Transcripts of Questions to Secretary Bodman
Q. Hi I’m Joanne Hewitt and I’m a theoretical physicist here at SLAC.
Can you expand upon your comments on how you view basic research and
scientific discovery in the long range strategy of the Department of
Energy and what can be done to enhance the recognition of the
importance of basic research in the long term economic-, energy- and
national-security of the United States and the world?
Ah Well, First, I’m fundamentally, I guess, an economic creature and I
have come to believe that it’s really out of places like this and the
basic research that goes on in places like this that our economy has
benefited. And it has benefited, you all would know far more about it
than I do because you live here in one of the great hot beds of
entrepreneurial activity in America and in the world, for that matter,
and I believe that that’s what has changed and continues to change our
economy and that we have to encourage that. The only way to encourage
it is to encourage development of science at the very furthest reaches
of the human mind and it’s not just for knowledge for knowledge sake
which is an important thing but it’s also, I believe, a part and parcel
of our economic security in the United States. Now as to what we can
do. What I have attempted to do is to speak about this not withstanding
the name of the department being the Department of Energy, I don’t have
a lot of influence over the current oil prices in America or the world
but that does not prevent the press from asking me about them every
day. The, uh, but we do have some responsibility and authority in
dealing with the support of science and we’re doing that. We’re trying
to make that a hallmark of what this administration, at least in our
focus within the department is and we’re committed to that. I would
just mention as one last item is that in the energy bill that was past
last week the Director of Science, Dr. Orbach, that job is being
elevated to an Undersecretary of Secretary of Science this is something
that Dr. Richter within this facility, this institution has taken a
strong interest in has communicated with me with some frequency about
it. For those of you who have worked with Dr. Richter I think you know
what that means. So I was pleased to be able to report to him that we
had been successful in that endeavor and I expect Dr. Orbach will have
the opportunity of taking on added responsibility and will be therefore
I think we’re trying to elevate the way people in the government and
people in this country think about science as being important.
I’m Joy Andrews of the SSRL Users Organization Executive Committee.
And my question is: with the recent upgrade of the Spear3 Synchrotron
Light source, and also the impending turn-on of the world’s first x-ray
laser, the LCLS, we’re excited here about the possibility of SLAC
becoming the world’s premiere photon science organization by 2009.
What is your opinion about SLAC’s role in this remarkable field of
research?
A: Now what do you want me to say? (Applause). Look, this is a worldclass place; you’ve got world-class leadership in technical areas. And
the people are committed to the leadership of this institution, the
president, the laboratory director, and all of the, if I may say, more
importantly, the intellectual leadership of the laboratory are
committed to this. If this group wanted to start its own beach
volleyball team, I would bet on them. If they say we’re going to do
this, I have no doubt they’re going to do this. They’re going to be
very successful.
Q: Hi, I’m Peter Tennenbaum and I’m an accelerator physicist and I’d
like to know the secretary’s view, opinion, and policy on the linear
collider, on the possibility of the future linear collider.
A.
I think that there will be a next generation of linear colliders
built in America. I frankly don’t think it will be built here. I don’t
think it will be built here. I don’t think from what I see from this
facility or the land prices, of the surroundings, I don’t know where
one would put it. A linear collider is by definition going to have to
be a much larger scale even then what we have here today. We owe the
current facility, our thanks to Dr. Panofsky and his colleagues for
having created what’s here, which we continue to benefit from. I do
think it will happen. I’d like to see it happen in America. I know
that Dr. Orbach would and we will continue to work on that, but I think
it would be very hard to have it here physically on this campus.
Q. I’m Arthur Bienenstock, Stanford’s Dean of Research and former
Director of the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab. If you look at
SLAC, it’s probably by far the most integrated of the national labs
into a great research university. Yet, when we look to the future,
that integration we believe will only increase with the development of
particle astrophysics here with the ultra fast science sensor and with
the mutual interest in next generation computing. What DOE goals and
concerns should we take into account as we move into that direction?
