Introduction outstanding young men in the country. Seven years later, President Kennedy brought Hollomon to Washington as the first Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Science and Technology, where he did such notable things as setting up a President's Commission on the Patent System in order to provide better incentives for vercoming problems in innovation. He showed his scientific background in his habit of answering the question: What is the problem? "with% of the problem is in understanding the problem"( Christenson 1985) 1. 3 The materials research laboratories As we have seen, the concept of MSE emerged early in the 1950s and by 1960, it had become firmly established, as the result of a number of decisions in academe and in industry. In that year, as the result of a sustained period of intense discussion and political lobbying in Washington, another major decision was taken, this time by agencies of the US Government. The Interdisciplinary Laboratories were born According to recent memoirs by Frederick Seitz (1994)and Sproull(1987), the tortuous negotiations that led to this outcome began in 1954, when the great mathematician and computer theorist, John von Neumann, became the scientist commissioner'of the five-member Atomic Energy Commission(AEC). (This remark presumably means that the other four commissioners were not scientists. ) He thereupon invited Seitz to visit him(he had witnessed Seitz's researches in materials cience-indeed, Seitz is one of the most eminent progenitors of materials science during his frequent visits to the University of Illinois)and explained that he"was especially upset that time and time again what he wanted to do was prevented by an inadequate science of materials. When he asked what limited the growth of that science, he was told ' Lack of people'. " According to Seitz, von Neumann worried that mse was being treated as a side issue by the government, and he proposed that federal starting with the AEC, join in funding a number of interdisciplinary materials research laboratories at universities. He then asked Seitz to join him in specifically developing a proposal for the protoype laboratory to be set up at the University of Illinois, to be funded at that stage just by the AEC. Clearly in view of his complaint, what von Neumann had in mind was both a place where interdisciplinary research on materials would be fostered and one where large numbers of new experts would be nurtured A formal proposal was developed and submitted, early in 1957, but before this could result in a contract, von Neumann was taken ill and died. Things were then held in abeyance until the launch of the Soviet Sputnik satellite in October 1957 ed to fund 12 lab emerged in Washington and Charles Yost of the Air Force's Office of Air Research was put in charge of making this happen. Thereupon Donald Stevens, head of the
Introduction 11 outstanding young men in the country. Seven years later, President Kennedy brought Hollomon to Washington as the first Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Science and Technology, where he did such notable things as setting up a President's Commission on the Patent System in order to provide better incentives for overcoming problems in innovation. He showed his scientific background in his habit of answering the question: "What is the problem?" with "90% of the problem is in understanding the problem" (Christenson 1985). 1.I.3 The materials research laboratories As we have seen, the concept of MSE emerged early in the 1950s and by 1960, it had become firmly established, as the result of a number of decisions in academe and in industry. In that year, as the result of a sustained period of intense discussion and political lobbying in Washington, another major decision was taken, this time by agencies of the US Government. The Interdisciplinary Laboratories were born. According to recent memoirs by Frederick Seitz (1994) and Sproull (1987), the tortuous negotiations that led to this outcome began in 1954, when the great mathematician and computer theorist, John von Neumann, became 'the scientist commissioner' of the five-member Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). (This remark presumably means that the other four commissioners were not scientists.) He thereupon invited Seitz to visit him (he had witnessed Seitz's researches in materials science - indeed, Seitz is one of the most eminent progenitors of materials science - during his frequent visits to the University of Illinois) and explained that he "was especially upset that time and time again what he wanted to do was prevented by an inadequate science of materials. When he asked what limited the growth of that science, he was told 'Lack of people'." According to Seitz, von Neumann worried that MSE was being treated as a side issue by the Government, and he proposed that federal agencies, starting with the AEC, join in funding a number of interdisciplinary materials research laboratories