jump to navigation

Tribute given at the Memorial Service for Prof Edmund Zingu held on 25 April 2013 at the University of the Western Cape May 18, 2013

Posted by International.Chair in : Astronomy and Astrophysics (ASTRO), Condensed Matter and Materials Physics (CMMP), History, Policy and Education (HPE) , 1 comment so far

by Prof Patricia Whitelock

I have been asked by Simon Connell, the current President of SAIP to pay tribute to Edmund on behalf of SAIP, but I have also been asked by Ted Williams, the director of the South African Astronomical Observatory to speak on behalf of SAAO. That is important for me as I first met Edmund Zingu in 1995 at the 175th anniversary of the observatory and I came to know him as a personal friend as well as a valued colleague. He was then head of physics at UWC and I had the pleasure of showing him around and was impressed and intrigued by his interest and perceptive questions.  It was the start of a relationship between SAAO and UWC that has gradually strengthened over the years and which will ultimately allow the two organizations to do great things in astrophysics.

You will have your personal memories of Edmund but he was best known to the broader community through his service with SAIP and that is what I want to talk about. As you have already heard Edmund served on the Council of the SAIP for 8 years from 1999 to 2006, as VP from two years while I was President then as President from 2003 to 2004. It would not be an exaggeration to say that when Edmund joined the Council, physics in SA was in crisis. The numbers of undergraduate students enrolling had been dropping for several years, the image of physics among the public and decision makers was poor, finance for physics projects was very limited and the SAIP itself, particularly its leadership, was not representative of the community of physicists in SA,  and people rightly wanted to know what SAIP was going to do.

By the time Edmund left the SAIP council, physics in SA was in a very different place. That was of course due to the combined efforts of a number people, but Edmund was without question was one of the most important. In 2001 Council set up a transformation committee with a very broad mandate to look at all aspects of the SAIP. Edmund and I both served on that committee. The initial driving force for transformation came from Nithaya Chetty, but Edmund, who chaired the committee while he was VP, was absolutely crucial in keeping the debate focused and most importantly keeping us all talking to each other.

These years were particularly exciting as we grappled with the problems in physics at the same time as attempting to restructure the SAIP to play a more relevant role in SA society. My entire experience of working with Edmund was a positive one.  He was someone you could test ideas on and who would tell you very gently and very sympathetically when and why you had got it wrong.  I don’t know if we could have done what we did without him, but I very much doubt it. What I am certain of is that it would have been more difficult and there would have been many more casualties and more blood on the walls. I would like to quote from Jaynie Padayachee, who was secretary of the SAIP during my and Edmund’s presidency and who was also secretary of the transformation committee: “The one thing about Edmund that will always stay with me, is that he personified diplomacy. It was really inspirational (in this world of too many words and opinions) knowing someone who took the time to think about what he was going to say before he said it. “

During my term as President I quickly came to rely on Edmund’s judgment and his support above anything and anyone else.  I suspect that there are many others who must have had similar experiences. He was never heavy handed or unpleasantly forceful, when things were said that he did not agree with he would gently point out that not everyone had the same experience and that there were other ways of looking at issues. It was quiet, it was gentle, it was undemonstrative and it dramatically effective. I quote from Jappie Engelbrecht, who is the treasurer of SAIP, as he was when Edmund and I were President: Japie after reading Simon Connell’s words about Edmund responded “I have nothing to add except my sadness at the passing of a truly great South African, whose impact on my own life enabled me to transform to our new democracy.”His words apply to many of us who worked with Edmund.

Those transformation activities resulted in a revised constitution and by-laws for the SAIP, more involvement of the specialist groups in council, a president who was directly elected by the membership, and a new mindset and symbolism of a new logo to prove it. That of course took several more years.

At roughly the same time that we started the transformation process, in fact really as part of the same initiative we established the process that culminated in an international panel review and the production of a document: “Shaping the future of physics in South Africa”.  This process was lead by Edmund during his presidency and must have taken up a huge amount of his personal time. This led to a new strategy for physics, and among other things establishment of the National Institute of Theoretical Physics (NITheP) and to the increased financial support from government that enabled SAIP to appoint an Executive Officer – which has been so important in allowing SAIP to do things more professionally.

One of the international participants in the shaping the future process, was Jim Gates, who as many of you know is now on USA President’s scientific advisory panel. The following words were written by Jim Gates and express Edmund’s role better than I can:

I am certain now that the Shaping Report has served exceedingly well as a national strategy and planning document for the South African physics community in a manner that none of its authors had foreseen in terms of its scope, duration or effectiveness. Dr. Zingu’s management of the entire Shaping process was a marvelous testament of his dedicated to the health of the physics field in South Africa.   His skills as a manager of personnel were on direct display, from my perspective, in the assembly of the International panel. He chose persons from S.A., from Europe, and the U.S.A. as a reflection of his understanding of the international and global nature of the interaction required for physics to thrive in S.A. in the new millennium. He also saw the International Panel was assembled in such a way as to be a final executive part of the process that lived up to his high expectation and vision.

The Shaping Report is among the greatest of tributes to Dr. Zingu as it continues almost a decade latter to have a substantial impact on thinking about South African physics. The report challenged all of the stake-holding communities to plan on multiple levels. “

He goes on to describe his personal gratitude to Edmund as a mentor for giving him the skills that he has particularly needed and which prepared him for his role as advisor to President Barack Obama

Since leaving the SAIP Council Edmund has continued to serve the community. In particular he has again played the leadership role in the Review of Physics Teaching, which is currently underway – the next big hurdle in the success of physics in SA, or indeed globally. I have no direct experience of his work with this, but Simon Connell tells me that he handled the project magnificently. In fact has been so well constructed by Edmund that neither SAIP nor CHE have any concern about its completion.

There can be no doubt that Physics and South Africa are better off because Edmund Zingu was who he was, when he was. We,as physicists and as friends of Edmund, have every reason to thank his family and to join them in celebration of a life extraordinarily well lived in the service of our community.

In Memoriam: Edmund C. Zingu April 26, 2013

Posted by International.Chair in : Condensed Matter and Materials Physics (CMMP), History, Policy and Education (HPE), Physics Education Research (PER), Technology Transfer, Business Development and Entrepreneurism (TBE) , 2comments

Professor Edmund Zingu served on the South African Institute of Physics (SAIP) Council from 1999 to 2006, and was President of the SAIP from 2003 to 2004.  He was in fact the first black President in the history of the SAIP[1].

He played crucial leadership roles in many projects, particularly in physics related development issues.  He was Vice President of the IUPAP, and Chair of the C13 Commission on Physics for Development.  He was primarily responsible for bringing to South Africa the iconic ‘Physics for Sustainable Development’ conference in 2005[2] as a part of the International Year of Physics.  This conference cast a distinct spotlight on physics as an instrument for development in Africa.