A. That’s a very good question, and the answer would be first of all,
the Department is very pleased and proud of its association with
Stanford. You’re also right to take note of the fact that this
relationship is relatively unique where this facility is located on the
grounds on the property of a great research university. We don’t have
other that have that characteristic. From time to time, our research
laboratories have fallen into bad habits, they’ve fallen into bad
habits with respect to security of information. They’ve fallen into bad
habits with respect to safety practices within the laboratory. When
that happens, there is the inevitable response, as should be from our
friends in Congress that would like to see that management’s
responsibilities recomputed. I would implore Stanford to make sure
that we do not have a repeat of what happened last year, and that the
management practices of this institution, and I’m not worried about the
science, I’m worried about the day to day management practices, the
safety of the people, the security of the people, that’s what I
mentioned in my remarks, that those be very high priorities. And, that
they take an equal priority with the sciences so we can deal with
excellence on both fronts and avoid confrontations that might evolve in
the future.
Q. Hi, I’m Steve Kahn, Deputy Director of the KILEY institute for
particle astrophysics and cosmology. As you probably know Science
Magazine recently ranked the question what is the universe made of as
the most pressing unanswered science question of our time. I’m curious
as to what your view is of the relevance of that question to the
mission of the DOE and what plans you have for this department to help
answer it?
A. Far be it from me to challenge the wisdom of Science Magazine.
Further far be it for me to challenge the wisdom of my long time friend
Bob Wagner with whom I spoke with this morning and who told me much the
same thing. I don’t know if it’s the most pressing question, it’s
certainly one of the most pressing questions. Our job in the energy
department in part (we have other responsibilities, but in part) is to
encourage positive leadership in America in Science. I would leave it
up to the scientific community to decide what the highest priority is.
I’m a lonely engineer and if you all think that's the most important
thing and can demonstrate your proficiency and competence in that
field, which I believe you can, we will be very happy and eager to
support it.
Q. My name is Paul Styles and I’m an electronic engineer and in your
speech you said that the private industry is funding the physical
sciences less and less. Does the federal government or the DOE have a
plan to reverse this?
A. Well, it’s pretty m much what I said. I have a plan. These are very
tough times in terms of budget flexibility in Washington these days and
I am committed to search out ways of augmenting funding for science
endeavors. But we are fundamentally dealing with a zero sum game. And
that means the money will have to come out of somewhere else,
presumably within our department. And if that’s the case, there will
be repercussions there, so, its’ the idea of squeezing a balloon and it
pops out of other places. So, we’re committed to it, I will follow
through with it, I will be quite dogged on it and can commit that to
you. We will see what happens but we’re right in the middle of creating
budgets for ‘07, believe it or not, and we will be pursuing the matter
with some vigor, and that’s all I can say before I see how the process
works.
Q. Hi, I’m Eric Colby, accelerator physicist. I have just one question.
In addition to accelerator R&D for the next generation machines, like
the ILC, we do longer range research aimed at higher gradient
techniques, but it is fundamentally longer term research. Can you give
some sense of the priority and resources for this research in the
fu8ture?
A. You know that’s something I would think, I’d have to consult with my
friend Dr. Orbach in terms of how we deals with, but were I he in his
job, I’d really leave a lot of that kind of judgment to the local
leadership. These are people who work with you and have the expertise.
Whether it’s long term or short-term, frankly that doesn’t bother me,
personally that’s not the issue. The issue is whether it’s important
and do we have a reasonable proposal that will lead to potential
success in the future. Those are the issues and the whole question of
peer review and getting input from others would be the determining
factor in my mind, but I would tell you that I would defer to my friend
Dr. Orbach and his colleagues on that.
Q. Jonathan Dorfan: Let me wrap up perhaps with a question. WE at SLAC
greatly benefit from interagency integration. By example, the NIH
provided half the capital investment for Spear 3 and GLAST is being
built as a very strong DOE-NASA collaboration. Do you envisage
expanded cooperation of this kind in the future?
A. I would think so, I would think hat just as you are finding more and
more application for interdisciplinary work, even the government is
finding it possible to get more done with less by working together and
we are working actively with NASA and NIH as well as other departments.
We’ve even had people from the Statement Department; we even had the
Secretary of State over to our building the other day. It was
astonishing. So we’re ever hopeful that we will be able to broaden the
message of what we do, how we do it to the highest levels of the
government and we are hopeful that we will be successful. Could I say
one last thing and then I will let you wrap up? I am an engineer, I'm
trained in technology and a product of what I would like to think is
much the same process that went on a couple of generations ago from
what you represent today. My purpose in this visit and in these visits
is to get to know you, to hear your question and to try and respond to
your concerns. I would hope that with time e I will grow to earn your
trust and that as you look back on this, and look at the tenure of the
four years that I will have this job, that you will look upon it as one
of your own got the job and worked very hard to represent you.