Representative HOSMER. Would you like to speculate on where? Dr. MCDANIEL. No; I wouldn't. It is too complex.

In addition to the experimentation being accomplished at existing accelerator laboratories, considerable effort by several nations is being given to the development of new accelerator concepts and techniques, including such areas as superconducting magnets and synchrotrons, superconducting microwave accelerators, the electron ring accelerator, and storage rings for colliding beams.

Chairman HOLIFIELD. Now, do you believe that the people in Congress and elsewhere who complain about the size of the overall AEC budget take into account the fact that a quarter of a billion dollars of the budget goes to support a large share of this Nation's physical research program?

Dr. MCDANIEL. I would not question the motives of Members of Congress on any subject. I certainly agree with the number you have quoted.

AEC SUPPORT OF PHYSICS RESEARCH

Chairman HOLIFIELD. More than 90 percent of the physical research in high energy physics is under the AEC. That is strictly, of course, a national effort which is only related, you might say, by propinquity to the regular production and utilization of atomic energy.

Dr. MCDANIEL. I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that that figure is not as widely known as perhaps it should be. I am glad you brought it up. Chairman HOLIFIELD. I think one of the things that is causing the squeeze on the overall program is the fact that we are carrying this burden, you might say, gratuitously along with our regular items in the atomic energy budget. I know it has to be somewhere. I think it is probably better to have it concentrated under one head than it was before when it was separated into a dozen different categories. So, I am not saying that it should not be concentrated since we now can get a handle on it and know what we are doing. I think that is good.

There have been some statements by Members of the Senate and there have been some newspaper reports complaining about priorities and criticizing the overall AEC budget. I am just wondering if this particular quarter of a billion dollars, which is quite a sizable part of the budget, at least 10 percent, is widely known?

Dr. McĎANIEL. I suspect it is not as widely appreciated. Perhaps there is an opportunity for it to be known.

But the problem is not as widely appreciated as it should be, certainly the high energy physics aspects of the Commission's program. The total program of the Nation, if one puts aside the Cornell accelerator and the small accelerator at Stanford University provided by the National Science Foundation, is a few million dollars. The 200 Bev is certainly all for the national program in high energy physics.

Chairman HOLIFIELD. It is my understanding there are many facets to a high energy physics experiment, including setup, data compilation, measurement, and analysis.

To what extent do the persons responsible for approving the experiments consider the cost of these operations and, where applicable, compare this information with the costs to run the experiment on

Dr. MCDANIEL. The answer to that question is a very complex one. I would say at some stages in the process of the experiment the actual cost of the experiment is not given any consideration. That is, in the scientific judgment, the value of the proposed experiment to solve any specific scientific problems, the committees that consider the scientific value, or the proposed scientific value, probably do not give any substantive consideration to the cost of the experiment.

Chairman HOLIFIELD. You know I have heard there is a GAO review underway which indicates that there may be some neglect in the overall setting of priorities in this program.

Dr. MCDANIEL. There may be, Mr. Chairman, although I do not believe I have seen their report.

I would be the first to admit that while we do the best we can we don't do enough.

Continuing on, though, in connection with looking at the cost for the experiment, the laboratory responsible for the operation of the accelerator, itself, must judge at some stage how much of their resources they can devote to a particular experiment if the scientific committee has approved it for going ahead.

Chairman HOLIFIELD. What is the point, then, of the criticism?
Dr. MCDANIEL. I, frankly, don't know.

Mr. ABBADESSA. Mr. Holifield, the GAO report, first of all, is only at a draft stage at the present time.

Their specific point, I believe, is not so much related to the cost of the experiment as to the cost of the data analysis system which involves equipment like spark chambers and things of that nature.

Their draft report has two recommendations. One is to have the AEC attend program committee meetings. We believe we are going to accept this recommendation.

Their specific recommendation on the need to improve coordination and development of data analysis devices and methods we are looking at. Up to this time, this has been a very difficult field and neither the research nor budget people have been able yet to come up with any suggestions on how to achieve what the GAO wants.

The GAO has not yet finalized this point but we are working with them and we are going to try to get all the advantages we can out of their suggestion.

