by William A. Fowler
Institute Professor of Physics,
The following remarks were
excerpted from the Oral History Project of the Caltech Archives.
As physics becomes more and more
sophisticated, requiring larger and larger facilities, it seems almost
inevitable that physics is going to be done in big central locations. The trend is to form university teams,
or users’ groups, working at large national laboratories; the federal agencies
claim they cannot continue to support expensive projects at individual
universities. This has already
happened in elementary particle physics; you just cannot perform the actual
experiments at a university anymore.
The Caltech synchrotron was shut down years ago along with many other on‑campus
university installations, and elementary particle physicists now do their work
at CERN or DESY in Europe, or at Fermilab, SLAC, or Cornell in the United
States. What goes on at SLAC
(Stanford) or Cornell is not on‑campus research in my use of the term.
Now the same thing is happening in
nuclear physics. There is enormous
pressure to cut down on National Science Foundation support for accelerator
groups. University accelerator
labs have been closed down all over the country. Kellogg Laboratory here at Caltech is an exception. At 52 years old it is one of the last
ones left, and it has continued to be enormously successful. I can’t really complain about the tremendous
amount of support for our work there.
When we decided that we needed a new low energy accelerator a few years
ago, the NSF provided a million dollars, and Caltech built a new million‑dollar
laboratory for us.
Kellogg will continue to do low
energy nuclear astrophysics, using established techniques to accumulate more
and more information. But low
energy nuclear physics is no longer quite the glamorous subject it once was,
and younger people entering the field now are attracted to the intermediate
energy accelerators that exist only at national laboratories such as Los Alamos
and the new electron accelerator proposed for construction near Norfolk,
Virginia. It’s thought to be more
“exciting” than the work in low energy physics as applied to astrophysics.
National labs may well be an
efficient use of resources, but the trend still worries me. I think the trend should not be allowed
to happen just by default without at least giving serious thought to the
consequences. What will happen is
that university campuses will become places where research is done in
chemistry, geology, biology—but more and more branches of physics will have to
be done at the big central installations.
Hands‑on physics research—research with actual results—will
disappear from university laboratories.
Yes, users’ groups still do use university laboratories; they build a
lot of equipment on campus before taking it to the national labs. But that’s a completely different mode
of operation from graduate students actually doing their work and getting their
results at a university. If
graduate students do their course work in a couple of years and then disappear
to Fermilab for three years to do their theses, I think this is going to change
the whole character of university research, and I’m not sure it’s for the
I think we’ve got to keep physics
alive in the university laboratories. In the system that has been developed in
the United States since World War II, physics is done in a three‑way
partnership—in universities, in industrial labs, and in national labs. All three have made substantial
contributions, and for us to give up one of them may turn out to be
disastrous. The comparison that
always comes up is with the Soviet Union, which may not be a very good example
since they don’t have any industrial labs anyway. But they also have practically no laboratories in their
universities. Students go to the
university to learn graduate work and then to one of the big institutes of the
Soviet Academy of Sciences to do experimental work. And, quite possibly as a consequence of this, while the
Russians are tops in theoretical work, the contributions in experimental
physics that have come out of the Soviet Union in the last decade have not been
first class in my opinion.
The Nobel Prize that was awarded to
me last year was essentially an award to the Kellogg Laboratory. I am convinced that I was chosen among
a great number of other candidates because of the experimental work (on the
nuclear reactions that produce the chemical elements in the universe) performed
in Kellogg by Charles Lauritsen, Thomas Lauritsen, Charles Barnes, Ralph
Kavanagh, Tom Tombrello, Ward Whaling, myself, and our many graduate students
and postdoctoral fellows. I now
want to use any influence I have to urge the National Science Board and the Department
of Energy to conduct a study of the funding of on‑campus university
laboratories and then decide what is best for future generations of physicists.