We would like to specifically mention his tremendous contribution to two extremely important projects of the Institute.  The first was the highly successful Shaping the Future of Physics, where he contributed to the design of the project and also served as chair of the Management and Policy Committee that oversaw the international review in 2003.

The Shaping the Future of Physics in South Africa report was written by a body designated as the ‘International Panel’ or IP.  The IP was composed of M. A. Hellberg (convenor), M. Ducloy, K. Bharuth-Ram, K. Evans-Lutterodt, I. Gledhill, G. X. Tessema, A.W. Wolfendale, and S. J Gates.  The report has served exceedingly well as a national strategy and planning document for the South African physics community in a manner that none of its authors had foreseen in terms of its scope, duration or effectiveness.

Dr. Zingu’s management of the entire Shaping process was a marvelous testament of his dedication to the health of the physics field in South Africa.  His skills as a manager of personnel were on direct display in the assembly of the IP.  He advocated for selection of representatives from South Africa (Bharuth-Ram, Gledhill, and Hellberg), from Europe (Ducloy, and Wolfendale), and the USA (Evans-Lutterodt, Gates, and Tessema) as a reflection of his understanding of the global nature of the interactions required for physics to thrive in South Africa in the new millennium.  He also saw to it that the IP was assembled in such a way as to be a final executive part of the process that lived up to his high expectation and vision.

The Shaping Report is among the greatest of tributes to Dr. Zingu as it continues almost a decade later to have a substantial impact on thinking about South African physics.  The report challenged all of the stake-holding communities to plan on multiple levels.  Projects like the projects like the SAIP Executive Office, National Institute for Theoretical Physics (NiTheP), South African National Research Network (SANReN), SA-CERN, and SKA-Africa have become a reality.  The report called also for the possibility of other ‘flagship’ projects such as a South African synchrotron, to drive the large scale development of the field, and there has been significant encouraging progress here.  At the more granular level there was a call for transformation so that the field would be open to all citizens of the country.  Physics in South Africa has grown significantly since then, largely because of the implementation of many of the recommendations from the Review.  Also during this time Dr. Zingu authored the very influential article, Promoting Physics and Development in Africa, which appeared in Physics Today[3].

For one of us (Gates), the Shaping Report was preparation for service as a policy advisor for both the Governor of Maryland (via my role on the Maryland State Board of Education) and for President Barack Obama (via my role on the U.S. President’s Council of Advisors on Science & Technology – PCAST).  These accomplishments are due in part to Edmund’s confidence in me and his abilities as a mentor.  I owe this great South African an enormous debt of gratitude for how he challenged me to grow professionally.

The second project was the Review of Undergraduate Physics Education.  Once again he contributed to the design of the Review and chaired the Management and Policy Committee.  He led the development of the South Africa Draft Benchmark Statement for Physics Training, and guided the Review process, including the partnership with the Council for Higher Education.  The Review of Physics Training is well advanced but still in progress.

Professor Zingu began his physics career at the University of the Western Cape (UWC).  He was a materials physicist, and with his collaborators at Cornell University invented a new method to study atomic diffusion by transmission electron microscopy[4].  Later he studied diffusion phase transitions in thin films due to induced thermal stress[5].  He had a period of employment at Turfloop, QwaQwa Campus, then as Head of the Physics Department and later Dean of Basic Sciences (1990-1993) at MEDUNSA.  He later returned to UWC and served as Head of the Physics Department (1994-1998), and finally Vice Rector of Mangosuthu University of Technology in Umlazi, Durban until the time of his retirement.

Edmund was a pioneer for physics in post-apartheid South Africa, a visionary, a tireless campaigner for strengthening the discipline of physics* and, above all, a true gentleman.  His leadership and contributions were characterized by sensitivity, perceptiveness, vision, ethics, wisdom, global standards and great industry.  He will be sorely missed.

Simon Connell
President, South African Institute of Physics (2012-2014)

Nithaya Chetty
President, South African Institute of Physics (2007-2009)

S. James Gates, Jr.
President, National Society of Black Physicists (1996-1998)

More comments from Dr. Zingu’s friends and colleagues

Professor Zingu was a dear friend and professional colleague over the past ten years.  He was extremely helpful during the deliberations of the 2004 Review of iThemba LABS that I chaired for the National Research Foundation.  During that time, Professor Zingu was President of the South African Institute of Physics.  In another effort, he was one of the main drivers in working with Professor Alfred Msezane of Clark Atlanta University and a number of us at the African Laser Centre to organize the 1st US-Africa Advanced Studies Institute on Photon Interactions with Atoms and Molecules.  That institute convened in Durban during November 2005, just after the World Conference on Physics and Sustainable Development, which was part of the United Nation’s International Year of Physics.  Professor Zingu leaves a tremendous legacy for all African and other peoples to emulate.  We will miss his kind demeanor and tremendous insights into the future.
Sekazi K. Mtingwa

I met Prof. Edmund Zingu nearly 20-years ago in November 1995 at the University of the Western Cape, in Cape Town, where he was Chair of the Physics Department. Edmund invited me on my first travel to South Africa for nearly two-weeks to  lecture on Ultrafast Optical Phenomena at several institutions — U. of Port Elizabeth, the National Accelerator Centre, U. of Cape Town, U. of Witwatersrand, U. of the Western Cape and the Foundation for Research Development (analog of the US National Science Foundation). This was the first and only time that I spent time away from my family during Thanksgiving, and Edmund provided a warm and inviting environment for my visit. I spent several days with Edmund’s wonderful family and learned a great deal about South Africa and its people. Arriving not long after the release of Nelson Mandela and the official end of Apartheid, Edmund with his gentle, soft-spoken and brilliant nature alleviated my natural apprehension of visiting South Africa at that time. I had a truly wonderful visit and scientific exchange orchestrated by Prof. Edmund Zingu and I am truly saddened by the loss of this extraordinary individual — my deepest condolences go out to his family.
Anthony M. Johnson

Two weeks ago, at a diaspora gathering for STEM in Africa, the challenge that African scientists face on the continent was discussed. The critical question was “How can academics in Africa get the attention of the leaders?”  The idea of international advisory panels modeled after the 2004 Shaping panel was received with much enthusiasm. The composition of the panel, the charge to the panel, and the implementation was such a testimony of the high quality of the leadership of SAIP under Edmond Zingu. May he rest in peace.
Tessema G.X.

