The Carnegie Institution of Washington and Radio Astronomy: Prelude to an American National Observatory

See Edge D. O. Mulkay M. J. , Astronomy transformed: The emergence of radio astronomy in Britain (New York, 1976), 11, 32–34; and Sullivan W. T. , “Early years of Australian radio astronomy”, in Home R. W. (ed.), Australian science in the making (Cambridge, 1988), 308–44.

On the prevalence of applied research within the American physics establishment prior to the Second World War, see Weart Spencer R. , “The physics business in America, 1919–1940: A statistical reconnaissance”, in The sciences in the American context: New perspectives , ed. by Reingold N. (Washington, D.C., 1979), espec. p. 301.

For these characterizations I am indebted to David H. DeVorkin for providing a preprint of an insightful paper he has prepared on astronomers' response to government funding following the Second World War: DeVorkin D. H. , “Back to the future: The response of astronomers to the prospect of government funding for research in the decade following World War II”, in Reingold N. Van Keuran D. (eds), Science and the federal patron: Post World War II government support of American science (forthcoming). See also DeVorkin D. H. , “Along for the ride: The response of American astronomers to the possibility of space research”, in De Maria M. Grilli M. Sebastiani F. (eds), The restructuring of physical sciences in Europe and the United States, 1945–1965 (Singapore, 1989), 55–74.

Needell A. A. , “Berkner, Tuve and the federal role in radio astronomy”, Osiris , iii (1987), 261–88.

Significantly, when in 1951 Berkner chose to leave the Carnegie Institution of Washington, his primary employer since 1933, his departure was motivated in large part by differences over the propriety of contracting with government agencies in the furtherance of the Institution's research agendas. The primary area of conflict was over defence-related projects, not radio astronomy. However, radio astronomy was closely linked in Berkner's mind with defence-related problems of radio propagation, radar and continental defence. This and other aspects of his career will be treated in detail in my forthcoming biography of Berkner.

As Robert Kohler has written, “the purpose of foundation programs was to develop the institutional infrastructure of science; to promote a programmatic style of research, and to encourage cooperation among scientists” ( Kohler R. E. , “Science, foundations, and American universities in the 1920s”, Osiris , iii (1987), 135–64, p. 140). On foundation support of American science, see also Stanley Coben , “American foundations as patrons of science: The commitment to individual research”, in The sciences in the American context: New perspectives , ed. by Reingold N. (Washington, D.C., 1979), 229–48.

On the early years of the Carnegie Institution of Washington and its mission see Reingold N. , “National science policy in a private foundation: The Carnegie Institution of Washington”, in The organization of knowledge in America , ed. by Olesson A. Voss J. (Baltimore, 1979), 313–41.

Bowen Ira S. , report on Mt Wilson Observatory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Year book , no. 45 (for 1945–46), (Washington, D.C., 1946), 3.

Michael A. Dennis identifies what he calls a “cartographic” tradition at DTM, which is a useful means of characterizing the magnetic survey and some aspects of DTM's observatory program. Such a ‘cartographic’ perspective had deep roots in both European and American scientific practice and emphasized the collection and processing of data over active laboratory experimentation. Dennis also traces the tension that arose between that tradition and the laboratory and experimental perspective emphasized by academic physicists (M. A. Dennis, “Between the magnet and the market place: Merle Tuve at the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism” (chap. 2 of Ph.D. dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, in progress)).

On the impact of the Merriam panels on research at other scientific institutions, specifically the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, see DeVorkin D. H. , “Defending a dream: Charles Greely Abbot's years at the Smithsonian”, Journal for the history of astronomy , xxi, (1990), 112–36, pp. 129–31.

The ‘official’ account of the Second World War mobilization of science is Baxter J. P. , Scientists against time (reissued, Cambridge, Mass., 1968). See also Pursell C. , “Science agencies in World War II”, in The sciences in the American context , ed. by Reingold (ref. 6), 359–78.

Best known was the radio proximity fuze project led by Merle Tuve and the creation for that purpose of the Applied Physics Laboratory of The Johns Hopkins University.

See handwritten notes of conversations with DTM staff dated 1946, Box 120, Merle A. Tuve Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.

See below.

Sullivan W. T. III , A history of radio astronomy (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming), chap. 3: “Grote Reber: Science in your backyard”.

Ibid. , 12–13.

Ibid. , 14.

These documents have been uncovered and described by W. T. Sullivan in his comprehensive study of the history of radio astronomy (ref. 15). Specifically, he has uncovered a letter from Reber to ONR dated 19 August 1946 and a response dated 7 October. Sullivan speculates that this was a result of the intervention of Frank Jewett, former head of Bell Laboratories and then President of the National Academy. That conjecture is corroborated in Carnegie Institution of Washington files.

Jewett to Bush, 11 September 1946, CIW Papers, Washington, D.C.

Bush to Berkner, 17 September 1946, CIW Papers.

Bush to Jewett, 17 September 1946, CIW Papers.

Sullivan , op. cit. (ref. 15), 17.

See Hevly B. W. , “Basic research within a military context: The Naval Research Laboratory and the foundations of extreme ultraviolet and X-ray astronomy” (Ph.D. dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, 1987).

Needell A. A. , “Nuclear reactors and the founding of Brookhaven National Laboratory”, Historical studies in the physical sciences , xiv (1984), 93–122.

Speech to “Cooperative Forum”, 23 April 1952, Box 10, Lloyd V. Berkner Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.

Tuve to Bowen, 14 March 1952, CIW Papers.

Ibid. .

Bush to Bowen, 17 March 1952, CIW Papers.

Bowen to Bush, 27 March, 25 September 1952, CIW Papers.

DuBridge to Bush, 6 August 1952, CIW Papers.

P. Scherer to Bush, 15 August 1952, CIW Papers. Scherer was Bush's executive assistant at CIW. In his words, “I rather suspect that the objective here is to skim off some cream perhaps in a premature way and, if you will pardon me, it might turn sour”.

Bush to DuBridge, 19 August 1952, CIW Papers.

Heilbron J. L. Seidel R. W. Wheaton B. R. , Lawrence and his laboratory: Nuclear science at Berkeley (Berkeley, 1981), 62–75.

Bush to Bowen, 3 September 1952, CIW Papers.

Bowen to Bush, 25 September 1952, CIW Papers.