Representative HOSMER. The staff and members have collaborated on questions that have not been asked. I would ask unanimous consent they be submitted to the Commission for answers on the record.

Mr. ABBADESSA. We will be happy to answer any such questions that you might submit.

Chairman HOLIFIELD. All right.

We will submit questions, Doctor, in order to speed along. (See JCAE questions and AEC answers beginning on p. 572.)

MEDIUM ENERGY PHYSICS

Dr. MCDANIEL. Research investigations under the medium energy physics category are conducted in order to develop our knowledge of nuclear structure and elementary particle phenomena at energies of 50-1,000 Mev. Particle beams from accelerators are utilized as unique nuclear probes to investigate the binding forces which hold neutrons and protons together in an atomic nucleus.

A $965,000 increase is needed in this program for constructionrelated research and development work on the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility (LAMPF), and to proceed with preparations for the utilization of the accelerator when it is complete. In addition, an increase of $100,000 is needed to aid in the development of university user groups for this facility.

At the present time, small LAMPF user groups are in existence at Argonne and Brookhaven National Laboratories, Rice University, University of California-Los Angeles, Carnegie-Mellon, University of Virginia, and University of Houston; all with funding levels of $100,000 or less.

Total support for user groups in fiscal year 1971 will be about $610,000. In order to optimize interaction among user groups, and between user groups and the LAMPF organization, the "LAMPF Users Group" was formed in January 1969. At this time, membership is 427 people, representing LAMPF and 15 other institutions. Several ad hoc working groups have held numerous sessions devoted to detailed planning and design, and have crystallized plans for LAMPF experimental beam facilities.

As of the end of January 1970, design and engineering services on the LAMPF project were nearly 70 percent complete, procurement was 47 percent complete, and contruction activities were 33 percent complete. The 100 Mev. facility, which is the injector plus the drifttube linac, is about 99 percent complete, and beneficial occupancy of the building has been taken.

The buildings which house the 805-MHz waveguide linac facility are progressing very well, and are about 78 percent complete.

The 115-kilovolt substation is nearing final acceptance. The Laboratory-Office Building is nearing completion, and construction of the operations building is well underway.

A $2.9 million contract was awarded in September 1969 for construction of phase I of the experimental facility. As you know, this facility was fully authorized in fiscal year 1968 at a total estimated cost of $55 million.

Through fiscal year 1970, a total of $38.3 million has been appropriated. Our request of $10.5 million in fiscal year 1971, and the project balance of $6.7 million in fiscal year 1972, would permit completion of all construction in the summer of calendar year 1973. We now expect that an initial beam will be available by the summer of calendar year 1972.

At the present time Varian Associates, Inc., is building 40 electron accelerators of 4 Mev for radiotherapy, using the LAMPF design developed in fabrication of the electron prototype accelerator (EPA). Pricing information is not available, but they are expected to cost less than any other electron accelerators of comparable energy, and perhaps even less than radioactive cobalt therapy units.

The EPA facility at Los Alamos is being used by the University of New Mexico Medical School to irradiate mice to very high dosages so that cellular changes may be studied by electron microscopy. The biomedical applications section of the LAMPF users group at this school has applied to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for support of a regional plan for meson radiotherapy of

cancer.

AEC PATENT POLICY

Representative HOSMER. I am just wondering, in light of all these budget woes, if the idea of free use of these patents such as this one in connection with the meson facility, the one that Varian is using to make their machines, ought to be reconsidered and perhaps some royalties obtained for the Government.

Dr. MCDANIEL. I certainly am not an expert on the Commission's patent policy. I do not know how to answer your question.

I do know that the invention was a result of the work at Los Alamos. Perhaps Dr. Rosen who is here from the Los Alamos Laboratory could tell you something about this invention.

Chairman HOLIFIELD. Dr. Rosen, will you come forward, please? We want to ask some other questions of you, anyway, at this point. Dr. ROSEN. Thank you.

