---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART A: REPORT ON PROJECT ACTIVITIES

PART B: ARCHIVAL FINDINGS: ANALYSIS AND FUTURE ACTIONS

PART C: RECORDS CREATION IN THE CONTEXT OF LABORATORY OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH AT THE STANFORD LINEAR ACCELERATOR  CENTER

PART D: APPRAISAL GUIDELINES FOR RECORDS OF HIGH- ENERGY PHYSICS COLLABORATIONS

---

PART A: REPORT ON PROJECT ACTIVITIES (by Joan Warnow-Blewett)
[Table of Contents]

I. INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
[Table of Contents]

A. The AIP Long-term Study of Collaborations
[Table of Contents]

Since World War II, the organizational frame work for scientific research is increasingly the multi-institutional collaboration. However, this form of research has received only incidental attention from scholars. Without a dedicated effort to understand such collaborations, policymakers and administrators will continue to have only hearsay and their own memories to guide their management; even the records necessary for efficient administration, for historical and management studies, and for posterity, will be largely scattered or destroyed.

The Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics (AIP), in keeping with its mission to preserve and make known the record of modern physics, is working to redress this situation with a multi-stage investigation into areas of physics and allied sciences where multi-institutional collaborations are prominent. The long-term study began in 1989. Phase I, focussed on the field of high-energy physics, is now completed; Phase II, now underway, is devoted to collaborative research in space science and geophysics; comparative studies of other fields in science and technology and questions of documentation policy and practice will be the particular foci of Phase III, to get underway in 1994.

The goal of the long-term study is to make it possible for scholars and others to understand these transient "institutions."  In order to locate and preserve historical documentation, we must first get some idea of the process of collaborative research and how the records are generated and used. Hence we are making a broad preliminary survey, the first of its kind, into the functioning of research collaborations that include three or more institutions.

Our study is designed to identify patterns of collaborations, define the scope of the documentation problems, field test possible solutions, and recommend future actions. Along the way we are building an archives of oral history interviews and other resources for scholarly use. Toward the end of the study, the AIP Center will begin to make use of its findings to promote systems to document significant collaborative research.

We focus on major research "sites."  In high-energy physics, sites are accelerator facilities; in space science and geophysics, they are research vehicles (spacecraft and ocean-going vessels) or other systems for data-gathering (such as drill holes and seismic networks and arrays).

We collect three levels of descriptive data. At the most aggregated level, we prepare a census of collaborations by supplementing information that can be gleaned from databases covering the science and technology literature. The census makes possible a quantitative analysis of basic collaboration patterns and their changes over time. At an intermediate level, we conduct interviews with 150-180 selected members of collaborations chosen to cover a range of historical, sociological, and scientific parameters. Qualitative analysis of these interviews provides a foundation for generalizing about how scientists view the process of collaborative research and on where they think records of historical value repose. At the most detailed level, we conduct a few "probes," which are case studies of very significant collaborations that seem certain to be of interest to future scholars. Probes make for concrete experience in locating records, the actual preservation of priceless historical material, and historical monographs of publishable quality.

In addition, we give attention to industrial subcontracting because of the managerial problems this practice poses and the further dispersal of records it implies. We also conduct "special perspective interviews" with women and minority members of collaborations whose social roles merit study, and with others, such as program officers of funding agencies and laboratory directors, who have special information of value to our understanding of collaborative research.

Critical to the success of our study are the definition of categories for census data, the selection of collaborations for interviewing and the construction of interview question sets that are sufficiently varied to capture multiple perspectives on collaborations, yet sufficiently uniform to yield suitable results for statistical and sociological as well as historical analysis. The AIP Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations is guided by a Working Group of distinguished scientists and science administrators, archivists, historians, and sociologists who join in designing the project's methodology and research instruments and reviewing its findings and recommendations.

Interim reports on archival, historical, and sociological findings issued at the end of each phase of the project will culminate in final reports and recommendations at the end of the long-term study. Other resources developed throughout the study, including oral history recordings and transcripts, will be available at the AIP Center's Niels Bohr Library. In addition, we would like to microfilm a few selected sets of particularly valuable documentation. Finally, working in cooperation with institutional archivists, the project will locate and see to the preservation of records, field-testing possible approaches and solutions. Indexed information on all these collections will be made widely available to scholars.

The main consultants for the project are historians Peter Galison (high-energy physics), Robert Smith (space science and geophysics), and Frederik Nebeker (former project historian, now conducting the joint AIP-IEEE study of subcontracting); archivists Roxanne Nilan (high-energy physics) and Deborah Cozort Day (geophysics); and sociologist Lynne Zucker. At the AIP, Nebeker and Joel Genuth have served as project historian and Lynn Maloney and Janet Linde as project archivist. The project is directed by Joan Warnow-Blewett with the assistance of Spencer R. Weart.

B. The Study of Collaborative Research in High-Energy Physics
[Table of Contents]

The AIP Center's two-year study of high-energy physics research focussed on experiments approved between 1973 and 1984 at five of the world's major accelerator laboratories: the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR) facility of Cornell University's Newman Laboratory, the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN), the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL), and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC).

AIP project members obtained a broad-scale picture of changes in the structure of collaborations by using databases on high-energy physics experiments and publications at SLAC, with the assistance of SLAC staff. At a more detailed level, the project conducted close to 200 interviews on 24 selected experimental collaborations, using a structured question set covering all stages of the collaborative process. Still more detailed "probes" of three highly significant collaborations featured historical research as well as many additional interviews (a total of about 100) and work to preserve records. Specifically, Peter Galison studied the work at SLAC that led to the discovery of the psi particle; Frederik Nebeker studied the discovery of the upsilon particle at FNAL, and Joel Genuth studied the CLEO collaboration at Cornell. Meanwhile project staff surveyed the records-keeping practices of key physicists and made numerous site visits to accelerator facilities and university archives to discuss archival issues and records policies.

The project has gained substantial understanding of how to document the collaborative process in high-energy physics. The AIP Center will put this to use. During the next year or so, we will identify the most significant collaborations in high-energy physics—using a combination of citation studies, peer reviews, and other techniques. At the same time—beginning with the project's three probes—we will begin the lengthy task of working with laboratory and university archivists to locate and preserve the key records. This experience will sharpen our knowledge of the practical and policy issues that present obstacles to documentation of collaborative research. Efforts to resolve such problems will continue throughout the long-term study and, thereafter, as an ongoing activity of the AIP Center's documentation strategy.

II. PROJECT FUNDING, STAFFING, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS
[Table of Contents]

A. Project Funding
[Table of Contents]

In addition to support for the project's domestic work from the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) at the National Archives and Records Administration, and the National Science Foundation (NSF), funding was received from the Mellon Foundation to extend the study to take international considerations into account. Mellon support made it possible for the AIP project to include collaborations using the four American sites that involve teams (also referred to as groups) from outside the United States.

A separate Mellon grant to the CERN laboratory enabled historian John Krige to carry out a coordinated, parallel study of experiments conducted at CERN. The methodology of the AIP project was fully employed in the CERN work.

B. Project Staffing
[Table of Contents]

Staffing was erratic during the first year, due to the resignations for personal reasons of the first project historian and project archivist. In each case, it took several months to locate and hire replacements, and remaining staff were loaded down with carrying out essential project tasks.

In April 1990, the second project historian (Nebeker) announced he would resign his position in September to take on the position of associate historian for the IEEE Center for the History of Electrical Engineering. This advance notice enabled the AIP project to hire another postdoctoral historian of science, Joel Genuth, whose tenure overlapped Nebeker's. With the addition of project archivist Lynn Maloney to the staff in June 1990 and the employment of Genuth, staff for the high-energy physics study was complete and stable.

There has also been a change in project consultants. Sociology consultant Thomas Gieryn left in August 1990 because of the press of other commitments; since then the task of analyzing the project's interviews and the census for sociological issues has been under the direction of Lynne Zucker of UCLA.

C. Institutional Contributions
[Table of Contents]

The AIP contributed a major portion of the time of the Center's postdoctoral historian Finn Aaserud, particularly during 1989. It continues to support the long-term project by contributing some time of the AIP Center's librarian/archivist Bridget Sisk and its senior program coordinator Virginia French, as well as administrative and clerical costs. The AIP science writer Phillip Schewe assisted the project by reading relevant articles and writing lay language synopses of them as background material for project staff prior to the interviews. This was very successful for our work during Phase I, particularly since Schewe is a former high-energy physicist. Finally, the project absorbed far more than Warnow-Blewett's allotted one-third time and more of Weart's time than expected.

The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) too has made substantial contributions to the project by supporting the efforts of associate director William Kirk, librarian Louise Addis, and archivists Roxanne Nilan and Robin Chandler. In addition to service on the project's Working Group, Kirk and Nilan conducted pilot interviews to test the project's questions set and, joined by Chandler, conducted 14 interviews related to the project's selected experiments. Addis (also on the Working Group) provided critical leadership for the project's census work, as detailed below, and trained project staff and consultants on the use of the databases on SPIRES at SLAC.

