Physics and Society Jul '97 - Comments
Volume 26, Number 3 July 1997COMMENTSWe are in sympathy with DeVolpi's skepticism about the implication of the 1962 U.S. nuclear test for the usability of reactor-grade plutonium in nuclear weapons. The information disclosed about this test in 1977 represented a compromise between policy makers in the Carter Administration who wished to high-light the proliferation risks of of civilian plutonium use and those responsible for protecting classified weapons-design information. We have been briefed on the details, and do not believe that, even if design and yield of the device had been made public, that the issue would have been settled. However, contrary to DeVolpi's inferences from the 1962 test, reactor-grade plutonium can be used to make nuclear weapons at all level of technical sophistication. In what follows, we briefly outline the technical basis for this conclusion within the limits of classification. To our knowledge, all U.S. nuclear weapons use weapon-grade plutonium, i.e. plutonium with an isotopic fraction of at least 93.5 percent Pu-239. The same is probably true of the weapons in the arsenals of the other weapon states. There are several reasons for this. One of these is that the natural-uranium-metal fuel used in early production reactors had to be discharged after low U-235 burnup because of both reactivity and metallurgical fuel constraints. Such reactor operation naturally produces plutonium with a high Pu-239 fraction. It was also recognized that radiation exposure to workers fabricating plutonium weapons components in glove boxes would be minimized if the plutonium had a low fraction of the higher plutonium isotopes. However, the most important factor in motivating the high Pu-239 content plutonium in early nuclear weapons was the problem of pre-initiation of the chain reaction. In nuclear designs such as the Nagasaki weapon, where the chain-reaction was designed to be initiated at the point of maximum core compression, neutrons from the spontaneous fission of the even plutonium isotopes (primarily Pu-240) could pre-initiate the chain-reaction leading to significant reduction of the yield of the device. Even with very high Pu-239 plutonium used in the Nagasaki bomb, there was an estimated 12 percent of reduced yield from this cause. For weapon-grade plutonium as defined today, this probability would have been considerably higher -- on the order of 50 percent -- unacceptably high to the U.S. military. This provided one of the many motivations for going to more sophisticated designs of fission weapons which incorporated faster assemblies and smaller quantities of fissile material. The introduction of "boosting," i.e. having a low-yield fission explosion ignite deuterium-tritium fusion in the primary releasing neutrons which increase the fission yield by an order of magnitude, further reduced the sensitivity to pre-initiation. The current state of the art is that U.S. nuclear warheads are designed to operate in high-neutron environments due to concerns about interceptors armed with nuclear warheads. This suggests that current warheads are virtually immune to pre- initiation. Reactor-grade plutonium puts out about six times as many spontaneous neutrons per kilogram as weapon-grade plutonium. It also generates about six times as much decay heat; and, after two years storage, its output of penetrating radiation is also six times greater and continues to increase as long as the plutonium's Am-241 content continues to build up. The heat problem can be dealt with, however, if necessary, by increasing the thermal conduction between the plutonium and the outside of a weapon and the radiation problem could be dealt with by adding radiation shielding at warhead fabrication and storage sites. These considerations underlie the recent and most explicit declassified government statement on the usablility of reactor- grade plutonium in weapons: "At the lowest level of sophistication, a potential proliferating state or subnational group using designs and technologies no more sophisticated than those used in first-generation nuclear weapons could build a nuclear weapon from reactor-grade plutonium that would have an assured, reliable yield of one or a few kilotons (and a probable yield significantly higher than that). At the other end of the spectrum, advanced nuclear-weapon states such as the United States and Russia, using modern designs, could produce weapons from reactor-grade plutonium having reliable explosive yields, weight, and other characteristics generally comparable to those of weapons made from weapons-grade plutonium. The greater radioactivity would mean increased radiation doses to workers fabricating such weapons, and military personnel spending long periods of time in proximity to them, and the greater heat and radiation generated from reactor-grade plutonium might result in a need to replace certain weapons components more frequently. Proliferating states using designs of intermediate sophistication could produce weapons with assured yields substantially higher than the kiloton-range possible with a simple, first-generation nuclear device." Even if a rogue state used a design that realized "only" a one-kiloton yield, the consequences would be catastrophic. (5 psi, LD-50 radii) In sum, we are not arguing that a proliferator would not prefer weapon-grade plutonium or highly-enriched uranium to reactor-grade uranium. However, the possible use of reactor-grade plutonium cannot be discounted.
