Friday, 28 May 93 Washington, DC
1. HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE SLASHES NSF'S FY 94 REQUEST!
There are only three holdovers on the nine-member VA/HUD/IA sub-
committee, but its first action on the NSF request followed the
old pattern: give them more than they want for education and cut
research. The increase for research went from 18% down to 10%.
The full Appropriations Committee will take it up later in June.
2. COULD THE SSC BE CONVERTED INTO A TRULY INTERNATIONAL PROJECT?
Wednesday's SSC hearing was meant to introduce the 25 new members
of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee to the SSC
debate. Alas, most freshmen were absent. The veterans jabbed at
the soft spot--foreign support. Rep. Boehlert (R-NY), an SSC
critic, took the first poke, referring to "years of fruitless
begging." But even Rep. Walker (R-PA), who has always supported
the SSC, warned that unless foreign sources provide 25% of the
cost he will move to "defund." Asked why other nations are so
reluctant to contribute, Bob Schrieffer of Florida State snapped
"because they see it as an American sandbox." But the words with
the greatest impact were Sid Drell's--and he wasn't even there!
Ted Geballe of Stanford quoted from a Drell speech that proposed
three options: 1) complete the SSC on schedule; 2) if that's not
possible, convert it to a truly international project; 3) and if
neither can be done, terminate it. That prompted Committee chair
George Brown (D-CA) to suggest fully shared leadership of CERN
and SSC, with the US contributing to CERN and Europe contributing
to the SSC. "Even now", Brown said, "it may not be too late."
3. MEANWHILE, DOE AND NSF WILL JOINTLY REVIEW B-FACTORY PROPOSALS
from Cornell and SLAC, but since the FY 94 budget request assigns
$36M for a B-factory to DOE, the Department will be responsible
for construction no matter which proposal wins. The two institu-
tions have until 7 June to update their proposals; a decision is
due by 15 July--just in time for the FY 94 appropriation process.
4. DO YOU EVER MISS FLEISCHMANN AND PONS? WELL, THEY'RE BACK!
They still can't seem to get the hang of calorimetry, and the
editor of Physics Letters A would not allow them to use the word
"fusion," but they continue to claim that "explanations in terms
of chemical changes must be excluded." That much is probably
true--which leaves error and fraud. A good case can be made for
both. They are still trying to use an open system, which they
justify with a solemn warning about "possible consequences" in
closed systems. This is powerful stuff! Meanwhile, an Italian
newspaper referred to F&P as "scientific frauds," which it
compares to "fornicating priests." They are suing the paper.
5. NOTICE! THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
is seeking a PhD physicist for a senior staff position to advise
on DOE programs in high-energy and nuclear physics. Applicant
should also have experience with the Federal budget process.
|
