Los Alamos Historical Society hopes to turn Oppenheimer House into museum, tourist site
That will change soon if a fundraising campaign being mounted by the Los Alamos Historical Society is successful.
The nonprofit is seeking to raise $5 million to renovate and restore the Oppenheimer House, create some exhibits and programming related to the time the famed scientist spent in Los Alamos, and integrate the home into the Los Alamos History Museum campus.
A little less than $2 million has been raised already, said Todd Nickols, the executive director of the historical society. That leaves approximately $3 million to be generated through the campaign that will begin this fall.
Nickols said getting the house — which he described as a jewel of Los Alamos history — restored to the point that it could be opened to public tours is the focus of the fundraising drive.
But that will be easier said than done. The historical society did not take possession of the home until 2020, three-quarters of a century after the Oppenheimer family moved out, and the organization will face many challenges in restoring it, Nickols said.
'It was in pretty bad shape,' he said.
The owners who turned the home over to the historical society, Helene and Bergen 'Jerry' Suydam, had done what they could to care for the property, he said. But the Suydams were challenged by their own health issues, he said, and that diverted their attention from maintaining the house.
Job one: Build a foundation
The job of restoring the home already has begun with work on the roof. But the bigger task will be shoring up the underside of the house.
Nickols said the Oppenheimer House was not built on a foundation; its main joists sit directly on the ground. As a result, it has slid approximately 2 feet south-southeast since it was built in 1929 as part of the Los Alamos Ranch School.
Plans call for building a foundation under the house, something that will have to be accomplished by removing the wood flooring to accommodate the pouring of concrete for helical piers, Nickols said.
'We have to go from inside [the house],' he said. 'There's no crawl space.'
A good deal of surveying and soil testing will be done first, he said, but those time-consuming steps are a necessary part of the process.
'We have a one-time shot to do this correct,' he said. 'So it's better to take the extra time to do it well.'
The foundation work also will be very costly, he said, eating up a significant amount of the project's $5 million price tag.
'It's crazy expensive,' he said. 'That's just how it goes.'
Other work on the house will include asbestos abatement, repainting of exterior and interior walls, tree removal, plumbing improvements, a new electrical system, a fire suppression system and making it accessible to people with disabilities.
Movie spurs Oppenheimer interest
Nickols said it would have been nice to have the project done before director Christopher Nolan and his crew showed up in Los Alamos in 2022 to film his Oppenheimer biopic, the 2024 Academy Award winner for Best Picture. Many scenes from the movie were shot at the Oppenheimer House, and Nickols said Nolan and his crew could not have been better to work with.
The famed director himself remarked on how Oppenheimer's essence seemed to linger in the house, Nickols said. He credited the film with igniting interest in the house.
'What it really did for us was it brought visitors and put us back on the map,' Nickols said.
The Los Alamos History Museum doubled its annual visitation in the wake of the release of Oppenheimer. The filming of Oppenheimer in the place where so many of its historic events unfolded contributed its own chapter to the city's legacy, he said.
'That filming is part of our history,' Nickols said.
It also caused interest in Oppenheimer himself to surge among people younger than 30, he said — something that has led historical society officials to cater to that crowd specifically in their planning for the exhibits at the house.
'This is where it's going to get fun,' Nickols said, adding the exhibits will include reliance on the latest technology, including artificial intelligence. 'I have a personal goal of having a hologram or a robot that looks like Oppenheimer welcoming people to the house.'
When the project is done, the house will not feature many artifacts from Oppenheimer or his family, Nickols said, for one simple reason: The ultra-high secrecy surrounding the Manhattan Project meant the people who worked on it essentially were allowed to bring only their clothes with them to Los Alamos.
'You were brought into the Lamy train station, and all your possessions were dumped out of your luggage, and they threw away your bags,' Nickols said, explaining government officials feared some of the luggage might have been outfitted with clandestine surveillance devices. 'You were not allowed to take much of anything with you.'
That same veil of secrecy means there are not many photos of Oppenheimer in Los Alamos. But there are several photos of the house dating back to its time before Oppenheimer occupied it and after the Atomic Energy Commission vacated it in the mid-1960s, he said.
