A Grand Bargain and its chaotic dissolution

After World War II, under the influence (direct and indirect) of people like Vannevar Bush, a "grand bargain" was effectively struck between the US government and the nation's universities.  The war had demonstrated how important science and engineering research could be, through the Manhattan Project and the development of radar, among other things.  University researchers had effectively and sometimes literally been conscripted into the war effort.  In the postwar period, with more citizens than ever going to college because of the GI Bill, universities went through a period of rapid growth, and the government began funding research at universities on the large scale.  This was a way of accomplishing multiple goals.  This funding got hundreds of scientists and engineers to work on projects that agencies and the academic community itself (through peer review) thought would be important but perhaps were of such long-term or indirect economic impact that industry would be unlikely to support them.  It trained the next generation of researchers and of the technically skilled workforce.  It accomplished this as a complement to national laboratories and direct federal agency work.

After Sputnik, there was an enormous ramp-up of investment.  This figure (see here for an interactive version) shows different contributions to investment in research and development in the US from 1953 through 2021:

Figure from NSF report on US R&D investment 

A couple of days ago, the New York Times published a related figure, showing the growth in dollars of total federal funds sent to US universities, but I think this is a more meaningful graph (hat tip to Prof. Elizabeth Popp Berman at Michigan for her discussion of this).  In 2021, federal investment in research (the large majority of which is happening at universities) as a percentage of GDP was at its lowest level since 1953, and it was sinking further even before this year (for those worried about US competitiveness....  Also, industry does a lot more D than they do long-term R.). There are many studies by economists showing that federal investment in research has a large return (for example, here is one by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas saying that returns to the US economy on federal research expenditures are between 150% and 300%).  Remember, these funds are not just given to universities - they are in the form of grants and contracts, for which specific work is done and reported.   These investments also helped make US higher education the envy of much of the world and led to education of international students as a tremendous effective export business for the country.

Of course, like any system created organically by people, there are problems.  Universities are complicated and full of (ugh) academics.  Higher education is too expensive.  Compliance bureaucracy can be onerous.  Any deliberative process like peer review trades efficiency for collective expertise but also the hazards of group-think.  At the same time, the relationship between federally sponsored research and universities has led to an enormous amount of economic, technological, and medical benefit over the last 70 years.

Right now it looks like this whole apparatus is being radically altered, if not dismantled in part or in whole.  Moreover, this is not happening as a result of a debate or discussion about the proper role and scale of federal spending at universities, or an in-depth look at the flaws and benefits of the historically developed research ecosystem.  It's happening because "elections have consequences", and I'd be willing to bet that very very few people in the electorate cast their votes even secondarily because of this topic.   Sincere people can have differing opinions about these issues, but decisions of such consequence and magnitude should not be taken lightly or incidentally.  

(I am turning off comments on this one b/c I don't have time right now to pay close attention.  Take it as read that some people would comment that US spending must be cut back and that this is a consequence.)

Talk about "The Direct Democracy of Matter"

The Scientia Institute at Rice sponsors series of public lectures annually, centered around a theme.  The intent is to get a wide variety of perspectives spanning across the humanities, social sciences, arts, sciences, and engineering, presented in an accessible way.  The youtube channel with recordings of recent talks is here.

This past year, the theme was "democracy" in its broadest sense.  I was honored to be invited last year to contribute a talk, which I gave this past Tuesday, following a presentation by my CS colleague Rodrigo Ferreira about whether AI has politics.  Below I've embedded the video, with the start time set where I begin (27:00, so you can rewind to see Rodrigo).  

Which (macroscopic) states of matter to we see?  The ones that "win the popular vote" of the microscopic configurations.

US science situation updates and what's on deck

Many things have been happening in and around US science.  This is a non-exhaustive list of recent developments and links:

