Enrico Fermi Award

Transcription

Good afternoon. My name is Pat Dehmer. I'm the acting director of the Office of Science. And it's my pleasure to welcome you here to today's presentation of the 2013 Enrico Fermi Awards. We're delighted that you could be here with us today. It's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz. As many of you are aware, Secretary Moniz comes to us with a long record of service, both as a senior official in the administration and also with a record as a distinguished scientist and scholar. Prior to joining the president's Cabinet, he was the Cecil and Ida professor of physics and engineering systems at MIT, where he was a faculty since the early 1970s. At MIT he headed the Department of Physics and the Bates Linear Accelerator Center. Most recently he served as the founding director of the MIT Energy Initiative and of the MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment. From 1997 until 2001, early 2001, he served as the undersecretary of DOE's department. As undersecretary he was responsible for overseeing the department's science and energy programs, for leading a comprehensive review of nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship and for serving as the secretary's special negotiator for the disposition of Russian nuclear materials. Just prior to that, he was the associate director for science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President. This afternoon the secretary has just returned from the White House, where our Fermi award recipients had the honor of being hosted by the president of the United States. Please welcome me in joining Secretary Moniz. (Applause.) Well, thank you, Pat. It's great to be here for a very, very enjoyable occasion indeed. And as -- and actually, with Pat, speaking of Office of Science, I've been told there's a Bill Brickman (sp) in the audience some place. Where is he? Oh, there he is, back there. Former head of Science until recently. I also see Jim Decker (sp). If there are other Office of Science past luminaries, you know who you are. Declare yourself. (Applause.) But -- also our friend Dick Garwin (sp). Great group to be here with. And also, to talk about the Fermi awards, you know, one -- really one of the nation's oldest and most prestigious awards for scientific achievement, it's -- as a physicist, it's hard not to start out by thinking about Fermi once again, all his contributions to quantum theory and nuclear particle physics, stat mech, first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction, Chicago Pile, Nobel for induced radioactivity, transuranic elements and both a great theorist and a great experimentalist. So it's really -- it's great to have the Fermi award soon in the hands or around the necks of such distinguished scientists. As Pat said, we just got back from the White House. And the president was very gracious, very engaged because he pointed out to our award winners how much he likes being around rational people. (Laughter.) And it was -- and then Andy gave him a lecture -- (laughter) -- on the importance -- the importance of recognizing scientists as well -- as well as -- as well as other accomplished people. So Allen and Andy join a very long and distinguished list of Fermi award winners. And with the Berkeley and Texas connections, of course, we go back to -- Berkeley was all over the early awards, Lawrence, Seaborg, Oppenheimer, but also more recently from both institutions -- Art Rosenfeld, for example, from Berkeley, the 2005 awardee; and John Goodenough from Texas, 2009 awardee. And you will both be going back to places with colleagues who will share this. Let me just say a few words about the winners, starting with Allen Bard, sometimes called the father of modern electrochemistry. Son of European immigrants, born and raised in New York. And he credits the time he spent as a child at the American Museum of Natural History and the Hayden Planetarium as inspiring him to go into science. And there rumors, at least, that this led to a long collection of bugs being brought home. But perhaps then his parents pushed him into chemistry so it would be slightly cleaner than that -- than that pursuit. But he really did help to found the field of electrochemistry, which obviously is critical for what we're -- what we're doing in energy storage, fuel cell, solar, photochemistry, et cetera, not to mention underpinning advances in biology, chemistry, physics and engineering. So we all know that success in impact is not measured by no number of papers, number of patents, but nevertheless, one can't resist. After all, he's a chemist, you know. We physicists have so many fewer papers, but Allen has over 900 peer-reviewed research papers, 75 book chapters, 23 patents, three books, the last of which was on nanotechnology. But a better measure of his mark is the impact on the next generation, his mentoring record with 75 Ph.D. students, 150 post-docs he's worked with. I understand there may be some of the students in post-doc in the audience. If there are, why don't you stand up? So -- ah, yes, there are a few. (Chuckles.) That's great. So congratulations on that, Allen. That's really terrific. So just quoting Allen, he said, whatever I've done as a scientist will be there for a while but then fade away. The big names in science quickly become unknown. But through your students, you maintain a presence in future generations, and they go on and on and on. And we have some of those here today. So clearly, from his cutting-edge work in chemistry to his legacy as a mentor and teacher, Allen embodies very much the spirit of the -- of the Fermi award. Andy Sessler, well-known to many of us here at the Department of Energy, particularly in his -- well, in many roles, including his former service as director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory from '73 to '80s and president of the American Physical Society. Andy has made outstanding and very, very well-known