ORNL: THE FIRST 50 YEARS--EPILOGUE
   
   This article also appears in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
   Review (Vol. 25, Nos. 3 and 4), a quarterly research and
   development magazine. If you'd like more information about the
   research discussed in the article or about the Review, or if you
   have any helpful comments, drop us a line. Thanks for reading the Review.
   
   
   
   Nearing retirement in 1992 after 50 years of service to the
   Manhattan Project and the Laboratory, senior staff advisor Don
   Trauger reflected on the lessons of a half century. "The Laboratory
   and science at large," he urged, "should expand their strategic
   planning to longer time spans." Rapid political changes on both the
   national and international scene have limited effective
   implementation of some programs to four years or even two years, he
   noted. And industry as well is shortening its planning to as little
   as two years because of high capital costs and demands for early
   returns on investments. "Perhaps," Trauger suggested, "the national
   laboratories can effectively consider the time spans that are
   really desirable. Even 100 years is not as distant as we might have
   thought."
   
   Laboratory management, as always, devotes considerable attention to
   planning the institution's future research and proposing the
   acquisition of equipment and design and contruction of facilities
   needed to support world-class science. The Department of Energy, in
   fact, requires the Laboratory to prepare institutional plans
   looking five years into the future, and in 1990 ORNL Director Alvin
   Trivelpiece formed a planning group to analyze the Laboratory's
   long-term corporate strategy. 
   
   In addition to assigning the highest priority to the Laboratory's
   proposed Advanced Neutron Source (ANS) and other nuclear reactor
   studies, Trivelpiece emphasized the global importance of the work
   of Energy Division teams, who by 1992 had assisted 21 nations with
   development of their energy and environmental technology policies.
   Pointing out that events in these nations have ramifications for
   the environment worldwide, Trivelpiece urged Congress to support
   Laboratory efforts to assist other nations in meeting their energy
   needs while reducing the strains on the environment and world oil
   markets.
   
   To improve science education, Trivelpiece advocated greater
   cooperation with Oak Ridge Associated Universities, the University
   of Tennessee, Pellissippi State Technical Community College, Roane
   State Community College, Tennessee state government, and regional
   school systems. He was particularly interested in designing
   classrooms for the 21st century, using reasonably priced electronic
   teaching aids and student workstations.
   
   For the 1990s and beyond, Trivelpiece and the strategic planning
   group expected Laboratory directions to be dominated by four major
   themes: education, energy, environment, and economic
   competitiveness. They proposed to support these efforts with three
   new major user facilities the Laboratory hopes to complete within
   a decade: the ANS and its adjoining research facilities, a
   materials science center on the east end of the Laboratory, and an
   environmental and life sciences center on the west end.
   
   The increasing importance of materials science to the Laboratory's
   efforts to improve national economic competitiveness is
   demonstrated in the proposed Materials Science and Engineering
   Complex, which the Laboratory hopes to construct near the Holifield
   Heavy Ion Research Facility tower. Consolidating existing programs
   in new facilities to enhance scientific interaction, the complex
   would include centers for solid-state research and processing,
   advanced microstructural analysis, advanced materials research, and
   composite materials investigations. 
   
   Explosive growth in the materials sciences and their role in the
   Laboratory's technology transfer programs since 1980 has severely
   overcrowded existing laboratories. Building a new complex is
   considered more economical than upgrading older structures to meet
   modern environmental and safety standards. The proposed new complex
   would make possible more on-site participation of university and
   industrial researchers in cooperative projects in ceramics,
   composites, superconductors, and high-temperature metals and
   alloys. This complex, therefore, enjoys support from universities
   and industrial firms in the Southeast.
   
   At the western gate, near the existing Environmental Sciences and
   Aquatic Ecology laboratories, the Laboratory proposes to develop an
   Environmental, Life, and Social Sciences Complex. The complex would
   include centers for biological sciences and Earth systems and a
   biological imaging and advanced photonics laboratory. Its
   completion would concentrate the Laboratory's programs in
   structural biology, biotechnology, human genome, global
   environmental studies, risk assessment and management,
   environmental restoration, social sciences, energy technologies for
   developing nations, energy efficiency, and transportation systems
   research.
   
   As with the materials science divisions, research in the
   environmental, life, and social sciences in 1992 was scattered
   throughout the Laboratory in older facilities. For example, the
   Biology Division had been housed since 1946 in obsolete facilities
   at the Y-12 Plant, eight miles from the X-10 Laboratory complex.
   With much of the Laboratory's global research centered in the newly
   formed Environmental, Life, and Social Sciences Directorate, the
   collaborative interactions facilitated by concentrated research in
   this new complex would help open new horizons for the solution of
   global challenges. 
   
