Event Schedule LUNCHEON Noon to 1:30 p.m. Congressman Bill Foster (D-IL) Confirmed Congresswoman Barbara Comstock (R-VA) Invited
SYMPOSIUM 1:45 to 5:30 p.m. Dr. Rumi Chunara NEW YORK UNIVERSITY Assistant Professor, Computer Science & Engineering, Global Institute of Public Health
Dr. Rebecca Katz
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY Associate Professor, Department of International Health; Co-Director, Center for Global Health Science and Security
Dr. George Lewis
CORNELL UNIVERSITY Visiting Scholar, Judith Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies
Dr. Rebecca Slayton CORNELL UNIVERSITY Assistant Professor, Department of Science & Technology Studies, Judith Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies
Dr. Inês Lima Azevedo CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY Associate Professor of Engineering and Public Policy; Co-Director, Climate and Energy Decision Making Center
Dr. Joanna Lewis GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY Associate Professor of Science, Technology and International Affairs
COCKTAILS & HORS D’OEUVRES 6:00 to 6:45 p.m. DINNER & AWARDS CEREMONY 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Dr. Theodore Postol
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy
Dr. Maxine Singer
CARNEGIE INSTITUTION FOR SCIENCE President Emerita
Dr. M. Granger Morgan
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY Professor of Engineering
Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, Master of Ceremony ORIGINS PROJECT, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY Director, Foundation Professor Federation of American Scientists
2
Why FAS Matters “We feel strongly that the university people of America must use their knowledge and their influence to assist in the formulation of sound international and national policy to give permanent security in progress and peace.” Dr. Charles D. Coryell
While Dr. Charles D. Coryell, a Manhattan Project scientist active in FAS, published these words in December 1945, they are especially apt for today’s Federation of American Scientists. Just over 70 years ago, FAS united a confederation of sixteen chapters of scientists from around the United States to educate policymakers and the public about the implications of nuclear technologies. Today, FAS builds on that insight that scientists must network to leverage their collective power to shape “sound international and national policy” and to contribute to the public discourse not just on nuclear technologies but an increasingly complex set of technical issues that impact society. We come together on September 28, 2016, to celebrate the foresight of FAS’s founders to form an organization that is “devoted to the belief that scientists, engineers, and other technically trained people have the ethical obligation to ensure that the technological fruits of their intellect and labor are applied to the benefit of humankind.” We also are here to give praise to three exemplary scientists who have made major contributions to society as described in this program. In addition, this event provides a platform for younger to mid-career scientists and engineers to showcase on Capitol Hill their work that intends “to give permanent security in progress and peace.” The engineers and scientists who are presenting today work at major research universities and are using “their knowledge and influence,” as Dr. Coryell urged more than 70 years ago. In the past three years, FAS has been revitalizing its network of scientists and engineers to form task forces of independent researchers (many from research universities) who are working together with experts in law, policy, and political science. These interdisciplinary task forces have been performing
70th Anniversary Symposium and Awards Gala
an independent peer review of government reports on use of highly enriched uranium in naval nuclear propulsion, the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, and the implications of open source technologies on current and future arms control agreements, to name a few examples. Independent peer review is one of the main reasons why FAS matters and why there is a critical need for organizations like FAS to keep government accountable and create better public policy. As former FAS Chairman Dr. Frank von Hippel has observed, “While independent peer review helps to maintain the health and integrity of science, its relative weakness in the political arena is one of the reasons why public policy making is too often based more on prejudice than on understanding.” In the coming years, FAS will strengthen its task forces and networks to provide this essential independent peer review, which is democracy in action. On behalf of FAS, I am very grateful to the generous sponsors and individual supporters of this event and the organization as a whole. Together, we are doing our part to make democracy more informed and thus more effective by bringing sound science to Capitol Hill. As we look to the future of FAS, let’s continue to support scientists and engineers educating political leaders at local, state, national, and international levels as well as becoming leaders themselves.
