PHILIP HAUGE ABELSON

Born: Tacoma, Wash., April 27, 1913. Married: 1936; 1 child.

Education: B.S. (chemistry), Washington State College, 1933; M.S. (physics), Washington State College, 1935; Ph. D. (nuclear physics under Prof. E. O. Lawrence), University of California, Berkeley, 1939.

Research Assistant, Physics Department, University of California, Berkeley, 1938-39; assistant physicist, Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1939-41; Naval Research Laboratory, principal physicist and civilian-in-charge, NRL Branch, Navy Yard, Philadelphia, 1941-46; staff member, Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1946-53; director, Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1953-present.

Chairman, committee on radiation cataracts, National Research Council, 1949-57. Member, subcommittee on shock, National Research Council, 1950–53. Member, advisory board, "Journal National Cancer Institute," 1947-52. Member, National Institutes of Health biophysics and biophysical chemistry study section, 1956-59. Editor, "Researches in Geochemistry,' ," John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1959. Coeditor, "Journal of Geophysical Research" since 1959. Editor, "Science," since July 1962. Member, National Institutes of Health Physical Biology Training Grants Committee 1958-60. Member, Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Institute of Arthritis and Metabolic Diseases since July 1960. Member, Atomic Energy Commission Plowshare Advisory Committee since November 1959; Member, Atomic Energy Commission General Advisory Committee since June 1960.

Member, National Academy of Sciences, American Philosophical Society, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and numerous other learned societies. Phi Beta Kappa: Sigma Xi; Cosmos Club.

Awarded Navy Distinguished Civilian Service Medal, 1945; annual award physical sciences, Washington Academy of Sciences, 1950; recipient, Distinguished Alumnus Award, Washington State University, 1962; recipient of Hillebrand Award, Chemical Society of Washington, for 1962.

Areas of research and specialized knowledge: Nuclear physics; radiochemistry, biochemistry, physiology; microbiology; geochemistry; paleobiochemistry.

STATEMENT OF DR. PHILIP ABELSON, DIRECTOR, GEOPHYSICAL LABORATORY, CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Dr. ABELSON. Thank you.

It is a privilege to appear before this committee to present views on the space program. Today I shall speak in part as an active research scientist but principally in the role of editor of Science. This journal is a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Members total about 76,000 and are drawn from every area of science and include about half of the top scientific talent of the Nation.

STRAW POLL AGAINST PRESENT MANNED LUNAR PROGRAM

My comments will not be an official pronouncement of the organization, though they reflect what I believe to be views of our readers. As editor I am in touch with my audience by correspondence, by phone, and by personal contacts. I have conducted an informal straw poll among scientists not connected by self-interest to NASA. The vote was 110 to 3 against the present manned lunar program. This is a surprising result which I am loath to trust. However, I employ another indicator of sentiment, namely, the tone of correspondence to the editor. Our experience is that when readers disagree with us we get heated letters. When they approve, they usually don't bother to write. My recent stand questioning the manned

lunar program drew 12 written commendations but only 3 mildly disagreeing. Two of those demurring were from persons connected with NASA.

Today I will evaluate aspects of space research and comment on some effects of the space program on availability of scientific manpower. In making a judgment as to the scientific potential inherent in space studies, it is desirable to evaluate these opportunities against the background of challenges in other areas of science and technology. Such comparative judgments are difficult to make but perhaps because of a diverse background of experience my views have some relevance.

DR. ABELSON'S PROFESSIONAL CAREER

My professional career began at the Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley in association with Ernest Lawrence. At that laboratory I was the first American in early 1936 to split the uranium atom, though at the time I did not realize I was doing it.

In 1939 I was the first American to identify radioactive uranium fission products, and in 1940 joined with Professor McMillan in the discovery of Neptunium, the parent of Plutonium.

During World War II I led a group in the development of a method for the separation of uranium isotopes and directed the design of a plant whose product went into the first atom bomb. It was indicated in congressional testimony by Colonel Petersen, then attached to the Manhattan District, that the product from the plant led to a shortening of the war.

