Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 17
2
Defining Nuclear and
Radiochemistry Expertise
The task of the committee was to examine demand for nuclear and
radiochemistry expertise in the United States compared with the produc-
tion (supply) of experts and to evaluate approaches for ensuring adequate
availability of such expertise, including necessary science and technology
training platforms for the next 20 years.1 In this chapter, the committee de-
scribes characteristics of nuclear chemistry and radiochemistry experts and
how they have changed over time, assesses the level of research activity
in nuclear and radiochemistry (indicating the health of the discipline for
attracting students), and assesses supply and demand for expertise in this
area. Detailed analyses in the areas of academic research, nuclear medicine,
energy, environmental management, and security are provided in Chapters
4 through 7, respectively.
As pointed out in Chapter 1, because nuclear and radiochemistry is not
a single distinct occupational category, area of certification, or disciplinary
field, the lack of readily or consistently identifiable data presented chal-
lenges to analysis. The committee explains its thought process and methods
to overcome these challenges in meeting its charge.
CHARACTERISTICS OF NUCLEAR AND RADIOCHEMISTRY EXPERTS
Fundamentally, nuclear and radiochemists are chemists who hold one
or more degrees in chemistry and have taken additional specialized courses
and conducted laboratory work in nuclear and radiochemistry, including
the study of radioactive nuclei, nuclear processes, and nuclear applica-
tions in which chemical behavior is important. Their research interests
reflect the breadth of the discipline’s applications—from nuclear energy
to medical imaging, environmental chemistry, and nuclear security. They
typically work in an organization’s chemistry department or division. Many
The committee’s complete Statement of Task is in Appendix A.
1
17
OCR for page 18
18 ASSURING A FUTURE U.S.-BASED NUCLEAR AND RADIOCHEMISTRY EXPERTISE
individuals who self-identify as nuclear and radiochemists are members of
the American Chemical Society’s (ACS’s) Division of Nuclear Chemistry and
Technology (DNCT), which is one of the 33 ACS specialty divisions. The
committee considers this group to best represent, albeit not perfectly, the
core of nuclear and radiochemistry experts.
Demographic and Publication Data
Demographic data for the DNCT membership provide some insights
about the characteristics of nuclear and radiochemists and where they work.
As of November 30, 2011, the DNCT (a.k.a. NUCL) had 1,015 members,
mostly in the United States, about one quarter of whom are graduate and
undergraduate students. Of the 78 percent of members who provided em-
ployment information, nearly half are in academic institutions, with the
other half split between the government and the private sector (Kinard ACS,
personal communication, February 22, 2011). ACS membership totals more
than 164,000.
To get a sense of the professional affiliations of nuclear and radiochem-
ists, the committee analyzed the e-mail addresses of U.S.-based authors of
papers in three journals devoted to nuclear and radiochemistry research
for 2006-2010 (Table 2-1). A significant fraction of articles in the journals
were by government authors, especially for the Journal of Radioanalytical
and Nuclear Chemistry.
Educational Background
The committee obtained educational information about nuclear and
radiochemists from the DNCT website, which has in recent years served as
a hub for tracking active nuclear and radiochemistry graduate programs as
well as graduates of the Nuclear Chemistry Summer Schools. Starting from a
list of 49 U.S. faculty member names last updated in 2008 (ACS 2008), the
committee determined the thesis year and subject category for each faculty
member using the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (PQDT) database.2
The committee then identified 242 advisees of those faculty members, also
using PQDT, and determined the subject term for each thesis. The com-
mittee considers the advisees of the 49 faculty members to be nuclear and
radiochemists given that the advisees would have likely taken advanced
coursework and conducted research in nuclear and radiochemistry during
their graduate careers.
See Table E-1 in Appendix E for a full list of faculty names, institutions, and thesis terms.
2
OCR for page 19
19
DEFINING NUCLEAR AND RADIOCHEMISTRY EXPERTISE
TABLE 2-1 U.S. Share of Articles in Three Nuclear and Radiochemistry–Related Journals,
2006–2010
E-mail address ending of
corresponding author
Total
number of Total U.S.
articles articles .gov .edu .com Other*
Radiochimica Acta 567 74 28 28 2 16
Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 2,294 393 198 114 39 42
Radiation Measurements 1,539 181 29 55 25 72
* includes: .org, .net, and others.
