the past year, on Bill
Graham's WHSC. He brings a deep knowledge of environmental
science as well as experience in international activities and
sound judgment to any panel.
8.
WALTER MASSEY
Physicist/National
Vice President for Research
Laboratory
University of Chicago
One of the most distinguished black scientists, Massey is a solid
state physicist/chemist. From Dean of the Graduate School at
Brown University, he became Director of the Argonne National
Laboratory and then took up his present post where he remains
responsible for the management of Argonne. He served for six
years as a member of the National Science Board and is currently
President of AAAS. I have worked with him in many capacities and
believe that he would be a very effective, thoughtful member of
the Council.
9.
JOHN McTAGUE
Chemistry
Vice President and Director of Research
Ford Motor Company
A chemist by profession, McTague was Director of the National
Synchrotron Light Source at Brookhaven before joining Jay
Keyworth's OSTP as Assistant Director for Physical Sciences. On
Jay's retirement, McTague served for almost a year as Acting
Director of OSTP before going on to Ford. He has been extremely
successful in increasing Ford's interest in, and support for,
research. His industrial, Brookhaven and Washington experience
would make him a very effective Council member.
10. DANIEL NATHANS
Microbiology
Boury Professor of Microbiology
Johns Hopkins University
A Nobel laureate for his work in microbiology, Nathans is one of
the true pioneers in the field of recombinant DNA and its
offspring, biotechnology. He has devoted much of his research to
the understanding of tumor viruses and their role in the
induction of cancer. He has an outstanding reputation throughout
his field both for research and for statesmanship.
11. DAVID PACKARD
Industrial Engineer
Chairman of the Board of the
Hewlett-Packard Company and of the
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
As one of the fathers of Silicon Valley, with an enviable track
record both in industry and government (Defense Department), and
as a member or chairman of a great number of influential panels
and commissions, Packard brings a unique background to any
deliberation. He was a very effective member of the White House
Science Council during the Reagan Administration, in addition to
his many individual activities for President Reagan, e.g., his
study of contracting in the Defense Department.
12. HAROLD SHAPIRO
Academic/Social Science
President, Princeton University
Economist
An economist by profession, Shapiro was formerly President of the
University of Michigan. He has participated actively in science
and technology related studies for NAS and AAAS and is one of the
very few social scientists known to me who finds it easy to work
effectively with scientists and engineers. I believe that it
will be important symbolically for us to have a social scientist
of impeccable repute on the Council. The absence of such a
person damaged the credibility of the WHSC and the later PSACs.
June 19, 1989
DRAFT
Dear X:
It is with the greatest pleasure that I write to invite you to serve on my Council of
Science and Technology Advisors. It is my intention that this Council, drawn from among
the Nation's most distinguished scientists, engineers and executives from the private
sector and chaired by Dr. D. Allan Bromley, my Assistant for Science and Technology,
will be the senior federal advisory body in these increasingly vital areas.
I shall look to you and to your fellow Council members not only for expert
evaluations and recommendations concerning the growing range of science and
technology related issues that reach my Office, but also for early warning of problems of
national consequence not yet over the horizon but for which it will be important for me
and my Administration to become aware and, where appropriate, take preparatory
action.
I look forward to meeting with the Council to share in its deliberations as often as
my schedule permits and to becoming acquainted with all of its members.
Dr. Bromley will provide you with additional details concerning the Council and its
operations if, as I hope will be the case, you find it possible to accept my invitation.
I look forward to welcoming you to membership in my Council and to the White
House.
Sincerely yours,
George Bush
ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey, CHAIRMAN
ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin
CLAUDINE SCHNEIDER, Rhode Island
GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York
TOM LEWIS, Florida
MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee
DON RITTER, Pennsylvania
DOUG WALGREN, Pennsylvania
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SID MORRISON, Washington
DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas
RON PACKARD, California
HAROLD L. VOLKMER, Missouri
ROBERT C. SMITH, New Hampshire
HOWARD WOLPE, Michigan
PAUL B. HENRY, Michigan
BILL NELSON, Florida
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois
D. FRENCH SLAUGHTER, Jr., Virginia
DAVE McCURDY, Oklahoma
AND TECHNOLOGY
LAMAR SMITH, Texas
NORMAN Y. MINETA, California
JACK BUECHNER, Missouri
TIM VALENTINE, North Carolina
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
SUITE 2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
TERRY L. BRUCE, Illinois
STEVEN H. SCHIFF, New Mexico
RICHARD H. STALLINGS, Idaho
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
TOM CAMPBELL, California
JAMES A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Ohio
LEE H. HAMILTON, Indiana
(202) 225-6371
HENRY J. NOWAK, New York
HAROLD P. HANSON
CARL C. PERKINS, Kentucky
Executive Director
TOM McMILLEN, Maryland
ROBERT C. KETCHAM
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
General Counsel
DAVID R. NAGLE, lowa
March 12, 1990
DAVID D. CLEMENT
JIMMY HAYES, Louisiana
DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado
Republican Chief of Staff
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
HARRY JOHNSTON, Florida
JOHN TANNER, Tennessee
GLEN BROWDER, Alabama
Dr. David W. McCall, Chairman
National Commission on Superconductivity
The Executive Office of the President
Washington, DC 20506
Dear Dr. McCall:
Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee recently. Please
review the enclosed copy of your testimony for transcription accuracy.
If there are any typographical or transcription errors, please make the
appropriate corrections and return a copy of the transcript to the
Subcommittee.
Our Committee rules specifically require that the printed hearing
record be a strictly verbatim transcription of those proceedings, that
is, only what was actually said may be printed. This means that we may
not accept any changes to the transcript for clarity of meaning, such
as the insertion or deletion of a word or phrase. The text of the
applicable committee rule is attached.
If you feel that additional comments or clarification are necessary,
our rules allow these to be footnoted in the text at the appropriate
place. A short clarification may be footnoted at the bottom of the
page, and a longer clarification may be appended to the end of the
hearing record, but they may not be incorporated into the body of the
transcript.
If the Committee has not received a correct transcript (or any
additional comments submitted in the footnote form) within 15 working
days, the transcript will be published in its current form.
Return transcripts to: Mrs. Virginia Lindsey, Subcommittee on
Transportation, Aviation and Materials, Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology, 2321 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC
20515.
Sincerely,
A
Tm
TIM VALENTINE, Chairman
Subcommittee on Transportation,
Aviation and Materials
TV:ss
Enclosure
Congress of the United States
house of Representatives
COMMITTEE ON
SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
SUITE 2321, RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
(202) 225-6371
Dr. David McCall
Referred to your testimony begins
on page 37.
Testimony given by you before the Committee
appears in the attached typewritten transcript. Com-
mittee rules require the publication of a verbatim
transcript. Please attach all requested information,
preferably in typewritten form, to the proper page or
Document Originally
pages, within five working days, and return immediate-
Attached to
ly SO that this information may appear in the final
printed volume.
Following Page
Rule 23 of the Committee Rules Governing Procedure
states:
"The transcripts of those hearings conducted by the
Committee which are decided to be printed will be
published in verbatim form, with the material requested
for the record inserted at that place requested, or at
the end of the record, as appropriate.
"Any requests by those Members, staff or witnesses
to correct any errors, other than errors in transcrip-
tion, or disputed errors in transcription, will be append-
ed to the record, and the appropriate place where the
change is requested will be footnoted. (Emphasis added.)
"Prior to approval by the Chairman of hearings con-
ducted jointly with another Congressional committee,
a memorandum of understanding will be prepared
which incorporates an agreement for the publication of
the verbatim transcript."
If any other change is deemed necessary, a written
appeal must be made to the Chairman.
Staff
Sherri Stone (202)225-9643
15
Please return within working days.
GPO: 1987 68-340 (m)
STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES
Unrevised and Unedited
Not for Quotation or
Duplication
Committee Hearings
of the
U.S HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Office of Official Reporters
STENOGRAPHIC MINUTES
Unrevised and Unedited
Not for Quotation or
Duplication
Committee Hearings
of the
U.S HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Office of Official Reporters
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE
1
1
RPTS CRS
2
COURT REPORTING SERvices, Inc.
3
4
HSY052070
5
HEARING ON SUPERCONDUCTIVITY
6
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1990
7
U.S. House of Representatives
8
Subcommittee on Transportation,
9
Aviation and Materials
10
Committee on Science, Space and Technology
11
Washington, D.C.
12
13
14
15
The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess. at 11:38 a.m. in
16
room 2321, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Valentine
17
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE
2
18
Mr. VALENTINE. The subcommittee will be in order.
19
This morning is a continuation of the hearing we began
20
last October in which we examined our Nation's efforts in
21
pursuing the application of new high energy superconductors.
22
In that hearing we heard from a number of outside witnesses
23
and experts with views on the subject.
24
As was noted then, these new superconductors present us
25
with an opportunity and a challenge to develop whole new
26
technologies in such diverse areas as transportation,
27
electronics, medicine, and energy. A number of countries,
28
most notably Japan and France, have undertaken national
29
programs to accelerate the understanding and applications of
30
these new materials. They obviously understand the economic
31
as well as the technological consequences of moving ahead in
32
this area, even if the national efforts must be continued
33
over a period of five, ten, or more years.
34
It was with this understanding of the need for a long-
35
term national commitment that Congress late in 1988 passed
36
Public Law 100-927, the National Superconductivity and
37
Competitiveness Act. This Act called for establishing a
38
national action plan for advanced superconductivity research
39
and development, to include goals and priorities as well as
40
funding recommendations for a period of five years. The
41
director of the White House Office of Science and Technology
42
Policy was given the responsibility for establishing the
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE
3
43
plan. The action plan was completed in its final form last
44
December.
45
It's our hope to discuss here this morning the details of
46
that plan as well as the President's budget request that
47
will impact directly on implementation of the plan.
48
Let me say at the outset that I see this as an ongoing
49
process. The plan we have before us is a good first step
50
that some believe that more needs to be done with,
51
particularly in clarifying its goals and priorities and in
52
establishing appropriate funding over the full five years of
53
the plan.
54
We are very pleased to have here today the President's
55
science advisor, a very distinguished American doctor, Allan
56
Bromley, who will testify on the National Superconductivity
57
Action Plan and we are looking forward to an informative
58
discussion with him on this subject and hopefully these
59
hearings will prove useful in giving us further insight into
60
how we can proceed to ensure our Nation's continuing
61
competitiveness in superconductivity.
62
To that end, we also have with us this morning another
63
distinguished scientist, Dr. David McCall, chairman of the
64
National Commission on Superconductivity which has been
65
charged with providing advice to the President and the
66
Congress as to how we can best proceed in this important
67
area.
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE
4
68
We are looking forward to hearing his thoughts and views
69
on this topic also. Let me issue a word of special and
70
personal welcome to both of you gentlemen, and Dr. Bromley,
71
to thank you again for your visit to North Carolina and the
72
events there about a month ago.
73
We have strong competition today. This hearing was
74
scheduled for 9:30 this morning. This hall was in use by
75
the Chairman at a meeting of the full committee. So, we
76
were moved to this time and we have the leader of
77
Czechoslovakia who is addressing a joint session of the
78
House and we hope to have more Members here before you
79
complete your testimony.
80
Welcome. I recognize our distinguished colleague and the
81
senior Republican on this subcommittee, Mr. Tom Lewis from
82
Florida.
83
[ The prepared statement of Mr. Valentine follows ]
84
85
INSERT
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE
5
86
87
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
88
The National Action Plan on Superconductivity Research and
89
Development, the subject of today's hearing, proposes an
90
ambitious program that will place the U.S. and world
91
leadership in the superconductor race. Expert witnesses at
92
the October 31st, 1989 superconductivity hearing agreed that
93
although the U.S. made great progress in high temperature
94
superconductivity research, Japan is far ahead of us.
95
Nevertheless, there is no reason why we cannot only
96
effectively compete with other countries but surpass them.
97
One recurring theme in the testimony given on October 31
98
is Japan's long-term commitment to superconductivity
99
research. The August 1989 issue of Physics Today concludes,
100
Japan's agency for industrial science and technology has
101
made a commitment of $800 million to six Japanese companies
102
for a 10- year project on superconducting electronics. By
103
comparison, the efforts mounted by the three U.S. consortia
104
and the small startup of firms looks somewhat paltry.
105
Carl Rosener of Intermagnetics General Corporation
106
testified in October that the U.S. was already well behind
107
Japanese industry in the development of superconductivity
108
applications. We need to keep America first. We need to
109
provide consistency of funding, something Drs. Paul Chu of
110
the University of Houston and Elton Kaufman of Argonne
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE
6
111
National Labs discussed in depth during their October
112
testimony.
