|
Education in Nuclear Science: A Status Report and Recommendations for the Beginning of the 21st Century
Peggy McMahan and Joseph Cerny
In April 2003, the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee charged its Subcommittee on Education with broadly assessing "how the present NSF and DOE educational investments relevant to nuclear science are being made" and with identifying "key strategies for preparing future generations of nuclear physicists and chemists." In particular, the agencies asked the Subcommittee to examine current educational activities, including K-12 education and public outreach, and to "articulate the projected need for trained nuclear scientists, identify strategies for meeting these needs, and recommend possible improvements or changes in NSF and DOE practices."
The Subcommittee members were Joseph Cerny (Chair, Univ. of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab), Cornelius Beausang (Univ. of Richmond), Jolie Cizewski (Rutgers Univ.), Timothy Hallman (Brookhaven National Lab), Calvin Howell (Duke Univ.), Andrea Palounek (Los Alamos National Lab), Warren Rogers (Westmont College), Brad Sherrill (Michigan State Univ.), Robert Welsh (William and Mary College and Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility), Sherry Yennello (Texas A&M Univ.) and Richard Casten (ex-officio, Yale Univ. (NSAC Chair)).
Nuclear Science is a vital and exciting field. The nuclear science research enterprise continues to make great strides in exploring the nature of nuclear and nucleonic structure, probing matter at extreme energy densities, understanding the processes of nucleosynthesis and stellar evolution, elucidating the nature of matter in the universe, and exploring the fundamental symmetries of nature. New facilities have come on line in recent years, and others are planned for the future. At the same time, however, there has been a slow decline in the production of nuclear science PhDs, a scarcity of nuclear science courses available to undergraduates, a lack of ethnic and gender diversity in the field, and broad public misconceptions about all things "nuclear."
In order to "document the status and effectiveness of the present educational activities" as called for in the charge, the Committee conducted comprehensive web-based surveys of i) the graduate student population, ii) the postdoctoral population, and iii) those individuals who had received PhDҳ in nuclear science between July 1, 1992 and June 30, 1998. They also conducted more informal surveys of undergraduates involved in REU programs in nuclear science and the APS Division of Nuclear Physics sponsored Conference Experience for Undergraduates (CEU) program. Over the course of a year, they met frequently and formulated the following recommendations, taken from the Executive Summary of the full report:
| Outreach |
|
We recommend that the highest priority for new investment in education be the creation by the DOE and the NSF of a Center for Nuclear Science Outreach. |
| PhD Production |
|
We recommend that the nuclear science community work to increase the number of new PhDs in nuclear science by approximately 20% over the next five to ten years. |
| Diversity and Professional Development |
|
We recommend that there be a concerted commitment by the nuclear science community to enhance the participation in nuclear science of women and people from traditionally under-represented backgrounds and that the agencies help provide the support to facilitate this enhanced participation. |
|
We recommend that there be a concerted commitment by the nuclear science community to establish mentoring and professional development programs and that the agencies support such efforts through the funding of competitive proposals. |
| Undergraduate Education |
|
We recommend that the NSF and DOE continue supporting research mentorship opportunities in nuclear science for undergraduate students through programs and research grant support. |
|
Additionally, we recommend that they consider expanding support if proposals for undergraduate student involvement in nuclear science research increase. |
|
We recommend the establishment of a third summer school for nuclear chemistry, modeled largely after the two existing schools. |
|
We recommend that there be a concerted commitment by the nuclear science community to be more proactive in its recruitment of undergraduates into nuclear science, particularly among underrepresented groups. |
|
We also recommend that the NSF and the DOE continue to be supportive of requests for recruitment and outreach support. |
|
We recommend that the Division of Nuclear Physics of the American Physical Society consider the establishment of a community-developed recognition award for individuals providing research opportunities and/or mentoring to undergraduates in nuclear science. |
|
We recommend the establishment of an online nuclear science instructional materials database, for use in encouraging and enhancing the development of undergraduate nuclear science courses. |
| Graduate and Postdoctoral Training |
|
We recommend that the nuclear science community assume greater responsibility for shortening the median time to the PhD degree. |
|
We strongly endorse the Secretary of Energy Advisory Boardҳ 2003 recommendation that new, prestigious graduate student fellowships be developed by the Office of Science in the areas of physical sciences, including nuclear science, that are critical to the missions of the DOE. |
|
We also strongly endorse the accompanying recommendation that new training grant opportunities in nuclear science be established. |
|
We recommend that prestigious postdoctoral fellowships in nuclear science be established, with funding from the NSF and the DOE. |
The Subcommittee also endorsed the broad principles reflected in the NSFҳ Criterion 2, which seeks to ensure that research activities have an impact beyond their narrowly defined intellectual objectives. Ancillary benefits of proposed research should be considered, including its success in promoting teaching, training and learning; broadening the participation of underrepresented groups; enhancing the infrastructure for research and education; increasing scientific and technological understanding; and broadly benefiting society.
The detailed survey results which led to the above recommendations are documented in the final report and make very interesting reading which is relevant to all subdisciplines of physics. The report can be downloaded at http://www.sc.doe.gov/henp/np/nsac/docs/NSAC_CR_education_report_final.pdf Joseph Cerny (jcerny@uclink4.berkeley.edu) , a Faculty member in the Chemistry Department at UC Berkeley and a Senior Scientist in the Nuclear Science Division (NSD) at LBNL, was Chair of the NSAC Subcommittee on Education. Peggy McMahan (p_mcmahan@lbl.gov), Research Coordinator for the 88-Inch Cyclotron at LBNL, is Chair of the FEd and a long time member of the DNP Education Committee. |