He Made World's First Hydrogen Bomb But Kept It A Secret For 50 Years
Richard L Garwin, the creator of America's hydrogen bomb, died on May 13 at his home in Scarsdale, New York. He was 97.
Over the course of his seven-decade career, Mr Garwin laid the groundwork for insights into the structure of the universe. He also helped in the development of several medical and computer marvels.
But his contribution to the one invention that changed the course of history remained a secret for almost 50 years. At the age of 23, he designed the world's first hydrogen bomb.
Mr Garwin, who was then a professor at the University of Chicago and just a summer consultant at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, used physicist Edward Teller and mathematician Stanislaw Ulam's concepts to design the hydrogen bomb in 1951-1952. The experimental device, code-named Ivy Mike, was successfully tested on the Marshall Islands on November 1, 1952.
Mr Garwin's contribution to the creation of the first hydrogen bomb was a well-kept secret for decades. Outside a select group of government, military, and intelligence officials, no one knew about his role in the experiment due to the secrecy surrounding the project.
Edward Teller, whose name had long been associated with the bomb, first credited Mr Garwin in a 1981 taped statement, acknowledging his crucial role in the invention.
"The shot was fired almost precisely according to Garwin's design," Mr Teller said, as per The NY Times. The recording was lost to history for 22 years. The late acknowledgement received little attention, and Mr Garwin remained unknown to the public for a long time.
In an interview with Esquire magazine in 1984, Mr Garwin opened up about getting little to no recognition for his work on the hydrogen bomb. He said, "I never felt that building the hydrogen bomb was the most important thing in the world, or even in my life at the time."
This changed in April 2001 when George A Keyworth II, Mr Teller's friend, provided the transcript of the tape recording to The New York Times.
Even though Teller had earlier recognised the young physicist's contribution, such references were lost in specialised writings and meetings. Suddenly, fifty years after the event, Mr Garwin gained wide public recognition as the creator of the H-bomb.
Meanwhile, after his success on the hydrogen bomb project, Mr Garwin accepted a job at the International Business Machines Corporation, where he worked for four decades, until his retirement.
In between this, Mr Garwin remained a government consultant, offering advice on matters pertaining to national defence. The physicist was an adviser to several American Presidents, such as Dwight D Eisenhower, John F Kennedy, Lyndon B Johnson, Richard M Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Richard L Garwin's many honours include the 2002 National Medal of Science, the nation's highest award for accomplishments in science and engineering, given by US President George W Bush and the 2016 Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award, given by President Barack Obama.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 hours ago
- Business Standard
US scientists warn that trump's cuts will set off a brain drain
Ardem Patapoutian's story is not just the American dream, it is the dream of American science. He arrived in Los Angeles in 1986 at age 18 after fleeing war-torn Lebanon. He spent a year writing for an Armenian newspaper and delivering Domino's at night to become eligible for the University of California, where he earned his undergraduate degree and a postdoctoral fellowship in neuroscience. He started a lab at Scripps Research in San Diego with a grant from the National Institutes of Health, discovered the way humans sense touch, and in 2021 won the Nobel Prize. But with the Trump administration slashing spending on science, Dr. Patapoutian's federal grant to develop new approaches to treating pain has been frozen. In late February, he posted on Bluesky that such cuts would damage biomedical research and prompt an exodus of talent from the United States. Within hours, he had an email from China, offering to move his lab to 'any city, any university I want,' he said, with a guarantee of funding for the next 20 years. Dr. Patapoutian declined, because he loves his adopted country. Many scientists just setting out on their careers, however, fear there is no other option but to leave. Scientific leaders say that's risking the way American science has been done for years, and the pre-eminence of the United States in their fields. China and Europe are on hiring sprees. An analysis by the journal Nature captured the reversal: Applications from China and Europe for graduate student or postdoctoral positions in the United States have dropped sharply or dried up entirely since President Trump took office. The number of postdocs and graduate students in the United States applying for jobs abroad has spiked. A university in France that created new positions for scientists with canceled federal grants capped applications after overwhelming interest. A scientific institute in Portugal said job inquiries from junior faculty members in the United States are up tenfold over the last two months. 'We are embarking on a major experiment in restructuring the innovative engine in America, and China is the control,' said Marcia McNutt, a geophysicist and the president of the National Academy of Sciences, which was established by President Abraham Lincoln to advise the government on science policy. 