Since the terrorist attacks on 11 September, scientific societies—like individuals and organizations across the country—have been casting about for meaningful ways to help counter terrorism.
Scientific organizations—about 20 were on board at press time, led by the American Physical Society (APS) and including the American Institute of Physics and several of its other member societies—have set up a scholarship fund for survivors of the terrorist attacks and for victims’ spouses and children. The Science and Engineering Scholarship Fund is a subset of the Families of Freedom Scholarship Fund, for which former President Bill Clinton and former Senator Bob Dole are raising $100 million. To make a tax-deductible donation, or for more information, visit http://www.aps.org/sciencefund.html or call 1-800-335-1102.
Among other responses in the days following the attacks was a forum at the Optical Society of America’s annual meeting, at which attendees discussed ideas ranging from upping security at scientific conferences to holding meetings focused on sensing devices for domestic defense technologies, reports OSA Executive Director John Thorner. But, he adds, “there was a real wariness about getting the society into a position of supporting the war effort by immediately holding conferences on, for example, laser-guided bombs. Instead, the sentiment seemed to be that the purpose of a scientific society is to encourage worldwide exchange of knowledge to help break down walls of prejudice and ignorance.” A letter by Caltech astrophysicist Anneila Sargent, president of the American Astronomical Society, urged “all AAS members to take responsibility for ensuring that our profession is one that welcomes and celebrates diversity.” And the American Geophysical Union’s Executive Director Fred Spilhaus says AGU is “discussing how new demands on government may affect our science and its funding and how we might want to modify our advice on public policy matters. We are also taking special care to assure that we are serving our members in the Middle East as well as possible.”
More generally, the science community hopes that President Bush’s new science adviser will serve as a conduit for funneling technical skills and knowledge to the White House. John Marburger, former director of Brookhaven National Laboratory (see Physics Today, August 2001, page 22), was confirmed as science adviser on 23 October. Two weeks earlier, at his confirmation hearing, he named the fight against terrorism as his highest priority.
Marburger will be among the highprofile physicists and policy-makers at a meeting of the APS physics policy committee in mid-December. The idea is to get physicists thinking about how they might contribute to antiterrorism and war efforts by applying existing, and developing new, methods for such things as seeking survivors in rubble, sensing biological and chemical agents, identifying faces and voices, tracking movement of individuals, and detecting underground hideouts.
The first thing, says Mike Lubell, head of public affairs at APS and the meeting coordinator, “is to ask questions such as: What are we facing in the area of terrorism? What kind of risk assessment can we do? Then, if we look at the risks, which ones can we take care of with existing technologies? Which need new technological developments to be successfully handled? Once you have this list, you can then ask what R&D we should look at to address the shortfall.”
“One reason that this whole government structure for supporting science was put together at the end of World War II was to make sure we had a well-trained scientific force that could come to the nation’s help as needed,” continues Lubell. “The science community has an obligation.”
