an) 38
The dates of the next GAC meeting were mentioned to the
Commissioners,
Dr. Rabi then presented the Committee's views, as previously
agreed on, with respect ‘bos
the BNL strong focussing ‘accelerator
proposal; the three proposed heavy particle accelerators; the controlled
thermonuclear reaction program (interesting, worth backing, no view on’ Mes
its ultimate outcome); the world-wide Sr-90 sampling program. . Referring ‘
to the production presentation, he ‘said that the Committee was extremely
pleased at the prospects ard at-the very good report (App. B, item hk).
Mr. Strauss asked whether the GAC would object to having its
External
recommendations shown to individuals whom the Commission might wish to
tionof|
inform.
(The case in point was the recommendation on the BNL strong
Become
focussing accelerator.) The Committee expressed itself as having no
mendations
oe
:
|
os
re
objection, except in cases of a division of opinion within the Committee.
Dr, Rabi asked Mr. Murphree to comment on the patent policy ~~
Patent
presentation made by Mr, Anderson and Mr: Isenbergh.
Poltey
it was a very good job and very constructive.
.
Mr, Murphree anid cay
He had questioned only
the provision about passing information from one licensee to another,
Mr. Strauss asked Mr.. Murphree to send him anote detailing his views on
this subject,
|
|
Dr. Rabi said that the Research Subcommittee was trying to develop
Manage~
ment and
Evalua~_
principles, in terms of which the GAC could respond to Mr. Boyer!s
Rosarch
in the National Laboratories; Thé full Committee was not ready to present
National
abora~
its views, but the Commission might find of interest the reports in the
.
-
tories
.
earlier request for a consideration of how to manage and evaluate research