Volume 22, Number 1 January 1993
FORUM ELECTIONS
We print, here, the backgrounds and statements of the candidates for
this year's Forum elections. Ballots will be mailed to Forum members.
Benoit F. Morel, Vice-Chair
Professor of Physics and Engineering and Public Policy,
Carnegie Mellon University. Belongs to the International Peace and
Security Program at Carnegie Mellon. PhD in theoretical physics,
University of Geneva, postdoctoral fellow at Harvard and at Caltech,
Science fellow at Stanford. Current research is on proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and military modernization in the context
of budget cuts.
Statement: The Forum is unique in that it
provides the physics community with an arena to debate policy issues
freely among scientists. It has proven its usefulness in the context
of international security and arms control, and more recently in
global warming and climate change. Still the Forum could and should
have a more prominent place and impact. Global warming, for example
is an area where scientific facts are scarce, and their interpretation
controversial within the scientific community. The Forum could plan
an important role as a meeting point between scientists anxious to
discuss the policy implications of the uncertainties of the evidences,
away from the political scene. In my view one of the Forum's first
priorities should be to broaden its scope and occupy a larger place in
the scientific community.
An important function of the Forum is to interest the
scientific community in policy questions. It has consistently tried
to inspire a more active attitude from scientists. To a large extent
it has been successful, but still there is room for improvement. I
think the priority of the Forum should be to interest the widest
possible community of scientists (not necessarily physicists only) to
participate and debate.
A way to achieve that is for the Forum to strengthen its role
as a catalyst by more actively initiating studies and seeking the
participation of a wider range of scientists. The idea is not to
replicate what the National Academy of Science is trying to
accomplish. Instead of being an opportunity for acknowledged
luminaries to enlighten mankind on the deep problems of the world, the
Forum's studies could give the opportunity for diverse informed
points of view to confront one another on difficult and controversial
problems like the policy implications of the uncertainties of global
warming.
Alvin M. Saperstein, Vice-Chair
Professor of Physics, member and former Chair of Executive
Board of the Center for Peace and Conflict Studies, initiated and
directed co-major program in Environmental Studies, reviewed and ran a
university research participation program for inner-city and suburban
high school students, all at Wayne State University. Research in
theoretical nuclear physics led to election as fellow of APS and AAAS.
Visiting Professor at University College (London), Open University
(UK), SIPRI (Stockholm), and Fulbright Fellowship at PRIO (Oslo).
Long term Forum member, previously served on its executive committee,
and currently initiating a Forum-sponsored study on job and career
prospects for physicists. Current interests: chaos theory and its
applications to modeling the international security system;
interrelations between science, technology and public policy as
manifested in arms control and energy/environment issues; revamping
and rejuvenating the teaching of elementary physics, its applications
and implications to science and non-science students.
Statement: The Forum has long been successful
at catalyzing and sustaining physicists' interests in the
scientific/technological basis of weapons systems and international
arms races. It has helped some physicists to create careers out of
studies in these areas while others have been enabled to make useful
contributions to society while continuing in their more traditional
scientific careers. The end of the Cold War does not eliminate the
need for our continued interest in such international security
studies, but strongly suggests that we also pursue studies in its end
effects, such as the "reconversion" of technical industry to
civil purposes and the associated need for new productive jobs and
career paths for young and reconverting physicists. Working together,
older and younger members of our profession should be developing the
qualitative and quantitative basis upon which useful advice about
physics careers and the roles of physicists in society can be
grounded.
The Forum should also be exploring physics studies and other
activities useful in heading off possible drifts toward future
conflicts. For example, energy and environmental problems are major
areas usefully served by physicists' methods of thinking and
measuring. Our mandate as the link between physicists and society
implies that we should be working with other groups of physicists to
stimulate and carry out improvements in the teaching of introductory
science. Too many well-motivated and well-prepared students are being
turned off from potential science/technical careers because of
existing introductory courses, courses which are also failing to
prepare the general student for his/her role as a citizen in our
increasingly competitive, technological world.
