Dr. MCDANIEL. I might say that the closing of the Princeton-Penn Accelerator has given me and my staff some of the most distressing moments in our lives.

Chairman HOLIFIELD. I am sure it has.

The thing I am worrying about is that the cut in your Cambridge Electron Accelerator from $3.5 million for 1970 to $2.4 million for 1971 may be the entering wedge to closing it down next year and then probably the Berkeley Bevatron following that if this crunch continues.

Dr. MCDANIEL. Last year when I appeared before this committee, I said that we had no plans for closing down the PPA accelerator. Chairman HOLIFIELD. I am sure you did not have plans to cut it down from $3.5 to $2.4 million. That was imposed on you by the Budget Bureau.

Dr. MCDANIEL. In November, I had to write Dr. White to curtail operations. In January, I had to tell him we were going to close it. At the CEA, we certainly have no plan or intention of closing the Cambridge Electron Accelerator. We need to have that machine operate in this country at least for the next 2, 3, or 4 years, to give us some modicum of experimentation with the colliding beam. It will take about that long to get any useful results out of the colliding beam effort of that machine.

We tried to assure the Cambridge Electron people when they were down here the other day that we have no intention of closing it; we are going to fight hard to keep the Cambridge Electron Accelerator going. In fact, if you look in our projections even with the fiscal stringencies we face here we are talking in terms of increasing the funds going to CEA in the next few years a small amount.

I would like to assure you, Mr. Chairman, and the people at CEA and the high energy physics community that we certainly have no intention at the present time of closing CEA.

Chairman HOLIFIELD. I predict unless there is a change of attitude you are going to have trouble next year getting $2.4 million. I am just wondering

Dr. MCDANIEL. I hope you are wrong.
Chairman HOLIFIELD. I hope I am.

BEVATRON-LRL

There is some pessimism out at Berkeley, too, in regard to the use of the 6 Bev Bevatron. I am wondering what this situation is going to be.

Dr. MCDANIEL. We have felt this year, with our budget stringencies that we had to make a reduction in the operating expenses at the Bevatron. We assigned a $600,000 reduction at the Bevatron in this budget.

Chairman HOLIFIELD. That is about what percent, 5 percent?

Dr. MCDANIEL. It is a small amount, of this order of magnitude; yes, sir.

This type of chipping away can be handled by reducing activities and by firing of a few people here and there and curtailing activities and stretching things out.

If the fiscal pressures continue over a longer period of time, Berkeley would have some problems. I certainly hope that the Government will be able to finance these machines over the next few years at a little better rate.

STATUS OF RUSSIAN EFFORT

Chairman HOLIFIELD. Dr. White pointed out, and rightly so, that what we are doing here really is chipping away at the base of our supply of scientists. I am just wondering what is happening in Russia, if there is a decrease over there of their research in the high-energy physics field or if they are progressing?

Dr. MCDANIEL. All the information that we have is that they are devoting a great deal of their attention to improving and carrying out and exploiting experiments on the 76 Bev machine, that they are doing a very fine job, that they have the Novosibirsk Laboratory working very hard. It is hard for us to compare budget figures in the Soviet Union.

Chairman HOLIFIELD. But you have no information that they are having to turn away young scientists and deny them access?

Dr. MCDANIEL. On the contrary, we have the impression that they are doing very well.

Chairman HOLIFIELD. That is the information we have, that they are enlarging their scientific pool rather than decreasing it.

Proceed.

Representative HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to get a thought on the record.

It is always a great difficulty when the time has come for anything or anybody to retire, voluntarily or otherwise. Notwithstanding these difficulties that you encounter with not only this committee but the communities surrounding some of these installations, I believe when the time comes and the priorities are much lower with respect to some investment than they are to others, that a choice has to be made and a decision has to go forward despite the heartstrings being tugged on a basis of those who are loyal and dedicated to a particular facility.

I think that has been the way of the world for all of history, and it probably will continue that way.