To this excellent tribute, I would like to add my personal sadness at the passing of a truly great South African, whose impact on my own life enabled me to transform to our new democracy.
Japie Engelbrecht


[1] Physics Today, Vol 54 (9) Sept 2001, p 27, http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1420507

[2] Physics World, October 2005, pp 12-13, http://physicsworld.com/cws/archive/print/18/10

[3] Physics Today, Vol 57 (1) Jan 2004, p 37, http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1650068

[4] Chen, S. H., L. R. Zheng, J. C. Barbour, E. C. Zingu, L. S. Hung, C. B. Carter, and J. W. Mayer. “Lateral-diffusion couples studied by transmission electron microscopy.” Materials Letters 2, no. 6 (1984): 469-476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-577X(84)90075-2

Zingu, E. C., J. W. Mayer, C. Comrie, and R. Pretorius. “Mobility of Pd and Si in Pd2Si.” Physical Review B 30, no. 10 (1984): 5916. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.30.5916

[5] Zingu, E. C., and B. T. Mofokeng. “Diffusional Phase Transformation under Induced Thermal Stress.” In MRS Proceedings, vol. 230, no. 1. Cambridge University Press, 1991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1557/PROC-230-145

Zingu, E. C., and B. T. Mofokeng. “Stress Relaxation During Diffusional Phase Transformation Under Induced Thermal Stress.” In Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings, vol. 308, pp. 85-85. Materials Research Society, 1994. http://dx.doi.org/10.1557/PROC-308-85

Diale, M., C. Challens, and E. C. Zingu. “Cobalt self‐diffusion during cobalt silicide growth.” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 62, no. 9 (1993): pp 943-945. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.108527

[6] P. Whitelock,  Tribute given at the Memorial Service for Prof Edmund Zingu held on 25 April 2013 at the University of the Western Cape

8 Policy Issues that Every Physicist Should Follow October 5, 2012

Posted by admin in : Astronomy and Astrophysics (ASTRO), Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics (AMO), Chemical and Biological Physics (CBP), Condensed Matter and Materials Physics (CMMP), Earth and Planetary Systems Sciences (EPSS), History, Policy and Education (HPE), Medical Physics (MED), Nuclear and Particle Physics (NPP), Photonics and Optics (POP), Physics Education Research (PER), Technology Transfer, Business Development and Entrepreneurism (TBE) , add a comment

#1. Federal Science Budget and Sequestration
The issue of funding for science is always with us.  With few exceptions everyone seems to agree that investment in science, technology and innovation is fundamentally necessary for America’s national and economic security.  Successive Administrations and Congresses have rhetorically praised science, and have declared that federal science agencies, particular NSF, DOE Office of Science and NIH should see their respective budgets doubled.  Where the rhetoric has met with action in the last decade, recent flat-lined budget increases, and the projections for the next decade erode these increases in real terms, and in fact in the next few years the federal R&D budget could regress back to 2002 levels and in several cases to historic lows in terms of real spending power.

What is sequestration?
Last year Congress passed the Budget Control Act with the goal of cutting federal spending by $1.2T relative to the Congressional Budget Office baseline from 2010 over 10 years.  The broad policy issues in the Budget Control Act follow from the fact that the total amount and the rate of growth of the federal public debt is on an unsustainable path.  The Budget Control Act would only reduce the rate of growth but not reduce the debt itself.  The basic choices are to increase taxes and/or to decrease spending.

The Budget Control Act also established the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, which was to produce a plan to reach the goal.  If the committee did not agree on a plan, the legislation provided for large, automatic – starting in January 2013 (already one quarter through FY13), across-the-board cuts to federal spending.  This is called sequestration.  The committee could not come to an agreement, and as a result the federal government faces what has been termed a ‘fiscal cliff’ where simultaneously several tax provisions will expire (resulting in tax increases) in addition to the sharp spending cuts.  This will most certainly plunge the economy into a recession.

Sequestration would require at least 8% budget cuts immediately in FY13 (the current year).  In the political lexicon on this topic federal spending is divided into defense and non-defense.  The current formula would put somewhat slightly more of the cuts on non-defense programs, but there is talk of putting all burden of sequestration on non-defense programs.  If the burden is borne only by non-defense programs, some agencies could lose as much as 17%.

It is important to emphasize that these would be immediate cuts starting with FY13 budgets, so a $100K grant for this year would suddenly become $92K, or possibly $83K.  Then from the sequestration budgets, the Budget Control Act would require flat budgets for the subsequent 5 years.  While it would generally be up to the agencies to figure out how to distribute the immediate cuts, it is instructive to see how the cuts would impact agencies that are important overall to physics and astronomy research.

How does it impact physics?
The R&D Budget and Policy Program at AAAS has done a masterful job at analyzing sequestration and its impact on science agencies. The cases of DOD and NIH provide some general indications of the effects of sequestration.  DOD is the single largest supporter of R&D amongst the federal agencies, and NIH is the second largest.  Under sequestration they would lose $7B and $2.5B, respectively.  Inside the DOD number is funding for basic and applied science, including DARPA programs.  These accounts would lose a combined $1.5B.  But there is an important dichotomy between DOD and NIH.  IF the Congress and Administration decide to apply the cuts only to non-defense programs, the cuts at NIH would have to be deeper (to meet the overall targets), while the cuts at DOD would remain unchanged.

At NSF, if the cuts are applied truly across the board, $500M would immediately be eliminated from the agency’s FY13 budget.  In a scenario where the cuts are applied only to non-defense spending the NSF cuts could be just over $1B.  It would be as if the NSF budget had regressed back to 2002 levels, basically wiping out a decade of growth.  To further put these cuts into context, NSF’s total FY13 budget request for research and related activities is $5.7B, including $1.345B for the entire Math and Physical Sciences Directorate.  One billion dollars is what the agency spends on major equipment and facilities construction and on education and human resources combined.  It is by far larger than the Faculty Early Career Development and the Graduate Research Fellowship programs.  And put one last way, the cuts would mean at least 2500 fewer grants awarded.

Under the sequestration scenario where defense and non-defense program bear the brunt of cuts equally, the DOE Office of Science could lose $362M immediately in FY13, while NNSA which funds Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia national labs, would lose at least $300M.  Again these cuts would be deeper if the Congress votes, and the President agrees to subject the cuts only to non-defense programs.  The Office of Science cut is nearly equivalent to the requested FY13 budget for fusion energy research ($398M).  The Office of Science had enjoyed a fair level of support in the past decade, but sequestration would take the agency back to FY08 spending levels or to FY00 if the cuts are applied to non-defense programs only.

NASA would immediately lose at least $763M with the Science Directorate losing nearly $250M.  Again these cuts would be much deeper if distributed only to non-defense programs.  In that scenario NASA would immediately lose $1.7B in FY13, more than the FY13 budget for James Webb Space Telescope ($627M) or the Astrophysics Division ($659M).