'So we have evidence to know what changes had been made to it, and our goal is to put it back together to [what it looked like] when Oppenheimer was there.'
Preservation fund
Nickols said the society also hopes to raise $1 million for a preservation fund devoted to the home's future maintenance needs.
Partnering with the historical society on the project is Enterprise Bank & Trust, which has pledged to match donations up to $500,000 by contributing up to $125,000 annually for four years.
The first matching gift will be presented in January 2026, a news release touting the fundraising campaign said.
Nickols noted the decadeslong relationship between the bank and the historical society and said Enterprise's contributions will help his organization transform the home into 'a powerful and immersive educational experience for visitors from around the world.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
a day ago
- Time Magazine
Oppenheimer's Grandson: We Need a Peaceful Nuclear Renaissance
History is not just a record of what happened, it is a well of wisdom we can draw from to guide our actions today and in the future. Some dates are burned into our collective memory, such as Aug. 6 and 9, 1945, when nuclear weapons were used in war for the first and only time. Others are nearly forgotten. One of those forgotten days is Aug. 17, 1945. Acting on behalf of the Scientific Panel of the Interim Committee, my grandfather, J. Robert Oppenheimer wrote advice from the top scientists on the Manhattan Project in a letter to Secretary of War Henry Stimson. Just a week after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the letter offered advice so rooted in first principles that all of it remains true 80 years later: no nation can achieve absolute security through nuclear dominance. Considering this reality, global leaders must collaborate to resolve the underlying tensions between their nations to achieve no less than making future wars impossible. 'We are not only unable to outline a program that would assure to this nation for the next decades hegemony in the field of atomic weapons; we are equally unable to ensure that such hegemony, if achieved, could protect us from the most terrible destruction,' he wrote 80 years ago. During the war, scientists like Niels Bohr and my grandfather hoped the atomic bomb's terrible power might end all wars between great powers. They believed that once total war was recognized as unwinnable, nations could abandon zero-sum thinking and turn their energies to cooperation as the basis of international peace. 'We believe that the safety of this nation—as opposed to its ability to inflict damage on an enemy power—cannot lie wholly or even primarily in its scientific or technical prowess,' penned my grandfather. 'It can be based only on making future wars impossible.' In one respect, that hope has been realized. Since 1945, there has not been another direct confrontation between great powers such as the two world wars. In another respect, we failed. We did not prevent the arms race, and we have lived under the shadow of nuclear armageddon for nearly eight decades. Every minute of every day, we live in a perpetual state of complete vulnerability to the psycho-emotional whims of the leaders of the nuclear weapons states who, by merely giving an order, can eradicate civilization as we know it. The level of cooperation that ended WWII, which the Interim Committee recommended be marshalled for atomic energy in 1945, has not been reached. Without it we are still in grave danger, particularly from the often forgotten but always present threat of nuclear war. Despite our survival thus far, the latent danger from nuclear weapons remains. We must address and reduce the issue head-on. That is why my family and I have made it our mission to keep driving toward the goals set out by Robert and the Interim Committee eight decades ago. In this moment of particular danger, we must remind the world that victory in a total war between great powers is impossible and that there is unparalleled value in cross-cultural engagement and international cooperation. We recognize this alone will not resolve all conflict, which is far too complex and context-specific for generalized solutions. Yet, this does not require us to maintain the illusion that a few more nuclear weapons—or even tanks and drones—will secure peace through military victory. We believe nuclear energy can be a source of hope for international cooperation—not just weapons and fear. And we are not alone here. This belief is at the heart of the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), the cornerstone document of global nuclear governance signed by 191 countries which enshrines an 'inalienable right' to peaceful uses of nuclear energy for all parties, in exchange for reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons. The key question before us is whether our leaders will use this amazing technology to help solve our greatest challenges. The nuclear renaissance is here. From powering the development of nations in the global south while lowering carbon emissions to potentially curing cancer through repurposing nuclear reactor waste, nuclear energy is already being used for peaceful purposes. However, we have not fully explored the peaceful potential of nuclear energy. We can use atoms to power peace. We have done this before. From 1993 to 2013, creative diplomacy helped achieve nuclear disarmament and peaceful uses simultaneously through the Megatons to Megawatts program. Together, the United States and Russia collaborated to downblended fissionable material from 20,000 