Carson Mark, "Explosive Properties of Reactor-Grade Plutonium," Science & Global Security 4 (1993), pp. 111-128. U.S. Department of Energy,Nonproliferation and Arms Control Assessment of Weapons-usable Fissile Material Storage and Disposition Alternatives (Draft, October 1, 1996).
Marvin Miller and Frank von Hippel Marvin Miller, recently retired from MIT's Department of Nuclear Engineering, currently does research on nonproliferation at MIT's Center for International Studies and is a consultant to the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Frank von Hippel, a Professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, was Assistant Director for National Security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy during 1993- 94. During that period he founded and chaired the U.S. Government's interagency committee on plutonium disposition and launched the associated U.S. negotiations with Russia.
HEINZ BARSCHALLThe nuclear physics tradition at the University of Wisconsin was established by Breit and Ray Herb before the War. After the war Herb had rebuilt the experimental program by bringing in Hugh Richards and Heinz Barschall so they were there when I joined the Wisconsin Department of Physics in the Fall of 1947. My work was mostly in nuclear theory so I had close contact with them and their students from the start. Ray had established a tradition for the experimental group to meet daily for coffee and conversation at the "Long Tank" electrostatic generator experimental area. I became a regular attendee and, as a result, I learned a great deal about experimental nuclear physics and its practitioners, in addition to learning to drink Norwegian style boiled black coffee. What I found out about Heinz there and in my many other contacts with him in the Department is that he had rare qualities of determination and of dedication to his research and teaching as well as to his students and research associates, all of which combined to account for his great success as a physicist and teacher. His commitment to his research and to his students is illustrated by the fact that, when his group was running an experiment at the electrostatic accelerator, he always scheduled himself to take shifts, in particular night shifts, in the same way that the students were scheduled. That was true until, while he was on shift one night in 1956, he announced to the group that he was going to have to miss his next few turns because he would be out of town for a few days. I have all of this by hearsay so that I do not know whether he told them the reason for his brief trip; itwas to attend his own wedding! This illustrates another of his personal characteristics, Heinz was, at least in his early years at Wisconsin, what we now call an extremely private person. Evidently the students did not have an inkling of his imminent marriage. I know that my wife, Jean, and I had no inkling. It happened that we were on sabbatical in Princeton at that time and one day we received a letter from a woman we had never heard of inviting us to her wedding with Heinz. The wedding was to take place at Eleanore's family home in one of the Orange's in New Jersey, which are not far from Princeton. We were certainly surprised! And delighted. Another characteristic for which Heinz was well known was his exceptional efficiency; he didn't waste time on anything, especially on words. Therefore it was natural that the Department called on him to Chair the Department. I believe it was somewhat to the surprise of the University Administration that he demonstrated a high degree of general managerial ability. His determination must have been an even bigger surprise to them. An unforgettable incident illustrating this determination occurred when as chairman he was trying to persuade the Dean to approve a pay raise for a young member of the physics faculty. The Dean said that there was no money in the budget for the raise. Heinz promptly replied that since he (Heinz) had a standing offer from Los Alamos, he would be glad to relieve the pressure on the budget by resigning and accepting the Los Alamos position. The Dean somehow found the money without resorting to that drastic a solution. Heinz's reaction to the disquieting litigation over his study of the pricing of scientific journals, which we have just heard about from Harry Lustig is another example of his determination. After we were separated geographically we continued to cooperate in one way or another on a variety of things. His role in the organization of the DNP brought us together because I had a role as APS Regional Secretary for the Central States in the change in character of the Divisional structure. Later, when he was Chairman of the Physics Section of the NAS, we worked closely together on some problems there. It was always a joy to work with him, not only because of his wisdom, good judgment, and determination, but also because of his frank honesty. He was completely dependable.