What should you do?
In summary, the overall objective of the Budget Control Act is to reduce the federal deficit by $1.2T over the next decade.  This would slow the rate of increase of the overall federal debt.  The Act was resolution of political gamesmanship over raising debt ceiling, which has to be increased from time to time to authorize the federal government to make outlays encumbered in part by prior year obligations.  The sticky issue was taxes.  The GOP, which generally desires more spending cuts than Democrats, was not willing to agree to anything that involved a tax increase.

Besides wanting to preserve more investments in discretionary programs, President Obama was not willing to push too hard on increasing taxes given the weak economy, and probably wanting to avoid the adverse politics of increasing taxes before the election.  Subsequently because the Congress could not agree on a way to produce $1.2T in deficit reduction over 10 years, the law requires sequestration of FY13 budgets, i.e., immediate and draconian cuts (8-17%), the mechanics of which would have serious adverse effects to the entire US economy.

Both before the election and after you should contact the President, your Senators and Representative, and urge them act urgently to steer the federal government away from sequestration and the fiscal cliff.

#2. Timeliness of Appropriations
What is the issue?
The US Constitution requires that “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” Each year the federal budget process begins on the first Tuesday in February when the President sends the Administration’s budget request to Congress.  In a two-step process Congress authorizes programs and top-line budgets; then it specifically appropriates spending authority to the Administration for those programs.  The federal fiscal year begins on October 1st, and when Congress does not complete their two-step process, operations of the federal government are held in limbo.  Essentially the government is not authorized to spend money.  This is overcome by passing “continuing resolutions” that basically continue the government’s programs at the prior year programmatic and obligating authorities.

How does it affect physics?
Continuing resolutions wreak havoc for the Administration, i.e, for funding agencies, and consequently for federal science programs.  They prevent new programs from coming online and the planned shutdown of programs.  Because federal program directors cannot know what their final obligating authority will ultimately be, they have to be very careful with how much they spend.  The consequences of over-spending obligating authority are unpleasant.  Keeping a science program going under the uncertainty of the continuing resolution is hard, and in some cases impossible.

What should you do?
Physicists would be well advised to tune into the status of appropriations for agencies from which they get funding, plan accordingly, and use their voices to pressure Congress to finish the appropriations process by October 1st.

#3. Availability of Critical Materials: Helium, Mo-99 and Minerals
Helium shortage?
Helium is not only an inordinately important substance in physics research, but also in several other industrial and consumer marketplaces.  But despite its natural abundance, it is difficult to make helium available and usable at a reasonable cost.  Usable helium supplies are actually dwindling at a troubling rate, and price fluctuations are having very undesirable effects in scientific research and other sectors.

Most usable helium is produced as a by-product in natural gas production.  Gas fields in the United States have a higher concentration of helium than those found in other countries.  Those facts, combined with decades of recognition of helium’s value to military and space operations, scientific research and industrial processes, Congress enacted legislation to create the Federal Helium Program, which has the largest reserve of available helium in the world.

Enter the policy issues.  In an effort to downsize the government in 1996, Congress enacted legislation to eliminate the helium reserve by 2015 and to privatize helium production.  But the pricing structure required by the 1996 legislation led to price suppression, and thus private companies have been slow to come into the industry as producers, even as demand has been steadily increasing.  So with the federal government’s looming exit from helium production, it does not seem that there is another entity with the capacity to meet the growing demand of helium at a reasonable price.  The few other sources of usable helium available from other countries have nowhere near the US government’s production capacity.

To address this problem Senator Bingaman of New Mexico introduced the Helium Stewardship Act of 2012.  This is a bipartisan bill sponsored by two Democratic and two Republican Senators.  This legislation would authorize operation of the Federal Helium Program beyond 2015.  It would maintain a roughly 15-year supply for federal users, including the holders of research grants.  This should guarantee federal users, including research grant holders, a supply of helium until about 2030.  It would also set conditions for private corporations to more easily enter the helium production business.

But since no action was taken in this Congress, it will have to be reintroduced in January 2013 when the new Congress convenes, and it will have to be taken up in the House after being passed in the Senate.

[Update] On March 20, 2013 the House Natural Resources Committee unanimously approved legislation that would significantly reform how one-half of the nation’s domestic helium supply is managed and sold. H.R. 527, the Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship Act would maintain the reserve’s operation, require semi-annual helium auctions, and provide access to pipeline infrastructure for pre-approved bidders, in addition to other provisions on matters such as refining and minimum pricing. The bill now moves to the House floor. On the Senate side, Senators Wyden and Murkowski have released a draft of their legislation addressing this issue.

Mo-99 is in short supply too.
There are other critical materials for which Congressional action is pending.  Molybdenum-99 is used to produce technetium-99m, which is used in 30 million medical imaging procedures every year.  But the global supply of molybdenum-99 is not keeping up with the global demand.  There are no production facilities located in the United States, but legislation pending in Congress would authorize funding to establish a DOE program that supports industry and universities in the domestic production of Mo-99 using low enriched uranium.  Highly enriched uranium is exported from the US to support medical isotope production, but this is considered to be a grave global security risk.  The legislation would prohibit exports of highly enriched uranium.

Again this legislation passed the Senate in the last Congress but was not taken up in the House.  It will have to be reintroduced in the next Congress, which convenes in January 2013.  But a technical solution announced by scientists in Canada and another by a team from Los Alamos, Brookhaven and Oak Ridge national laboratories may change the landscape for this particular problem.

Another piece of legislation called the Critical Minerals Policy Act sought to revitalize US supply chain of so-called critical minerals, ranging from rare earth elements, cobalt, thorium and several others.  It was opposed by several environmental groups, and the economics of some mineral markets are attracting some private investment in American sources.

What should you do?
Urge the Senators and Representatives on the relevant committees to reintroduce the Helium Stewardship Act, the Critical Minerals Policy Act as well as legislation that authorizes and appropriates funding for Mo-99 production in the US.

#4. K-12 Education: Common Core Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards
What are the Common Core Standards Initiative and the Next Generation Science Standards?
In 2009 49 states and territories elected to join the Common Core Standards Initiative, a state-led effort to establish a shared set of clear educational standards for English language arts and mathematics.  The initiative is led jointly by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association.  In 2012 the ‘Common Core’ standards were augmented with the Next Generation Science Standards.

How does this affect physics?
The National Research Council released A Framework for K-12 Science Education that focused on the integration of science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas that together constitute rigorous scientific literacy for all students.  The NGSS were developed with this framework in mind.  The goal of the NGSS is to produce students with the capacity to discuss and think critically about science related issues as well asbe well prepared for college-level science courses.

