Too Many Coaches?

Like zealous alumni rooting for the old school's football team, graduates of the AEC keep a watchful eye on their onetime associates. Last week Kenneth S. Pitzer, former director of the AEC's Division of Research, told the Southern California section of the American Chemical Society that there was too much ball handling in the AEC backfield--and too many fumbles. The team itself is O.K., said Pitzer, now dean of the University of California's College of Chemistry, "but its performance could be improved by some changes in the coaching staff. Also, some of the rules under which it plays seem to slow up the game unnecessarily."

The coaches Pitzer objects to are the "multitude of part-time advisory groups and boards," the numerous sources of "high-level negative decision" whose concern with "ridiculously remote risks" forces the commission into an atmosphere of time-consuming caution. These kibitzers, says Pitzer, are supposed "to shield the commission itself from criticism if some project should fail." But what is needed, he insists, is a bolder view than that.

Most influential of the coaches Pitzer objects to: some of the members of the General Advisory Committee. "We have a right to expect something special in this vital area [but they] seem to have remarkably little enthusiasm for the primary goals of the Atomic Energy Program. Their recommendations on military projects are, of course, secret . . . Concerning useful power, some have spoken publicly. Dr. James B. Conant has stated that he has little hope for useful atomic power . . . Certain other members of the committee have expressed similar opinions . . . More constructive advice should be obtainable from men with faith and enthusiasm in the job to be done."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.