There are many "shoulds" appropriate for the Forum, and
no one year or set of Forum officers can hope to see significant
progress, or even involvement, in all of them. Also, I don't
believe the officers should set priorities based upon
individually-held pre-conceived abstract principles. Progress and
accomplishment will stem from the focused effort and interests of the
Forum membership. As a Forum officer, I would strive to keep all of
the "shoulds" before the eyes of its membership, catalyze and
encourage the development of interests, and support those membership
efforts which seem likely to result in useful activities or products.
Norman Chonacky, executive committee
Research Associate, University of Puget Sound. Board of
Directors, Explore-Maine, an organization for public science
education; founder of and consultant for Science Advent, an
organization for bringing science and technology innovations to
business and education; Chair of AAPT Committee on Computers in
Physics Education. Recent activities include: research in applied
optics, atmospheric physics, and medical physics; research and
development in telecomputing for physics professional development, in
collaborative learning techniques, and in microcomputer-based
laboratory instrumentation for curricular and public science
education; direction of high school student participation in research
on instrumentation, materials, and techniques for demonstrating
radiative global warming phenomena via interactive exhibits for the
general public.
Statement: The Forum has provided
opportunities at working together for academic, laboratory, and
organizational physics to develop their own sensibilities about the
societal aspects of science while creating important and useful
scientific information about key issues in the public interest. I
refer to recent, excellent studies that the Forum has sponsored and
published. The Forum has also provided arenas for physicists to
discuss and debate such issues at scientific meetings and conferences.
I refer to the recent excellent Global Warming Conference and various
sponsored sessions at APS/AAPT meetings. But in addition to
continuing these worthwhile activities, the Forum is capable of doing
more. In particular, I will pro-actively seek ideas for new
activities from members, identify members whose qualifications would
be useful for new activities that the board approves, and extend the
scope of such activities into interdisciplinary areas by recruiting
non-physicists to participate. I am also anxious to see how the Forum
can use telecomputing to create electronic forums for enlarging and
quickening the discussion of societal aspects of science, as a
supplement to our current, excellent newsletter.
Michael V. Hynes, executive committee
Program Manager, Los Alamos National Laboratory, MS in
Management from MIT in 1991, Sloan Fellow at MIT, Oppenheimer Fellow
at Los Alamos National Laboratory during 1980-1983, Weizmann Fellow at
MIT during 1978-1980, PhD in physics from MIT in 1978. Author of
numerous publications in nuclear physics and currently working on
strategic planning issues at Los Alamos involved with the
reconfiguration of the nuclear weapons complex.
Statement: The Forum has a long tradition of
contributions to the national effort towards nuclear disarmament and
nonproliferation. With the recent successes in international nuclear
disarmament and the fall of the Soviet Union the long-sought advent of
a comprehensive test ban or a vastly expanded limited test ban could
be a reality before the end of the decade. Already the existing
legislation has scheduled a halt to testing by 1997. The
Nonproliferation Treaty is due for renewal in 1995 and an expanded
debate on the role of the nuclear deterrent in US strategy and more
generally on the national and international role of the US nuclear
expertise can be expected.
With the departure of the threat of massive nuclear
destruction a renewed concern over the rise of nuclear capabilities in
other nations has come to the fore. What will the nations of the
Former Soviet Union do with their nuclear capability and expertise?
What are we to do with our own? All of these issues and the manifold
that surrounds them need an active public debate to which the Forum
can contribute through its traditional role as an unbiased arbiter of
objective technical analysis.
As a member of the executive committee I would work toward
re-enunciating the Forum's leadership role in the public debate on
nonproliferation and toward establishing the Forum as a leader in the
debate on the future of the US Nuclear Weapons Complex.
Tina Kaarsberg, executive committee
Member, APS Panel on Public Affairs starting 1993. APS
Congressional Science Fellow in the Office of Senator Pete Domenici in
1992. APS Liaison Physicist in the Office of Public Affairs,
1990-1991. Public Policy interests: science funding priorities,
interdisciplinary research such as materials/manufacturing and global
climate change, defense conversion, technology transfer, international
research and technology cooperation and environmental technologies.
Research physicist, University of California at Los Angeles,
1988-1990. Research in experimental high energy particle physics.