Setting and adopting the Common Core and NGSS are not federal matters.  The federal government has a very small footprint in the overall initiative.  Rather the policy action on adopting these standards will at the state, school district, and maybe even the individual school levels.

What should you do?
Physicists in particular should be collaborative with K-12 teachers and help where appropriate to implement the curriculum strategies that best position students for STEM careers.  Physicist-teacher collaborations are also very necessary to ensure that the content of physical science courses cover the fundamentals but also incorporate the forefront of scientific knowledge.

#5. State Funding for Education
National Science Board signals the problem
The National Science Board, the oversight body of the National Science Foundation, recently released report on the declining support for public universities by the various governors and state legislatures.  According to the report, state support for public research universities fell 20 percent between 2002 and 2010, after accounting for inflation and increased enrollment of about 320,000 students nationally.  In the state of Colorado, the home of JILA, between 2002 and 2010 state support for public universities fell 30 percent.

Public research universities perform the majority of academic science and engineering research that is funded by the federal government, as well as train and educate a disproportionate share of science students.  But government financial support for public universities has been eroding for decades actually.

The issue is not so much the movement of the best students and faculty from public institutions and private institutions.  All institutions of higher education are federally tax-exempt organizations, thus in some sense they all are public institutions.  Rather the issue is support for the infrastructure that supports innovation, economic prosperity, national security, rational thought, liberty and freedom.

How does this impact physics?
In physics we saw the effects of declining support of higher education in Texas, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Florida where physics programs where closed.  In other states budget driven realities have meant physics departments being subsumed by large math or chemistry departments.

What should you do?
Public and private universities will have to find efficiencies and yield to greater scrutiny as they always have.  But physicists will have to stand up and remind their state governors and legislators of their value to institutions of higher education in terms of educating a science-literate populace as well as producing new knowledge and knowledge workers needed for innovation and economic growth.

#6. College Student Enrollment and Retention
Earlier this year the Presidential Council of Science and Technology Advisors released a report entitled Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.

Economic projections point to a need for approximately 1 million more STEM professionals than the U.S.  will produce at the current rate over the next decade if the country is to retain its historical preeminence in science and technology.  To meet this goal, the United States will need to increase the number of students who receive undergraduate STEM degrees by about 34% annually over current rates.  Currently the United States graduates about 300,000 bachelor and associate degrees in STEM fields annually.

The problem is low retention rates for STEM students
Fewer than 40% of students who enter college intending to major in a STEM field complete a STEM degree.  Increasing the retention of STEM majors from 40% to 50% would, alone, generate three quarters of the targeted 1 million additional STEM degrees over the next decade.  The PCAST report focuses much on retention.  It proposes five “overarching recommendations to transform undergraduate STEM education during the transition from high school to college” and during the first two undergraduate years, (1) catalyze widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices, (2) advocate and provide support for replacing standard laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses, (3) launch a national experiment in postsecondary mathematics education to address the mathematics preparation gap, (4) encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversify pathways to STEM careers, and (5) create a Presidential Council on STEM Education with leadership from the academic and business communities to provide strategic leadership for transformative and sustainable change in STEM undergraduate education.

How is physics impacted?
The New Physics Faculty Workshops put on by APS and AAPT were mentioned in the report for changing the participants’ teaching methods and having had positive effects on student achievement and engagement.  The report also explicitly calls for NSF to create a “STEM Institutional Transformation Awards” competitive grants program.  But the delegation that met with the Texas Board of Higher Education was confronted with student retention data in physics compared to other STEM fields, and was

This all ties together with federal budgets for STEM education and research, and to the issue of state support for public education.  The lesson from Texas in particular is that physics must do a better job of retaining students in the major or face relative extinction in the academe.

What should you do?
PCAST would say engage your students to excel.  Everyone involved in physics instruction should continually assess their teaching methods and student outcomes.  Every thing from textbooks and labs used to the social environment of the department should be on the table for improvement.

#7. Attacks on Political Science and Other Social Sciences
When science is politicized, caricatured and ridiculed we all lose
In May 2012 the US House of Representatives voted to eliminate the political science program at the National Science Foundation.  The effort was spearheaded by Arizona Republican Jeff Flake.

Congressman, now Senator, Flake was ostensibly concerned about Federal spending and wants to make the point there are some government programs that we must learn to do without.  But the concern for scientists is the approach of singling out individual projects and programs and subjecting them to ridicule only based on their titles.  This rhetorical and political device is used quite a bit, even in biomedical science.  And when it is, it diminishes science everywhere.

More recently, Representative Cantor and others have spoken out against funding social science research, targeting specifically political science research by saying that taxpayers should not fund research on “politics”.  It is important to understand the difference between political science and politics.  Political science research is necessary knowledge for citizens to enjoy the fullness of freedom.  Moreover political science research is especially a hedge against tyranny and deception by politicians.

Attacks on NSF funding of the social science are not new.  NSF funding for the social sciences was slated to be zeroed out during the Reagan administration.  One result was a spirited defense of the importance of such work by the National Science Board that appeared in its annual report provocatively titled, “Only One Science.”  The Board was then chaired by Lewis Branscomb, a distinguished physicist, who led the effort to build the case for the social sciences.

Physicists today need to channel Dr. Branscomb and be more learned and active on policy matters.  Particle physics, astronomy and cosmology are not immune from the same kind of attacks being waged against political science.   There are of course many tales of even the most esoteric results of physics research from yesterday having an profound impact in our economy today.  Generally it seems politicians judge the utility of a funded research project from the project name or maybe its brief project summary.  That in itself tends to ridicule science and scientists in ways that are quite destructive.   So all scientists should advocate for intellectual inquiry and its innate public benefits.  Golden Fleece attacks against science may focus on genetic analysis in Drosophila melanogaster one day, political dynamics in a small foreign country another day, but it could be cold atoms on an optical lattice the next.

[UPDATE] On March 20, 2013 the bill to fund the government for the rest of FY13 passed the Senate contained an amendment to bar NSF from funding political science research unless the director can certify that the research would promote “the national security or economic interests of the United States.”  The House passed the same bill the next day.  President Obama is expected to sign it.  So for the next few months at least certain political scientists may be frozen out of NSF funding.

The Colburn amendment probably could not have made it through in regular order, i.e., the normal process of budget legislating consisting of the President’s request, Congressional authorization followed by appropriation, and final action by the President.   But in a situation where time becomes a critical element, and there is “must-pass” legislation actively under consideration, these things can happen.  This underscores the need for political knowledge and information, as well as vigilant, persistent and nimble activism.

What should you do?