contributions to the establishment of beam physics that has underpinned the development of many of the essential discovery tools that of course we host today in many of national laboratories. As an example, his work on synchrotron light sources helped lay the foundation for the Berkeley lab's advanced light source but also at Brookhaven and Argonne. He also contributed to the development of high-intensity free electron lasers, as had been at Jefferson lab and at Slack (ph). These tools are clearly, again, critical enabling tools in so many areas, going beyond the sciences themselves into medical imaging and other sciences like environmental sciences. But as I'm sure many of you know, in addition to his scientific contributions, he's also been an exemplary humanitarian. He's led research into new ways to increase the efficiency and reliability of landmine discovery and disposal technology. During the Cold War, he co-founded scientists for Sakharov, Orlov and Shcharansky, which championed the cause of Sakharov, a nuclear physicist and winner of the '75 Nobel Peace Prize; Orlov, accelerator physicist and human rights activist; and Shcharansky, Jewish computer export -- all of whom were being persecuted under the Soviet Union. As Andy got the organization off the ground and the scrambled to fly family members of the persecuted scientists to America to garner public support, he and other founders simply charged the plane tickets to their credit cards. And I do -- I recall very well Shcharansky's wife in Massachusetts and a frequent visitor to MIT. Eventually, the organization gained the support of more than 7,000 researchers and academics, led an academic boycott of the Soviet Union. And because of those courageous actions and those of other scientists, Shcharansky, Orlov and Shcharansky (sic), not to mention other dissidents and scientists, were eventually freed. Andy later wrote of his humanitarian work that for younger people, it may serve as an example showing how an active research physicist sacrificed a paper or two but still believes the time was more than well-spent. And in fact, I'll just add kind of a personal connection to that in the sense of Andy was also an inaugural member of the National Advisory Board of the Union of Concerned Scientists. It's a connection because first of all, we stole our chief of staff from the Union of Concerned Scientists, Kevin Knobloch, who was president of that organization. But even more for me, going back to my early years in academia, my mentors, like Henry Kendall, Henry -- Herman Feshbach, Vicky Weisskopf -- all among the founders of the UCS. And that mentoring is -- again, we come back to the word "mentoring" -- is so important. The only question is this kind of track, having led me to where I am now, it's still out whether the time is being well-spent. (Laughter.) But we will -- we will see. But anyway, these are two terrific winners of the -- of the prize. The -- in recognition again of your long record of outstanding scientific contributions in public service and mentorship, please accept our country's warmest congratulations, and join me, please, in applauding the winners. (Applause.) OK. I'm going to read the citations now while the secretary presents the award. I'm going to start with Allen Bart, for international leadership in electrochemical science and technology, for advances in photo electrochemistry and photocatalytic materials, processes and devices, and for discovery and development of electrochemical methods, including electrogenerated chemiluminescence and scanning electrochemical microscopy. (Applause.) I love your pictures. Now for Dr. Sessler, for advancing accelerators as powerful tools of scientific discovery, for visionary direction of the research enterprise focused on challenges in energy and the environment, and for championing outreach and freedom of scientific inquiry worldwide. (Applause.) OK. Now I'm going to ask Dr. Bart to come to the podium for his remarks. Well, Dr. Moniz, Dr. Dehmer, thank you very much for the very kind comments. I want to find out who told you about the bugs -- (laughter) -- which are true. Well, I'm very grateful to have been selected for the Enrico Fermi award and for my work in electrochemistry and photoelectrochemistry. I find it really hard to believe that I'm now numbered among those outstanding scientists who have won the award previously. We talk almost daily about Fermi levels. Fermi levels is continually in our -- I'll never think about Fermi level again in the same way. (Laughter.) I have many people to thank who've helped in my career. My family, of course, my classmates, my teachers at all levels. Norman Hackerman (sp) in particular was the guy who hired me at the University of Texas. He was chairman of the chemistry department at the time and supported me throughout my whole career. And my family, especially my wife, Fran (sp), who is here. She put up with me; she put up with frequent nights and weekend absences over many years, as well as my impatient and sometimes distracted behavior, with relatively few complaints. Of course, a large amount of the credit goes to my research group for their excellent work over the years and many of the ideas which I'm afraid they -- I sometimes get the credit for. I'm pleased that several of my former students are in the audience to help me celebrate this wonderful occasion. I'd like to also single out one member of my group named Frank Fann (sp), who was with me for many, many years, and he had really amazing talent and made seemingly impossible experiments work. I must also thank the agencies and foundations that supported my work over 50 years with fellowships from my students, with funding for the equipment and supplies that we need and in general for promoting the work that we did. I'd like to particularly single out the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, several of the Department of Defense agencies and the Texas Robert