Archived Newsletters

January 1996 Newsletter 

Volume 25, Number 1 January 1996

In This Issue

Elections

Letters

Articles

Comments

Response to Vaclav Havel

Vaclav Havel is distressed by the idea that we are "an unhappy bit of mildew on a heavenly body whirling in space among many that have no mildew on them at all.'' To avoid this, he overturns the Copernican Revolution, restoring humanity to the center of the universe.

However comforting this restoration, there are problems in the specific arguments presented by Havel. The Anthropic Principle (AP) and the Gaia Hypothesis to which he refers are not widely accepted by scientists. The idea that the universe exists (or was created) solely to ensure the existence of Homo sapiens is a valid idea that has been explored for millennia. It is, however, not science but religion. Within the realm of science there are several problems with the AP and the Gaia Hypothesis:

The anthropic principle states that we are here, therefore the laws of nature must be such as to allow our existence. This is a fascinating way of looking at the allowed values of physical laws and constants that would permit us to evolve. However, since the starting point of the AP is our existence, it cannot make predictions about the probability thereof.

This is shown by, for example, choosing the eight of clubs from a deck of cards. Then one could say "Wow, that deck of cards must have been structured in a very special way so that we ended up with the eight of clubs." However, no matter what card one draws, it always has an a priori probability of only 2%, it is always a coincidence, and it always requires the deck to be structured in a very special way.

Advocates of the AP would argue that the constants of nature must be very close to their observed values for carbon-based life-forms to arise. For example, the strong, weak, and electromagnetic couplings must be within about 1% of their known values for life to evolve. This implies that the probability that the universe would permit life to evolve is (0.01)3 = 1/million which, a priori, is quite improbable. However, in many Grand Unified Theories, these constants are all related so that the probability is not very small. In fact, in Superstring Theories, the hope is to relate all physical constants to either one or zero free parameters. In this case, the universe is even less improbable.

It is also unclear why the AP applies now rather than 65 million years ago or 65 million years from now. In the first case you would have triceratops wondering why the universe was just so; in the second case you would have the Mac 4000000 (or whatever) wondering why the universe was just so. In neither case are we present.

The Gaia hypothesis does not imply that Earth is a mega-organism. We know that Earth's ecosystem is locally stable. This implies the existence of negative feedback mechanisms. These mechanisms are very interesting, especially since we may be overstressing some of them. However, anthropomorphizing a feedback loop does not make it an organism.

Marc Sher
College of William and Mary

Larry Weinstein
Old Dominion University

Response to Vaclav Havel

Mr. Havel cannot be faulted for his humanism, nor for his religious beliefs, however vaguely articulated. His observation that "the artificial world of the past decades has collapsed, and a new more just order has not yet emerged," is true. It is also a quite familiar unease remarked in earlier times by Antonio Gramsci in his Prison Notebooks: "The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appears" (quoted by John Fowles in Daniel Martin). Indeed!

The blame lies with all of us and in the societies we have constructed to serve us. Technology and science are easy targets, but the answers to the problems of today can never reside in turning away from knowledge. We cannot dumb ourselves down to a premodern state, however fashionable such a postmodern impulse seems to be. One reason why the abyss between "the technical and the moral" has grown deeper is that we have not become demonstrably more or less moral or spiritual than in earlier times, the rise in current religious activity notwithstanding; but we have learned more about the natural world and how to wrest from it a great array of seemingly attractive, occasionally awful, things.

Let me be more specific. Since the turn of the century medicine has advanced from (mostly) handholding to remarkable progress in public health. How many of us would like to return to the days of the plague, or smallpox, of polio, of high infant mortality and mother's death in childbirth? There certainly remain deeply troubling issues in modern medicine, but these problems are not solved by a return to a non-scientific time.

The anthropic principle does bring us back to very old ideas of community and purpose joined in the evolution of the cosmos. But it is a wish that is neither true nor false; it is earnest philosophy dressed in (some) physics. As Havel notes with this principle "science has found itself on the border between formula and story, between science and myth."

The Gaia hypothesis is a charming idea about the "mega-organism" called Earth. But while it may lead us to reconsider Earth more thoughtfully, by itself it is just the expression of a wish for wholeness and unity. Certainly with our Earth as a delicately formed life system, we should proceed most carefully, or lovingly, in our transactions. But again this idea is not true or false. This is not a scientific issue although perhaps technology can help us along the way.