The AIP project also coordinated its work with a history project at FNAL, funded by the National Science Foundation and directed by historians of science Lillian Hoddeson and Catherine Westfall. The AIP project shared its research results to avoid duplication of effort (such as interviewing physicists on the same experiments).

Other contributions have been made by the laboratories, especially support of the census work by the Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, as mentioned later in this report.

III. WORKING GROUP AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE
[Table of Contents]

The study of collaborations in high-energy physics had a Working Group and a larger Advisory Committee for documenting multi-institutional collaborations in high-energy physics. The project's Advisory Committee was never intended to meet; rather, its members agreed to respond as individuals to our requests for advice. Both groups included a number of expert scientists, historians, archivists, and sociologists. However, the Working Group had a greater concentration of distinguished high-energy physicists and science administrators. The members of the Working Group for High-Energy Physics are listed in Appendix A;  the Advisory Committee for High-Energy Physics is listed in Appendix B.

The project's Working Group for High-Energy Physics met twice: on 14-15 April 1989 and on 22-23 February 1991. The first meeting, near the outset of the project, was an effective tool for introducing the various groups to each others' interests and concerns. The physicists shared their knowledge of the process of collaboration from the perspective of funding agencies, laboratory administration, and laboratory users. These reports were enormously useful in shedding light on such critical points as how collaborations are formed and how they frequently extend over a string of experiments. In addition, the archivists, historians, and sociologists expressed their concerns and interests as keepers and users of the records and eventual audience for the project's findings.

The products of this meeting included revisions to the project's draft set of questions for use in its interview program, the compilation of an initial list of experiments to be included in the interview program, and the selection of the upsilon experiments—with confirmation of the two already chosen (the J and the psi discoveries)—for the more thorough "probe" studies.

The purpose of the February 1991 meeting of the Working Group was to review progress, critique preliminary findings, and set priorities for the rest of the Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations in High-Energy Physics. All levels of project work were reviewed (the census; interviews of selected experiments; probe work; historical, sociological, and archival analysis; the parallel study underway of CERN experiments; and the study of subcontracting). In addition, the Working Group reviewed draft appraisal guidelines for records of high-energy physics experiments, plans for the project's final reports, and possible microfilming of selected files; finally, the Group discussed tactics the AIP Center might use to identify key experiments from the past as well as in the future for special preservation efforts.

IV. CENSUS DEVELOPMENT
[Table of Contents]

The broadest level of the study of multi-institutional collaborations in high-energy physics is the census of all high-energy physics experiments conducted for the period from 1973 through 1987 at the four American facilities and—to some extent—the CERN laboratory in Europe. This effort involved, first, defining basic data needed for the census, and second, learning how to manipulate the databases maintained on SPIRES for the high-energy physics community: the Experiments database by the Particle Data Group at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) and the HEP Publications database by SLAC and the DESY laboratory in Hamburg, Germany. The Experiments and HEP Publications databases for high-energy physics, both using the SPIRES program, were made accessible to us through the SLAC Library.

For the most part, the strengths of the databases for project purposes were impressive. On the other hand, the databases had not been used previously for historical, sociological, or other "nonscientific" purposes, and certain weaknesses for project purposes were quickly apparent. These weaknesses range from the humorous and easily solved (such as counting "et al" as a person in a collaboration) to the disappointing (e.g., the periodic updating of the members of collaborations in the Experiments database that removes the possibility of counting physicists on the original proposal and the identification of a collaboration's previous spokes persons).

On another level, not all laboratories were systematic in reporting which publications in the database were linked to specific experiments. This weakness was serious for a number of reasons; for example, it made it impossible to rank experiments in terms of numbers of publications and numbers of citations. For BNL, the most problematic case, project funds were used to employ as freelancer a recently retired BNL physicist, Robert Phillips, to begin to link BNL experiments to publications. This work has since been continued with BNL funding; the project is, unfortunately, not yet completed. Also, in enlarging the census to include the experiments carried out at CERN, we found another problem: the linking of experiments with CERN report numbers rather than with journal publications. Other priorities on the part of CERN staff stood in the way of a project to revise their database. On a positive note, FNAL completed a special effort working directly with Louise Addis to bring its experiment publications identifications up to date. Despite limitations regarding BNL and CERN, the completion of the census has made possible a reasonable measure of the productivity of collaborations in terms of numbers of publications and their citations and provided information on the length of collaborations. The HEP Publications database is now more useful than ever for both scientific and nonscientific queries.

In November 1991, Louise Addis and William Kirk suggested a number of additional questions—such as the number of experiments approved for each accelerator at five laboratories and the number of experiments approved for each major detector—that could be pursued based on their solid knowledge of the databases and collaborations at SLAC. With the help of Addis, Robin Chandler developed data on these questions for analysis by Zucker. A listing of the census questions in Appendix C.

Finally, the project manipulated the SPIRES databases to compile three lists: (1) individuals most frequently involved in collaborations, (2) individuals serving as spokespersons on three or more collaborations, and (3) institutions most frequently involved in collaborations. These data have been particularly useful—when linked to other findings from the census, interviews, and site visits—in pursuing the preservation goals of the study of high-energy physics.

V. PROGRAM OF INTERVIEWS FOR SELECTED EXPERIMENTS CARRIED OUT AT FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
[Table of Contents]

A. Selection of Experiments
[Table of Contents]

From the outset it was clear that the project should look at a broad range of experiments in terms of both scientific and sociological factors. At the April 1989 meeting of the Working Group, a number of criteria were agreed upon. From the sociological standpoint the set of selected experiments was to cover a range in such areas as the size of the collaboration (both number of institutions and number of individuals), the starting year, the duration, the site, and the possible use of subcontracting. From the scientific standpoint each of the following was to be represented: the various detector types (including bubble chamber, hybrid emulsions, and calorimeter), a beam dump, a rare process, a "crucial test" of theory, a result contrary to current theory, a non-accelerator experiment, high transverse momentum, start-up of an instrument, startup of an electronic facility, and a precision experiment. The Working Group nominated a number of experiments. It recommended that the project request the three DOE sites to nominate additional experiments following the criteria set up by the Working Group. Such requests were made to heads of research programs of these laboratories through site visits, telephone calls, and correspondence in May 1989.

The project staff compiled a database containing information about all 72 experiments nominated for the project's program of interviews. For each experiment this included: title, participants, their affiliations, approval date, starting date, end date, and comments—classified as either physics comments or sociological/non-scientific comments. In July, consultants Galison and Gieryn met at the AIP with project staff to make the first cut in the list of experiments. From the original 72 nominated by the Working Group and by the representatives of SLAC, BNL, and FNAL, 27 experiments were selected, including all three CESR experiments. One of these CESR experiments was later selected for the final list in consultation with the laboratory director. Further cuts were necessary in order to limit to twenty the number of experiments for the project's interview program. The final cuts were made during the process of investigating the current whereabouts of spokespersons for all selected experiments and subsequent discussion with advisors. See Appendix D for information on the selected experiments.

B. Selection of Individuals to be Interviewed
[Table of Contents]

The identification of individuals to be interviewed was made through discussions with the official spokespersons of the selected experiments (a first step made at the recommendation of project advisors) supplemented by conversations with other collaboration members. In all cases, the project sought to identify team leaders (typically called group leaders), women and minority members, and representatives of our various categories (postdocs, grad students, engineers, computer specialists, and technicians). A list of 179 candidates for interviews was thus compiled; a map was flagged with their locations to maximize travel efficiency.

C. Preparation of Working Files
[Table of Contents]

Working files were developed for each selected collaboration, including a list of collaboration institutions and members, lay language summary of the experiment, selected publications, and—where available—a biographical entry for interview subjects and a bibliography of published results.

D. Development of the Question Sets for Interviews
[Table of Contents]

The project proposal included a draft question set to be used for the project's program of interviews. That draft (developed by project staff with consulting historian Galison and sociologist Gieryn) was used to solicit further suggestions and modifications. At the meeting of the Working Group in April, and immediately thereafter, numerous additions and revisions were put forth by project advisors, staff, and William Aspray, Director of the IEEE Center for the History of Electrical Engineering.

In July 1989, three physics experiments (from 1974, 1975, and 1982) were selected for pilot interviews to test the question set. Project staff and consultant Gieryn conducted test interviews with six individuals during September and October. The staff (along with Gieryn, Hargens, and Roxanne Nilan) met in October at Fermilab to discuss their experiences and modify the question set accordingly. The revised question set was then tested at SLAC by project advisors Nilan and Kirk during November. Only minor adjustments have been made since, and interviewers (and interviewees) agree the question set has been highly successful in tracking the collaborative research process. A copy of the Question Set for Senior Physicists is in Appendix E.

We also completed work on several additional shorter question sets for other members of collaborations: representative physicists who are graduate or postdoctoral students; women physicists; and representative non-physicists, including electrical engineers, computer scientists, and technicians. These question sets were tested and have been in use since the early months of 1990. These question sets are also included in Appendix E.