Robert G. Sachs REPORT FROM THE PAST CHAIRIt has been a privilege to serve as Forum Chair during the year April 1996-97. Now that my term has been completed I am reporting on that year, as I promised I would in my January 1997 midyear Message. There have been many accomplishments; there has been one obvious failure; there are continuing concerns. I will begin with the accomplishments, which could not have been achieved without the sustained time and effort of all the Forum Officers, the Executive Committee and many other Forum Committees. Those accomplishments include, first and foremost, keeping FPS a healthy APS unit while successfully fulfilling its traditional activities. In particular, the Forum: (i) continued to issue four information- packed highly readable quarterly issues of Physics & Society, although with a new editor and editorial staff becoming responsible for P&S in April 1996 one might have anticipated some disruption; (ii) maintained its reputation for organizing interesting invited paper sessions on important issues of physics and society, at the 1997 APS meetings in March (three sessions) and in April (four sessions, not including the Forum Awards session and a session in memoriam of Heinz Barschall); (iii) through its members on the pertinent Awards Committees, participated in the selection of the winners of the 1997 Forum Award (Martin Gardner), Leo Szilard Award (Thomas Neff) and Nicholson Medal (Lizhi Fang); (iv) nominated and succeeded in having elected Nicholas Carrera, William Colglazier and John Taylor as FPS Fellows; (v) increased its membership from about 4100 to 4600; and (vi) increased its cash balance from about $7300 to $11,500, helped by this increase in membership, but also aided by careful cost controls, mainly in P&S operations. There have been other achievements, more "one shot" than those listed above, that are worth reporting as well. I especially want to mention that the Forum Award has received an endowment sufficient to allow the Award, henceforth to be known as the Joseph A. Burton Forum Award, to include an annual prize of $3,000 starting in 1998 (the FPS officers and Executive Committee cannot take credit for this enhancement of the Forum Award's prestige, however, which resulted solely from very welcome fund raising efforts of the APS officers and headquarters staff). FPS brought a plea by an unemployed APS member to the attention of the APS Committee on Membership, with the result that unemployed APS members now may join at least one APS Forum free of charge. Also deserving special mention is our use of electronic balloting in the recently completed 1997 election of the Forum Vice Chair (Peter Zimmerman) and two new Executive Committee members (Arthur Hobson and Gerald Marsh), an election procedure never before attempted by any APS unit or the APS as a whole. Last fall, the Executive Committee agreed that giving our membership the opportunity to vote electronically might improve the voter turnout, which in recent years has been disappointingly low. We therefore decided to experiment with electronic balloting in the 1997 election, while at the same time continuing to make the customary paper ballots available. Because the FPS ByLaws provide for paper balloting only, a special dispensation to conduct the experiment had to be requested, and was obtained, from the APS Executive Officer Judy Franz. The experiment obviously had to be, and was, devised so that duplicate voting and other balloting irregularities would be detected. The balloting scheme finally constructed, involving casting the electronic ballots via the FPS Home Page, proved to be a great success. A total of 468 valid ballots were cast on the Web and 298 valid paper ballots were received, for a total turnout of 766 votes. These turnouts are to be compared with 220 two years ago and 340 last year. APS headquarters and many APS units have expressed great interest in our experiment, and well may decide to follow our example. The failure has been our continued inability to publicize our FPS invited paper sessions beyond the confines of the APS. I take this failure personally, because in the statement I prepared as candidate for Vice Chair, published in the January 1994 issue of P&S, I wrote: In the past the Forum has admirably illuminated many such problems [of the sort besetting physics and society], to the benefit of its members. I will work to carry on these illuminations, of course, but will also strive to have their light reach more of our non- physicist fellow citizens, an endeavor in which the Forum has not been as successful to date as might have been hoped....In sum, I want the Forum to continue its important role of enabling the APS to examine and participate in public-policy disputes of interest to its members, but believe the entire nation would profit from making the special viewpoints physicists bring to those examinations more accessible to the wider non-physics community. Nevertheless, despite my best efforts, in 1997 no less than in 1994 the non-physics community remains unaware that the Forum customarily offers invited paper sessions which discuss subjects of societal importance in a fashion readily understandable by a non-physicist audience, e.g., the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (Indianapolis, May 1996), Nuclear Waste Cleanup Problems (Kansas City, March 1997), and Low Level Radiation