A VISION FOR NUCLEAR SCIENCE EDUCATION …/media/np/nsac/pdf/docs/... · 2015-11-23 ·...

A VISION FOR NUCLEAR SCIENCE EDUCATION AND OUTREACH FOR THE NEXT LONG RANGE PLAN

Submitted to the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee by thecommunity for consideration in the 2007 Long Range Plan.

LBNL/PUB-970

January 2007

DISCLAIMER

This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. While this document isbelieved to contain correct information, neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor The Regents of theUniversity of California, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal responsibilityfor the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents thatits use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by itstrade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation,or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or The Regents of the University of California. The views andopinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agencythereof or The Regents of the University of California.

Contents

Table of Contents

Preamble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

A Climate Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

The Nuclear Science Workforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Undergraduate Education and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Strategies for Undergraduate Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Strategies for Undergraduate Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Strategies for Improving the Visibility of Nuclear Science Among Undergraduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Beyond the Undergraduate Degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Who We Need to Reach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Strategies for Improving Nuclear Science in Undergraduateand K-12 Education and Reaching Out to the Public. . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Value and Respect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

List of Tables

Table 1. Career path of nuclear science Ph.D.’s after 5 – 10 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 2. Career path of recent nuclear science Ph.D.’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 3. New nuclear science Ph.D.’s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

List of Figures

Figure 1. Age distribution of faculty in nuclear science. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 2. Age distribution of career staff at national laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 3. PNNL projections for loss of workforce,2002 – 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 4. The nuclear science workforce, 1986 – 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 5. Ph.D.’s awarded in nuclear science . . . . . . . . 8

List of Sidebars

Current Best Practices

BP1. Undergraduate Research: Changing Outcomes inPhysics at Tennessee Tech (Mateja). . . . . . . . . . . . 10

BP2. ACS Summer Schools in Nuclear andRadiochemistry (Mantica) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

BP3. The MoNA Collaboration (Hinefeld/Thoennessen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

BP4. Conference Experience for Undergraduates (Rogers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

BP5. Advanced Laboratories in Nuclear Science (Sobotka) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

BP6. Clark University WMD Course (Brenner). . . . . . . . 20

BP7. Physics of Atomic Nuclei (PAN) (Thoennessen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

BP8. Argonne National Laboratory Summer SchoolExperience in Physics (Fischer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

BP9. A Black Hole Ate My Planet (Rowe) . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

BP10. Harnessing the Atom (Mayes/McMahan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Future Strategies:

FS1. A Nuclear Physics Summer School (McMahan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

FS2. Integrated Mentoring (Thoennessen). . . . . . . . . . . 15

FS3. Workshop on Nuclear Physics in the Undergraduate Curriculum (Thoennessen) . . . . . 16

FS4. Distinguished Lecturers (Hemmick) . . . . . . . . . . . 17

FS5. Professional Development Workshop(Cizewski) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

FS6. National Nuclear Science Website (Tyler/Matis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

FS7. Summer Camp for High School Teachers andStudents (McMahan) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Preamble On December 1 through 3, 2006, Brookhaven National

Laboratory (BNL) hosted a workshop titled “Vision forEducation and Outreach in Nuclear Science” that includedrepresentatives from all subfields of nuclear science, as wellas educators, outreach professionals, and representativesfrom the funding agencies. Appendix A contains the agendafor the workshop and Appendix B a list of participants in allparts of the process of assembling the vision (workshop,particpations, contribution, etc.).

The workshop examined successful ongoing programsand models for education and outreach both within and out-side nuclear science, with the goal of developing a strategicplan to leverage Department of Energy (DOE) and NationalScience Foundation (NSF) investment in these areas. Themeeting was organized in response to the charge from theDOE and NSF as part of the Long Range Plan process, to“discuss the contribution of education in nuclear science toacademia, medicine, security, industry and government, andstrategies to strengthen and improve the education processand to build a more diverse research community.” The fullcharge to the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee(NSAC) is duplicated in Appendix C.

The Workshop explored a number of models, bothinternal and external to our nuclear science community, anddiscussed goals, strategies and implementation actionsspecifically targeted towards:

1. Recruiting the next generation of nuclear scientists.2. K-12 education and public outreach.3. Fostering diversity.

The discussion elucidated the need to define goals andstrategies that:

1. Are actionable.2. Are achievable.3. Leverage existing programs and unique strengths.4. Focus on nuclear science.

An important foundation for discussion at the workshopwas the extensive data collected by the NSAC Subcommitteeon Education in its 2004 report, Education in NuclearScience: A Status Report and Recommendations for theBeginning of the 21st Century [1].

The present report is based on discussions held at theBNL workshop and on data available from published refer-ence material. It documents areas in which nuclear science isplaying a role in meeting societal needs and recommendsways in which the program might strengthen the educationprocess, build a more diverse research community, andenhance its contributions in maintaining the nation’s com-petitiveness in science and technology. Appendix D – pub-lished under separate cover – constitutes a compendium ofmany of the activities presently carried out by our commu-nity. This compendium will be kept as a living list withonline access for the use of the nuclear science community.

A Vision for Nuclear Science Education and Outreach for the Next Long Range PlanJanuary 2007

2

Executive Summary Education and outreach are central to the mission of

both the DOE and the NSF. They are the fundamentalunderpinnings that support the mandate of the agencies toadvance the broad interests of society (e.g., in academia,medicine, energy, national security, industry, and govern-ment) and to help ensure United States competitiveness inthe physical sciences and technology.

Over the past decade, numerous studies have pointed toan increasingly urgent need to prepare more U.S. citizensfor leadership roles in basic and applied physical sciences.The recent National Academy of Sciences report, RisingAbove the Gathering Storm: Energizing and EmployingAmerica for a Brighter Economic Future, is the latest andmost visible report that paints a dire picture of America’sfuture if the number of Americans entering careers in sci-ence, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)fields does not increase significantly.

Similarly, education and outreach are key components ofany vision of the future of nuclear science. The unquestion-able importance of these efforts is recognized within thefield, evidenced by the many and diverse activities engagedin by members of our community. These programs are hav-ing a profound impact. They establish clear evidence that anindividual’s efforts can make a difference. They also serve asmodels for strategies to enhance education and outreach inthe nuclear science community.

The December 2006 BNL workshop, “Vision forEducation and Outreach in Nuclear Science,” examined anumber of models, both within and beyond the nuclear sci-ence community, for successful education and outreach. Theobjective of the workshop and subsequent discussions was todefine goals and strategies for a community-wide effort innuclear science education and outreach. Important criteriafor the goals considered were that they should be actionableand achievable and that they should leverage existing pro-grams and the unique strengths of our community. Based onthese discussions, two major recommendations emerged:

Recommendation #1. Nuclear science faces a potentiallyserious shortage of trained workers in pure and appliedresearch, nuclear medicine, nuclear energy and nationalsecurity. To cite just one example, The Education and

Training of Isotope Experts, a 1998 report submitted toCongress by the American Association for the Advancementof Science (AAAS), notes that, “Too few isotope experts arebeing prepared for functions of government, medicine,industry, technology and science.” Based on a comprehen-sive survey of the nuclear science workforce over the previ-ous decade, the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee in2004 recommended a significant increase in new nuclear sci-ence Ph.D.’s during the next decade.

Increasing the number of Ph.D. nuclear scientists, espe-cially U.S. citizens, includes the need to increase participa-tion from the full diversity of backgrounds. It also requiresintroducing students to nuclear science and its researchbefore they start graduate school. Because these two pointscan be very effectively addressed at the undergraduate level,the first recommendation focuses on undergraduate educa-tion and research:

The nuclear science community shouldincrease its involvement and visibility in under-graduate education and research, so as to increasethe number of nuclear science Ph.D.’s and thenumber of scientists, engineers and physics teachersexposed to nuclear science.

Recommendation #2. An effective program of nuclearscience outreach is also essential to ensure a broad, basicknowledge of nuclear science in U.S. society, enablinginformed decisions by individuals and decision-makingbodies on a wide range of important topics, includingnuclear medicine, energy policy, homeland security, nation-al defense and the importance and value of nuclear scienceresearch. At present, the public, and even scientists in otherdisciplines, are often uninformed or misinformed aboutnuclear science and its benefits. In public discussions, anytopic involving the word “nuclear” is likely to generateunreasoned reaction to the word itself, preventing informeddiscussion on important technical and societal issues thatshould be of primary interest. Therefore, the second recom-mendation involves outreach to undergraduate non-physicsmajors, K-12 teachers and students, and the general public:

The nuclear science community should developand disseminate materials and hands-on activitiesthat illustrate and demonstrate core nuclear scienceprinciples to a broad array of audiences, so as to

3

enhance public understanding and appreciation ofnuclear science and its value to society.

It is important to recognize that these recommendationsare by no means the only choices that could have been madeand that they constitute only a small subset of the manyimportant activities that are currently underway. It is alsocrucial to recognize that the strength and future of the edu-cation enterprise in nuclear science in the United Statesrequires funding support both for educational opportunities

that will inspire the next generation of nuclear scientists andfor the research and state-of-the-art facilities that drive thatinspiration. One will not prosper without the other.

The workshop participants are convinced that a commu-nity-wide effort to implement these two recommendationswill provide the greatest leverage in benefiting the entirespectrum of education and outreach needs in nuclear sci-ence, improving the vitality and diversity of the field, andcontributing to U.S. competitiveness and societal needs.

4

Introduction Nuclear science research in the United States provides

profound benefits that broadly advance the interests of soci-ety and help to ensure U.S. competitiveness in technologyand the physical sciences. Whether diagnosing physical ail-ments without invasive surgery, helping ensure adequatesupplies of electrical power, developing tools to guard thenation’s borders against the transport of dangerous materi-als, ensuring the nation’s ability to defend itself, detailingthe structure of matter and understanding the source ofenergy in our sun, or exploring the state of matter that exist-ed at the beginning of our universe, nuclear science plays acentral and unique role in securing the nation’s scientific,economic and technological future.

As stakeholders in the nuclear science enterprise, everymember of the field has a vested interest and even a moralobligation to contribute to nuclear science education andoutreach. Whether mentoring young students and early-career scientists who will make the next big discovery,teaching at a 4-year college, university, or community col-lege, conducting research at a university or national labora-tory, or reaching out to school children or the generalpublic, education is an important responsibility for us all.

Perhaps more so than at any time in the past, thefuture of the field is crucially dependent on articulatingthe excitement, importance, and value of nuclear scienceresearch to a broad array of audiences and on educating adiverse nuclear science workforce.

A Climate Survey

Fifty years ago, Sputnik and the space race launched anunprecedented investment by the United States in scienceand engineering, whose strengthening became a nationalpriority. During that period of growth, nuclear scienceenjoyed a special status because of its societal importance tonational defense and energy production. Particle accelera-tors were constructed at many universities and national lab-oratories, sometimes justified by little more than a letter ofintent. Following this period, at the end of the Cold War,this expansion subsided, as did growth in the size of thenuclear science workforce.

The scientists who began careers as faculty or nationallaboratory researchers during that time have retired or arenearing that milestone. Those who were students duringthat exciting period are now relatively mature in their careers.As a consequence, the aging of the nuclear science workforceis a genuine concern, particularly in view of the increaseddemand projected for nuclear scientists and engineers innational defense, nuclear medicine, nuclear research, and thenuclear power industry. Figures 1 and 2, taken from theNSAC education report [1], give the age distributions offaculty and national laboratory researchers, respectively, forthose identifying themselves as nuclear scientists.

In addition to concerns about an aging workforce, expo-sure of students to the basic principles of nuclear science atmany universities has become marginal, as retiring facultymembers are replaced with new hires from ‘emerging’ disci-plines such as nanotechnology and biophysics. The conclu-sion is that if these trends are not reversed, this deteriorating

01995 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

Year

Num

ber

1985 1990 1995 2000

10

2030

4050

60

70

80

90100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Over 50Under 50

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Per

cent

of P

eopl

e

Figure 1. Year of Ph.D., consolidated in five-year increments, forthose identifying themselves as nuclear scientists with rank ofprofessor (emeritus excluded) on tenure track at four-year col-leges and universities in the U.S. Data on year of hire were notavailable but can be estimated as year of Ph.D. plus four years.