E. Interviewing Activities on Selected Experiments
[Table of Contents]

 From early January 1990 through March 1991, project staff have made 25 major field trips, in addition to nearby visits. Each of these trips involved scheduling appointments with interviewees, completion of working files (lay language versions of key papers, etc.) and travel arrangements. In addition, appointments were made whenever possible with the archivists at each of the interviewee's institutions to discuss the project's documentation goals, the particular situation of the interviewee's files, and the current policies of the institutional archives. In addition to nine pilot interviews, 144 project interviews were conducted through August 1991 for the 19 selected collaborations using domestic sites.

Transcribing of the tape-recorded interviews, under the direction of the AIP Center's Virginia French, moved into high gear in Spring 1990. Particularly taxing was the hiring of freelance transcribers with word processors to carry the large load of work. Duplicate tapes were shipped out and duplicate diskettes returned for inhouse printing. All 144 interviews have been transcribed in addition to seven of the pilot interviews.

F. Historical and Archival Analysis of Interviews
[Table of Contents]

Work was initiated in May 1990 on the historical and archival analysis of interviews for selected experiments. Project staff developed a form covering historical themes and archival issues; this form was used to index interview transcripts. A second form was prepared for an archival database to facilitate archival analysis. Both forms provide access points so that historical issues and archival issues can be tracked over time and by accelerator site. A copy of the indexing form is in Appendix F; the archival database form is in Appendix G. Thus far, 143 transcripts have been indexed. In addition, historical analysis of 134 transcripts and archival analysis of 141 transcripts were completed. An updated report on the historical analysis was distributed to the Working Group prior to its February 1991 meeting. For more details on archival work, see Section X. "Archival and Preservation Activities" below, and also Part B: "Archival Findings: Analysis and Future Actions," in this Report No. 2.^[1]

G. Sociological Analysis of Interviews
[Table of Contents]

The program to carry out sociological analysis of interviews was stalled until the appointment in August 1990 of Lynne Zucker, a professor of sociology at UCLA, for the position as consultant, replacing Gieryn. Zucker appointed a postdoc, Margaret Phillips, and a graduate student, Anna Leon-Guerrero, who started work in October under Zucker's supervision.

Zucker and Phillips narrowed the theoretical sociological issues to be addressed and identified variables to pursue those issues and measures that can be used as surrogates for those variables. The issues pursued included the persistence of affiliations and other collaboration matters, influences on the degree of experimental innovation, the determinants of leadership, the effects of centralization of control, and sponsored mobility (especially the degree to which scientific research was carried out within an ever-narrowing network).

Zucker and Phillips also checked out the usefulness of alternative measures to supplement findings of the project interviews (such as the SPIRES databases at SLAC, citations including self-citations, and vitae) in order to identify the kinds of measures that can give the best accuracy in studying the issues. The analysis is multi-level, looking at individuals, home institutions, and relationships of institutions to the experiment and to the accelerator site. Because of their late start, the results of the sociological analysis will not be available until Spring 1993.^[2]

VI. PROBES OF THE UPSILON AND PSI DISCOVERIES AND THE CLEO COLLABORATION AT CESR
[Table of Contents]

Project work on probes largely resembled the planning and scheduling of interviews for the selected collaborations. However, the differences are marked. First of all, the probes involved talking to a larger number of the participants. Second, probe work involved greater attention to collaboration records to determine what files should be saved, identify major gaps, and initiate steps necessary for preserving records of archival value at appropriate institutions.

A. Discovery of the Upsilon
[Table of Contents]

Our study of the upsilon discovery at Fermilab, under the direction of former project historian Frederik Nebeker, covered a string of seven experiments conducted between 1970 and 1985. Altogether, some 130 individuals and eight institutions (four of them outside the United States) were involved. Nebeker completed most of the interviewing and research work on the upsilon probe during four major field trips before he left the project in mid-September 1990; other project staff have done upsilon interviews as well. A total of 57 interviews were conducted (as well as notes of telephone discussions with four of the collaborators). These include six spokespersons, 21 other senior physicists (including nine group leaders), postdocs, graduate students, engineers, and technicians.

Whenever Nebeker (or other staff) interviewed participants, he also examined experiment records in or near their offices and prepared rough inventories. Nebeker also discussed upsilon files with archivists at Fermilab, Stony Brook, SLAC, CERN, and elsewhere to lay the groundwork for a plan to secure an adequate record of the experiments. Some steps have already been taken in conjunction with Adrienne Kolb, Fermilab archivist, to preserve certain very important materials, including detector logbooks and professional papers of two key participants, Leon Lederman and Jeff Appel.

B. Discovery of the J/Psi
[Table of Contents]

The discovery of the J at Brookhaven and of the psi at SLAC were simultaneous, and typically combined in references as the discovery of the J/psi. The AIP project originally planned for consultant historian Peter Galison to work on both the J and psi collaborations (led respectively by Sam Ting at Brookhaven and by Burton Richter at SLAC). Because of difficulties in contacting Ting, Galison's study was limited to the SLAC collaboration.

Galison interviewed nine members of the psi collaboration and reviewed their files. In addition, he worked with archivists at SLAC to develop and carry out a survey mailing to all available participants of the psi collaboration. With the help of archivists at both SLAC and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (the other major institution on the collaboration), a number of valuable records were located, including unpublished internal technical memoranda (e.g., on event analysis, on the interface between equipment and computers, and on the detector, storage ring, and accelerator), materials on Monte Carlo simulations, and minutes of committees and subgroups.^[3]

C. CLEO Collaboration at CESR Mini-Probe
[Table of Contents]

The project added a "mini-probe" to its list by upgrading the CLEO collaboration at the CESR facility at Cornell University's Newman Laboratory from one of the 20 selected experiments. The reasons for this special attention are several: (1) Experiments are treated quite differently at CESR; only two collaborations have conducted experiments there since it began running in 1979, and one now monopolizes the facility; (2) CESR is one of the four main accelerator facilities in the U.S.A., but it is the only NSF-funded site; we wanted a better understanding of the differences between the NSF and DOE situations; (3) There has been little historical study of the Cornell accelerators, and we needed to conduct some background research to place the experiment in context; and (4) The project wanted to benefit from another in-depth exposure to research and preservation of archival records. The mini-probe was conducted under the direction of project historian Joel Genuth.

In contrast to the psi and upsilon probes, which are organized around the examination of scientific discoveries, Genuth examined the CLEO collaboration at CESR from an institutional perspective. For example, he looked for documents that shed light on Cornell's decision to pursue collider physics and its efforts to attract the interest of the physics community and obtain funding from the Federal Government. Genuth, with the assistance of Maloney, conducted 21 interviews.

The archival aspects of the CESR­/CLEO probe are particularly challenging, especially the records of CESR and its Newman Laboratory at Cornell University. Since CESR is an NSF-contract facility, it does not produce Federal records that fall under the domain of the National Archives and Records Administration. Warnow-Blewett and Genuth are working out an arrangement between the Newman Laboratory and the Cornell University Archives to safeguard the records; the prognosis is very promising.

The reports by the three historians on the probes of the discoveries of the psi and the upsilon and of the CLEO experiment at CESR are included in Report No. 4: Historical Findings on Collaborations in High-Energy Physics. Information on the records secured is in Report No. 3: Catalog of Selected Historical Materials.^[4] In addition, articles by Genuth, Galison, and Nebeker are in preparation and will be submitted to scholarly journals.

VII. STUDY OF SUBCONTRACTING
[Table of Contents]

One aspect that the AIP project planned to explore from the outset is that of sub­contracting to industry. The investigation of subcontracting throughout the long-term study is a joint project of the AIP Center and the IEEE Center for the History of Electrical Engineering; it is under the direction of Nebeker of the IEEE Center. During our study of high-energy physics, we sought—by means of project interviews and probes—to identify sub­contracts the collaborations might have had with industry to carry out significant research and development. We did not find sub­contracts with such design work or innovative engineering.

Nebeker presented this situation to the Working Group at its February 1991 meeting. There was general agreement that early contributions of industry to high-energy physics in the U.S.A. were done without contracts (although this is changing with the development of detectors for the Super-Conducting Super Collider). During the period of the AIP study, there were a number of areas, such as super-conducting magnets and photomultipliers, where the important research-and development was carried out within industry without subcontracts from high-energy physics experiments.

The Working Group decided that LeCroy Electronics, a company that has for 25 years manufactured electronics exclusively for high-energy physics, should be the focus of the project's investigation of industrial research. LeCroy is important and a good example of successful interaction between industry and high-energy physics. Many of its staff are high-energy physicists and they have cultivated informal relations with the high-energy physics community as a way to learn its needs. Nebeker made a site visit in May to LeCroy to interview key staff, review files, and discuss records-keeping practices; he prepared a written report on his findings.^[5]

VIII. PERSPECTIVE INTERVIEWS
[Table of Contents]

The Working Group, at its April 1989 meeting, recommended that the project conduct perspective interviews, outside of the selected experiments and probes, to supply missing pieces from the overview of community leaders such as administrators at funding agencies and laboratories. Ten of these interviews have been completed (with Wallenmeyer and Hildebrand on DOE, Berley on NSF, Nishikawa and Kikuchi on KEK, McDaniel and Abashian on CESR, Ticho on university-laboratory relationships, and Neal on university administration).