Risks (D.C., April 1997). Indeed the non-physics community seemingly remains quite unaware that the physics community has any interest whatsoever in such subjects. Perhaps Washington D.C. is too blase, but I observed no local press interest in these just mentioned sessions at either Indianapolis or Kansas City. Similarly, there were very few if any non-physicists in the audiences at these sessions, although ever since 1996 displaying evidence of having paid the meeting registration fee has not been a requirement for attending FPS sessions. I hope these sad facts will not deter our new Executive Committee from renewing the Forum's attempts to advertise its invited paper sessions to the general public. I strongly believe the public debates about many problems of national interest, as well as the average citizen's appreciation of the role of physics in our society, would be greatly enriched by the success of such publicity efforts. My concerns stem from the almost complete lack of feedback from our members to the Executive Committee. The increase in FPS membership during the past year suggests FPS continues to be a healthy APS unit; consistent with this suggestion, our 1997 voting percentage of about 17% is very respectable when compared to typical APS unit voting turnouts. On the other hand it is hard not to be troubled by the fact that each of the FPS 1996 (Indianapolis) and 1997 (D.C.) Business Meetings was attended by no more than three FPS members outside the Executive Committee, or by the concomitant fact that our annual P&S requests to our membership for Officers, Committee and Forum Fellowship nominations regularly produce essentially no response. I would feel much more secure about the Forum's health if our members voiced their pleasures and/or displeasures with Executive Committee actions more than very rarely, attended FPS Business Meetings in greater numbers, and regularly came up with at least several non-obvious good names in response to nomination calls. My concerns about the Forum probably would be almost completely assuaged if members occasionally proposed and offered to chair new ad hoc (not ByLaws required) FPS Committees intended to engage in new Forum activities, e.g., countering the growing public enchantment with pseudoscience. I hope our 1997-98 Forum Chair John Ahearne, and his successor Chairs, will manage (better than I was able) to elicit interactions between the FPS membership and Executive Committee, of the kinds described immediately above, that can evidence the Forum's continuing vigorous fulfillment of an important APS role.
Edward Gerjuoy A year ago, the College of William and Mary considered allowing voting for various faculty committees to take place on the Web. Given that physicists are much more familiar with the Web than those in other disciplines, and that voter participation in the Forum's election of officers is very low, I proposed that the membership be given the option of voting for officers via the Web. Since the ByLaws do not provide for electronic voting, we had to ask the APS Executive Board for permission to do this. They agreed to allow the experiment to take place in this past FPS election. Following is a report on the procedures and results of this experiment. Background The American Physical Society, and its various divisions and forums, hold annual elections for officers. The turnout in these elections is generally very low, ranging from 5-25% of the eligible membership. In the early 1990's, participation in the election for officers of the FPS was typically around 15%. Three years ago, as a cost-saving measure, the ballot was printed as a page in the newsletter (as opposed to being mailed separately). This may have been responsible for a significant drop in turnout, to below 5% two years ago (and 7-8% last year). {NOTE: Although eliminating the insert was correlated in time with the drop in voting, correlation does not imply causation-- it could be coincidence. Physicists often draw too many conclusions from two data points....} One factor which may suppress member participation is the relatively large number of steps it takes to vote. One must get the ballot (which may need to be cut out), find the candidate statements (which may or may not be attached to the ballot), read them, vote, find an envelope, and address, stamp and mail it. Many who might be interested in voting fail at one of these steps, which are connected in series. Personally, I failed to vote in the FED election last year, even though I was interested and knew some of the candidates. I'd taken the newsletter/ballot home, decided for whom to vote, marked the ballot, and had intended to take it in and mail it. Other things came up, and I forgot that it was in my stack of papers until after the deadline. With the rapid growth of the Web, it seems that allowing voting via the Web would reduce the number of needed steps, thus improving participation. Since many are on the Web for much of the day, the only action involved would be typing in a URL address, plus a few mouse clicks. The candidate statements and biographies could be linked to their names on the ballot. Obviously, there are many security issues that must be dealt with. After discussions with the FPS Executive Committee, I proposed a procedure to Judy Franz, who presented the proposal to the APS Executive Board. They approved a one-election experiment