Stephen McGuire

Notice: We are in the process of migrating Oral History Interview metadata to this new version of our website.

During this migration, the following fields associated with interviews may be incomplete: Institutions, Additional Persons, and Subjects. Our Browse Subjects feature is also affected by this migration.

We encourage researchers to utilize the full-text search on this page to navigate our oral histories or to use our catalog to locate oral history interviews by keyword.

Please contact [email protected] with any feedback.

ORAL HISTORIES

Credit: Southern University Department of Physics

Interviewed by

David Zierler

Interview date

July 3, 2020

Location

video conference

See catalog record for this interview.

Usage Information and Disclaimer

Disclaimer text

This transcript may not be quoted, reproduced or redistributed in whole or in part by any means except with the written permission of the American Institute of Physics.

This transcript is based on a tape-recorded interview deposited at the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics. The AIP's interviews have generally been transcribed from tape, edited by the interviewer for clarity, and then further edited by the interviewee. If this interview is important to you, you should consult earlier versions of the transcript or listen to the original tape. For many interviews, the AIP retains substantial files with further information about the interviewee and the interview itself. Please contact us for information about accessing these materials.

Please bear in mind that: 1) This material is a transcript of the spoken word rather than a literary product; 2) An interview must be read with the awareness that different people's memories about an event will often differ, and that memories can change with time for many reasons including subsequent experiences, interactions with others, and one's feelings about an event. Disclaimer: This transcript was scanned from a typescript, introducing occasional spelling errors. The original typescript is available.

Preferred citation

In footnotes or endnotes please cite AIP interviews like this:

Interview of David Zierler by Stephen McGuire on July 3, 2020,Niels Bohr Library & Archives, American Institute of Physics,College Park, MD USA,www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/45283

For multiple citations, "AIP" is the preferred abbreviation for the location.

Zierler:

Had you ever been as far north as Rochester before? Was this like a totally new world for you?

McGuire:

Oh, that was—oh my goodness. The people would look at me, and they'd say, "Oh, here comes Steve with his Louisiana winter jacket on." [laughter] "He'll learn." [laughter] So, no. Oh, the first year I was at Rochester they was forty-two inches of snow. [laughter] There was a bit of a culture shock, OK. Weather shock, in any case, it was an interesting change.

You know, your question does raise a good point. And I'll tell you what that point is. We talk about, you know, preparation in terms of the subject matter. But when people, students like me, come from schools like I came from and they go to schools like Rochester or like Cornell or say, Berkeley, there is a culture shock, a different way of thinking both socially and culturally, that those students will encounter. I guess it was just like if those students from those schools came to, say, Southern University during that time, they would see something different, something they had never seen. Going in the other direction, there's a bit of a culture shock that you have to be able to adjust to, also. Because you're now with—whereas before everybody in the classroom came from basically the same social environment. [unclear] and so you understood things, you communicated well, so forth and so on. But now you have to adjust to those changes in expectation as well. And what I found is that that can be a determining factor, that is, how well you adjust to those differences in cultural environments.

And so, in my advice to students, and in my, what's called nowadays mentoring, with them, I make them aware as they see it of the difference in lives there and not to get distracted by it. But again, to learn from it. Build that into your background. Make it a part of your professional preparation. In a way, that's part of it. Not the physics. This field. You're going to have to ultimately interact with people. You're going to have to deal with this environment that you're now a part of. And the environment, say, for example, in physics will be somewhat different from the environment in, say, education and other areas. So you have to learn that culture as you're going along. And it may be a kind of a step function you have to go through, if you go from a school like mine to a school that's very different in terms of how things are viewed, put it that way. That whole value system that you come into. So you don't want that to be a distraction is the point, OK. You want to grow, and you want to benefit from it. You want to strengthen yourself from it. And you can do that, but you have to be prepared for it.

Yes. So Rochester was a bit different. Very interesting city, historically speaking. I found that out there also, as well. So there was a lot of benefit to be gained there from that that you'd simply have to take advantage of and use as a positive thing that you have available to you for your continued growth in that particular environment.

Zierler:

Steve, how did you refine and help define your specialization in physics during your time in Rochester?

McGuire:

How did I define it? I guess in terms of—well, to be honest with you, everywhere I went at Rochester, I was recruited to go join this group or that group. And the first group didn't seem to have much promise in terms of what I would say is productivity. Sometimes you can work in an area which, in the three or four or five years you want to get your PhD, you may not see that you're able to, in fact, accomplish what you want to accomplish in that time period. That is to say, you may have to build apparatus from scratch and get the bugs out and all these other things. And again, being a tinkerer, that was great. I was recruited, however, to join a group at the Nuclear Structure Research Laboratory. And the place was up and running, as it turns out. I mean, they were doing things, getting data, publishing papers, the whole nine yards. And also there was an experimental group there, and that appealed to me as well. So I basically—it was a good experience. I just gravitated to it because of what I saw in terms of potential associated with it.

OK, so you're in the Cold War, also, correct?

Zierler:

Right.

McGuire:

So this is nuclear physics, correct?

Zierler:

Right.

McGuire:

Nuclear physics is at the foundation of the whole… of the arms race, right. So there seemed to be a connection with being able to go there, get experience in that arena, and then be able to, in fact, move into something where you could get employment, you know, stable employment, over time and continue. By that time, I was close to my master's degree, I had a family, a young family, my wife and daughter. So I began to think in practical terms. Considerably, OK, at that particular point in time. You must consider also that universities in United States had invested tremendously in terms of PhD scientists. You're in the Cold War now. And so there was just a bumper crop. I just figured the competition was going to be tough, so I'd better, kind of, optimize my chances at being able to do what I loved but, at the same time, provide for my family insofar as this preparation and graduate school was concerned. So it took on a certain practical aspect to it for me, at that particular time. And there was a lot of interesting—there were a lot of things in nuclear physics, problems that were not understood very well at that particular time. So it provided an environment that, I guess more than anything else, appealed to me.

So I made a decision to go over there and join the Fulbright Group. Harry Fulbright was a Manhattan Project physicist, . He was an experimenter, so he was connected with the Cold War, no question about that. And he knew a lot about what was involved in—not necessarily into weaponry but into nuclear physics applications areas. He was a very practical person. He was an experimentalist. As a physicist, he was quite good at what he did. So he was a good person to learn under, put it that way. And the subject was something that I saw and had a lot of promise at that time. We didn't know where the Cold War was going, in the end. But there would be a need for expert personnel to be able to work in that particular area. So, I mean, my interest as an experimentalist was certainly satisfied in that laboratory. There was just no end to what you could learn there.

OK, so you're going to measure nuclear properties. How do you do that? You have to be able to take the instruments. You have to build the apparatus in all respects, ground up. You have to test it, you have to confirm that it works properly, you have to take the data, have to analyze—and they had the whole picture, right here. So I went that route basically for that reason. Wasn't necessarily the most popular. It was very strongly experimental. You asked me earlier, did I have a preference for theory? Well, one had to do the theory and understand the theory in order to be able to—experimentalists basically test the theory. They compare their data to what the theory predicts, and then you make a decision in terms of which one is actually right, so to speak. If you get a match, that's confirmation. But if you don't, then you have to somehow explain that in terms of what happened in the experiment, or maybe there's something not quite right with the theory, as it turns out.