In June 1989, the AIP Advisory Committee for History of Physics went further still and suggested the project interview a few women and minority physicists (in addition to those who participated in our selected experiments) who have made significant contributions to experimental high-energy physics or are articulate spokespersons for the concerns of women and minorities in the field. Five of these interviews with women in high-energy physics have been conducted; one black physicist was also interviewed, but primarily from the perspective of administration.

Altogether 15 perspective interviews have been conducted; all have been transcribed.

IX. PARALLEL PROJECT ACTIVITIES AT CERN
[Table of Contents]

Historian John Krige conducted the study of selected experiments carried out at the European CERN laboratory in Geneva, funded by a separate Mellon Foundation grant. The methodology of the AIP project was fully employed in the CERN work, for example in the criteria for selecting experiments and the question sets used in interviews.

Work on the study at CERN got seriously underway towards the end of 1989, after meetings with individual physicists and the CERN Archive Advisory Committee. Five experiments were chosen to meet a range of different criteria in keeping with the AIP project: (1 and 2) UA1 and UA2, renowned for the discovery of the W and Z particles (large, colliders, electronic, historical importance); (3) T-185 and T-228, the discovery of neutral currents (fixed target, bubble chamber, historical importance); (4) WA1 (large, electronic, neutrino physics, classical mid-1970s experiment, fixed target); and (5) WA9 (small, elegant, non-CERN participation, with an important Soviet contingent). For more information on these experiments, see Appendix D.

Three lines of attack were made on these experiments. First, more than 30 interviews were conducted with individuals who participated in the collaborations, the sample deliberately chosen to include physicists, engineers, computer specialists, and some women. The bulk of these were with physicists and engineers who worked in collaborations UA1 and UA2. A perspective interview on the place of women in high-energy physics was also conducted. Although some differences were noted, Krige's findings confirm virtually all of those made on experiments at American sites.^[6]

Second, major progress on preservation of records and papers has been made. With the active support of the CERN Archive Advisory Committee and of the CERN archivist, Krige took positive steps to trace important collections of papers related to the selected CERN experiments. This was successfully done for four of the five selected collaborations; it has proved difficult only for WA1, where most papers seem to have been destroyed. Ultimately it is expected that these will be transferred to the CERN Archive. It should be mentioned that Krige prepared a catalog of the collections of papers of two physicists involved in two of these experiments (UA1 and neutral currents). The first is particularly comprehensive and, once the papers have been transferred to the Archive, will serve as a valuable guide for archivists and historians to the kind of material that is generated in a large collaboration.

Another major preservation breakthrough was the decision on the part of the CERN laboratory to preserve the records of major experiments conducted at CERN. The CERN Archive Advisory Committee, inspired by the AIP project and in consultation with Krige, has solicited from its physics community suggestions for 20 experiments of historical interest; the Committee hopes to track down key collections of papers related to these experiments and, if possible, to transfer them to the CERN Archive. Finally, Krige has identified other important papers and encouraged physicists to deposit them in appropriate repositories; this work has been supported by the CERN Archive Advisory Committee.

Third, some results of Krige's work have been used in two reports: (1) A report summarizing the findings of the research done on experiments UA1 and UA2; this will be published in the Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook for 1992 and (2) A CERN Internal Report on the relation between CERN and its user community. Krige hopes to use some data, in cooperation with a young American graduate student, to compare the CDF (Collider Detector at Fermilab) with the UA1.

X. ARCHIVAL AND PRESERVATION ACTIVITIES
[Table of Contents]

The methodology was thoroughly effective in identifying the archival issues and pointing the way toward preservation. As expected, the in-depth work on the selected probes proved to be particularly valuable in issues regarding appraisal of technical documentation. Probe work was also useful in identifying specific difficulties in saving the records. We are more surprised at how valuable the historical analysis and the archival analysis of the interviews covering selected collaborations could be in combination with the census work. These analyses provided both an overall understanding and specific information on records creation and retention by the various collaboration members. The census combined well with these findings by giving us names of key institutional and individual players that we could approach for practical preservation work.

A. Basic Activities
[Table of Contents]

There are a number of ways the project has taken steps during the two-year study of high-energy physics to have an impact on the records keeping practices of archivists and scientists. For example, from the start our interviews with scientists were conducted at their home institutions so that we could review their files and also meet with the institutional archivists to talk about project goals and their current archival programs. These meetings with scientists were, virtually without exception, the first time anyone had discussed with them the potential historical value of their papers. Based on previous experience of the AIP Center, we believe these discussions will have a positive impact on care of records. The meetings with archivists strengthened the AIP Center's cooperative ties, gave us "grass roots" information on the likelihood of saving records of multi-institutional collaborative research, and in return let us provide information and encouragement.

More specifically, the question sets used for interviews with senior physicists and other members of collaborations were designed with archival goals in mind. The question sets in Appendix C show that each step of the collaborative process was covered, from funding initiatives through publication of research results. There was considerable emphasis on organizational and social issues that impact on records, such as communication patterns, delegation of responsibilities, degree of bureaucratization, impact of computer technology, role of internationalism, and the use of subcontracting to industry. Further issues relating directly to archival matters were those of records creation, use, and reuse for scientific purposes. Here we were particularly keen to capture information about electronic records, both the use of e-mail and the scientific data on magnetic tapes and diskettes. All interview transcripts were indexed by project archivist Lynn Maloney to assure optimum consistency. Information on organizational and social issues was analyzed by project historian Joel Genuth; information specific to records was entered into an archival database for analysis by Maloney and Warnow-Blewett.

B. Survey of Spokespersons
[Table of Contents]

Midway through our data gathering period, both the interviews and the archival database indicated that, as collaborations have become larger and more bureaucratic, spokespersons have taken on more managerial responsibilities including records distribution. Our preliminary archival analysis showed that, of all collaboration members, spokespersons are likely to hold the best documentation. Because of this finding, the project decided to carry out a survey during the first half of 1991. We used the Experiments database at SLAC to compile a list of those people who had served as spokespersons on three or more collaborations. Separate survey procedures were developed for those living in the U.S.A. and those living abroad; project staff were assisted in survey development by sociologists Zucker and Phillips.

The domestic survey was based on a mailing and follow-up telephone interviews. The mailing consisted of a letter explaining the project and the kinds of questions we would cover in the interview; attachments included a summary of the historical analysis of the role of spokespersons, a list of records that the project is interested in, and a printout from the database describing the experiments for which that person was a spokesperson. The telephone follow-ups made it possible to cover virtually everyone included in the domestic survey. Thorough notes were taken and tape recordings were made in case further reference would be required.

Project staff adapted and shortened the interview into a questionnaire to be mailed to foreign spokespersons and returned. This questionnaire focussed on the creation and retention of both collaboration and other professional records and was also accompanied by a letter explaining the project and a database printout describing the experiments for which the spokesperson acted. The survey was mailed in June. The response was disappointing: out of 17 surveyed, only four individuals replied.

Results of the spokesperson surveys were incorporated into the project's archival analysis. The domestic survey broadened the scope of the project's perspective in that many of the experiments examined in the survey differ in physics goals and in historical significance from the project's 19 experiments which are being studied in greater depth.

C. Appraisal Guidelines
[Table of Contents]

Warnow-Blewett drafted guidelines for the appraisal of records of high-energy physics collaborations prior to the February 1991 meeting of the Working Group. The draft included key publications as well as manuscript sources. Each record category was marked for discussion purposes with a recommendation that it should be retained for all experiments, retained only for significant experiments, or that it need not be saved except in special circumstances. When appraising the informational value of the records, the Working Group was asked to take into consideration the future needs of scientists and those in science policy and management as well as historians of physics, technology, information processing, economics, and institutions, and sociologists of science.

Peter Galison—as Chief Consulting Historian—led the review of the draft guidelines providing insights on the records he and other historians on the project had found most valuable for the study of especially significant experiments: correspondence files of individuals, internal collaboration memoranda, and experiment logbooks. The Working Group discussion about appraisal led to the following priorities for retention of records for all experiments: 1) Physics Advisory Committees records, 2) laboratory directors' files, 3) proposals to the laboratories, 4) Memoranda of Understanding (contracts), 5) blueprints of detectors and their components, and 6) proposals, including narrative and financial progress and final reports to funding agencies. It was noted that virtually all of these core records are likely to be retained (or at least not destroyed) by the laboratories. It was also agreed that technical data (especially the raw data) had virtually no value after its use by the collaboration. After the meeting, Galison assisted in reviewing the guide­lines before they were sent to the Working Group for their comments. See Part D: "Appraisal Guidelines for Records of Collaborations in High-Energy Physics" in this Report No. 2.

D. Site Visits to Accelerator Laboratories
[Table of Contents]

Site visits to the five laboratories under study—to meet with top-level science administrators as well as with those in direct charge of records—have been particularly important in two phases of project work. First, near the outset of the project, when laboratory staff were generous in providing detailed tours of their facilities, including discussions with collaboration members in the midst of conducting experiments. Such tours were essential to our understanding of the process of collaborations in high-energy physics. The scheduling of these site visits were coordinated with periodic meetings of staff, consultants, and advisors. Also important were three site visits (in October 1989 and January and July 1990) to the CERN laboratory in Geneva to coordinate project work with CERN historian John Krige.