at universities. He then asked Seitz to join him in specifically developing a proposal for the protoype laboratory to be set up at the University of Illinois, to be funded at that stage just by the AEC. Clearly in view of his complaint, what von Neumann had in mind was both a place where interdisciplinary research on materials would be fostered and one where large numbers of new experts would be nurtured. A formal proposal was developed and submitted, early in 1957, but before this could result in a contract, von Neumann was taken ill and died. Things were then held in abeyance until the launch of the Soviet Sputnik satellite in October 1957 changed everything. Two things then happened: a proposal to fund 12 laboratories emerged in Washington and Charles Yost of the Air Force's Office of Air Research was put in charge of making this happen. Thereupon Donald Stevens, head of the
The Coming of Materials Science Metallurgy and Materials Branch of the AEC, who remembered von Neumanns isionary plan for the University of Illinois specifically, set about putting this into ffect. Seitz( 1994)recounts the almost surrealistic difficulties put in the way of this project by a succession of pork-barrelling Senators: Illinois failed to become one of the three (not twelve, as initially proposed)initial Materials Research Laboratories chosen out of numerous applicants (the first ones were set up at Cornell, Pennsylvania and Northwestern), but in 1962 Ilinois did finally acquire an MRL Sproull (1987)goes into considerable detail concerning the many Government agencies that, under a steady push from Dr. Stevens and Commissioner Willard Libby of the AEC, collaborated in getting the project under way. Amusingly,a formal proposal from Hollomon, in early 1958, that a National Materials Laboratory should be created instead, quickly united everyone behind the proposal; they all recognised that Hollomon's proposed laboratory would do nothing to enhance the supply of trained materials scientists and engineers Some 20 years after the pressure for the creation of the new interdisciplinary laboratories was first felt, one of the academics who became involved very early on Prof. Rustum Roy of Pennsylvania State University, wrote eloquently about the nderlying ideal of interdisciplinarity(Roy 1977). He also emphasised the supportive role played by some influential industrial scientists in that creation, notably Dr. Guy Suits of GE, whom we have already encountered and Dr. william Baker of Bell Laboratories who was a major force in pushing for interdisciplinary materia research in industry and academe alike. A magisterial survey by Baker(1967), under the title Solid State Science and Materials Development, indicates the breadth and scope of his scientific interest Administratively, the genesis of these Laboratories, which initially were called Interdisciplinary Research Laboratories and later, Materials Research Laboratories involved many complications, most of them in Washington, not least when in 1972 responsibility for them was successfully transferred to the National Science Foundation(NSF). As Sproull cynically remarks: " To those unfamiliar with the workings of federal government(and especially Capitol Hill), transfer of a program sounds simple, but it is simple only if the purpose of transfer is to kill the program Lyle, in a multiauthor book published by the two National Academies to elebrate the 25th birthday of the mRls(Psaras and Langford, 1987), gives a great deal of information about their achievements and modus operandi. By then, 17 MRLs had been created, and 7 had either been closed down or were in process of termination The essential feature of the laboratories was, and is, the close proximity and consequent cooperation between members of many different academic depart ments, by constructing dedicated buildings in which the participating faculty members had offices as well as laboratories. This did not impede the faculty
12 The Coming of Materials Science Metallurgy and Materials Branch of the AEC, who remembered von Neumann's visionary plan for the University of Illinois specifically, set about putting this into effect. Seitz (1994) recounts the almost surrealistic difficulties put in the way of this project by a succession of pork-barrelling Senators; Illinois failed to become one of the three (not twelve, as initially proposed) initial Materials Research Laboratories chosen out of numerous applicants (the first ones were set up at Cornell, Pennsylvania and Northwestern), but in 1962 Illinois did finally acquire an MRL. Sproull (1987) goes into considerable detail concerning the many Government agencies that, under a steady push from Dr. Stevens and Commissioner Willard Libby of the AEC, collaborated in getting the project under way. Amusingly, a formal proposal from Hollomon, in early 1958, that a National Materials Laboratory should be created instead, quickly united everyone behind the original proposal; they all recognised