SOURCE: Committee-generated search of Web of Science database (Thomson Reuters).
TABLE 2-2 Count of Published Theses of U.S. Nuclear and Radiochemistry
Faculty Advisors and their Advisees According to Subject Terms Identified
through the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database
Thesis Subject Term Advisors Advisees
With nuclear chemistry and other subject term(s) 7 87
Nuclear chemistry only 21 31
Without nuclear chemistry 21 111
TOTAL 49 229
SOURCE: Committee-generated table from data obtained through the ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database. For more information, see Table E-1.
A comparison of the subject terms on the published theses of both advi-
sors and advisees is shown in Table 2-2. What stands out in these data is
that many of the advisors listed research areas and thesis subjects other than
nuclear chemistry on their theses, as did their advisees, and the proportions
for each group are quite different: nuclear chemistry was chosen much less
often by the advisees. From these data, the committee concluded that the
self-identification of nuclear and radiochemists varies and has changed over
time, and that simply following the numbers of nuclear chemistry Ph.D.s
reported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Survey of Earned Doc-
torates (SED) through 2003 provides an incomplete picture of the numbers
of experts in this subfield of chemistry.
Both the SED and PQDT data thus likely present an undercount of avail-
able nuclear experts in the field because Ph.D. researchers come from a
wide range of backgrounds and do not always label their work as “nuclear
chemistry.” For example, two committee members, Carolyn Anderson and
Sue Clark, were identified in the DNCT faculty list (Appendix E; ACS 2008).
Both are academic faculty members in nuclear and radiochemistry, but they
have contrasting thesis subject terms: Anderson chose chemistry, analytical
OCR for page 20
20 ASSURING A FUTURE U.S.-BASED NUCLEAR AND RADIOCHEMISTRY EXPERTISE
chemistry, and nuclear chemistry, while Clark chose chemistry and envi-
ronmental science—thus, Clark (and presumably her advisees) would not
be among the theses counted by a “nuclear chemistry” subject term search.
Nevertheless, the committee determined that a keyword search of “nuclear
chemistry” in the PQDT database provides at least a baseline measure of the
number of new Ph.D.s each year since 2003 to compare with the SED data.3
Once the committee performed its keyword search of the PQDT data-
base for nuclear chemistry it compared the results to the number of Ph.D.
degrees conferred in the field of nuclear chemistry according to the SED4
(although in 2004 nuclear chemistry was eliminated as a subfield in SED
because of the low number of degrees reported in prior years, as discussed
in Chapter 1; NSF 2010). A graph of SED and PQDT data since 1970 is
shown in Figure 2-1. The committee chose to look back to 1970 because the
number of nuclear chemistry Ph.D.s peaked in 1971 according to the SED.
The SED and PQDT series show similar patterns, generally declining
from 1970 to 2000. However, there is a divergence between the two start-
ing in the 1980s. One reason for this divergence is the difference between
how the field of study in the PQDT and SED databases can be searched and
how nuclear and radiochemists self-report their degree specialties. Specifi-
cally, while both PQDT and SED allow respondents to choose primary and
secondary subjects for their field of study, only PQDT enables a search of
all thesis subject terms collected (i.e., searches do not distinguish between
primary and secondary field of study). Thus, the PDQT data include theses
with nuclear chemistry as either a primary or secondary subject, whereas the
SED data provide only a count of nuclear chemistry as the primary subject.
Moreover, as illustrated by the data in Table 2-2, students appear to be
taking greater advantage of the opportunity to report more than one field of
study in the PQDT form, which may help to explain the growing discrepancy
between the PQDT and SED. For 2005–2010, when the SED no longer re-
ported nuclear chemistry as a subfield, the PQDT shows a large increase in
the number of Ph.D.s (Figure 2-1): by 2010, there were five times as many
nuclear chemistry theses as there were nuclear chemistry degrees in 2003
(when the SED last reported such degrees).
The thesis submission form asks the author to choose a primary subject category, with the
3
option of suggesting two additional categories. Nuclear chemistry (code 0738) is listed under
mathematical and physical sciences. For more information see ProQuest (2011).