• There have been very large scale personnel cuts across HHS, FDA, CDC, NIH - see here.  This includes groups like the people who monitor lead in drinking water.  
• There is reporting about the upcoming presidential budget requests about NASA and NOAA.  The requested cuts are very deep.  To quote Eric Berger's article linked above, for the science part of NASA, "Among the proposals were: A two-thirds cut to astrophysics, down to $487 million; a greater than two-thirds cut to heliophysics, down to $455 million; a greater than 50 percent cut to Earth science, down to $1.033 billion; and a 30 percent cut to Planetary science, down to $1.929 billion."  The proposed cuts to NOAA are similarly deep, seeking to end climate study in the agency, as Science puts it. The full presidential budget request, including NSF, DOE, NIST, etc. is still to come.  Remember, Congress in the past has often essentially ignored presidential budget requests.  It is unclear if the will exists to do so now. 
• Speaking of NSF, the graduate research fellowship program award announcements for this year came out this past week.  The agency awarded slightly under half as many of these prestigious 3-year fellowships as in each of the last 15 years.  I can only presume that this is because the agency is deeply concerned about its budgets for the next couple of fiscal years.
• Grants are being frozen at several top private universities - these include Columbia (new cancellations), the University of Pennsylvania (here), Harvard (here), Northwestern and Cornell (here), and Princeton (here).  There are various law suits filed about all of these.  Princeton and Harvard have been borrowing money (issuing bonds) to partly deal with the disruption as litigation continues.  The president of Princeton has been more vocal than many about this.
• There has been a surge in visa revocations and unannounced student status changes in SEVIS for international students in the US.  To say that this is unsettling is an enormous understatement.  See here for a limited discussion.  There seems to be deep reluctance for universities to speak out about this, presumably from the worry that saying the wrong thing will end up placing their international students and scholars at greater exposure.
• On Friday evening, the US Department of Energy put out a "policy flash", stating that indirect cost rates on its grants would be cut immediately to 15%.  This sounds familiar.  Legal challenges are undoubtedly beginning.  
• Added bonus:  According to the Washington Post, DOGE (whatever they say they are this week) is now in control of grants.gov, the website that posts funding opportunities.  As the article says, "Now the responsibility of posting these grant opportunities is poised to rest with DOGE — and if its employees delay those postings or stop them altogether, 'it could effectively shut down federal-grant making,' said one federal official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal operations."  

None of this is good news for the future of science and engineering research in the US.  If you are a US voter and you think that university-based research is important, I encourage you to contact your legislators and make your opinions heard.  

(As I have put in my profile, what I write here are my personal opinions; I am not in any way speaking for my employer.  That should be obvious, but it never hurts to state it explicitly.)

Update:  NSF has "disestablished" the advisory committees associated with its directorates (except the recently created TIP directorate).  Coverage here in Science.   This is not good, and I worry that it bodes ill for large cutbacks.

Update 4/18:  NSF is now terminating active grants, having "updated" their "priorities".  

What is multiferroicity?

(A post summarizing recent US science-related events will be coming later.  For now, here is my promised post about multiferroics, inspired in part by a recent visit to Rice by Yoshi Tokura.)

Electrons carry spins and therefore magnetic moments (that is, they can act in some ways like little bar magnets), and as I was teaching undergrads this past week, under certain conditions some of the electrons in a material can spontaneously develop long-range magnetic order.  That is, rather than being, on average, randomly oriented, instead below some critical temperature the spins take on a pattern that repeats throughout the material.  In the ordered state, if you know the arrangement of spins in one (magnetic) unit cell of the material, that pattern is repeated over many (perhaps all, if the system is a single domain) the unit cells.  In picking out this pattern, the overall symmetry of the material is lowered compared to the non-ordered state.  (There can be local moment magnets, when the electrons with the magnetic moments are localized to particular atoms; there can also be itinerant magnets, when the mobile electrons in a metal take on a net spin polarization.)  The most famous kind of magnetic order is ferromagnetism, when the magnetic moments spontaneously align along a particular direction, often leading to magnetic fields projected out of the material.    Magnetic materials can be metals, semiconductors, or insulators.

In insulators, an additional kind of order is possible, based on electric polarization, \(\mathbf{P}\).  There is subtlety about defining polarization, but for the purposes of this discussion, the question is whether the atoms within each unit cell bond appropriately and are displaced below some critical temperature to create a net electric dipole moment, leading to ferroelectricity.  (Antiferroelectricity is also possible.) Again, the ordered state has lower symmetry than the non-ordered state.  Ferroelectric materials have some interesting applications.  

BiFeO3, a multiferroic antiferromagnet,
image from here.

Multiferroics are materials that have simultaneous magnetic order and electric polarization order.  A good recent review is here.  For applications, obviously it would be convenient if both the magnetic and polarization ordering happened well above room temperature.  There can be deep connections between the magnetic order and the electric polarization - see this paper, and this commentary.   Because of these connections, the low energy excitations of multiferroics can be really complicated, like electromagnons.  Similarly, there can be combined "spin textures" and polarization textures in such materials - see here and here.   Multiferroics raise the possibility of using applied voltages (and hence electric fields) to flip \(\mathbf{P}\), and thus toggle around \(\mathbf{M}\).  This has been proposed as a key enabling capability for information processing devices, as in this approach.  These materials are extremely rich, and it feels like their full potential has not yet been realized.  