that Hollomon's proposed laboratory would do nothing to enhance the supply of trained materials scientists and engineers. Some 20 years after the pressure for the creation of the new interdisciplinary laboratories was first felt, one of the academics who became involved very early on, Prof. Rustum Roy of Pennsylvania State University, wrote eloquently about the underlying ideal of interdisciplinarity (Roy 1977). He also emphasised the supportive role played by some influential industrial scientists in that creation, notably Dr. Guy Suits of GE, whom we have already encountered, and Dr. William Baker of Bell Laboratories who was a major force in pushing for interdisciplinary materials research in industry and academe alike. A magisterial survey by Baker (1967), under the title Solid State Science and Materials Development, indicates the breadth and scope of his scientific interests. Administratively, the genesis of these Laboratories, which initially were called Interdisciplinary Research Laboratories and later, Materials Research Laboratories, involved many complications, most of them in Washington, not least when in 1972 responsibility for them was successfully transferred to the National Science Foundation (NSF). As Sproull cynically remarks: "To those unfamiliar with the workings of federal government (and especially Capitol Hill), transfer of a program sounds simple, but it is simple only if the purpose of transfer is to kill the program" Lyle, in a multiauthor book published by the two National Academies to celebrate the 25th birthday of the MRLs (Psaras and Langford, 1987), gives a great deal of information about their achievements and modus operandi. By then, 17 MRLs had been created, and 7 had either been closed down or were in process of termination. The essential feature of the laboratories was, and is, the close proximity and consequent cooperation between members of many different academic departments, by constructing dedicated buildings in which the participating faculty members had offices as well as laboratories. This did not impede the faculty
Introduction members continuing close involvement with their own departments'activities. Ar the time of the transfer to the Nsf, according to lyle in 12 MRLs, some 35% were physicists, 25% were chemists, 19% were metallurgists or members of msE departments, 16% were from other engineering disciplines(mainly electrical), and 5% from other departments such as mathematics or earth sciences. In my view, the most significant feature of these statistics is the large percentage of physicists who in this way became intimately involved in the study of materials. This is to be viewed in relation to Sproull's remark(Sproull 1987)that in 1910, chemistry and metallurgy had already hailed many centuries of contributions to the understanding of materials. but physics'contribution had been nearly zero The COSMAT Report of 1974(a major examination of every aspect of MsE, national and international, organised by the National Academy of Sciences, itself reviewed in 1976 in some depth by Cahn(reprinted 1992), was somewhat critical of the mrls in that the rate of increase of higher degrees in the traditional metallurgy/ materials department was no faster than that of engineering degrees overall. Lyle counters this criticism by concluding that"much of the interdisciplinarity sought in he original. concept was realised through evolutionary changes in the traditional materials departments rather than by dramatic changes in interactions across university departmental lines. This cross-departmental interaction would come only with the group research concept introduced by NSF. "The point here is that teaching in the traditional' departments, even at undergraduate levels, was deeply influenced by the research done in the mrls. From the perspective of today, the 37 years, to date, of MRls can be considered an undiluted good 1.1.4 Precursors, definitions and terminology This book is primarily directed at professional materials scientists and engineers, and they have no urgent need to see themselves defined. Indeed, it would be perfectly reasonable to say about materials science what Aaron Katchalsky used to say about his new discipline, biophysics: Biophysics is like my wife. I know her, but I cannot define her"(Markl 1998). Nevertheless, in this preliminary canter through the early history of MSE, it is instructive to examine briefly how various eminent practitioners have perceived their changing domain David Turnbull, in his illuminating Commentary on the Emergence and Evolution of" Materials Science"(Turnbull 1983), defined materials science"broadly"as"the characterisation, understanding, and control of the structure of matter at the ultramolecular level and the relating of this structure to properties(mechanical magnetic, electrical, etc. ) That is, it is 'Ultramolecular Science' "In professional and educational practice, however, he says that materials science focuses on the more complex features of behaviour, and especially those aspects controlled by crystal