And if you do the experiment, I'll say correctly, then there's only two possible outcomes, right? One, you confirm the theory. Or two, you disprove the theory. The confirmation is good, and that's a positive outcome. But if you've disproved it, now you've made a discovery. And that basic principle sort of stuck with me, all throughout everything, all throughout my career. I mean, even into LIGO, as it turns out. Tough experiment, incredibly challenging, right? But oh, my goodness. [laughs] Say hello to challenge. So, for me, that was kind of an obvious reaction to this experiment called LIGO. But that approach had been with me for a long time, and there was no bigger challenge, at least as I saw it at the time.

I'm getting off the subject. I didn't mean to get off the subject. But why nuclear physics? The experimentation was part of it. The fact that you had to, in fact, still compare the theory with experiments. I mean, how much growth it could provide. And the possibility for, in fact, getting a stable employment, long term, is the way I saw it. Oh, go ahead. I should let you talk.

Zierler:

No, that's OK. So what was your thesis on, at Rochester?

McGuire:

The thesis at Rochester was an experimental study of the structure of medium mass nuclides, specifically calcium-40 and zinc-62, through the use of the method of direct reaction spectroscopy. These nuclei were produced using the alpha particle transfer reaction, (⁶Li,d), at the Rochester MP Van de Graaff accelerator, the most powerful of its kind at the time. In short, 6Li nuclei having an energy of 28 and 32 million electron volts were shot at the targets with an alpha particle being transferred to the target nucleus and a deuterium (d) particle emitted. A major part of my responsibilities was to fabricate the Ar-36 gas targets and the self-supporting Ni-58 thin films needed to carry out the experiments as well as implementing an upgrade of the spark chamber used to detect the outgoing deuterium (d) particles.

During that time, a major problem was achieving sufficient resolution in the angular and energy spectra of the outgoing deuterium particles to enable identification of the energy, angular momenta and parity of the product nuclei. Our work resulted in the first large-scale demonstration of this reaction as a useful spectroscopic tool for studying the structure of medium mass nuclides. Of importance was how the neutrons and the protons, in fact, were arranged in the nucleus. What were their properties, in terms of their spin, for example. And also, do we have the physics of the interaction—Oh, I should… Let me pause for a moment. So how do you test that? OK, we use the basic idea that we've used in nuclear physics .since the beginning. One, you shoot something that you know at something that you don't know, and then something comes out. And so you analyze what came out, and then you interpret it in terms of what must have been the state, or nature, of your target nucleus at the time of the interaction. So the idea is, there's this business of you had to understand the details of the interaction, and you had to understand that within the context of the properties of whatever came out.

So the experiment that I got involved in was something called lithium-6, d. What is that? You shoot a beam of lithium-6, it's a separated isotope, at, for example, a target of nickel-58. So the idea is you shoot it, and then there's an interaction, and then a deuteron, which is a proton and a neutron bound together, comes out. What that meant was that you, in fact, transferred an alpha particle. Now, when you transferred that alpha particle, you created a nucleus, a product nucleus. Now, the properties of the angular distribution of the deuterons when they come out, which we measured, when they come out of the reaction itself tells us something about the final stage of nickel-58 alpha particle system there. And so, in that way, we learned something about—you start off with a known entity, the ground state of the nickel-58. But then you go to an excited state of the particle nucleus. And so you determine, then, the properties of product nucleus in terms of its structure by looking at the distribution of the deuterons that came out in your experiment. This work was done at the split-pole magnetic spectrograph at the University of Rochester. And my job was to, in fact, understand all of what I just talked about in terms of building the target. I also had to build a detector to properly interpret the pattern of nuclei that came off. In this case, the deuteron particles. And so that was a big challenge to get the resolution that needed. In fact, our experiment was the first one that had sufficient angular resolution that we were able to make specific spin assignments to the final nucleus state.

Because before then nobody else could. I mean, the energy loss of the lithium-6 inside the particle obscured all of that. And so there's two things that had to be done. I need to bring it back to [unclear]. One, you had to make the target thin enough such that you didn't lose much energy when you entered but you got a good interaction. And what that meant was I had to build a target that, indeed, was self- supported. Most of the targets that they used in those experiments were on some kind of substrate. Ah, but now you're losing energy on the way out, OK, so you got scared of the final state. As well, in fact, as the spin of the final state. If you could, in fact, get out of that experiment well-defined. maxima and minima in the deuteron distribution, then you're in a better position to determine not only the energy but also the spin of the final state. And, therefore, the structure of the product nucleus, as it turns out. It's kind of like looking at a diffraction pattern of light. You bounce it off a small object, and you get this diffraction pattern. But it's not quite the same. But the idea is that they're all particles or waves, and so you see this analogy with the experiment. All right, OK. But there were problems like that that existed. And you could learn as much as you wanted, in that particular environment.

Zierler:

Steve, was the plan always to move on for your PhD, or did you consider staying at Rochester for that?

McGuire:

No. I considered staying at Rochester. The idea is this. There was a serious bumper crop of nuclear physicists coming out. [laughs] I remember sitting up nights in the control room at Rochester, and the idea was that even the guys who had been out there would say, "Steve, I don't know about this nuclear physics thing. It's just hard to get a job on it." One of my closest colleagues in those nighttime experiences was a fellow who, I can't remember his name right now, but I think he was the first president of the organization that corresponds to physicists in medicine, medical physics. Orhan Nalcioglu, was his name. He took his nuclear physics and he applied it, now, to biological systems, OK, in medicine. Now, some of that was going on already, back to University of Chicago. But it wasn't organized as a as a society. And there were also additional applications that were possible. Proton therapy is routine nowadays, right, taken for granted, but back in Orhan's day, it wasn't. So he went that route, which was very practical, as it turns out. So that was on my mind. Now, Rochester, of course, is a very, very competitive place. I liked that about it. You could learn as much as you wanted to. But, I suppose, something happened along the way, so to speak. And I'll tell you what that was. OK, I'm still thinking about, you know, my family and getting secure employment, and this kind of thing. So what I did—stick with me, David, OK. [laughs]

Zierler:

I'm here.

McGuire:

I ran across a program that allowed you, at least on paper, to do physics and also prepare yourself in practical areas. It was called applied and engineering physics (A&EP). Just looking at the different advertisements that I came across. There were lots of them, stacks of them. And the program was at a place called Cornell University. I had never heard of applied and engineering physics before. So I read about the program, and I said, this might be something that would help me out in making a determination of what my next step is going to be. So on my own, I just decided, I'm going to go down to Cornell and talk with somebody about this program before I made any decisions about making any changes in my graduate studies. So I got in my car one day, I went down to Cornell, and I went to the department, and I asked to speak to the director. And the director came out, and he graciously sat down and spoke. They listened to me. I told him what I was interested in doing, and he thought, and he said, "Well, look, given your background in nuclear physics, the person that you want to talk to is over in the Ward Laboratory for Nuclear Engineering." And I say, "Who?" He says, "You should talk with Dave Clark." I didn't know who Dave Clark was.