'China is not going to cut its research budget in half.' Since the 1950s, when the federal government expanded the National Institutes of Health and created the National Science Foundation as public-private research partnerships, the United States has become the international mecca for science. It was the uniquely American system that President Franklin D. Roosevelt's science adviser, Vannevar Bush, envisioned in his landmark report, 'Science, The Endless Frontier': Federal money enabled scientific discoveries that made American research institutions the envy of the world, and they in turn fueled the rise of the United States as the leader in technology and biotechnology. As that system attracted international talent, it came to depend on the aspiring scientists who come to the United States to work in university labs at low wages for the privilege of proximity to the world's best researchers. They often stay: In the American defense industry and fields like engineering and computer and life sciences, at least half the workers with doctorates are foreign-born. Now, American science finds itself fighting on several fronts as the Trump administration seeks to cut budgets and seal borders, to punish universities for their liberalism and federal health agencies for their responses to Covid. Federal science budgets have been slashed. Stricter immigration policies have spread fear among international scientists working in the United States, and those who had hoped to. Graduate and postdoctoral students have had their visas canceled, or worry they will. The administration cut off funding for international students at Harvard — a judge blocked the move, but other universities worry about being next. Secretary of State Marco Rubio pledged to 'aggressively revoke' the visas of Chinese students in what he called 'critical fields,' which almost certainly includes science, where labs often have more Chinese than American-born graduate students and postdocs. President Trump has worried about the nation losing its scientific edge to 'rivals abroad,' as he wrote in a letter in March to his science adviser, Michael Kratsios. He urged Mr. Kratsios to continue Vannevar Bush's vision, 'recapturing the urgency which propelled us so far in the last century.' Yet Mr. Kratsios argues that philanthropies and industry should pick up more of the cost, and that too much federal science spending goes to bureaucracy. 'Spending more money on the wrong things is far worse than spending less money on the right things,' he said in a speech at the National Academy in May. But even at Johns Hopkins, which has benefited from the philanthropy of former New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, those dollars can't make up the shortfall. Industry doesn't typically fund basic research, and it costs more to do research in industry in part because companies, unlike university labs, have to pay competitive wages. 'It's not just the international students, the whole system is on hold because the uncertainty does not allow you to plan,' Dr. Patapoutian said. 'With all these grants frozen or cut, it creates this massive chaos.' Just under half of the graduate students and postdocs in his lab hail from other countries. Now he is seeing less interest from abroad, but like many other lab heads he is not hiring new postdocs anyway: 'Everybody's kind of bolted down making sure we have the funds to keep the people we have.' In the first half of the 20th century, American scientists joined European universities to make fundamental discoveries: the structure of molecules (J. Robert Oppenheimer), the structure of DNA (James Watson). The rise of fascism in Europe drove many Jewish scientists to the United States. After World War II, 'we brought the rocket scientists here,' said Dr. McNutt. 'That's what got us to the moon.' While the logistics and expense of moving entire labs is likely to daunt more established researchers from moving, for postdocs and others just starting their labs, other countries offer the promise of greater stability. 'They are going to be able to recruit the best and brightest, proven people,' Dr. McNutt said. 'They are going to give them labs. They're going to give them equipment and funds, no questions asked.' At Johns Hopkins, which has long received more N.I.H. funding than any other university, Richard Huganir, the chairman of neuroscience, said he is 'terrified' of being unable to enroll international students. His department has 36 labs with 100 graduate students and postdocs, about 30 percent are international. 'For us, it would be losing 30 percent of our work force,' he said. 'They are integral to the whole fabric of American science, and losing that population would be devastating.' Graduate students and postdocs are going home to China and Korea for jobs, he said. Beyond losing talent, Dr. Huganir worries about the increasing isolation of American science. He canceled plans to host an international meeting at Hopkins because foreign scientists did not want to come to the United States; organizers considered moving it to Oxford, in England, but realized international students in the United States would not go because they fear not being allowed back in. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation's top federal health official, this week said he wanted to bar scientists at the N.I.H. and other federal agencies from publishing in leading scientific journals, which he called 'corrupt.' Mathias Unberath, a computer scientist who studies computer-assisted medicine, came to Hopkins from Germany eight years ago. He has 13 doctoral students and two postdocs, all but five from abroad. 'My whole team, including those who were eager to apply for more permanent positions in the U.S., have no more interest,' he said. Those looking for jobs are applying in Europe, 'including some of my superstars,' he said. One American citizen, the recipient of a prestigious Siebel scholarship and an award for best paper, has taken a postdoc in Germany. Dr. Unberath himself was in the hospital with his wife, who had just given birth to their second son, when the first Trump administration suspended H-1B visas — Dr. Unberath had one. Now, he said, even if his students can get visas, they see the cuts to the N.S.F. and N.I.H. and worry they will not be able to get the early career grants they need to earn tenure. 