Introduction 13 members' continuing close involvement with their own departments' activities. At the time of the transfer to the NSF, according to Lyle, in 12 MRLs, some 35% were physicists, 25% were chemists, 19% were metallurgists or members of MSE departments, 16% were from other engineering disciplines (mainly electrical), and 5% from other departments such as mathematics or earth sciences. In my view, the most significant feature of these statistics is the large percentage of physicists who in this way became intimately involved in the study of materials. This is to be viewed in relation to Sproull's remark (Sproull 1987) that in 1910, "chemistry and metallurgy had already hailed many centuries of contributions to the understanding of materials.., but physics' contribution had been nearly zero". The COSMAT Report of 1974 (a major examination of every aspect of MSE, national and international, organised by the National Academy of Sciences, itself reviewed in 1976 in some depth by Cahn (reprinted 1992), was somewhat critical of the MRLs in that the rate of increase of higher degrees in the traditional metallurgy/ materials department was no faster than that of engineering degrees overall. Lyle counters this criticism by concluding that "much of the interdisciplinarity sought in the original.., concept was realised through evolutionary changes in the traditional materials departments rather than by dramatic changes in interactions across university departmental lines. This cross-departmental interaction would come only with the group research concept introduced by NSF." The point here is that teaching in the 'traditional' departments, even at undergraduate levels, was deeply influenced by the research done in the MRLs. From the perspective of today, the 37 years, to date, of MRLs can be considered an undiluted good. 1.1.4 Precursors, definitions and terminology This book is primarily directed at professional materials scientists and engineers, and they have no urgent need to see themselves defined. Indeed, it would be perfectly reasonable to say about materials science what Aaron Katchalsky used to say about his new discipline, biophysics: "Biophysics is like my wife. I know her, but I cannot define her" (Markl 1998). Nevertheless, in this preliminary canter through the early history of MSE, it is instructive to examine briefly how various eminent practitioners have perceived their changing domain. David Turnbull, in his illuminating Commentary on the Emergence and Evolution of "Materials Science" (Turnbull 1983), defined materials science "broadly" as "the characterisation, understanding, and control of the structure of matter at the ultramolecular level and the relating of this structure to properties (mechanical, magnetic, electrical, etc.). That is, it is 'Ultramolecular Science'." In professional and educational practice, however, he says that materials science focuses on the more complex features of behaviour, and especially those aspects controlled by crystal
The Coming of Materials Science defects. His definition at once betrays Turnbull's origin as a physical chemist. Only a chemist, or possibly a polymer physicist, would focus on molecules when so many important materials have no molecules, as distinct from atoms or ions. Nomencla ture in our field is sometimes highly confusing: thus in 1995 a journal began publication under the name Supramolecular Science, by which the editor-in-chief means"supramolecular aggregates, assemblies and nanoscopic materials, that last adjective seems to be a neologism The COSMAT Report of 1974, with all its unique group authority, defines mSE being"concerned with the generation and application of knowledge relating the composition, structure, and processing of materials to their properties and uses". It is probably a fair comment on this simple definition that in the early days of msE the chief emphasis was on structure and especially structural defects(as evidenced by a famous early symposium proceedings entitled Imperfections in Nearly Perfect Crystals(Shockley et al. 1952), while in recent years more and more attention has been paid to the influence of processing variables As mentioned above. Sproull (1987)claimed that physics had contributed almost nothing to the understanding of materials before 1910, but went on to say that in the 1930s, books such as Hume-Rothery's The Structure of Metals and Alloys, Mott and Jones's Properties of Metals and Alloys, and especially Seitz 's extremely influentia The Modern Theory of Solids of 1940, rapidly advanced the science of the solid state and gave investigators a common language and common concepts. Sproull's emphasis was a strongly physical one. Indeed, the statistics given above of disciplinary affiliations in the MRLs show that physicists, after a long period of disdain, eventually leapt into the study of materials with great enthusiasm. Solid- state physics