So I thanked him and went over to the laboratory. Went to the receptionist and said, ", I'm visiting the campus today, and what I would like to do is to talk with David Clark." "And who may I say is calling?" I gave her my name and why I was there. So she paged him over the intercom system, I recall, and he picked up. And then she told me, "Look, you have to wait in the lobby." I didn't know where he was or anything like that, so I just took a seat in the lobby and started reading magazines or whatever was there.

Professor David Delano Clark. He was the director of the Ward Laboratory of Nuclear Engineering. PhD in nuclear physics from Berkeley under Owen Chamberlain, postdoc work at Brookhaven. The first faculty member in nuclear science within applied and engineering physics at Cornell University. So he was a senior faculty member. He had a group and an experiment at the laboratory, but he also was the director of the laboratory. Dave built it, along with advice from Hans Bethe. There was another environment there that had this practical aspect. He became my adviser, and he was an excellent adviser.

But then I learned something when I got to Cornell. At some point, you'd have to sit down and get advice in terms of coursework that you'd have to take. And in all my enthusiasm, I sat down with Dave and I said, "OK, what courses now do I have to take in order to be able to proceed in this program?" And he said, "Well, you know, at Cornell, in the graduate school, we have no required courses." I said, "We don't? How does that work?" [laughs] He tells me, "So you have to put together a special committee of three people or so that have expertise in the area that you want to go into, and you let them guide you in terms of the coursework that you have to take as you go along, so as to complete your graduate studies in most effective way." So that turned out to be Dave Clark was my chair. Mark Nelkin was there. And then Vaclav (Val) Kostroun. They were the three. Dave was nuclear, Val was a combination of nuclear and atomic physics, and Nelkin was definitely nuclear engineering. So I was going to get a taste of all in that program, and I did, as it turns out. So I chose my committee and then I proceeded to take classes and do TA-ships or whatever else they wanted me to do in the program. And I joined Dave's group along the way.

So I came to Cornell in 1974 and just rolled up my sleeves and started to work. Now, along the way, between '74 and '78, our second daughter came along. So our first daughter was born in Rochester, the second one was born in Ithaca. So anyways, my family grew, and we all grew in the process. Saundra worked at the university teaching students. Mainly chemistry. That's what she does. So she was able to find professional advancement there, as well. She did a master's degree, a master of arts in teaching, in this case with an emphasis on chemistry. So the whole family grew during that time period, and I certainly did. And by the time I got to the end of it, I began to interview for jobs. And the one that appealed to me the most was at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in Oak Ridge, TN.

Steve, did you think you were going to make a career at Oak Ridge? Were you looking for a change of scenery? How did the opportunity in Alabama come about for you?

McGuire:

Well, in the time I was at Oak Ridge, I had developed, as my own inventory, about a dozen different physics projects that I was interested in working on. But you couldn't work on them at the laboratory. You did what was assigned to you, when it came down to it. And so, it basically was a decision that I made based upon my longstanding interest in doing physics. Why Alabama A&M? I don't know. It was a university. A university that had an interest in growing. It was in an area that had technology and science associated with it, so one should be able to go there, become a faculty member, and develop a research program that you could make available, now, to your students and, in the process, expose them to things that they otherwise might not see, might not know about.

It was, in the sense that, having come from that experience, I knew the difficulties and I knew what the—I'll put it this way. I knew what the potential was. I knew what the possibilities could be. Now, I did a little looking into the history of the school. I always do that before I go [unclear]. There was a possibility there. I saw something that could be done that certainly would be additive to the environment within which these kids were coming into. And hopefully I could be part of that. I could do [unclear]. So there was a possibility there that I didn't see where I was at the time and where I was going there at Oak Ridge. So I decided to take advantage of it. Along the way I had to. It was compelling, in a certain way. It had been put there a long time ago. The drive to do that had been put in me a long time ago, and that was just one mechanism by which it could be played out.

So I took the plunge and made the move there, began to teach classes, of course, and began the process of building a research program, which ultimately led me to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center. You're right next door. You're a government science facility. You have a university, right, that has young people. You're going to need well-trained, experienced people. They're going to need opportunity, in terms of their own professions. There was just, to me, an obvious opportunity there. A tremendous opportunity. But I had to go there to take advantage of it. So I did, and I worked for, let's see, I was there for eight years, I think it was. And we did an enormous amount of work. Many things got done, no question about that.

Zierler:

You mean both on the education side and on the research side?

McGuire:

Sure. No doubt. Whether it was the education, research, or community side, you name it. We accomplished a lot. I listed those things in that narrative that I have there. I mean, and we were recognized, no question about it. One thing I didn't know, in going to Alabama—I just missed it. My focus was just too narrow—was that the state was in the midst of a lawsuit filed by the United States, which charged Alabama with maintaining vestiges of segregation in its higher education system, particularly at the graduate level. So while I was going along—teaching my classes and doing my research with Marshall, which was great, and advising my students—and along with that, I got pulled into that particular effort to make the case for the state of Alabama. And that was an interesting learning experience. Now, Huntsville is different from most of Alabama because of the Marshall Space Flight Center and the fact that there's so much in the way of outside influence there.

Zierler:

It's a little less like Alabama than the rest of Alabama.

McGuire:

I used to tell people, "I can take you fifty miles outside of Huntsville, Alabama and make you think you went back in time fifty years." [laughs] So, in a way, I was shielded from that. I'd have to say, Huntsville was a great place, no question about it, to live and raise a family. By this time, we had a full complement of family, and things were coming along very well. Huntsville itself is a great place, no question about it.

So I ran into that, and I did give testimony. I was called in to give testimony with regard to the capabilities that were at Alabama A&M. It turns out that the state was saying that, you know, "A&M can't do any of this. Why would you even bother with it?" Why, that wasn't true. And I knew it wasn't true. Well, I was called in to testify, down in Birmingham, and I did. And eventually, Alabama did win the lawsuit, in terms of gaining the PhD program in applied physics at Alabama A&M University. I mean, before that, at one time, A&M—I think A&M existed before University of Alabama, Huntsville existed. But the financial support was going across town to build the UAH program up and nothing at A&M. We have students, citizens, who still come to A&M, and they need resources to develop, also. Look, you're systematically biased in terms of your use of taxpayers' dollars to educate the citizenry of the state. So, they lost the lawsuit.

So I got involved in that, and eventually we were successful in getting—there were two things, three things, I would point out. One was that we received permission to develop the PhD program in applied physics. Secondly, we received money to build a new science building, which we put into place. Then there was—well, the program was that a PhD was there. We got the building for the program itself. And there was one other thing. Oh, yes, of course. We put together a lecture series where annually, or as the opportunity presented itself, we would bring to campus a Nobel laureate to, in fact, talk to our students and our faculty and to just stimulate interest and give a higher profile to our programs at A&M. All those three things got put into place, and they all exist to this very day, OK, and they're very active. So we had the program. I don't have statistics at this point in time. I was called back to give a talk at a symposium that was held some time ago, but I got the impression from the symposium that everything is in good health and it's continuing to progress accordingly. So I felt pretty good about that.