Chairman HOLIFIELD. Of course, I think this question of patents is probably not a proper question for these men to answer. It is a matter of AEC policy implementing the Atomic Energy Act which for the first time made it possible for Government-paid-for research that resulted in patentable usable items to be available to all rather than just to the individual who was fortunate enough to get the contract.

Of course, we know the British custom is for the Government to take those patents and charge royalties on them. In the United States we have either let the contractors take them for their own benefit, as occurs in most defense contracts I might add, or we have tried to protect the Government's investment as in the AEC operation. I think that to a great extent we have been successful.

I have studied this subject a long time, and I have studied it deeply. The subject of upsetting or changing AEC's existing policy is one that would present some difficulty.

Representative HOSMER. I did not really throw this thing out for discussion, Mr. Chairman, but just as a reminder that this might be an open question or one that could be reopened some day.

Chairman HOLIFIELD. There is validity to that.

It would be following out the traditional American patent policy if there was such a change because the traditional American patent policy has been that the developer through research and development of a patentable device is entitled to royalties.

Every man who goes to work in industrial or manufacturing corporations signs away his life as far as his personal ownership of anything he develops with their money in their laboratories.

The industrial corporations have been-and I think with some justification concerned that any kind of patentable results from the investment of their money should be theirs. I think there is a basis for their view; they put the money into it.

I think it is right that the Government have that same principle apply to work in its laboratories and plants as to research and development work that it funds. Then, of course, the policy of what it does with patentable results, whether it charges a royalty or whether it makes them available to all industry, is a question of policy that has many possible ramifications.

Representative HOSMER. The Atomic Energy Act says that AEC owns the foreground inventions and discoveries under the contracts, period. It is a matter of policy what it does with respect to charging for the use of the patents.

Chairman HOLIFIELD. There are two arguments.

One argument is that the Government should obtain some monetary return on its investment, and the other argument-which I think is a pretty good argument, too—is that it puts potentially competitive bidders on the same level by giving them equal access to all of the technology which has been developed by the Government and, therefore, that the Government gets back, through the competition process, that which it would not get if the patents were privately owned by one company.

On the other hand again, there is the argument that if one company had the use of the patent it would have a greater incentive to develop its beneficial potential. Some of the companies shy away from something that they can't control themselves. I think this is rather old philosophy which is being superseded by the rapidity of technological advances and the realization that patents are not as important as they

once were.

The real important thing is the know-how, the experience in developing that gives the contracting company an edge-an inside track, you might say-on the utilization of that knowledge.

Dr. MCDANIEL. We are very pleased in the physical research program to cause those who worry about the patents to have these problems. We are pleased to have made these discoveries of such a useful invention. We are very pleased that it has come out under our program.

Chairman HOLIFIELD. Dr. Rosen, we are glad that you came in from Los Alamos.

Dr. ROSEN. Thank you.

Chairman HOLIFIELD. We have a copy of your prepared statement which we will insert in the record at this point.

(Oral testimony continues on p. 553.)

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF DR. LOUIS ROSEN, DIVISION LEADER, MESON PHYSICS DIVISION, UNIVERSITY OF California, Los ALAMOS SCIENTIFIC LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, N. MEX.

The presentation by Dr. McDaniel covered, quite beautifully, the construction progress at LAMPF. Since October of 1968, when major funds first became available, the project has moved along very well. I have with me some very recent photographs which will describe better than words where construction stands. Although we suffered, in FY 70, a deferral of $10 million of construction funds, we shall meet our schedule of achieving a beam in the switchyard area, by July of 1972. However, completion of the experimental areas will be delayed by one year, assuming that funding proceeds as now projected. The photographs I show you illustrate major elements of construction progress. On the back of each photograph is indicated how far toward completion that component has advanced. Included are the Injector Building (Fig. 1); the first injector, already installed therein (Fig. 2), the beam channel (Fig. 3); the equipment galleries (the floor of which is about 30 feet above the floor of the beam channel) which house the rf power sources and mechanical equipment (Fig. 4); and the LabOffice Building (Fig. 5). I have also included an aerial view of the entire project (Fig. 6). Technical and budgetary requirements dictated that we set up a temporary factory to fabricate many of the most complex accelerator components.