113
Unfortunately, typical Federal funding is firm for only a
114
year at a time. One area not addressed by the plan is
115
education. Some educators have expressed a fear that there
116
may be a shortage of superconductivity specialists. Where
117
will the next generation of superconductivity scholars or
118
specialists come from? U.S. students need to be encouraged
119
to continue in graduate school.
120
There are grand possibilities of future technologies using
121
superconductivity. The National Action Plan on
122
Superconductivity Research and Development is a step in the
123
right direction. If we act quickly and commit ourselves for
124
the long term, I have every confidence that America can and
125
will again be in a preeminent position in a world of
126
superconductivity. I want to welcome Dr. Bromley and I look
127
forward to hearing his testimony on superconductivity and
128
certainly, our associations from the past with your
129
testimony have certainly been enlightening.
130
Welcome, Dr. Bromley.
131
Mr. VALENTINE. Thank you, sir. As stated, our first
132
witness is Dr. D. Allan Bromley, director of the Office of
133
Science and Technology Policy, the Executive Office of the
134
President. Your statement will appear in the record as
135
presented to us and feel free to summarize or otherwise
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE
7
136 proceed as you deem appropriate. Thank you, sir.
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE
8
137
STATEMENT OF MR. D. ALLAN BROMLEY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
138
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE
139
PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.
140
Mr. BROMLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
141
I welcome this opportunity to come before the committee to
142
discuss with you the National Action Plan on
143
Superconductivity Research and Development and I will only
144
highlight the formal testimony that I would ask be included
145
in the record.
146
The Plan which as you stated was publicly released in
147
December of 1989, was prepared with the help of staffs of
148
the National Critical Materials Council and the OSTP
149
Committee on Materials, COMAT, as well as with input from a
150
large number of other experts in the field. It is based on
151
the precept that the United States must maintain its
152
position at the forefront of superconductivity R&D and be
153
ready to translate the scientific knowledge that we obtain
154
into viable applications.
155
The Plan was a formal response to a legislative
156
requirement. Its preparation also reflects the tremendous
157
promise that we agree with you resides in superconductivity
158
There are already important commercial applications and with
159
certain breakthroughs that I feel reasonably confident will
160
occur in the not too distant future, it can become an
161
enabling technology leading to a wide range of new and
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE
9
162
attractive products.
163
In general, I would say that superconductivity is one of a
164
number of critical technologies in which the United State
165
has a very vital stake in remaining at the cutting edge of
166
research and development, and sir, of application. Before I
167
discuss the Action Plan in detail, let me make a few general
168
comments if I might about the whole question of
169
superconductivity.
170
As you know, gentlemen, it was discovered back in 1911,
171
the same year that the nucleus was discovered, by a Dutch
172
physicist, Kammerlingh Onnes, and the discovery at the time
173
was something of a curiosity. He found that the resistance
174
of a rod of frozen mercury dropped to zero when cooled to
175
below 4.2 degrees absolute, 4.2 degrees Kelvin.
176
Over the next 75 years, as research group after research
177
group worked on this topic trying to get this temperature
178
where resistance disappeared higher and higher, we finally
179
by 1985 had gotten that transition temperature up to 23
180
degrees absolute and since it's a well established rule in
181
the application of superconductivity that you can't
182
effectively operate the superconductivity at more than three
183
quarters of that transition temperature, that really
184
required that you needed to cool the superconductors
185
effectively with liquid helium if you were going to have a
186
reliable system. This posed one of the major requirements
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 10
187
on all applications of low temperature superconductivity.
188
Despite those difficulties, however, Mr. Chairman, it's
189
important to recognize that American companies have led the
190
way in applying low temperature superconductivity in very
191
important applications. Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging,
192
for example, is a noninvasive new medical technology that is
193
having revolutionary impact on medical diagnosis and
194
treatment. Low temperature superconductors have also played
195
essential roles in particle accelerator design and in the
196
development of new and very sensitive electronic
197
instrumentation. As of 1987 which is the last year for
198
which I have the detailed numbers, worldwide sales of
199
superconducting devices amounted to $400 million. Of this
200
amount, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging devices and
201
electronic instrumentation each accounted for roughly $150
202
million.
203
Here in the U.S., as all of you are very much aware, the
204
superconducting super collider is of course going to be one
205
of the large scale users of low temperature superconducting
206
magnets. This is a facility that has a circumference at the
207
moment of 54 miles, will require more than 10,000
208
superconducting magnets containing over 2,000 tons of actual
209
superconductors costing something like $320 million.
210
Now, commercial development of low temperature
211
superconductivity, I think we would have to agree has
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 11
212
developed rather slowly and future commercialization, I
213
suspect, will not be terribly rapid either in terms of low
214
temperature superconductivity although I think that we will
215
continue to see commercialization grow at a steady by
216
relatively modest pace.
217
The first place where I feel that we will see large scale
218
application of this superconductivity is in the development
219
of the new generation or perhaps the next few generations of
220
major computers. As we pack more and more information
221
handling devices into smaller and smaller volumes, the
222
problem of removing heat from that entity becomes ever more
223
important and under those circumstances, superconductivity
224
becomes a unique component of the new designs.
225
I think also that we have done substantial research and
226
development in this country already on underground
227
electrical transmission cables, superconducting cables,
228
energy storage systems, ship propulsion systems, and
229
magnetically levitated transport. To take just one of those
230
examples, the magnetically levitated transport as I think
231
all of you gentlemen know what is involved here, is using
232
magnetic fields in the guideway and in the vehicle train
233
essentially so there is no material contact between the
234
train and the KBL - c
J
C
- $ B DK
c
236
Now, we at the moment, internationally, focus on the use
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 12
237
of low temperature superconductors or conventional
238
conductors in the designs that are most highly developed.
239
These permit clearances between the vehicle and the roadway
240
of about three- eighths of an inch. Were we to change to
241
superconductors, that clearance would change to something
242
like six inches and would make for substantial savings in
243
the requirements on the roadbed. It could be much rougher.
244
It could be much less carefully and expensively designed and
245
constructed.
246
Now, in this area in the fiscal 1991 budget, the President
247
has requested a 400 percent increase in funding. It comes
248
through the Corps of Engineers, through the Department of
249
Energy, through the Department of Transportation and we are
250
still however well behind our foreign competitors. Those
251
foreign competitors are both Japan and Germany.
252
The exciting development, Mr. Chairman, perhaps one of the
253
most exciting developments in modern physics, took place in
254
December, 1986 when it was first announced that a group
255
working at IBM's laboratory in Zurich had found a ceramic
256
material that became superconducting at a temperature about
257
30 degrees absolute. Indeed, within the next two days, high
258
schools across the country were fabricating superconducting
259
ceramics and this became one of the largest cottage
260
industries going for a short period. It rapidly became
261
clear that to understand what was going on, one required the
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 13
262
sophistication and the instrumentation of the major national
263
laboratories. It's a good indication of the power of those
264
laboratories in conditions of this kind and in some of the
265
major industrial laboratories.
266
Within two years however, steady progress had raised the
267
temperature at which superconductivity occurred to
268
temperatures above 100 degrees. This was a remarkable
269
surprise and the importance is difficult to overestimate
270
because these materials can be cooled with liquid nitrogen
271
rather than liquid helium and in this country, liquid
272
nitrogen costs roughly 22 cents a gallon, whereas liquid
273
helium costs something on the order of $6 a gallon and it's
274
better to think of that as the difference between the cost
275
of cheap beer and premium scotch. That gives you a slightly
276
better feeling for the enthusiasm for these high temperature
277
materials.
278
Now, if we had just extrapolated where we might expect to
279
find these new materials above 100 degrees absolute from the
280
progress that had been made since 1911, we would have
281
expected to achieve them somewhere around the year 2190.
282
That's some measure of the excitement that occurred back in
283
1986.
284
We've made a lot of progress, Mr. Chairman, but there are
285
some very outstanding problems. I don't want to go into
286
detail on them. Let me simply mention two of them. One is
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE
14
287
that these materials tend not to carry the high currents
288
without destructing their superconducting characteristics at
289
a much lower critical current than does the low temperature
290
superconductivity materials with which we have become
291
familiar. The second thing is that it is much more
292
difficult to fabricate attractive and useful shapes out of a
293
brittle ceramic than it is out of a metallic compound like
294
niobium tin or niobium germanium.
295
Now, we are making progress even here, however. During
296
this past year, for example, an AT&T Bell Laboratory
297
research group reported gains 100-fold in the electrical
298
current densities that they were able to obtain by treating
299
their samples appropriately with neutrons. This is the sort
300
of breakthrough that I expect will continue and it is in
301
fact not at all unreasonable for us to visualize that the
302
limiting characteristics currently standing in the way of
303
much broader application of high temperature
304
superconductors, I believe, will be removed in the next few
305
to five years.
306
What we must do is begin focusing much more strongly than
307
we have to date on preparing to apply those techniques. In
308
my formal testimony, Mr. Chairman, I have given some
309
specific details that we have learned from recent trips to
310
Japan on the techniques that they have used and they are
311
counting on us to make many of these basic research
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE
15
312
developments although they too are working in the area.
313
Where they are really way ahead of us is in preparing to
314
apply the discoveries once they are made. They have
315
targeted this field as a technology of major importance to
316
the nation and are taking the appropriate steps which we can
317
discuss later on.
318
Turning now to the plan that we bring to you, it was
319
prepared in response to the National Superconductivity and
320
Competitiveness Act of 1988 and that legislation calls for
321
us to produce updated annual reports to you on this subject.
322
The basic strategic approach in the plan that we made
323
available to you in December is that based on the
324
understanding at the moment, the situation is not
325
sufficiently well defined for us to narrow our focus. We
326
feel that it is much wiser for us to maintain a broad based
327
interagency Federal R&D program that takes a lot of
328
approaches into consideration, that follows up on a lot of
329
alternatives.
330
As we move forward over the next few years, I believe that
331
we will be able on the basis of new knowledge, to focus our
332
attention much more narrowly and to put a much larger
333
fraction of our resources into application development
334
rather than into the fundamental research.
335
I believe that in the long term, this focus now on
336
improving our fundamental knowledge and moving
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 16
337
systematically as we improve that knowledge toward
338
application, is the appropriate one. The fact that we will
339
be providing to you, Mr. Chairman, annual reports, gives us
340
the opportunity to keep you and us up to date with the
341
development of our knowledge base and with the shift that I
342
have just mentioned in our research program from fundamental
343
toward more applied.
344
The budget cross cut that was submitted for
345
superconductivity is part of the President's fiscal year
346
1991 budget request to the Congress is the basis for the
347
table that is included in my formal testimony. We have
348
further divided that table into two categories: high
349
temperature and low temperature superconductivity. In terms
350
of high temperature superconductivity, we propose to
351
increase U.S. Federal funding for R&D by 10 percent in going
352
from 1990 to 1991.
353
In terms of low temperature superconductivity funding,
354
there is what might appear on the surface to be an anomaly
355
in the President's budget in that taking simply the numbers
356
at face value, it appears as though there is a 19 percent
357
reduction in funding for low temperature superconductivity
358
research and development. That however, Mr. Chairman, is an
359
anomaly because it reflects the fact that we have moved some
360
18 million that has been devoted to the development of the
361
superconducting magnets for the superconducting super
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 17
362
collider from the research and development category into the
363
preconstruction category at SSC. So in fact, we have held
364
the support for low temperature superconductivity research
365
constant in this new budget.
366
Now, with respect to the out year funding estimates that
367
have been discussed previously with you and with the staff
368
of this subcommittee, I have to point out that routinely,
369
out year funding estimates are not included in the
370
Administration's budget request for any of the technology
371
cross cuts including superconductivity. Our intention here
372
is to provide a stable multi-year base program that will
373
allow us to continue rapid progress in fundamental research
374
and we will I anticipate in our annual reports to you from
375
here on in, Mr Chairman, give you the out year budget tables
376
that we have discussed in the past. We do not have one for
377
you at the moment but we will have them for you in all of
378
our subsequent annual reports.
379
Now, one of the key things that I want also to mention
380
briefly to you is the importance I attach to the three-way
381
partnership that we discuss all too often and don't all too
382
frequently make function. That's the three-way partnership
383
between the private sector industries, academia, and the
384
Federal Government. The plan that we have brought to you
385
recommends the formation of industry-university-government
386
laboratory consortia focusing on superconductivity. This
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 18
387
was a recommendation also made by the Committee to Advise
388
the President on Superconductivity that was chaired by Dr.
389
Ralph Gomory and in addition, both the National Critical
390
Materials Council and the new President's Council of
391
Advisors in Science and Technology, PCAST, that I have the
392
honor of chairing, will provide vehicles in these next
393
months to provide more private sector and academic input
394
into the policy and decision making within government in
395
these and other high technology areas.