The bill eliminating NSF’s political science program has only passed the House.  It was never taken up in the Senate.  But in 2011 Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn advocated for the elimination of the entire NSF Social, Behavioral and Economics Directorate.  If either measure was to become law it would have to be reintroduced in the next Congress.  Physicists should stay abreast of attacks on other intellectual disciplines, because one day those attacks will be directed at physics and astronomy research.

[Update March 27, 2013]  Political scientists suffered a setback in the continuing resolution for FY-13.  Both the House and Senate approved an amendment offered by Senator Coburn that would bar NSF from awarding any grants in political science unless the director can certify that the research would promote “the national security or economic interests of the United States.” The political science programs at NSF have a combined budget of $13 million. The legislation requires the NSF director to move the uncertified amount to other programs. President Barack Obama as signed the legislation. This kind of action against social science research is not new, but this is the first time in a long while that such a measure actually has become law.

Given the exact wording of the Coburn amendment, it is only valid until September 30, 2013, when the continuing resolution expires.  As a distinct point of lawmaking it may or may not survive the regular order of budgeting, authorizing and appropriating.

#8. Open Access to Research Literature
There is much public concern about having access to the output (manifest as journal articles) from publicly funded research.  And scientists worldwide are of course very concerned about rising journals subscription prices.

Last December the Research Works Act (RWA) was introduced in the U.S.  Congress.  The bill contains provisions to prohibit open-access mandates for federally funded research, and severely restrict the sharing of scientific data.  Had it passed it would have gutted the NIH Public Access Policy.  Many scientists considered the RWA antithetical to the principle of openness and free information flow in science.  Perhaps owing to much public outcry, the proposed legislation was abandoned by its original sponsors.

The United Kingdom and the EU have just adopted a policy where all research papers from government funded research will be open-access to the public.  To support this policy financing for journals will sourced from author payments instead of subscriber payments.  This is a major change that will require much transition in marketing, management and finance.

Open-access policy should balance the interests of the public, the practitioners of the scholarly field, as well as commercial and professional association publishers that add value to the process of communicating and archiving research results.  Scholarly publishing is a complex, dynamic and global marketplace.  It is not likely that one solution will be satisfactory for all consumers and producers (which in this marketplace are sometimes one in the same).  New business models, new communication strategies and realizations what the true demand for scholarly articles will likely be more helpful than precipitous government action.

Cuprate Superconductors: Puzzle of the Pseudogap April 7, 2011

Posted by CMMP Section Chair in : Condensed Matter and Materials Physics (CMMP) , 3comments

by Philip Phillips, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

It has now been 25 years since superconductivity was discovered in the copper-oxide ceramics (hereafter cuprates). One thing we have learned since then is that these materials defy explanation within the standard paradigms of solid state physics. In metals such as mercury, superconductivity emerges from a normal state in which the interactions between the electrons can be ignored. The only interaction which is relevant is that arising from the ions. When two ions move closer together, the electrons experience a net attraction which gives rise to charge 2e charge carriers.

In the cuprates, superconductivity emerges from the pseudogap state in which there is a depression of the single particle density of states in the absence of superconductivity. Straightforward application of the standard superconducting paradigm to a state of matter with no states at the chemical potential yields a vanishing superconducting transition temperature.

However, the transition temperature in the cuprates can be as high as 140K. Hence, something else must be going on in these materials. The experiments by He, et al [1] are designed to unlock the secrets of this mysterious pseudogap phase which sets in at a temperature T^\ast as shown in the figure below.

Phase diagram and anomalous transport in the cuprate high-temperature superconductors. Heuristic phase diagram as a function of holes doped into the copper-oxide plane. The pseudogap and strange metal are characterized by a depletion of the density of states and a T-linear resistivity, respectively. The pseudogap terminates at a zero-temperature critical point or quantum critical point (QCP). To the right is a Fermi liquid (conventional theory of metals) where weak-coupling accounts become valid. We currently have no theory of superconductivity in a state of matter that is a non-Fermi liquid. Even the most recent constructions of superconductivity using tools from string theory that are designed to get at strong correlations in quantum systems yield superconductivity [2] only from the Fermi liquid state. This is truly unfortunate and points to how rudimentary our understanding of superconductivity really is.

The phenomena surrounding the pseudogap in the cuprates used to be fairly simple. In zero magnetic field, lightly doped cuprates possess an incomplete Fermi surface, termed a Fermi arc, in the normal state. That is, the Fermi surface which is present in the overdoped, more conventional Fermi liquid regime is destroyed on underdoping leaving behind only a Fermi arc.

In actuality, the situation is much worse. That the Fermi arc does not represent a collection of well-defined quasiparticle excitations has been clarified by Kanigel, et al. [3] who showed that in Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_{8-\delta}, the length of the Fermi arc shrinks to zero as T/T^* tends to zero. Consequently, the only remnant of the arc at T=0 is a quasiparticle in the vicinity of (\pi/2,\pi/2) and hence the consistency with nodal metal phenomenology.

Recently, however, new ingredients have been added to the pseudogap story in the underdoped regime which, on the surface, are difficult to reconcile with Fermi arcs. At high magnetic fields, quantum oscillations, indicative of a closed 2 Fermi surface, have been observed [4] in Y123 and Tl-2201 through measurements of the Hall resistivity, Shubnikovde Haas effect, and the magnetization in a de Haas-van Alphen experiment. Also attracting much attention is the recent experimental evidence for nematic order [5, 6] ( a state with broken translational symmetry but still possessing translational symmetry) at the onset of the pseudogap onset temperature, T^\ast.

The paper by He, et al. [1] reports a series of measurements (as others have previously [7]) which point to the pseudogap regime being driven by a phase transition. The most puzzling of these experiments is the Kerr effect which requires the breaking of time-reversal symmetry. The authors claim, however, that the magnitude of this effect is too small for it to be the dominant cause of the pseudogap. If this is so, then perhaps the order which is seen is really an epiphenomenon having no causal connection to the pseudogap. What then of the transport anisotropies which have been attributed to nematic order?

Interestingly, the models [8, 9] proposed to explain the Kerr effect do not result in transport anisotropies. It might turn out that the transport anisotropies observed in the Nernst signal are a red-herring, afterall since the orthorhombic lattice symmetry of the cuprates already has asymmetric x and y axes.

While trying to understand the origin of competing order in the pseudogap state is important, it is entirely likely that order has nothing to do with the efficient cause of the pseudogap, the suppression of the single-particle density of states at the chemical potential. Such a claim has been made recently by Yazdani and collaborators [10] who also observed electronic inhomogeneities at the onset of the pseudogap state. They state explicitly, “While demonstrating that the fluctuating stripes emerge with the onset of the pseudogap state and occur over a large part of the cuprate phase diagram, our experiments indicate that they are a consequence of pseudogap behavior rather than its cause.” [10]

I think it is in this context that the He, et al. [1] experiments must be placed. The disassociation of order from the origin of the pseudogap is not entirely surprising. After all, the phase diagram of the cuprates does tell us that the single theory of these systems must above the superconducting dome explain the pseudogap and at higher temperatures the strange metal. Hence, focusing on the pseudogap independent of the strange metal amounts to not facing up to the nature of the charge vacuum of the high-temperature phase.

