Conversations: 1950

December 21, 1950

MEMORANDUM FOR THE FILE

SUBJECT: Conversations with Drs. Oppenheimer, Robert Bacher, and Charles Lauritsen

Last night I had dinner and spent the evening with Robert Oppenheimer, Bob Bacher and Charles Lauritsen, the last named is at Cal Tech and I recalled the work he had done which had gained him such esteem at BuOrd in the last war, particularly with respect to rockets but also with respect to other ordnance matters.

Scientific Adviser to the President. We had a long and recurrent discussion on this, Oppenheimer taking a position against it, though eventually agreeing that he had no objection to it, saw no particular danger if a good man were selected, but had no enthusiasm for it. He was invited to but was not present at the sanhedrin held under RDB auspices last Saturday consisting of the Killian Review Group, with augmentations, which group had come out completely in favor of a Scientific Adviser to the President concept and a new OSRD of some kind at some time. He was influenced in his final judgment by the trend of the times toward mobilization, etc. He had no confidence that any one man could have a comprehensive knowledge of even the major directions of military research and development but on the question of whether a man could not exercise judgment upon presentation of evidence without having expert knowledge of the subjects under consideration he did not express such strong disapproval. He could not explain the great popularity of the Scientific Adviser concept both as expressed individually and by the previously mentioned group. Bob Bacher did not speak one way or another on this though it will be recalled that he has repeatedly been very much in favor as has Lee DuBridge, the President of Cal Tech. Lauritsen’s views were generally similar to Oppenheimer’s though I got the idea that his ideas on organizational matters are not well developed, that is that distinction in scientific fields does not carry over into the managerial one. Toward the latter part of the discussion Lauritsen suggested the notion of a Cabinet post of Chief Scientist, or something of the sort, which has been mentioned by other scientists from time to time. Oppenheimer recognized the fantastic character of this suggestion, pointing out that there was no department to be covered by such a Cabinet officer, nor could there be, etc. We returned then to the Scientific Adviser to the President, he describing the concept as one of a sort of Minister without Portfolio and speaking rather favorably on this conception.

"A new OSRD". Oppenheimer was inclined against this, particularly on the grounds that there would not be very much for it to do he thought, rather that the work could be performed by existing organizations, or at any rate why not wait and see. But he was not strongly opposed either.

National Science Foundation. They have all been somewhat worn out on this but would very much like to see it become effective, being fearful of its possible political flavor. However they spoke somewhat about (a) its fellowship program and (b) its grants or other support program. As to fellowships, Oppenheimer said in response to my question that perhaps they could grant 500 pre-doctoral and 500 post-doctoral fellowships per year. That is a total of about 1,000, and using a rough figure of $3,000 each, which is high I think, in terms of the usual rule of thumb this would come to $3,000,000 per annum, or perhaps somewhere approaching $6,000,000 if some of these fellowships were to be for say 2 years. He thought that such a fellowship program in addition to existing ones could be very helpful. He stressed the importance of training new scientists. He and the others were very strong on this and pointed out that fellowship programs would tend to involve some-training of juniors as well. As to the grants and other support of basic research they urged that this was very important, Oppenheimer, being particularly strongly of the opinion that research in this country had never recovered from the diversion to applied fields that basic research had suffered because of World War II. All of them agreed. They felt that substantially more basic scientific research should be supported. They were not specific as to amounts of money involved and when I tried to get a definition of what areas of research should be supported and the like this was not forthcoming either. They pointed out that the Office of Naval Research and the AEC particularly received many more proposals for projects than they were able to finance and the National Science Foundation could very effectively make its selection principally or at any rate initially from such proposals. They did not react favorably to the question of whether it would not be possible to make a kind of overall tabulation of the areas of basic research being covered and not being covered etc. Oppenheimer characterized the field of basic research as an essentially limitless universal field with expanding boundaries getting further out as one approached them.

Reverting to the matter of the Science Adviser to the President Oppenheimer on several occasions said that he doubted the possibility of any individual having a synoptic comprehension of all the research programs. He liked the word synoptic. I asked late in the evening and there was some discussion of who the Scientific Adviser to the President should be, or call him what one wishes, if there is to be one. Bronk was talked about in his capacity as President of the National Academy. There were no strong recommendations. I brought up the question of the industrial research laboratory type as opposed to the university type and there was some discussion, not unfavorable. I said someone like Charles Thomas [Monsanto Chemical Company] or Mervyn Kelly [Bell Telephone Laboratories]. Dr. Kelly’s name evoked some very enthusiastic comments He apparently stands very high among those who do not figuratively wear the class ring, that is those who are not of the university group, even though both he and Thomas are members of the National Academy. It is clear that he is esteemed very highly by Oppenheimer and also by both of the others and it was my impression that the appointment of Kelly would be well received though they would doubtless prefer a university man. We commented on the volume of his work and they said that he seems to be working himself to death although he does not look as badly they said as he did during the war.

National Academy. They all spoke very highly of Dr. Bronk’s efforts to revitalize the National Academy, approving both of the effort, of the results to date and of Dr. Bronk personally.

Productivity of Government laboratories. We had some discussion of this subject which Bob Bacher had brought up some time ago but without reaching any conclusion. It was felt definitely that the productivity varied considerably and that a study on a comparative basis of some kind would be fruitful but we did not press through to any tangible conclusion of what to do or how other than that this was an RDB responsibility.

Research and Development Board. There was a great deal of' talk about this. The three of them were much concerned about its effectiveness and survival and in very great sympathy with Bill Webster's position. It is evident that they all feel some kind of fraternal responsibility in effect to support Bill Webster in his very difficult task and to try to make the RDB a more effective instrument. It is clear that they are all aware of its very fractional value. It was stated that Dr. Lloyd Berkner was very much responsible for the initial organization of RDB but it was said, sort of despite this, he has everyone s confidence. It seemed that their feeling was that the initial blame for faulty practical conception and bad organization lies with Berkner and that Bush just should have known better. As for Compton, they felt that he just carried on and that his health and perhaps his temperament did not permit him to make any changes at all although it was evident that the conception was faulty as was the execution. They fear literally the collapse of the RDB. I commented to Oppenheimer as we left that I expect no such thing if only because the RDB is not carrying enough weight to be susceptible of collapse but it was agreed that it does appear to be gradually losing ground as the research and development programs become much bigger and it is getting engulfed. We agreed that Bill Webster’s recent efforts were ameliorative but not sufficient to markedly change matters. Oppenheimer agreed that some major organizational change is probably necessary. He agreed that the budgetary function is a necessary one and that this information can make an important contribution to the scientific conduct of the RDB’s work and nodded very approvingly at the thought that if this section could be separated out it could parallel but not interfere with the scientific efforts it would be a very good solution.

William T. Golden