396
OSTP activities in superconductivity, I would like to
397
emphasize, Mr. Chairman, fall within and will be an integral
398
part of a broader examination than I hope to provide for the
399
whole question of material science. I have long felt that
400
material science is one of the very much neglected areas in
401
our science and technology and one that has an enormous
402
payback potential for U.S. industry and for our economic
403
competitiveness. If I can give you just a single example,
404
Mr. Chairman, on the other end of the temperature spectrum,
405
Oak Ridge recently estimated that almost all industrial
406
processes in this country are ultimately limited by the
407
behavior of material, particularly at high temperatures and
408
if we could raise the temperature of the average industrial
409
process in this country by a single degree Fahrenheit, we
410
would gain $2 billion a year and we would continue to gain
411
$2 billion for each degree Fahrenheit for quite an extended
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 19
412
range.
413
So this is a real challenge for all of us working in
414
material science. I believe we have a responsibility to
415
coordinate and integrate what is being supported by the
416
Federal Government so that we get the maximum positive
417
benefit from the funding that you are able to make available
418
to us.
Superconductivity is clearly a part of this
419
broader view of material science. There are some excellent
420
examples already of cooperation in the private sector.
421
There are the superconductivity pilot centers in Department
422
of Energy laboratories at Los Alamos and Argonne and a
423
particularly successful cooperative program involving
424
industry, academia and a National laboratory is the High
425
Temperature Materials Laboratory at the Oak Ridge National
426
Laboratory. All of these projects provide for cost sharing,
427
for collaborative R&D agreements, joint publication and
428
broad industry participation.
429
Let me then simply note that in the President's 1991
430
budget, the funding for these pilot centers has increased
431
from $6 million in 1989 and 1990 to $15 million. It's a
432
major increase recognizing the importance we attach to the
433
activities in these centers.
434
Let me then conclude that superconductivity both high and
435
low temperature, remains an area with very exciting
436
potential and an open-ended future. We have a very good
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 20
437
position at the moment in terms of our research
438
capabilities, in terms of the rate of discoveries of a
439
fundamental nature. Where we have difficulties is in
440
preparing for the utilization of these materials as they
441
become available. Let me finally say that the real
442
challenge here, Mr. Chairman, is a step beyond anything we
443
have discussed SO far.
444
There are two discoveries that could have truly dramatic
445
impact in this field. The first would be the discovery of
446
room temperature superconductors. That's the Holy Grail
447
that's on the horizon in all of this work, room temperature
448
superconductors that have the most dramatic impact in all
449
areas of industry and national security. Another area that
450
would have almost the same impact would be organic
451
superconductors, relatively cheap, easily fabricated,
452
presumably reasonably high temperature organic
453
superconductors and their applications in wide varieties of
454
fields are just limited by our imagination.
455
So let me conclude there, Mr. Chairman, and be prepared to
456
address your questions.
457
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bromley follows: ]
458
459
INSERT
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 21
460
461
Mr. VALENTINE. Thank you very much, Dr. Bromley. We have
462
just a few questions which I hope will help to emphasize
463
some things which you already said and get clarification on
464
some others.
465
With respect to the National Commission on
466
Superconductivity, what role do you see for that Commission
467
in the Plan and in the future?
468
Mr. BROMLEY. I see a major role, Mr. Chairman, for that
469
group. As we go forward and produce the annual reports to
470
you and perhaps even more importantly, as we go forward as I
471
very much hope to do in this coming year, in pulling
472
together an integrated, cross-agency research plan in
473
material science and particularly in superconductivity, we
474
will draw very heavily on the expertise represented in NCOS
475
in all that we do in this area of superconductivity. That
476
will be a major resource for all of our activities.
477
Mr. VALENTINE. The same question, Doctor, with respect to
478
NCMC, the National Critical Materials Council?
479
Mr. BROMLEY. I'm happy to be able to report to you, Mr.
480
Chairman, after a long period which predated my presence
481
here, that a few days ago, the President did indeed sign the
482
appropriate documents and that committee has been placed in
483
operation. I have the honor of chairing that committee and
484
am joined in it by Henson More, the Deputy Secretary of
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 22
485
Energy and by T.S. Aries, who is the Director of the Bureau
486
of Mines in the Department of the Interior. We look forward
487
very much to making that an active part of the overall
488
Federal program that I've mentioned that we're trying to
489
develop in materials science.
490
So I am happy to be able to tell you this morning, sir,
491
that that is now functioning.
492
Mr. VALENTINE. I know you understand and appreciate the
493
special interests of this committee. That's part of our
494
name and a major portion of the mission of this
495
subcommittee.
496
A follow up on that, do you plan to make changes such as
497
increasing staff in other areas to emphasize or make more
498
effective the contribution of the council?
499
Mr. BROMLEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I have with me here
500
this morning, Dr. Robert Post, the Executive Director of the
501
National Council of Critical Materials and I look forward to
502
expanding that staff significantly during this coming year.
503
I should also tell you, sir, that I very much look forward
504
to using not only a revitalized FCCSET, Federal Coordinating
505
Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology--that's an
506
intergovernmental body that we are in the process of
507
reinvigorating right now--and in parallel, the President's
508
Council of Advisors in Science and Technology, which was
509
established in fact while the President was visiting your
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 23
510
good State a few weeks ago.
511
We have had the first formal meeting of that group, PCAST
512
group, with the President at Camp David, in fact, on
513
Saturday, February 3rd and it is my intention, Mr. Chairman,
514
to use the PCAST structure to rectify one of the failings
515
that I have long sensed in the FCCSET mechanism, namely that
516
there was no provision in it for bringing private sector
517
input into the discussions and deliberations and our private
518
sector here has much to contribute.
519
Mr. VALENTINE. How will PCAST interact with the Commission
520
and/or NCMC?
521
Mr. BROMLEY. Well, I'm in a somewhat peculiar position,
522
Mr. Chairman, that I will chair the Federal Coordinating
523
Council which has the COMAT committee as one of its
524
committees. I also am chairman of the NCMC and I also chair
525
PCAST. So it really is my responsibility and I have no one
526
to blame if we do not actually bring all three of those
527
together in effective coordination and cooperation.
528
Mr. VALENTINE. Would it be possible, Doctor-- incidentally,
529
this subcommittee will be holding a hearing later on this
530
year on NCMC--would it be possible to identify a technology
531
driver, so to say, such as magnetic levitation, so as to
532
help focus research with clear cut, identifiable goals and
533
objectives and if you think that's a fairly accurate
534
statement, would you give us what you think to be the
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 24
535
advantages and disadvantages of such a proposition?
536
Mr. BROMLEY. Let me if I may, Mr. Chairman, back off just
537
a little bit to give you some additional information on
538
activities already underway that relate to your question.
539
At the request of the Senate Armed Services Appropriations
540
Committee, we are undertaking a major examination in my
541
office during this next year of the critical technologies
542
list prepared separately by the Department of Commerce and
543
by the Department of Defense. We have been charged with
544
pulling those together, with selecting a final list of 20
545
that drawn from the two larger lists from the civilian
546
sector and the national security sector, and we will be
547
devoting very substantial effort to that critical technology
548
activity.
549
In terms of critical materials, we again have highlighted
550
that as a major part of our overall study of materials. In
551
terms of specifically setting targets for superconductivity,
552
we have not done that yet because we have felt that unlike
553
the Japanese who have specifically targeted large-scale
554
power generation equipment and magnetic levitation as the
555
long-range goals that may be 10 and even 20 years into the
556
future, we have preferred at this point to hold off, to
557
focus on the more fundamental research and understanding,
558
feeling that it was a little premature to fix a particular
559
long-range technical application because those can change so
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 25
560
rapidly in the light of the discoveries that we confidently
561
expect in the next year or so.
562
I will say, sir, that my own feeling and that of my
563
colleagues is that the first major commercial application of
564
consequence here is going to be in the computer field and in
565
particular as we move to much more powerful computers and
566
those where the simple question of heating becomes a very
567
serious problem. We do have in mind an overall approach to
568
the whole question of materials and we treat
569
superconductivity as a part of that.
570
We are also very much taken, I may say, Mr. Chairman, by
571
the report that the National Research Council has just
572
recently issued on material science. I feel that again it
573
is an outstanding report that emphasizes the orphan nature
574
of material science in American universities and in a lot of
575
our laboratories. It doesn't fit neatly into any of the
576
standard sciences and it doesn't fit neatly into the usual
577
departmental structure. So it has tended to be neglected to
578
some degree. We would like to correct that.
579
We also note that that NRC report identifies a very major
580
gap in American research and development as compared to the
581
rest of the world. The report indicates that we do very
582
well in all areas except synthesis and fabrication and in
583
those two areas, we are simply far behind our competitors.
584
Let me give you a very specific example. We still lead the
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE
26
585
world in terms of developing new materials, new ceramics,
586
new compasses, new materials of all kinds. We also still
587
lead the world in being able to characterize any material.
588
If you give us a piece of material, we will tell you its
589
characteristics, its strength, its behavior, all of those
590
things, but unfortunately, in an increasing number of
591
examples, the sample that we characterize of a material that
592
we develop in the United States, has to be fabricated in
593
Japan because they have supertechnicians who have become
594
world experts in that field.
595
We can't afford to have ourselves so dependent in areas of
596
that kind and it emphasizes something, Mr. Chairman, that
597
the two of us have discussed, namely, the importance of
598
training very high quality technicians, supertechnicians,
599
that powerfully important intermediate group between a
600
literate public and the professional research scientists.
601
Mr. VALENTINE. Absolutely. When you got into that, you
602
kind of anticipated what is to be at least at this time my
603
maybe last question or next to last question. What you have
604
said seems, Doctor, to translate in the minds of many people
605
to something like this. Maybe it results from a lack of
606
scientific sophistication, scientific background or
607
knowledge, but it translates, I think, in the minds of
608
indeed many Members of Congress to a situation where the
609
business segment of the economy is saying to the government,
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 27
610
we need more money to develop better things and then after
611
they're developing the same business people come back in and
612
we need more money to help us sell them.
613
I know there's a problem about education and God knows I
614
know that. We need to be able to have people who are not
615
only literate in that they can read the phone book and maybe
616
have been introduced to Gulliver's Travels but can also have
617
a literate in the sense that you're talking about.
618
Isn't this a question of merchandising and the
619
aggressiveness of business? Isn't there a large job in here
620
for somebody else besides the government?
621
Mr. BROMLEY. I agree with you, sir. There are several
622
points there. I think there is a very real role for our
623
private sector to be more aggressive in many of these areas
624
but I also believe there is a role for the Federal
625
Government, for the Administration and the Congress working
626
together. There are a great many technologies and
627
superconductivity I would take to be an example of those
628
that I would call generic or enabling technologies.
629
They can affect a great many areas of our economic
630
competitiveness and our national security but for any given
631
company, for any given industry, the amount of benefit that
632
they can capture personally may not be large enough to
633
justify for them the kind of expenditure that's needed to do
634
the development we need and our foreign competitors are
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 28
635
aided and abetted by their governments in coming together
636
and in that period from the basic discovery through to the
637
development of the technology where someone can use it in an
638
actual production sense, government is involved in a
639
catalytic sort of way, bringing people together SO that the
640
individual players don't have to reinvent the wheel in each
641
case.
642
We can't remain competitive in an international
643
marketplace if our competitors are being brought together to
644
share the risk, to share the cost, to speed up the process
645
of developing these technologies that underlie the products
646
and service that they will end up selling back to us.
647
I think we have to level the playing field in that we have
648
a role in putting together the kind of consortia, the kind
649
of groups, the kind of cooperation that help us to avoid
650
having each of our companies do parallel development, taking
651
the time and the cost and the risk that's involved. We
652
can't be competitive if we do it that way.
653
We also have a major challenge, Mr. Chairman, to use the
654
unique results and resources that we have in our national
655
labs and in government facilities more effectively as
656
transferred to the private sector. That's a real challenge.
657
Mr. VALENTINE. Thank you.
658
Tom.
659
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 29
660
I'd like to pursue that with you, Dr. Bromley. In your
661
report, you point out that, for example, in using the
662
Japanese, that they have committed both resources and
663
private sector as well as government and government's very
664
much involved in it but the private sector more so,
665
particularly in superconductivity. Then apparently you go
666
on, after they-- whatever it might be that they get together
667
in, then they go out and compete against each other in the
668
market which is great and you've alluded to this in your
669
recent comment.