itself had a hard birth in the face of much scepticism from the rest of the physics profession(Mott 1980, Hoddeson et al. 1992). But now, physics has become o closely linked with MSE that at times there have been academic takeover bids from physicists for the entire MSE enterprise. unsuccessful up to now Names of disciplines, one might think, are not particularly important: it reality that matters. I have already quoted Shakespeare to that effect. But it really as simple as that, as the following story from China(Kuo 1996)illustrates. In 1956, my correspondent, an electron microscopist, returned to China after a period in the West and was asked to help in formulating a twelve- Year Plan of Scientific and Technological Development. At that time, China was overrun by thousands of Soviet experts who were not backward in making suggestions. They advised the Chinese authorities to educate a large number of scientists in metallovedenie Russian term which means 'metal-knowledge', close to metallography, itself an antiquated German concept(Metallographie) which later converted into Metall kunde(what we today call physical metallurgy in English). The Russians translated metallovedenie into the Chinese term for metal physics, since Chinese does not have a
14 The Coming of Materials Science defects. His definition at once betrays Turnbull's origin as a physical chemist. Only a chemist, or possibly a polymer physicist, would focus on molecules when so many important materials have no molecules, as distinct from atoms or ions. Nomenclature in our field is sometimes highly confusing: thus in 1995 a journal began publication under the name Supramolecular Science, by which the editor-in-chief means "supramolecular aggregates, assemblies and nanoscopic materials"; that last adjective seems to be a neologism. The COSMAT Report of 1974, with all its unique group authority, defines MSE as being "concerned with the generation and application of knowledge relating the composition, structure, and processing of materials to their properties and uses". It is probably a fair comment on this simple definition that in the early days of MSE the chief emphasis was on structure and especially structural defects (as evidenced by a famous early symposium proceedings entitled Imperfections in Nearly Perfect Crystals (Shockley et al. 1952), while in recent years more and more attention has been paid to the influence of processing variables. As mentioned above, Sproull (1987) claimed that physics had contributed almost nothing to the understanding of materials before 1910, but went on to say that in the 1930s, books such as Hume-Rothery's The Structure of Metals and Alloys, Mott and Jones's Properties of Metals and Alloys, and especially Seitz's extremely influential The Modern Theory of Solids of 1940, rapidly advanced the science of the solid state and gave investigators a common language and common concepts. Sproull's emphasis was a strongly physical one. Indeed, the statistics given above of disciplinary affiliations in the MRLs show that physicists, after a long period of disdain, eventually leapt into the study of materials with great enthusiasm. Solidstate physics itself had a hard birth in the face of much scepticism from the rest of the physics profession (Mott 1980, Hoddeson et al. 1992). But now, physics has become so closely linked with MSE that at times there have been academic takeover bids from physicists for the entire MSE enterprise.., unsuccessful up to now. Names of disciplines, one might think, are not particularly important: it is the reality that matters. I have already quoted Shakespeare to that effect. But it is not really as simple as that, as the following story from China (Kuo 1996) illustrates. In 1956, my correspondent, an electron microscopist, returned to China after a period in the West and was asked to help in formulating a Twelve-Year Plan of Scientific and Technological Development. At that time, China was overrun by thousands of Soviet experts who were not backward in making suggestions. They advised the"Chinese authorities to educate a large number of scientists in metallovedenie, a Russian term which means 'metal-knowledge', close to metallography, itself an antiquated German concept (Metallographie) which later converted into Metallkunde (what we today call physical metallurgy in English). The Russians translated metallovedenie into the Chinese term for metal physics, since Chinese does not have a