Finally, the thought that the development of nuclear weapons would ruin people's taste for war by raising the stakes has proven not to prevail. As humans we continue to maul and ravage our fellows in ways that are modern only in the tools we use. It would be a remarkable leap of historical foolishness to imagine that science, through its by- products or its methods, makes us do this--as if it were the fault of Maxwell's equations, or perhaps television. A foolishness that abandons human responsibility for human behavior is almost certainly preparing itself for more of the same.

Simon C. Moss
M.D. Anderson Professor of Physics
University of Houston
Houston, Texas 7720-5506

Response to Vaclav Havel

No matter what diverse views are held on the Anthropic Principle and Gaia, Vaclav Havel's manifesto is a call for constructive reflection.

Two vectors are presently contributing to the mounting problem of the social image of science. One is a global geopolitical transformation, including loss of industrial and high-tech monopoly of the first world, shrinking jobs in manufacturing and the explosive growth of relatively cheap and mass-affordable information and communication technology. Contrary to earlier optimistic forecasts, the net effect of the transition from the industrial to the information age results in a decreased demand for physicists in many sectors of the economy.

The second vector is more "intellectual" and more specifically related to physics. It is uncontrolled, avalanche-like fractalization of physics into numerous micro-disciplines. This results in a weakening of the common base of the physics community. Recent skirmishes within the physics community over the Superconducting Supercollider exposed these signs of internal weakness to the general public.

What can we do to offset these trends ? Of course, no-one can or should be active simultaneously in all subdisciplines. And yet, reflecting on Havel's words, we physicists can perhaps identify at least one good approach. This is the restoration of the respectability of philosophical thinking in physics. This should not be limited to a relatively small community of the philosophers of physics in a narrow sense.

Let us recall, that common academic title "PhD" means "Doctor [Teacher] of Philosophy". We are amazingly shy and often perhaps even somewhat ashamed to admit this higher calling as inherent to our chosen vacation. Some lip service notwithstanding, any philosophical tilt is for the most part actively discouraged in most subdisciplines of physics. Anyone even remotely familiar with the major physical periodicals will laugh at the idea of somebody submitting a paper on philosophy to the "Philosophical Magazine." The response is, in effect: "No, you knock on the wrong door. We are not talking any philosophy here. The journal title is just a joke. Philosophy is a soft science, for soft brains. And ours is a hard science, probably hardest of all."

Recently Henry Stapp reported in Physics Today (July 1995, p. 78) that he was forced to remove an important philosophical discussion from his paper in The Physical Review because his ideas on backward causation in quantum theory appeared too radical for the reviewers. This is a blunt example of ideological censorship and intolerance to what even remotely can smell like "metaphysics". Undoubtedly, many of us don't even reach that far because in submitting papers the instinct of political correctness (satisfy the reviewer) leads to an automatic self-censorship of the potentially radical conclusions and inferences.

To conclude, showing more tolerance towards open-ended generalizations and interpretations will likely help to compensate for the effects of the continuing disciplinary fragmentation of physics and restore an almost lost sense of the unity of physics.

Alexander A. Berezin
Department of Engineering Physics
McMaster University, Hamilton
Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L7

Response to Vaclav Havel

Should Serious Physicists Expend Valuable Time Reading Garbage? I must admit that my answer to this introductory question is a resounding "No." Therefore, I never read the entire speech by Vaclav Havel. I contend that being a renowned world figure is not a credential to merit inclusion in a publication directed at the scientific community or the rationalists in the world at large. If so, then next month we should have a similar piece written by Shirley McLaine; and then many, many, more to handle all the kooks in this world. I ask: What is accomplished by broadly distributing "intellectual" drivel that is written by someone who is completely ignorant with regard to science and technology and who probably is proud of this fact since it allows him to be judgmental without constraint? We have enough intellectuals of this ilk within our own country, and even within our own universities, without the necessity for seeking them out from abroad.

Karl H. Puechl
22230-173 Lake Park Drive
San Jacinto, California 92583

On the Office of Technology Assessment

In response to Dr. Cranberg's letter (July 1995): At this writing, OTA is probably about to expire, despite strong efforts by many sympathizers including respected conservatives such as Representatives Weldon and Hyde, and Senators Hatch, Grassley, and Stevens.

OTA did not prevent Cranberg from testifying before Congress. It has no power to do so. Congressional staffers just do not take their orders from OTA. Dr. Cranberg is an acknowledged expert in neutron scattering and in home energy systems, but his credentials regarding polygraph effectiveness are less well established, perhaps accounting for the lack of an invitation to testify.