670
How do you foresee the United States Government becoming
671
involved in the private sector in such things as
672
superconductivity and we use that because that's the hearing
673
emphasis, when the United States Government is such a lousy
674
partner? We get the private sector to commit and I think
675
the National Aerospace Plan is such an excellent example
676
where the private sector has provided $2 for every $1 of the
677
government and then the government wants to dump the program
678
on them.
679
How can we move ahead in these areas, clear up the debris
680
that we've left behind and get into a cooperative
681
consortium?
682
Mr. BROMLEY. It's an excellent question you ask, sir. One
683
of the reasons why we have the new President's Council of
684
Science and Technology Advisors reporting directly to the
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 30
685
President- that's the first time that's happened for more
686
than 15 years--is specifically because we think it's very
687
important to have representatives, senior respected
688
representatives of the private sector speaking directly to
689
the President and he is committed that he will meet with
690
this group on a monthly basis to try to avoid the sort of
691
thing that you've alluded to.
692
We do have to form a more effective partnership than we
693
have at the moment and I think basic to that is first of
694
all, the development of better communication to the highest
695
level of the Administration and the Congress. I think also
696
we need to develop a greater level of trust than we have at
697
the moment. One of the things that stands in the way of the
698
kind of cooperation to which we have both alluded just
699
recently is not that the anti-trust regulations now on the
700
books prohibit that kind of cooperation but it is simply
701
that many companies in this country do not yet feel
702
comfortable with the kind of cooperation that only a few
703
years ago would have gotten them into substantial legal
704
difficulty.
705
So we have to develop, I think, a sense of trust among the
706
private sector and government so that we will feel
707
comfortable as partners working in this kind of
708
relationship.
709
Mr. LEWIS. Well, that's very good. I think that the
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE
31
710
commission of private sector input to the President
711
certainly would be helpful. Now, how do we get that into
712
the Congress? We get sort of parochial in the Congress and
713
we look to our own front yards rather than the vast need of
714
a particular development. Then we have the differences in
715
the political body of course, between the Administration and
716
the Congress.
717
Is there a way that you see that the Office of Science and
718
Technology Policy, other than through you, or, maybe only
719
through you, get the Congress to see the big picture and
720
just where we have to make the investments of both policy
721
and funds in order to work with the private sector in an
722
area such as this?
723
Mr. BROMLEY. Well, let me say first, sir, that I have the
724
highest regard for the Office of Technology Assessment which
725
is an organization that can through its structures provide
726
you with excellent advice--has been providing you with
727
excellent advice and reports and information over the years.
728
For my own case, I have considered it one of my highest
729
priorities since taking office to rebuild bridges between my
730
office and the Congress and to that end, I have been meeting
731
with various staff groups and I am planning in the not too
732
distant future to begin informal meetings with selected
733
groups of Members of the House and of the Senate to just
734
discuss issues of mutual interest at that given moment.
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 32
735
So I am actively working to try to rebuild these bridges
736
between OSTP and the Congress because my office is one that
737
you created back in 1976 and I wear the two hats as director
738
of that office and therefore reporting to you and as
739
assistant to the President for science and technology and
740
therefore reporting to the President.
741
So let me only volunteer that my staff and I look forward
742
to the possibility of working much more closely with you and
743
your colleagues than has been the case perhaps in recent
744
years in our office.
745
Mr. LEWIS. That certainly is refreshing. You can plan on
746
hearing calls from many of us because I think it's very
747
important that we have a cohesiveness and an understanding.
748
A lot of times, most of our problems occur because of a
749
misunderstanding or a personal interpretation of what the
750
issue is rather than what it actually is.
751
I would like to--in your National Action Plan, you
752
recommended that superconductivity R&D serve in the United
753
States competitive efforts. Can you broaden that just a
754
little bit?
755
Mr. BROMLEY. To be very specific there, I was treating
756
superconductivity in that context as one of the critical or
757
enabling technologies and it's a little early for me to
758
specify precisely where the applications will occur. I'm
759
just completely confident that they're going to be there and
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 33
760
if we're there first, they're going to be of enormous help
761
to us in terms of competitiveness. I can't specify, sir, in
762
detail right now. I don't think anyone can with any degree
763
of detailed knowledge.
764
Mr. LEWIS. Well, as we move back to where we started in
765
our conversation about the government and private sector and
766
we talk about technology transfer, do you think it's
767
possible that we could form consortia with other countries
768
in some of these vast efforts and still not have the body
769
contact problem that we have with technology transfer?
770
Mr. BROMLEY. First of all, let me say that within moments,
771
I know that there are a great many countries that would love
772
to form joint programs with us because they are quite
773
prepared to recognize that across the board, we still have
774
the strongest science and technology enterprise anywhere in
775
the world.
776
So a lot of people would like to cooperate with us. The
777
problem that I think we have to address is the question of
778
where we draw the line. In terms of pure, basic research, I
779
have always been committed to the principle that that's
780
open, freely available to everyone. We benefit from work
781
done abroad. They benefit from work done here.
782
As we move through the development of technology to the
783
point where we are getting close to a competitive stage,
784
then it seems to me that we have to think very carefully
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 34
785
about the extent to which we are prepared to make available
786
the technologies, the know-how in particular, the systems
787
integration know-how that's all important in many of these
788
areas that has been paid for by the American taxpayer.
789
We have to be careful about how freely we're going to make
790
that available because that, after all, in this economic
791
competitiveness arena, is our edge--know-how. It's high
792
technology. We have to be sensitive to the fact that we
793
can't simply just make it widely available. Basic research,
794
absolutely. Technologies and highly-applied research, I
795
would have to consider each case on its own merits but I
796
have real concern about passing on information of this kind
797
to competitors who for whatever reason can use it against us
798
very effectively.
799
Mr. LEWIS. Let me ask you a question you may not want to
800
answer in total. With the Department of Defense in certain
801
areas making agreements with foreign countries on any co-
802
development, is the Office of Science Technology Policy
803
involved in that decision and are the pluses or minuses
804
established in your office to give it back to them?
805
Mr. BROMLEY. These, sir, are typical of the kinds of
806
questions that come up where science and technology are
807
important components of the input to a decision but not
808
necessarily the dominant ones. So very definitely, we have
809
had our input in these discussions and again it's I think a
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 35
810
case by case question but I must say quite frankly, sir,
811
that I have concerns. I think those concerns are shared by
812
many of my colleagues in the Defense Department about our
813
becoming dependent in critical ways on suppliers beyond our
814
immediate control.
815
Mr. LEWIS. So in the National Action Plan on
816
Superconductivity RED, how does that plan address military
817
and national security issues?
818
Mr. BROMLEY. There is no specific addressing of those
819
issues in the plan. What we are doing is working closely
820
with Defense Department representatives, with Department of
821
Commerce representatives. As we move forward, they will
822
play a significant role as we develop our plans and as we
823
produce these annual reports that we are going to bring
824
forward to you and when we can discuss applications openly,
825
we certainly will. When for various reasons it is not
826
appropriate to discuss them openly, we can on an appropriate
827
restricted basis, be more than happy to tell you what's
828
going on.
829
Mr. LEWIS. Final question, Mr. Chairman, for Dr. Bromley,
830
regarding the Plan's policy on the environment, health,
831
safety, mining, handling and disposal of toxic elements
832
required for many present HTSs, they are certain to cause
833
environmental problems to some degree. What standards exist
834
or are being developed to handle these concerns?
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 36
835
Mr. BROMLEY. I'm afraid, sir, there I am not in a position
836
to answer you in any detail. That is not an area in which I
837
am really up to date. Some of my staff, I'm sure, are. I
838
will be happy to get that information for you and provide it
839
for the record.
840
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. I appreciate that.
841
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
842
Thank you, Dr. Bromley.
843
Mr. VALENTINE. Thank you, sir.
844
Thank you, Doctor. We appreciate very much your spending
845
this time with us and there might be some other questions
846
which we would like to submit in writing and have you answer
847
if you would.
848
Mr. BROMLEY. I would be most happy to respond, Mr.
849
Chairman.
850
Mr. VALENTINE. Thank you, sir.
851
The other witness, Dr. David McCall, as I've stated is
852
chairman of the National Commission on Superconductivity.
853
Dr. McCall, we are happy to have you with us here today
854
also. Your prepared statement will appear in the record as
855
presented to the subcommittee and you may summarize or
856
otherwise proceed as you deem appropriate. Welcome, sir.
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE
37
857
STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID MC CALL, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL
858
COMMISSION ON SUPERCONDUCTIVITY
859
Mr. MCCALL. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lewis, I want to thank you
860
for this opportunity to offer some thoughts on the National
861
Action Plan on Superconductivity Research and Development
862
and to give an interim report on the role of the National
863
Commission on Superconductivity.
864
I feel that the Action Plan has the appropriate level of
865
detail at the present early stage of this technology. The
866
Plan delineates coordination among the policy organizations.
867
It covers the essential ground in the technical areas and
868
the policy areas emphasize actions that will enhance pursuit
869
of long-range investment strategies that are necessary to
870
develop this field.
871
The annual reports will include analyses of funding which
872
will give policy makers a chance to assess where the funds
873
are going and what results are coming in from that. In the
874
research phase which is where we are very largely here, it
875
is unwise to set too specific goals with insufficient
876
understanding and I believe the Plan has avoided this
877
pitfall very well and that's an important one.
878
The background supporting documents for the Plan give
879
valuable summaries of earlier recommendations, the present
880
technical status and other issues that bear on
881
superconductivity. A guide to applications is included
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 38
882
there. I think the Plan lays the groundwork very well. It's
883
a good baseline from which to begin and I believe as the
884
time goes on and the annual reports come out that it will be
885
a good document from which to grow.
886
That's all I plan to say about the Action Plan this
887
morning. I would like to turn to the National Commission on
888
Superconductivity, if I may.
889
The Commission was created by the Omnibus Trade and
890
Competitiveness Act of 1988 and it was assigned the task to
891
review all major policy issues regarding United States'
892
applications of recent research advances in superconductors
893
in order to assist the Congress in devising a national
894
strategy including R&D priorities, the development of which
895
will assure United States leadership in the development and
896
application of superconducting technologies.
897
The Commission membership has representation from all the
898
organizations and disciplines specified in the legislation
899
and I believe it is well positioned to carry through the
900
assignments. Four working groups have been established.
901
Technical and competitive issues is chaired by Dr. Praveen
902
Chaudhari of IBM, research coordination and enhancement is
903
chaired by Professor Theodore Geballe of Stanford,
904
government policy issues is chaired by Dr. Irvine Shain of
905
Olin Corporation and national security issues is chaired by
906
Dr. Craig Fields of DARPA.
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 39
907
All of these people are well known in the field. They
908
understand the issues deeply. They've been involved in
909
previous studies and I feel that they are in an ideal
910
position to do a good job with this. The Commission has
911
held meetings. So far we've had three meetings and we've
912
been briefed on the issues that are important including
913
previous reports that have been submitted, government policy
914
issues such as taxes, anti- trust and patent policy matters.
915
The OST Action Plan has been reported to us, national
916
laboratory, university and funding agency perspectives,
917
business perspectives, and the state of activity in Europe
918
and in Japan.
919
Today I can offer my personal thoughts based on meetings
920
of the Commission but there is no documented consensus at
921
this point so you'll have to take these as my views. They
922
are based however on discussions that I have had with the
923
Commission. The Commission members are specifically
924
concerned that the support of individual research scientists
925
will be neglected as large-scale funding is advanced and
926
accelerates. This has been mentioned in a number of previous
927
reports but it tends to be forgotten even if it's mentioned
928
right up front. I think this is an essential matter that
929
we've got to pay attention to continuously.
930
It's particularly important where we have young scientists
931
just starting in. This route to beginning research in our
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 40
932
universities and in our other laboratories, it's very
933
important that they get the support early on without
934
crippling their careers in terms of the work that they can
935
get done.
936
I might say that this is consistent with the plans to
937
increase funding through the National Science Foundation
938
which is a critical funding agency. The Commission has
939
heard a good deal of very favorable testimony in connection
940
with vigorous Federal support of superconductivity RED. I
941
mention these only in passing. Specifically, the NSF
942
deserves high marks for the flexibility that it exhibited in
943
reprogramming funds in response to the breakthroughs that
944
occurred three years ago -- that became known three years
945
ago.
946
DARPA has also moved quite quickly and effectively in
947
support of this emerging science and the Department of
948
Energy is a key supporter of basic and applied research and
949
maintains an essential reservoir of talent and we mustn't
950
underestimate the need for that.
951
The national laboratory pilot centers that Dr. Bromley
952
referred to for superconductivity commercialization were
953
strongly supported by business people and government people.
954
I think they found a very good formula there and we think
955
that the advancing support of that is very justified.
956
Finally, the database and standards activities of the
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 41
957
National Institute of Standards and Technology were also
958
favorably reported.