Dr. Charles D. Ferguson President Federation of American Scientists
3
Honorees & Guests DR. THEODORE POSTOL To receive the Richard L. Garwin Award for his work in assessing and critiquing the government’s claims about missile defense. Theodore “Ted” Postol is a Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society at MIT. After receiving his Ph.D., Postol joined the staff of Argonne National Laboratory, where he studied the microscopic dynamics and structure of liquids and disordered solids using neutron, x-ray and light scattering, along with computer molecular dynamics techniques. Subsequently, he went to the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment to study methods of basing the MX Missile, and later worked as a scientific adviser to the Chief of Naval Operations. After leaving the Pentagon, Dr. Postol helped to build a program at Stanford University to train mid-career scientists to study developments in weapons technology of relevance to defense and arms control policy. In 1990, Dr. Postol was awarded the Leo Szilard Prize from the American Physical Society. In 2001 he received the Norbert Wiener Award from Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility for uncovering numerous and important false claims about missile defenses.
DR. MAXINE SINGER To receive the Hans Bethe Award for her exemplary scientific research, leadership, and public advocacy in ensuring the safe, secure, and ethical use of biotechnologies. Maxine Singer helped decipher the human genetic code and has studied disease-related genes that actually jump from place to place in DNA. Since the field of recombinant DNA and other types of genetic engineering first emerged, Singer has been at the forefront of those concerned with its moral and safety consequences. At the National Institutes of Health, she helped formulate the institute’s guidelines about how research in genetic engineering should be carried out. Singer continues to work for safe and ethical use of biotechnologies today. Singer has spent her career as a scientist and public advocate but has also been heavily involved in programs to improve the quality of science education at all levels, from kindergarten to postdoctoral study. She has written several books on genetics and has received numerous professional awards, including the National Medal of Science. Singer has more than 50 years affiliation with FAS; her husband Daniel M. Singer served as FAS’s acting executive secretary during the entire decade of the 1960s. They kept FAS alive and functioning during the crucial period before the organization restructured in 1970. Federation of American Scientists
4
DR. M. GRANGER MORGAN To receive the Public Service Award for his leadership in research and education in addressing problems in science, technology and public policy, with a particular focus on energy, environmental systems, climate change, and risk analysis. M. Granger Morgan has worked in many areas of science and engineering and risk analysis applied to energy policy issues. Morgan’s research interests are primarily focused on policy problems in which scientific issues are a key component of. At the application level, Morgan works in global climate change, deep carbonization strategies, the future of electricpowered systems, and the health-related and environmental effects on current and future energy systems. He has argued most recently in favor of small modular reactors and advanced nuclear energy although he has also done nuanced analysis of the pros and cons of nuclear power. He has trained numerous leading engineers, scientists, economists, and policy experts through his leadership and teaching at Carnegie Mellon. He was one of the first scientists to warn about the dangers of geoengineering.
PANEL SPEAKERS & MASTER OF CEREMONY DR. RUMI CHUNARA
DR. REBECCA KATZ
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor, Co-Director
DR. GEORGE LEWIS
DR. REBECCA SLAYTON
Visiting Scholar
Assistant Professor
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
Computer Science & Engineering, Global Institute of Public Health
Department of International Health; Center for Global Health Science and Security
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Judith Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies
Department of Science & Technology Studies, Judith Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies
DR. INÊS LIMA AZEVEDO CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY
DR. JOANNA LEWIS GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
Associate Professor, Co-Director Engineering and Public Policy, Climate and Energy Decision Making Center
Associate Professor
Science, Technology and International Affairs
DR. LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
Director, Foundation Professor Origins Project, School of Earth and Space Exploration and Physics Department 70th Anniversary Symposium and Awards Gala
5
Excerpts from the correspondence and notes of
Dr. Lyle Borst
Commentary by John Borst
a founder and past leader of FAS The following is an account of the role of one of the founders of the Federation of American Scientists during the years following the bombing of Hiroshima. My father, Dr. Lyle Borst, wrote little of his involvement and what he did write was filled with technical terms or were letters of correspondence with few connections — like signposts in a forest with few trails.
West Stands: The Beginning While completing his PhD at the University of Chicago, dad was a member of the team led by Enrico Fermi who witnessed the first chain reaction. Soon after, he was assigned to work with Dr. Martin D. Whitaker: My assignment was to measure the total fission products for gamma and beta radiation. This would then determine the shielding requirements for the chemical plant. During the spring of 1942 I obtained samples of fission products from the Washington University (St. Louis) cyclotron. My exposure was done on several kilograms of uranyl nitrate, stacked around the cyclotron target. I dissolved it in ether, and separated the small water layer. This contained the fission products, as well as neptunium. I placed this in a small lead shield and stored it under my bed on the train. I probably got more exposure from this than during the rest of the war.