Dr. Cranberg's undocumented allegations of bias regarding a 12-year-old OTA study on polygraphs are off base. OTA found that polygraphs function well when there exists a restricted group of individuals suspected of a given crime. On the other hand, it found that if polygraphs are used to randomly test a large number of people, false positives can approach 20%. Further, retesting cannot be counted upon to reduce this rate because, if an individual falsely tests positive once, the same thing may occur upon retest.

As a result of this OTA study, the use of polygraphs as a dragnet in the Department of Defense was, fortunately, restricted. Moreover, Senator Hatch used the OTA report extensively during the writing and enactment of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act in 1988, which President Reagan signed into law. This history hardly implies conservative hostility towards OTA, as Dr. Cranberg suggests exists.

In fact, this OTA study didn't offend many people, except of course the more extreme polygraph practitioners, who feared a reduction of their lucrative market. Dr. Cranberg omits mentioning the name of his OTA Advisory Panel source who allegedly trashed OTA's work and procedures. May we be forgiven for thinking it might be someone with a pecuniary interest in the matter?

Actually, Dr, Cranberg may not fully understand that the purpose of OTA Advisory Panels is precisely to assure that major stakeholders have input to a study, but not a right to dictate the study's outcome. Their voices are listened to and their positions reported and analyzed. Occasionally, a stakeholder may be unhappy at the outcome of a report. This may apply to Dr. Cranberg's friend. Sorry, but that's life: A report designed to be impartial will not please everyone.

In spite of the allegations that OTA is criticized by conservative observers, a review of testimony given by the conservative Heritage Foundation reveals the contrary. David Mason, testifying for this group before Congress, stated that "OTA's work appears to be generally respected in the scientific and technical community...I find the OTA's congressional oversight mechanism, leadership appointment and personnel practices to be potential models for other support agencies."

In fact, OTA's accuracy, credibility, and impartiality may have led to its demise. It was reported to me that a staffer for one of the members of Congress most involved in trying to kill OTA defended his boss by saying, in effect, that OTA was being eliminated because it couldn't be bought, that is, the Congressional requesters of a report could not determine its outcome. If true, this is a sad commentary on today's political process.

Anthony Fainberg, former Senior Associate, OTA
4500 Wetherill Rd.
Bethesda, MD 20816

The Physics Job Crisis and Women in Physics

Levine's "Job Crisis" and Hobson's "Trouble for Physics" (July 1994) have an important correlator, one that connects with other societal problems that have not been acknowledged in Physics & Society.

First let's understand Levine's graph (1). The increase in number of physics PhDs from 1962 to 1970 was a continuation of the post-Sputnik boom. After a few men had landed on the moon, the sparkle faded from the ultra-expensive NASA projects, and the threat of nuclear weapons in space had been equalized. In 1969 NASA laid off about 3000 physicists and engineers. Some physicists wound up selling hamburgers and driving taxis. In 1971 the number of PhDs in Physics declined. The decline continued for several years, and many physics profs worried about the empty seats in lecture rooms. How to save professors' jobs?

There was talk about recruiting "the other half of humanity" to study physics. No need to worry about the lack of jobs, because the women would ultimately get married and have kids, so wouldn't affect the job market. It wasn't anticipated that many women would, after all that manly training, become unwomanly enough to abandon their children to babysitters, and leave their teenagers without the nurture and guidance they so badly need.

In 1978 the APS Council supported the Equal Rights Amendment, and mounted a campaign to recruit women into physics (2), which grew in intensity (3). The self- serving proselytizing of physicists has produced an increasing number of PhDs since 1982 (1). The increase in number is not entirely due to women, and now the feminist propaganda machine (3) has taken over to increase the number of women in physics in spite of the poor job market and the growth in youth crime.

This political activity of physicists demonstrates that they are as susceptible as anyone else to irrationality and fads, even the psychological abuse of children and youths. Physicists, through irrational presentation of their self-interests to the public-at-large, have lost the respect of the public. Hobson's statement that "we ignore the anti- rationalism that is all around us" ignores the irrationality of scientists who refuse to acknowledge that much of the increase in societal problems has been generated by mothers who have been persuaded to earn money and thereby neglect their children.

The APS should take pro-society action, and recommend that there be only one income per family. The APS should advertise the fact that two-parent, single-income families are the most stable and beneficial type of family for society. They minimize child abuse, and maximize the probability that children will grow into personally- responsible, productive adults. A society will die unless it propagates in a healthy way.