959
In regard to the level of funding, the Commission's
960
preliminary assessment indicates that government funding in
961
the United States and Japan are roughly equal at this time.
962
Europe is slightly behind. The Soviet Bloc does not appear
963
to be a major player but they have a great deal of
964
underlying strength in the science and they mustn't be
965
overlooked. In the area of industrial funding however, it
966
appears that the U.S. is substantially weaker in
967
superconductivity support than in comparison with Japan.
968
Furthermore, the underlying causes of this lack of
969
aggressiveness on the part of our industries--these causes
970
are complex, they are pervasive, and we do not think that
971
they're subject to easy solutions. In other words, we're in
972
for the long haul here and it's going to take a long time to
973
work our way out of this. To give you an example, interest
974
rates--our interest rates are high compared to Japan's and it
975
has an enormous impact on investment for something that
976
takes a long time to develop.
977
We say the national commitment is necessary. A long term
978
commitment is necessary if we are to be competitive in this
979
business. The field of superconductivity offers society a
980
diverse and important collection of benefits, as you noted
981
in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman. The impact is seen
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE
42
982
in medicine, power and energy, transportation, electronics
983
and computers, military sensors, launchers and ship
984
propulsion and scientific research.
985
The Commission is considering the wisdom of near-term,
986
large-scale commercialization in these sectors but no clear
987
consensus has emerged in this area. In decisions of this
988
kind, the technical position is a necessary but not
989
necessarily dominant factor and projects must be considered
990
in the context of relevant non-technical issues. I believe
991
in many cases--MAGLEV may be a good example--there will be
992
other political factors and many other features that will be
993
dominant.
994
U.S. industries must however be technologically prepared
995
to manufacture as the opportunities arise and that's a great
996
worry. If we don't involve ourselves in the research and
997
development at an early stage, we won't be ready when the
998
opportunities come to get in there and manufacture.
999
Now, in closing, I want to make a personal comment about
1000
the field of superconductivity. In the U.S. today, there is
1001
an alarming lack of enthusiasm for science and technology on
1002
the part of our young people. Superconductivity has proven
1003
to be a uniquely exciting field and the attractions must not
1004
be lost by inaction. It's a charismatic science. Physics,
1005
chemistry, material science, and engineering, all are
1006
affected and the future need for an educated work force must
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 43
1007
receive continued attention.
1008
The U.S. is in the race and we're running well in
1009
superconductivity but our position could be easily lost.
1010
Superconductivity is a national initiative of great moment
1011
and it must be vigorously pursued on a long-term basis.
1012
Thank you very much.
1013
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCall follows:]
1014
1015
INSERT
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 44
1016
1017
Mr. VALENTINE. Thank you very much, Dr. McCall.
1018
You mentioned in your statement that the Commission is
1019
considering the wisdom of near-term implementation in
1020
sectors having to do with magnetic levitation and SO on.
1021
The quote is as follows and I want to ask you if you would
1022
expand on this quote. ''The Commission is considering the
1023
wisdom of near-term implementation in these sectors but as
1024
yet, no clear consensus has emerged. "
1025
Could you expand on that and are you referring to a
1026
national initiative such as MAGLEV?
1027
Mr. MCCALL. We've considered it in various contexts. The
1028
notion is, should we recommend and seek support for a
1029
large-scale project which would have national visibility,
1030
which would give rise to a lot of cash flow coming back to
1031
research in the area, would generate the subindustries that
1032
go with whatever the large-scale application is? The reason
1033
that the wording is not very crisp there is that the
1034
Commission is not on agreement on this. There are many
1035
different opinions.
1036
I do think that the Commission is in agreement that we are
1037
in an early stage and there is no one that I'm aware of on
1038
the Commission and it's about two dozen people, that is
1039
willing to say let's go for it. This is a good application.
1040
We should really go for it. I don't see that commitment on
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 45
1041
the part of any one member.
1042
Does that respond to your question?
1043
Mr. VALENTINE. Yes, sir. I think it does. Could you go
1044
any further with respect to your personal views as to the
1045
advantages and disadvantages of that type of proposal?
1046
Mr. MCCALL. I feel it's a little bit like research and
1047
development. Research in superconductivity is clearly
1048
warranted. It's one of the really terrific fields. Before
1049
committing to go to development, however, we have to be very
1050
sure that the timing is right and that the field is right.
1051
Development is very expensive as compared with research.
1052
So I think it's a deep and difficult decision and I feel
1053
that too early commitment to a development project when we
1054
don't understand enough and that is the situation today is a
1055
big mistake and I believe it can give the field a black eye
1056
and can hurt us in the future. So I think the timing is
1057
very important and the choice of the subject matter. I
1058
don't mean to be evasive here.
1059
Mr. VALENTINE. I understand. I don't think it's evasive
1060
and we understand the problem, I think.
1061
On the whole question of research and development and it's
1062
the part of the corporations in this country and overseas
1063
does present quite a problem. One can understand why
1064
management who have to go to a stockholders meeting once a
1065
year would want to tuck away money on the hope, expectation,
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 46
1066
in many cases a sheer gamble as to whether or not something
1067
will develop SO they' 11 have merchandise they can market in
1068
ten years.
1069
Are Japanese corporations different from American
1070
corporations in that respect or is it purely and simply
1071
Japan Incorporated and the participation of the Japanese
1072
government?
1073
Mr. MCCALL. Well, it's very different. There's no
1074
question about that. I'm not an expert on this and I would
1075
be going beyond my expertise to try to tell you about it but
1076
the Japanese industries have tremendous advantages. We've
1077
mentioned interest rates as one clear cut advantage which is
1078
particularly important on long-term developments but anyone
1079
who's walked through the electronics markets in Tokyo knows
1080
that the Japanese pay three times for TV sets--the same TV
1081
set that we can buy in this country. In other words, they
1082
tax their people to support those industries. There are
1083
many other factors involved as well. As I said, I don't
1084
believe this is an easy problem.
1085
Mr. VALENTINE. But you don't think it's an impossible
1086
problem either.
1087
Mr. MCCALL. Well, I think we have certain advantages. The
1088
United States is still running very strongly in research. I
1089
think we have the strongest university system in the world
1090
and I think also the strongest industrial research system in
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 47
1091
the world.
1092
Mr. VALENTINE. How do you envision the role of the
1093
Commission in working with the science advisor in revising
1094
the National Action Plan?
1095
Mr. MCCALL. I think that the Commission has a number of
1096
important strengths. One of the important strengths of the
1097
Commission from my point of view is the diversity of the
1098
membership. The Commission has members that are not
1099
superconductivity experts but they are people who work in
1100
government day by day and they are able to give their input
1101
directly in all of our deliberations on what is going to be
1102
valuable on the part of the Congress and on the part of the
1103
Executive Branch. So I think that will be an invaluable aid
1104
as we prepared recommendations.
1105
Mr. VALENTINE. Do you see additional roles for the
1106
Commission?
1107
Mr. MCCALL. Well, the Commission will have some roles
1108
that--some of the assignments are the same as other groups
1109
have performed before. Other reports exist on this subject.
1110
I believe the Commission report is more general than the
1111
other reports. Most of those were specific to one field or
1112
another and I think that the time is ripe for that kind of
1113
general assessment. I think it will be useful.
1114
Mr. VALENTINE. When do you expect to complete the report
1115
for the President and the Congress?
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 48
1116
Mr. MCCALL. We expect to complete the report soon. I
1117
guess I will be deliberately evasive this time. We'd like
1118
to measure it in weeks.
1119
Mr. VALENTINE. You mentioned concern for individual versus
1120
large unit funding in conducting research. In your view,
1121
are individual researcher programs as currently funded
1122
adequate?
1123
Mr. MCCALL. We're still discussing that in the Commission
1124
meetings. There seems to be no question that many worthy
1125
university scientists are not getting all the funding that
1126
they need. I haven't gotten to the bottom of this. I'm not
1127
a university scientist. I'm trying to probe that to be sure
1128
it's really the case but there is a strong representation by
1129
Commission members that there is a need for more funding of
1130
the type that comes from the National Science Foundation for
1131
specific research projects for individuals.
1132
Mr. VALENTINE. You noted, Doctor, that in the area of
1133
industrial funding, it appears that the United States is
1134
substantially weaker in support of superconductivity
1135
research and development than Japan. Could you expand on
1136
that statement?
1137
Mr. MCCALL. Well, in terms of the dollar values, we have
1138
estimates of that. As I said, the Federal funding in the
1139
United States and Japan is about equal. I wouldn't argue
1140
about the differences. The numbers are a little hard to get
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 49
1141
because they leave salaries out of some of their numbers and
1142
we put those in ours.
1143
In terms of the industrial funding, our industrial funding
1144
is about a third of the total effort and the Japanese
1145
industrial funding is about two thirds of the total effort.
1146
So there's a huge difference there. If one looks at the mix
1147
of companies that are engaged in superconductivity research,
1148
in the United States we have the very largest companies,
1149
perhaps the top ten, and a group of startups--very, very
1150
small companies.
1151
In Japan, they have all of the largest companies but they
1152
go much further down the list of the biggest ones and they
1153
have lots of middle-sized companies as well. So I think
1154
there's this missing middle in terms of our industrial
1155
investment in superconductivity.
1156
Mr. VALENTINE. Thank you.
1157
Mr. Lewis.
1158
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1159
Dr. McCall, I'm really enthralled with your statement
1160
about the lack of enthusiasm for science and technology on
1161
the part of our young people and I think this is a real
1162
serious situation we have whether it's with
1163
superconductivity or any of the other sciences.
1164
A few years ago, I amended our NASA bill to allow several
1165
hundred million dollars for science and math, for teachers
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 50
1166
to go back to school and depending on the amount of time
1167
that these teachers went back, to change their curriculum
1168
and go back and depending on the amount of time that they
1169
taught, their loans could be forgiven.
1170
This had an initial impact but nothing happened
1171
thereafter. We still don't see any great droves where we
1172
see people now running to the fields of law and political
1173
science and communication and wanting to be in medicine and
1174
there's certainly nothing wrong with that but in other
1175
countries, it's just the opposite. The curve goes the other
1176
way.
1177
I'm just wondering what you or members of your Commission
1178
feel can be done in order to accelerate younger people into
1179
math and science in this country and what it will take at
1180
all levels in order to do that. Have you looked at this at
1181
all?
1182
Mr. MCCALL. I wish I could give you a good answer for
1183
that. I really don't have a good answer for that question.
1184
It has been discussed but I haven't heard anything that's
1185
persuasive along those lines. I feel that for the future of
1186
the country that this is an absolutely essential issue that
1187
we've got to get at one way or another. It's been studied
1188
before.
1189
As you are quite aware, the report called, "A Nation At
1190
Risk'' that came out several years ago was concerned very
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 51
1191
much with this. The situation is still moving in the wrong
1192
direction. In many of the engineering and science fields
1193
that we deal with, over half of the graduate students in
1194
United States universities--American universities--are
1195
foreign.
1196
Mr. LEWIS. This is true.
1197
Mr. MCCALL. Furthermore, if you follow what happens to
1198
those people, many of them stay in the United States which
1199
is good, we've always done that, but they're moving
1200
disproportionately into the faculties of leading
1201
universities and I believe that it's at least going to
1202
change things and I think it's an important matter to look
1203
into.
1204
Mr. LEWIS. I know the hearing is not for this purpose and
1205
I don't want to dwell on it too long, do you think that we
1206
have de-glamorized science compared to other countries,
1207
compared to say Japan or to Germany or even to England and
1208
we're there now and we're resting on the top rung of the
1209
ladder but we're about to fall?
1210
Mr. MCCALL. I think we have de-glamorized it, I think, the
1211
relative position of science to other things that young
1212
people are drawn to. I think it's possible that we've put
1213
too much emphasis on measuring success by making money and
1214
making money doesn't mean creating--
1215
Mr. LEWIS. So they're not going to do it as an engineer.
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE
52
1216
Have to get into politics to do that.
1217
Mr. MCCALL. Right.
1218
Mr. LEWIS. Well, that's a good point. I know engineers
1219
who leave the engineering field and study law in order to
1220
make money because they can't make it, not that they're not
1221
good engineers. Don't misunderstand me. They just can't
1222
meet their obligations in that discipline so they move on to
1223
another one.
1224
Well, you don't have the magic bullet for that. So,
1225
looking at something else, Carl Rosener spoke in the October
1226
hearing of the difference between our government's role in
1227
superconductivity and RED versus that of our competitors and
1228
our competitors tend to pick a target and move forward while
1229
we fall into our endless policy of industrial debate and
1230
policy debate and what do you think is an appropriate goal
1231
for the current stage of superconductivity R&D that we are
1232
engaged in and what would be our next stage?