X-10 – Oak Ridge Dad and the family moved to Oak Ridge, Tennessee in 1943 (I was two) where he worked on the X-10 reactor. When many of the other Oak Ridge physicists moved to Los Alamos, he chose not to work on making the bomb. His job was to assist Dr. R. L. “Dick” Doan by supervising the experimental face of the reactor, known as the “North Face.” One of the tasks of the X-10 was to confirm the production of plutonium in the reactor: The operating level at CP-1 at Chicago was perhaps one hundred watts whereas our power
Federation of American Scientists
A WIDE ANGLE SHOT OF THE FACILITIES AT OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY, 1963.
(from the X-10) was [at the level of] megawatts. This would produce about one gram of plutonium per day. The separation plant was designed to process 2 tons of metal per day, so the accumulation of one gram of plutonium would take two or three months. [Such was the lag between plutonium production and its extraction from uranium at the time.]
A New World On the morning of August 5, 1945, only a few dedicated scientists, engineers, and military personnel knew about the devastating new weapon being developed in the deserts and mountains of the United States. By the evening, the whole world had witnessed the destruction of Hiroshima — and three days later, Nagasaki. The Knoxville Journal’s (Tennessee) lead article on August 6 read: “An atomic bomb, hailed as the most terrible destructive force in history and as the greatest achievement of organized science, has been loosed upon Japan,” and that it “was the world’s biggest and best kept secret.” The event established the fact of the atomic bomb. The explosion, at 8:16 a.m. on August 6 in Japan (in the evening of August 5 in the United States), released the scientists and engineers from their three-year silence. 6
They could tell the stunned and curious public about their secret. Having spent three years under the strictest need-to-know compartmentalized security (which meant they could only talk to members of their local team and their superiors), many of them had thought long and hard about the future world with the atomic bomb. These scientists understood the dangers of the future and knew that the public must understand the new weapon.
led by critics of abbreviated hearings recently held by the House Military Affairs Committee, invited every House member to a meeting Thursday to hear first -hand views of the atomic bomb scientists themselves. The meeting [was] addressed by Dr. H. C. Urey, Nobel Prize winner; Dr. Leo Szilard, another key figure in production of the bomb; Dr. Condon, and Dr. L. B. Borst, Chairman of the Oak Ridge Atomic Scientists” (New York Herald Tribune, November 6, 1945).
And so, within two months, the scientists organized at least five associations to educate the politicians and the public about the implications of the bomb. The research centers located in Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, Chicago, and Hanford had their own associations, and one national association was formed. Their concerns faced two fronts: international peace and control of nuclear weapons and, on the national stage, civilian control of the atomic bomb.
The four physicists had lunch with the senators. Dad, sitting to the right of either Senator Brien McMahon or Senator Jerry Voorhis, nervously ate the salad of the senator to his right as he waited his turn as the fourth scientist to speak. The lunch had been opened up and a crowd of 500, with 50 reporters and the remaining senators, attended. His speech is included in the Congressional Record (November 15, 1945) and is quoted here in part:
The Birth of FAS The debate in the nation focused around whether the military should control all aspects of atomic energy. Dad became quickly involved and was chosen to lead the Association of Oak Ridge Scientists. In this role, he traveled to Washington, DC to lobby Congress. After a few days in Washington, “A House group of 18,
You have heard eminent scientists [Urey, Szilard, and Condon spoke first]. You now hear a nobody. My name is anonymous. You have never heard of me. You have never heard of 95 percent of the people working on the atomic bomb. It is for this group I speak. We are the young people. No more than five percent of the scientists working on the bomb are of an age greater than 25. The bomb could not have been accomplished without the older, more mature, more skilled scientists. We, however, have been the backbone and the workmen of the project. Our jobs have not always been interesting. We have not been able to see where we are going because our information has been limited. We have been told what to do. We have done it. I wish to speak in three capacities today. First, representing my Association of Oak Ridge Scientists at Clinton Laboratories as a group of scientists; second, representing my association as a group of citizens; third, representing a larger Federation of Atomic Scientists. As scientists many of us have been born and bred in the project. We have come to the project directly from school. We know nothing else. We look forward to future lives. We wish to live our future lives in an atmosphere of free discussion where we can talk about our work, where we can talk on street cars; where we do not have to use code names. I am sure you people would not like to confine your discussions of legislation to small private chambers. We do not like to confine our discussions of our work to restricted areas. We wish to be creative scientists — not purely destructive scientists.