Soviet-era nuclear warheads that were used as reactor fuel at nuclear power plants in the United States. This program provided 10% of total U.S. electricity for two decades. We can do better today. Here are three ways how: First, rather than waiting for another Soviet-like collapse in the international environment to explore the untapped potential of nuclear energy, we must begin the process now. Our international financial institutions can support nuclear energy initiatives around the world, from financing 'first-of-a-kind' reactor technology to marshalling funders for a developing country's first reactor. Second, private funders can do more. Throughout the last century, philanthropic giving from some of the wealthiest individuals in history has fueled technological and societal transformation. They have enabled groundbreaking research in academia and the nonprofit sector which has informed our understanding of nuclear risks, and have facilitated cross-cultural engagement to transcend geopolitical divides. To secure international peace tomorrow, we need to revitalize philanthropists and foundations who are willing to fund a new generation of innovative thinkers informed, but not bound, by the past who will help us to navigate the challenges of today. And third, we can help avoid nuclear catastrophe and maximize global abundance by collaborating on the peaceful applications of nuclear energy. This is a degree of global benefit worth striving for at the highest levels of the governments who control the most weapons. We know nuclear superpowers such as the U.S., China and Russia do not and will not agree on everything. The three have a mutual interest to prevent nuclear annihilation together. It doesn't require a perfect peace to begin the discussion about reducing nuclear threats and increasing abundance—it is something we must talk about despite the tensions and other conflicts—for our very survival. If we choose, the same atom that once symbolized destruction can become the foundation for peace. That was the vision in 1945. It can still be our future.
CBS News
3 days ago
- CBS News
31 shipwrecks found in Germany, including one believed to be steamer destroyed in WWII air raid
More than 30 shipwrecks have been discovered hidden in a lake in Germany, officials announced this week, including one vessel believed to be a steamer that was destroyed by an air raid in World War II. The ships were uncovered on the floor of Lake Constance during a project launched in 2022 called "Wrecks and Deep Sea," according to the State Office for Monument Preservation. The office said scientists have dispatched divers and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) to discover a wide array of vessels — from century-old paddle steamers to a fully intact cargo sailing ship. Scientists had identified more than 250 potential anomalies in Lake Constance, which is up to 800 feet deep. Of these, 31 locations were determined to be wrecks, "including both objects of cultural and historical significance as well as modern recreational boats and watercraft of recent times," the State Office for Monument Preservation said in a news release. Among the notable discoveries were two large metal ship hulls, which were discovered and surveyed using ROVs. Based on their size, characteristics and location, researchers believe these wrecks are the hulls of two paddle steamers — SD Baden and the SD Friedrichshafen II. According to the archeology site Arkeonews, the Friedrichshafen II was destroyed by an air raid during World War II, while the Baden was decommissioned in 1930 and eventually sunk. Both ships could carry up to 600 passengers. Images show the handwheel of the Friedrichshafen as well as the hulls and bows of both ships lying on the lake floor shrouded by marine life. Researchers also announced another "special discovery" — a nearly fully intact cargo sailing ship with its mast and yardarm preserved. The team did not estimate how old the vessel is but noted that its excellent condition is a "rarity in underwater archaeology" considering its depth and age. Experts noted that because the growth of invasive quagga mussels has been sparse, scientists were able to clearly view the ship's intricate details, including clamps in the bow, mooring pins and a gear ring with a ratchet. "The find offers unique insights into the sailing technology and shipbuilding of historic Lake Constance ships and represents an important reference object for research," said Alexandra Ulisch, a scientific associate on the project. The project marked the first detailed investigation of the Lake Constance bed to identify underwater monuments, officials said. To complete the mission, scientists first analyzed data from bathymetry, which is the topographical surveying of water, using multibeam echo sounders. After that, researchers used side-scan sonar to examine anomalies that were detected underwater. After the sonar inspection, divers and ROVs examined potential locations of interest, which resulted in the discovery of the 31 shipwrecks. The team conducted detailed analyses of objects deemed "cultural monuments" but researchers said there was no plan to salvage individual objects, a process that is costly. The focus, researchers said, is on preserving the documentary value. "Wrecks are much more than just lost vehicles — they are real time capsules that preserve the stories and craftsmanship of days long past," Ulisch said. Lake Constance (known as Bodensee in German) borders Germany, Switzerland and Austria. Fed by the Rhine River, it's the largest lake in Germany and is a popular tourist destination.