The SED is a record of the number of Ph.D.s in scientific and other specialties in the United
4
States based on graduates self-reporting their field and subfield of study. It is administered an-
nually to all Ph.D. degree recipients from U.S. institutions of higher education. It is conducted
by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC 2011) and sponsored by the NSF and five
other federal agencies; results are made available on the NSF website (www.nsf.gov/statistics/
srvydoctorates/) [accessed June 30, 2012].
OCR for page 21
21
DEFINING NUCLEAR AND RADIOCHEMISTRY EXPERTISE
45
SED Ph.D. Degrees
40
PQDT Ph.D. Theses
35
30
25
Count
20
15
10
5
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
FIGURE 2-1 U.S.-granted Ph.D. degrees and dissertations in nuclear chemistry by year,
1970-2010, based on the National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates
(SED) and the ProQuest Dissertation and Theses (PQDT) database. SED data (black
2-1.eps
squares) are based on selection of the term “nuclear chemistry” as the subfield of study
on the questionnaire that was given to Ph.D. recipients for that year. PQDT data (red
circles) are based on selection of the term “nuclear chemistry” as the subject area on
the dissertation publication submission form.
SOURCE: NSF 2010; ProQuest 2011.
A similar recent growth in numbers of degrees has also been noted for
nuclear engineering, based on a survey conducted by Oak Ridge Institute
for Science and Education (Service 2011). Figure 2-2 shows the numbers of
Ph.D. degrees in nuclear engineering generally declining since 1970, but
with a significant increase since 2006.
Another characteristic important for nuclear chemistry and radiochem-
istry expertise is citizenship, due to the secure nature of much of the work
in this field. Indeed, about 70 to 80 percent of nuclear chemistry Ph.D.
degrees have been awarded to U.S. citizens,5 in contrast to chemistry as a
whole, in which 50 percent of Ph.D. degrees went to U.S. citizens in 2006
Calculated from the restricted use version of the NSF Survey of Earned Doctorates. The
5
use of NSF data does not imply NSF endorsement of the research methods or conclusions
contained in this report.
OCR for page 22
22 ASSURING A FUTURE U.S.-BASED NUCLEAR AND RADIOCHEMISTRY EXPERTISE
200
Number of Nuclear Engineering Ph.D. Degrees Awarded
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2000
2006
2004
2008
2002
1990
1996
1980
1984
1986
1988
1998
1994
1982
1992
1972
1978
1970
2010
1976
1974
Year
2-2.eps
FIGURE 2-2 Trend in nuclear engineering Ph.D. degrees, 1970-2010.
NOTE: Includes programs with nuclear engineering majors and option programs in
nuclear engineering equivalent to a major.
SOURCE: Jane Price, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Nuclear Engineering
Academic Programs, personal communication, October 2011. (Also see Service 2011.)
(down from 85 percent in 1968; NSF 2011). Thus, drawing nuclear chem-
istry and radiochemistry expertise from the larger pool of chemistry degree
recipients is challenged by the declining number of U.S. citizens earning
Ph.D.s in chemistry.
RESEARCH ACTIVITY OF NUCLEAR AND RADIOCHEMISTS
Another measure of available expertise in nuclear and radiochemistry
is the type of research activity, determined by keywords, reported in jour-
nals. The committee used the Web of Science database to search articles
in scientific journals6 in order to determine both the number of articles in
the field of nuclear and radiochemistry and the number of articles with an
author located in the United States. The search was based on the keywords
uranium, plutonium, technetium, fluorine-18 (used in PET imaging), and tho-
rium, which were chosen to capture a sample of nuclear chemistry research
across application areas. The committee acknowledges that the search does
The committee used Web of Science rather than other search engines such as Scopus be-
6
cause Web of Science identifies country of author.
OCR for page 23
23
DEFINING NUCLEAR AND RADIOCHEMISTRY EXPERTISE
not provide a comprehensive analysis of nuclear chemistry research and
likely represents an undercount of the number of publications in this field.
Figure 2-3 shows that the number of articles by authors in the United
States generally rose from the 1990s through 2010, whereas Figure 2-4
shows that the share of articles from U.S. authors for these keywords has
gradually decreased since the early 1970s. However, this trend has been
noted recently for U.S. articles in all science and engineering fields (Table
2-3) (NSB 2010, Tables 5-25, all S&E, and 5-29, chemistry), suggesting that
the decreasing share of U.S. articles is not an indication that the United
States is falling behind but rather that other countries are catching up.