Later site visits to the laboratories shifted toward discussions of the project's preliminary findings and recommendations. Toward the end of the period, we made visits for the purpose of determining the extent to which the laboratories retain records documenting collaborative research and to obtain current information on their general records retention policies and archival programs. We were particularly concerned to share information on the project's appraisal guidelines and to encourage the retention by the laboratories of the core records to be saved for all experiments. Finally, a history conference at SLAC in June 1992 brought together Warnow-Blewett and archivists from DOE national laboratories, including FNAL, LBL, SLAC, and SSCL (Superconducting Super-Collider Laboratory); the gathering made it possible to review face-to-face the AIP project's findings and recommendations.

E. Archival Analysis
[Table of Contents]

The project's archival analysis covers a wide range of information regarding records. These include patterns of records creation, use, and reuse by the collaboration as well as patterns of records retention and destruction. We also report on the locations where valuable sets of records are likely to repose and on shifts in records practices on the part of collaborations; both of these can provide opportunities for preservation recommendations that appear "natural" to our records creators.

The archival analysis has been based on all aspects of our work—the census, historical analysis of interviews on selected experiments, historical probe work, sociological studies, site visits, and our archival database. Drafts and revisions have been issued since the initial year of data gathering; the final report is Part B: "Archival Findings: Analysis and Future Actions" of this Report No. 2.

F. Preservation Activities
[Table of Contents]

During the two-year study, the main efforts in locating papers and records of historical value focussed on two targets: the papers documenting the three probes and the core records at the accelerator laboratories.

In documenting the probe experiments we have made substantial progress, although more remains to be done. In the case of documenting the upsilon series of experiments at FNAL, the papers of Leon Lederman (the main principal investigator [PI] and a spokesperson) and the papers of Jeff Appel have been secured in the FNAL Archives with the help of archivist, Adrienne Kolb. In the case of the psi discovery collaboration at SLAC, extensive searches for key records were conducted for the project by archivist Roxanne Nilan at SLAC and archivist Lori Hefner at LBL; extensive sets of documentation are now under their care at SLAC and LBL. Work to document the CLEO collaboration at the CESR facility of Cornell's Newman Laboratory is also well underway. As mentioned earlier, the main issue here is to establish a repository for these nonfederal records; we have confidence that arrangements under discussion with the University Archives and Special Collections department will prove successful. The AIP Center's general approach to documenting all three of these collaborations is to first secure the most central records (typically at the laboratory and in the hands of the spokesperson[s]) and—once we have information on the gaps in these collections—proceed to investigate additional papers or files (for example, in the possession of group leaders) that should be preserved.

The other focus of our preservation work has been on efforts to secure the core set of laboratory records for all experiments—i.e., proposals, blueprints, etc. (See Part D: "Appraisal Guidelines for Records of Collaborations in High-Energy Physics" in this Report No. 2.) We were, first of all, relieved to learn that the laboratories also placed value on these basic files; at least, they had not been destroyed. We are aware that some valuable records on our core list, notably those of the Physics Advisory Committees, are not authorized by the National Archives for permanent retention in existing DOE records schedules. LBL Archivist Hefner is working to strengthen the National Archives schedules for DOE laboratories; we are assisting her and we hope our project recommendations will help legitimize the preservation of such valuable evidence.

The AIP Center is greatly impressed by the contributions of several laboratories in documenting high-energy physics, inspired in part by our study. Particularly noteworthy are the new efforts, both at SLAC and at CERN, to take steps to identify outstanding experiments and secure their documentation in laboratory archives.

G. Project Recommendations
[Table of Contents]

 Based on our findings and analyses, we developed 12 project recommendations addressed to accelerator laboratories, universities, other laboratories, and, in part, to DOE and NSF Headquarters and to NARA. The purpose of the recommendations is to outline policies and actions that would greatly improve the documentation of high-energy physics collaborations and the dissemination of information about the records.

The most important recommendation urges a new approach to securing the documentation for future experiments. We suggest that, once an experiment has been approved, the accelerator laboratory should ask the spokesperson to identify one of the collaboration members who would be responsible for collaboration-wide records. In addition—where historical significance warrants—individuals would be named to be responsible for group level documentation of innovative components or techniques. The information would become part of the laboratory's contract agreement with the collaboration. Use of this simple mechanism would assist archivists by assuring that records will be available for appraisal and by providing information on their location.^[7]

XI. DISSEMINATION OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES
[Table of Contents]

A. Talks and Publications During the Two-Year Study
[Table of Contents]

Five issues of the AIP Center for History of Physics Newsletter (May 1988 and 1989 and Fall 1989, 1990, and 1991) had lead articles reporting on project activities. The Fall 1990 issue also featured a summary of preliminary findings.

Warnow-Blewett and Nebeker spoke about the project at the Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archivists (SAA) held in St. Louis, Missouri, in October 1989. Warnow-Blewett also focussed on the AIP Study of Multi-Institutional Collaborations in talks at a conference convened in May 1990 by the Beckman Center for the History of Chemistry and at another conference in December 1990 convened by George­town University. Another paper on documenting postwar science and technology, including discussion of the project, was given by Warnow-Blewett in June 1991 in Milan, Italy, at a conference on archives for history of science and technology; a longer version of her paper will be published in the next issue of Osiris, a journal of the History of Science Society. Warnow-Blewett gave a paper on the project at the New York Academy of Science in February 1992 and at the 1992 Annual Meeting of the SAA in Montreal. Finally, Warnow-Blewett has been asked to give the Keynote Address on the AIP project at the Conference on the History and Archives of Science in Australia this November. Historian Genuth presented a paper on his historical analysis at a seminar of the Smithsonian Institution's History of Science Series. Krige, the historian of our parallel study of CERN, has given numerous talks drawing on his research.

B. Final Reports
[Table of Contents]

Four of the five final reports on the two-year study of high-energy physics collaborations were distributed for review by the project's Working Group and Advisory Committee in October 1991. After revisions and final editorial work, the reports were printed and distributed in September 1992. Research continues on the fifth report covering sociological analysis; its publication and distribution is expected in Spring 1993. The reports are: Report No. 1: Summary of Project Activities and Findings / Project Recommendations, report No. 2: Documenting Collaborations in High-Energy Physics, Report No. 3: Catalog of Selected Historical Materials, Report No. 4: Historical Findings on Collaborations in High-Energy Physics, and Report No. 5: Sociological Analysis of Collaborations in High-Energy Physics.

The distribution of the reports includes offices for high-energy physics at the DOE and the NSF, academic departments of physics most active in the field of high-energy physics, accelerator physics laboratories, and archival and records management programs at all of these institutions. The reports will also be available upon request from the AIP Center.

C. Forthcoming Publications
[Table of Contents]

Now that Phase I of the long-term study has been completed, reports on project activities, findings, and recommendations will be submitted to the newsletters of the Society of American Archivists, the History of Science Society, the Society for the History of Technology, the Society for the Social Studies of Science, and the Association of Records Managers and Administrators.

In addition, scholarly papers will be submitted to history of science and sociology journals. These will include papers by: Nebeker on the upsilon experiments; Genuth on the CLEO collaboration in the institutional setting of the CESR facility; Galison on the J/psi discovery; and Zucker, Phillips, and Leon-Guerrero on sociological aspects of high-energy physics collaborations. In addition, based on his parallel study at CERN, Krige will publish two papers—one on experiments UA1 and UA2 (in the Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook for 1992) and one on the relation between CERN and its user community (to appear as a chapter in a forth­coming volume in the History of CERN series). At the end of the long-term project, an article on the study's methodology, findings, and recommendations will be submitted to The American Archivist.

D. Other Products
[Table of Contents]

Project records, especially interview tapes and transcripts, are preserved in the AIP Center's Niels Bohr Library for historical and other research purposes. They are likely to be used by historians and sociologists of science for many years to come. In addition, project records documenting details of our methodology and findings are preserved for those who may wish to carry out similar studies of other disciplines in the future. Finally, the project would like to microfilm selected paper files of high historical value; these microfilming plans depend upon the availability of project funds.

XII. FUTURE EFFORTS TO DOCUMENT HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS
[Table of Contents]

The AIP project's future activities to document high-energy physics are detailed in Part B: "Archival Findings: Analysis and Future Actions" in this Report No. 2. We only mention briefly here that the project intends to continue sociological research and to hold a workshop with archivists during its Phase II study of space science and geophysics.

Because of their late start, the sociological research of consultant Lynne Zucker and her group at UCLA has been limited in a variety of ways. Fortunately, the Mellon Foundation has approved use of remaining funds for the group's further research. The general scope of the research will be threefold: (1) to extend the analysis of the project's 19 selected experiments, especially by focusing on characteristics of the laboratory sites, using quantitative approaches to the similarities and variation across experiments; (2) to examine the interviews of the AIP project's more detailed probes of highly significant experiments, comparing them with the results of the analysis of interviews on the selected experiments; and (3) to analyze the CERN experiments for which there are sufficient interviews, to determine what is similar to the American predictors and what is not. The findings of Zucker and her group will help us understand more completely high-energy physics research and the conduct of modern science.