70th Anniversary Symposium and Awards Gala
7
During the war we have developed a bomb, the peacetime application of which may be of equal importance. We have had no opportunity to investigate it. We wish to live at peace with the world and with our consciences. We object to military security. We object to living on military reservations where a meeting of more than 10 people is a public gathering and must be approved by military intelligence. There are plenty of jobs, jobs as interesting as those we have undertaken, and which pay more. There is a great need for fundamental research. We wish to do these things. … Second, I wish to speak as a representative of my association as citizens. Our group has grown up within two months as a consequence of the use of the atomic bomb as a military weapon. Assertions were made in the papers that we felt were incorrect. We wished to correct these statements. It was a new movement in the realm of science for scientists to take social responsibility for the products of their science. We have restricted information. There are perhaps no more than 2,000 people within the United States who have adequate information upon the structure of the atomic bomb, its utility, its limitations, and its power. We have also had time to consider the problem. We [scientists] have had years to consider the possible social consequences of the atomic bomb. These two categories place us in a different position from the rest of the citizens of the United States. It is, therefore, our duty to help to enlighten the people of our democracy so that the action of our Government will be in keeping with the informed opinion of the people. This we have organized to do. We must not only inform the public but we must also lead the public. That is why I am here today…
form, same purposes, and same aims. During the last week we have accomplished the coalition of six of these groups — yesterday it was four. The aims of the federation are (1) to study the implications on our Nation and the world of the legislation of atomic energy; (2) to create a realization of the dangers that this Nation and all civilization will face if the tremendous destructive potentiality of nuclear energy is misused. (Nuclear energy is atomic energy that you have seen in the papers. It is the technical term;) (3) to help establish an atmosphere of world security in which the private possibility of nuclear energy may be developed; (4) to study the relation between the national legislation and the establishment of an adequate international policy. In the history of the last few months many groups have been organized in isolated locations, independent of each other. Each group has adopted the same platform, same purposes, and same aims. During the last week we have accomplished the coalition of six of these groups — yesterday it was four.
“And third, I wish to announce the formation of a Federation of Atomic Scientists.”
And third, I wish to announce the formation of a Federation of Atomic Scientists. In the history of the last few months many groups have been organized in isolated locations, independent of each other. Each group has adopted the same plat-
Federation of American Scientists
We are also organized to give all possible publicity to the following convictions: (1) That a continuing monopoly of the atomic bomb by the United States is impossible; (2) that there can be no specific defenses against the destructive effects of the atomic bomb; (3) and by all odds the most important, that in view of the existence of atomic power no nation can in this new age feel secure until the problem of the control of atomic power is solved on a world level. And so, the Federation of Atomic Scientists — now known as the Federation of American Scientists — was announced to the world. The presentation worked. This meeting and other FAS lobbying efforts were instrumental in the transfer of nuclear development from the military into the hands of a civilian agency. The passage of the McMahon Bill in 1946 created the Atomic Energy Commission. (See pages 206–210, A Peril and a Hope by Alice Kimball Smith for a more detailed account.)