Now, the other thing that happened while we were at A&M was that I became the president of the National Society of Black Physicists during that time. And there were a number of things that were happening on the international front, which we supported, that I participated in. There were a number of things. I could keep you in here all day. But I guess over time it became perhaps a little bit much. [laughs] I'll put it that way. In terms of being able to handle all of those things, you know, raise the family and keep the profession going and whatnot. So it was tough. Being able to—there was change going on in the culture of the university only will allow you to move so far so fast, as it turns out. It just became tough. You need resources, as it turns out, to do that. Things are up and running, and I received another, I guess, my second opportunity from Cornell University to come and join the faculty there. And so I decided to take advantage of that with the idea that, gee whiz, faculty members there, they do their research, that's the expectation. They have students. Gee whiz, I should be able to recruit students to a program at Cornell University, students who would benefit from it. And they teach their classes, and they're doing some committee work, which, gee whiz, the burden has to be lighter than what it is here at [unclear]. [laughs] Self-preservation—

Zierler:

Steve, I'm curious—

McGuire:

Go ahead, sure.

Zierler:

Leaving for Cornell is obviously, it's a step up in terms of prestige and the kind of research you'll be able to do. Was it hard, in terms of your sense of loyalty, though, leaving a place like Alabama? In terms of the educational mission, and what you might have to offer students that did not have all the privileges that students at Cornell might have had?

McGuire:

Let me point out that throughout my adult life I have never wavered in my commitment to the well-being of the community that produced me. If anything, my determination has grown over time.

For example, while at Alabama A&M I was able to impact the university environment in various ways. In addition to a rather heavy teaching load as an assistant professor, I broadened and deepened educational and research opportunities for the undergraduate students there. I did so for example by way of my research collaborations with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, and the Department of Energy (DOE) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). Through NASA, I became a member of the Japanese American Collaborative Emulsion Experiment (JACEE) experiment. In 1989 my work with the JACEE-3 experiment, for example, was recognized with NASA’s Technology Utilization Award for the “creative development of a technical innovation”, the result of my work on the analysis and interpretation of secondary particle distributions from high-energy nucleus-nucleus collisions. I should note that students were involved in my research on campus. Further, I provided critical expert testimony in the federal lawsuit: United States v. State of Alabama that led directly to the creation of the Ph.D. program in Applied Physics at AAMU, only the second of its kind at an HBCU (Historically Black College and Universities). Included also in the settlement was the construction of the Howard Foster Science Building, in addition to funding for the upgrades in the physics research and teaching infrastructure at AAMU.

An additional successful outcome of the lawsuit was the creation of the Memorial Annual Nobel Laureate Lecture Series designed to heighten the profile of the university in the local, state and national communities.

Further, I served on the National Organizing Committee of the First Edward Bouchet International Conference on Physics and Technology, held at the International Center for Theoretical Physics (ICTP), Trieste, Italy, June 8-11, 1988. Complementing these achievements was our receiving one of the first National Science Foundation (NSF), Minority Research Center of Excellence (MRCE) Awards, the Minority Center for Nonlinear Optics and Optical Materials, on which I was a co-principal investigator. These are just a few highlights of my experiences at AAMU that served to create the foundation for my career in academia.

Without question, these activities provided significant enhancements to the learning environment within which the students who attended AAMU could grow and develop their talents within their chosen fields.

In choosing to move to Cornell I saw an opportunity to contribute to its academic and research environment while strengthening my professional background and in doing so improve my long-term ability to broaden and deepen the landscape of opportunities for students. And, for certain, there were students at Cornell from varied parts of the US and the world whom I believed could benefit from my own professional experience and commitment to their career development. You might say that my approach to achieving success was always to have science provide the background for carrying out my program of teaching and research and providing sound advice and support to the students for whom I was given responsibility.

So let me be clear in that I never lost my strong commitment to the community that produced me. Thank goodness for my parents and teachers, particularly Mrs. Olympia E. Boucree, who, in fact, stimulated and encouraged me. When you are doing something very different, it’s important to have some respected person from your community come and say, “This is alright. What you are doing is good!” And this kind of encouragement becomes particularly important when you are operating, in a sense, within “unknown waters”. [laughs]

Zierler:

In what ways did that mission fulfill itself at Cornell? What were you able to accomplish at Cornell that you might not have been able to do at Alabama?

McGuire:

As you’ve mentioned, a principal difference between Alabama A&M University (AAMU) and Cornell was that the latter provided access to a well-endowed world-class research environment both on and off campus as well as the prestige of University’s reputation. Further, being an Ivy League institution of higher learning, it was private and possessed a very selective majority student population. ‘Very different from AAMU. Nonetheless, during my time at Cornell I was able to significantly expand my research and teaching capabilities as well as strengthen my reputation through the combination of faculty collaborations, students, campus facilities, and educational programs. Of course, an expectation of the institution is to excel and lead in world-class research. Having access to these resources created even greater opportunities for my own professional growth in addition to providing opportunities for young people to develop far-reaching goals and realize their career potential.

Please keep in mind that access to the next generation of students from the community that produced me was still quite possible and in some instances encouraged through a variety of programs within and outside of Cornell. Further, one could stay in touch, from a broader vantage point, with the opportunities on the educational landscape that were occurring and the challenges they created. Let me note that I served as the faculty advisor to the Cornell Chapter of the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE-CU) which kept me in close contact with the community of minority students within the College of Engineering and beyond.

The challenges and expectations we’re particularly high when you become the first African-American faculty member appointed to the endowed College of Engineering at Cornell. Clearly, for me, it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Thus, after having started my career in academia via AAMU, “I took the plunge” and returned to Ithaca.

As I’ve mentioned, there were new vistas to be explored in both research and teaching. My appointment was in the Engineering College’s Nuclear Science and Engineering (NS&E) Program which was housed within the School of Applied and Engineering Physics (A&EP) so I taught graduate courses in NS&E and undergraduate course in introductory calculus-based physics, the latter being a requirement for the engineering undergraduates. As a result I was assigned offices at both the reactor laboratory and the physics department. Over time I developed research collaborations with faculty and students from both areas.

For example, there was a collaboration with Professor Louis N. Hand of the physics department with whom I worked on energy dissipation sources in synthetic sapphire for potential uses in microwave resonators. Now, just by the very presence of a paramagnetic impurity atom inside of the crystalline matrix its absorption properties can change such that the microwave energy can be converted into waste heat. One practical application was that of rapid detection of unexploded ordnance in abandoned regions of warfare.

Then, with private funding from the General Electric Foundation, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the National Science Foundation-funded Cornell Center for Materials Research (CCMR), I initiated thin film production and characterization studies having applications to radiation effects in micro- and nanoelectronics. This work involved faculty from Physics (L. N. Hand), A&EP (V. O. Kostroun and J. Silcox) and NS&E (David D. Clark). For the most part, the facilities for pursuing these problems existed in various laboratories at Cornell.

Due to the need for intense cold neutron beams for characterizing nickel boride films fabricated at the CCMR (graduate student J. D. Sulcer) I developed a collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) (G. P. Lamaze, L. Mackey, W. May).