Figure 2. Age distribution of nuclear scientists at seven DOEnational labs. The laboratories (ANL, BNL, JLab, LANL, LBNL, LLNLand ORNL) are identified only by numbers [1, pp. 1-11].

5

situation, recognized as a crisis in nuclear and radiochem-istry for many years, may soon extend to the entire field. A1998 study group reported to Congress, in The Educationand Training of Isotope Experts [2], that unless a series ofrescue actions were soon adopted to “restore the health ofeducation for the vital isotope parts of our national and localinfrastructures,” the consequences would be “diminishednational security, less effective medical care, less biomedicalprogress, impaired safety, weakened competitiveness.”

Nuclear science is not unique, and this situation reflects inpart the broad erosion of U.S. excellence and leadership inall STEM disciplines. The projected increase in jobs in STEMfields related to national security, thus requiring U.S. citizen-ship, compounds an already challenging problem. The recentNational Academy of Sciences report Rising Above theGathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for aBrighter Economic Future [3], is the latest and most visiblereport that paints a dire picture of America’s economicfuture if the number of Americans entering careers in STEMfields does not increase significantly. The three main factorsleading to this concern are:

1. The aging of the U.S. scientific and engineeringworkforce.

2. A decline in the number of U.S. students interestedand prepared to enter these fields.

3. An increased global competition for STEM talentthat threatens the supply of non-U.S. scientists andengineers upon which the U.S. has relied heavily formany years.

Much of the data from labor statistics and education hasbeen gathered together in Science and Engineering Indicators,an NSF report published by the National Science Board [4].The competition is intense; China has the fastest growingeconomy the world has ever seen, allowing for an exponen-tial increase in support for basic and applied research [4]. Inaddition to plans to build 100 new world-class universities [5],China recently announced plans for 1000 new fellowshipsper year, allowing Chinese graduate students to study abroadbefore returning to China to receive their degrees [6]. India,Japan, China and South Korea have doubled the number ofbachelor’s degrees in the natural sciences since 1975 andquadrupled the number of engineering degrees. The EuropeanCommission has doubled the funding for personnel [7] inSTEM disciplines.

As a consequence of such attractive programs outside theUnited States, the foreign-born talent pool that has tradi-tionally supported the U.S. enterprise in the physical sci-ences and technology may not be there in the future. Asopportunities become more available in other countries, oreven in their home country, fewer students may come to theUnited States for graduate school and postdoctoral research;and the number that stay for permanent careers is levelingoff or beginning to decline [8].

Shirley Jackson, former head of the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) and president of RPI, has summarizedthis ‘quiet crisis’ in many published speeches. One in partic-ular, called the Graying of NASA [9], specifically addressesconcerns about nuclear science and technology:

“Another critical case in point is in nuclearscience and technology. Like the NASA work-force, the nuclear workforce is approachingretirement age without a corresponding influx ofappropriately qualified younger personnel toreplace them. Fewer young people are studyingnuclear science, nuclear engineering, and relatedfields at the university level, and many universitieshave given up their nuclear education programsaltogether, because of a lack of interest and theperception that the nuclear power industry is fading.

Yet, ironically, the nuclear power industryis recording better performance than in any timein its history, and it may be poised for expansionfor the first time in decades. The safety, perform-ance, and economic competitiveness of the nuclearindustry are at an all-time high. This is occurringagainst a backdrop of heightened concern aboutnuclear safety and nuclear terrorism.

We must protect ourselves against acts ofnuclear and radiological terrorism by roguenations and terrorist groups. This forces us to ask:Who will maintain and enhance our existingnuclear technology, and who will design the nextgeneration of technologies in nuclear power andother fields? Who will look out for U.S. interestsas the world polices nuclear nonproliferation andguards against nuclear terrorism?”

6

The Gathering Storm report is widely credited with trig-gering bipartisan support in Congress for the AdvancedCompetitiveness Initiative (ACI) [10], which calls for adoubling of the basic research budget for the DOE Office ofScience, NSF, and the National Institute of Standards andTechnology (NIST) over the next decade. As noted in theguidance from the Office of Science and Technology Policyconcerning ACI, this initiative is particularly targetedtoward “key Federal agencies that support basic research inthe physical sciences and engineering that has potentiallyhigh impact on economic competitiveness.…To achieve thisdoubling within ten years, overall annual increases for thesethree agencies [would] average roughly seven percent.Specific allocations[would] be based on research prioritiesand opportunities. In addition to the doubling effort at thesethree agencies, similarly high-impact basic and appliedresearch of the Department of Defense should be a signifi-cant priority.” [11]

Regardless of the details of any particular legislation, the“take-home” message is clear: For the United States toremain a world leader in science, technology, and business,significantly increased investment by the nation, in bothresearch and education in STEM disciplines—includingnuclear science—is essential. Correspondingly, for nuclearscience to prosper, the value of nuclear science and its basicresearch to society—to economic competitiveness, energysecurity, and national defense—must be clear to all stake-holders as well as to the general public.

What role does nuclear science have in assuring America’scompetitiveness? An education in nuclear physics providesextensive technical ability, problem solving skills, and criti-cal thinking skills that enable attractive careers in other areasand disciplines, and provide invaluable contributions tosociety. The specialized knowledge and training providedthrough a degree in nuclear science have unique applicabili-ty to areas such as nuclear medicine, energy, and nationalsecurity. Several recent reports document the future needfor workers trained in applied nuclear areas such as nuclearmedicine, engineering, health physics and radiochemistry.

An assessment of present and future workforce needs innuclear medicine, funded by the Society of NuclearMedicine, is presently underway and will be completed bySeptember 2007. The preliminary report [12] released bythis group notes that available workforce data assessing the

number of scientists employed in nuclear medicine is inade-quate. The report notes that researchers in a variety of otherfields are necessary to advance nuclear medicine, includingphysics, chemistry, engineering, computer science and phar-macy. The report also notes that the “effects of hardwaretechnology on the nuclear medicine professional suggestdemand for scientific experts in physics, engineering andcomputer science for research, development, implementa-tion and maintenance of these highly capable devices.Commercial producers of these products would necessarilyrequire scientists for all phases of the development process.Although nuclear medicine represents a niche market, it is agrowing market and one that promises continuing appeal atleast in the near future.”

In the areas of homeland and national security, ournation’s applied laboratories rely on scientists trained innuclear physics, chemistry and radiochemistry to fill rolesin a wide variety of activities, such as working with radio-isotopes, developing new generations of imaging detectors,nuclear forensics, and maintaining the nation’s stockpile ofnuclear weapons. Many workers in these areas are nearingretirement age. Figure 3 illustrates the magnitude of the prob-lem by showing the loss of workforce through retirementand attrition that is expected by 2010 at one such laboratory,Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) [13].

Agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security(DHS) and DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration(NNSA) recognize the need for a proactive approach toreplacing these workers, who are often required to be U.S.citizens. A recent trend in these agencies has been to allocatenew research money to specific areas of need, with the under-lying goal of training students who will become the future

100

‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07Year

‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

FT

Es

Lost

0

RetireesRetirees + Attrition

Figure 3. PNNL projections for loss of workforce.

7

workforce. Both organizations are funding graduate fellow-ships. In addition, the DOE NNSA is in the fourth year offunding for the Academic Alliance Program (SSAAP), an ini-tiative directed towards the specific science needs of the stock-pile stewardship program. For one of these needs, low energynuclear science, the program has funded one major center atRutgers University for research at Oak Ridge’s HRIBF andindividual investigator grants at several universities. TheSSAAP is in its infancy, and the ultimate career paths of stu-dents and postdoctoral fellows who participate have not yetbeen tracked. However, the program has been enthusiasticallyembraced by the young scientists involved and is considereda success by the NNSA laboratories. The Department ofHomeland Security is following this model in a recent callfor proposals through the National Science Foundation.This new program will also be directed towards nuclear sci-ence, primarily in the area of instrumentation.

Nuclear energy, which currently generates 22% of theenergy used in the United States, is another national needthat has traditionally been fed by nuclear science and engi-neering graduates at all levels. The Nuclear Energy Instituteestimates that, over the next decade, the industry will need150 percent of the available supply of nuclear engineers justto maintain the current capability in nuclear energy [14].Any increase in U.S. reliance on nuclear power generationto meet the nation’s future energy needs will require a sig-nificant increase in the number of trained nuclear workers.Such an increase seems entirely plausible given the majorexpansion of nuclear power generation capability plannedby other world powers such as China, India and Russia.

The Nuclear Science Workforce

As part of the NSAC Education Subcommittee activities,a survey was conducted of Ph.D.’s in nuclear science whograduated between July 1, 1992, and June 30, 1998. There were585 reported graduates in the field during that period. 412were located and asked to respond to a survey. Of these, 251responded, a return rate of 61%. 195 responded to a ques-tion concerning their present career, resulting in the break-down in Table 1. Less than 40% of respondents remained ina nuclear science career, with another 40% going into totallyunrelated fields. The majority of the latter group (more thanone-fourth of the total) ended up in business or industry.

A more recent survey looked at career tracks of studentsin the RHIC program. Data were gathered from the STAR,Phenix and Brahms collaborations. From 1998 through2006, sixty-seven students received their Ph.D.’s from U.S.universities, about 50% of the total sample. While themajority of students tracked still have postdoctoral appoint-ments, 25-30% have already left the field, pursuing careersas diverse as banking/stockmarket (5), software (2), powerindustry (1), defense (2), and unspecified industry (3). Thegroup that has left nuclear science is strongly weightedtowards U.S. citizens, possibly because there are more jobopportunities for U.S. citizens. This same trend was seen inthe NSAC education report surveys.

DOE has collected data on students who receivedPh.D.’s in 2005 or 2006 and who had full or partial supportfrom DOE NP. The sample of 169 new Ph.D.’s consisted of79 U.S. citizens (46.9%) and 90 non-U.S. citizens (53.1%).92% of the U.S. citizens and 74% of the non-citizens werestaying in the U.S. for their first postdoctoral or other posi-tion. The data does not break out whether these positionsare temporary or permanent. Even this early in their careers,a significant number of these students are moving on tonuclear-science-related fields such as medicine (4%) andnuclear energy (7.7%), and even more are leaving the fieldentirely for business and industry (almost 12%). The resultsof this survey are in Table 2, in a format similar to Table 1.

Figure 4 shows the nuclear science workforce (headcount, not FTE) that is supported by the DOE and NSFnuclear physics budgets. The graph shows numbers for per-

Current EmployerIn nuclear

scienceIn a related

fieldIn a different

fieldTotal

N % N % N % N %

Ph.D. University 27 13.9 15 7.7 10 5.1 52 26.7

Other college/ university

9 4.6 10 5.1 6 3.1 25 12.8

National lab 34 17.4 8 4.1 6 3.1 48 24.6

Business/Industry

3 1.5 8 4.1 52 26.7 63 32.3

Governmentagency

1 0.5 4 2.1 2 1.0 7 3.6

Total 74 37.9 45 23.1 76 39.0 195 100

Table 1. Career path of nuclear science Ph.D.’s after 5-10 years.

8

manent staff, temporary staff and graduate students at uni-versities and national laboratories. These numbers are takenfrom the DOE 2006 nuclear physics workforce survey [15]added together with numbers from the NSF.

The total number of graduate degrees awarded over thelast 20 years is given in Figure 5. Two sets of data are plotted.One is from the DOE 2006 workplace survey [15] and theother is from the NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED)[16]. The latter survey is based on self-reporting of nuclearphysics and nuclear chemistry degrees by the students andshould include those supported by both NSF and DOE.The SED numbers appear to be under-reported by approxi-mately 15%. There are large fluctuations in both sets of data,so five-year averages have been plotted. The two surveysshow an identical and alarming trend, a significant decreasein Ph.D.’s of about 20% from the latter half of the 1990s tothe first half of the current decade.

In projecting future workforce needs in nuclear science,taking into account retirement of present faculty members,hiring trends at national laboratories, and increased need inareas like homeland security and nuclear energy, the NSACEducation Committee reached the conclusion that the fieldcan sustain about 100 Ph.D.’s per year, an increase of about20% over present numbers. This number may be even highernow that nuclear energy has become a viable future energysource. Contrary to these projected needs, the number ofnew Ph.D.’s in nuclear science is decreasing.