8
During the next three years, on a shoestring budget, these and other atomic scientists traveled all over the United States speaking at conferences from Colorado to North Carolina and New England, organized by university faculties, church and women’s groups, and industry. For a short period, they were rock stars. Their efforts to increase the public’s knowledge of the atomic bomb were very successful with sufficient contributions to pay for the events and contribute to the FAS coffers. Dad took up the task of designing and constructing the reactor at the Brookhaven National Laboratory for the Atomic Energy Commission in 1946. Even though the McMahon Bill removed the military from controlling atomic energy, the concerns about espionage prompted a policy of secrecy as severe as the policy imposed on the scientists during the war. In 1951, he told Dr. David Gurinsky, who had worked in the metallurgy division and nuclear engineering at Brookhaven, on their drive to work one day that “he was leaving the laboratory because he wanted to be able to tell his children what he was working on” (David Gurinsky, memoirs). On the international stage, President Harry Truman and Prime Ministers Attlee of Britain and McKenzie King of Canada endorsed an amazing proposal for an Inter-
70th Anniversary Symposium and Awards Gala
national Atomic Development Authority, which would receive all the world’s nuclear weapons and control the processing and flow of all the world’s uranium and thorium. This proposal, with modifications, was presented to the United Nations by Bernard Baruch in 1946. The negotiations in the UNAEC dragged on for years. In 1948, Dad wrote to Senator Bourke Hickenlooper describing his concerns: At the opening of 1948 I cannot help but wonder how embarrassed our policy makers would be if another nation suddenly announced that it had atomic bombs ready to use. If our present policy acknowledges this possible surprise then I believe the policy is good and this letter is unnecessary. If, however, such a sudden announcement would embarrass the State Department, or would require the reorientation of our national policy, then I believe that the State Department should have at its disposal the very best estimates as to: 1. the minimum time that another nation may take in producing the first ‘bomb’, 2. the most probable time that we can expect them to take to make the first bomb, as well as 3. the minimum and 4. the most probable times for producing militarily significant quantities of bombs.
9
… It is my opinion that the data developed by this committee [of working atomic scientists, administrators of the Atomic Energy Commission program, and military personnel] for the minimum time in which another nation may have a single bomb may be much shorter than is presently contemplated. Without direct information, I may say that I would not be surprised were this to happen in 1948. [The Soviet Union detonated its first bomb in 1949.] But the politics of fear, led by the increasingly tense international situation and Senator Joseph McCarthy and his accusations of disloyal scientists in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee, destroyed Dad and his fellow scientists’ hopes for world peace through some form of world government. Although a great deal of work was done on international control by the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, the proposal, presented by Bernard Baruch, after years of discussion, was never adopted.
Second Chair of FAS Dad rejoined FAS effort to urge the peaceful use of nuclear energy when he became the chair of the Federation of American Scientists. He was elected as the second Chairman after Dr. Willie Higginbotham resigned in 1951. As the Chair, Dad corresponded with President Truman. In a letter dated December 12, 1951, President Truman wrote:
Consultants on Disarmament to examine “the possible mechanisms of conventional disarmament and atomic control” (letter to Dean Acheson, Secretary of State, drafted May 12, 1952): In spite of the enormous difficulty (often labeled impossibility) of trying to negotiate in the midst of present tensions, the very near future must be looked upon as a last opportunity to end the atomic arms race before it is too late. You and the administration of which you are a part have tried valiantly, and so far have failed. We believe that all possibilities have not been tried, or even formulated and seriously considered. By ordinary standards it is reasonable to wait for the Russians to give some indication of a willingness to talk, but this matter is so urgent that complete preparations should be made in advance to take full advantage of any slight change in their attitude. In the course of the preparations some way might be found to make apparent to them the mutual advantage to be gained by adherence to definite plan, without waiting for them to take the initiative. Such a study might at least broaden the possibilities for negotiation once we are in a position, as you say, to “negotiate from strength.” The alternative to control, which is a continued
… I have made every effort possible to obtain an agreement for the control of atomic weapons so that the peaceful uses of atomic energy could be obtained. If you know of any way to get Russia to agree to control of these weapons I wish you would tell me what it is and then we will try to put it into effect. I’ve had the very best people in the country at work on this situation. They have all had imagination and they have all had ability, and as far as the creation of another commission for the purpose, it seems to me to be entirely unnecessary. Although the original FAS letter responding to the President is not available, a draft in Dad’s correspondence urged President Truman “to appoint a new commission to make a new attack on the control of atomic energy in the hope of finding some scheme acceptable to the Russians as well as [Americans].” This letter led to a meeting on May 2 with two representatives of the Department of State and the creation of the Board of
Federation of American Scientists
10
atomic armament race with no end in sight, save calamity when someone finally makes a mistake, is so serious that it seems to us no stone should be left unturned at this vital time. A very vigorous and inspired collaborative effort to formulate and assess all possible control plans would be small compared with the enormous efforts that are very properly being made in the interests of short-term security. We are convinced that such a search for a generally acceptable control plan is not hopeless, but that it is beyond the scope of individual effort of a part-time group discussions as we have held, and would require a considerable enlargement of the program originally contemplated of the new Board of Consultants and Disarmament, at least on the atomic side. The formulation of this Board seems to be a very propitious start, and provides a framework within which, with appropriate expansion of purpose and facilities, the urgently needed collaborative effort could be mounted.
