35ae of the scientific community and, moreover, that it would be of long ange a value in greatly strengthening nuclear physics research at that.Anstitu-a tion, The doubt about ORNL and UCRL was based on the facts thatthese. daboratories already have a great abundance of nuclear machines‘andmua© .> developed nuclear programs, and on the feeling that three heavyparticle accelerators might be unwarranted duplication in thisfield. No final conclusion was reached as to the ORNL and UCRL requests, however, 4 Opinion was divided as to which laboratory should be the site of a second . machine if it were built, (Appendix B, item 3) | | At la: 40 Pell, this session was adjourned, SIXTH SESSION (November 6, 1953) ‘The Committee reconvened in executive session at 1:25 Pele All members, the Secretary, and Mr. Tomei were present. The controlled thermonuclear program was brieflydiscussed,Br _ Con- trolled Thermo-~ nuclear Rabi said he- felt that on political grounds it would be very hard not tooe ZO along with this program; the basis for support on technical grounds - Reactions was not so well established, He felt the program would go along better if coalesced in about a year, but mentioned that E, 0, Lawrence favored keeping it decentralized, The Committee did not feel that the presenta~ tion on this subject called for any action by the GAC, other than to note | the program with interest. Dr. Buckley observed that experience with large scale technical projects indicates that many fruitful results are. likely to come from the effort even if the initialgoalis not reached, (Appendix B, item 3)