It is in this regime that the strong correlations conspire to produce the anomalous properties of the normal state. As neither the pseudogap nor the strange metal appear necessarily as T=0 states of matter in the cuprate phase diagram, the standard guiding principle of model building in which only T=0 states are relevant fails in this problem.

Nonetheless, the relevant physics should emerge from correct implementation of the Wilsonian program. As Wilson has taught us, high and low-energy physics are linked through a series of recursion equations that arise once the high-energy degrees of freedom are integrated out. In weakly interacting systems (Hg for example), such an integration simply renormalizes the coupling constants in the low-energy sector. However, in strongly interacting systems, new degrees of freedom can be generated [11].

The theoretical resolution of the normal state of the cuprates rests in demonstrating how the degrees of freedom that are generated upon integrating out the high-energy scale mediate the strange metal and at lower temperatures the pseudogap regime. While significant progress has been made on this problem recently [11], the associated phenomena found by He, et al.[1] relating to the origin of time-reversal symmetry breaking have not been addressed. This stands as an open problem.

[1] R. He, et al., Science 331, 1579 (2011)
[2] T. Hartman and S. A. Hartnoll, arXiv:1003.1918
[3] A. Kanigel, et al. Nat. Phys. 2, 447 (2006)
[4] L. Taillefer, arxiv:0901.2313
[5] R. Daou, et al. arxiv:0909.4330
[6] D. Haug, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 017001 (2009)
[7] B. Fauque, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 197001 (2006)
[8] Aji, V., et al., Phys. Rev. B 81, 064515 (2010)
[9] S. Chakravarty, et al., Phys. Rev. B 63, 094503 (2001)
[10] C. V. Parker, et al., Nature 468, 677 (2010)
[11] P. Phillips, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1719 (2010)

Industrial Masters and Internship Program at University of Oregon February 26, 2011

Posted by admin in : Chemical and Biological Physics (CBP), Condensed Matter and Materials Physics (CMMP), History, Policy and Education (HPE), Photonics and Optics (POP), Technology Transfer, Business Development and Entrepreneurism (TBE) , add a comment

You can earn a Masters degree and a salary one year through the University of Oregon’s Masters Industrial Internship Program. This program provides students with the real-world knowledge and skills necessary to be successful in an industrial environment.

The best way to judge the success of the Industrial Masters Program may be its history and its list of corporate partners. Over the last 13 years, approximately 90% of the students that have completed internships through this program have received offers for regular employment from their host company. We also have an impressive group of corporate partners such as Nike, Intel, IBM, Fairchild Semiconductor, Hewlett Packard, the Army Research Lab, ESI, Nanometrics, FEI Company, nLight, DataLogic and SolarWorld.

Through this program students have the opportunity to earn a degree from a leading research university and also learn what is required to be successful after graduation. We focus on the science and help you develop professional business skills that will allow you to be successful throughout your career.

The course work and labs are designed to help students become more effective problem solvers and will assist in developing your communication, collaboration and leadership skills. The labs are built to give students an opportunity to have experiences that closely mirror those they’ll find in industry.

The UO’s Masters Industrial Internship Program awards MS degrees in Chemistry or Applied Physics. Students entering the program typically have bachelor degrees in one of the following areas: Chemistry, Biochemistry, Physics, Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, or Electrical Engineering.

You can choose to focus in one of four core areas:

• Photovoltaic & Semiconductor Device Processing

• Optical Materials & Devices

• Polymers & Coatings

• Organic Synthesis & Organometallics

Internships/co-ops typically pay from $2,400 – $5,400 per month. Though internships are not guaranteed, the program has historically placed 98% of its students in internships and the program staff assists in every way to ensure you are a very competitive candidate for available opportunities.

To find out more please visit: internship.uoregon.edu

We are excited to talk to you about the program and life in Oregon–and to help you plan a visit to campus. The University of Oregon is located in Eugene in Oregon’s Willamette Valley. We’re a short drive from the Pacific Ocean, the Cascade Mountains and a two hour drive from Portland – the second largest city in the Pacific Northwest.

For more information:

Lynde Ritzow, Associate Director Masters Industrial Internship Program

T: (541) 346-6835

E: lynde@uoregon.edu

W: internship.uoregon.edu

Simply Harmonic Jello – Fun Physics for Thanksgiving November 23, 2010

Posted by admin in : Acoustics (ACOU), Condensed Matter and Materials Physics (CMMP), History, Policy and Education (HPE), Physics Education Research (PER) , add a comment

Jello is fun and delicious any time of year, and everyone has seen it “wiggling” and “jiggling”.  With a simple stopwatch and counting the frequency of the wiggles, serving jello brings up a special opportunity to work a physics experiment into your snack and dinner menu.

Those wiggles and jiggles can be described as simple harmonic motion, i.e., the force causing the displacement (motion) is proportional to the displacement itself,  F = -kx .

Consider a square block of wiggling jello on a flat plate.  If the jello is set into vibrating motion by a shear force that acts on the top of the jello, static friction will keep the bottom of the jello fixed in place on the plate.   The displacement (or deformation) of the top of the jello due to the shear force is some distance,  x . This displacement divided by the original dimension is called the shear strain.

From Giancoli, Physics for Scientists and Engineers

If you measure the wiggling rate, i.e., count the number of back and forth excursions per unit time, this frequency can be related to the a physical property of the jello called the shear modulus.

The shear modulus,  G relates the shear force,  F , and shear strain,  \frac{x}{h}   by  

 G = \frac{Fh}{Ax}    or F = \frac{GAx}{h}

where   A is the area of the top of the block.

Because the center of mass oscillates with half the displacement of the top,

 F=\frac{1}{2} k_e x ,

and the effective force constant is given by

 k_{e} = 2\frac{ F}{x} = \frac{2GA}{h} .

The frequency of the vibrations for any simple harmonic oscillator is

 f =\frac{1}{2 \pi} \sqrt{\frac{k_e}{m}}

where  m is the  mass oscillating object, in this case the piece of jello.  The piece of jello can be weighed directly (converting from weight to mass) or given by the density of the jello multiplied by its volume  m= \rho Ah .