As part of the NSAC education report [1], surveys werealso conducted of present graduate students and postdoc-toral fellows. These surveys provide a snapshot of the field’s

86-900

500

1500

1000

2000

2500

91-95 96-2000Years

2001-2005 2006

Graduate Student, Nat’l LabGraduate Student, UniversityTemporary, Nat’l LabTemporary, University

DOE Only

*Undergraduate headcount only available from NSF

DOE + NSF*

Permanent, Nat’l LabPermanent, UniversityUndergraduates

660.75

321

327.25

145

605.25

64113.25

596.8

357

322.4

158

643.4

69131.8

581

360

303

137

646

97199

341

163111

334

45

337

348

199142

370

58

Figure 4. The nuclear science workforce. Data includes head-counts of permanent and temporary staff, graduate students, andsome undergraduates, as determined by full or partial support byDOE or NSF nuclear physics offices.

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

120

19901985 1995 2000 2005 2010Year

PhD’s Awarded (running 5-year average)

DOE Workforce Survey (1986-2006)NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates (1996-2006)

Figure 5. Ph.D.’s awarded 1986-2006. Data is from [15], for studentswith full or partial support from DOE Nuclear Physics, and [16], sum-ming those self-identifying as being in nuclear physics or chem-istry, including students supported by both NSF and DOE. Running5-year averages have been shown to eliminate fluctuations.

Current EmployerIn

nuclearscience

In a related

field

In a different

field

Undec-ided Total

N % N % N % N % N %

Ph.D. University 51 30.2 11 6.5 62 36.7

Other college/ university

9 5.3 13 7.7 22 13.0

National lab 21 12.4 13 7.7 4 2.4 38 22.5

Business/Industry

20 11.8 20 11.8

MedicalSchool/Hospital

7 4.1 7 4.1

Other 3 1.8 3 1.8

Undecided 17 10.1 17 10.1

Total 81 47.9 47 27.8 24 14.2 17 10.1 169 100

Table 2. Career path of graduating nuclear science Ph.D.’s in2005/2006 (DOE supported only).

9

demographics. In 2005, 40% of graduate students in allphysical sciences were foreign-born [17]. This percentagewas about the same among the 630 nuclear science graduatestudents surveyed in 2004 [1]. In 2004 there were 352 post-doctoral fellows in nuclear science in the United States, ofwhom 71% were foreign-born. We do not appear to bedoing an adequate job of growing the next generation ofU.S. nuclear scientists to fill the needs of the basic researchcommunity, as well as national needs. We are also not edu-cating a diverse workforce. The 2006 DOE WorkforceSurvey [15] includes statistics on the 92 new Ph.D.’s in thefield. These are listed in Table 3. The gender equity has beensteadily improving, and the number of new female Ph.D.’s isnow at 17%. However, the number of new Ph.D.’s comingfrom traditionally under-represented U.S. minorities is stillwoefully low.

For nuclear science to survive and prosper in the UnitedStates, every member of the field must play a role in helping toprepare a diverse next-generation of scientists and to improvepublic understanding and appreciation of nuclear scienceand its value to society. Ultimately, this is key to ensuringthe future health of basic research in nuclear science.

RecommendationsThe BNL workshop considered strategies for collectively

addressing the DOE/NSF charge to NSAC “to discussstrategies to strengthen and improve the education processand prepare nuclear scientists for careers in academia, basicresearch, medicine, national security, industry, and govern-ment.” The agenda and list of participants are in appendicesA and B. A series of panelists from within and outside thebasic nuclear science community presented models, includ-ing ones in the areas of recruiting the next generation ofnuclear scientists, K-12 education and public outreach, andfostering diversity, that may have been less familiar to theparticipants. The subsequent discussions focused on defin-ing goals and strategies that are actionable, achievable, valu-able, and manageable, and that leveraged existing programsand unique strengths of the nuclear science community.These combined criteria led us to recommend two goals fora unified collective effort in this area over the next decade:

1. The nuclear science community should increase itsinvolvement and visibility in undergraduate educationand research, so as to increase the number of nuclearscience Ph.D.’s and the number of scientists, engineersand physics teachers exposed to nuclear science.

2. The nuclear science community should develop anddisseminate materials and hands-on activities thatillustrate and demonstrate core nuclear science princi-ples to a broad array of audiences, so as to enhancepublic understanding and appreciation of nuclear sci-ence and its value to society.

It is important to recognize that these goals are by nomeans the only choices that could have been made, and thatthey constitute only a subset of the many important ongo-ing activities that need to continue as part of a coordinatedeffort to strengthen nuclear science education and outreach.The workshop participants were convinced, however, thatsignificant progress in these specific targeted areas will pro-vide the greatest leverage in benefiting the entire spectrumof education and outreach needs in nuclear science, improv-ing the vitality and diversity of our field, and contributingto U.S. competitiveness and societal needs.

Source DOE 2006 WorkforceSurvey

NSAC Education Report,Ph.D.’s 5-10 Years Out

Gender U.S. CitizenNon-U.S.Citizen

U.S. Citizens

Male 81% 88% 88%

Female 19% 12% 12%

Race

Caucasian 90% 69% 90%

Asian or AsianAmerican

5% 30% 1.2%

Black or AfricanAmerican

1% 0% 1.2%

American Indian orAlaskan Native

0% NA 1.2%

Hispanic 4% 1% 0.6%

Mixed race or ethnicity

6.2%

Table 3. New nuclear science Ph.D.’s.

10

Undergraduate Education and Research

As noted in the workforce discussion, the field of nuclearscience is facing a potentially serious shortage of trainedworkers in pure and applied research, nuclear medicine,nuclear energy, and national security. In 2004, based on acomprehensive survey of the nuclear science workforce overthe last decade, the NSAC recommended an increase in thenumber of new nuclear science Ph.D.’s during the nextdecade, in order to return to an average of approximately100 per year.

Increasing the number of Ph.D. nuclear scientists, espe-cially U.S. citizens, includes the need to increase participationfrom the full diversity of backgrounds. It also requires intro-ducing students to nuclear science and its research before theystart graduate school. Because these two points are very effec-tively addressed at the undergraduate level, the first recommen-dation focuses on undergraduate education and research.Undergraduates are the wellspring of the pipeline, and we havethe tools and the talent to make a difference. Such an effort bestleverages the resources of our community, building on exist-ing programs (e.g., REU, SULI, CEU, RUI) and the work ofuniversity departments, national laboratories, and individuals.

Engaging students in funded research projects when theyare undergraduates has a significant impact on the students’educational accomplishments and career choices. TheTennessee Technological University (TTU) physics depart-ment, which only offers the bachelor’s degree in physics,has been steering students toward graduate degrees andcareers in physics since the late 1970s. Because it is aregional, predominantly undergraduate university in a statenot known for generously funding higher education, onemight not expect TTU to have a program that has sent astring of students on for Ph.D.’s in physics at places likeGeorgia Tech, the University of California at Berkeley, YaleUniversity, Michigan State University, Rutgers University,Indiana University, Duke University, and North CarolinaState University; but this is just what has happened.

This abrupt turnabout in student outcomes came whenTTU physics majors were offered the opportunity to engagein research under the guidance of the TTU physics facultyon projects at accelerator facilities at Argonne NationalLaboratory, Florida State University, Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory, Institut Laue-Langevin at Grenoble, theUniversity of Notre Dame, Duke University, and otherinstitutions. Sustained research funding from the Departmentof Energy’s Division of Nuclear Physics that included sup-port for TTU undergraduates was key to making this happen.

While the number of Ph.D. degrees awarded in thenuclear sciences has been steadily declining over the pastdecade, eleven TTU graduates have attained Ph.D.s or are in

graduate school in this sub-field alone. Currently, TTUphysics graduates hold facultyor staff positions atBrookhaven NationalLaboratory, Oak RidgeNational Laboratory, theUniversity of New Mexico,the University of Hawaii, andVanderbilt University.Graduates from Tech’sphysics program have won aPresidential Early CareerAward for Scientists andEngineers (PECASE), arecontributing to research atBrookhaven’s RelativisticHeavy Ion Collider, and holdpositions such as that ofDeputy Director of theMarshall Space Flight Centerin Huntsville, Alabama.

From an unlikely regional public university has come anunlikely result. Like many physics departments, TTU’s hasa rigorous curriculum. What distinguishes TTU’s under-graduate physics program from many others is the impor-tance the physics faculty place on giving students theopportunity to engage in cutting-edge nuclear researchthroughout their four-year undergraduate education.

Former TTU undergraduateDan Bardayan, who todaystudies stellar reactions atOak Ridge National Lab, isthe recipient of a 2006PECASE award.

BP1: CURRENT BEST PRACTICE

UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH: CHANGING OUTCOMES IN PHYSICS AT TENNESSEE TECH

11

There has been concern among members of our communitythat the number of schools with nuclear physics faculty isdeclining. If this is true, it is not evident in the number ofpermanent staff at universities that are being supported byDOE and NSF nuclear physics. There may be a redistribu-tion of nuclear physics faculty among subdisciplines of nuclearphysics or a broadening of the definition of what a nuclearphysicist does. A quantitative study of this question is beyondthe scope of this document. However, it is well documentedthat the nuclear chemistry community has been faced withdeclining numbers of students and faculty for many years andthat the situation in that subfield is critical. Nuclear chemistry

faculty members are not being replaced when they retire.The number of new Ph.D.’s in nuclear chemistry each year isnow at such a low level (<4) that the NSF Survey of EarnedDoctorates is no longer counting it as a separate category.

An aggressive plan to recruit more U.S. undergraduatesinto nuclear science careers must of necessity require con-siderable outreach to women, minorities, first-generationcollege, and students from other traditionally under-repre-sented backgrounds. It is a fact that if the STEM disciplineswere attracting under-represented groups at the same rate atwhich they attract white males, not only would many more

The objective of the AmericanChemical Society’s SummerSchools in Nuclear and Radio-chemistry is to increase the num-ber of outstanding undergraduatestudents introduced to the fieldsof nuclear chemistry and radio-chemistry. Held at San Jose StateUniversity in San Jose, CA, andat Brookhaven NationalLaboratory in Upton, NY, theSummer Schools are intensive,six-week courses in fundamentalprinciples of nuclear and radio-chemistry. Each site hosts 12 stu-dents annually, and students canreceive college credit toward their undergraduate degrees.Participating students are introduced to course materialsand activities that would otherwise not be covered at theirhome institutions, broadening their perspective on the fieldof chemistry and exposing them to basic and applied nuclearscience principles. Many of the graduates of past summerschools, having also completed advanced degrees in nuclearscience disciplines, have found career positions in research orapplied nuclear science fields, including permanent positionswith the U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories.

The Summer Schools program was started in 1984 at SanJose State University, and expanded to the Brookhaven

National Laboratory in 1989. TheDivision of Nuclear Chemistryand Technology of the AmericanChemical Society is the intellectualoversight body of the SummerSchools. The U.S. Department ofEnergy’s Office of Basic EnergySciences (BES) has providedfunding for the program. Thesefunds are used to cover studentstipends; travel, living, and educa-tional expenses; salaries for thesite directors; and salary and travelexpenses for participating lectur-ers and teaching assistants. Thestudents receive nuclear and

radiochemistry training equivalent to a three-hour, upper-level undergraduate course, along with a two-hour, hands-on laboratory experience, within the six-week summerperiod. Each student also completes radiation safety train-ing at the beginning of the session. A guest lecture series,several one-day symposia, and organized field trips tonuclear-related research and applied science laboratoriesenhance the curriculum. This enrichment affords an oppor-tunity for students to see the broader impacts of nuclear sci-ence in today’s world, and to experience some of the futurechallenges through formal and informal discussions withleaders in the diverse fields represented by nuclear chem-istry and technology.


ACS SUMMER SCHOOLS IN NUCLEAR AND RADIOCHEMISTRY

Students at the 2006 BNL site suit up to begin an experiment

U.S. citizens be studying nuclear science, but we wouldreadily achieve the goal to increase by 20% the number ofnuclear science Ph.D.’s annually awarded in the U.S. Inorder to attract significant numbers of talented new studentsinto nuclear science programs, it is necessary to recruit froma broad cross section of the student population and toproactively work on increasing the number of individualsfrom traditionally under-represented backgrounds who areexposed to nuclear science at the undergraduate level.