Science updates - brief items

Here are a couple of neat papers that I came across in the last week.  (Planning to write something about multiferroics as well, once I have a bit of time.)

• The idea of directly extracting useful energy from the rotation of the earth sounds like something out of an H. G. Wells novel.  At a rough estimate (and it's impressive to me that AI tools are now able to provide a convincing step-by-step calculation of this; I tried w/ gemini.google.com) the rotational kinetic energy of the earth is about \(2.6 \times 10^{29}\) J.  The tricky bit is, how do you get at it?  You might imagine constructing some kind of big space-based pick-up coil and getting some inductive voltage generation as the earth rotates its magnetic field past the coil.  Intuitively, though, it seems like while sitting on the (rotating) earth, you should in some sense be comoving with respect to the local magnetic field, so it shouldn't be possible to do anything clever that way.  It turns out, though, that Lorentz forces still apply when moving a wire through the axially symmetric parts of the earth's field.  This has some conceptual contact with Faraday's dc electric generator.   With the right choice of geometry and materials, it is possible to use such an approach to extract some (tiny at the moment) power.  For the theory proposal, see here.  For an experimental demonstration, using thermoelectric effects as a way to measure this (and confirm that the orientation of the cylindrical shell has the expected effect), see here.  I need to read this more closely to decide if I really understand the nuances of how it works.
• On a completely different note, this paper came out on Friday.  (Full disclosure:  The PI is my former postdoc and the second author was one of my students.)  It's an impressive technical achievement.  We are used to the fact that usually macroscopic objects don't show signatures of quantum interference.  Inelastic interactions of the object with its environment effectively suppress quantum interference effects on some time scale (and therefore some distance scale).  Small molecules are expected to still show electronic quantum effects at room temperature, since they are tiny and their electronic levels are widely spaced, and here is a review of what this could do in electronic measurements.  Quantum interference effects should also be possible in molecular vibrations at room temperature, and they could manifest themselves through the vibrational thermal conduction through single molecules, as considered theoretically here.  This experimental paper does a bridge measurement to compare the thermal transport between a single-molecule-containing junction between a tip and a surface, and an empty (farther spaced) twin tip-surface geometry.  They argue that they see differences between two kinds of molecules that originate from such quantum interference effects.

As for more global issues about the US research climate, there will be more announcements soon about reductions in force and the forthcoming presidential budget request.  (Here is an online petition regarding the plan to shutter the NIST atomic spectroscopy group.)  Please pay attention to these issues, and if you're a US citizen, I urge you to contact your legislators and make your voice heard.  

March Meeting 2025, Day 4 and wrap-up

 I saw a couple of interesting talks this morning before heading out:

• Alessandro Chiesa of Parma spoke about using spin-containing molecules potentially as qubits, and about chiral-induced spin selectivity (CISS) in electron transfer.  Regarding the former, here is a review.  Spin-containing molecules can have interesting properties as single qubits, or, for spins higher than 1/2, qudits, with unpaired electrons often confined to a transition metal or rare earth ion somewhat protected from the rest of the universe by the rest of the molecule.  The result can be very long coherence times for their spins.  Doing multi-qubit operations is very challenging with such building blocks, however.  There are some theory proposals and attempts to couple molecular qubits to superconducting resonators, but it's tough!   Regarding chiral induced spin selectivity, he discused recent work trying to use molecules where a donor region is linked to an acceptor region via a chiral bridge, and trying to manipulate spin centers this way.  A question in all the CISS work is, how can the effects be large when spin-orbit coupling is generally very weak in light, organic molecules?  He has a recent treatment of this, arguing that if one models the bridge as a chain of sites with large \(U/t\), where \(U\) is the on-site repulsion energy and \(t\) is the hopping contribution, then exchange processes between sites can effectively amplify the otherwise weak spin-orbit effects.  I need to read and think more about this.
• Richard Schlitz of Konstanz gave a nice talk about some pretty recent research using a scanning tunneling microscope tip (with magnetic iron atoms on the end) to drive electron paramagnetic resonance in a single pentacene molecule (sitting on MgO on Ag, where it tends to grab an electron from the silver and host a spin).  The experimental approach was initially explained here.  The actual polarized tunneling current can drive the resonance, and exactly how depends on the bias conditions.  At high bias, when there is strong resonant tunneling, the current exerts a damping-like torque, while at low bias, when tunneling is far off resonance, the current exerts a field-like torque.  Neat stuff.
• Leah Weiss from Chicago gave a clear presentation about not-yet-published results (based on earlier work), doing optically detected EPR of Er-containing molecules.  These condense into mm-sized molecular crystals, with the molecular environment being nice and clean, leading to very little inhomogeneous broadening of the lines.  There are spin-selective transitions that can be driven using near telecom-wavelength (1.55 \(\mu m\)) light.  When the (anisotropic) \(g\)-factors of the different levels are different, there are some very promising ways to do orientation-selective and spin-selective spectroscopy.  Looking forward to seeing the paper on this.