Atlantic
4 days ago
- Atlantic
How States Could Save University Science
Whatever halfway measures Congress or the courts may take to stop President Donald Trump's assault on universities, they will not change the fact that a profound agreement has been broken: Since World War II, the U.S. government has funded basic research at universities, with the understanding that the discoveries and innovations that result would benefit the U.S. economy and military, as well as the health of the nation's citizens. But under President Trump—who has already targeted more than $3 billion in research funding for termination and hopes to cut much more, while at the same time increasing the tax on endowments and threatening the ability of universities to enroll international students —the federal government has become an unreliable and brutally coercive partner. The question for universities is, what now? It will take time for research universities to find a new long-term financial model that allows science and medicine to continue advancing—a model much less dependent on the federal government. But right now universities don't have time. The problem with recklessly cutting billions in funds the way the Trump administration has done—not just at elite private universities such as Harvard and Columbia but also at public research universities across the country—is that 'stop-start' simply doesn't work in science. If a grant is snatched away today, researchers are let go, graduate students are turned away, and clinical trials are halted with potentially devastating consequences for patients. Unused equipment gathers dust, samples spoil, lab animals are euthanized. Top scientists move their laboratories to other countries, which are happy to welcome this talent, much as the United States welcomed German scientists in the 1930s. Meanwhile, the best students around the world enroll elsewhere, where good science is still being done and their legal status is not up in the air. The result, ultimately, is that the U.S. leaves it to other nations to discover a cure for Alzheimer's disease or diabetes, or to make fusion energy practicable. No easy substitute exists for federal support of academic R&D—the scale of the investment is just too large. In fiscal year 2023, federal funding for university research amounted to about $60 billion nationwide. University-endowment spending, as reported by the '2024 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments,' is just half that—$30 billion, with much of the money earmarked for financial aid. Universities by themselves cannot save American science, engineering, and medicine. However, there is also no easy substitute within the American economy for university-based research—universities are the only major institutions that do what they do. The kind of curiosity-driven rather than profit-driven research pursued by universities is too risky for private corporations. By and large, industry conducts research to achieve milestones along a well-considered road map. It is up to universities to find the new roads and educate the experts who know how to travel them. Those roads are where the real potential for growth lies. After all, the internet and the artificial neural networks that enable generative AI arose out of basic research at U.S. universities. So did the most fundamental discoveries in molecular biology, which are now enabling astonishing one-time treatments that are potential cures for painful genetic diseases such as sickle cell. University research is particularly important in states where technology-intensive industries have grown up around the talent and ideas that universities generate—states such as Washington, California, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, Maryland, and North Carolina. Although the Trump administration may characterize federal research grants as wasteful spending, they are really an investment, one with higher returns than federal investment in infrastructure or private investment in R&D. There is a way forward—a way to bridge the huge gap in funding. It starts with the assumption that a bridge will be needed for several years, until some measure of sanity and federal support returns. It is based on the premise that, because universities are not the sole nor even the most significant beneficiaries of the scientific research they conduct, they should not be alone in trying to save their R&D operations. And it is focused not on Washington but on the individual states that have relied most on federal research spending. These states have the power to act unilaterally. They can set up emergency funds to replace canceled federal grants, allowing universities to keep their labs open until a shaky present gives way to a sturdier future. These states can also create incentives for corporations, investors, philanthropists, and of course universities themselves to step up in extraordinary ways at a time of emergency. This is not merely wishful thinking. Massachusetts has already made moves in this direction. At the end of July, Governor Maura Healey introduced legislation that would put $400 million of state funds into university-based research and research partnerships. Half would go to public colleges and universities, and half to other institutions, including