A. Welch Foundation, all of whom were very generous. I'd also like to thank the many project officers for their advice, for their support. None of this would have been possible without the foundation's support. I was especially fortunate to have started my independent career in the University of Texas in 1958, which was shortly after the Vannevar Bush report, which emphasized the importance of science and which spawned many of the agencies and offices which went on to support fundamental science. Probably equally important was the fact that Sputnik had just gone up by the USSR, and that really focused attention on the benefits of science and technology and put an even greater emphasis on the need to improve science in the U.S. In these halcyon days, obtaining funding was pretty easy, believe it or not, and writing proposals was fairly simple. Project officers had the time to take a personal interest in a lot of the research and the individuals that were doing the research. And in general, when scientists got together at meetings, they talked about science. I -- (laughter) -- I hope you'll forget -- forgive me making a few remarks now about what I think is the current status of funding and academic research and also from the point of view who someone who's been in this process a long time and have watched it evolve. And I think one of the key things that happened in science really was that the early success of the funding and the funding organizations led to a huge impetus for even greater numbers of STEM faculty and encouraged them strongly to apply for research grants. I think the ideas that the universities discovered was that science funding was good for them as its funding source, and that led to even more pressure for individuals to get funding while the number of individuals was growing very quickly -- and also with combined increasing complexity of the regulations connected with preparing proposals and grant administration. And what that meant it that most academic scientists claim that they now spend essentially all their time outside of teaching activities seeking research funds and writing proposals. Now, when scientists meet at meetings, they usually talk about funding the difficulties they sometimes have in obtaining funding. I do think that measures could be taken that would help, even short of gaining more funding for research. As President Obama said less than a week ago, federally funded research has helped lead to the ideas and the investigations behind Google and smartphones, not to mention, parenthetically, lasers and magnetic resonance imaging and huge numbers of really important things. And that's what Congress should be -- should understand, the damage that's been done, just in last year's cut to basic research -- so we can unleash the next great American discovery. This of course would be wonderful. But I'm afraid it's not in the cards for the near future. However, I think there are steps that can be taken by the more liberal use of short proposals, pre-proposals, white papers, with the basic ideas but not spelled out in such detail. That would probably take care of 80 percent of the submissions and greatly decrease the amount of time and effort that a scientist needs to gain some support and write a proposal. Simplifying the nature of the proposals is one thing. Simplifying the nature of grant reports is another. I say my experience is also that creative people, creative scientists, hate rules. And I think that that's grown exponentially in time, and that's also been a burden, I find, (on that thing ?). I think one has to understand -- I understand very well that many of these result from a congressional mandate that Congress thinks they can put these things in funding and move certain fields along. I agree. But I think one has to understand the amplification factor in these kind of mandates, that one sentence from a congressional staff becomes one page at the agency and then 50 pages at the university, and all of this then amplifies terrifically the procedures and the regulations that people have to follow. I think it isn't reasonable, especially for people in the early stages of their careers, nor is it expected that grantees can have any real impact on things like K-through-12 education, public outreach and diversity where one has to put these kinds of issues into the proposals. I think all of them are worthwhile, all of them are important, but given the real world, the world of the researcher, tying them to the research funding is unlikely to have any real impact. Why is this important? Because I see more and more a demoralized group of academic scientists who are continually searching for funding. I also see excellent students and postdoctoral fellows decide not to seek academic careers because they see what the current situation is like, and indeed, I think it's a contributing factor to the increased number of U.S. citizens majoring in STEM degrees but then stopping at the graduate level, where now I think more and more -- at least half, I would believe -- of students in graduate STEM projects are so-called international students. I do hope the agencies will look into the current situation from the viewpoint of an assistant professor at a research university. If things do improve, perhaps we will start thinking about science again and even talking about it at meetings and maybe even get into the lab once in a while. I'd like to end where I began, with thanks. Thanks to those who selected me for this high honor, and thank you to all of you who've come here to help us celebrate. Thank you, all. (Applause.) Thank you very much. And now Andy Sessler. OK. First of all, I'd like to thank people for the kind introduction, warm welcome. Very happy day for me. And I want to thank all of you who made it happen. Now I'm supposed to make some remarks. And I did draft some, and I showed it to some members of the family. And that was my mistake. (Laughter.) The first person crossed