'And if you don't make tenure,' he said, 'well, then what?' Daphne Koller came from Israel to do her Ph.D. in computer science at Stanford, became a professor there and was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship before founding two tech companies, Coursera, which puts university courses online, and Insitro, which uses artificial intelligence to drive drug discovery. Most of the first employees at both companies, she said, were hired right out of universities, and most were foreign-born. 'I would like nothing better than for the U.S. education system to really have the same emphasis on rigor and science and STEM so that we can train great scientists and engineers here,' Dr. Koller said. 'That would be incredible, but it doesn't happen magically. Even if that were ultimately the case, it's wonderful for a country to be in the unique position where it is the beacon, the magnet for the best and brightest from all over the world.' No institution has been more affected than Harvard, as the administration has made it an example of what it sees as the woke excesses of higher education. Rudolf Pisa, in a cell biology lab there, lost the N.I.H. grant that helps postdoctoral researchers transition to running their own labs. He came from the Czech Republic to do his Ph.D. at Rockefeller University in New York because he believed the American approach to science was 'brave.' His wife, a neuroscientist at Boston University, is American, but fears it is only a matter of time before her grant is canceled, too. They are looking for jobs in Europe. 'Two months ago I would not have thought of any of this,' Dr. Pisa said. He had considered himself a good investment for the United States. His work at Rockefeller helped lead to a patent and then a company to design cancer drugs that would be less likely to develop resistance over time. 'We created jobs,' he said. 'There's more out of it than just the papers.' The head of Dr. Pisa's lab, Tom Rapoport, said five of his students had their visas revoked before a judge temporarily restored them. He also lost the federal grant that funds his lab — despite a perfect score from N.I.H reviewers. He may have to reduce his lab from 14 people to eight, only one of them is American. Dr. Rapoport knows well how political turbulence affects science. His parents fled Nazism in Germany and Austria to train and work in the United States: His mother was a pediatrician, his father a biochemist who discovered how to prolong the shelf life of blood, which the U.S. military used to save countless service members. They left after being blacklisted as members of the Communist Party, ending up in East Germany. Dr. Rapoport was a professor there until the fall of the Berlin Wall; after, he had trouble getting a position, he said, because universities were suspicious of those from the East. He joined Harvard in 1995 because he admired the innovation and rigor of American science. 'This is scientific heaven,' he said. 'Or it used to be.' He worries that Americans don't appreciate how the system has worked for so long. 'Many people look at us as just parasites,' he said. 'All the medicines that people take, they were all developed in the U.S. There's essentially nothing developed by anyone else. We are on the top of the whole thing, and we're really risking it all.'
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Harvard battles $2.5 Billion US funding cut, cites risks to national security, public health research
Harvard University on Monday asked a federal judge to issue a summary judgment ordering the unfreezing of $2.5 billion in federal research funding that has been halted by the Trump administration, which Harvard says is illegal. The university contends that the freeze jeopardizes over 950 critical research projects, including those related to national security and public health. In a filing with the US district court in Boston, Harvard argues that the funding suspension is both unlawful and politically motivated. The university asserts that the freeze violates its rights to free speech and due process and undermines academic independence. Trump has been attempting to force change at Harvard and other top American universities, because of his view that these have been captured by the left-wing woke and has led to the rise of antisemitism. The Trump administration has not yet responded to this latest move by the university. US district judge Allison Burroughs has set July 21 for the arguments on the Harvard case seeking summary judgement, which refers to a request to the judge to decide a dispute without a trial to determine material facts. Impact on vital research The funding freeze affects a wide array of research initiatives, including studies on cancer, infectious diseases, and biological threat awareness for the department of defence. A defence advanced research projects agency (DARPA) official highlighted in court documents that canceling a $12 million grant for biological threat research at Harvard could pose "grave and immediate harm to national security." Additionally, the freeze threatens research in areas such as pediatric HIV and dark energy, potentially hindering advancements in both medical and scientific fields. Political tensions and retaliation claims Harvard's legal challenge comes amid escalating tensions with the Trump administration. The university alleges that the funding freeze is a retaliatory measure following its refusal to comply with a list of demands from the White House, which included changes to hiring practices and student discipline regulations. Besides, multiple other investigations have been opened into Harvard, including some looking into threats against Jewish students and faculty after pro-Palestine protests broke out following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. Further escalating the situation, the administration attempted to revoke Harvard's certification under the student and exchange visitor program, effectively barring the university from enrolling international students. This move was temporarily halted by a federal judge, but it has added to the university's concerns about political interference in academic affairs.