With increasing interest by the College in having undergraduates become involved in faculty-led research, I took on the recruitment of students for on-campus summer research (REU) experiences. This was complemented with local and statewide participation in science education outreach programs at the middle and high-school levels. (J. Silcox, D. D. Clark and D. Holcomb). These are just some examples. At a place like Cornell you have available many possibilities in terms of people with whom you can discuss problems and develop possible solutions in a wide variety of areas across fields of study. That’s been the nature of the research environment at Cornell from the very beginning and it is for reasons like that I was attracted to the University from the beginning.

Zierler:

I've heard that.

McGuire:

I should mention that over the years I maintained contact with students within the HBCU community through summer programs at Cornell and involved them in my lab research. Indeed, they came from Louisiana, Alabama and Virginia. I used those experiences to motivate them to think of graduate study if they hadn’t already. One of them Jarvis D. Sulcer, returned to Cornell and did his Ph.D. in Nuclear Science under me.

Through these activities, as well serving as the faculty advisor to the Cornell Chapter of the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE-CU) over a 10-year period, my objectives in returning to Cornell were being satisfied in a manner that built upon the foundation that had been laid at AAMU. Keep in mind that the landscape of opportunities to carry out my work had been significantly broadened through research and other educational mechanisms and professional connections. In doing so the possibilities for impacting the community that produced me had increased significantly. The stage had been set to add administrative work to my experience. I witnessed it. I experienced it. And so I knew that about the place, as it turns out. And, of course, I did a lot of service work, in terms of connecting the Materials Research Society, for example, to minority communities and places like where I came from down in Louisiana, down in New York City. My goodness.

Zierler:

And yet Southern calls, and you're back there after a decade.

McGuire:

[laughs] Well, I'm going to go on, OK. Here we go. Stay with me, OK, David?

Zierler:

You got it.

McGuire:

One of the things that I did while I was at Cornell was to begin the process of integrating my research with the undergraduate experience. During that time recruiting the best undergraduates and keeping them, even at Cornell, had become a very competitive process especially among similar institutions. As such, the university administration decided to expand its emphasis on faculty research, generating funds, producing accolades etc. but also making the research available to the undergraduates who are paying all of this tuition. In short, they want to use forefront research as a recruiting and retention tool. Let me go on the say that this is strictly my interpretation of the situation. How do you, in fact, integrate research into the instructional curriculum? This was not necessarily anything new to Cornell, but in terms of widespread application and expectation that you do that with undergraduates? That was a bit. But to me, it was OK. It was good. So that's what I began to do. I began to collaborate with my faculty mentor, Dave Clark, the laboratory director and program director. And from physics, I collaborated with Donald Holcomb. Don Holcomb, senior physics professor, just an outstanding, more than outstanding, educator. Don had been a two-time department chairman and at least one-time president of the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) amongst many other distinctions. I had the good fortune of working under him while teaching in physics. You might learn a thing or two, doing that. He basically emphasized, to me, this idea of being able to integrate what you did in your research with what you taught in the classroom. So that's what I began to do.

And, ultimately, that led to a paper that we published. I received a notice at some point, that the American Association of Physics Teachers were holding its winter meeting in New Orleans, LA. So I submitted an abstract in the program, and I was going to go down to New Orleans to present this paper. On the way down, on the plane, I began to read the abstract book. As I was reading through the abstracts I came across an abstract that said, in essence, that the National Science Foundation is building an experiment, half of which is in the state of Louisiana, and it's going to place the most stringent tests on Einstein's general theory of relativity to date. And it's in a place called Livingston, Louisiana. I said to myself, "Livingston, Louisiana. Hmmm. That can't be more than an hour away from Southern University." I'm wondering, does anybody at Southern know about this? David, that's the first time I ever heard about this experiment. I'm reading this. So, I say, well, I don't know, but I'm going to go to the talk to learn what this all about. So during the meeting—it was a plenary talk. I went to the talk, and the gentleman got up and spoke about the experiment. Catching waves. He described the experiment in exquisite detail, identifying very clearly what the challenges were. If you were going to see this incredibly small effect, 10-18 m, what problems you'd have to overcome. That's the first step when you begin to design an experiment. That is, what's the required response of your detector? What does it have to be? What are the requirements? So, I was convinced they understood the problems and had accepted the challenge of performing this measurement. At the end of the talk, there were questions of various sorts. But basically, I sat there in the audience startled. I didn't know anything about this experiment. Nothing, Until then.

You were in. It didn't matter.

McGuire:

[laughs] He didn't say no. It was the next morning that in between sessions Rai Weiss showed up out of nowhere, and he said, "Oh, by the way, you were successful in being elected to membership." So I thought to myself, Yahoo. OK, now we can move forward. And moving forward at that point for me meant now I have to take that proposal and put it in the form of a formal NSF proposal to get some funding to get this ball rolling. So I did that. And, eventually, I submitted the proposal entitled “Materials Science, Astronomy and Outreach: A Collaborative of Research and Science Education between Southern University and LIGO” to the National Science Foundation “in support of LIGO”. It took a year to put it together, so I submitted it that fall, in 2000. And in 2001I got the news that we had received funding for the project. But it took a year after having had the membership in the LSC approved, to obtain funding. This was due in part to the many, many approvals that you have to obtain and all the appropriate signatures at my school. It was an involved process. But we got through it, and we indeed were funded for the first time around, for the work that I had proposed to do with LIGO.

It sounds like a long, drawn out thing. But the idea is that, you know, I'm not working at a forefront physics university or a major research institution. So it takes time to put things together, to gather resources, for any reason. So it was a combination of things, to make a long story short, by which I, in fact, landed at Southern University. So didn't mean to drag it out, but there it is. I just basically took the initiative to see if something could be done. So we tried it, and, fortunately, it was successful. And from that point forward, it grew.

Zierler:

Sure.

McGuire:

The collaboration which Southern grew. And now that it was successful, other people, wanted to come onboard.

Zierler:

Steve, can you describe, what did Southern bring to the table? I mean, you have MIT, you have Caltech. What does Southern bring that Caltech and MIT don't have on their own?

McGuire:

Item number one: I introduced an area of expertise that was not being pursued but nonetheless was relevant—it preexisted—to the table. So, to me, this is shared by people in LIGO, you maintain as much of the expertise as you need to solve your problem, even going forward, because you don't know where the next discovery is going to come. So I brought that to the tablea preexisting expertise, in materials science. And there were some things that I learned from talking with people in LIGO, such as using x-rays to determine not only the composition but also the microstructure of the coatings that are used in LIGO. And that work goes on to this day. I'm not actively involved in it as much now. But it was started by studying coatings at the LSU Center for Advanced Microstructures and Devices (CAMD) by me and another of my colleagues at Southern, and I extended it to Stanford, which had enormously more capable facilities at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory (SSRL). There's an entire LIGO group out there right now, and they work in this area routinely. The atomic structure of the films. The sapphire work was started at the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) in the substrate of the proposed material. So my proposal that I submitted to NSF said, we're going to take into account the role of impurities and atomic structure in both the substrate and the coating. So both of those items were considered from the very beginning of my scientific work with LIGO. Now, number two.