In 1945 and early 1946 I was the Navy's chief scientific representative in the Manhattan District and participated in the first feasibility report for an atomic submarine. This secret report issued on March 28, 1946, was declassified in 1959.

Shortly after that report was prepared I left the Navy and began a series of biological researches which included some of the pioneering work in the application of radioactive tracers. For the last 10 years

I have been director of the Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. There I have been pioneering in studies of chemicals from ancient life and have conducted experiments on the origin of life.

During the last 4 years I have been coeditor of the Journal of Geophysical Research and have handled the material relevant to space research. This has included a substantial fraction of the important space contributions of this country. I have served for 3 years as a consultant to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. These connections have given me an opportunity to follow developments closely and an incentive to consider values inherent to the space effort.

For the last year I have been editor of Science, which publishes material in virtually all areas of research, and this has led me to consider the role of space studies in the light of the needs in other areas. I find that scientific exploration of space is one of today's great scientific challenges but that manned space exploration has limited scientific value and has been accorded an importance which is quite unrealistic.

ANALOGY TO COLUMBUS IS POOR

Enthusiasts have described space as an enormous frontier of vast potential and it has been stated frequently that we face an opportunity similar to that of Christopher Columbus when he sailed to discover a new world. The analogy is a poor one. Christopher Columbus was seeking economic returns; he wished to bring back the wealth of the Indies. He had no way of knowing that the Americas lay on his pathway-the Americas with their vast wealth and areas of habitable land. We are in a different position for with our great telescopes and astrophysical measurements we can look out at space and make an estimate of what is there something that Columbus could not do. The high magnification of the Mount Palomar telescope brings the Moon within the equivalent of a few hundred miles of earth. The Moon has been weighed, its size is known, and the average density of its rocks determined. We already know that there will be no objects of economic value to be brought back from the Moon or any of the planets. These bodies consist of chemicals similar to those of common earth rocks.

We know that the other parts of the solar system are intrinsically less habitable than the most miserable spot on earth. Life on the top of Mount Everest would be sheer luxury in comparison with existence on the Moon, or even on Mars, the most habitable of the planets.

PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES INVOLVE NEAR-EARTH REGIONS

The practical consequences that may stem from space exploration principally involve regions near the Earth. Telstar and its successors seem destined to have important economic consequences. The weather satellites, Tiros and Nimbus, will surely lead to much better weather prediction which would have sizable economic value. A better understanding of solar-terrestrial relationships may permit us to understand how the Sun influences the weather and may also lead to better weather prediction.

UNMANNED VEHICLES DOING IMPORTANT SCIENTIFIC WORK

Much of the science that is really important is already being done in the vicinity of earth using unmanned vehicles. Two very exciting prospects are the orbiting astronomical observatory and the orbiting solar observatories. These unmanned vehicles will permit a unique extension of observations that have been made from earth.

Most of the important scientific questions concerning the Moon and the other planets could be studied soon at relatively low cost employing unmanned vehicles. These questions, which are principally directed at an understanding of the origin and the history of the solar system, include the chemical composition of the solid bodies and of their atmospheres, if any; an investigation of surficial features; a determination of precise size and shape; and measurements intended to determine whether the solid object possesses a hot inner core.

From studies of meteorites, which give us a partial sample of the solar system, and from examination of the light emitted by the Sun we already can estimate that the chemical constitution of the Moon

and Mars will not be strikingly different from that of the rocks at the surface of the earth.

CHANCES OF FINDING EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE ARE SMALL

Much has been made of the possibility of finding extraterrestrial life, but the chances that it exists are small. Reasons are simplethe Moon has no water or oxygen; Venus is too hot; Mars has virtually no oxygen and almost no water. There is about one-thousand th as much water in the atmosphere over Mars as there is in the air over the driest desert on this Earth. All terrestrial-type living things must have plenty of water in order to grow. If a form of life is present on Mars, it could not be related to life as we know it.