The generally rising number of articles since the 1980s indicates that the
field of nuclear chemistry remains active and expertise is available, despite
decreases in the number of faculty and students during this same time period
(Figure 2-1). The discussions and data in Chapters 3–7 show that researchers
are pursuing many exciting topics in nuclear and radiochemistry.
600
Uranium
Plutonium
500
Technetium
Number of U.S. Authored
Thorium
400
Fluorine or (18)F
-18
300
200
100
0
2000
2006
2004
2008
2002
1990
1996
1980
1984
1986
1988
1998
1994
1982
1992
1972
1978
2010
1970
1976
1974
Publication Year
FIGURE 2-3 Number of U.S.-authored papers for selected nuclear and radiochemistry–
related keywords, 1970-2010.
2-3.eps
SOURCE: Web of Science keyword search, http://apps.webofknowledge.com, Septem-
ber 2011.
OCR for page 24
24 ASSURING A FUTURE U.S.-BASED NUCLEAR AND RADIOCHEMISTRY EXPERTISE
80% Uranium
Plutonium
70% Technetium
Thorium
60% Fluorine-18 or (18)F
% U.S. Authorship
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2000
2006
2004
2008
2002
1990
1996
1980
1984
1986
1988
1998
1994
1992
1982
1972
1978
2010
1970
1976
1974
Publication Year
FIGURE 2-4 Percentage of U.S.-authored papers out of the total number of papers for
selected keywords, 1970-2010.
2-4.eps
SOURCE: Web of Science keyword search, http://apps.webofknowledge.com, Septem-
ber 2011.
TABLE 2-3 U.S.-Authored Articles for All Keyword Searches Related to Science and
Engineering, Chemistry, and Nuclear and Radiochemistry
1995 2009
Total U.S.- % U.S.- Total U.S.- % U.S.-
Articles Authored Authored Articles Authored authored
Subject areas
All science and engineering 564,645 193,337 34% 788,347 208,600 26%
Chemistry 68,319 14,738 22% 102,825 16,430 16%
Nuclear and radiochemistry–relevant keywords
Uranium 936 252 27% 1,717 485 28%
Plutonium 250 74 30% 432 160 37%
Technetium 628 245 39% 422 103 24%
Fluorine-18 184 88 48% 785 231 29%
Thorium 264 60 23% 332 69 21%
SOURCES: Subject areas: NSB 2012, Appendix Tables 5-27 (all S&E) and 5-31 (chemistry); keyword search of Thomson
Reuters Web of Science, 2011; same as shown in Figures 2-3 and 2-4.
OCR for page 25
25
DEFINING NUCLEAR AND RADIOCHEMISTRY EXPERTISE
FUTURE SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR NUCLEAR
AND RADIOCHEMISTRY EXPERTISE
There are many uncertainties about what the demand will be for ex-
pertise in nuclear chemistry and radiochemistry over the next 20 years.
For example, the areas of medicine and energy are driven significantly by
commercial interests (as will be discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 respectively),
while security and environmental management are driven more by govern-
ment interests (Chapters 6 and 7, respectively).
As this committee was forming, there was a lot of discussion in the
press about a possible nuclear renaissance that would expand development
and use of nuclear energy around the world, which would in turn mean
an increase in the need for skilled workers (many with nuclear chemistry
and radiochemistry expertise). However, just days before the committee
held its first meeting (March 16-17, 2011), the earthquake and tsunami hit
Japan, severely damaging the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and
surrounding areas and pretty much eliminating any plans for a nuclear re-
naissance in the United States in the near future. In the chapters that follow,
the committee considers such scenarios and how they might affect future
needs for nuclear chemistry and radiochemistry expertise.
Reports indicate that a sizable percentage of the nation’s experts in nu-
clear and radiochemistry at national laboratories and universities is nearing
retirement (APS 2008, 2010; DSB 2008; Graham et al. 2008; Stimson 2009).
For example, data collected from national laboratories by this committee
(see Appendix F for description) show that there are currently about 1,000
career employees with nuclear and radiochemistry related skills, about 10%
of whom are at or nearing retirement age (60+ years), and more than half
of these have a Ph.D. (Figure 2-5).7 The projected demand for Ph.D.-level
nuclear and radiochemistry experts (i.e., those with nuclear and radiochem-
istry degrees and those in jobs that involve nuclear and radiochemistry) at
the national laboratories is estimated to be about 228 over the next 5 years
(Table 2-4)8—almost 50 percent of the current total of Ph.D.’s.