Introducing the basic principles of nuclear science andproviding advanced courses and laboratories to physics andchemistry students as part of a basic curriculum has the col-lateral benefit of exposing more future teachers, engineers, andother professionals to nuclear science, its broad applicabilityto careers at all levels of schooling, and its value to society.

How do we effect change at the undergraduate level? Wepropose a three-pronged approach, all of whose elementsare important:

12

The Modular Neutron Array(MoNA), a major experimental devicelocated at the National SuperconductingCyclotron Laboratory (NSCL), wasassembled almost exclusively by under-graduate students at ten different, prima-rily undergraduate, colleges anduniversities. Following the completion ofthe array—nine layers of sixteen plasticscintillator bars, each 200 × 10 × 10 cm3—the MoNA collaboration continued as anongoing, multi-institutional research col-laboration that includes undergraduateparticipation as a central feature.

Undergraduate students from the MoNA collaborationinstitutions have participated at the NSCL in every MoNAexperiment to date, and MoNA undergraduates are carry-ing out essential components of the data analysis for theseexperiments.

Members of the MoNA collaboration have worked hardand creatively to ensure the continuing participation of fac-ulty and students from the undergraduate institutions.Weekly videoconferences, recently enhanced by new hard-ware, thanks to a grant from the state of Michigan, providean opportunity for discussion of data analysis issues, ideasfor future experiments, and other topics. With one of thevideoconference sites in the MoNA data collection area atthe NSCL, students can even carry out online data analysisduring experiments without traveling to the NSCL. Emaildistribution lists, including one restricted to undergraduatestudents, provide avenues for asynchronous communication.

Since 2004, members of the collabora-tion—faculty, grad students, and under-graduates—have gathered for an annualcollaboration meeting, where papers andexperiment proposals are written, dataanalysis issues are addressed, responsibili-ties are delegated, and the collaborationitself is renewed and reinvigorated.

This multi-institutional model ofundergraduate research participationoffers a number of important advantagesfor nuclear science in particular, sincemost experiments are now performed atnational user facilities. Students who are

place-bound, either because they are non-traditional stu-dents with family commitments or because they feel culturalconstraints, can participate in a meaningful way even if theycannot devote an entire summer to the research experience.The MoNA model also promotes year-round and multi-year research participation, which makes it more likely thatstudents will see a project through to publication. Regularcontact with students and faculty from other institutionshelps MoNA undergraduates to see themselves as part ofthe nuclear physics community, and so encourages them tocontinue on this career path.

So far, fifty-six undergraduates and one high school studenthave participated in research as part of the MoNA collabo-ration. The next MoNA experiment, tentatively scheduledfor May 2007, will provide yet another opportunity for stu-dents at the collaboration institutions to experience the thrillof participation in cutting-edge research in nuclear physics.


THE MONA COLLABORATION: A MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH COLLABORATION WITHUNDERGRADUATE PARTICIPATION AT ITS CORE

Undergraduate student Tina Pikedeveloping a calibration scheme forMoNA.

1. Engage undergraduates in research. It has beendemonstrated that undergraduates who have beeninvolved in research go on to pursue graduate degrees ata higher rate, are more likely to remain active in researchin their professional careers [18], and often stay in thesubdiscipline in which they interned. The early expo-sure to research also has been shown to decrease thetime a student spends in graduate school [19].

2. In the education process, ensure that undergraduatephysics majors are exposed to nuclear science as earlyand often as possible.

3. Make nuclear science visible to as many undergradu-ates as possible, in both STEM and non-STEM coursesof study. Introducing nuclear concepts to a broadrange of undergraduates will have impacts on multipleareas: future teachers, an informed public, and

13

The Conference Experience forUndergraduates (CEU), held annual-ly since 1998, has become a valuableaddition to the fall APS Division ofNuclear Physics (DNP) meetings.Since its inception, approximately630 undergraduate students fromcolleges and universities across thecountry (and a few from abroad)have participated. The goal of theprogram is to provide students who have conducted under-graduate research in nuclear science a “capstone” confer-ence experience, with the goal of strengthening retention ofthese talented students in the field.

The CEU draws applications from students around thecountry and abroad. Their application materials are consid-ered by an independent review committee, and travel andlodging grants are awarded based on project merit. Supportfor the CEU is provided by the NSF, DOE, and DNP.Students who don’t receive awards are often able to partici-pate based on assistance from their advisors or home insti-tutions. For most, participation in the DNP meetingrepresents their first professional conference experience andthe first opportunity to present their research to a broadprofessional audience.

At the 2005 CEU in Maui, 16 Japanese undergraduatestudents were also able to participate, and there was goodexchange between the American and Japanese students,bringing an international flavor to the program.

Each year the CEU includes several activities designedfor the participants. In addition to the undergraduate

research poster session (which isalways a well-attended session), thereare also two special nuclear scienceseminars presented at an advancedundergraduate level by prominentmembers of the DNP, an eveningdessert social, and a graduate schoolinformation session at which repre-sentatives from several universitiesand laboratories meet with the stu-

dents to discuss graduate school opportunities. In additionto CEU activities, students are also full participants in themeeting, and are encouraged to attend as many of the regu-lar sessions as they can.

Survey and anecdotal data indicate several benefits of CEUparticipation. Students discover that scientists are genuinelyinterested in their research, that is, that their work is valuedand highly relevant to the field as a whole. They meet peers,graduate students, and established scientists who share acommon interest and bond in physics and research, andmany students catch an inspiring vision of a future in nuclearscience. They see first-hand how fundamental communica-tion and sharing of ideas occurs among professional scien-tists. They have a unique opportunity to discuss graduateschool opportunities with scientists from several top insti-tutions and laboratories. Survey data also suggest increasedstudent interest in graduate school in general and in nuclearscience in particular. Each of these benefits serves tostrengthen retention of talented students in nuclear science.

Finally, the DNP community benefits from the energyand excitement that bright young scientists bring to themeeting.


CONFERENCE EXPERIENCE FOR UNDERGRADUATES

informed national leadership in science, technology,government, business and medicine.

During the course of the workshop, many activities thatcould lead to improvements in these three areas were dis-cussed. A categorized list is included in Appendix E-1.Herein, a broad strategy is outlined which should lead todemonstrable results in each of the three areas. The sidebarseither describe a current best practice or a possible futurestrategic implementation. These are not meant to be inclu-sive, but to illustrate possibilities.

STRATEGIES FOR UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH

Undergraduate research has been demonstrated toengage students early in their education and is also an area inwhich nuclear science has existing programs and strengths.The graduate student survey in the NSAC education report[1] documented that 92% of the female and 88% of the malegraduate students surveyed had been engaged in undergrad-uate research experiences. An integrated approach is calledfor that identifies promising students early in their educa-tion, provides them with opportunities throughout theundergraduate experience, and helps with the transition tograduate school.

• Home institutions play an important role in engagingstudents early in their education. As seen at Tennessee

Technological University, engaging undergraduates inresearch in their freshman or sophomore years of col-lege and then maintaining involvement until gradua-tion has a significant impact on student outcomes (seeSidebar BP1, Undergraduate Research: ChangingOutcomes in Physics at Tennessee Tech).

• For rising juniors, we propose a summer school thatwill provide both knowledge and hands-on experiencein basic nuclear science concepts, preparing studentsfor active engagement in nuclear science research thefollowing summer, when they are rising seniors (seeSidebar FS1, A Nuclear Physics Summer School: APrelude to a Research Experience). This summerschool will be patterned after the highly successfulnuclear chemistry summer school, which has been inoperation since 1989 at two locations (see SidebarBP2, The ACS Summer Schools in Nuclear andRadiochemistry).

• We propose to expand summer research experiencesfor undergraduates, leveraging existing programs atcollege and university departments and national labo-ratories.

• Where possible, research experiences should continuethroughout the school year. For example, memberinstitutions of the MoNA collaboration facilitate thisthrough weekly video-conferences and a video hookupin the data collection area at the NSCL (see SidebarBP3, The MoNA Collaboration: A Multi-InstitutionalResearch Collaboration with Undergraduate Parti-cipation at its Core).

14

The nuclear science community has a strong tradition ofproviding research experiences for undergraduates throughthe NSF REU or RUI grants, the DOE SULI or CCI pro-grams, university programs and individual grants.However, many students come into these programs woeful-ly unprepared, with little knowledge of nuclear science andminimal hands-on experience. They may spend most of a10-week summer internship on a steep learning curve thatcan be extremely frustrating for student and mentor alike.

We propose a nuclear physics summer school for risingjuniors, modeled after the successful nuclear chemistry

summer school. This school would last 6-8 weeks and takeplace at an institution with a facility. It would consist of acombination of lectures and hands-on activities, and stu-dents would be instructed in the basics of nuclear physicsand its tools and techniques.

Recruitment for this school would be primarily frominstitutions with no facility or existing nuclear science pro-gram, and would contain an aggressive diversity compo-nent. Students would be expected to pursue a researchprogram the following summer, and the school faculty andmentors would help place them with nuclear science groups.

FS1: A FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

A NUCLEAR PHYSICS SUMMER SCHOOL: A PRELUDE TO A RESEARCH EXPERIENCE

• CEU provides a professional development opportu-nity for students, especially as they transition to grad-uate school (see Sidebar BP4, Conference Experiencefor Undergraduates).

To guarantee success in this endeavor, we must take lead-ership roles at our home institutions and network amongour community by:

• Helping to place promising students with nuclear sci-entist mentors.

• Mentoring and providing academic advice and careercounseling to physics and chemistry students, espe-cially those interested in nuclear science.

• Networking with colleagues at other institutions tokeep a living list for the nuclear science community ofstudents interested in continuing to graduate schoolin nuclear science, so as to give these students the bestopportunities throughout their undergraduate experi-ence and as they transition to graduate school (seeSidebar FS2, Integrated Mentoring).

• Developing a community-wide strategy for recruitingpromising students from traditionally under-repre-sented groups, including women, so that we areworking together to recruit more of these students intonuclear science, rather than competing against eachother for the small number of students available now.

Undergraduate research experiences should be recognizedby the agencies as an important component in training the nextgeneration of nuclear scientists. Undergraduate participationshould be part of the reporting requirements for all agencies.

STRATEGIES FOR UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

The number of undergraduate courses offered in nuclearphysics and chemistry across the nation is low, leaving stu-dents who do not have access to such courses largely igno-rant of the field, even into their graduate studies. To reachfuture nuclear scientists, future physics teachers and otherS&T professionals, nuclear concepts need to be sustained inboth modern physics and general survey physics.

According to statistics gathered by the NSAC educationreport [1] from AIP statistics and through phone calls, sixout of 23 Ph.D.-granting institutions (18%) with 20 or morephysics majors offered nuclear physics courses. Of the remain-ing institutions, 12 departments (43%) offered a combinednuclear and particle physics course. However, two of thesedepartments had no nuclear physicist on the faculty.

Of the seven bachelor’s-only departments that averaged15 or more physics majors per year, two offered a course in

15

It has been recognized that mentoring of students at alllevels is an important factor in the retention of students inthe field. The most effective mentoring can be done by thePh.D. advisor for graduate students and by the professor orscientist supervising the research projects for high schooland undergraduate students. A potential problem is thetransition from one phase to the next (from high school tocollege, and from college to graduate school). Due to thelack of mentoring and guidance, students who are stillundecided about their future direction might leave the field.

For example, a survey of undergraduate students attend-ing the Conference Experience for Undergraduates at the2003 Fall DNP meeting was included in the 2004 NSACreport on education in nuclear science [1]. The resultsrevealed that, following their research and CEU experience,about 20% of the students thought they would probably

continue with nuclear physics in graduate school, and about40% would consider it. Only 15% were definitely pursuinga Ph.D. in nuclear physics. While this number is still highcompared to the AIP survey of incoming graduate students,in which 4% are planning to study nuclear physics [17], itstill leaves a large number of undecided students amongthose who already have in-depth experience in nuclearphysics research and were motivated to apply for the CEU.

The advisor of the students should be encouraged to con-tinue to mentor (and not only track) students when they moveon to the next stage. If it is not practical to continue this role,they should take proactive steps to ensure a seamless contin-uation of the students’ mentoring and guidance at the nextinstitution. To facilitate these activities we recommend explo-ration of options to form a national mentoring network.


