Five win Lawrence Award Five U.S. nuclear scientists, including two chemists, have been selected by the Atomic Energy Commission to receive the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Memorial Award for 1967. Each will receive $5000, a gold medal, and a citation April 27 in Washington, D.C. This is the eighth year scientists have been named to receive the Lawrence Award since it was established by AEC in 1959. The award is made each year to not more than five U.S. citizens under 46 years old who have made recent significant contributions to atomic energy. This year's awards go to: • Dr. Mortimer M. Elkind, 44, biophysicist, National Cancer Institute. • Dr. John M. Googin, 44, chemist,
Dr. John 0. Rasmussen Understanding nuclear structure
Dr. John M. Googin Separation and recovery 22 C&EN MARCH 27, 1967
Union Carbide nuclear division. • Dr. Allan F. Henry, 42, physicist, Westinghouse. • Dr. John O. Rasmussen, 40, chemist, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory. • Dr. Robert N. Thorn, 42, physicist, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. The award will go to Dr. Elkind for his work in radiobiology. His work includes elucidation of yeast cell response to different kinds of radiation. He has also demonstrated patterns of mammalian tissue recovery after radiation injury. Dr. Googin's award is based on his work on hafnium-zirconium and lithium isotope separations. He has also improved techniques for recovering enriched uranium, and has worked toward developing better fuel elements for nuclear-powered rockets. Dr. Henry's award reflects his efforts in reactor physics both in theoretical description and development of pressurized water cores. His work on the nuclear power plant of the Nautilus added to the success of the submarine's pressurized water system. Dr. Rasmussen will be cited for his experimental and theoretical studies leading to a better understanding of nuclear structure. He also holds a joint appointment as full professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Thorn has been named for his role in starting and conducting the essential calculations leading to the final designs of thermonuclear weapons. During the past few years he has made distinct contributions toward understanding vulnerability of nuclear weapons systems.
Ford Foundation to cut spending The Ford Foundation has decided not to continue its program in science and engineering, McGeorge Bundy said in his first annual report as president of the foundation. The foundation intends to continue spending beyond its income, he said, "but at a rate lower than in recent years." The trustees of the foundation "will be ready to consider particular cases of special merit" in science and engineering, which now come under a new division of the foundation, education and research. What the spending cuts will mean to science and engineering in terms of dollars is difficult to predict. The foundation's philosophy is to hand out the philanthropic dollar where money is not available from other sources. The foundation will be more selective in choosing grantees, will probably stick closer to its policy of picking promising projects not reached by other sources of money. If the foundation were to cut spending to equal income, the slash would
Ford Foundation's Bundy Still beyond income be about 50%. It will not cut that much, but it will probably cut considerably more than 10%. A general 30% cut in spending (with no spécial reason to predict a deeper cut in science and engineering than in the other programs) would mean that science and engineering would receive about $2.5 million in new grants this year instead of the $3.5 million it received in fiscal 1966. In fiscal 1966, however, the foundation actually paid out $7 million in science and engineering grants, thereby reducing its unpaid science and engineering grant backlog from $18.7 million to $15.2 million. So even with no new grants to science and engineering, payment of the backlog alone could provide the field with more than $3.5 million a year for four more years. Mr. Bundy says that the financial problems of colleges and universities will not be solved by giving away the whole Ford Foundation. "Present needs of deans and presidents, strung end to end, would go three times around the endowment of the Ford Foundation. "I joke in order not to cry," Mr. Bundy said. "A foundation should regularly ask itself if it could do more good dead than alive. We have asked ourselves that question this year," and have decided to stay in business. "But we take no pleasure at all in the fact that the most immediate consequence of our decision to survive must be a careful reconsideration of our special program of capital grants to colleges and universities. This program over the last six years has required grants totaling $325 million."