Dr. MCDANIEL. Mr. Hosmer, I certainly agree with that.

However, taking the Princeton-Penn accelerator as an example, I, personally, believe we have cut too deeply into a very viable community.

Representative HOSMER. I am quite certain it is not a matter of somebody not liking high-energy physics. It is a matter of somebody not liking inflation more. In other words, it is a question of priorities. Now, in the selection of priorities, one can often err. But I suppose that we really have not set ourselves up as a nation or a government to choose priorities with any degree of either swiftness or absence of agony, and even with any degree of wisdom at the present point.

I suppose we can blame part of this on the system as well as upon the preferences of individuals involved.

Dr. MCDANIEL. The system is complex but it is the only system we have.

IMPACT OF FUNDING ON SUPPLY OF SCIENTISTS

I would urge on the people who consider priorities one fact, that one simply cannot in the scientific educational field turn on and off activities as promply as one can in construction and engineering fields. We have signaled in a minor way, and if the Chairman is right, in a

major way, that high energy physics is to be deemphasized. If this signal continues to go out, the enthusiasm in the younger community will simply disappear. People will choose to go into other fields and 20 years would elapse in my estimation before one could turn it back on. Representative HOSMER. Ph. D.'s are about 7 or 8 years or more in the pipeline, anyway.

Dr. MCDANIEL. That is correct.

Representative HOSMER. I have read agonizing tales of the newly investitured Ph. D.'s finding it difficult to get a job.

Dr. MCDANIEL. It is difficult. They have to apply two or three places, but they have all been placed.

Representative HOSMER. And not at salaries that prevailed at an earlier time.

Dr. MCDANIEL. The point I am making is, I am sure you agree with me, that if for some reason we signal to the youth of this country don't choose high energy physics or don't choose medium energy physics, several years will be lost in the training of people and, in my estimation, it will take two generations getting it back.

Representative HOSMER. If you want to point to a particular example, I think you might point to the mine engineering field where somehow or other that training stopped almost entirely. When we need a lot of good mining engineers, we don't have them.

Thank you.

CAMBRIDGE ELECTRON ACCELERATOR (CEA)

Dr. MCDANIEL. The Cambridge Electron Accelerator, a 6 Bev electron synchrotron, is currently operating at an average of 17 shifts per week, of which about 14 shifts are devoted to research and colliding-beam development. About 40 percent of this time is associated with development of the colliding-beam bypass project, and the remaining 60 percent consists of conventional electromagnetic experiments.

During fiscal year 1971, the program will be concentrated on obtaining results from the colliding-beam experimental program. The CEA is the only facility in the United States with any capability to carry out this unique type of research.

Other research activities at the CEA will be substantially reduced, including termination of many of the more conventional electromagnetic type experiments early in fiscal year 1971. A decrease of $1,100,000 is scheduled for this facility.

The research groups at Harvard University and MIT will continue to receive support for their colliding beam work, for theoretical research, and for their experimental activities conducted at other accelerators. As is the case with Princeton University and the University of Pennsylvania, we expect these groups to continue as a viable and productive part of the program.

ZERO GRADIENT SYNCHROTRON

Research capabilities at the zero gradient synchrotron will be considerably enhanced in fiscal year 1971 by the availability of four new secondary beams, and the first full year of 12-foot bubble chamber operation.

The accelerator will be shut down for about 5 months in fiscal year 1971 for installation of a new vacuum chamber. The ZGS is currently operating on a schedule which averages about 15 shifts per week. During fiscal year 1971, the accelerator is expected to continue near the fiscal year 1970 shift level, when operating.

Our plans anticipate shut down of the 40-inch heavy liquid bubble chamber, which is the only one of its type in the United States. Adjustments of this type should permit the ZGS program to continue in fiscal year 1971 at a level of $320,000 below fiscal year 1970. Representative HOSMER. How much do we have invested already in ZGS?

ZGS COST CHRONOLOGY

Dr. MCDANIEL. Of the order of $50 million.
Mr. Abbadessa has the exact fiscal accounting.