---

APPENDIXES
[Table of Contents]

---

APPENDIX A: AIP Working Group for Documenting Multi-Institutional Collaborations in High-Energy Physics
[Table of Contents]

Main Consultants:

(History)
Prof. Peter Galison
Stanford University

Dr. Frederik Nebeker
IEEE Center for the History of Electrical Engineering

(Archives)
Ms. Roxanne Nilan
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

(Sociology)
Prof. Lynne Zucker
University of California at Los Angeles

Prof. Lowell Hargens
University of Illinois

Archival Representatives:

(Academic)
Ms. Helen Samuels
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

(Corporate)
Dr. Anne Millbrooke
United Technologies Corp.

(Federal)
Dr. Sharon Thibodeau
National Archives and Records Administration

(Federally-Funded Research and Development Centers)
Ms. Victoria Davis
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

Others On Working Group:

Ms. Louise Addis
Library
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Dr. David Berley
Physics Program
National Science Foundation

Prof. Sheldon Glashow
Lyman Laboratory
Harvard University

Dr. Bernard Hildebrand
Div. of High Energy Physics
Department of Energy (Retired)

Mr. Herbert Kinney
Office of the Director
Brookhaven National Laboratory

Mr. William Kirk
Office of the Director
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Prof. Ronald Kline
Department of Electrical Engineering
Cornell University

Dr. Derek Lowenstein
AGS Department
Brookhaven National Laboratory

Dr. Robert Smith
National Air & Space Museum
and
Department of History and Philosophy of Science
The Johns Hopkins University

Dr. William Wallenmeyer
Southeastern Universities
Research Association

Prof. Robert R. Wilson
F. R. Newman Laboratory of Nuclear Studies
Cornell University

Dr. Stanley G. Wojcicki
Experimental Group G
Stanford Linear Accelerator
Center

Prof. Harriet Zuckerman
Department of Sociology
Columbia University

AIP Project Staff

Ms. Joan Warnow-Blewett
Project Director

Dr. Spencer R. Weart,
Associate Project Director and Chair, Working Group

Dr. Joel Genuth
Project Historian

Ms. Lynn Maloney
Project Archivist

---

APPENDIX B: AIP Advisors for High-Energy Physics
[Table of Contents]

Prof. Ronald Breiger
Department of Sociology
Cornell University

Prof. David Edge
Science Studies Unit
University of Edinburgh

Dr. Lillian Hoddeson
Department of Physics
University of Illinois

Prof. Robert Kargon
Department of History and Philosophy of Science
The Johns Hopkins University

Dr. Henry Lowood
Head Librarian Physics Library
Stanford University

Dr. Robert Seidel
Bradbury Science Museum
Los Alamos National Laboratory

Prof. Silvan S. Schweber
Department of Physics
Brandeis University

Prof. Herbert Smith
Department of Sociology
University of Pennsylvania

Prof. Sharon Traweek
Department of Anthropology
Rice University

Dr. Catherine Westfall
History Office
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

---

APPENDIX C: CENSUS QUESTIONS FOR HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS
[Table of Contents]

These census questions will be answered for both the selected experiments, and for all experiments approved 1973-1985 at BNL, CESR, FNAL, SLAC, and in some cases CERN.^*

If possible, the following questions will be included in the census:

^* All census questions based on data gathered from the High-Energy Physics bibliographic database (HEP) are in relation to physics articles in refereed journals.

---

APPENDIX D: SELECTED EXPERIMENTS FOR HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS
[Table of Contents]

(As listed in the SPIRES Experiments database)

BNL

BNL-643                     Beam: PBAR 
    EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF ANTIPROTONIC ATOMS IN GASEOUS H2 AND HE, AND IN LIQUID H2.    
M Eckhause, K L Giovanetti, J R Kane*, J R Lindemuth, M S Pandey, A M Rushton, W R Vulcan, R E Welsh, R G Winter (William and Mary   Coll.), P D Barnes, J N Craig, R A Eisenstein, J D Sherman, R B    Sutton, W R Wharton (Carnegie Mellon U.), A R Kunselman (Wyoming   U.), J P Miller, R J Powers (Cal Tech), B L Roberts (MIT)                 
Approved: Jun 1974 
         Started: May 1976
         Complete: Jul 1977 
Collaborators: 19      Affiliations: 5      Papers: 0 

BNL-650                     Beam: P

    SINGLE ELECTRON PRODUCTION IN PROTON PROTON COLLISIONS

E W Beier, R Van Berg, R Patton, K Raychaudhuri, H Takeda, R Thern, H Weisberg* (Penn U.), M L Good, P D Grannis, K Johnson, J Kirz (SUNY, Stony Brook) 
         Complete: Dec 1974 
Collaborators: 11      Affiliations: 2      Papers: 0 

BNL-654                     Beam: PBAR 
   

DESCRP:SEARCH FOR CHARMED PARTICLES DURING TEST PHASE

J Bensinger, S Jacobs, L Kirsch, P Schmidt (Brandeis U.), S U Chung, K J Foley, W A Love, W J Miller, T W Morris, S Ozaki, E D  Platner, S Protopopescu, A C Saulys, E H Willen (Brookhaven), S J  Lindenbaum (Brook­haven & City Coll., N. Y.), R M Edelstein, D Green, H Halpern, J S Russ, N Stein, D Weintraub (Carnegie Mellon U.), R Endorf, B T Meadows (Cincinnati U.), A Etkin, M A Kramer, U Mallik (City Coll., N. Y.), J Button Shafer, S Hertzbach, M Rabin, M Singer (Massachusetts U., Amherst), W Selove (Penn U.), Z Bar Yam, J Dowd, H Gittleson, W Kern, J de Pagter, J Russell (Southeastern Mass. U.), M A Fainberg, P Gauthier, M Goldberg, N Horwitz, I Linscott (Syracuse U.) 
         Approved: DEC 1974 
         Complete: Apr 1975 
Collaborators: 42      Affiliations: 10      Papers: 0 

BNL-734                     Beam: NUMU,NUMUBAR 

A MEASUREMENT OF THE ELASTIC SCATTERING OF NEUTRINOS FROM  ELECTRONS AND PROTONS

L A Ahrens, S H Aronson, B G Gibbard, M J Murtagh*, S J Murtagh, P  J Wanderer, D H White (Brookhaven), J Callas, D Cutts, J Hoftun, R E Lanou (Brown U.), K Abe, K Amako, S Kabe, T Shinkawa, A Sterad (KEK, Tsukuba), Y Nagashima, Y Suzuki (Osaka U.), E W Beier, L S Durkin, S M Heagy, M Hurley, A K Mann, H H Williams, T York (Penn U.), D Hedin, M D Marx, E Stern (SUNY, Stony Brook) 
        Approved: Feb 1979, Feb 1984 
        Started: Jan 1981 
        Complete: May 1986 

BNL-791                     Beam: KL     

STUDY OF VERY RARE K-LONG DECAYS

R D Cousins*, J Konigsberg, J Kubic, P Melese, P Rubin, W E Slater, D Wagner (UCLA), G Hart, W Kinneson, D M Lee, R McKee, Jr , E C  Milner, G Sanders, H J Ziock (Los Alamos), K Arisaka, P Knibbe, J Urheim (Penn U.), J F Greenhalgh (Princeton U.), S Axelrod, K Biery, G M Irwin, K Lang, J Marguiles, D Ouimette, J L Ritchie, Q Trang, S G Wojcicki (Stanford U., Phys. Dept.), L B Auerbach, P Buchholz, V L Highland, W K McFarlane, M Sivertz, C Zhang (Temple U.), C Mathiazhagan, W R Molzon* (UC, Irvine), M Chapman, E Eckhouse, J Ginkel, D Joyce, J R Kane, C Kenney, W F Vulcan, R E Welsch, R J Whyley, R G Winter (William and Mary Coll.) 
         Approved: Jun 1984 
         Started: APR 1985 
Collaborators: 45      Affiliations: 8      Papers: 0 

FNAL

FNAL-289                    Beam: P

SMALL ANGLE PROTON HELIUM ELASTIC AND INELASTIC SCATTERING FROM 8 TO 500 GEV

A Bujak, P Devensky, A Kuznetsov, B Morosov, V Nikitin, P Nomokonov, Y Pilipenko, V Smirnov (Dubna, JINR), E Malamud*, M Miyajima, R Yamada (Fermilab), E Jenkins (Arizona U.), A Sandacz (Warsaw, INR)
         Approved: Mar 1974
         Complete: Nov 1977   
Collaborators: 13      Affiliations: 4      Papers: 2

FNAL-398                    Beam: MU   

A PROPOSAL FOR A FURTHER STUDY OF MUON NUCLEON INELASTIC SCATTERING AT FERMILAB.

