The item “US Condensed-Matter Community Grapples with Availability of Crystalline Samples” (Physics Today, Physics Today 0031-9228 608200726 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2774089August 2007, page 26 ) mentions the role of the tenure practices of US physics departments in reducing the supply of crystalline samples. Arguments based on tenure are not likely to elicit a good response among the people making funding decisions. Agency heads and members of Congress do not have tenure and generally have far less job stability than the average person.

The scaled-back condensed-matter efforts of large electronics companies were also cited as reducing the supply. Those cutbacks are probably mostly due to increased emphasis on systems and software. However, part of the crystal-growing capability of larger electronics firms has been spun off into smaller companies; thus much of the source of supply remains. Small companies do not have tenure, or retirement either. In most cases a small company appreciates the opportunity to publish; it strengthens the collaboration between crystal growing and physics efforts, since it is beneficial to both. Small companies have strong incentive to associate with good physics groups in need of crystals; published papers help improve a company’s reputation in general and help in winning government contracts. Also, a small company usually wants no part in university or research-institution politics.

One possible way to increase funding for crystal growing is to seek the cooperation of state governments. Since crystal growing may eventually lead to manufacturing jobs, states may have a strong interest in cooperating on funding. Many materials, such as those that are superconducting or thermoelectric, will probably be used in non-single-crystalline form, but even in those cases, there is a great deal of commonality in materials synthesis technology. I testified before our state senate in support of such a program a few years ago, and I became aware of the attitudes of states, both in this country and abroad. States favor technology-based industry because it leads to more rapid economic growth. State funding of technology may often increase when federal funding is tight, such as in recessionary periods, because technology development is linked to job creation. The program about which I testified has prospered since that time.