1233
Mr. MCCALL. Well, I believe that I agree with what Dr.
1234
Bromley said earlier, that we are in the research stage
1235
where there is an awful lot that we do not understand,
1236
particularly about high temperature superconductivity. It's
1237
a different ball game than the low temperature
1238
superconductivity that we probably know a lot about. I
1239
think that when we are in a situation where we are actually
1240
lacking in understanding, it's a mistake to specify specific
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 53
1241
goals to go after with time tables and development kinds of
1242
teams.
1243
I believe that the emphasis on the research side is
1244
appropriate at this time. I believe it has to be studied
1245
continuously. We have to follow what other people are
1246
doing. We have to keep abreast of what's going on. We have
1247
to keep a reasonable reservoir of talent trained and ready
1248
to go. We have to have all of the know-how in development,
1249
but I think it would be a mistake to go after big time and
1250
very expensive projects at this stage of the game. At least
1251
I haven't been persuaded of that yet.
1252
Mr. LEWIS. I see.
1253
Has the Commission looked at or will be looking at any
1254
general goals that we can try to shoot for rather than use
1255
the shot gun approach?
1256
Mr. MCCALL. It's part of that discussion and at this
1257
point, there is just no agreement on it. We have 24
1258
opinions.
1259
Mr. LEWIS. That's understandable A couple of technical
1260
questions. What is the current maximum critical transition
1261
temperature that we've achieved?
1262
Mr. MCCALL. It's 125 degrees Kelvin, I believe is the
1263
highest one. As Dr. Bromley pointed out, in almost all
1264
materials, you will only operate at about three quarters of
1265
that or some reduced temperature below that. Another very
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 54
1266
important factor, of course, is the critical magnetic field
1267
that will kill the superconductivity of the material and
1268
also the critical current. So the most useful high
1269
temperature superconducting material probably only has a
1270
critical temperature of 90 some degrees Kelvin.
1271
Mr. LEWIS. What's the current density that has been
1272
achieved and what do you think is needed for practical
1273
applications. What do you think would be practical?
1274
Mr. MCCALL. I think many applications can be worked
1275
through at liquid nitrogen temperature which is about 77
1276
degrees Kelvin. If you ask me where will we see it come in
1277
first, I can give you one person's opinion.
1278
Mr. LEWIS. That's fine.
1279
Mr. MCCALL. That's all it would be.
1280
Mr. LEWIS. Your opinions are something.
1281
Mr. MCCALL. I think the first applications you'll see of
1282
the high temperature superconducting materials, the
1283
important applications, will be in passive microwave
1284
devices. These are cavities which can be made smaller and
1285
they're useful in things like cellular telephony and
1286
satellite communications and the like. You can make smaller
1287
antennas using these materials and the fact that they work
1288
at 77 degrees is quite valuable because it's easier to deal
1289
with.
1290
You can do that by refrigeration, for example, instead of
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 55
1291
coolant. I think that there are other electronics
1292
applications that will appear in time as well. The Japanese
1293
are working very hard on interconnection between solid state
1294
devices and I think there's a reasonable chance that that
1295
kind of circuitry will show up.
1296
Mr. LEWIS. When we're talking about magnetic levitation
1297
earlier and you look at the physical size of what you have
1298
to use to move a train, for example, back and forth, how
1299
many years away are we from a practical temperature in order
1300
to meet the cost obligations of having a train that could be
1301
used with ML, using superconductivity?
1302
Mr. MCCALL. I'm not competent to answer that. MAGLEV
1303
lives. There are working examples, both non-
1304
superconducting and superconducting magnetic levitation. So
1305
we know it can be done and it's really just engineering to
1306
take it from here to there and it's a matter of financing
1307
and I really can't tell you what it will pay.
1308
Mr. LEWIS. I see. How about the issue and what kind of
1309
progress are we making in practical devices despite the
1310
brittleness factors? Despite the brittleness factor of the
1311
temperatures, are we having any achievements in those areas?
1312
Mr. MCCALL. I think brittleness is a very important matter
1313
in trying to make wire. If somebody asked me could you make
1314
wire out of these materials, I would have said no, but
1315
they're doing it, so it must be possible. It's very
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 56
1316
difficult. In the electronics applications, they're put
1317
down as thin films on other substrates and brittleness is
1318
not nearly the problem there. So I think that's a minor
1319
issue for the electronics application.
1320
Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Doctor McCall. I don't have any
1321
other questions at this time.
1322
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1323
Mr. VALENTINE. Mr. McMillen.
1324
Mr. MCMILLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1325
Dr. McCall, I was reading your testimony and I was curious
1326
if there might be some counter currents in it that I wanted
1327
to question you about. One is that you made a statement
1328
that a long-term national commitment is essential to a
1329
competitive future. On the other hand, you said the
1330
National Action Plan has appropriate level of detail in the
1331
early stages of technology. My concern is that really in
1332
the National Plan, there is really--as it has been
1333
criticized, it's another piece of paper in regards to any
1334
real funding commitment or long-term funding plan.
1335
Both Dr. Bromley and yourself both indicate that that is
1336
one of the great advantages that the Japanese have, is that
1337
they are able to make those long-term commitments. My
1338
question is, in your testimony, on the one hand you say the
1339
Plan has sufficient detail. On the other hand, you say
1340
long- term commitments are essential and there are no
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 57
1341
long-term commitments in the Plan. How does all that jive?
1342
How does that work out?
1343
Mr. MCCALL. I wasn't setting out to confuse you when I
1344
wrote that. I think that Dr. Bromley and I probably see eye
1345
to eye on the position. I believe the Plan itself is a
1346
baseline. It's to lay out the facts and to get the
1347
situation in focus. It's something to build upon. I
1348
believe that those expenditures or recommendations for
1349
expenditures will develop.
1350
Now, he does have--in the supporting documents on the Plan,
1351
there is considerable amount of detail on what is going on
1352
and that's the nature of the Plan as it exists now. I think
1353
where we will go, where we should be going, those kinds of
1354
decisions, will develop in the annual reports to come.
1355
Mr. MCMILLEN. But you would concur at this--in saying that
1356
the Plan really doesn't have any long-term commitment of
1357
funding. It has a baseline funding.
1358
Mr. MCCALL. Yes, I think it tells us where we are.
1359
Mr. MCMILLEN. All right. So it's more descriptive than
1360
prescriptive; is that correct?
1361
Mr. MCCALL. I think at this time, yes. Dr. Bromley may
1362
not agree with me.
1363
Mr. MCMILLEN. Do you think that descriptive kind of
1364
analyses are what we need?
1365
Mr. MCCALL. I think that we need to put forward programs
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE
58
1366
that will drive the technology and develop important
1367
applications at the proper time. At this moment, the
1368
Commission has not settled on any application that we would
1369
drive heavily at that point. It may come out in the final
1370
report but we haven't gotten there yet.
1371
Mr. MCMILLEN. We could look forward to some more
1372
prescriptive analysis from the Commission, hopefully.
1373
Mr. MCCALL. I hope so.
1374
Mr. MCMILLEN. Okay. Let me ask you something about the
1375
Freedom of Information Act and the trade secret status of
1376
research and that was in something from Superconductor Week,
1377
a comment that we should limit--the United States should
1378
limit the amount of information available under the Freedom
1379
of Information Act.
1380
Is your Commission looking at that at all?
1381
Mr. MCCALL. We have not discussed that and I'm not certain
1382
we will. That is I sometimes feel very conservative and
1383
when I'm railing against the Japanese automobiles or other
1384
things of the sort but I think it's almost a non-problem
1385
because so many corporations are multi-national now and it's
1386
almost impossible to get something that's purely American.
1387
Mr. MCMILLEN. The last question I'd like to ask has to do
1388
with--part of this whole process is to get a programmatic and
1389
budget cross cut so we can see where we're spending and what
1390
we're spending. One of the interesting things that I find
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 59
1391
quite fascinating is looking at the Japanese, the Taiwanese,
1392
the Korean approaches. Obviously they have centralization
1393
advantages that we don't but obviously, having that kind of
1394
format gives them ability to coordinate a lot more than our
1395
system where we are much more dispersed, the system of
1396
Federalism itself, that we have the States doing many
1397
similar things across this country.
1398
Is there any attempt to try and coordinate all the
1399
research, not only nationally but more on a State level as
1400
well SO we avoid the redundancies and the inefficiencies
1401
that may be part of our Federal system?
1402
Mr. MCCALL. Well, I think there is an attempt and there's
1403
a beginning at that although it's not complete yet. One of
1404
the things that we've called for in our Commission hearings
1405
is that we want a compilation of the State activity and the
1406
National Science Foundation is making an attempt to keep
1407
track of that. So I think that there is a beginning to
1408
coordinate that.
1409
Mr. MCMILLEN. You think that should go under the National
1410
Science Foundation's aegis?
1411
Mr. MCCALL. They're keeping the data. They're not running
1412
the programs. They're collecting the data for us and for
1413
their other purposes and I think that's an appropriate way
1414
to do it. I would say that it seems to me as though there's
1415
a strength in having the States developing programs on their
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 60
1416
own at a reasonable level. I think that they are uniquely
1417
able to see the local values that can come out of this. From
1418
my point of view, I think that's a strength rather than a
1419
weakness.
1420
I'm opposed to redundancy and the loss of funds by
1421
duplicative efforts and the like but as I've looked through
1422
the Federal funding and other funding, I don't see very much
1423
of that. It seems to me as though it may be a miracle but
1424
the Nation is in pretty good shape in that regard.
1425
Mr. MCMILLEN. I appreciate that comment, that perspective.
1426
Thank you.
1427
Mr. VALENTINE. Mr. McCurdy.
1428
Mr. MCCURDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1429
Dr. McCall, good to see you. I apologize for not being
1430
able to hear Dr. Bromley and the first part of your
1431
testimony. However, I'm familiar with the work that both of
1432
you are attempting to do. I applaud your commitment and
1433
your interest in the program. I certainly agree with the
1434
rhetoric and the statements of support. I'm a little--not a
1435
little --I'm sorely disappointed in the budget though and the
1436
follow through that we in the Federal Government have been
1437
unable to really come up with.
1438
The idea behind the legislation which I authored and with
1439
the bipartisan support of this subcommittee was to seize
1440
upon the opportunity that the recent discoveries vis a vis
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 61
1441
high temperature superconductors offered and I would agree
1442
with the statements of the former chairman of the--not
1443
National Science Foundation but the Academy of Sciences who
1444
said this is probably the critical test of whether or not
1445
the United States will be competitive in the future in
1446
technology.
1447
I have to take a little exception with Dr. Bromley's
1448
statements. You know, when Dr. Bromley testified before the
1449
full committee laying out the Administration's science plan,
1450
there was one sentence about superconductivity in that
1451
testimony. In this--and now he comes forward with a major
1452
statement but the first section of it deals with old
1453
technology, low temperature superconducters, and continues
1454
to go back to the super colliders saying that we're going to
1455
use the magnets. That's low temperature. That's not high
1456
temperature. That's not taking the technology in the future
1457
and for some reason to argue that there's a commitment from
1458
a budgetary standpoint for superconductivity by including
1459
money for an old technology when in fact what we're trying
1460
to do is stretch the future doesn't really match.
1461
So we're disappointed with that. I'm not sure I can blame
1462
you. Personally, I don't know whether--to the degree that
1463
you're successful within the Administration internal
1464
battles, I understand those internal battles in committees
1465
versus committees in the Congress and having to deal with
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 62
1466
the Administration and I know there's been statements that
1467
Mr. Sununu has some strong views of his own in this area and
1468
they may not share or coincide with our views of the
1469
importance of this technology in that the government does
1470
have a major role to play and that we're going to miss it if
1471
we don't pursue it.
1472
I can't take exception with your statement. I love your
1473
last line, ''A long term national commitment on many levels
1474
is essential to a competitive future, " but you know, we
1475
haven't picked any major levels. We continue to--the
1476
President talks about his thousand points of light. Well,
1477
it seems like we have a thousand points of policy, a
1478
thousand points of commitment, a thousand points of areas
1479
we'd like to support but we're going to lose if we continue
1480
to spread SO thinly and not bridge that gap between the
1481
laboratory and the shop bench and the manufacturing floor.
1482
At some point, the government is going to have to play a
1483
role in helping bridge that gap. This effort I find, is a
1484
little deficient. I sit on the Armed Services Committee,
1485
Research and Development Subcommittee. We have the DARPA
1486
budget. Each year--I thought it was interesting. Dr.