Item number two. From the standpoint of diversity, Southern University brought to the table, now, an element of the diversity effort that nobody else had. Caltech, MIT, Stanford, didn't have that. We are an HBCU (Historically Black College and/or University), it turns out, and, as such, we have a longstanding impact, and presence, in the community itself. We are a source of African American students. Now, there is one other thing I will mention to you within that context. If you go back to the original charter for LIGO, in it there was something that I had never seen before. That being the experiment was to put together a science education outreach museum co‑located on the site itself. Now, when I saw that, I thought to myself, "Oh, these folks are really thinking way ahead." Because, I mean, that's usually an afterthought. I've seen it many times. So that museum is supposed to now take that big science and extended it to not just a local community, but the national community, and possibly the international community, in ways that otherwise might take years, if it ever happens. That was an enormous outreach potential that I saw there, within which our students at Southern could play a meaningful role. Indeed, I felt that the project would benefit greatly from this part of the collaboration.

Well, LIGO agreed with this, and the NSF felt that, well, not just the physics department, but how about the whole Southern University campus. And so we became—and I'm jumping over some of the details, but the idea is that a proposal was developed and presented to the NSF where Southern University turned out to be a major player in it to build that Science Education Center with the museum, with the programs, indeed, to reach the communities that otherwise wouldn't even know about this project. So I suggest to you that there were those three things, two of which were on the science side, one of which was on the outreach /diversity side, both of which exist, to some extent, to this day. Southern is still a member of that science education partnership with LIGO centered at the Livingston Observatory. Enormously successful, David. Believe me. From my own personal experience, enormously successful. The success of what we did in Louisiana, within which Southern played a major role, is now being extended to the other observatory. I would say it's those two areas, both. Both the science and the science educational outreach or diversity. Hopefully, I am answering your question.

Zierler:

Absolutely. You know, I'm so glad to hear your perspective on this. I wonder, do you think that this story is understood? Is it appreciated? I mean, the 2017 Nobel Prize comes, and that sort of drowns out so much else. Do you feel like Southern's contributions have been recognized appropriately, more broadly?

McGuire:

I'm working on it, David. [laughs] Stay with me. I think we have work to do. I think more can be done to make that clear, in terms of just what role Southern University played in bringing all of this about to the present state. I think more can be said, more can be appreciated. Not that we haven't had any. Fact of the matter is, one of our graduates who came through a program that we developed for docent training in the museum was in the control room when the first signal hit, back in 2015. That's right. That was William Parker. He graduated from Southern. He was a student who transferred to Southern Baton Rouge from New Orleans as a result of Katrina, and he joined our program within the docent training component of it. He graduated, took a job at Livingston, and became a detector scientist there. And he was working the control room that night when that first signal was received. So it turns out that, from the standpoint of a recent Southern graduate being in at the beginning on this, that was sort of a big story locally, no question about it. But I think there's even more to it than that. I mean, he still works there. I think he's in graduate school right now. In terms of just what has happened to our students who have participated in the summer program at Livingston, the ones who have worked in my laboratory and worked on LIGO-related things, gee whiz. And the list goes on. No question about it.

I should mention to you what I did when we received the NSF grant money, in that I hired students to help me build a laboratory on campus, and to help me do experiments over at the Center for Advanced Microstructures and Devices (CAMD) at LSU because they had the facilities there to do them. Those students have gone on to do wonderful things. Oh, there’s a talk that I give wherein I cite some examples of the students who have worked on this project. I gave one a few years ago, back in 2017, when I knew there was a collection of such things. Would you mind if I would send you just a copy of that?

I continue to run my laboratory up on campus. For example, from time to time, I have to call on people at LIGO to help me with some of the technical issues associated with the operation of my Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) for which I don't have a budget or, you know, half a dozen people or so to assist with the work. I don't even have the space to do all of it. So having a connection with a facility like the LIGO Livingston Observatory is absolutely essential. It's been critical. It's been wonderful. I mean, what can I say? So, yes, I'm a visitor, and I'm glad for it. No doubt about it. The people, the facilities, just the environment itself, it's a huge plus.

Zierler:

Steve, how have the objectives of LIGO changed over the twenty years of your involvement? Has it been consistent? Or, as the experiment developed, have the objectives, or even the promise of what it could achieve, has that been a moving target? Or it's been relatively stable over the past two decades?

McGuire:

It's been very stable. Consistent. Focused. Certainly refined, in terms of the details of how we approach it. But the detection of gravitational waves and their interpretation, insofar as the cosmology of the universe is concerned, that's been a consistent theme throughout. Maybe it expands a little bit. When you have a collision between two neutron stars, for example, rather than two black holes, there's a lot more to the physical interpretation of the collision. You bring in the historical astronomy community via observations of electromagnetic radiations as well as the relativistic nuclear and particle physics communities, in a big way . Further, independent estimates of the Hubble constant are now possible. And it all has as a foundation the ability to see these ripples on spacetime and to interpret correlate this new data with the information that's coming from other areas of astronomy. Something was going on with that comment that I read in the discussion in the book by Ginsburg. But I have the feeling like it's playing out before my eyes right now.

So the short answer is, very consistent. Focused. It's expanded a little bit. Our experimental capabilities have expanded. Of course, the collaborations with other groups are there. I saw that expansion occur as well. The capability of the LIGO instrument itself, the improvement of it is ongoing as I speak to you. That's a moving target. Science is a moving target. We know that. We have to develop a whole body of statistics to be able to reliably, more reliably, say things about our universe. So it's been a tremendous experience.

Zierler:

What do we understand about the universe now because of LIGO?

McGuire:

Oh, yes. Several items come to mind. First and foremost, we now know that gravitational waves, or ripples in the fabric of space-time, exist and that they travel at the speed of light as predicted by Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

Secondly, the waves are produced as a result of the collision of dense, compact objects, in this case, black holes, indicating that black holes actually exist as physically observable entities.

Thirdly, heavy elements such as platinum and gold are produced in collisions of neutron stars. Such collisions had been theorized to occur with the emission of gravitational, particle and electromagnetic radiation, all of which were observed as predicted in the first such event labeled GW170817.

Fourthly, LIGO has enabled independent determinations of the Hubble constant, results from which support the inflationary model of the universe.

Last, but certainly not least, let me emphasize that in observing gravitational radiation LIGO has opened up an entirely new area of astronomy! We can now see heretofore invisible phenomena. Who knows what secrets within our vast universe will be revealed now that we have this new tool at our disposal?!!

Let me also mention that results from LIGO have in part stimulated the first observations of a static black hole via the detection of electromagnetic radiations predicted to occur at its event horizon. Yes, I’m referring to the recent images from observations of the nearby galaxy M87 obtained using the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT), not to mention LIGO’s collaboration with the European Observatory, Virgo, which together have produced a catalog of about 50 events to date.

Going back to the beginning, the challenge for me was always to see the LIGO experiment through placing a final test on the theory. The outcome held the promise of new vistas on the understanding of our universe. For me, there was nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Zierler:

And there were whole departments in physics that didn't even believe in black holes.