Atoms for Peace In 1953, the newly elected President Dwight Eisenhower took up the nuclear issue by giving his “Atoms for Peace� speech to the UN General Assembly. Dad was ex-
cited by this development and wrote to the President. He suggested one possible peaceful use of atomic energy was an atomic locomotive. He designed a form of mobile shielding with his University of Utah physics students using unclassified material which could be used in the locomotive and wrote an article published in Life magazine. Although this idea was never seriously entertained, the article demonstrated to the public the variety of uses for which the atom could be used. Dad continued his mission on the peaceful uses of atomic energy. He worked on the design of unclassified atomic reactors by designing a reactor with appropriate shielding for a small scale on campus reactor for the University of Utah. In later years, he developed a sub-critical neutron amplifier.
Utah Fallout Dad remained critical of the secrecy surrounding the AEC, particularly when the policy did not publicly extend to the health of the ordinary citizen. He was a representative for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists at the March 17, 1953 bomb test and reported his experience in the April 1953 edition. After the test, he ran a Geiger counter over the hands of me and my brother and sister, and drafted, in alarm, the following letter to the AEC (selected paragraphs): In my memo of June 6, 1952, to A. R. Olpin (a copy of which was directed to Dr. Shields Warren), I outlined measurements made on the fallout in Salt Lake City from the bomb test of May 7, 1952. In my letter of February 23, 1953 to you, I requested assurance that additional precautions were being taken to avoid the repetition of similar contamination during the 1953 Nevada tests. (Not having heard from you) As a citizen and property owner, I have no recourse but to look to the defense of my own family. When I find contamination on my children the equivalent of any contamination I have ever received in eighteen years of nuclear work, I cannot consider it inconsequential nor trivial. I now have my own monitoring equipment and will keep my children indoors during periods of contamination. As a private citizen this is the extent of my responsibilities. As a former AEC worker with extensive and pertinent experience, I am deeply concerned over the long range affects of AEC
70th Anniversary Symposium and Awards Gala
11
policy. … Single particles falling on my front lawn contain radioactivity associated with 108 fissions. Assuming a bomb efficiency of 10% (which may be as much as an order of magnitude high or low), there will be 109 plutonium atoms in each particle. By statements in the thirteenth semi-annual report, fall-out particles are in the range where there is least efficient filtering action in the nose and lungs. These particles may therefore deposit in the alveolae, beyond scilliary action. If insoluble, they will remain indefinitely. What is the radiation level over what time and what volume which will materially increase lung cancer? This is a question I ask but get no answer. Until such time as I get an answer based upon sound experimental evidence, I shall continue to be concerned about bomb particles. … In an AEC installation where employees are under medical supervision, where the group is generally homogeneous and healthy, and where there is some understanding of contamination hygiene, the conclusions may be valid. How valid are the assumptions, however, when applied to the general population? Consider particularly the number of assurances from official sources that the situation is safe and no consideration need be given to the presence of contamination. … In my AEC experience we have always removed pregnant women from contact with radiation---from lower levels than are now assured to be safe. Yet women who happen to live near the test site are given no such consideration. Springtime is the time for the game of marbles. The only sport I know better suited to spreading contamination over the hands, face and body is wrestling. If my son shows contamination of 10,000 disintegrations per minute on his hands at a distance of 300 miles at a level stated by AEC to be 1 mr/hr, one can expect contamination to reach 250,000 d/m at St. George, Utah, at a level of 25 mr/hr. (The radioactive cloud passed over St. George, Utah after the April test). I do not believe that this value would be considered trivial in most AEC installations. Without cautions about hygiene, the child may be expected to go to bed in an unwashed condition. Two of my children still suck their thumbs. I would not be happy to have them ingesting such contamination.