A growth in two-parent, one-income families will decrease unemployment, and decrease youth crime and civil strife.

Gordon Freeman
Chemistry Department
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Canada T6G 2G2

1. Levine, Zachary, Physics & Society, July 1994, p. 7, Figure 1.  

2. Physics Today, July 1979, pp. 11, 13.3. Lederman, Leon, Physics Today, May 1992, pp. 9, 11.

Science and Freedom of Inquiry: Family Friendly Libraries

In a radical move, a group called Family Friendly Libraries is recommending that parents be allowed to restrict reading material accessible to their children on any subject. It was noted at their inaugural meeting that such a restriction could preclude a child's access to mainstream science like the theory of evolution and the big bang. Works by or about Bertrand Russell, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther and Mohammed would also be jeopardized. FFL President, Karen Jo Gounaud, responded that these things are best left to the discretion of parents. She emphasized at the end of this meeting that "...anything goes..." when it comes to restrictions.

This group is ostensibly motivated by concerns over the sexual content of material available to minors. They have concluded that all materials which portray homosexuals positively are "radical." Moreover, many want to extend the radical label to science. This was confirmed during a discussion with an attendee at the end of the day. We discussed evolution and the big bang and he said, "I just don't think kids can handle some things." Evidently the solution is to make the library a police agency for the religious right.

In a country which is well known to be anti-intellectual, such movements are perhaps to be expected. This one is supported by the American Family Association and so will have very large resources available for its purpose. Physicists and other scientists should do something to stop this. Be concerned for the integrity of scientific inquiry. See to it that all citizens, including children, have access to the knowledge and insight that physics has to offer.

Bob Riehemann
229 Foote Avenue
Bellevue, KY 41073

Nobel Prizes for Forum Friends

The Forum on Physics and Society can be proud of its friends who won three Physics and Chemistry Nobel Prizes last fall. Martin Perl was one of the founding fathers of the Forum, serving as the second chair of the Forum in the early 1970s, as a former editor of Physics and Society, and as organizer of two conferences at Penn State in the 1970s to explore graduate physics education in a time of declining options for PhDs (deja vu, in 1995). Despite his ongoing editorship of the newsletter and his other contributions to our Forum, he continued to do "real physics" and he broke the bank with the discovery of the tau lepton, demonstrating the existence of a postulated third family of fundamental particles. Deepest congratulations to Martin on sharing (with Frederick Reines) the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1995. We are proud of you.

In 1979, Professor Sherwood Rowland won the Szilard Award for his pioneering work in atmospheric chemistry, particularly for his work on the formation and decomposition of the ozone layer. In 1985, Paul Crutzen shared in the Szilard Award for investigations of "nuclear winter." Now in 1995, Rowland and Crutzen share (with Mario Molina) in the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences wrote that the three have "contributed to our salvation from a global environmental problem that could have catastrophic consequences." Heart-felt congratulations to Sherwood and Paul.

Dave Hafemeister
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo

Call For New Editor and Sub-Editors:

Interesting, Important Work!

No Pay!

Art Hobson, who has served as editor of Physics & Society for nine years, is stepping down as of the April 1996 issue. The Forum has formed a search committee for a new editor and welcomes applicants for editor and for three departmental editors. The new editor would have overall responsibility for format and content, but would have significant help from departmental editors who would handle the gathering and editing of articles, news and book reviews. The new editor receives no monetary compensation, but hopefully experiences both external recognition and internal satisfaction from producing a valuable publication.

We are also looking for volunteers to act as departmental editors for the articles department, news department, and reviews department. Although we will not appoint these editors until the new overall editor has been chosen, we invite you to apply now for any of these three positions.

Applicants must be members of the APS Forum on Physics and Society. Please send resumes and a brief statement as to why you would like to edit Physics & Society BY MARCH 1 to Barbara Levi by mail at 1616 La Vista del Oceano, Santa Barbara, CA, e- mail bgl@aip.org, or fax 805-963-2574. If you might be interested but want more information before sending a resume, or if you have other question, contact Barbara by email or fax or by phone at 805-965-3483.