for the FPS election. The election took place between December, 1996 and early March, 1997. Procedures The greatest concern that many express when learning about electronic voting is security and anonymity. Under the current system, a secretary/treasurer receives the ballots (which are signed on one side of a page with the votes on the other side), opens them, checks the name vs. the membership rolls (if he/she has time to do so--that can be very time- consuming), and after the election deadline counts up the ballots. He/she can always determine how someone votes by simply flipping over the page. Someone can, in principle, vote several times by sending in several ballots (the others obtained from libraries, others, etc.) and possibly using names from the APS directory to avoid duplications. I wanted the anonymity and security of ballots to be no less than the current system. The following procedures were adopted: 1. The Website for voting is given in the newsletter and in an e- mailing to the entire membership. The ballot (which you may see at http://physics.wm.edu/~sher/ballot.cfm) listed the candidates in alphabetical order. The names had links directly to their biographies and candidate statements. 2. The reader was instructed to type in their last name, first name and e-mail address at the top of the ballot. There was no checking to ensure that the address of the machine was the same as the e-mail address, since many physicists use a number of different machines. 3. The reader was then told to vote for one candidate for vice- chair and two for the executive committee. The vote was cast by clicking on the appropriate box, and at the bottom of the ballot, clicking on "submit ballot". If someone voted for too many candidates (such as 3 candidates for executive committee), or if they didn't put in their name and/or e-mail address, the ballot was immediately rejected (and the voter told why) and the voter asked to try again. 4. After submitting the ballot, the reader is thanked for voting. In addition, an e-mail message is sent to the address given by the reader, thanking them again, and asking them to contact me immediately if they did not, in fact, vote. This latter message is to ensure that if person A votes using person B's name and/or e-mail (easily accessible from the APS directory), then person B will be informed. Warning: It is imperative that the e-mail address be checked so that it only includes alphanumeric characters, plus periods and @ symbols; it is possible, although very difficult, for someone to invade the system by sending a command message as an e-mail address; the response would then automatically send things like files. The script we wrote automatically checks this. 5. When the vote is processed, two files are made. One contains the name and e-mail address of the voter, as well as the machine IP number that they voted from and the time of the vote, and assigns a voter number. The other file contains the voter number, and the votes cast. Without looking at both files, therefore, one can't determine for whom any individual voted. It is thus at least as anonymous as the present system. A typical excerpt from the first file is: ********** 45 Sher Marc sher@wmheg.physics.wm.edu Tue Dec 10 20:01:03 US/Eastern 1996 206.161.154.112 pm4-15.wmbg.widomaker.com ********** (here, 45 is the voter number). A typical excerpt from the second file is: *********** 48 Vice-Chair=Peter Zimmerman member-at-large=Art Hobson member-at-large=Jerry Marsh ************ 6. Following the election, the names of all of the voters are put into alphabetical order. Duplicate votes (many will forget they voted, others may click "submit" twice, etc.) are then trivial to catch. The alphabetical list is then compared with the list of FPS members (it is very quick comparing two alphabetical lists---I did it by hand, but a computer could do it pretty easily). Finally, the paper ballots, also alphabetized, are checked to ensure that nobody voted via both methods. Here are answers to several questions regarding security: Could someone vote twice? Yes, and some did (presumably accidentally). If they use their own name each time, they will be caught at step 6 above. Could someone vote in someone else's name? (a)If they used that other person's e-mail address (as well as their name), then the other person would be informed, see step 4 above. (b)If they use a fake address, the message sent in step 4 would bounce and that would be brought to my attention (it happened once, and was clearly a typo in the address). (c)If the person whose name they use is not a member, it will be caught when checking vs. membership rolls. (d) If they use the name of a member (who doesn't vote themselves), and if they have several different accounts so they can use their own e-mail addresses several times, then they might be able to multiple vote (once for every different account they have). This is not much different from voting several times by going around and finding issues of the newsletter, thus I see no significant difference in security. Could someone hack onto my machine and change the files? In principle, but I copied the files to several different machines every day (during the first week or so, when voting was heaviest), and later compared files. No discrepancies. Results There were a total of 499 votes cast. Of these, there were 23 duplicates. A dozen of these