INTEGRATED MENTORING

nuclear physics, and two others offered a combinednuclear/particle or nuclear/atomic course.

College and university faculty need to work within theirdepartments to ensure that nuclear physics courses (with atleast 50% nuclear physics content) are offered or continueto be offered. A means of disseminating nuclear physics andastrophysics course material to schools with no nuclear fac-ulty should be examined (see Sidebar FS3, Workshop onNuclear Physics in the Undergraduate Curriculum).

One way to reach many students is to inject nuclear-related experiments into the large upper-division laboratorycourses taken by all chemistry and physics majors. Theexperiments must both use modern equipment and be ofcurrent interest to the society at large. This tactic has beenused successfully at Washington University (see SidebarBP5, Advanced Laboratories in Nuclear Science).

STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING THE VISIBILITY OF NUCLEARSCIENCE AMONG UNDERGRADUATES

It is important to increase campuswide visibility of nuclearscience at all schools, and, more particularly, visibility within

physics and chemistry departments that don’t have nuclearscience faculty. For those students going on to pursue grad-uate degrees in physics or chemistry, this will introducenuclear science as a career choice before they start choosinga graduate school. For physics or chemistry majors whoenter the job market with a bachelor’s degree, one of theapplications of nuclear science may become an attractivecareer choice. And for students with other majors, they willconstitute an informed public. Increasing the visibility ofnuclear science at predominantly undergraduate institutionsand at institutions that contain a large population of tradi-tionally under-represented minorities will be an essentialstep in improving the diversity of our field. The overalleffect of increasing visibility within physics and chemistrydepartments would be (1) an increase in the number anddiversity of Ph.D.’s educated in nuclear science, and (2) anincrease in the number of S&T and health professionals andfuture physics teachers exposed to nuclear science.

A distinguished lecturer program, which has proved suc-cessful in plasma physics, is one approach to increasing visi-bility within physics or chemistry departments at schoolswith no nuclear science. These lecturers should be providedwith travel money to visit schools in their region to talkabout nuclear science in general and their research in partic-ular (see Sidebar FS4, Distinguished Lecturers).

16

The importance of students’ exposure to nuclear physicstopics during their undergraduate studies has been recognizedby the 2004 NSAC report, Education in Nuclear Science [1].The report states: “The undergraduate years offer the primeopportunity for introducing students to the tools andmethodology of physical science. The window of time duringwhich science can grab their interest and propel themtoward a career in science is rather narrow, and it is there-fore especially important that the nuclear science communi-ty focus appropriate attention on these crucial years for therecruiting and retaining of interested students in the field.” Asurvey of physics departments revealed that “a large portionof students entering graduate school have no formal instruc-tion in nuclear physics until they encounter it (if they do atall) in graduate school.”

It is therefore important that the community explore

options to improve the exposure of undergraduate studentsto nuclear physics. We thus recommend a workshop on“Nuclear Physics in the Undergraduate Curriculum.” Thisworkshop could be held in connection with the fall meetingof the Division of Nuclear Physics.

The workshop participants would evaluate the currentsituation, highlight best practices, and discuss how to makethe nuclear physics elective course more attractive to thestudents. It should address the recommendation of theNSAC report to establish “an online nuclear physicsinstructional materials database, for use in encouraging andenhancing the development of undergraduate nuclearphysics courses.” The formation of this database has beenrecommended in order to offer nuclear physics content todepartments where the small number of physics professorslimits the curriculum to only the basic core courses.


WORKSHOP ON NUCLEAR PHYSICS IN THE UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM

BEYOND THE UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE

One anticipated outcome of focusing on enhancing under-graduate education, research, and visibility in nuclear scienceis to increase the number of nuclear science Ph.D.’s who areU.S. citizens. To fully realize this outcome will require acommitment to attract a diverse cadre of U.S.-trained studentsto our discipline and prepare them for the wealth of careeropportunities that will be available to them. In addition tobasic nuclear science research and higher education, careeroptions extend to applications of nuclear science that meetnational needs: nuclear energy, nuclear medicine, homelandsecurity, environmental remediation, nuclear safeguards, etc.

The NSAC education report [1] discusses many inter-ventions aimed at increasing the number of nuclear sciencePh.D.’s prepared to contribute to national needs. We endorsethe report’s recommendations with respect to graduate stu-dent and postdoctoral scholar education and training:

• The nuclear science community should assume greaterresponsibility for shortening the median time to thePh.D. degree.

• As recommended by the Secretary of Energy’s AdvisoryBoard (SEAB) in 2003 [20], prestigious graduate studentfellowships should be developed by the Office of Science

in the areas of physical sciences, including nuclear sci-ence, that are critical to the missions of the DOE.

• Also as recommended by the SEAB 2003 report, newtraining grant opportunities in nuclear science shouldbe established.

• Prestigious postdoctoral fellowships in nuclear sci-ence should be established with funding from theNSF and the DOE.

As reported in reference [1] and summarized in Table 1,fewer than 40% of Ph.D.’s in nuclear science stay in nuclearscience, almost all in the academic research environment ofuniversities or national laboratories. Among the others, theNSAC education survey found a significant degree of disap-pointment arising from an unrealistic expectation of careers inacademic or national laboratory positions. Enhanced careeradvising and mentoring is very important, and community-wide resources should be developed to prepare students forcareers beyond the traditional job market. Therefore, interven-tions should include regular professional development activ-ities for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Forexample, workshops associated with the DNP meeting couldhighlight career paths outside basic research and higher edu-cation (see Sidebar FS5: Professional Development Workshop).Such activities would complement those available at univer-sities or national laboratories.

17

To continue as a vital field, attract new students, and com-bat the fear of the word nuclear in the eyes of the generalpublic, we must establish an effort focused on bringing ourmessage to the right audiences. We propose to establish aprogram of “Distinguished Lecturers in Nuclear Physics,”patterned after the successful program already establishedin the plasma physics community.

There are two ways these lecturers could interact withundergraduate students and the general public. First, it isimportant to personally and individually reach the large under-graduate population of physics majors from non-researchinstitutions and from research institutions that do not offergraduate programs in nuclear physics. The latter group ofstudents could be reached most effectively if each distinguishedlecturer were to present several undergraduate seminars intheir region, proactively contacting physics departments

and volunteering his or her services. The ultimate goalwould be to ensure that every undergraduate physics majorin the country has heard at least one seminar on the excitingfield of nuclear physics before he or she graduates.

In addition, using modern Webcast techniques, a smallnumber of distinguished lecturers would be able to reach alarger community, allowing questions to come from stu-dents and/or members of the general public. Facilities tohost such Webcasts already exist at most national laborato-ries and at many universities.

For both methods of dissemination, it will be necessaryfor the success of the program to provide the distinguishedlecturers with graphics and other material that would makethe material exciting and target it to the level of the audi-ence. This will require a concerted community effort.


DISTINGUISHED LECTURERS

Outreach

Nuclear science is an active and exciting field. Fromdetailing the structure of matter and understanding the sourceof energy in our sun to exploring the state of matter thatexisted at the beginning of the universe, nuclear science isalive with an array of important scientific pursuits and tech-nological developments that profoundly impact our society.Applications of research in nuclear physics, chemistry, med-icine and engineering continue to have a powerful and bene-ficial effect on the economy, health, technology, and securityof our society and will profoundly affect our future. Importantexamples of the benefits made possible by nuclear scienceabound, for example: diagnosing physical ailments withoutexploratory surgery, alerting families to the threat of fire,helping ensure adequate supplies of electrical power, guardingagainst biological agents carried through the mail, guardingour country’s borders against the transport of dangerousmaterials, and ensuring the nation’s ability to defend itself.

Yet, the public and even some scientists in other fields areoften uninformed or misinformed about nuclear science andits benefits. A book-length study documents that, in publicdiscussions surrounding any topic involving the word“nuclear,” the important technical and societal issues thatshould be of primary interest to informed citizens aredrowned out by unreasoned reaction to the word itself [21].For example, the medical technique now known as magneticresonance imaging was initially called nuclear magnetic res-onance. The present title, while descriptive, is notable forthe absence of the word “nuclear,” which was removedwhen it was said to have raised serious concern amongpotential patients. In the political realm, the discussion ofradioactive waste disposal is a confused political issue and

only in the last year or two has there been serious discussionof the positive aspects of nuclear power generation.

We conclude that a broad, basic knowledge of nuclearscience is critical for an educated population that can dealeffectively with a wide range of important scientific topics,including medicine, energy policy, homeland security anddefense. It is equally critical for the future of nuclear sciencein the U.S.

WHO WE NEED TO REACH

How can we improve on the efforts already being made bynational labs, universities and individuals? We have looked atmodels from other subdisciplines of physics and from nuclearenergy. We propose to leverage existing efforts by implement-ing a unified national effort to attack this problem. We willpartner with each other and with outside groups, such as thenuclear energy community, to develop and disseminate mate-rials and hands-on activities that are specifically directedtowards nuclear science.

Introducing nuclear concepts to a broad range of under-graduates will have impact on multiple areas: future teachers;an informed public; informed national leadership in science,technology and medicine; and the business, government andnon-profit sectors. While the public sees science focused onmedicine and the environment in a positive light, anything“nuclear” is often viewed with a mixture of anxiety and mis-understanding. Above all, an informed public is a necessityif the true value of fundamental and applied nuclear scienceis to be recognized. To achieve this goal we need creative

18

Introducing nuclear topics into first year chemistry andphysics survey courses will reach a wide spectrum of studentsand thus can begin to generate a nuclear-literate undergrad-uate population. However, this step should only be thebeginning. The more places in the curriculum we can inter-ject nuclear topics the better. One means of reaching studentsis by injecting nuclear-related experiments into the largeupper-division laboratory courses taken by all chemistry

and physics majors. The experiments must both use modernequipment and be of current interest to the society at large.Examples of such topics are: identification of Pb by x-rayfluorescence (of relevance for lead poisoning), Mossbauerspectroscopy (of relevance for the presence of water onMars), and positron annihilation (of relevance to PET imag-ing.) This exercise is used at Washington University in bothchemistry and physics advanced laboratories.


ADVANCED LABORATORIES IN NUCLEAR SCIENCE

approaches to education, ones that engage the non-sciencestudent intellectually in real-world topics.

Preservice and inservice high school teachers need knowl-edge of nuclear science concepts, access to nuclear scientistsas a resource, and tools for introducing nuclear science in aninquiry-based setting into the modern classroom. Too often,the teachers themselves are not trained in physics, but have

general science education degrees, so they are not comfort-able with the material. In fact, in some states, e.g., NorthCarolina, teachers are discouraged from getting physicsdegrees because teachers with a more general science educa-tion are more easily hired [22].

Engaging promising high school students in research-related activities will point them towards the physical sci-

19

There is a long tradition ofPh.D.’s in nuclear science play-ing leadership roles in applica-tions of nuclear science, fromnuclear energy to nuclear medi-cine, from homeland security toenvironmental remediation.The nuclear science communityis committed to sustaining thetraining of Ph.D.’s in nuclearscience to continue to addresschallenges facing the nationand enhancing American com-petitiveness. The challenge toour community is that ourgraduate students and postdoc-

toral scholars are distributed across the country. Those inresidence at national laboratories have less access to thecareer development activities that many universities host.At the same time the many postdocs and graduate studentsin smaller university groups have less access to learningabout the broad range of applied science opportunities thata multi-purpose national laboratory could provide.

To provide an opportunity for all of our graduate studentsand postdocs to learn about the challenging opportunities inapplied science that require nuclear science backgrounds, wepropose hosting workshops at our professional meetings,such as the annual meeting of the DNP of the APS. Anexample could be a workshop that focuses on presentationsfrom Ph.D. and postdoctoral alumni who now are makingsignificant contributions in medical physics. These alumnicould talk about the paths to their present careers, how theyare using their nuclear science training to address our chal-lenges in diagnosing and treating disease, and advising our

current graduate students and postdocs on how to preparethemselves for these careers. These presentations could becomplemented by a tutorial on medical physics, introducingour current students and postdocs to the anticipated chal-lenges in medical physics. To facilitate networking, a recep-tion could be hosted, possibly by recruiters from medicalfacilities. This workshop would not only facilitate preparingcurrent graduate students and postdocs for careers in med-ical physics, but would help more established members ofour community, faculty members, and national lab staff inpreparing future students and postdocs for such careers.