PhD from SUNY at Stony Brook, 1988. Since coming to Washington in
Fall of 1990, she has written, spoken, and organized events around the
role of physicists and their research. For example, she and Robert
Park co-authored "Scientists Must Face the Unpleasant Task of
Setting Priorities," in the February 1991 Chronicle of Higher
Education. As a Congressional Fellow she drafted a bill to involve
the DOE laboratories in adapting environmental technologies for
developing and transitional countries consistent with the US
commitments at the June UN Conference on Environment and Development.
Statement: I joined the Forum because I
believe physicists can contribute to solving many societal problems
ranging from economic competitiveness to global environmental
degradation. But such problems are sufficiently complex that
physicists alone cannot solve them. The Forum, however, tended to
focus on those societal problems, such as arms control, for which
physicists are uniquely qualified. I would like to expand the Forum's
scope. I believe this expansion is also necessary as the importance
of "national security," in which physicists were preeminent,
shrinks. Policy makers are asking all researchers, even those doing
basic research, to justify their funding. They want science to help
increase exports, to protect our environment and to cure cancer and
AIDS and do all of this cost-effectively. Where do physicists fit in?
We in the Forum need to talk more to each other and to scientists in
other disciplines to contribute to this discussion. I have worked
closely with the APS Public Policy Committees, with the APS Washington
Office, and with other scientific societies, and this experience would
aid me in better coordinating Forum activities with other APS and
other scientific society activities. We need a timely "Forum"
to democratically discuss urgent issues. I would like to survey the
membership and try new formats at Society meetings--such as the
"Town Hall" meetings now seen in the election campaigns. I
strongly support current Forum efforts to set up an electronic
bulletin board for Forum members. The result of such efforts would be
that the Forum will provide better input to traditional scientific
advisory committees and the policy community in Washington and
worldwide.
Robert Lempert, executive committee
Staff scientist, RAND, Santa Monica, California. PhD from
Harvard in 1986. Current research includes examining long-term
implications of near-term policy responses to climate change;
assessing the role of national labs in developing new energy
technologies for developing countries; and simulation gaming of
transitions to sustainable waste management. Member of RAND's
Critical Technologies Institute, providing analytic support on
technology policy to the President's Office of Science and
Technology Policy. Previous work on smart conventional weapons
technology, stealth technology and cost-effectiveness of strategic
defenses. Term member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Statement: Physicists have a proud tradition
of contributing to the debate over societal problems involving science
and technology. But this tradition has centered on nuclear weapons
and the Cold War. Our challenge is to re-invent the way we think
about physics and society.
The Forum can play an important role in facilitating this
change. I would stress three themes. First, the Forum needs to
continue expanding its range of issues. Recent studies and workshops
on smart conventional weapons, climate change, energy, and education
are a good start. The revolution in telecommunications and the
increasing importance of innovation for maintaining high wage jobs
have also become central issues in today's world. The Forum should
not avoid examining basic issues affecting physicists, such as the
level and purpose of federal funding and the relation between
university and industry research.
Second, in addressing these issues the Forum needs to make its
discussions more useful to the policy community by focusing on
questions of process, in addition to questions of fact. For instance,
the current uncertainties about climate change are huge.
Policy-makers need answers to difficult questions such as: how is our
knowledge likely to increase in a decade? How badly might we by
surprised by impacts which are much worse than we currently imagine?
Institutional issues are also important. For example, it is
increasingly clear that scientists should play a more central role in
shaping US foreign policy so that it better deals with issues such as
competitiveness, environmental protection, the telecommunications
revolution, and defense. How can this best be done? These questions
are more subjective than questions of fact, but the input of
physicists is vital if they are to be answered well. To enrich our
thinking, the Forum should expand its contacts outside the physics
community. We should sponsor articles and speakers from other
academic disciplines, from the policy research community, and from
policy-makers themselves.
Third, the Forum needs to raise the visibility of its
activities within the APS and in the outside community. Several
promising activities are already underway. Additionally, we might
develop a database of members' areas of expertise in order to have
a quick response capability for fast-breaking issues. We might also
examine physics and society issues facing state or local governments.
Compared to the federal government, these bodies have little good
scientific information and would be particularly grateful for some
help.
armd@physics.wm.edu