Postdoctoral Position: Peace Studies Program

The Peace Studies Program of Cornell University invites applications for a one-year postdoctoral fellowship beginning fall 1996 from persons trained in the physical sciences who wish to pursue postdoctoral work on policy issues in the area of international security. The successful applicant will be expected to participate in an ongoing faculty/student working group on technical aspects of arms control and peacekeeping and to conduct research on a topic of his/her own choice. One or two year appointment to start Fall 1996. Salary $28,000, plus benefits and research budget. All requirements for the PhD must be completed at the time of appointment. Send curriculum vitae, a brief statement of research interests and the names of three references to: Elaine Scott, Peace Studies Program, 130 Uris Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853-7601. Review of applications will begin 1April 1 1996. Cornell University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.

APS/AIP Congressional Science Fellowships

The APS and AIP annually sponsor an opportunity for scientists to spend a year working on Capitol Hill as Congressional Science Fellows, serving on the staff of a senator, representative, or congressional committee. Fellows have an opportunity to learn the legislative process and explore science policy issues from the lawmakers' perspective, and they lend their own scientific and technical expertise to public policy issues. Qualifications include a PhD in physics or a closely related field, interest in applying science and technology to societal problems, US citizenship, and APS or AIP membership. The term of appointment is one year, beginning September 1. Choice of congressional assignment is reserved to Fellows. A stipend of up to $45,000 is offered, in addition to relocation and in-service travel allotments.

Applications should consist of a letter of intent, resume, and three letters of recommendation, sent directly to the address below. The letter should describe the candidate's reason for applying, society membership, and any public service experience. Letters of reference should discuss the candidate's scientific competence, education and experience. Applications must be postmarked by January 15 and sent to: APS/AIP Congressional Science Fellowship Programs, c/o The American Physical Society, 529 14th Street, NW, Suite 1050, Washington, DC 20045. Telephone 301-209-3094 (AIP) and 202-662-8700 (APS).

Applicants might also be interested in the Congressional Fellowships offered by the American Geophysical Union (contact Pat Azriel, 202-462-6900), and by the Optical Society of America/Materials Research Society (OSA contact Susan Reiss, 202-223- 8130; MRS contact Gail Oare, 412-367-3004).

David Hafemeister Wins the 1996 Szilard Award

The winner of the 1996 Leo Szilard Award is David Hafemeister. The Szilard Award recognizes outstanding accomplishments by physicists in promoting the use of physics for the benefit of society in such areas as the environment, arms control, and science policy. It honors those who have made remarkable and constructive application of science in the public interest. The award citation to David Hafemeister reads "For applying physics to issues of nuclear weapons proliferation, arms control, more efficient usage of our energy resources, and other matters of public policy; and for effective communication of such issues to the physics community, policy makers and the general public."

Kevin Aylesworth Wins the 1996 Forum Award

The winner of the 1996 Forum Award is Kevin Aylesworth. The Forum Award recognizes outstanding accomplishment in promoting public understanding of issues at the interface of physics and society. It honors those scientists and others who have effectively promoted and strengthened public understanding of the results and methods of science, the relation of physics to society, and important science and society issues. The award citation to Kevin Aylesworth reads "For promoting public understanding of the problems faced by young scientists."

Help Us Boost Our Forum's Effectiveness By Boosting Membership!

Please help recruit new members to FPS by forwarding the following message to your colleagues who you think might be interested in our activities. You could do this by photocopying the message below (after striping off this header), posting it, and placing copies in colleagues message boxes. Alternatively, you can send out this message by email: On the FPS home page (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/), go to this issue of Physics and Society , copy the message below, and email it to your colleagues. Thank you.

Robert Ehrlich
Chair of the FPS membership committee

Please Join With our Forum in Addressing Issues of Physics and Society
Does society care about the future of physics? The answer is unclear, but physicists cannot afford not to care about the future of society. Please consider joining the APS Forum on Physics and Society today. The Forum is a division of the American Physical Society organized to address issues at the interface of physics and society. All APS members may join two Forums free of charge, with a small fee for additional Forums. The benefits of joining the Forum on Physics and Society include:

Our Newsletter, Physics & Society
Published quarterly, it includes original research articles, reports on Forum-sponsored APS sessions, letters, opinion, and book reviews.

Published Forum Studies
Five books have been published by AIP since 1985 based on Forum-sponsored studies, including The Energy Sourcebook by Howes and Fainberg (1991), Global Warming: Physics and Facts by Levi, Hafemeister and Scribner (1992). Forum members may organize and participate in new studies.

Forum-Sponsored APS Sessions and Short Courses
The Forum organizes several invited sessions at the March and April APS meetings each year. Past sessions have been held on such topics as acid rain, renewable energy, employment issues, risk perception, global warming, and nuclear proliferation.