And that's it for me for the meeting.  A couple of thoughts:

• I'm not sold on the combined March/April meeting.  Six years ago when I was a DCMP member-at-large, the discussion was all about how the March Meeting was too big, making it hard to find and get good deals on host sites, and maybe the meeting should split.  Now they've made it even bigger.  Doesn't this make planning more difficult and hosting more expensive since there are fewer options?  (I'm not an economist, but....)  A benefit for the April meeting attendees is that grad students and postdocs get access to the career/networking events held at the MM.  If you're going to do the combination, then it seems like you should have the courage of your convictions and really mingle the two, rather than keeping the March talks in the convention center and the April talks in site hotels.
• I understand that van der Waals/twisted materials are great laboratories for physics, and that topological states in these are exciting.  Still, by my count there were 7 invited sessions broadly about this topic, and 35 invited talks on this over four days seems a bit extreme.  
• By my count, there were eight dilution refrigerator vendors at the exhibition (Maybell, Bluefors, Ice, Oxford, Danaher/Leiden, Formfactor, Zero-Point Cryo, and Quantum Design if you count their PPMS insert).  Wow.  

I'm sure there will be other cool results presented today and tomorrow that I am missing - feel free to mention them in the comments.

March Meeting 2025, Day 3

Another busy day at the APS Global Physics Summit.  Here are a few highlights:

• Shahal Ilani of the Weizmann gave an absolutely fantastic talk about his group's latest results from their quantum twisting microscope.  In a scanning tunneling microscope, because tunneling happens at an atomic-scale location between the tip and the sample, the momentum in the transverse direction is not conserved - that is, the tunneling averages over a huge range of \(\mathbf{k}\) vectors for the tunneling electron.  In the quantum twisting microscope, electrons tunnel from a flat (graphite) patch something like \(d \sim\) 100 nm across, coherently, through a couple of layers of some insulator (like WSe2) and into a van der Waals sample.  In this case, \(\mathbf{k}\) in the plane is comparatively conserved, and by rotating the sample relative to the tip, it is possible to build up a picture of the sample's electronic energy vs. \(\mathbf{k}\) dispersion, rather like in angle-resolved photoemission.  This has allowed, e.g., mapping of phonons via inelastic tunneling.  His group has applied this to magic angle twisted bilayer graphene, a system that has a peculiar combination of properties, where in some ways the electrons act like very local objects, and in other ways they act like delocalized objects.  The answer seems to be that this system at the magic angle is a bit of an analog of a heavy fermion system, where there are sort of local moments (living in very flat bands) interacting and hybridizing with "conduction" electrons (bands crossing the Fermi level at the Brillouin zone center).  The experimental data (movies of the bands as a function of energy and \(\mathbf{k}\) in the plane as the filling is tuned via gate) are gorgeous and look very much like theoretical models.
• I saw a talk by Roger Melko about applying large language models to try to get efficient knowledge of many-body quantum states, or at least the possible outputs of evolution of a quantum system like a quantum computer based on Rydberg atoms.  It started fairly pedagogically, but I confess that I got lost in the AI/ML jargon about halfway through.
• Francis M. Ross, recipient of this year's Keithley Award, gave a great talk about using transmission electron microscopy to watch the growth of materials in real time.  She had some fantastic videos - here is a review article about some of the techniques used.  She also showed some very new work using a focused electron beam to make arrays of point defects in 2D materials that looks very promising.
• Steve Kivelson, recipient of this year's Buckley Prize, presented a very nice talk about his personal views on the theory of high temperature superconductivity in the cuprates.  One basic point:  these materials are balancing between multiple different kinds of emergent order (spin density waves, charge density waves, electronic nematics, perhaps pair density waves).   This magnifies the effects of quenched disorder, which can locally tip the balance one way or another.  Recent investigations of the famous 2D square lattice Hubbard model show this as well.  He argues that the ground state of the Hubbard model for a broad range \(1/2 < U/t < 8\), where \(U\) is the on-site repulsion and \(t\) is the hopping term, the ground state is in fact a charge density wave, not a superconductor.  However, if there is some amount of disorder in the form of \(\delta t/t \sim 0.1-0.2\), the result is a robust, unavoidable superconducting state.  He further argues that increasing the superconducting transition temperature requires striking a balance between the underdoped case (strong pairing, weak superfluid phase stiffness) and the overdoped case (weak pairing, strong superfluid stiffness), and that one way to achieve this would be in a bilayer with broken mirror symmetry (say different charge reservoir layers above and below, and/or a big displacement field perpendicular to the plane).  (Apologies for how technical that sounded - hard to reduce that one to something super accessible without writing much more.)