Representative HOSMER. Hasn't that traveled a rather rocky road during its history?

Dr. MCDANIEL. During its history, it was subject to several variations brought on by ourselves and the laboratory.

It started off, as you recall, with a smaller different device to catch up with the Russians. Then the project was changed to around $25 million and then we changed the scope of it a couple of times to add additional facilities to the original. I think the final figures were

Mr. ABBADESSA. We will have to furnish it for the record, but I believe it is about $55 million. The accelerator per se cost $51.4 million; in addition we have over the years added capital equipment and improvements aggregating $38.5 million for a total investment in the ZGS of $89.9 million.

Representative HOSMER. Have any lessons been learned?

Dr. MCDANIEL. We learned lessons on how to contract for magnets. Yes; we learned a lot of lessons.

Representative HOSMER. Thank you.

Dr. MCDANIEL. A lot of the information on the substructure at Argonne was of great value in understanding the substructure at the Weston site.

Representative HOSMER. Some people said the ZGS was a horror

case.

Dr. MCDANIEL. We are proud of the ZGS. We are not proud of the entire construction record with respect to ZGS. We think we made several mistakes there.

Representative HOSMER. It took a long time to get it moving.

Dr. MCDANIEL. Yes. It is now a very fine machine and we are very proud of it.

I might say the new Director of the Laboratory has told me of the pride he has in the machine and he had nothing to do with its construction.

BEVATRON

The Bevatron continues to operate on a 21-shift-per-week basis, but with several weeks of shutdowns per year. During fiscal year 1971, additional shutdowns will be necessary, and operation of the 25-inch bubble chamber will probably have to be terminated.

Activities of the in-house research groups will also be restricted, although they are expected to maintain a high level of productivity in processing the pictures of high energy events taken in bubble chambers through continued efficient operation of automatic and semiautomatic measuring systems. A decrease of $600,000 is scheduled for this activity.

Representative HOSMER. Now that my geographical ox is being gored, I want you to know my attitude about this is not philosophical as it was in our previous discussions on the PPA. [Laughter.]

GENERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Dr. MCDANIEL. A total reduction of $1,130,000 is scheduled for this activity. Of this amount, $725,000 will have to be made by selective reductions either in contract levels or contract terminations throughout the university research program.

Most of the remaining reduction will be taken against the advanced accelerator research and development activity, which will result in stretch out of studies of the electron ring accelerator concept.

Before leaving the high energy physics program, a brief comment concerning the status of high energy physics research abroad may be of interest.

In this fundamental field, the kinds of experimentation that can be done are closely associated and dependent upon available accelerator energies, intensities, and other capabilities. At present, the Soviet Union has an obvious energy advantage with its 76-Bev. machine at Serpukhov where research activities began in 1968.

Several significant experiments have been accomplished to date at Serpukhov, including the initial survey experiments and an as-yet negative search for quarks.

Other major high energy accelerators in the Soviet Union are the 10-Bev. Dubna Synchrotron, the 7-Bev. synchrotron at Moscow, the 6.1-Bev. Yerevan Synchrotron, and the 2 Bev. Kharkov Linear Accelerator.

Other foreign nations with strong experimental programs in high energy physics include Italy, Japan, France, Germany, and Britain; although available machine energies in these countries are generally on the order of a few Bev.

In addition, the Western Europeans (CERN) have a very strong program at Geneva with their 28-Bev synchrotron, and also expect to have operating an intersecting storage ring (ISR) facility there in 1971.

The CERN organization also has plans for constructing a 300-Bev machine which, if plans materialize, will enhance the experimental capabilities of their program immensely.

Representative HOSMER. Is the Commission offering them any advice on locating a site?

Dr. MCDANIEL. I think the Commission probably could select a site. But since this is a European problem I don't think any advice is being offered to them, Mr. Hosmer. It is a serious problem in the community for the selection of a site. We have every reason to believe that they are going to select a site when their processes are carried through.