McGuire:

Oh, my goodness, David. [laughter] Yes. I encountered all of this skepticism, if not outright negativism, regarding the project when I first came back to Louisiana. In coming to Louisiana in 1999, I remember that there were three, maybe four, impediments that I encountered. First, as you pointed out, “we don't know if gravitational waves even exist. To date, they haven't been conclusively detected by anyone.” Secondly, that's a lot of money you're putting into this experiment. That money would be better spent on something like education where, undeniably, there is a great need. Thirdly, this is a long, continuous baseline, measurement. Why should the government pay for all of these individuals required to operate the observatories? Where is the commitment from the scientists and/or the institutions they represent? How are you going to get a community of young people to buy into a project … that is to say, work on it for a good part of their lives, with no guaranteed positive outcome upon which to build a foundation for their careers? Young people want to obtain PhDs, and get on with their careers.

Lastly, one item for which there was not much discussion at all during that time in 1999, was the fact that there was no mechanism in place to have the big science of LIGO transform K-12 education and beyond in a way that positively impacts science education in the local community, especially the underserved segments of the population.

Most people tend to be concerned about those things that have an immediate impact on their lives. No, I’m not a cosmologist. My focus as an experimentalist is on finding ways to reduce the noise in the LIGO test mass mirror substrates and coatings as part of an ongoing effort to improve the sensitivity of instrument. However, keep in mind that physics, being the broad field of study that it is, affords many opportunities to learn more about the universe in which we live. I saw LIGO as a great avenue for expanding my own understanding of our universe and passing that knowledge on to the next generation.

In the process we could seize the opportunity to bring the basic classical science as well as the new knowledge that LIGO had to offer to the broader spectrum of the society in ways that could generate an excitement to our educators and students about the wonders of our universe. This was a “once-in-a-lifetime” opportunity that simply had to be pursued to its fruition. Yes, your comment reminded me of the above four areas of enormous opportunity, at least as I viewed the situation.

So we know about constituents of the universe. And we know about processes that go on. [unclear] black holes are there. Then you better interpret the events that occur at the event horizon, and that happens. So we [unclear] the whole astronomy community in there to see a static black hole. You know the picture of that. We knew that black holes existed, and so we now know how to better interpret that. Gravitational wave astronomy, astronomy in general, high energy particle astrophysics, we see how that ties in as a result of the measurements that we [unclear]. [unclear] in terms of the measurement of the Hubble constant. We can make estimates of that, which are so far consistent with [unclear]. So, what do we know about the universe? That's the part that I know we have expanded into, and it doesn't address the part that we've expanded into that I don't [unclear]. What I mean is that [unclear] need time to, in fact, come out. No question.

Other than that, perhaps there's additional estimates in terms of the size of galaxies, the way they move, and the population of black holes—well, that's still kind of an iffy, not iffy, but it's uncertain right now. We have to simply develop more statistics in order to get an idea of what the population is like. Kind of an obvious statement, but it's nonetheless something that we have to, that has to be done. I should just say it in that particular way. What else do we know about the universe that we didn't know before? In addition to all of those things—well, I guess we knew it was a wonderful place. We knew about—its feasibility now made us, in fact, look more seriously at something called a space-based interferometer. So this is on the way. That's going to expand our knowledge of the universe even further, as it turns out. And there's, I'm sure, a plethora of other things that are going on. But generally speaking, the scope and the breadth of the phenomena that go on in the universe… Literally, the sky's the limit right now. And we have a tool with which we can go after it. That is the beauty of it, as I see it. I hope I'm answering your questions in some [unclear]. [unclear] very gratifying being a part of that whole process.

Zierler:

Steve, I want to ask, do you see this beautiful collaboration between Southern and LIGO—was it sort of like a serendipitous accident, or do you see this as an opportunity, not as a one-off, but that it sets up Southern for future high-profile, highly prestigious collaborations in other research endeavors?

McGuire:

Going back to the AAPT talk, as I sat in that room and finished listening to that presentation, I immediately envisioned enormous possibilities for Southern and LIGO to benefit from cooperation in research and science education. I'm saying YES to all of the positive things that you just mentioned, and even more. I’m sure that what I envisioned was the outcome of my life’s experiences up to that point. So I really can't say it was serendipity. It wasn't serendipity that I was in that meeting, in that room. Why was I in the room? Well, I had submitted a paper which had been accepted for presentation. I read the abstracts, and I saw something. I went there to see, what was it that I saw. Mark Coles gave the talk. The story was enlarged, at that time, in terms of what I saw. As I commented earlier, sometimes life presents you with compelling arguments, circumstances upon which you must act. All of what you just said were possibilities. The question is, is the will and the resources there for development? So someone has to do it. Did anybody else know about it? ‘Not as far as you could tell. Did anybody else see it this way? Not as far as I could tell. I thought to myself, “OK, McGuire. You've got the job!”

In a nut shell, that's what it came down to, a coming together of the totality of my experiences. So, I never back down from a challenge. Well, what could be gotten from this one? What could be done? To me, it was just too great not to take action. I don't know what's going to happen in the future, but I know what I had to act to help in any way that I can.

And that's what I'm continuing to do in retirement. You know, I mean, we go through phases in life. You've heard about a few of my phases, as it turns out, already. Now, even in retirement, that's a phase where there's things I'm doing now that I could not do before. And, of course, there's a matter of health. If you ask yourself the question, why do you retire, somehow at the bottom [laughs] you want to keep going.

I don't think it was serendipity. I think the preparation was there. I didn't know what preparation was there exactly, I couldn't, you know, spell it out to you. Kind of like, you know, what do we know about the universe that we didn't know before. Well, we know some specific details, but we're going to learn a whole lot more going forward, I could guarantee you. The details I don't know. No one does! The details I didn't know in this particular case. Were there surprises along the way? Yes. Were there obstacles? Challenges, were there new challenges along the way? Sure. No question about it. But you meet those challenges to the extent to which you can. There are resources that you have available to you to, in fact, to meet those challenges. It's in the way of something good.

The idea is the following, and you've got to be careful about this business of difficulties that come up. That difficulty might prepare you for something later on. You have to get through it, and then you will see what you were being prepared for. It will be easier the next time around, or you might even see it in a broader fashion. I don't know. You have to look at that obstacle with the same face as you look at that opportunity. It’s been said that you have to look at failure and success with the same face. Be careful however. They can change on you in a minute, but just be open to that change. And then you keep your focus on what you're trying to do, what you were sent to do, in terms of a particular project.

And there's been no larger project, in terms of my profession, than this one. It's almost as if I was being prepared all my life for this particular task of building the collaboration between Southern and LIGO. Everything fed into what I'm doing right now. That's the way I see it.

So, going forward, I'm not going to change my approach. I'm too old to change that way. That is to say , going forward, there're still measurements that I want to complete and studies that I can do in my laboratory at Southern in conjunction with the support from the superior resources at the Livingston Observatory, no question about that.

Ongoing, are there contributions that you're making so far as having this project become more accessible to the community such that the community will, in fact, benefit from it? Specifically that part of the community which historically has not benefitted from it. Can you do that? Yes, I think I can do that. There's work to be done there, no question about it. And along the way, of course, you take care of your family. Particularly, as we said earlier, the next generation. For sure, they've been a great source of support for me along the way.