were almost simultaneous, and resulted from clicking the submit key twice. The others were two months apart. They were all consistent, so there was never a question as to which of the two ballots to keep (had there been a discrepancy, I would have thrown out the second). There were 4 voters who voted by paper ballot as well as the Web; the Web votes were discarded. Finally, I found 50 names that were not FPS members according to the directory, and contacted the APS membership people. They found all but 4 of the names and said they were members. So those four were discarded. Thus 468 votes were counted. There were 297 paper ballots received. Total votes of 765 should be compared with 220 or so two years ago and 340 or so last year. The turnout of 18% is one of the highest in many years. How much work is this? I hired an undergraduate to write the script (called a perl- script) for the ballot. It took him 8 hours (and he was paid $200). The script is available to anyone who wants it--just ask me. Answering e-mails from voters and other things (like writing this report) took me about 5 hours altogether. Comparing the voter list with the FPS lists took about 2 hours (and is excellent airplane work). That's it. Improvements? Next year, I'd like to check for duplicates automatically, by scanning through the names. If someone has already voted, they could be told right away. Would also check FPS list vs. voter list by computer rather than by hand. One could improve security by asking for the APS Membership number. However, this would be a major step that a voter would have to take, since most have no idea what their membership number is (and looking for a Physics Today copy would be an additional step). Thus, asking for the Membership number would defeat much of the purpose of doing this via the Web. I would hope that the Forum would, next year, send the ballot in a separate mailing, and list the Web address on the ballot itself. That would increase turnout significantly. Conclusions Allowing voting via the Web seems to have significantly increased turnout. As the Web spreads, and high-speed lines are installed, the turnout will increase even more. The election seems to have gone well, with no significant hitches (note: the winners of the paper ballots were the same as those of the Web ballots). Certainly, one should keep the paper ballot option available for the foreseeable future. I would hope that other units will be able to use the procedures available here, and I'd be happy to send them the perl-script files. [Note: Following receipt of the above report, the APS Executive Board voted to authorize all units (Forums,Divisions, Topical Groups) to allow voting via the Web,should they wish to do so, with the understanding that paper ballots would still be available to all members. Several units have already contacted me for the script. The APS general election will remain unchanged for the moment.]
Marc Sher
FPS Electronic Elections: The meeting started on a high note for the Forum on Physics and Society, as the APS Executive Officer Judy Franz highly praised the successful FPS electronic election. She accurately described how Marc Sher established a model that other units might do very well to follow (except that she momentarily tried to credit Marc to North Carolina). The FPS and particularly Marc should be very pleased with themselves for this success. APS Task Force on Careers and Professional Projects: Diandra Leslie-Pelecky reported proposals from the APS Task Force on Careers and Professional Projects. Among its recommendations were a proposal to generate liaison "officers" at all physics departments; to reach physics students; and to develop various projects such as job-description video tapes for beginning students, as well as short courses at APS meetings on business management and on pedagogy for teaching assistants. A motion passed that an official APS committee should be set up to replace the task force and should begin implementing its proposals. The FPS might well be involved in some of this implementation. Publications: Much of the report by Editor-in-Chief Martin Blume about publications is not of direct relevance to the FPS, but nonetheless is worthy of mention. For example: Western European subscriptions to APS journals now exceed those from the U.S.A. (34.4% versus 29.4%). Between 1995 and 1996 the number of articles received has gone up by 4%, the number of accepted articles has stayed constant, and the number of pages printed has gone down by 1%. These numbers are indicative of the fact that the overall acceptance rate has gone from 61% to 58% from 1995 to 96. By this summer all APS journals will exist in electronic as well as print versions. To keep the APS financially secure, non- member subscription rates will rise 7% (3% due to inflation, 3% due to declines in subscriptions, and 1% due to reductions in page charges collected). One motion with direct implications for the FPS is the proposed establishment of an electronic "highlights" journals, in which readable versions of selected Physical Review and Physical Review Letters will be available. The relationship of this journal to Physics Today was not explored by the Council. POPA: The Panel on Public Affairs gave several reports related to public policy. It had supported a statement issued by the heads of 23 scientific societies, in which a 7% increase in Science & Technology funding was recommended to Congress. The good news is that the funding is actually heading in that direction. The Council approved a statement developed by POPA supporting passage of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It also approved a plaque lauding Mr. George Soros for his support of science in the former Soviet Union. POPA issued a warning about copyright laws that may restrict uses of data bases. Councilors: The deadline for electing councilors from APS units such as the FPS has been moved from September 1 to December 1. Any APS unit that wants to take advantage of that later date may do so, but obviously does not have to do so. Memorial Resolutions: Council approved memorial resolutions for Heinz Barschall, Chen-Shiung Wu and Edward Purcell. These resolutions are presented for great physicists who have made extraordinary contributions to the APS. Heinz is one of our own, he did great service for the Forum on Physics and Society. Centennial Report: A tentative schedule was presented for the Centennial APS meeting March 20-26, 1999 in Atlanta. Plans include (1) a Centennial speakers booklet; (2) joint unit symposia around the Centennial theme; (3) a large collection of Nobel laureates to make contact with physicist attendees, the press, the general public, and high school students ; (4) general interests session for the world at large; (5) Centennial symposia; (6) two plenary sessions; (7) as well as the general meeting. For further information, comments or questions contact Sherrie Preische at the APS; e-mail: preische@aps.org. Four-Corners Section: [No, this is not about UNC basketball.] The Council approved a "Four Corners Section of the APS: 4CSAPS." This will consist of members from Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah. Plenary Sessions: The next April meeting (Columbus, Ohio, 1998) will include three plenary sessions . Each session will include three major talks on different subjects, some to be decided at the last minute to "grab" the latest discoveries. It was unclear who would select these talks; it is also unclear whether the FPS or any other unit will have any "rights" or at least consultative privileges. No other invited or contributed sessions may be held in parallel to the plenary sessions, so there will be a considerable reduction in slots available to the units for sessions. x factor: A second reading was held of a constitutional amendment to rationalize the allocation of councilors to the various APS units. Essentially the constitution will have in it a formula for the level at which the various units may elect one or more councilors. As contained in the constitution, this formula that will have in it an x factor (multiplier) that can be changed later without having to amend the constitution each time that the formula is to change. The formula contains hysteresis; the percentage membership that a unit will have to have to get a councilor will be higher than the percentage at which it will lose its councilor. Two-Paper Permission: APS members may now give two invited or contributed talks at a meeting, as long as one is technical and the other deals with broader topics. This has the benefit that the FPS will be more likely to get its members to contribute papers to its sessions, since the members will no longer have to choose between contributing a "technical" or a "societal" report. Mission Statement: The Council approve a revised "mission statement" for the APS. Under Article II on the purpose of the society, it now says "In the firm belief that an understanding of the physical universe is of benefit to all humanity the objective of the Society shall be the advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of physics." Dietrich Schroeer - FPS Councilor
armd@physics.wm.edu > The APS Issues: Perhaps the most impressive aspect of the Council meetings is their continuity. This is continuity in the sense that the same concerns and topics surface every time, and continuity in the sense that slow but steady progress is made on them. One major set of issues for the American Physical Society are concerns about policy for physics, i.e. about funding for research and employment for physicists. The second major issue for the APS is its publications. These dual themes dominated not only the Council meeting, but also the plenary session of the Canadian, American and Mexican Physical Societies the night before the Council meeting, as well as the introductory remarks of the APS President Allan Bromley to the Council. FPS Electronic Elections: The meeting started on a high note for the Forum on Physics and Society, as the APS Executive Officer Judy Franz highly praised the successful FPS electronic election. She accurately described how Marc Sher established a model that other units might do very well to follow (except that she momentarily tried to credit Marc to North Carolina). The FPS and particularly Marc should be very pleased with themselves for this success. APS Task Force on Careers and Professional Projects: Diandra Leslie-Pelecky reported proposals from the APS Task Force on Careers and Professional Projects. Among its recommendations were a proposal to generate liaison "officers" at all physics departments; to reach physics students; and to develop various projects such as job-description video tapes for beginning students, as well as short courses at APS