H L Anderson, L W Mo, S C Wright (Chicago U.), W A Loomis, F M Pipkin, A L Sessoms, L J Verhey, R Wilson* (Harvard U.), W R Francis, T B W Kirk (Illinois U., Urbana), N E Booth, T W Quirk, A  Skuja, W S C Williams (Oxford U.), et al. (Virginia Tech.)
         Approved: Jul 1975
         Complete: Dec 1976
Collaborators: 15      Affiliations: 5      Papers: 2

FNAL-E-428: 400 GeV

PROTON INTERACTIONS IN NUCLEAR EMULSION

Approved 1975, completed running 1975.
OTTAWA U--H Areti, C J D Hebert, J Hebert (Spokesperson)
QUEBEC U, MONTREAL--M-A Vincent
WESTERN ONTARIO U--R Migneron
NANCY U--G Baumann, R Devienne
PARIS, CURIE UNIV VI--C O Kim, J Lory, C Menson, D Schune, Tsai-Chu, B Willot
STRASBOURG, CRN--C J Jacquot, R Kaiser, J P Massue, R PfohlLYON, IPN--R Schmitt
LUND U--B Andersen, I Otterlund
FERMILAB--A Van Ginneken
BELGRADE U--O Adamovic, M Juric
VALENCIA U-- J M Bolta, G Rey
SANTANDER U--E Villar, et al.

FNAL-616                    Beam: NUMU,NUMUBAR

MEASUREMENT OF NEUTRINO STRUCTURE FUNCTIONS

D B MacFarlane, R L Messner, D B Novikoff, M V Purohit (Cal Tech), E Fisk, Y Fukushima, B N Jin, T Kondo, P A Rapidis, D Yovanovitch (Fermilab), A Bodek, R Coleman, W Marsh (Rochester U.), O Fackler, K Jenkins (Rocke­feller U.), R Blair, F Sciulli*, M Shaevitz (Columbia  U.), F S Merritt, P G Reutens (Chicago U.)
         Approved: Mar 1979
         Complete: Jan 1980
Collaborators: 20      Affiliations: 6      Papers: 7

FNAL-632                    Beam: NUMU,NUMUBAR    

AN EXPOSURE OF THE 15 FOOT BUBBLE CHAMBER WITH A NEON -­HYDROGEN MIXTURE TO A WIDEBAND NEUTRINO BEAM FROM THE TEVATRON

G T Jones, R Jones, B Kennedy, S O'Neale (Birmingham U.), P Marage,  J Moreels, J Sacton, P Vilain, E A de Wolf (Brussels U., IIHE), C Brand, A M Cooper, H Drevermann, H Foeth, K K Geissler, G Harigel, H Klein, J Mittendorfer, D R O Morrison*, A Parker, P Schmid, H Wachsmuth (CERN), J M Kohli, I S Mitra, J Singh, P M Sood (Panjab U.), W Smart, L Voyvodic (Fermilab), K W J Barnham, J R Campbell, E Clayton, D Miller, M M Mobbayyen, P R Nailor (Imperial Coll., London), J B Barclay, R A Burnstein, D Cullen, R G Dillenberg, J E Hanlon, D Karatas, C P Mailander, R Naon, H A Rubin (Illinois Tech), G L Kaul, J Prakash, N K Rao (Jammu U.), M Aderholz, L L Deck, N Schmitz, W Wittek (Munich, Max Planck Inst.), G Corrigan, J J Lloyd, G Myatt, D Radojicic (Oxford U., NPL), M S Kalelkar, R J Plano, P E Stamer (Rutgers U.), B Franck, J Guy, G Kalmus, P Kasper, R L Sekulin, M Tyndal, W A Venus (Rutherford), J P Baton, C Coutures, M Faccini Turluer, M Jabiol, M Neveu (Saclay), E B Brucker, E L Koller (Stevens Tech.), H Akbari, T Kafka, T Mann, R H Milburn, A Napier, J Schneps (Tufts U.), H H Bingham, P Dingus, J E Lys, G P Yost (UC, Berkeley), R J Cence, F A Harris, V Jain, M D Jones, M W Peters*, V Z Peterson (Hawaii U.)
         Approved: Jun 1982
         Complete: Feb 1988
Collaborators: 86      Affiliations: 17      Papers: 1

FNAL-715                    Beam: SIGMA-

PRECISION MEASUREMENT OF THE DECAY SIGMA---> N E-NU.

E Swallow (Elmhurst College), J P Berge, A Brenner, P Grafstrom, E Jastrzembski, J Lach, J Marriner, R Raja (Fermilab), A Denisov, V Grachev, A Kulikov, V Schegelsky, D Seliverstov, N Smirnov, N Terentiev, I Tkach, A Vorobyov (Leningrad, INP), P S Cooper*, P Razis, L J Teig (Yale U.), E W Anderson (Iowa State U.), E McCliment, C Newsom (Iowa U.), S Y Hsueh, D Mueller, J Tang, R Winston, G Zapalac (Chicago U.)
         Approved: Jun 1982
         Complete: Feb 1984
Collaborators: 28      Affiliations: 7      Papers: 2

SLAC

SLAC-E-132                  Beam: K    

A STUDY OF K-P INTERACTIONS USING LASS.

L Bird, R K Carnegie*, P Estabrooks, C K Hargrove, R J Hemingway, R McKee, H Mes, F G Oakham, J Vavra (Carleton U.), W Dunwoodie, S Durkin, T H Fieguth, A Honma, D Hutchinson, W B Johnson, P Kunz, T Lasinski, D W G S Leith, W T Meyer, B Ratcliff*, S Shapiro, R Stroynowski, S H Williams (SLAC)
         Approved: Jan 1977, Sep 1977
         Complete: Mar 1978
Collaborators: 23      Affiliations: 2      Papers: 2

SLAC-E-137                  Beam: E-   

SEARCH FOR LOW MASS, METASTABLE NEUTRAL PARTICLES AT SLAC.

J D Bjorken (Fermilab), A Abashian, L W MO* (Virginia Tech.), S Ecklund, W R Nelson, Y S Tsai (SLAC)
       Approved: Sep 1980, DEC 1980
       Complete: DEC 1982
Collaborators: 6      Affiliations: 3      Papers: 0

SLAC-PEP-004-009            Beam: E+ E    

THE TIME PROJECTION CHAMBER AND 2 GAMMA DETECTOR AT PEP.

M Alston-Garnjost, R E Avery, A Barbaro-Galtieri, A Barnes, A Bay, T S Bolognese, A Bross, A R Clark, G D Cowan, O Dahl, K A Derby, J J Eastman, P Eberhard, T K Edberg, J W Gary, W Hofmann, J E Huth, H S Kaye, R W Kenney, L T Kerth, D Lambert, S C Loken, G Lynch, R Madaras, J Marx, L G Mathis, W Moses, D R Nygren, P Oddone*, M Pripstein, M Ronan, R Ross, F R Rouse, G Shapiro, M D Shapiro, M Stevenson, R van Tyen, E M Wang, W Wenzel, Z R Wolf, H Yamamoto (LBL, Berkeley), H Bingham, J Lys, G P Yost (UC, Berkeley), W Ko, R Lander, K Maeshima, R R McNeil, D Pellett, J R Smith, W Wagner, M C S Williams, C Zeitlin (UC, Davis), A M Eisner, B D Magnuson, M K Sullivan (UC, Berkeley & Stanford U.), D L Bintinger, K H Kees, G Masek, E Miller, J R Thompson, W Vernon, J T White (UC, San Diego), A R Barker, D A Bauer, D Caldwell, A Lu, K A Schwitkis, R Stephens, Y X Wang, S Yellin (UC, Santa Barbara), H U Bengtsson, C D Buchanan, R I Koda, D A Park, W E Slater, J S Steinman, D H Stork, M G Strauss, M R Wayne, R F van Daalen Wetters (UCLA), G J Van Dalen, W Gorn, K K Kwong, W G J Langeveld, J Layter, T T Lin, C S Lindsey, S O Melnikoff, B Shen (UC, Riverside), G J Bobbink (Carnegie Mellon U.), J M Hauptman, S K Park (Ames Lab), B A Barnett, D A Crane, J Hylen, X Q Lu, J A J Matthews, W M Zhang (Johns Hopkins U.), R R Kofler, S J Maxfield, S Toutounchi (Massachusetts U., Amherst), P Nemethy (New York U.), A Buijs, F Erne, F L Linde, H Paar, J C Sens, B van Uitert (NIKHEF, Amsterdam), E Bloom, A Fridman, G Godfrey, K Kiess, G Zapalac (SLAC), H Aihara, R Enomoto, T Fujii, T Kamae, T Takahashi, N Toge (Tokyo U.)
    Approved: Jan 1977
Collaborators: 120      Affiliations: 16      Papers: 38

SLAC-PEP-006                Beam: E+ E-    

THE MAC DETECTOR AT PEP

E Fernandez, W Ford, N Qi, A L Read, Jr , J Smith (Colorado U.), T Camporesi, R DeSangro, A Marini, I Peruzzi, M Piccolo, F Ronga (Frascati), H T Blume, R B Hurst, K Lau, J P Venuti, H B Wald, R Weinstein (Houston U.), M C Delfino, B K Heltsley, J R Johnson, T L Lavine, T Maruyama, R Prepost (Wisconsin U., Madison), H R Band, M W Gettner, G P Goderre, E Von Goeler, O A Meyer, J Moromisato, R Polvado, D Sanders, D Shambroom, J C Sleeman (Northeastern U.), W Ash, E D Bloom, G Chadwick, S H Clearwater, R W Coombes, G Godfrey, H S Kaye, R E Leedy, H L Lynch, R L Messner, L T Moss, F Muller, D  Ritson, D E Wiser, R W Zdarko (SLAC), H Lee, P Verdini (Utah U.), B Heltsley (Cornell U., LNS), H Nelson, L Rosenberg (Stanford U., Phys. Dept.), D Groom* (LBL, Berkeley)
         Approved: Jan 1977
         Complete: Mar 1986
Collaborators: 54      Affiliations: 10      Papers: 22

SLAC-SP-024                 Beam: E+ E-

A PROPOSAL FOR A LARGE SOLID ANGLE NEUTRAL DETECTOR FOR SPEAR 2 (THE CRYSTAL BALL).