One of the things that, and this is digressing just a moment here, I wanted to make sure that my immediate family knew about LIGO. Wife, children, and grandchildren. So every time there was an occasion, I brought them out to LIGO Livingston Observatory, going back to 1999, well before the instrument was up and operating. And I'm talking about my grandkids and my kids. They sort of grew up with LIGO. For example, my granddaughter, she had an internship this summer with NASA, and she called me up and asked whether or not I knew about LISA. There was someone coming to talk to her group of students about LISA. So we had a nice conversation about LISA and its importance to the detection of gravitational waves , and I ended it by saying, "You know, Ruthie, you probably know more about LIGO and gravitational waves than anybody in that room." [laughter] Like, "Oh, yeah, grandpa. You took us to LIGO a bunch."

But I wanted to make sure that they didn't get caught by surprise. This happened, and it was right in their own family.

So, yes, that was one of the things that I did. And they appreciated it, especially now, given all of the initial fanfare and the hoopla that's gone on and the impact that’s being had on the world of science. But those of my family that go into science or engineering or something like that, they will have that perspective with him. And, for me, that's very important to know that. OK, so one part of my family lives in Houston. The other one lives in Berlin. And so whenever they come home, I make a point that we go out to LIGO to check it out. And I've been able to bring members of my family from New Orleans, on occasion, out there as well. It's kind of interesting, in the sense that, you know, I still can find people in New Orleans who don't know about LIGO. For example, say you go to a high school reunion of some sort. And someone asks you what you're doing and I say, "I work with LIGO." "LIGO, what's that?" They haven't heard of it yet. So it's all a teachable moment there. And then they listen, and then the next question is, "How can I go to LIGO? I want to see this place."

And that's been a response that I've gotten over the years. Even when I first came to Louisiana, and I would go to different parts of Louisiana and talk about what I was doing or trying to do at Southern. I would talk about it. People would listen intently. Then at the end were two questions. You mean, this place is in Louisiana? Yes, it's in Louisiana. That's the first question. Second question: how can we get there? We want to see it, too. So they were very much intrigued and interested as such that when we put the LIGO Science Education Center (LIGO SEC) together, got it funded and had a kickoff celebration, it was overbooked with activity. We had to double the staff. The interest in it is humongous. Everything has grown at LIGO. It's been a very, very positive experience. And I'm very thankful, very grateful, for being able to be a part of it. To be able to have, you know, lasted long enough to be a part of it, no question about it. Nobody knows what the future's going to hold. But I think the future is definitely still very, very bright. I thought it was bright in 1998, and I still see the same thing right now, if not more so. Certainly for the state of Louisiana and the world. And we have members of Southern University, students from Southern University, who work out at LIGO nowadays also. So it's been, and continues to be, a very successful experience.

Am I as closely intimate there, as you say, connected with all aspects of it, as I was, perhaps in the beginning? LIGO is very, very big. And so I can't say that I am. And I have sort of retreated to focus on the things that I couldn't work on, of course, when I was working full time, with administration, teaching and service activities, at Southern University.

Zierler:

Steve, I think for the last part of our conversation, on this idea of looking to a brighter future, I want to talk to you a little bit about, you know, we're only about a month or so out from, you know, that remarkable day that we had in physics, you know, Shut Down STEM. A day to recognize how much work remains to be done in the physics community about diversity and inclusion and things like that. And so, I want to ask you a few questions. You know, you've been involved in these issues with the American Physical Society, with the National Society for Black Physicists. I want to ask you first, before, in the beginning of our talk, I asked you about, you know, your parents and if they would be surprised at where things are now in terms of all of these very upsetting things that are happening in our society, ongoing. Are you surprised, personally? If you were to go back to, you know, the 1960s and the 1970s, as you were charting a career in physics for yourself. Obviously, one of the things with Shut Down STEM is that these issues are still present in the physics community. They're still around. Maybe physics has not even been a leader as an element of change, as an agent of change. Are you surprised with all of the progress?

McGuire:

Am I surprised about what I'm seeing?

Zierler:

That's right.

McGuire:

At the end of the discussion, you look for points of overlap between what I said I would like to have and what somebody else said that they would like to see, as well. And you make note of those. You go through that process maybe two or three times until you get to a point where you construct that program to have something in it that is of value to everyone. At the conclusion of the process everybody can leave the room knowing that, you know, this is going to be a positive thing for us. But it takes someone to be able to look at the whole picture, but you've got to know what the picture is first, in terms of what we're trying to do. What is of value to the physics community, going forward? Well, we know what that is. We have an idea what it is. And then you can ask the question of how would that, in fact, manifest itself to this group of individuals that we're trying to bring in. They are a source of talent. So how do we match that talent to what we know? And part of that match involves getting input from them in terms of what's important to the part of the community that they come from or that they serve.

So that's the thing that came to mind when you were saying that. You know, there's something in it—we bring something to the table, and somebody else on the other side brings something to the table. And how do we get to that particular point where we can show that there's a balance or a mutual benefit involved there? That was one activity that I saw in the development of the programs for the LIGO Science Education Center where the NGT was successfully manifested. By the time we were finished, there was something in it for all of the entities that could be positively manifested and could be positively impacted by the presence of this facility. Both the Science Education Center, as well as the experiment itself became intimately involved with Southern. In fact, the scientists were required to spend time giving tours, for example, to people who came to the facilities. So the scientists were involved. Both sides were involved. So there was something in it for everybody, in terms of professional development, I would argue.

That has to happen. The details of which we have to work out. That certainly has to happen, in terms of making this argument with regard to having both parties feel that they're being appreciated and that their work is being valued. I guess that's the better way to put it.

The question is about what people bring to the table, in terms of finding common areas of benefit and of interest. Question. How do you do that? Which part of the community they come from, which part of the professional, the social strata that they come from, I don't know. Take all those things into account, but make sure that, in terms of your overall objectives, everybody has a sense of this is important for me. For whatever their reasons are, and those will come out in the discussion. This is something that—don't tell them what's going to be important. You may be right, you may not. But you tell me what's important to you, and then you structure everything in such a way that you can keep to your basic objectives and principles, but, at the same time, everybody's on board. You know what you're trying to do. You know what your objective is. It's just like being in LIGO. LIGO knows what its objective is. It knows what it wants to do. How do you do it, and how do you involve the right set of people? You've got to make them feel that they are part of it and that they going to benefit. Long-term benefit. Once you do that, it's execute time. You're ready to go.

Zierler:

I'm ready.

McGuire:

[laughs] I can tell you, in my experience with teachers, you'll get those teachers in there, and you show them something that otherwise might be kind of obscure. You show them how they can present that to their students in a way that brings out excitement and generates interest. In all that, they get respect for themselves. They build the relationship between them and their students. Man, you got them. They love it. That's what they do. That's what's important to them. And so once you can do that, then you've got it. As I listen to myself talk, what's very important is that there's two—you can't imagine there's two anymore, but there's two cultures evolved. And one culture has to understand the others or the other. One culture has to know something about the other, and so they're comfortable with it. They have to see the challenge and the benefit. They have to also see the complementarity between what one is doing and what the other one is doing. They have to see the value in the process, not just the outcome. You've got to find out what's the value for each party, and then you go from there. I've just learned that over the years.