Internet Discussion Groups and Committees
Several internet discussion groups have been created to allow members with particular interests, such as the climate for women in physics, to communicate with each other. A new Forum committee on physics-related science and technology policies obtains, analyzes and distributes science policy information, and has a WWW site with an interactive spreadsheet.

Forum and Szilard Awards
Both are annual APS awards. The Forum Award recognizes outstanding accomplishments that promote public understanding of physics and society issues, and the Szilard Award recognizes outstanding accomplishments by a physicist in promoting the use of physics for society's benefit.

APS Fellow Nominations
The Forum is able to nominate APS Fellows, just like other divisions of the APS.

For more details on Forum activities visit our home page at: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/

You can join FPS from the web page, or by contacting the APS Membership Department:

Membership Dept. American Physical Society One Physics Ellipse College Park MD 20740-3844 Telephone 301-209-3280 E-mail membership@aps.org

March APS Meeting: Physics and Society Sessions

FPS has organized four sessions for the March 1996 APS meeting in St. Louis:

  1. "Physics Journals On The Internet," organized by Phillip. F. Schewe of the AIP, chaired by Maria Lebron of the APS, co-sponsored by the Topical Forum on Instruments and Measurement Science. Speakers:
    • Timothy Ingoldsby, AIP, "Internet Technology for Physics Journals"
    • Peter Boyce, Am. Astronomical Society, "Astrophysical Journal Letters Online"
    • Jack Sandweiss, Yale Univ. and Phys. Rev. Letters, "Scholarly Publishing at the APS: The Next 100 Years"
  2. "Minorities And Women In Physics--Current Status And Issues: A Panel And Audience Discussion," organized by Julia Thompson, Univ. of Pittsburgh, moderated by Julia Thompson, co-sponsored by the Committee on the Status of Women in Physics. There will be a single major talk, by Roman Czujko on the relevant statistics, brief presentations by four panelists, followed by audience questions and comments. The panelists are:
    • Elizabeth Baranger, University of Pittsburgh
    • James Gates, University of Maryland
    • Howard Georgi, Harvard University
    • J.V. Martinez, DOE Basic Energy Sciences
  3. "Congress and Physics," organized by Michael S. Lubell, APS Office of Public Affairs, co-sponsored by the Forum on Education.. This session will examine issues pertinent to the process by which Congress supports fundamental science, especially physics.
  4. "Jobs and Education: A Progress Report and Open Forum," chaired by FPS past-chair Anthony Nero, co-sponsored by FPS along with the Forums on Education, on Industrial and Applied Physics, and on Careers and Professional Development. The issue of jobs and education has stimulated much recent activity by APS, AIP and AAPT. This session will report briefly on recent developments, then proceed to an open forum. The panelists and their topics are:
    • Anthony V. Nero, Jr. of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, on the work of an ad-hoc APS/AIP/AAPT on jobs and education action items.
    • Diandra L. Leslie-Pelecky, Michigan State University, on the AAPT/APS Department Chairs Conference on physics graduate education for diverse career options.
    • Leonard J. Brillson, Xerox Webster Research Center, Chair of the Forum on Industrial and Applied Physics, on FIAP's plans for connecting employers and physicists, and other initiatives.
    • James K. Freericks, Georgetown University, on the planned new Forum on Careers and Profession Development.

These issues are discussed in the ongoing internet conference on jobs and education initiated after last March's session on this topic. Those wishing to subscribe to this discussion should send an email message whose body reads "subscribe jobs-ed" to: majordomo@physics.wm.edu.

Physics and Society on the WWW!

You'll find all sorts of information on our forum's home page : links to a variety of science-and-society information sources, a list of upcoming events, a complete Physics & Society file back through 1993, links to all FPS-sponsored internet conferences (four are currently in progress), lists of Forum and Szilard Award winners, a list of FPS-sponsored studies and books, our current FPS officers, and more. The internet address is: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/.