Of course, medical physics is only one area appropriatefor highlighting the challenging career opportunities avail-able to nuclear science Ph.D.’s. Analogous workshopscould be hosted every 1-2 years, focusing on opportunitiesin homeland security, nuclear waste remediation, nuclearenergy, nuclear safeguards, or stewardship science.

Joann Prisciandaro illustrates how training in nuclear sci-ence prepares students for service to the nation. Joann playsan important role in cancer treatment at the University ofMichigan Hospital, where she is on the faculty of RadiationOncology Physics. She received a Ph.D. degree in nuclearchemistry, studying nuclei far from stability with radioactivebeams at Michigan State University and the NationalSuperconducting Cyclotron Laboratory under the directionof Paul Mantica. She says “As a student in a nuclear physicslaboratory, I was given the opportunity to work with expertsand independently on various experiments. This requiredsetting up and testing electronic equipment, interpreting theresponse of radiation detectors, understanding the interac-tions of radiation, writing subroutines and analyzing data.The experience and knowledge I gained as a nuclear scientisthas prepared me well for radiation oncology physics.”


PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP

After earning her Ph.D. innuclear science, JoannPrisciandaro joined the faculty of the University ofMichigan Hospital.

ences and perhaps nuclear science as a potential career option.

Engaging middle school students will spark their curiosityand interest in science at an early stage, and aid in directingthem towards science as a future career choice.

We need to fight the initial unreasoned fear the word“nuclear” creates in the general public, so that they canmove beyond that into an appreciation and understandingof nuclear science and its value to society.

STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING NUCLEAR SCIENCE INUNDERGRADUATE AND K-12 EDUCATION AND REACHINGOUT TO THE PUBLIC

As in the case of undergraduate education, many activitieswere suggested to implement this strategy. A few examplesare discussed here; others are listed in Appendix E-2.

The Internet has become a significant source of informa-tion, as well as an inexpensive way of distributing it. Studentsand teachers frequently rely on it as their only source ofknowledge. While there is much information about nuclearscience already on the Web, a website with the sophistica-

tion and eye-catching appeal of ParticleAdventure.org orUniverseAdventure.org does not exist.

We propose to develop a nationally coordinated websiteas a resource center for students, educators and communitymembers engaging in education and outreach (see SidebarFS6, National Nuclear Science Website). This will require anetwork of individuals across the field, including stakehold-ers with appropriate resources to develop the Website andkeep it current. This Website will serve all levels, from out-reach to the general public (e.g., discussions of societalissues) to the undergraduate curriculum (e.g., sharing ofcourse material).

At the undergraduate level, all the suggestions made inthe first half of this document will increase the visibility ofnuclear science on the college campus among all students.One proven strategy for introducing nuclear science con-cepts to non-science majors is to develop imaginative coursesthat satisfy general science requirements and also contain anintroduction to nuclear science concepts. The Weapons ofMass Destruction (WMD) course at Clark University (seeSidebar BP6, Clark University WMD Course) is one exam-ple of such a course.

There are several models in physics that achieve successful

20

Effective science education for non-science students is animportant challenge that must be met if we are to have broadsupport from the public for science education and research.

Clark University designed a course, Chem. 007, Scienceof Weapons of Mass Destruction [WMD], for just this pur-pose. Here, the science behind WMD is discussed in a smallseminar environment, and students perform laboratoryexperiments illustrating the concepts each week. Topicsinclude low-energy explosives, nerve agents, biological agents,and nuclear devices. In each case, introductory science con-cepts are used to explain how the device works. Historicalexamples are reviewed, such as the Oklahoma City bomb-ing, Wisconsin Army Research Lab bombing, Tokyo Sarinsubway attack, World War I and Kurdish gas attacks,anthrax letters, “dirty bombs” and Hiroshima/Nagasaki.The technical and regulatory means for containing and pre-

venting the use of these weapons are also discussed.

Approximately one-third of the course deals with nuclearscience. In the laboratory, students learn to use absorbers toidentify different types of radiations, and engage in a “huntfor contraband nuclear material” in which they discover andcharacterize hidden sources in a simulated homeland securityexercise.

The course is limited to 20 students, of whom about two-thirds have little or no scientific background. In addition tonormal classroom activities, each student prepares a termpaper on a special topic and gives an oral presentation beforehis or her peers at a symposium. Guest speakers from the FBIand state emergency response teams are a regular componentof the course. The course receives rave reviews from studentsat all levels and has a long waiting list each time it is offered.


CLARK UNIVERSITY WMD COURSE

outreach to inservice and preservice teachers by engagingthem together with scientists in research-related activities andwith each other in curriculum development. The Physics ofAtomic Nuclei (PAN) is a summer camp that has been run atMichigan State since 1981 and was expanded to Notre Damein 2006 (see Sidebar BP7, Physics of Atomic Nuclei). Othermodels for successful summer programs include Quarknet andPlasma Camp, in the high energy and plasma physics com-munities, respectively. We propose to adopt the best practices

from each of these models, and start a pilot camp that couldlater be expanded to laboratories and university facilities acrossthe field (see Sidebar FS7, Summer Camp for High SchoolTeachers and Students). We plan to explore innovative fund-ing scenarios for such a series of summer camps, for example,partnering with the DOE national laboratories in the newly-formed Academies Creating Teacher Scientists (ACTS) pro-gram, which was part of the 2007 DOE budget request.

21

Physics of Atomic Nuclei (PAN) is aresidential summer camp at the NationalSuperconducting Cyclotron Laboratory(NSCL) on the campus of MichiganState University. The program, current-ly in its fourteenth year, is co-sponsoredby NSCL and the Joint Institute forNuclear Astrophysics. PAN is designedto introduce pre-college students andteachers to the fundamentals of nuclearscience and nuclear astrophysics, cur-rent research in those fields, methods ofnuclear experimentation, and life in theuniversity environment.

Admission to PAN is competitive;teachers and students are required tosubmit applications with references.There are no restrictions on applicants,except that the teachers must conductscience courses at the middle or highschool level, and the students must havecompleted at least one year of high school. PAN organizersaccept the twelve teachers and twenty-four students whoshow the most initiative, interest and aptitude. The pro-gram is free for all participants, offering room and board atMSU for the duration and a small travel stipend.

The teachers who are accepted come to campus for twoweeks in late July/early August. During the first week, theytake on the role of student for a series of lectures by facultyresearchers about rare isotope science at NSCL and otherprojects. The teachers gain laboratory experience by per-forming experiments with radioactive sources. The cap-

stone for the teachers’ first week is toconstruct a cosmic ray detector (CRD),with which they must be familiar for thesecond week’s activities.

When the students arrive for the sec-ond week of the PAN program, they arealso treated to faculty lectures. Theselectures (and those in the first week) arefollowed by small-group-based ques-tion/answer sessions that offer feedbackto the lecturer and encourage interactionbetween PAN participants and staff.However, most of the students’ time isspent in hands-on experimentation withradioactive sources and the CRDs. Eachteam is given the opportunity to design,implement and conduct its own experi-ment using the CRDs. It is during thisweek that the teachers use what theyhave learned while guiding a team of stu-dents through their research. At the end

of the program, students present their findings to an audi-ence of PAN participants, staff, and parents.

It is the goal of PAN for students and teachers to gainappreciation and excitement for science, in particularnuclear astrophysics. In addition, it is expected that theeducational tools and experiences offered to teachersthrough PAN will encourage them to incorporate nuclearscience (perhaps in the context of astrophysics) into theirclasses. All PAN teachers are offered continuing support,whether it is NSCL tours, CRDs on loan, or small grantsfor classroom equipment.


PHYSICS OF ATOMIC NUCLEI

Pre-college student researchers atNSCL’s Physics of Atomic Nuclei (PAN)summer camp.

It is also important to engage high school students as earlyas possible in order to capture and sustain their interest inphysics as a career choice. This can also be done through sci-ence camps and research internships. One example of a suc-cessful summer program is the Summer Experience in Physicsfor students at the Rickover Naval Academy (see SidebarBP8, Argonne National Laboratory Summer SchoolExperience in Physics).

At present, neither DOE nor NSF supports formal pro-grams for high school student research experiences.However, several laboratories and universities have inter-nally funded very successful programs. These have beenshown to sustain students’ interest in science careers as theyenter their undergraduate years [23]. Individual scientistshave also given their time to mentor high school studentsfor the Intel and other national science fairs. These effortsshould be recognized and expanded where possible.Whether in a short, intense summer internship or in a year-long sojourn towards a major science fair, mentorship of abright high school student requires a substantial commit-ment of time and patience, but can be very rewarding.

Conveying the excitement of nuclear science to the gen-eral public is critical for the health of the field. The activities

of public affairs offices at some of our national laboratoriesare excellent best-practice models that the nuclear sciencecommunity can use in targeting outreach to specific audi-ences, e.g., the science community, funding agencies, electedofficials, educators and students, the science-attentive pub-lic, general public, and both science and mainstream media.For example, Brookhaven National Laboratory’s Community,Education, Government and Public Affairs directorate hasworked collaboratively with members of the RHIC com-munity to communicate about RHIC, while managing con-troversy over the perceived possibility of creating blackholes, turning a potential negative into a positive (seeSidebar BP9, A Black Hole Ate My Planet).

Many of the materials and programs developed toenhance the visibility of nuclear science at the undergradu-ate level can be used for public outreach as well. A subset ofthose engaged in the Distinguished Speakers’ program pro-posed for the undergraduate community could be trained tospeak at a public level, with access to a library of outreachmaterial.

It will be crucial to network both internally and externallyto leverage these efforts and ensure success. Organizationssuch as the American Nuclear Society (ANS) have developed

22

We propose to create a new nuclear science Website thatoffers the fundamentals of our field for those interested inits basic information and current research. This Website willenable students, teachers, parents, and the general public toaccess items such as:

• Nuclear science essentials at several different age-appropriate levels.

• Its history and the people, including engineers andother individuals who contributed to the discoveries.

• Virtual access to selected experiments, allowing stu-dents and teachers the unique opportunity to collabo-rate with researchers throughout the country.

• Current research, written at a level that the public canunderstand.

• Games, puzzles and worksheets that excite.• Instructions for building hands-on experiments that

can be used in the classroom.

• Collections of successful outreach, K-12, undergrad-uate, and graduate activities.

• Lists of potential speakers that can be sorted by geog-raphy.

• As well of as many other items that are of interest tothe public.

This new website will be a central resource for theachievements and potential of nuclear science. The site willinform the public of exciting scientific efforts and results, atthe same time demystifying some of the issues related to theapplication of nuclear techniques. Furthermore, it wouldencourage students to consider nuclear science as a career.

Such an effort might be organized by creating a core groupat one institution, with groups all over the nation collaboratingand contributing. Material would be developed by teams ofscientists, teachers and students. There are many successfulmodels, e.g., Compadre [25], that could be emulated.


NATIONAL NUCLEAR SCIENCE WEBSITE

much useful educational material related to nuclear scienceand its applications. For example, the DOE Nuclear EnergyOffice has developed a teacher training module calledHarnessing the Atom, which has been piloted with somesuccess (see Sidebar BP10, Harnessing the Atom). Someways in which we can build upon existing efforts include:

• Evaluating and coordinating with existing programs. • Coordinating among agencies.• Developing and coordinating modules for first-

responder training in nuclear science.• Networking with outreach specialists in other subdis-

ciplines of physical science.

VALUE AND RESPECT

Outreach takes time and effort away from other careeractivities and is often considered extra-curricular. This is oftenan impediment to scientists who might want to engage inoutreach activities. The NSF’s recognition of individuals’ con-tributions to the broader impacts, broadly defined, serves asa model of the type of positive reinforcement that is essential.

We recommend a conference with published proceedingsfor those committed and engaged in outreach. This could bean excellent resource, both within and outside our immediatecommunity, and showcase the importance of these effortsand the commitment of individuals.

OUTCOMES

Successful implementation of outreach programs such asthose described here should go a long way towards anenhanced understanding and appreciation of the excitementof nuclear science and its applications in all sectors of society.It will increase the number of teachers incorporating nuclearscience into their courses and increase the number of studentswho are aware of the opportunities for a rewarding career innuclear science and its applications. From the middle and highschool classroom back to the parents, such activities willhave the collateral benefit of enhancing public understandingof nuclear science and its applications and value to society.