A bit more tomorrow before I depart back to Houston.

March Meeting 2025, Day 2

I spent a portion of today catching up with old friends and colleagues, so fewer highlights, but here are a couple:

• Like a few hundred other people, I went to the invited talk by Chetan Nayak, leader of Microsoft's quantum computing effort. It was sufficiently crowded that the session chair warned everyone about fire code regulations and that people should not sit on the floor blocking the aisles.  To set the landscape:  Microsoft's approach to quantum computing is to develop topological qubits based on interesting physics that is predicted to happen (see here and here) if one induces superconductivity (via the proximity effect) in a semiconductor nanowire with spin-orbit coupling.  When the right combination of gate voltage and external magnetic field is applied, the nanowire should cross into a topologically nontrivial state with majorana fermions localized to each end of the nanowire, leading to "zero energy states" seen as peaks in the conductance \(dI/dV\) centered at zero bias (\(V=0\)).  A major challenge is that disorder in these devices can lead to other sources of zero-bias peaks (Andreev bound states).  A 2023 paper outlines a protocol that is supposed to give good statistical feedback on whether a given device is in the topologically interesting or trivial regime.  I don't want to rehash the history of all of this.  In a paper published last month, a single proximitized, gate-defined InAs quantum wire is connected to a long quantum dot to form an interferometer, and the capacitance of that dot is sensed via RF techniques as a function of the magnetic flux threading the interferometer, showing oscillations with period \(h/2e\), interpreted as charge parity oscillations of the proximitized nanowire.  In new data, not yet reported in a paper, Nayak presented measurements on a system comprising two such wires and associated other structures.  The argument is that each wire can be individually tuned simultaneously into the topologically nontrivial regime via the protocol above.  Then interferometer measurements can be performed in one wire (the Z channel) and in a configuration involving two ends of different wires (the X channel), and they interpret their data as early evidence that they have achieved the desired majorana modes and their parity measurements.  I look forward to when a paper is out on this, as it is hard to make informed statements about this based just on what I saw quickly on slides from a distance.  
• In a completely different session, Garnet Chan gave a very nice talk about applying advanced quantum chemistry and embedding techniques to look at some serious correlated materials physics.  Embedding methods are somewhat reminiscent of mean field theories:  Instead of trying to solve the Schrödinger equation for a whole solid, for example, you can treat the solid as a self-consistent theory of a unit cell or set of unit cells embedded in a more coarse-grained bath (made up of other unit cells appropriately averaged).  See here, for example. He presented recent results on computing the Kondo effect of magnetic impurities in metals, understanding the trends of antiferromagnetic properties of the parent cuprates, and trying to describe superconductivity in the doped cuprates.  Neat stuff.
• In the same session, my collaborator Silke Buehler-Paschen gave a nice discussion of ways to use heavy fermion materials to examine strange metals, looking beyond just resistivity measurements.  Particularly interesting is the idea of trying to figure out quantum Fisher information, which in principle can tell you how entangled your many-body system is (that is, estimating how many other degrees of freedom are entangled with one particular degree of freedom).  See here for an intro to the idea, and here for an implementation in a strange metal, Ce3Pd20Si6.  

More tomorrow....

(On a separate note, holy cow, the trade show this year is enormous - seems like it's 50% bigger than last year.  I never would have dreamed when I was a grad student that you could go to this and have your pick of maybe 10 different dilution refrigerator vendors.  One minor mystery:  Who did World Scientific tick off?  Their table is located on the completely opposite side of the very large hall from every other publisher.)