out some words and added some. And the second person, she crossed out more words and added more. And pretty soon I couldn't even find the word from my original draft. (Laughter.) It wasn't my talk at all. It was what my family thought I ought to be saying in here. OK. So I started again, and I didn't show anybody anything. (Laughter.) Now, I'm not used to talking with this thing around my neck, and if it interferes with the P.A. system I -- take it off. It's going to have to interfere quite a lot before I take it off. (Laughter.) And I'm wondering if I can sleep with it on. (Laughter.) The training of a scientist is a long process. My own history shows that clearly. And this is a proper occasion I think to discuss how I got here, at the same time pay some tribute to those who helped me get here. And I think most -- any scientist could tell a similar story, so it's not really about me, it's more what's required in the education of a scientist. In the beginning it was my parents -- my -- interested me in science at an early age, even at preschool age. In later years my dad, who was a science teacher in high school, brought home various science demonstrations and a set of science texts for high school, which I was able to read while still in elementary school. Then I profited from some outstanding elementary school teachers. I remember my fifth-grade teacher, and she allowed me to talk one half-hour each week to the class on some scientific subject that was of interest to me. And it was a wonderful thing, both for the kids and for me. (Laughter.) And my science teacher in the seventh and eighth grade was especially encouraging. Not so encouraging was my mathematics teacher, who refused to recommend me for a special science high school. She told my 13-year-old self, well, you're so poor in arithmetic, you'll never become a scientist. (Laughter.) Well, all right, then I began to take arithmetic seriously, and I taught myself some algebra, and I did actually get admitted but did not go to this special high school. In high school, I was fortunate enough to have some wonderful teachers, like Dr. Paul Grandwine (ph), who turned my dream of becoming a scientist into reality by convincing me to get good grades and studying me on various age-appropriate projects. My college teacher at Harvard, Dr. George Mackey (sp), helped me become a researcher. He had me write an honest thesis, which was very -- in mathematics, which was quite difficult, actually, but a wonderful introduction to real research. My experiences in graduate school at Columbia University were beyond excellent. I had lectures from seven different professors who either had or would soon get Nobel prizes, so I had opportunity to see the different approaches that could be used in physics and all successful. It was quite revealing. My Ph.D. adviser, Dr. Henry Foly (ph), taught me atomic and nuclear physics. And he also educated me on all aspects of becoming a physicist from research into a number of topics, reading journals, evaluating other people's contributions and even how to write a scientific paper. My post-doc experiences -- (inaudible) -- many, many things are required to educate a scientist -- my post-doc experience with Dr. Hans Betah (ph), who -- where I learned high-energy physics, and then with Don Kurs (ph), where I learned accelerated physics. Furthermore, I have enjoyed the support of my immediate family, children and now-deceased wife, Gladys (sp), who tolerated late hours, much moving, very modest salary and much more, really. (Inaudible) -- I've worked for 50 years at the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab with its wonderful libraries and laboratories, intellectual strength and a work ambiance conducive to research. There's a whole delegation here from my laboratory led by James Simons (sp), and I'm particular appreciative of all the people -- more than six I think who came all the way from California. Maybe actually they came because they were afraid that I might say something bad about the lab, and they -- (laughter) -- want to make it clear that I'm outnumbered. But through the years, of course, I've had many collaborators. And despite what my critics say, the sharing was very fair. They did all the work, and I got all the credit. (Laughter.) In short, you can see what a wonderful education I enjoyed. An education like mine, with individual attention and encouragement, is needed, really, for every future scientist, and the world truly needs more scientists. I am pleased that my contributions have been formally recognized and appreciated. Actually, it was great fun doing all these things. I had more fun doing that than I'm probably having even today, which is a fun day. (Chuckles.) More importantly, these events show to the -- events like this and on meeting the president of the United States -- shows to the world that -- to the general public that it's not only movie stars and athletic heroes that are recognized and appreciated. It gives a young scientist an understanding that their work is valued and even recorded. I am pleased that this award recognized the activities of accelerator and beam scientists. I was fortunate to be in almost at the beginning when the power of theoretical physics was brought first to the accelerators. Supported by high-energy physics, we developed colliders and learned how to handle intense beams, how to manipulate beams in and out of accelerators. This (work ?) of accelerator scientists -- and it's real science, it's as difficult as any other kind of science -- not only influenced high-energy physics and nuclear physics, but has made possible the great facilities of basic energy, science, synchrotron radiation rings, free electric lasers, spallation neutron sources. Also, the work of accelerator physicists has resulted in more than 25,000 accelerators employed in industry and medical therapy. Those people -- many people don't realize how extensive this is in society. Millions