1487
Bromley commends DARPA for increasing the funding. Yes. We
1488
increased the funding for them and encouraged them to get in
1489
that direction, which they did but in the Department of
1490
Defense, we had that flexibility. We could. We had the
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 63
1491
funds to shift it but when we try to put that as a priority
1492
within DOD or DOE and NSF or NASA, then we hit the
1493
traditional argument. Well, it has to compete with all
1494
these other things.
1495
So in effect, we shortchange it. We will--I'm not sure
1496
what we're going to do with this budget. I'm not sure how
1497
much flexibility we have but I can assure you that I am
1498
going to do everything I can to get greater emphasis on
1499
there. We're going to continue to keep the spotlight on this
1500
issue. I would urge you to go back to your shop and perhaps
1501
blame us for the heat that you're getting and that Congress
1502
is not satisfied with the work and you have to go back and
1503
argue for some more. Maybe we can--and if I have to yell at
1504
you to do that, then use that as an excuse but the point is
1505
and again, I'm not directing it at you. I'm just saying the
1506
Administration in my view has fallen short. We would hope
1507
that we could make much greater progress in this area.
1508
Just as a further aside, I was in California all last
1509
week. I visited at least ten electronics and aerospace
1510
firms and many that are doing work in superconductivity
1511
Many see the great potential but are somewhat frustrated
1512
that there is not more assistance from the Federal
1513
Government in going beyond just the issues of thin film. It
1514
seems like everybody is doing a little work in thin film. I
1515
mean that may be the most immediate payoff but in the other
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 64
1516
areas they say we can't afford to do that right now. We
1517
have to take this step.
1518
I think that we in the government ought to consider what
1519
that next step is and see if there's a way we can support
1520
that. If they've gotten to the point where they can walk on
1521
the thin film, maybe we ought to be at the next step. What
1522
is that next step? That's why we're asking for an action
1523
plan. We can't dictate there's going to be a 5-year funding
1524
level of a billion dollars, here it is. We barely got an
1525
action plan passed. I mean we were threatened veto's and
1526
opposition all along from the Administration to even lay out
1527
a 5-year action plan.
1528
Now that's ridiculous. This is not industrial planning.
1529
This is not industrial policy. What we're trying to do is
1530
have some common sense and try to set forth an area of
1531
agreement that you and I--to finance goals. What do we want
1532
to achieve at the end of this time.
1533
So I'm not sure I have any questions. I would be glad to
1534
actually have a dialogue with you. If you object to
1535
anything I've said, I'd like for you to state that and let's
1536
discuss this a little more.
1537
Mr. MCCALL. I think if I really wanted to get into
1538
trouble, I could begin to play the role of an apologist for
1539
Dr. Bromley's plan. I think that would be wrong. Let me
1540
make a comment however about the high temperature, low
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 65
1541
temperature superconductivity.
1542
The legislation that gave rise to the National Commission
1543
on Superconductivity, the Omnibus Trade Bill, I thought that
1544
was very well written legislation. It never mentioned high
1545
temperature superconductivity. It said ''improved
1546
superconductors."" Improved superconductors exist both in
1547
high temperature and low temperature forms and it's
1548
important to keep them under the same umbrella.
1549
I think it would be a terrible mistake to separate them
1550
out and let them compete with one another actively as
1551
opponents. I think that the science has to come together
1552
and it would be a mistake to try and treat them as separate
1553
entities. So I think it's very important to keep that unity
1554
in mind.
1555
As far as the new budget is concerned, I guess I--
1556
Mr. MCCURDY. It's a similar phenomenon. We'll grant that.
1557
Mr. MCCALL. There are differences.
1558
Mr. MCCURDY. I understand but I'm saying we are talking
1559
about '"superconductivity': but the issue is if for some
1560
reason the Administration tries to justify a super collider
1561
by saying -- and justify the funding levels by saying well,
1562
we're already doing work in there, that's being a little
1563
disingenuous when it comes to saying yes, we're responding
1564
to and giving you a constant level or an increase in funding
1565
because that in fact is not the case. That is a separate
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 66
1566
program that happens to use a technology that still may be--
1567
you know, I was at General Dynamics. They're making the
1568
magnets for the 7,000 or whatever they are, for the super
1569
collider and I was briefed on their program and I understand
1570
it but that's still not--what we're asking for is the action
1571
plan.
1572
Mr. MCCALL. Just my inexpert view of it, if I look at the
1573
1990 and 1991 budgets, the low temperature--taking the super
1574
collider out of it--the low temperature budget is level and
1575
the high temperature superconductivity budget is up by about
1576
10 percent. That strikes me as being fairly reasonable. I
1577
think there's more new work being developed in the high
1578
temperature area and I think that makes sense to see it
1579
expand but I don't think we should do it at the expense of
1580
the low temperature area because that's still very
1581
important.
1582
All of the magnetic resonance imaging machines that our
1583
hospitals are using are low temperature devices.
1584
Mr. MCCURDY. Would you run those numbers--I'm looking at
1585
Dr. Bromley's budget figures, 1990 and 1991.
1586
Mr. MCCALL. I'll probably have to appeal for help here.
1587
[Pause. ]
1588
Mr. MCCURDY. As I understand, we're talking about
1589
increase. When we say 10 percent increase, we're talking
1590
about $13 million, out of a $220 million effort, both high
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 67
1591
temperature and low temperature. So from $130 million to
1592
$143 million is ''our commitment'' to this area.
1593
Mr. MCCALL. That's the additional.
1594
Mr. MCCURDY. From 130 to 143, a $13 million from 1990 to
1595
1991 is the commitment. No one I'm sure ever asked you what
1596
the Japanese level was and what the other countries. Do you
1597
know those?
1598
Mr. MCCALL. Well, we haven't got hard numbers on them. As
1599
I said earlier here, our assessment is the federal funding
1600
for all superconductivity is about the same in Japan as it
1601
is in the United States. They're in the same ball park.
1602
Europe is somewhat smaller but not a lot smaller. Europe is
1603
about 20 percent smaller, I would guess, or 15 percent
1604
smaller. Where the difference comes in is the industrial
1605
funding.
1606
Mr. MCCURDY. It's hard to separate industrial and federal
1607
funding in Japan because the way their system is.
1608
Mr. MCCALL. If you look at it as a total, they're putting
1609
in more but the difference tends to occur, at least as we've
1610
measured it, on the industrial side.
1611
Mr. MCCURDY. Is Dr. Saito still running that effort? Have
1612
you met with Dr. Saito?
1613
Mr. MCCALL. No.
1614
Mr. MCCURDY. Do you know who he is?
1615
[No response. ]
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 68
1616
Mr. MCCURDY. He's the man that's running the Japanese
1617
effort and has testified before our subcommittee in the past
1618
and could give you probably a little different estimate on
1619
the amount of money that is being dedicated for this. I
1620
would urge you at some point to make an effort to meet him
1621
and find out if you can a little more about their effort.
1622
Mr. MCCALL. We thought we had a really good estimate
1623
because there's a team under Professor Dresselhouse at MIT
1624
who has just been to Japan and they brought the numbers to
1625
us and they had analyzed them very carefully and I was quite
1626
satisfied with the results they had given us.
1627
Mr. MCCURDY. Is that a report?
1628
Mr. MCCALL. It's called the JTEC report.
1629
Mr. MCCURDY. Can we have a copy if we don't have a copy?
1630
Mr. MCCALL. It is publicly available. I can give you the
1631
phone number now.
1632
Mr. VALENTINE. He means free.
1633
Mr. MCCALL. I'm sure there's someone who will send you a
1634
report free.
1635
Mr. MCCURDY. No, we'd just like to have a copy for the
1636
record because I think it's important to find out what they
1637
base those on.
1638
Mr. MCCALL. Perry Lindstrom will provide you with a copy
1639
of the JTEC report.
1640
Mr. MCCURDY. I didn't catch the introduction of the
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 69
1641
others. Can you tell me who the people are who are
1642
accompanying you?
1643
Mr. MCCALL. Perry Lindstrom is the-these gentlemen are
1644
from OSDP. Perry Lindstrom is the person on the National
1645
Critical Materials Council staff that is doing all the work
1646
on the National Commission on Superconductivity. That was
1647
called for in the legislation.
1648
Mr. MCCURDY. Is he the staff director? I understand you
1649
only have one staff. That's kind of like they say about
1650
South Dakota. When they have a Congressional delegation
1651
meeting, they convene it in one office.
1652
Mr. MCCALL. This is Bob Post, also from OSDP.
1653
Mr. MCCURDY. Thank you.
1654
How often does your Commission meet, Dr. McCall?
1655
Mr. MCCALL. We have had three meetings and we will
1656
probably have one more.
1657
Mr. MCCURDY. One more for the year? One more total? What,
1658
total?
1659
Mr. MCCALL. In between and during the meeting there will
1660
be a lot of writing going on and there's a lot of
1661
communication back and forth along the way. The Commission
1662
only got started with our meetings last October and we're
1663
supposed to be finished at the end of March.
1664
Mr. MCCURDY. Do you see a need for reappointment or
1665
reactivation, continuation of the Commission?
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 70
1666
Mr. MCCALL. That is an issue that is being discussed by
1667
the Commission members and as yet we don't have a consensus
1668
there. Some folks feel that a standing committee would be a
1669
good idea.
1670
Mr. MCCURDY. A standing committee of the Commission?
1671
Mr. MCCALL. It would not be the Commission. The
1672
Commission has a sunset clause in this legislation but a
1673
standing committee to look after superconductivity. There
1674
is some sentiment in favor of that.
1675
Mr. MCCURDY. Right. What did you see as your objective of
1676
the Commission?
1677
Mr. MCCALL. Well the objective is written out in the
1678
legislation, is to produce a report to advise the Congress
1679
and the President in this superconductivity area.
1680
Mr. MCCURDY. With that report, you effectively are trying
1681
to establish--state some policy, some goals, objectives that
1682
could be achieved over time?
1683
Mr. MCCALL. Right.
1684
Mr. MCCURDY. Do you see those as short-term horizon, low
1685
horizon or the far out horizon? Tell me about your goals a
1686
little bit.
1687
Mr. MCCALL. I think the Commission is specifically not
1688
looking at short-term goals. I think the Commission's goals
1689
will be long-term in character and probably generally stated
1690
rather than stated in detail.
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 71
1691
Mr. MCCURDY. If you were doing a time line and going back
1692
to some of the other sciences and you were trying to chart
1693
on this time line the genesis of superconductivity up to
1694
this point, where do you see us in this? Do you think we're
1695
early in the stages? Do you think we're midway? Are we
1696
about to tap the knowledge here? Where do you see us?
1697
Mr. MCCALL. I think in low temperature superconductivity,
1698
we're in what I would call mid-range. The breakthroughs in
1699
low temperature superconductivity that made it practical
1700
occurred in the 1950s and since that time, we've seen the
1701
development of a modest industry but quite useful devices
1702
which have a lot going for society. I think the magnetic
1703
resonance imaging is an outstanding example of that. To take
1704
30 years, or I guess it took 20 years to develop from that
1705
point, that's not unusual. From the first identification of
1706
research to actual application to take 20 years is a normal
1707
kind of development period.
1708
Mr. MCCURDY. At the low temperature area, that may be.
1709
I'm not sure I would disagree with that. It's interesting
1710
though that also bears considerable cost. I mean, the
1711
magnets for the super collider, for instance--one of the
1712
largest operational costs of that whole system is the
1713
cooling required for the magnets; is that not the case? Is
1714
that accurate?
1715
Mr. MCCALL. No. I'm sorry?
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 72
1716
Mr. MCCURDY. One of the largest component costs--
1717
operational costs once you've built the system-one of the
1718
largest operational costs of the super collider in the
1719
future is the cost of cooling the magnets. In other words,
1720
the renewable costs of keeping them superconducting.
1721
Mr. MCCALL. I guess the analyses that I've seen have
1722
played down that cost.
1723
Mr. MCCURDY. Well, I just mentioned that but I'm not
1724
trying to sandbag you by any means. Dr. Bromley admitted in
1725
the last hearing that we had that that was a major factor as
1726
do the reports from General Dynamics when I was in San Diego
1727
last week and discussed it with them. They just indicated
1728
that that was a major factor within the total overall cost.
1729
Back to the point though on the time line. Where do you
1730
see high temperature?
1731
Mr. MCCALL. I think high temperature superconductivity is
1732
really in its infancy. The field didn't exist five years
1733
ago. It wasn't even a gleam in the eye five years ago. The
1734
theory is not there. We don't have a theoretical
1735
understanding to base our predictions and hopes on. There's
1736
an awful lot to be done in the high temperature area.