private research universities and academic hospitals. Obviously, with $2.6 billion of multiyear research grants threatened at Harvard alone, action by the state will cover only part of the funding deficit, but it will help. It makes perfect sense for Massachusetts to be the first state to try to stanch the bleeding. With just 2 percent of the nation's workforce, Massachusetts is home to more than 11 percent of all R&D jobs in the country. It has the highest per capita funding from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation in the U.S. Every federal dollar invested in academic science in Massachusetts generates about $2 in economic return for the state. And that's before taking into account the economic impact of any discoveries. In particular, Massachusetts has a powerful biomedical-research ecosystem to protect. But each state has its own strategic imperatives, and many ways to structure such emergency funds exist. Because the grants canceled by the Trump administration have already undergone the federal peer-review process, states don't need to force themselves into the challenging business of judging the worthiness of individual research proposals. They could make a large difference simply by refilling the vessels that have been abruptly emptied, possibly with grants that allow the universities to prioritize the most important projects. States could require that, in exchange for state help, universities must raise matching funds from their donors. In addition, states could launch their own philanthropic funds, as Massachusetts is also doing. Philanthropy—which already contributes an estimated $13 billion a year to university research through foundations, individual gifts, and the income on gifts to university endowments—is particularly important at this moment. As federal-grant awards become scarcer, it is a fair bet that federal-funding agencies will become more risk averse. Philanthropists have always played an important role in encouraging unconventional thinking because they are willing to fund the very earliest stages of discovery. For example, the philanthropists Ted and Vada Stanley funded a center at MIT and Harvard's Broad Institute specifically to explore the biological basis of psychiatric disorders. In a landmark 2016 study, researchers there found strong evidence of a molecular mechanism underlying schizophrenia, establishing the first distinct connection in the disorder between gene variants and a biological process. Foundations can also launch sweeping projects that bring together communities of scientists from different organizations to advance a field, such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which has mapped a third of the night sky, or the Sloan Deep Carbon Observatory, which studied the carbon cycle beneath the surface of the Earth. States could also incentivize their business communities to be part of the rescue operation, perhaps by offering to match industry contributions to academic R&D. Some sectors, such as the biopharmaceutical industry, are particularly reliant on university discoveries. NIH-funded research contributed to more than 99 percent of all new drugs approved in the U.S. from 2010 to 2019. But China is now catching up to the U.S. in drug innovation. American biopharmaceutical companies are already dependent on China for raw materials. If they don't want to become completely reliant on China for breakthrough drugs as well—and able to access only those drugs that China is willing to share—they should do what they can to help save what has long been the world's greatest system for biomedical research. The same is true for science-based technology companies in fields that include quantum computing, artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and batteries. Academic breakthroughs underlie the products and services they sell. If they want to remain ahead of their global competition, they should help support the next generation of breakthroughs and the next generation of students who will contribute to those breakthroughs. Among those who would benefit from keeping U.S. university labs open are the venture capitalists and other investors who profit from the commercialization of university ideas. From 1996 to 2020, academic research generated 141,000 U.S. patents, spun out 18,000 companies, supported 6.5 million jobs, and contributed $1 trillion to the GDP. One of those spinouts was named Google. In our current state of emergency, investment firms should be considering ways to provide a lifeline to the university-based science that supports a high-tech economy. Governors and other leaders in states with major research universities will need to work quickly and decisively, bringing various parties together in order to stave off disaster. But what is the alternative? If states, corporations, donors, and other stakeholders do nothing, there will be fewer American ideas to invest in, fewer American therapies to benefit from, and fewer advanced manufacturing industries making things in the U.S. No contributions from elsewhere can completely replace broad-based federal support for university R&D. But until that returns, states with a lot on the line economically offer the best hope of limiting the losses and salvaging U.S. science.