23

Strategies for introducing nuclear science into the K-12curriculum must take into account the realities of the currenteducation system in the United States. Teachers are requiredto teach to the standards and the tests, there is little or notime available to add additional material in modern physics,and very little money is available for classroom equipment.All these realities must be considered if we want nuclear sci-ence to mean more to our K-12 students than a decorativewall chart hanging in the classroom. Scientists and teachersmust work together to develop nuclear science material andhands-on activities that can be used in a sustained way toillustrate concepts that are part of the standards.

One excellent model for this type of activity is thePlasma Camp run by Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.Plasma Camp is a 1-2 week camp that takes 12 teachers eachyear; teachers commit to attend for three consecutive years.During Plasma Camp, teachers work together with scien-

tists to write plasma-centered curricula that are then testedand modified in subsequent years. Teachers are also eligibleto apply for up to $2000 in mini-grants. Teachers who haveattended the early years of Plasma Camp are still using thematerial in their classrooms several years later, one goodmeasure of sustained success.

The model of Plasma Camp might be combined with thesuccessful PAN model by having a third week whichincludes high school students, giving the teachers a chanceto test their newly developed nuclear science curricula. Wepropose piloting a nuclear science camp of this type at oneof the DOE national laboratories, in order to leverageresources of the new DOE Teacher Academy program, slat-ed to be funded beginning in 2008. If this model is success-ful, it could be extended to other national laboratory sitesand university facilities across the country.


SUMMER CAMP FOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AND STUDENTS

Concluding RemarksThere are many ways in which members of our community

can, should, and do contribute to education and outreach.The recommendations in this document focused on two areasthat strongly leverage existing strengths and ongoing activities:increasing the involvement and visibility of nuclear science inundergraduate education, and developing and disseminatingmaterials and hands-on activities that demonstrate core nuclear

science principles. We anticipate that progress in these twoareas will result in specific and measurable positive outcomes:increasing the number of U.S. bachelor and Ph.D. degreeholders prepared to meet U.S. workforce needs in basic andapplied nuclear science, and enhancing public understandingand appreciation of nuclear science and its value to society. Inaddition, the strategies suggested in this report should providemodels for future generations of nuclear scientists as they fur-ther enhance nuclear science education and outreach activities.

24

The first annual “Summer SchoolExperience in Physics” was held June19 through 23, 2006, in the PhysicsDivision of Argonne NationalLaboratory. The students had recentlycompleted their freshman years at theChicago Public Schools’ RickoverNaval Academy. The program’s goal isto give students an opportunity tointeract with scientists from the lab, tolearn about science at a national labo-ratory, and to be exposed to potential career opportunitiesin physics. The week-long experience allows us to includemore students than would likely come to the lab in tradi-tional summer-long research opportunities, and allows forsignificantly more interaction between the scientists andstudents than a day-long visit.

Rickover Naval Academy is a new public high school inChicago, established in 2005, and its students are requiredto take a year of introductory physics in their freshmanyear. Interested students applied for acceptance to the sum-mer school at the end of their freshman year. Eight studentswere selected to participate. It is expected that in futureyears the number of students will vary between eight andtwelve. The students traveled by bus each day fromRickover Academy to Argonne, participated in variousactivities from approximately 9:30 am to 3:00 pm, and thenreturned to their high school. Funding for the buses wasprovided by the ANL Physics Division (DOE), and lunch-es were funded through Rickover Academy.

Each day of the summer schoolconsisted of a program which includeda two-hour “practical” experience,with students working in pairs androtating through four different experi-ments; an informal meeting with a sci-entist, graduate student or member ofATLAS operations to discuss careersand personal experiences in science; aphysics talk (topics including heavyelements, origin of the elements and

atom trapping); and a tour of one of the major facilities onsite (ATLAS, APS and the IPNS). On the last day of theschool, the students began putting together a final project,which would become two posters showing highlights of theweek. A small graduation ceremony was held for the stu-dents. The ceremony was attended by many of the partici-pating members of the Physics Division, the RickoverAcademy principal and physics teacher, and the director ofArgonne National Laboratory (Dr. Robert Rosner).

In the future, it is hoped that the summer school will beexpanded to include a second Chicago public high schooland a second parallel summer school in another division ofthe laboratory (e.g., the Chemistry Division). A key to thedevelopment and success of the school has been the exten-sive involvement of the physics teacher at Rickover, DerrickSvelnys. Derrick had an existing relationship with one ofthe staff members in the Physics Division (Susan Fischer),who was Derrick’s master’s thesis advisor. This connectionwas crucial in building a successful outreach program.


ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY SUMMER SCHOOL EXPERIENCE IN PHYSICS

Rickover Naval Academy students pose withArgonne National Lab’s Gammasphere.

References1. Education in Nuclear Science: A Status Report and

Recommendations for the Beginning of the 21st Century,A Report of the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science AdvisoryCommittee Subcommittee on Education, November2004. http://www.sc.doe.gov/np/nsac/docs/NSAC_CR_educa-

tion_report_final.pdf

2. The Education and Training of Isotope Experts, Report ofa Study for the Subcommittee on Energy and Environmentof the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Repre-sentatives, American Association for the Advancement ofScience, 1999.

3. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing andEmploying America for a Brighter Economic Future, AReport of the National Academy of Sciences, 2006,

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html

4. Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, A Report of theNational Science Board, 2006 http://www.nsf.gov/statis-tics/seind06/pdfstart.htm

5. Hallman, T., private communication

6. Roe, C. A Commitment to America’s Future: Respondingto the Crisis in Science, Technology, Engineering andMathematics Education, Washington, DC: TheRenaissance Group Fall Conference 2005.

7. European Commission. Sixth European UnionFramework Programme for Research and TechnologyDevelopment (FP6), 2006.

8. Finn, M. Stay Rates of Foreign Doctorate Recipients fromU.S. Universities, 2003, Oak Ridge, TN, ORISE,November 2005.

25

RHIC has made international headlines since the facility’scommissioning in 1999. The very idea of probing the earli-est microseconds after the Big Bang has sparked people’simaginations in many directions. RHIC physics is an excel-lent example of how new and exciting science can capturepublic interest if conveyed in an open, comprehensible way.

Conveying this excitement to the public and to teachersand students at all levels is critical for the health of nuclearscience. Brookhaven National Laboratory’s Community,Education, Government and Public Affairs directorate hasworked collaboratively with members of the RHIC com-munity to communicate about RHIC, managing to turncontroversy over the perceived possibility of creating blackholes from a potential negative impact into positive publicexcitement.

RHIC communications focuses on clear goals:

• Communicating science accomplishments and world-class research

• Developing and nurturing relationships with targetednational and regional media

• Promoting science literacy• Enhancing the Laboratory’s image in the local com-

munity

We also identify specific audiences for major communi-cations activity. These audiences include:

• The science community• Funding agencies• Elected officials• Educators and students• The science-attentive public• The general public• Media, both science and mainstream

Over the past decade, numerous studies have pointed toan increasingly urgent need to prepare more U.S. citizensfor leadership roles in basic and applied physical sciences.Whether through media reports, summer tours of the col-lider complex, or numerous other ways of publicizing themachine, the scientists, and the science, we believe thatkeeping RHIC in the spotlight will encourage more stu-dents to consider nuclear science as a career choice. An edu-cation in nuclear science not only provides extensivetechnical ability, but also develops problem -solving andcritical-thinking skills, helping graduates to attractivecareers in many areas and benefiting society.


A BLACK HOLE ATE MY PLANET

9. Jackson, S., The Graying of NASA, published in ResearchUSA, 2003. http://www.rpi.edu/president/news/graynasa.html

10. American Competitiveness Initiative: Leading the Worldin Innovation, The Domestic Policy Council of theOffice of Science and Technology Policy, Feb 2006.http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/aci/aci06-

booklet.pdf

11. Marburger, J., address at the 2006 AAAS Science PolicyForum, http://www.ostp.gov/html/JHMAAASpolicyforum.pdf

12. The Nuclear Medicine Workforce in 2005, prepared forthe Society of Nuclear Medicine by the Center forHealth Workforce Studies, 2005.http://interactive.snm.org/docs/NM_Initial_Report_Final.pdf

13. Clark, S., private communication

14. Nuclear Energy Industry Initiatives Target LoomingShortage of Skilled Workers, Fact Sheet of the NuclearEnergy Instiute, 2007. http://www.nei.org/index.asp?cat-

num=3&catid=1295

15. Hawkins, J. DOE Office of Nuclear Physics WorkforceSurvey 2006, http://www.er.doe.gov/np/mnpwr/report2006/

report.pdf

16. NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates, 2005, http://www.

nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07305/pdf/nsf07305.pdf

17. Enrollments and Degree Report 2004, AmericanInstitute of Physics Statistical Research Center, Pub R-151.41, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07305/pdf/nsf07305.pdf

18. Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint forAmerica’s Research Universities, A report by theCarnegie Foundation’s Boyer Commission,http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/

19. Kremer, J.F. & Bringle, R.G., The effects of an intensiveresearch experience on the career of talented undergrad-uates. Journal of Education and Development inEducation 24, 1 (1990).

20. Secretary of Energy Advisory Board report, 2003,http://www.seab.energy.gov/publications/FSPFinalDraft.pdf

21. Weart, S. Nuclear Fear: A History of Images, HarvardUniv Press, Cambridge, MA 1988.

22. Haase, D., private communication

23. McMahan, M., The LBNL High School StudentResearch Participation Program (HSSRPP), BAPS, April 2007

24. The Harnessed Atom, Department of Energy NuclearEnergy Pub DOE/NE-0073, http://www.osti.gov/speeches/

doene0073.pdf

25. comPadre: Digital Resources for Physics & AstronomyEducation, www.compadre.org

26

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) com-bined forces with Idaho National Laboratory, the AmericanNuclear Society (ANS), Idaho State University, the Centerfor Advanced Energy Studies, Boise State University, theUniversity of Idaho and the Idaho Department of Educationto provide a physics teacher workshop on nuclear energy aspart of the October 2006 Idaho State Teachers Conference.

The mission for the workshop was to increase the con-tent familiarity and skill levels of the teachers with respectto the concepts and beneficial applications of nuclear energy,radiation, and the path forward envisioned by the GNEP.The workshop included special guest speakers and hands-onlabs that covered topics such as radiation, nuclear power,new-generation nuclear power systems and alternative-energy research.

Teachers received a copy of The Harnessed Atom, curricu-lum material produced and funded by the DOE [24]. Thiswas the first opportunity to field the curriculum, which wasdesigned for high school students. They also received lecturenotes and much additional supporting material from the ANS.Because many of the teachers harbored misconceptionsabout the safety of nuclear energy, a portion of the agendawas devoted to that topic.

In addition, funding was provided for equipment for theteachers to take back to their classrooms. Thirty-seven teacherstook part in this workshop, many from rural areas. The over-all experience provided them with up-to-date methods ofteaching students about nuclear related topics, curriculummaterial, first-hand encounters with scientists, collaborationtime with colleagues, and state-of-the-art laboratory equipment.


HARNESSING THE ATOM: A TEACHERS’ WORKSHOP ON NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY, ADDRESSING WORLDWIDE ENERGY DEMANDS

27

Appendices

A. Workshop Charge and Agenda

B. Participant List

C. Charge from NSAC

D. Compendium of Present Activities

E-1. Possible Future Strategies—Inreach

E-2. Possible Future Strategies—Outreach

NSAC Charge for 2007 LRP Process:

“An important dimension of your plan should be the role of nuclear physics in advancing the broad interests of societyand ensuring the Nation’s competitiveness in the physical sciences and technology. Education of young scientists is central tothe mission of both agencies and integral to any vision of the future of the field. We ask NSAC to discuss the contribution ofeducation in nuclear science to academia, medicine, security, industry and government, and strategies to strengthen andimprove the education process and to build a more diverse research community. Basic research plays a very important role inthe economic competitiveness and security of our Nation. We ask that NSAC identify areas where nuclear physics is playinga role in meeting society’s needs and how the program might enhance its contributions in maintaining the Nation’s competi-tiveness in science and technology.”