   One noteworthy problem area for the Laboratory lies in nuclear
   physics. Although the Holifield heavy-ion research accelerator was
   only 12 years old in 1992 and had set new records for beam energies
   in 1992 that were 60% higher than those achieved in 1982, it had
   fallen on hard times. New European accelerators provided even
   higher energies, and budget cuts reduced the operating time
   available for researchers at the accelerator. 
   
   To reverse these trends, the Laboratory proposed using the
   Holifield facility to accelerate radioactive ion beams, a unique
   capability that would make the facility more valuable to nuclear
   physicists, especially those interested in astrophysics. If this
   proposal is approved, a recoil mass spectrometer, jointly funded by
   the Laboratory and universities, would be acquired to complement
   the radioactive beam capability.
   
   While applying cost constraints to facilities such as the Holifield
   accelerator, DOE began to devote vast resources during the 1990s to
   improving scientific understanding of the transport of wastes in
   the environment and the remediation of waste disposal sites. As a
   result, Trivelpiece expected the Laboratory to expand its waste
   management and remediation work.
   
   
                          BACK TO THE FUTURE
   
   As the Laboratory approached the beginning of its second half
   century, Alvin Weinberg was preparing Eugene Wigner's papers for
   publication. His effort to uncover and organize the Laboratory's
   past gave Weinberg an opportunity to reflect on Wigner's legacy.
   The Laboratory's most renowned scientist not only set a standard of
   performance for Oak Ridge, Weinberg observed, but he also provided
   a vision of the future that speaks as directly to the uncertainties
   of the 1990s as it did to the uncertainties of the 1940s. In a
   simple statement of truth, Wigner once remarked, "Every moment
   brings surprises and unforeseeable events--truly the future is
   uncertain."
   
   Weinberg himself viewed aging and the future with equanimity. He
   has wryly concluded that scientists improve with age because their
   knowledge broadens as they become older. Much of science, he said,
   comes not out of brilliant flights of fancy but from viewpoints and
   techniques growing out of a lifetime of scientific inquiry. 
   
   The same sentiment might well apply to an institution that reaches
   the half-century mark. Its corporate experience and accomplishments
   should serve as a foundation of strength upon which to build a
   vigorous future of inventiveness and purpose.
   
   Although the Laboratory, like science generally, seems more
   interested in the future than the past, it sometimes turns to its
   past for hope, inspiration, and understanding. When drafting plans
   for Laboratory initiatives during the 1990s, the strategic planning
   group admitted that improving national competitiveness through
   technology transfer and science education might be "more difficult
   than the Manhattan Project, which birthed the national laboratories
   nearly a half century ago."
   
   In the 1940s, the nation's attention and resources were riveted on
   the war, and Laboratory efforts on behalf of the atomic bomb
   received the highest priority. Today, the enemies are less clearly
   defined and Laboratory initiatives must share the political
   spotlight with other government priorities and needs. Thus, the
   Laboratory will have to work even harder to justify public
   investment in its research activities. As Weinberg recently
   suggested, if the Laboratory is to become a prime engine of the
   national economy, its people must "adopt the same high standards
   and dedication shown during the four years of the Manhattan
   Project."
   
   And so the experience of the Laboratory has come full circle. Amid
   the complex of buildings, intricate equipment, piping, test tubes,
   roads, reactors, accelerators, robots, and supercomputers, one
   force stands above all others in explaining the institution's
   success: the dedication of the people who work there. That
   dedication reached its first peak during the war years, when
   secrecy prevailed. Fifty years later, the Laboratory is determined
   to open its doors to the future, drawing on its storehouse of
   knowledge and skills to serve the public interest. 
   
   The purposes to which the Laboratory can now apply its talents are
   more varied. But for the Laboratory, the future has always been
   uncertain. Its staff has seized opportunities and redefined the
   Laboratory's purposes time and again to fit changing circumstances.
   As the Laboratory celebrates its 50th anniversary and as it stands
   on the threshold of the 21st century, there is little doubt that it
   will marshal its resources and talents to meet the challenges of
   tomorrow. At the dawn of a new era, this much is certain: if the
   Laboratory's past is its prologue, then its next 50 years should be
   as demanding, rewarding, and surprising as its first half century. 
   
   
   (keywords: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, history)
   
   
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
   Please send us your comments.
  
   Date Posted:  2/22/94  (ktb)