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