Introduction 15 word for physical metallurgy. The end-result of this misunderstanding was that in he mid-1960s, the Chinese found that they had far too many metal physicists, all educated in metal physics divisions of physics departments in 17 universities, and a bad lack of"engineers who understand alloys and their heat-treatment this last which the Soviet experts had really meant. By that time, Mao had become hostile to the Soviet Union and the Soviet experts were gone. By 1980, only 3 of the original 17 metal physics divisions remained in the universities. An attempt was later made to train students in materials science. In the days when all graduates were st directed to their places of work in China, the"gentleman in the State Planning Department"did not really understand what materials science meant, and was inclined to give materials science graduates"a post in the materials depot Although almost the whole of this introductory chapter has been focused on the American experience, because this is where Mse began, later the'superdiscipline spread to many countries. In the later chapters of this book, I have been careful to avoid any kind of exclusive focus on the us. The Chinese anecdote shows, albeit in an extreme form, that other countries also were forced to learn from experience and hange their modes of education and research. In fact. in most of the rest of this book the emphasis is on topics and approaches in research, and not on particular places One thing which is entirely clear is that the pessimists, always among us, who assert that all the really important discoveries in Mse have been made, are wrong: in Turnbulls words at a symposium(Turnbull 1980), 10 or 15 years from now there will be a conference similar to this one where many young enthusiasts, too naive to realize that all the important discoveries have been made, will be describing materials and processes that we, at present, have no inkling of". Indeed, there was and they did REFERENCES Baker, wo.(1967)J Mater. 2, 917. Bever, M. B (1988) Metallurgy and Materials Science and Engineering at MIT: 186.5-1988 (privately published by the MSE Department) Cahn, Rw,(1970) Nature 225, 693 Cahn, R.W.(1992) Artifice and Artefacts. 100 Essays in Materials Science(Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol and Philadelphia)p. 314 Christenson, G.A.( 1985) Address at memorial service for Herbet Hollomon, Boston, 18 COSMAT (1974) Materials and Man's Needs: Materials Science and Engineering Summary Report of the Committee on the Survey of Materials Science and Engineering (National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC)pp. 1, 39 Cox, J.A(1979)A Century of Light(Benjamin Company for The General Electric
Introduction 15 word for physical metallurgy. The end-result of this misunderstanding was that in the mid-1960s, the Chinese found that they had far too many metal physicists, all educated in metal physics divisions of physics departments in 17 universities, and a bad lack of "engineers who understand alloys and their heat-treatment", yet it was this last which the Soviet experts had really meant. By that time, Mao had become hostile to the Soviet Union and the Soviet experts were gone. By 1980, only 3 of the original 17 metal physics divisions remained in the universities. An attempt was later made to train students in materials science. In the days when all graduates were still directed to their places of work in China, the "gentleman in the State Planning Department" did not really understand what materials science meant, and was inclined to give materials science graduates "a post in the materials depot". Although almost the whole of this introductory chapter has been focused on the American experience, because this is where MSE began, later the 'superdiscipline' spread to many countries. In the later chapters of this book, I have been careful to avoid any kind of exclusive focus on the US. The Chinese anecdote shows, albeit in an extreme form, that other countries also were forced to learn from experience and change their modes of education and research. In fact, in most of the rest of this book, the emphasis is on topics and approaches in research, and not on particular places. One thing which is entirely clear is that the pessimists, always among us, who assert that all the really important discoveries in MSE have been made, are wrong: in Turnbull's words at a symposium (Turnbull 1980), "10 or 15 years from now there will be a conference similar to this one where many young enthusiasts, too naive to realize that all the important discoveries have been made, will be describing materials and processes that we, at present, have no inkling of". Indeed, there was and they did. REFERENCES Baker, W.O. (1967) J. Mater. 2, 917. Bever, M.B. (1988) Metallurgy and Materials Science and Engineering at MIT. 1865-1988 (privately published by the MSE Department). Cahn, R.W. (1970) Nature 225, 693. Cahn, R.W. (1992) Artifice and Artefacts." 100 Essays in Materials Science (Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol and Philadelphia) p. 314. Christenson, G.A. (1985) Address at memorial service for Herbet Hollomon, Boston, 18 May. COSMAT (1974) Materials and Man's Needs." Materials Science and Engineering. Summary Report of the Committee on the Survey of Materials Science and Engineering (National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC) pp. 1, 39. Cox, J.A. (1979) A Century of Light (Benjamin Company for The General Electric Company, New York)