Video Film on Verification Experiment

The Verification Project, organized by the Institute for Experimental Physics at the Ruhr-University of Bochum, Germany, has produced a video film about their most recent experiment: "Science for Peace--International Verification Experiment on a German Military Air Base." The film documents and explains the measurements done at Jever- Schortens air base, of take-offs, landings, and overflights, using acoustic, seismic and magnetic sensors. The goal was to analyze whether and how well such signals can automatically detect and classify landings and take-offs, and thus keep account of the number of aircraft on the ground, for verification of disarmament agreements. The experiment was done in an open, academic setting together with international partners from Russia and Ukraine. The colour video lasts 30 minutes, and is suitable for lectures or TV science shows. It is available in VHS format, in English or German. To order, contact: Bochum Verification Project, Institut fur Experimentalphysik III, Ruhr- Universitat Bochum, D-44780 Bochum, Germany.

To New Members: Welcome!

I'm happy to report that the Forum on Physics and Society (FPS) has garnered a large number of new members this year.

Our forum is dedicated to the interdisciplinary task of advancing and diffusing knowledge on the inter-relation of physics and society. We support this endeavor through our symposiums, newsletter, studies, books, workshops, home page, awards, and other activities.

An important role of this and other APS forums is to act as a kind of glue to help bind the physics community together. Today, physics is battered from without by loss of jobs and declining public interest, and from within by splintering into nearly-independent sub- fields to the point that it has become difficult to organize even a single truly general APS meeting each year. Our forum helps to counter this trend by cutting across the specialty boundaries and uniting all physicists in pursuit of societal issues that confront all of us.

New members and others might be interested in a little history, gleaned from early pages of Physics & Society. Our was the first of the APS forums, established in 1972 partly because of the desire of many APS members for a place within their professional organization to bring up concerns about the Vietnam War. Presently, we are one of five forums (on Education, History of Physics, International Physics, Industrial and Applied Physics, and us). The first FPS newsletter appeared in July 1972. Among the FPS founders were the authors appearing in that first issue: Jay Orear editorialized about the newsletter and the new forum's bylaws; FPS chair Earl Callen noted our forum's solid start with about 1000 charter members and, in a separate article, analyzed the destructiveness of B-52 bombing raids over Vietnam; program committee chair Brian Schwartz discussed invited sessions at APS meetings; Martin Perl discussed the organization of the newsletter; and current FPS Chair Al Saperstein described the new national forum speakers bureau and called for FPS members to give talks on physics- related societal topics.

Jay Orear edited the newsletter from 1972 through 1975. Martin Perl took over as editor in 1976 and continued through 1979. It is interesting to note that Perl's discovery of the tau particle, for which he received this year's Nobel Prize, occurred during this period--an outstanding example of the ability to focus on both physics and society. John Dowling assumed the editorship in 1980, continuing until 1987, when my own tenure began.

Membership in FPS has built steadily to nearly 5000 today. Despite that good showing, many of us believe that many more physicists should want to participate in an organization devoted to physics-related social questions. It seems reasonable to suppose that one physicist in about four might have an interest in such questions, implying an FPS membership of over 10,000. In my opinion, it's something to aim for.

Of course, mere membership means nothing without commitment. All levels of commitment and interest are welcome. For some members, that commitment will mean merely looking over some of the articles in Physics & Society and discussing physics- related societal questions with others. For others, commitment might extend to incorporating societal topics into existing or new physics courses, organizing or presenting a paper at an FPS-sponsored session at an APS meeting, writing letters or articles in Physics & Society or other publications, becoming a candidate for the FPS Executive Committee, participating in an FPS-sponsored study, talking with members of congress, or taking up such questions as global warming or energy resources at a professional level. Or you might want to help edit this newsletter! As you can see from our announcement elsewhere in this newsletter, I'll be stepping down shortly and we are searching for candidates.

One of our forum's responsibilities is the nomination, to the APS, of candidates for the Forum Award for promoting public understanding of issues at the interface of physics and society, and for the Szilard Award for accomplishments by physicists in promoting the use of physics for the benefit of society. A partial list of recent award winners indicates the breadth of topics that are of interest to our forum:

  • John Holdren, 1995, for analysis of global energy issues, leadership in arms control, and presentation of these ideas.
  • Roald Sagdeev, Evgeny Velikhov, 1995, for contributions to Soviet glasnost.
  • Gary Taubes, 1994, for promoting public awareness of the scientific method in his book Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion.
  • Herbert York, 1994, for leadership in controlling nuclear weapons.
  • Harvey Brooks, 1993, for elucidating the role of science and technology in modern society, and for science advising.
  • Kurt Gottfried, 1992, for analysis of the SDI program.
  • John Gibbons, 1991, for leading the US Office of Technology Assessment.
  • James Randi, 1989 Forum Award, for defense of science against pseudoscience charlatans.
  • Anthony Nero, 1989, for identification of radon as a major health hazard.
  • Thomas B. Cochran, 1987, for negotiating a private agreement with the Soviet Union making possible seismic measurements that contributed to verification of nuclear test limitations.
  • Arthur Rosenfeld, 1986, for research on energy conservation technologies, helping to reduce U.S. energy consumption by about $150 billion per year.