So the wiggling frequency of jello is        \frac{1}{2 \pi}  \sqrt{\frac{\frac{2GA}{h}}{\rho Ah}} or  \frac{1}{2 \pi h}{\sqrt{ \frac{2G}{\rho}} .

Thus the shear modulus of jello can be determined from the measured vibrational frequency by  G= 2 \rho ( \pi  f h)^2  .

You can try this experiment at home and even study how the shear modulus changes with how you make the jello, i.e., with water, vinegar, juice, soda, or alcohol. And you can investigate how temperature changes the shear modulus.

Post your results here as a comment.   Check back for updates and useful data.


Units? When doing any calculation in science it is important to keep in mind the units of the factors in used in the equations.  The units have to be consistent throughout, and the final derived units of your calculation should be consistent with quantity that you are trying to calculate.  It is easy to mix up units if you make length measurements using English units, and mass measurements in the metric system for example.   Even when using the metric system throughout, one could easily make the mistake of mixing CGS units with MKS units.  Always check your units.

The density of jello? Understanding what jello is and how it is made is an interesting lesson in biochemistry, particularly protein structure and function.

The more general name for jello is gelatin.  (Jell-0 is a brand name for the foodstuff – edible gelatin – that has become synonymous with the food itself.) Gelatin is made from the connective tissue proteins of cows or pigs. It is made first by breaking down the cellular structure of the connective tissues.  Then collagen proteins from these tissues are isolated, denatured and subsequently rendered to a powdered form.  Sweeteners, flavoring agents, dyes and other additives are added to this powder to make the familiar gelatin dessert.  To make jello you have to add boiling water to the powder which dis-aggregates the proteins.   Cooling the mixture re-aggregates the proteins.   The final jello mold will be a complex solid mixture of proteins, water, air, and chemical additives.

This leads us to consider the density of jello, which like the biological tissue from which it comes, is mostly water.

Water’s density is  1 \frac{g}{cm^3} = 1000 \frac{kg}{m^3} .  So the density has to be close to water.  But the various additives result in partial molar volumes that contract or expand the total volume.   The final volume depends on the thermodynamic nature of the additives and their relative concentrations.  So while it is easy to think that in any given volume of jello there are constituents that are heavier than water, and that the density should be greater than  1 g/cm^3 , the complex mixture of additives could result in the overall density being less than  1 g/cm^3 .  The most prudent thing to do is to take a well measured cube of jello, calculate its volume (or use volume displacement), weigh it, then calculate its density.

Reported densities for  jello have ranged from  0.98 - 1.3 g/cm^3 (with sugar-free variants being on the low end), while for scientific gelatin (without all the food additives) the density has been reported to be  1.3 g/cm^3 .

Two NSBP Members Win Major Awards September 2, 2009

Posted by admin in : Condensed Matter and Materials Physics (CMMP), History, Policy and Education (HPE) , add a comment
Professor Adrienne Stiff-Roberts wins Presidential Early Career Award

Dr. Adrienne Stiff-Roberts was recently awarded one of the Presidential Early Career Awards for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE).

The PECASE awards were commissioned by President Clinton to
honor and support the extraordinary achievements of young scientists and engineers at the outset of their independent research careers. These Presidential awards are the highest honor bestowed by the United States government on outstanding scientists and engineers just beginning their independent careers.

Dr. Stiff-Roberts is an assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at Duke University. Her research involves the design, fabrication, and characterization of opto-electronic/photonic devices, particularly those in the infrared spectrum.  She also does research on multifunctional sensors featuring hybrid nanomaterials.

She is a graduate of Spelman College and the University of Michigan.
Professor Nadya Mason wins Denise Denton Award

Dr. Nadya Mason is the 2009 winner of the Denise Denton Emerging Leader Award.   Dr. Mason is currently and assistant professor of physics at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.   She is co-chair of the NSBP Condensed Matter and Materials Physics Section.

Given by the Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology (ABI),  the Denice Denton Emerging Leader Award is given each year to a junior non-tenured faculty member under the age of 40 at an academic or research institution pursuing high-quality research in any field of engineering or physical sciences while contributing significantly to promoting diversity in his/her environment.  The Denice Denton Award is underwritten by Microsoft.

Dr. Mason’s research focuses on electron behavior in low-dimensional, correlated materials, where enhanced novel interactions are expected to give novel results.  She is particularly interested in the effect of reduced dimensionality and correlations on electron coherence, and uses novel fabrication techniques to study quantum properties of carbon nanotubes, quantum dots and wires.   She has several publications in top-flight journals including Nature, Science and Physical Review Letters.

In addition to her research, Dr. Mason is a spokesperson for increasing diversity in physics and for creating a climate in academia that embraces and supports minorities and women.

She is a graduate of Harvard University and Stanford University.

Doing Business with DOE February 10, 2009

Posted by NPP Section Chair in : Acoustics (ACOU), Astronomy and Astrophysics (ASTRO), Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics (AMO), Chemical and Biological Physics (CBP), Condensed Matter and Materials Physics (CMMP), Cosmology, Gravitation, and Relativity (CGR), Earth and Planetary Systems Sciences (EPSS), Fluid and Plasma Physics (FPP), Mathematical and Computational Physics (MCP), Nuclear and Particle Physics (NPP), Photonics and Optics (POP), Physics Education Research (PER) , add a comment



· Paid undergraduate science research internships?

· Summer research positions for faculty and student teams at a national laboratory?

· Careers with the Federal government or national laboratories?

· Graduate fellowships and Post-Doc appointments?

The Department of Energy is looking for you…

Come see us in the DOE Pavilion

Learn how you can work alongside scientists and engineers experienced at mentoring who want to transfer science knowledge by collaborative research. These programs are for undergraduate students from four year institutions, community colleges, or for students who are preparing to become K-12 science, math or technology teachers and for undergraduate faculty. Internships are available at all DOE national labs.

Up to 8 qualified undergraduate students will be considered for placement in the summer of 2009. The laboratories also have graduate and post-doc opportunities. We look forward to seeing you in Nashville! Please come join us at Booth 304 and the other booths in the DOE Pavilion in the Exhibit Hall Thursday and Friday or at any of the following activities and workshops:

Physics Diversity Summit: Discussion with Bill Valdez, Director, Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists

Date: Wednesday, February 11

Time: 2:00 PM

Workshop: Brookhaven National Laboratory –On Using Photons

Date: Thursday, February 12

Time: 2:00 – 3:30 PM and 4:00 – 5:30 PM

Workshop: Oakridge National Laboratory—On Using Neutrons

Date: Friday, February 13
Time: 3:00 PM – 4:30 PM; 5:00-6:30 PM

Doing Business with Department of Energy—Research and Grants

Date: Friday, February 13

Time: 3:00 – 4:30 PM