Handouts (to be e-mailed out in advance):

• NSAC Subcommittee on Education, Executive Summary (have several copies of full report at the disposal of the breakout groups)

• Aspen report on High Energy Physics Outreach• Gathering Storm Report• APS Education Department statement on future initiatives

APPENDIX A:Workshop Charge and Agenda

WORKSHOP ON EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH IN NUCLEAR SCIENCE

December 1-2, 2006, Brookhaven National Laboratory

Friday, December 1

1:00 – 1:30 pm Welcoming remarks & discussion of process

NSF Representative

DOE Representative

Organizing committee

1:30 – 3:00 pm PANEL DISCUSSION I – Recruitment and retention ofthe next generation of nuclear scientists (TimHallman, Chair)

Undergraduate research participation (John Mateja, Murray State)

Nuclear Chemistry Summer School (Richard Ferreiri, BNL)

Education partnerships at Idaho National Lab (Roger Mayes, INL)

High School Student Research Participation (Peggy McMahan, LBNL)

3:00 – 3:15 pm Successful public outreach (Mona Rowe, BNL)

3:15 – 3:30 pm BREAK

3:30 – 5:00 pm PANEL DISCUSSION II – K-12 Education (Howard Matis, Chair)

Middle School outreach (Jan Tyler, JLAB)

PAN for teachers and students (Michael Thoennesen, MSU)

Plasma Camp (Andrew Post Zwicker, PPPL)

Quarknet (Helio Takei, BNL) and Richard Gearns(teacher)

5:00 – 6:30 pm PANEL DISCUSSION III – Fostering Diversity (Daeg Brenner, Chair)

Women in Science (Vanita Ghosh, BNL)

RISE (Jolie Cizewski, Rutgers U)

Science Education Programs in Oak Ridge, TN(Wayne Stevenson, ORAU)

7:30 pm DINNER (Sea Basin, Rocky Point)

Saturday, December 2

8:30 – 10:00 am Breakout session 1 (Objectives and desired outcomes)

Small groups will consider a set of questions. Groups will be preassignedto ensure diverse representation.

Where should our community’s education and out-reach resources be spent over the next ten years?Why? What impact will it have on our nuclear sci-ence community? Other stakeholders (e.g.,educa-tors, students)? National needs?

For the 2-3 top priority goals for our education andoutreach investment, what are the desired out-comes? How will we measure success?

At this time specific programs or strategies to achieve them WILL NOT bediscussed.

10:00 – 10:20 BREAK

10:20 – 11:00 Breakout groups report back

11:00 – 12:00 Large group discussion.

12:00 – 1:00 LUNCH

1:00 – 2:00 Continue large group discussion; formulate recom-mendations for top 2-3 goals (bullet in long rangeplan)

2:00 – 3:30 Breakout session 2 (Strategies and action plans)

Small groups will consider strategies and actions toachieve the objectives decided by the large groupdiscussion. Groups will be reformulated around thetop recommendations.

3:30 – 3:45 BREAK

3:45 – 4:20 Breakout groups report back

4:20 – 6:00 General discussion, summarize recommendations,draft priorities, Charge to writing group

APPENDIX B:Participant List

LNAME FNAME INSTITUTION TYPE E-MAIL BNL WKSHP TOWN MEETING OTHER CONTRIBUTOR

Ahle Larry LLNL NN [email protected] LE

Aprahamian Ani NSF F [email protected] LE

Bacher Andrew Indiana UP [email protected] LE DNP

Beausang Con Richmond UB [email protected] reg LE yes

Beise Betsy Maryland UP [email protected]

Brash EdChristopherNewport

UB [email protected] reg yes

Brenner Daeg Clark U UP [email protected] yes yes

Brown James Wabash UB [email protected] LE

Cerny Joseph UCB UP [email protected]

Chen J.P. JLAB NS [email protected] yes yes

Cherney Michael Creighton U UP [email protected] reg yes

Chowdhury Partha Mass. @ Lowell UP [email protected] LE

Cizewski Jolie Rutgers UP [email protected] yes all DNP yes

Clark Jessica APS O [email protected] reg yes

Collon Phillipe Notre Dame UP [email protected] LE

Cottle Paul FSU UP [email protected] e-mail

Dairiki Janis LBNL NS [email protected] yes

D'Auria John Simon Fraser FU [email protected] LE e-mail yes

Deshpande Abhay Stony Brook UP [email protected] yes

Ferrieri Richard BNL NS [email protected] yes yes

Fischer Susan DePaul U UP [email protected] e-mail yes

Fritsch Adam Wabash UB [email protected] LE

Garg Umesh Notre Dame UP [email protected] reg LE

Geesaman Don Argonne NS [email protected] LE

Haase David NCSU UP [email protected]

Hallman Timothy BNL NS [email protected] yes Rutgers yes

Helio Takai BNL NS [email protected]

Hemmick Thomas Stony Brook UP [email protected] yes yes

Higgenbotham Doug JLAB NS [email protected]

Hinefeld Jerry IU @ SB UB [email protected] LE

Howes Ruth Marquette UB [email protected] LE

Hungerford Ed Houston UP [email protected] LE

Hutcheon Nancy LLNL NN [email protected] phone

Jacak Barbara Stony Brook UP [email protected] yes

Keister Brad NSF F [email protected] yes all

Kelley John Duke UP [email protected] reg yes

Keppel Cynthia JLAB NS [email protected] reg

Khoo Teng-Lek ANL NS [email protected] reg LE

Klein Andrew INL NE [email protected]

APPENDIX B:Participant List (continued)

LNAME FNAME INSTITUTION TYPE E-MAIL BNL WKSHP TOWN MEETING OTHER CONTRIBUTOR

Klein Spencer LBNL NS [email protected] LE

Leitner Daniela LBNL NS [email protected] LE

Lesher Shelly Richmond UB [email protected] LE

Lister Kim ANL NS [email protected] reg LE

Loveland Walter Oregon St UP [email protected] LE

Mantica Paul MSU UP [email protected] reg yes

Mateja John Murray St UB [email protected] yes yes

Matis Howard LBNL NS [email protected] yes yes

Mayes Roger INL NE [email protected] yes yes

McKeown Bob Cal Tech UP [email protected] e-mail yes

McMahan Peggy LBNL NS [email protected] yes LE yes

Nitsche Heino UCB UP [email protected] e-mail yes

Orrell John PNNL NN [email protected] LE

Otto Rollie LBNL NS [email protected]

Palounek Andrea LANL NN [email protected]

Popa GabriellaOhio St @Mansfield

UB [email protected] LE

Rapp Ralf TAMU UP [email protected] e-mail yes

Roberts Winston FSU UP [email protected] yes

Robertson David Missouri UP [email protected] LE

Rogers Warren Westmont UB [email protected] yes

Sarantites Demetrios Washington U UP [email protected] LE

Schatz Hendrik MSU UP [email protected] LE

Sherrill Brad MSU UP [email protected] LE yes

Schroeder Udo Rochester UP [email protected] LE

Seestrom Susan LANL NN [email protected]

Sobotka Lee Washington U UP [email protected] LE yes

Stevenson Wayne ORAU O [email protected] yes yes

Stone Nicholas Tennessee UP [email protected] LE

Thoennessen Michael MSU UP [email protected] yes LE yes

Tippens Brad DOE F [email protected] reg

Tyler Jan JLAB NS [email protected] yes yes

Welsh Bob JLAB NS [email protected] reg

White Ken BNL NS [email protected] yes

Wiescher Michael Notre Dame UP [email protected] LE

Wilhemy Jerry LANL NN LE

Yennello Sherry TAMU UP [email protected] LE yes

Young Glenn ORNL NS [email protected] LE

Zegers Remco MSU UP [email protected] LE

Zganjar Ed LSU UP LE

Zwicker Andrew PPPL NS [email protected] yes yes

APPENDIX C:Charge from NSAC

APPENDIX C:Charge from NSAC (continued)

APPENDIX D:Compendium of Present Activities

PUBLISHED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

RESEARCH

° Not just summer research.

° Multiple year opportunities.

° Undergrad research.– Standards/best practices for successful experience

(see BP1).

° Variety of providers: on campus, individual investiga-tor, REU, national lab, corporate lab.

• Develop physics version of NCSS/pre-REU (see FS1).

° For rising juniors.

° Would make under-reps more competitive for REUs.• Enhance and sustain connections to MSI: undergrads and

faculty.

° Coordinated (rather than competing) efforts.

EDUCATION

• Add 3rd NCSS – opened to physics community.• Funding for NCSS grads get summer research opportunity.• DNP workshop on nuclear science in undergrad curricu-

lum (see FS3).

° Core curriculum discussions w/ APS/AAPT.• Increase number of undergrad institutions that teach

nuclear science.

° Challenge: Demonstrate on-campus undergradengagement in research.

° Encourage collaborations with universities andnational labs.

VISIBILITY OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE

• Distinguished lecturers (see FS4).

° Undergrad institutions.• Course on WMD.

° Reaches non-science majors.

BEYOND THE UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE

• Reducing time to doctorate for Ph.D. students.

° APS/AAPT grad education conference:– Early engagement in research.– Hardware training.

• Mentors/advisors as role models of passion for our work.• Major new facilities to attract and retain best and brightest

early-career nuclear scientists.• Improving mentoring network: sustaining connections of

early-career nuclear scientists as they transition throughnuclear science.

° Coordinated (rather than competing).• Train next generation of detector designers and builders.• Enhanced mentoring training.

° AAAS book, ORAU book.• Demonstrate realistic, exciting career options.• Enhancing training of Ph.D. and postdocs for realistic,

exciting careers meeting national needs.

° Education.– Preparing for small college teaching.

° Other national needs (beyond basic research).

° Workshop at DNP meeting on professional develop-ment (see FS5).

• Enhancing support and training of Ph.D. students to meetnational needs.

° Fellowships.– Helps with retention undergrad to grad students

in nuclear science.

° Training grants.

° Dissertation fellowships.

° Opportunities at national labs (e.g., internships).

NETWORKING

• Coordinate with other agencies (e.g., JSA).• Disseminate courses (via Web).

APPENDIX E-1:Possible Future Strategies — Inreach

ACTION ITEM: INCREASE INVOLVEMENT AND VISIBILITY IN UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH.

Implementation strategies (brainstorming session)—sidebar callouts are highlighted:

WEB BASED MATERIAL

• Interactive Web based (e.g., games).• Ask/invite a nuke.• Disseminate outreach talks (via Web).• Develop, document and publish/disseminate on Web

more hands-on activities (see FS6).• Populate Wolfgang’s database.

TRAINING, CURRICULUM AND HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES FORTEACHERS AND/OR STUDENTS

• Summer camps for teachers and students (see FS7).

° Amalgamation of PAN and Plasma Camp.

° Pilot at national lab – expand into national lab system.

° PAN: hands-on activities for high school teachersQuarknet-like activity.

° Engagement in current experiments, not separated by labs.

° Research experience for teachers.• Annual teleconference by leading nuclear scientist to high

schools.

° Students can submit questions to scientist.• Changing national standards of curriculum.

° Pre-service/early career teachers engaged in curricu-lum development.

PUBLIC OUTREACH

• Course on WMD.• Distinguished lecturers (see FS4).• Lectures to first-responders.• National public speakers bureau with speakers trained to

speak at a public level with access to a library of outreachmaterial.

OUTREACH AS A VALUED PART OF A NUCLEAR SCIENTIST’SCAREER

• More scientists to be involved (reward system, incentives).• Conference for those committed and engaged in outreach,

with published proceedings.

NETWORKING

• Evaluate and coordinate with existing programs (ANS,DOE/NE), e.g., harnessing the atom (see BP10).

• Coordinate w/ other agencies (e.g., JSA).

APPENDIX E-2:Possible Future Strategies — Outreach

ACTION ITEM: DEVELOP AND DISSEMINATE MATERIALS AND HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES THATILLUSTRATE AND DEMONSTRATE CORE NUCLEAR SCIENCE PRINCIPLES TO A BROAD ARRAY OF AUDIENCES.

Implementation strategies (brainstorming session)—sidebar callouts are highlighted:

A VISION FOR NUCLEAR SCIENCE EDUCATION …/media/np/nsac/pdf/docs/... · 2015-11-23 ·...

Documents

Transcript of A VISION FOR NUCLEAR SCIENCE EDUCATION …/media/np/nsac/pdf/docs/... · 2015-11-23 ·...