Federation of American Scientists
… I was appalled to learn from Dr. Bugher that the AEC has no policy of warning residents (after a test) in an area to keep their children indoors at predicted levels appreciably below the evacuation level of 3 roentgens. I see no justification nor excuse for the lack of such warnings. The letter was addressed to the AEC Commissioner Gordon Dean, HD Smyth and the President of the University of Utah, AR Olpin. It is not dated and a signed final copy is not in Dad’s records. In later correspondence, he indicates the AEC disagreed with his assessment. Dad felt so strongly about the public’s health that he contacted the Dean Edward Levi of the University of Chicago Law School. The Salt Lake Tribune’s article of the day quoted the AEC’s reassurance of safety. The attempts by the Manhattan Project scientists to create a safe world for atomic energy was met with success initially, but their strong desires and work did not lead to the international peace they sought, the free exchange of science with the rest of the world, or the inclusion of the public.
70 Years of Success Now, more than 70 years later, the predictions of the scientists have come true. Defense against nuclear weapons is still not possible and never can be. Control of nuclear weapons through secrecy could not work because the nuclear bomb was a result of science any nation could duplicate. And a nuclear arms race developed because international control of nuclear weapons failed to be established. In addition, the secrecy the scientists despised ignores the importance of educating the public and has grown into a major industry and way of life. The Federation of American Scientists survived and refined its role to “provide science-based analysis of and solutions to protect against catastrophic threats to national and international security” (via fas.org). I am impressed by my father and other scientists’ roles in the formation of the FAS and his long campaign for peace and openness. I believe he would be proud of the role the federation plays in monitoring U.S. nuclear policy, and its vigilant interest in the role secrecy and security plays in our society. All photos courtesy of John Borst. 12
HBO
proudly supports the
FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS and congratulates tonight’s honorees
DR. M. GRANGER MORGAN Carnegie Mellon University
DR. TED POSTOL MIT
DR. MAXINE SINGER The Carnegie Institution for Science
©2016 Home Box Office, Inc. All rights reserved. HBO® and related channels and service marks are the property of Home Box Office, Inc.
An anonymous donation was made in honor of former FAS President
DR. HENRY C. KELLY
Friends of Science The Federation of American Scientists would like to thank the following contributors for their generous support of this event:
Jim Anthony
Seth Henry
The Dyer Group, Inc.
Bill Martin
Charles D. Ferguson
Harvey Rishikof
Edward Friedman
James H. Strother
Stunning, Award-Winning Custom Homes on the Lakes and Mountains of the Carolinas.
www.FairviewBuilders.com 864-836-1133
‘
Renowned geologist Ruth A. M. Schmidt left a generous contribution from her estate to FAS for a lasting legacy of a safer world through science. So can you. The Federation of American Scientists hopes to continue efforts to advance sound science in public policy for generations to come. We’d like your help in accomplishing this goal. You, like many others, may be reviewing your long-term estate and financial plan. Please remember that your will, life insurance policies, retirement accounts and other planned giving vehicles may offer exceptional opportunities for leaving the lasting legacy of a safer world through scientific reasoning. It is easy to provide a bequest to the Federation of American Scientists. You may leave the Federation of American Scientists a specific amount of cash or specific property, a fixed percentage of your estate, or all or part of the residue of your estate after bequests to other beneficiaries. Whichever methods you choose, if properly structured, your bequest will be fully deductible from your estate, thus decreasing any tax liabilities, as allowed by law. We at the Federation of American Scientists would be pleased to help you and your financial advisor choose a way to support the Federation of American Scientists’ important work that best fits your personal philanthropic goals. For more information about the advantages of considering the Federation of American Scientists in your estate planning, please contact fas@fas.org with subject line “Estate Planning” or call 202-546-3300.