of patients have been treated for cancer with external X-rays and particle beams. Every computer, every cellphone, automobile, et cetera has been made by ion implantation accelerators. Accelerators had made and do make medical (prostheses ?), treat the tires even on your car, sterilize spices and medical equipment and even make shrink wrap. Well, you have to take the good with the bad, but maybe you don't have the problem I have of opening these packages. Needless to say, there is much more science that is being done and needs to be done to make even better machines and better beam delivery systems. I'm enthusiastic about accelerator applications, as you can sort of judge. And -- (chuckles) -- and if you share my enthusiasm, you might look at a book. I've look at a book with my co-author, Ted Wilson, and it's going to come out later this month, on engines of discovery. This award also recognizes the change from the AEC, Atomic Energy Commission, which was primarily interested in nuclear things, to the DOE with a broad palette of energy, environmental and societally important applications and activities. Once again, I was just fortunate to be active just before and then through this transition. It was really a change from mostly curiosity-driven research -- and we certainly need very much of that -- to what I'd like to call Jeffersonian science, that is, basic science or applied science but with a long-term goal of something that would be of societal importance. It's different, if you will, than curiosity-driven science, and we need both. The award does not mention my activities on arms control, but I think of the Star Wars studies, the American Physical Society and the Union of Concerned Scientists and my being chairman of the Federation of American Scientists a few years -- I'm proud of this work, as we did important studies that had impact on the U.S. and even, I'd like to believe, upon the rest of the world. And of course, I served on many, many dozens of national committees where we address all kinds of societal problems. The award also recognizes my ever-going-on activity and interest in helping our colleagues who are in trouble. In this regard I was co-founder of what was mentioned, SOS -- Sakharov, Orlov, Shcharansky -- human rights group. And then I was also involved in the APS, the American Physical Society, Committee on International Freedom of Scientists -- in fact, I helped get that started -- the National Academy of Sciences' human rights committee, and I've been involved with the Committee of Concerned Scientists and Amnesty International; (I like them ?) quite a lot, actually. So this is my -- probably my last visit to Washington. And in a nostalgic mode, I remember the first. I'll skip the few hundreds in between. It was 1945, and I was a senior in high school and one of the Westinghouse Talent Science Search finalists. My project was on small bugs. And these bugs just looked like normal bugs, but when they get frightened, they curl up into almost perfect spheres. I know this sounds pretty silly, but it sufficed to make me a finalist. (Laughter.) Actually, between us, the most difficult part of this research was that at some crucial moment in the investigation, the little buggers would curl up into spheres and roll off the table. (Laughter.) It was about this time that I decided biology wasn't for me -- (laughter) -- and I went into physics. The science talent search brought 40 kids from all over the country to spend a few days in Washington, seeing wonderful things and meeting some very distinguished scientists. Those days in 1945, 69 years ago, gave me confidence and showed each of us, all of us, that we could reach high scientific goals. We were even received at the White House. This morning was my second visit to the White House. (Chuckles.) And we were greeted by Vice President Truman -- (inaudible) -- spring, March of 1945. Soon after the talent search award, I was accepted at Harvard, despite its 10 percent Jewish quota, and fortunately, my family could afford the tuition, which was $400 a year. It's events like this, Westinghouse Science Talent Search -- and now called the Intel Talent Search -- that serves to inspire the future generations of scientists. Of course, we need to do more, much more, to educate and prepare the next generation of scientists. For example, the ratio of R&D budget over domestic product -- so that's a measure of how much you can afford R&D -- that has decreased in this country in the last decade by 20 percent. In China, it's going up by 10 percent per year. And if you look at absolute numbers, you see that six nations -- and they're all -- (inaudible) -- nations, smaller than us -- are absolutely spending more absolute money than we are on R&D, scientific R&D. As I said, much is being done, but much more needs to be done. Finally, thanks to all of you who have contributed so much to my scientific career and brought me to this event, and thanks to those who actually organized this event. And certainly thanks to my immediate and extended family, friends and colleagues who are here in the audience -- (inaudible) -- to make this a celebratory and more memorable event for me. I think the family must have slipped that in when I wasn't looking. (Laughter.) But it's a good thought, and they could've -- they could've trusted me. Thanks. (Applause.) Well, thank you, Allen and Andy. It's obvious you get great chemists and physicists by having them start with bugs -- (laughter) -- and they get turned off. Andy, I want to assure you, the ribbon is water-repellent. You can wear in the shower. (Laughter.) And Allen, you mentioned the Fermi level, and I'll just conclude by saying I think our level of Fermi award winners has been lifted today. Thank you very much. (Applause.) Oh, and finally, we will have a reception, so you can meet and chat with the -- with the winners. I think it's across the hall, 1E245. Very good. So we'll see you all there, I hope. Bye.