You'll find all sorts of information on our home page (http://www.aps.org/units/fps/): links to science-and-society information sources, upcoming events, a Physics & Society file back through 1993, links to all FPS- sponsored internet conferences (four are in progress), a list of FPS-sponsored studies and books, our current officers, and more.

Congratulations on your decision to join the Forum on Physics and Society! To benefit the physics community and the world at large, please lend a hand.

Art Hobson

Zealots, Rational Decisions, and Science Education

Humankind must draw what lessons it can from the chaos that has infected the world even more deeply since the end of the cold war than it had earlier. A significant science- and-society lesson may in fact be drawn from a recent and especially tragic example of this chaos, namely Yitzhak Rabin's assassination by Yigal Amir. It is a lesson in methodology: In matters regarding Israel, Rabin followed the path of evidence and rational thought, while Amir followed his beliefs and feelings.

Rabin was certainly no traditional pacifist. He was a military man, a steadfast Zionist who, as chief of staff of Israel's military, oversaw Israel's victory in the June 1967 Six Day War. Newsweek magazine's remembrance of Rabin describes him as suspicious by nature, and convinced of the virtue of overwhelming military power. He was reluctant to shake Yasir Arafat's hand, and described himself as uncomfortable about that handshake on that memorable day in 1993 when the two leaders signed the first Israeli-Palestinian peace accord.

Newsweek describes a "change of heart" by Rabin in 1987, but it could be better called a "change of mind." Prior to the intifada, he had advocated vigorous military repression of Palestinian protest, even outraging other world leaders with his order that Israeli soldiers break protesters' limbs. But as the intifada wore on, Rabin became convinced that there could be no security for Israel until there was peace with the Palestinians, and that peace would require a negotiated agreement. He seems to have reached this conclusion for rational reasons, having to do entirely with Israel's long-term security. Thus, he was capable of looking at the evidence, thinking honestly about it, and coming to a rational conclusion in spite of his previous attachment to a far different conclusion.

Amir, coming from a background of religious fundamentalism and emotional rhetoric, was ruled by his feelings. He is reported to be a member of the far-right group Eyal, an offshoot of the Kach organization founded by the late extremist Rabbi Meir Kahane. Kahane had claimed a scriptural basis for violence against Arabs. Amir told police God had personally instructed him to attack Rabin, stating "I acted alone on God's orders and I have no regrets." He belonged to that tiny group of Israeli religious extremists who combine Old Testament zeal with a gun-toting pioneer spirit.

The most fundamental lesson we scientists can teach to others is the lesson of science's method. The core of that method is quite simple: Take nothing for granted, form conclusions based on careful observations and hard honest thinking, and be willing to modify those views in the light of new experience.

The 20th century has been torn by rigidly-held and conflicting ideologies. The nationalistic, religious, and economic ideologies seem to come in every imaginable variety, many of them in utter contradiction with each other. Yet those who believe them are, like Yigal Amir, absolutely convinced that they are right. The result has been war, prejudice, fanaticism, and other scourges. Science's view on this is that the danger lies not so much in the beliefs themselves, as in their absolute nature . Even wrong or harmful beliefs can be corrected if one is willing to trust experience and to be intellectually honest. And even correct and healthy beliefs can become dangerous if accepted uncritically or absolutely.

In thinking about how we might do better in the 21st century than we have in the 20th, we might ponder science's most basic value: Whenever possible, subject ideas to testing by experience, and to challenge by critical rational thought. It is a practical, simple, but demanding code. It can be painful to honestly re-evaluate one's beliefs in the light of experience. Yitzhak Rabin embodied that code, in a situation where it counted most. It is perhaps a code that all of us, scientists and nonscientists alike, could usefully take to heart in our daily decisions about politics and life.

Today's threats demand thoughtful, experience-based solutions. In an age of rapid change and conflicting ideas we must allow experience and mind, not beliefs and feelings, to rule. Science educators and in fact all scientists should be teaching this lesson, in their classes and in their lives.

Art Hobson

Back to Top

sher@physics.wm.edu

armd@physics.wm.edu