E D Bloom*, F Bulos, R Chestnut, J Gaiser, G Godfrey, C Kiesling, M Oreglia (SLAC), R Hofstadter, I Kirkbride, H Kolanoski, A D Liberman, J O'Reilly, J Tompkins (Stanford U., HEPL), R Partridge, C Peck, F Porter (Cal Tech), W Kollmann, M Richardson, K Strauch (Harvard U.), D Aschman, M Cavalli-Sforza, D Coyne, H Sadrozinski (Princeton U.)
         Approved: Mar 1975, May 1978
         Complete: Jun 1979
Collaborators: 23      Affiliations: 5      Papers: 1

SLAC-SP-032                 Beam: E+ E-

MARK III AT SPEAR.

G Dubois, G Eigen, D G Hitlin, C Matthews, A Mincer, W Wisniewski,  Y Zhu (Cal Tech), T Bolton, J C Brient, K Bunnell, R E Cassell, D Coward, C Grab, U Mallik, R Mozley, A Odian, J Parker, D Pitman, R Schindler*, W Stockhausen, W Toki*, F Villa, S Wasserbaech, D E Wisinski (SLAC), M Burchell, G Corrado, D Dorfan, C Heusch, W Lockman, H Sadrozinski, M Scarlatella, T Schalk, A Seiden, A Weinstein, R C Xu (UC, Santa Cruz), B Eisenstein, T Freese, G Gladding, J Izen, C Simopoulos, E Stockdale, B Tripsas, A Wattenberg (Illinois U., Urbana), T Burnett, V Cook, A D Li, R Mir,  P Mockett, B Nemati, L Parrish (Washington U., Seattle)                        
          Approved: May 1981
          Started: Apr 1982
Collaborators: 50      Affiliations: 5      Papers: 13

Non-Accelerator

   IMB The Irvine-Michigan-Brookhaven Experiment. Approved 1979.
UC, IRVINE--W Gajewski, K Ganezer, T J Haines, W R Kropp, L Price, F Reines­(+Spokesperson), J Schultz, H W Sobel, C Wuest
MICHIGAN U--D Casper, P Chrysicopoulou, R Claus, H S Park, S Seidel, DSinclair, J L Stone, L R Sulak, J C van der Velde (+Spokesperson)
MICHIGAN U & UNIVERSITY COLL, LONDON--T W Jones
BROOKHAVEN--M Goldhaber
CAL TECH--G Blewitt, J M Losecco
CLEVELAND STATE U--C B Bratton
HAWAII U--J G Learned, R SvobodaUC,
IRVINE & WARSAW U, IEP--D Kielczewska
FERMILAB--G W Foster
ILLINOIS U, URBANA--S Errede

Multilab 

(We have learned from the spokespersons for these experiments that these experiments are not related and should not be referred to as "multilab, SLAC-SP-007B/FNAL-310.")   

SLAC-SP-007B                Beam: E+ E-   

SEARCH FOR ASYMMETRY IN E+ E---> MU+ MU- DUE TO A WEAK NEUTRAL
CURRENT

W Ford, A K Mann, L Resvanis (Penn U.), U Camerini*, D Cline*, J G Learned, C Spencer (Wisconsin U., Madison)
         Approved: Aug 1974
         Started: 1976
         Complete: Dec 1976
Collaborators: 7      Affiliations: 2      Papers: 0

FNAL-310                    Beam: NUMU,NUE,NUMUBAR,NUEBAR

    FURTHER STUDY OF HIGH ENERGY NEUTRINO INTERACTIONS AT NAL.

D Cline* (Wisconsin U., Madison), A Benvenuti, A Entenberg, W T Ford, R Imlay, T Y Ling, A K Mann, F Messing, D D Reeder, C Rubbia,  R Stefanski, L Sulak, P Wanderer, H H Williams (Harvard U. & Penn U. & Wisconsin U., Madison & Fermilab & Rutgers U.)
         Approved: Nov 1974, Nov 1976, Mar 1977, Mar 1978
         Complete: Aug 1978
Collaborators: 14      Affiliations: 2      Papers: 2

CERN

CERN-UA-001

    A 4-PI SOLID ANGLE DETECTOR FOR THE SPS USED AS A PROTON-ANTIPROTON COLLIDER AT A C.M. ENERGY OF 630 GEV. (Jan 1978)

Approved Jun 1978, Jun  Sep 1983, Feb 1984,Nov 1984.
  AACHEN, TECH HOCHSCH, III PHYS INST -- P Erhard, H Faissner, A Geiser, H Grassmann, H Moser, A Moulin, T Redelberger, H Reithler, E Tscheslog, HTuchscherer, K Wacker
  NIKHEF, AMSTERDAM -- K Bos, J Dorenbosch, A Van Dyk, W Van de Guchte, DHolthuizen, M Schroeder, I Ten-Have, I Zacharov
  ANNECY -- B Aubert, F Cavanna, J Colas, P Ghez, C Ghiglino, J-P Lees, DLinglin, M N Minard, B Mours, J P Vialle, M Yvert
  BIRMINGHAM U -- N Bains, D G Charlton, M Corden, G Cox, J Dowell, N Ellis, JGarvey, D Grant, J Gregory, S J Haywood, M Jimack, I Kenyon, M Nikitas
  BOSTON U -- M Felcini, J Rohlf
  CERN -- A Bezaguet, G Bouquet, P Cennini, S Cittolin, M Demoulin, A DiCiaccio, K Eggert, A Ferrando, J Feyt, A Givernaud, A Gonidec, W Jank, W Kienzle,F Lacava, G Maurin, T Meyer, T Muller, R Munoz, L Naumann, M Della Negra, A Norton (Spokes­person), F Pauss, A Placci, J P Porte, E Radermacher, CRubbia (Spokesperson), D Samyn, D Schinzel, V Vuillemin, I Wingerter
  HARVARD U -- G Bauer, E Buckley, S Geer, C Jessup, J Kroll, S Pavlon, J Rohlf, A Schwartz
  HELSINKI U -- V Karimaki, R Kinnunen, T Oksakivi, E Pietarinen, M Pimia, J­TuominiemiKIEL U -- O C Allkofer, H G Boerst, H Bohn, D Dau, R Leuchs, S Levergrun, DOhlendorf, M Preischel
  IMPERIAL COLL -- T Bacon, E Clayton, A Khan, C Markou, S McMahon, C Seez, ISiotis, L Taylor, T S Virdee, A Wildish
  QUEEN MARY COLL -- R Batley, P Biddulph, D Clarke, E Eisenhandler, I Fensome,P Kalmus, M Landon, D Robinson, W Von Schlippe, G Thompson, C Topping
  MADRID, JEN -- F Diez-Hedo, I Josa, M Marquina, T Rodrigo, J Salicio, ETorrenteMIT -- T Fuess, J P Revol, P Sphicas, K C T O Sumorok, S Tether, X Wu
  PADUA U -- A Bettini, A Braggiotti, G Busetto, S Calvani, A Canner, P Casoli,S Centro, R Conte, M De Giorgi, A Meneguzzo, M Nicoletto, R Pavanello, P Rossi, P Zatti, Y Zolnir­owski, P L Zotto
  COLLEGE DE FRANCE -- B Andrieu, L Dobrzynski, G Fontaine, C Ghesquiere, Y Giraud-Heraud, D Kryn, D Marchand, J-P Mendiburu, P Nedelec, G Sajot, J Vrana
  UC, RIVERSIDE -- M Ikeda, D Joyce, A Kernan, M Lindgren, J P Merlo, K Morgan,I Sheer, D Smith
  ROME U -- C Bacci, R Bonino, V Cecconi, F Ceradini, G Ciapetti, M Moricca, ANisati, E Petrolo, G Piano-Mortari, G Salvini, M Torelli, A Tusi, SVeneziano, C Zacardelli, L Zanello
  RUTHERFORD -- M Albrow, R Apsimon, J Coughlan, P Flynn, V O'Dell, T Shah
  SACLAY -- J P De Brion, C Cochet, P Colas, D Denegri, C Stubenrauch, N Zaganidis
  VICTORIA U -- A Astbury, S Beingessner, M Keeler, R Keeler