meetings on business management and on pedagogy for teaching assistants. A motion passed that an official APS committee should be set up to replace the task force and should begin implementing its proposals. The FPS might well be involved in some of this implementation. Publications: Much of the report by Editor-in-Chief Martin Blume about publications is not of direct relevance to the FPS, but nonetheless is worthy of mention. For example: Western European subscriptions to APS journals now exceed those from the U.S.A. (34.4% versus 29.4%). Between 1995 and 1996 the number of articles received has gone up by 4%, the number of accepted articles has stayed constant, and the number of pages printed has gone down by 1%. These numbers are indicative of the fact that the overall acceptance rate has gone from 61% to 58% from 1995 to 96. By this summer all APS journals will exist in electronic as well as print versions. To keep the APS financially secure, non- member subscription rates will rise 7% (3% due to inflation, 3% due to declines in subscriptions, and 1% due to reductions in page charges collected). One motion with direct implications for the FPS is the proposed establishment of an electronic "highlights" journals, in which readable versions of selected Physical Review and Physical Review Letters will be available. The relationship of this journal to Physics Today was not explored by the Council. POPA: The Panel on Public Affairs gave several reports related to public policy. It had supported a statement issued by the heads of 23 scientific societies, in which a 7% increase in Science & Technology funding was recommended to Congress. The good news is that the funding is actually heading in that direction. The Council approved a statement developed by POPA supporting passage of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It also approved a plaque lauding Mr. George Soros for his support of science in the former Soviet Union. POPA issued a warning about copyright laws that may restrict uses of data bases. Councilors: The deadline for electing councilors from APS units such as the FPS has been moved from September 1 to December 1. Any APS unit that wants to take advantage of that later date may do so, but obviously does not have to do so. Memorial Resolutions: Council approved memorial resolutions for Heinz Barschall, Chen-Shiung Wu and Edward Purcell. These resolutions are presented for great physicists who have made extraordinary contributions to the APS. Heinz is one of our own, he did great service for the Forum on Physics and Society. Centennial Report: A tentative schedule was presented for the Centennial APS meeting March 20-26, 1999 in Atlanta. Plans include (1) a Centennial speakers booklet; (2) joint unit symposia around the Centennial theme; (3) a large collection of Nobel laureates to make contact with physicist attendees, the press, the general public, and high school students ; (4) general interests session for the world at large; (5) Centennial symposia; (6) two plenary sessions; (7) as well as the general meeting. For further information, comments or questions contact Sherrie Preische at the APS; e-mail: preische@aps.org. Four-Corners Section: [No, this is not about UNC basketball.] The Council approved a "Four Corners Section of the APS: 4CSAPS." This will consist of members from Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah. Plenary Sessions: The next April meeting (Columbus, Ohio, 1998) will include three plenary sessions . Each session will include three major talks on different subjects, some to be decided at the last minute to "grab" the latest discoveries. It was unclear who would select these talks; it is also unclear whether the FPS or any other unit will have any "rights" or at least consultative privileges. No other invited or contributed sessions may be held in parallel to the plenary sessions, so there will be a considerable reduction in slots available to the units for sessions. x factor: A second reading was held of a constitutional amendment to rationalize the allocation of councilors to the various APS units. Essentially the constitution will have in it a formula for the level at which the various units may elect one or more councilors. As contained in the constitution, this formula that will have in it an x factor (multiplier) that can be changed later without having to amend the constitution each time that the formula is to change. The formula contains hysteresis; the percentage membership that a unit will have to have to get a councilor will be higher than the percentage at which it will lose its councilor. Two-Paper Permission: APS members may now give two invited or contributed talks at a meeting, as long as one is technical and the other deals with broader topics. This has the benefit that the FPS will be more likely to get its members to contribute papers to its sessions, since the members will no longer have to choose between contributing a "technical" or a "societal" report. Mission Statement: The Council approve a revised "mission statement" for the APS. Under Article II on the purpose of the society, it now says "In the firm belief that an understanding of the physical universe is of benefit to all humanity the objective of the Society shall be the advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of physics." Dietrich Schroeer - FPS Councilor
armd@physics.wm.edu |