Indian Express
7 hours ago
- Indian Express
From no hope to a potential cure for a deadly blood cancer
A group of 97 patients had longstanding multiple myeloma, a common blood cancer that doctors consider incurable, and faced a certain, and extremely painful, death within about a year. They had gone through a series of treatments, each of which controlled their disease for a while. But then it came back, as it always does. They reached the stage where they had no more options and were facing hospice. They all got immunotherapy, in a study that was a last-ditch effort. A third responded so well that they got what seems to be an astonishing reprieve. The immunotherapy developed by Legend Biotech, a company founded in China, seems to have made their cancer disappear. And after five years, it still has not returned in those patients — a result never before seen in this disease. These results, in patients whose situation had seemed hopeless, has led some battle-worn American oncologists to dare to say the words 'potential cure.' 'In my 30 years in oncology, we haven't talked about curing myeloma,' said Dr. Norman Sharpless, a former director of the National Cancer Institute who is now a professor of cancer policy and innovation at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. 'This is the first time we are really talking seriously about cure in one of the worst malignancies imaginable.' The new study, reported Tuesday at the annual conference of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and published in The Journal of Clinical Oncology, was funded by Johnson & Johnson, which bought Legend Biotech. The 36,000 Americans who develop multiple myeloma each year face an illness that eats away at bones, so it looks as though holes have been punched out in them, said Dr. Carl June, of the University of Pennsylvania. Bones collapse. Dr. June has seen patients who lost six inches in height. 'It's a horrible, horrible death,' Dr. June said. 'Right now advanced myeloma is a death sentence.' (Dr. June has immunotherapy patents that are owned by his university.) There have been treatment advances that increased median survival from two years to 10 over the past two decades. But no cures. Dr. Peter Voorhees of the Atrium Health Levine Cancer Institute in North Carolina and the Wake Forest University School of Medicine, who is lead researcher for the newly published study, said patients usually go through treatment after treatment until, ultimately, the cancer prevails, developing resistance to every class of drug. They end up with nothing left to try. The Legend immunotherapy is a type known as CAR-T. It is delivered as an infusion of the patient's own white blood cells that have been removed and engineered to attack the cancer. The treatment has revolutionized prospects for patients with other types of blood cancer, like leukemia. Making CAR-T cells, though, is an art, with so many possible variables that it can be hard to hit on one that works. And it can have severe side effects including a high fever, trouble breathing and infections. Patients can be hospitalized for weeks after receiving it. But Legend managed to develop one that works in multiple myeloma, defying skeptics. The Chinese company gained attention for its CAR-T eight years ago when it made extravagant claims, which were met by snickers from American researchers. Johnson & Johnson, though, was looking for a CAR-T to call its own. So, said Mark Wildgust, an executive in the oncology section of the American drug giant, the company sent scientists and physicians to China to see if the claims were true. 'We went site by site to look at the results,' he said. The company was convinced. It bought Legend and began testing the treatment in patients whose myeloma had overcome at least one standard treatment. Compared with patients who had standard treatment, those who had the immunotherapy lived longer without their disease progressing. The immunotherapy received regulatory approval in that limited setting and is sold under the brand name Carvykti. The study did not determine whether this difficult treatment saved lives. The new study took on a different challenge — helping patients at the end of the line after years of treatments. Their immune systems were worn down. They were, as oncologists said, 'heavily pretreated.' So even though CAR-T is designed to spur their immune systems to fight their cancer, it was not clear their immune systems were up to it. Oncologists say that even though most patients did not clear their cancer, having a third who did was remarkable. To see what the expected life span would be for these patients without the immunotherapy, Johnson & Johnson looked at data from patients in a registry who were like the ones in its study — they had failed every treatment. They lived about a year. For Anne Stovell of New York, one of the study patients whose cancer disappeared, the result is almost too good to be true. She says she went through nine drugs to control her cancer after it was diagnosed in 2010, some of which had horrendous side effects. Each eventually failed. Taking the Legend CAR-T was difficult — she said she had spent nearly three weeks in the hospital. But since that treatment six years ago, she has no sign of cancer. She said it was still difficult for her to believe her myeloma is gone. A new ache — or an old one — can bring on the fear. 'There's that little seed of doubt,' she said. But in test after test, the cancer has not reappeared. 'It's a relief for me every year to get a bone marrow biopsy,' she said. Myeloma experts applauded the results. Like treatments for many other cancers, treatments for multiple myeloma come with a high price. The drugs are 'hideously expensive,' Dr. June said, costing more than $100,000 a year. The total cost over the years can be millions of dollars, Dr. June said, usually paid by insurers, 'and it doesn't even cure you.' CAR-T is expensive too. Carvykti's list price is $555,310. But it is a one-time treatment. And, more important, the hope is that perhaps by giving it earlier in the course of the disease, it could cure patients early on. Johnson & Johnson is now testing that idea. Dr. Kenneth Anderson, a myeloma expert at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who was not involved with the study, said that if the treatment is used as a first-line treatment, 'cure is now our realistic expectation.' That, at least, is the hope, Dr. Sharpless said. And for those like the patients in the new study who are living at least five years — so far — without disease, the outcome 'really is eye-popping,' Dr. Sharpless said. 'That's getting to a point where you wonder if it will ever come back,' he added. Gina Kolata reports on diseases and treatments, how treatments are discovered and tested, and how they affect people.