STAFF & BOARD MEMBERS STAFF AND AFFILIATES
AFFILIATES
STAFF
SENIOR FELLOW FOR NONPROLIFERATION LAW AND POLICY
Charles D. Ferguson
Chris Bidwell Martin Hellman
ADJUNCT SENIOR FELLOW FOR NUCLEAR RISK ANALYSIS
PRESIDENT
Bruce MacDonald
Steven Aftergood DIRECTOR OF PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT SECRECY
Hans M. Kristensen
ADJUNCT SENIOR FELLOW FOR NATIONAL SECURITY TECHNOLOGY
Jenifer Mackby
SENIOR FELLOW FOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
DIRECTOR OF NUCLEAR INFORMATION PROJECT
Naoyuki Ueda
RESEARCH FELLOW FROM MEXT, GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN
Kevin Feltz FINANCIAL CONTROLLER AND OFFICE MANAGER
Robert S. Norris
Pia Ulrich
Paul Sullivan
INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR POLICY ANALYST
SENIOR FELLOW FOR NUCLEAR POLICY ADJUNCT SENIOR FELLOW FOR FUTURE GLOBAL RESOURCES THREATS
Ward Wilson
Frankie Guarini MARKETING AND COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER
ADJUNCT SENIOR FELLOW FOR RETHINKING NUCLEAR WEAPONS
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
BOARD OF EXPERTS
Gilman Louie
Rosina M. Bierbaum
CHAIR
CHAIR
Maxine L. Savitz Michael L. Telson
Rosina M. Bierbaum
Scott Sagan
Valerie Thomas
VICE CHAIR
VICE CHAIR
Stephen Paul Hamblen
Alton Frye Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty Martin Hellman Lawrence M. Krauss Martha Krebs Jan Lodal Rodney W. Nichols
SECRETARY/TREASURER
Charles D. Ferguson PRESIDENT
Jan Lodal Rodney W. Nichols Robert M. Solow† Frank N. von Hippel†
BOARD OF SPONSORS Sidney Altman* Bruce Ames Philip W. Anderson* Kenneth J. Arrow* David Baltimore* Paul Berg* Drew Berry J. Michael Bishop* Gunther Blobel* Nicolaas Bloembergen* Josh Bongard Paul Boyer* Michael S. Brown* Tad T. Brunye Linda B. Buck* Anne Pitts Carter Martin Chalfie* Stanley Cohen* Leon N Cooper*
E.J. Corey* Johann Deisenhofer* Sidney D. Drell Ann Druyan Xiangfeng Duan Paul R. Ehrlich Demetra Evangelou George Field Jerome I. Friedman* Riccardo Giacconi* Walter Gilbert* Sheldon L. Glashow* Roy J. Glauber* Joseph L. Goldstein* Paul Greengard* David J. Gross* Tina Grotzer Roger C.L. Guillemin* W. Nicholas Haining
70th Anniversary Symposium and Awards Gala
Leland H. Hartwell* Dudley R. Herschbach* Frank von Hippel Roald Hoffmann* John P. Holdren H. Robert Horvitz* Peter Huybers Eric R. Kandel* Wolfgang Ketterle* Ali Khademhosseini Brian K. Kobilka* Roger D. Kornberg* Leon Lederman* Robert J. Lefkowitz* Roderick MacKinnon* Eric S. Maskin * Jessica Tuchman Mathews Roy Menninger Matthew S. Meselson
Richard A. Meserve Mario Molina* Stephen S. Morse Ferid Murad* Ei-ichi Negishi * Douglas D. Osheroff* Aydogan Ozcan Arno A. Penzias* David Politzer* Paul Portney Mark Ptashne David M. Reif Burton Richter* Richard J. Roberts* Jeffrey Sachs Sara Sawyer Randy Schekman* Phillip A. Sharp* K. Barry Sharpless*
Evgenya Simakov Neil Smelser Marin Soljačić Robert M. Solow* Jack Steinberger* Thomas A. Steitz * Joseph Stiglitz* Daniel Tsui* Harold E. Varmus* Robert A. Weinberg Steven Weinberg* Eric F. Wieschaus* Torsten N. Wiesel* Frank Wilczek* Ahmed Zewail* * Nobel Laureate † Ex oficio
19
Thank you for celebrating the Federation of American Scientists’ 70th anniversary. Your participation and support help ensure that FAS can continue to give scientists and engineers a voice in public policy. Please visit fas.org to learn more about the work FAS does and how you can get involved.