1737
Mr. MCCURDY. Stop right there. I want to quote those. For
1738
the record there, I want to cull that from the record at
1739
some point. That's probably the most salient statement I've
1740
heard today. ''It's in its infancy. A lot of work yet to
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 73
1741
be done. "
1742
Now, if you're going to meet one more time and make your
1743
report, would it not seem logical that in your report you
1744
would recommend either a standing committee or reactivation
1745
of the Commission to follow this technology? I guess I need
1746
only one other quote from you first. How important is this
1747
technology to the United States?
1748
Mr. MCCALL. Well, my belief is that the technology is very
1749
important. I think it's different from silicon, for
1750
example, because I think it has many more--it probably has
1751
lower level applications but across the board in many more
1752
areas but I think it is a very important applications area.
1753
I would not resist the notion of a standing committee. As I
1754
say, that's been discussed in the Commission. I think that
1755
the Commission is not the suitable body for it. The
1756
Commission is too big and I think that you would want a
1757
somewhat differently structured body to be a standing
1758
committee to follow this.
1759
Mr. MCCURDY. How big is the Commission?
1760
Mr. MCCALL. It's 24 people.
1761
Mr. MCCURDY. It's too big because it acts like a
1762
commission or a committee as opposed to someone kind of--do
1763
you debate? Is it a debating society or what? Is it just
1764
too unwieldy?
1765
Mr. MCCALL. No, no. The Commission is very disciplined.
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 74
1766
I have no problem with that but just to get 24 people to
1767
meet in the same room in the same city on a given day is
1768
very difficult.
1769
Mr. MCCURDY. I understand. Do you feel--that's the wrong
1770
word. Do you believe that the Commission has credibility
1771
within the Administration? Do you believe it has weight and
1772
force when it makes a proposal? How do you weigh it? In
1773
other words, if the Commission were to come forward with a
1774
recommendation, do you meet with Governor Sununu? Have you
1775
ever had anyone in a cabinet meeting submit a statement as
1776
to the findings and reports? At what level do you penetrate
1777
the Administration as far as you can tell?
1778
Mr. MCCALL. Well, the level of penetration at this stage,
1779
up to this point, has been Dr. Bromley and what I found is
1780
that when we have needed help, Dr. Bromley has taken our
1781
part, he's gone to Sununu and he's gotten things to happen.
1782
So I've been totally satisfied with his responsiveness.
1783
Now, we haven't been in the stage where I needed a lot of
1784
input but when I needed that input, he's always been there
1785
and he's been very responsive. So I have to be totally
1786
gratified by his activity there. In terms of clout or how
1787
much weight do we carry, that remains to be seen. I don't
1788
know the answer to that but I will say that the Commission
1789
members, the membership, has people on it that are highly
1790
respected in the area. If you look through there, you will
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 75
1791
see that these are stars from the previous groups that have
1792
been together on this. So it deserves credit and we'll see
1793
what happens.
1794
Mr. MCCURDY. Well, we will watch as well and again, I
1795
concur. I think Dr. Bromley is eminently well qualified and
1796
is certainly well intentioned when it comes to his proposals
1797
and understanding of the issue. I am still at somewhat of a
1798
loss to understand where the resistance comes from within
1799
the Administration when it comes to laying out higher
1800
priority on this.
1801
Just from the standpoint of science, you say it's not
1802
quite as great as silicon but you know, that's all right.
1803
Some people said it's as revolutionary as the development of
1804
the transistor. So we've had a wide range of hopes and
1805
aspirations and acclaim given to this. Where do you rank
1806
this? Out of the recent discoveries of the last ten years
1807
in science, 20 years, where would this have to rank?
1808
Mr. MCCALL. Well, the comparison I meant was with the
1809
transistor. Silicon is what I hoped I said but I make that
1810
mistake sometimes. I think it's really too early to tell at
1811
this point and a lot will depend on what you want to
1812
measure. If we go after dollar sales value, it's going to be
1813
very tough to catch up with the business that silicon
1814
generates. Silicon itself is not that big a business. I
1815
think worldwide, silicon --
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 76
1816
Mr. MCCURDY. Certainly not in America anymore.
1817
Mr. MCCALL. We're not out of it but it's bad. I think
1818
worldwide it's something like $50 billion a year but that,
1819
silicon, that's the basis for a better part of a trillion
1820
dollars worth of business in consumer electronics, in
1821
computers, and all other things. So that's a pretty hard
1822
standard to measure up to for something that's a new
1823
science.
1824
Mr. MCCURDY. But the potential, as yet undefined,
1825
potential as yet not solidified, but in its infancy, if
1826
those estimates are correct that it may be as important as
1827
the development of the transistor and the potential a
1828
trillion dollar economy out there, do you think that a $13
1829
million increase designates a level of commitment which--the
1830
level of commitment that--if you were an investor, you know,
1831
and I'm not talking about Michael Millken and junk bonds.
1832
I'm talking about someone who's a prudent director for the
1833
future and you saw the potential and you were operating from
1834
a trillion dollar budget as well and recognizing the science
1835
and you saw that potentially down the road this has the
1836
potential payoff of a major sector of the economy. I don't
1837
know whether it's a trillion dollars. Who knows what the
1838
figures are. The Japanese understand it to be a major
1839
factor, a major player.
1840
Would you think that as just an observer from the outside
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 77
1841
that $130 million budget is a demonstration of a level of
1842
commitment that's relative to the potential payoff?
1843
Mr. MCCALL. Well, you're a very persuasive gentleman and
1844
you might convince me to change my views of things.
1845
Mr. MCCURDY. Good. I hope it's reflected in your report.
1846
Mr. MCCALL. I thought that the money that's now available
1847
for superconductivity research and development in the United
1848
States was quite good. That was my personal reaction to it.
1849
You may convince me otherwise but it seems to me as though
1850
it's large. If you put a lot more money into
1851
superconductivity, you've got to decide what you're going to
1852
do with it. You've got to hire people. You've got to rent
1853
space and get equipment. At this point, I believe that
1854
we're operating at about the right level because we have to
1855
develop understanding.
1856
Mr. MCCURDY. Dr. McCall, do you know what the budget
1857
request of the Administration this year was for, for SDI?
1858
Mr. MCCALL. I'm sorry. I didn't understand.
1859
Mr. MCCURDY. SDI? Strategic Defense Initiative? Do you
1860
know what the budget request was by the Administration this
1861
year for SDI?
1862
Mr. MCCALL. I don't know what it was.
1863
Mr. MCCURDY. It was $4.7 billion. Now, that's out of a
1864
$38 billion R&D request, Department of Defense. In 1985, it
1865
was up to $43 billion and we're talking $130 million for
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 78
1866
high temperature superconductivity which has the potential
1867
economic impact of maybe a trillion dollars. Now would you
1868
like to restate your position as far as a level of
1869
commitment? Out of a trillion budget, out of a $300 billion
1870
defense budget, out of a $300 billion defense budget, we're
1871
talking $61.8 million in the DOD for this technology.
1872
Mr. MCCALL. I don't want to restate it. As I say, when we
1873
analyzed it, it didn't appear unreasonable to me. We will
1874
be looking at that again and again and taking comparisons.
1875
Mr. MCCURDY. Listen, to my constituents, $61 million is a
1876
hell of a lot of money and it's a lot of money to me but you
1877
have to put it into perspective of what the national
1878
commitment is and if you write on your paper, on your
1879
report, that the United States of America is committed to
1880
this technology, then I think you need to put it in the
1881
perspective of the total U.S. involvement in research and
1882
development, Department of Defense spending, Department of
1883
Commerce spending and all the other aspects of the Federal
1884
Government and if you put it in the context of that, it
1885
ain't much of a commitment; is it? That may be more
1886
rhetorical a question.
1887
Mr. MCCALL. I've responded at least honestly.
1888
Mr. MCCURDY. I do not question your veracity or your
1889
honesty. I agree with you. I was hoping to put a little
1890
more perspective when you go back to your position and that
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 79
1891
is, yes, you stated there is a commitment but I think it's
1892
important that you understand the context--
1893
Mr. MCCALL. They will hear about this conversation.
1894
Mr. MCCURDY. Well, and they'll probably dismiss it from
1895
everything we've heard in the past and seen and they know
1896
where it's coming from but it's not just one member. It's
1897
not a Democratic issue, a Republican issue. It's
1898
bipartisan. We have worked on this for a number of years
1899
and believe that there has to be a greater commitment.
1900
Again, from the perspective of one member who has served
1901
in this Congress for only ten years, who sits on three
1902
committees that deal with technology: Armed Services,
1903
Science and Technology, and Intelligence, and as we watch
1904
the rapidly changing world and it is.
1905
I've listened to Vaclav Havel, President of
1906
Czechoslovakia, freely elected, address a joint session of
1907
Congress, the world is changing. When Europe 1992 evolves,
1908
a unified Germany, a Europe that is going to be totally
1909
different and certainly increasing market, as the threat
1910
from the Soviet Union declines, not as fast as some people
1911
think but it will decline over time, as we in the United
1912
States try to assess where we are and where we're going to
1913
be ten years from now, we have to redefine our objectives
1914
and goals just as we have to redefine our national security
1915
strategy.
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 80
1916
Our strategy has to be based on economic security and the
1917
economic security, to me, the investment is, as compared to
1918
investing $4.7 billion in SDI or $70 billion in the B-2, or
1919
$100 plus million per copy for an A-12 or some other weapon
1920
and I can roll them off as long as we sit here, that when
1921
you have to shift the emphasis from military security to
1922
economic security and how industry in this Nation is going
1923
to make that transition--it's not going to be easy-then we
1924
should redefine what our priorities are and I would submit
1925
to you, sir, that you're in one of the most important
1926
positions of the government today.
1927
You really are and I'm not just blowing hot air at you.
1928
I'm telling you. You're truly in one of the most important
1929
positions in the government because you can play a role in
1930
that redefinition of what our priorities are going to be and
1931
if we are going to make that transition, it's going to come
1932
sooner or later and by God it better come sooner, then we
1933
need to work together.
1934
You can have the same speech from Newt Gingrich on the
1935
Republican side or from many of my Democratic colleagues and
1936
people who are learned in the sciences but the message has
1937
not penetrated the Administration sufficiently when we look
1938
at this budget.
1939
Mr. MCCALL. I agree with a great number of things you've
1940
said and implied here. I'm sure we'd find a lot to agree on
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE 81
1941
across the board.
1942
Mr. MCCURDY. I hope we'll have more conversations and I
1943
would hope that you would look to us as a resource because
1944
we're going to look to you as one and we're going to put a
1945
little more pressure and hope that you can take those
1946
messages back.
1947
This is one of the most exciting times in my life and I'm
1948
sure yours as well but it's ours to grab and piecemeal, $13
1949
million here, $13 million there, is not going to be the
1950
direction we need.
1951
Dr. McCall, thank you.
1952
Any questions from the staff or other Members? They dare
1953
not follow that, I guess.
1954
Thank you for your testimony. We really do look forward
1955
to working with you and hope that we can open a dialogue
1956
here that can be sustained.
1957
Mr. MCCALL. Thank you. That was a very stimulating
1958
discussion.
1959
Mr. MCCURDY. Thank you. The subcommittee is adjourned.
1960
[Whereupon, at 1:44 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
1961
to be reconvened at the call of the Chair. ]
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE
1
*** SPEAKER LISTING ***
RPTSCRS
1
COURTREPORTINGSER
1
VALENTINE
2,
6,
21,
22,
23,
26,
28,
36,
44,
45,
46,
47,
48,
49,
56,
60,
68
LEWIS
5,
28,
30,
32,
33,
34,
35,
36,
49,
51,
52,
53,
54,
55,
56
BROMLEY
8,
21,
22,
23,
24,
27,
29,
31,
32,
33,
34,
35,
36
MCCALL
37,
44,
45,
46,
47,
48,
50,
51,
52,
53,
54,
55,
57,
58,
59,
64,
65,
66,
67,
68,
69,
70,
71,
72,
73,
74,
75,
76,
77,
78,
79,
80,
81
MCMILLEN
56,
57,
58,
59,
60
MCCURDY
60,
65,
66,
67,
68,
69,
70,
71,
72,
73,
74,
75,
76,
77,
78,
79,
81
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE
1
* * * * * * * * * * * *
*
CONTENTS *
* * * * * * * * * * * *
STATEMENTS OF:
STATEMENT OF MR. D. ALLAN BROMLEY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.
PAGE
8
STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID MC CALL, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL
COMMISSION ON SUPERCONDUCTIVITY
PAGE
37
NAME: HSY052070
PAGE
1
* * * * * * ж * * * * * * ж * * * * * *
* INDEX OF INSERTS *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
INSERT NUMBER:
INSERT
PAGE
4
*********** INSERT ***********
PAGE...
20
*********** INSERT ***********
PAGE
43