In addition to needs at the national laboratories, another key factor that
drives the demand for Ph.D.-level expertise—but is difficult to forecast—is
research funding by the federal government, which translates into positions
Based on compilation of data obtained through personal communication from nine national
7
laboratories: Argonne, Brookhaven, Idaho, Lawrence Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore, Los Ala-
mos, Oak Ridge, Pacific Northwest, and Savannah River.
Based on compilation of data obtained through personal communication from seven na-
8
tional laboratories: Brookhaven, Idaho, Los Alamos, Pacific Northwest, Lawrence Livermore,
Oak Ridge, Pacific Northwest, and Savannah River.
OCR for page 26
26 ASSURING A FUTURE U.S.-BASED NUCLEAR AND RADIOCHEMISTRY EXPERTISE
350
Number of Career Employees with Nuclear and Radiochemistry
Ph.D.
300
M.A./M.S.
250 B.A./B.S.
150
156
A.A./A.S.
Related Skills
200
118 Other/ DNS
150 42
58
49
100 58
70
40
19
52
50
18 15
17
48
9
35 7
19 9
0
25-39 40-49 50-59 60+
Age Cohort
FIGURE 2-5 Estimated current number of national laboratory career employees with nuclear and radio-
2-5new.eps
chemistry–related skills according to degree.
NOTE: It is possible that the numbers presented here include a number of workers more closely related
with fields other than nuclear and radiochemistry (e.g., nuclear physics and nuclear engineering).
SOURCE: Committee’s compilation of data from nine national laboratories: Argonne, Brookhaven, Idaho,
Lawrence Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Pacific Northwest, and Savannah River.
in government laboratories and at universities, including the training of
new Ph.D.s and postdocs. One significant source of basic research funding
specifically for nuclear and radiochemistry is the Heavy Element Chemistry
program in DOE’s Office of Science, which has a favorable outlook in the
near term (Table 2-5). DOE funding is also provided by the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) and the Biological and Environmental Re-
search, Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Physics, and Environmental Management
program offices.
In addition, the Department of Homeland Security, National Institutes
of Health, and National Science Foundation provide funding for nuclear
and radiochemistry research. However, it is difficult to determine funding
OCR for page 27
27
DEFINING NUCLEAR AND RADIOCHEMISTRY EXPERTISE
TABLE 2-4 Projected Demand for Nuclear and Radiochemistry Expertise at
National Laboratories
O ther/ DNS A.A./A.S. B.A./B.S. M.A./M.S. Ph.D.
1 year 3 3 12 7 35
2-5 years 32 17 58 52 193
Total 35 20 70 59 228
NOTES: Numbers based on projected terminations that will need to be replaced. It is possible that
these numbers include a number of workers more closely related with fields other than nuclear
and radiochemistry (e.g., nuclear physics and nuclear engineering).
SOURCE: Committee’s compilation of data obtained through personal communication from seven
national laboratories: Brookhaven, Idaho, Lawrence Berkeley, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Pacific North-
west, and Savannah River. See Appendix F for details.
TABLE 2-5 Funding Provided by the Heavy Element Chemistry Program in
the Department of Energy’s Office of Science (thousands of dollars)
FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009a FY 2010b FY 2011c
$10,506 $9,421 $9,427 $9,002 $11,033 $12,152 $15,107
Omnibus.
a
Appropriations.
b
Continuing Resolution.
c
SOURCE: Philip Wilk, DOE, personal communication, November 4, 2011.
levels specific to nuclear and radiochemistry in the budgets for the other
programs and agencies. A detailed listing of funding programs is discussed
in Chapter 9.
FINDINGS
The identity of nuclear and radiochemistry experts varies and has
changed over the past 20 years, as indicated by the committee’s survey
of published thesis subject areas, the subjects of journal publications (as
assessed by keywords), and the age and sector demographics of member-
ship in the DNCT. They may identify their expertise as environmental sci-
ence, analytical chemistry, medicine, or other areas rather than nuclear and
radiochemistry.