There has been talk of the scientific role of man in space, but the Mercury flights do not bear this out. A principal scientific value from the Mercury program was to determine that man could function in space, but this was something that could have been predicted ahead of time anyway.

INCLUDING MAN HAS TWO IMPORTANT DRAWBACKS

Making man a part of the scientific exploration of space has two important drawbacks. It increases costs and it will probably slow down, at least for some years, the pace of getting valuable results. To provide life support for humans is expensive and vehicles employing them are heavier and cost approximately 100 times more than simple electronic probes. In the exploration of the planets the contrast is greater.

Our recent Mariner II probe to Venus cost a few tens of millions. To send men on a comparable mission might cost a hundred billion dollars and could not be done for many years.

The argument has been made that putting a man in space will open vast frontiers of knowledge. No one has delineated any impressive body of questions which are to be studied. Rather we are reassured by the statement that "Man can meet the unexpected.”

MAN IS A POOR SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT

Unfortunately, man is a poor scientific instrument and in space his only natural observing equipment is his vision. The information which can be transmitted by optical wavelengths has been studied from the comfortable platform of earth using instruments such as the telescope at Mount Palomar. Man would be of limited usefulness in space unless reinforced by instrumentation. As a practical matter the apparatus he would employ would be part of the cargo of his space ship. Hence, it would be necessary ahead of time to decide what feature of the "unexpected" should be anticipated.

Hard advance thinking would be required to formulate experiments that could lead to definite answers. This is just the kind of consideration that precedes unmanned exploration.

Most of the creative thinking concerning space experiments will be done during preparation phases and after results have been transmitted back to earth. The one-man or multi-man crew will represent only a tiny fraction of the experimental and theoretical genius behind the effort.

CONTINUED FAILURES IN MOON PROGRAM ARE PUZZLING

One of the most puzzling aspects of the NASA program is the continued failure to land electronic equipment on the Moon. After a trajectory of more than 100 million miles Mariner II scored a fine success in exploring Venus. Why can't we hit the Moon, which is comparatively in our backyard? Why was there insufficient backup of the five Ranger vehicles which failed?

I have the feeling that scientific exploration of the Moon has been accorded a low priority, that the Apollo program is distorting scientific priorities and at least indirectly slowing progress.

NASA'S HIRING OF SCIENTISTS IS DISPROPORTIONATE

Others have raised the question of whether excessive demands were being made by the space agency for personnel. Mr. Webb and his associates have reassured us by stating that only a few percent of the scientists of the Nation will be employed directly or indirectly by his agency. If the people he is hiring were drawn representatively from all the professions, there would be no present or potential problem. I have obtained some preliminary figures from the National Science Foundation concerning the number of scientists in the Nation. These total 438,000. Among them are 32,000 physicists and 30,000 psychologists. I doubt very much that NASA employs as many psychologists as physicists. The fact is that an overall percentage figure is meaningless and that the agency has hired heavily men trained in mathematics and physical sciences while recruiting a disproportionate few from the life sciences. The group that NASA is engaging is not representative in another way; namely, in the age group. I have seen relatively few scientists in the NASA organization of age 50 or older.

PHYSICISTS CONTRIBUTING IN MANY FIELDS

The manpower requirements of NASA place the agency in strong competition for skilled scientists of special types. One such limited group are those whose basic training is physics. This discipline has attracted some of the Nation's best minds.

Although professional physicists are in great demand, their numbers are limited because few students are both willing and able to master this difficult discipline. Those who can, have knowledge that is applicable in many fields. Accordingly, these men have made and are making great contributions not only to the advancement of physics, but they are also active in all aspects of geophysics, including seismology, oceanography, meteorology, aeronomy, and space studies. They are important contributors to astrophysics and some of the great recent advances in biology have been made by men originally trained in physics. Physicists are also important to the civilian economy. In addition, they are active in almost every area of military research and development and especially in all facets related to nuclear weapons. Thus, these men are engaged in almost all the areas of research and development for which Congress has voted large sums in recent years. They are involved in a very crucial way for they possess the kind of brains which can make great innovations, identify unexpected problems.