As discussed in this chapter, the number of nuclear chemistry–related
Ph.D.s theses has stabilized or increased slightly since 2004, as is also true
of the related discipline of nuclear engineering. This trend may be the result
of federal investments in both research and education in recent years (see
Chapter 9). However, it is not clear that an adequate supply of nuclear and
OCR for page 28
28 ASSURING A FUTURE U.S.-BASED NUCLEAR AND RADIOCHEMISTRY EXPERTISE
radiochemistry experts will be maintained given increased demand (e.g.,
in sectors such as nuclear medicine and nuclear energy), possible shifts in
public acceptance of nuclear energy, and the uncertainty that current fund-
ing levels will continue. Further, the diversity in educational backgrounds
of nuclear and radiochemists, where and when they receive their training,
and changes in how they identify their scientific specialties all make the
accurate tracking of supply very challenging.
The next chapters explore the different subareas that require nuclear
and radiochemistry expertise, and a summary of supply and demand data
is presented in Chapter 8.
REFERENCES
ACS (American Chemical Society). 2008. Universities Offering M.S. and Ph.D. Programs in
Nuclear and Radiochemistry. American Chemical Society, Division of Nuclear Chemistry
and Technology [online]. Available: http://spinner.cofc.edu/~nuclear/ACS%20NUCL%20
and%20RADIOCHEM%20EDU%20US%20and%20CAN%20List11-12-08.pdf [accessed
September 7, 2011].
APS (American Physical Society). 2008. Readiness of the U.S. Nuclear Workforce for 21st Cen-
tury Challenges. A Report from the APS Panel on Public Affairs Committee on Energy and
Environment. Washington [online]. Available: www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/
upload/Nuclear-Readiness-Report-FINAL-2.pdf [accessed October 18, 2011].
APS. 2010. Technical Steps to Support Nuclear Arsenal Downsizing. Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Physical Society [online]. Available: www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/upload/
nucleardownsizing.PDF [accessed October 19, 2011].
DSB (Defense Science Board). 2008. Report of the Defense Science Board Task on Nuclear De-
fense Skill. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Lo-
gistics, Washington, DC [online]. Available: www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA487983.
pdf [accessed October 18, 2011].
Graham, B., J. Talent, G. Allison, R. Cleveland, S. Rademaker, T. Roemer, W. Sherman, H.
Sokolski, and R. Verma. 2008. World at Risk: The Report of the Commission on the Pre-
vention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, New York: Vintage
Books.
NORC (National Opinion Research Center). 2011. Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED). NORC
at University of Chicago [online]. Available: www.norc.org/Research/Projects/Pages/
survey-of-earned-doctorates-(sed).aspx [accessed November 28, 2011].
NSB (National Science Board). 2010. Science and Engineering Indicators: 2010: Appendix
Table. NSB 10-01. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation [online]. Available: www.
nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdf/at.pdf [accessed November 28, 2011].
NSB. 2012. Science and Engineering Indicators: 2012: Appendix Table. NSB 12-01A. Arling-
ton, VA: National Science Foundation [online]. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/
seind12/pdf/at.pdf [accessed March 6, 2012].
NSF (National Science Foundation. 2010. Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities: Data
Table: 1999-2009. NSF 11-306. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation [online].
Available: www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf11306/data_table.cfm [accessed November 28,
2011].
OCR for page 29
29
DEFINING NUCLEAR AND RADIOCHEMISTRY EXPERTISE
NSF. 2011. Survey of Earned Doctorates, WebCASPAR Database [online] Year: All values;
Citizenship (survey-specific): All values; Academic Discipline, Detailed (standardized):
Chemistry; Number of Doctorate Recipients by Doctorate Institution (Sum); Citizenship
(survey-specific). Available: https://webcaspar.nsf.gov/ [accessed November 1, 2011].
ProQuest. 2011. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database [online]. Available: www.
proquest.com/en-US/catalogs/databases/detail/pqdt.shtml [accessed September 28, 2011].
Service, R. F. 2011. A field back in vogue. Science 331(5015):279.
Stimson (The Henry L. Stimson Center). 2009. Leveraging Science for Security: A Strategy for
the Nuclear Weapons Laboratories in the 21st Century. Washington [online]. Available:
www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/Leveraging_Science_for_Security_FINAL.
pdf [accessed October 19, 2011].
OCR for page 30
