U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

66–488 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 111–985 

NOMINATION OF CARL E. WIEMAN, PH.D., 

TO BE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR SCIENCE, 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 20, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

GEORGE S. LEMIEUX, Florida 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director 

JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director 

BRUCE H. ANDREWS, General Counsel 

ANN BEGEMAN, Republican Staff Director 

BRIAN M. HENDRICKS, Republican General Counsel 

NICK ROSSI, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on May 20, 2010 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Pryor .................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES

Hon. Mark Udall, U.S. Senator from Colorado ..................................................... 2 

Carl E. Wieman, Ph.D., Associate Director-Designate for Science, Office of 

Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President .................. 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Biographical information ................................................................................. 6 

APPENDIX

Hon. Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator from Florida, prepared statement ...................... 31 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Bill Nelson to Carl E. 

Wieman, Ph.D. ..................................................................................................... 31 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF CARL E. WIEMAN, PH.D., 

TO BE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR SCIENCE, 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

POLICY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE 

PRESIDENT 

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:53 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Pryor, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator PRYOR. I’ll go ahead and call this hearing to order. I welcome everyone to this meeting of the Committee on Commerce, 

Science and Transportation, and specifically to the nomination 

hearing of Dr. Carl Wieman, to be Associate Director for Science 

of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. 

I’d like to welcome our nominee. Today we’ll consider his nomination. There are some Senators who I know will not be in attendance today. So what we’ll do is we’ll leave the record open for a few 

days for those Senators who would like to submit questions. 

The OSTP can have up to four Presidentially-appointed, Senateconfirmed associate directors. If confirmed, Dr. Wieman will be responsible for coordinating, monitoring, and advising on national research priorities and inter-agency programs within OSTP’s portfolio. According to OSTP Director Dr. Holdren, the Associate Director for Science will oversee STEM education activities and he will 

act as an expert adviser to the OSTP Director. 

The OSTP is a critical arm of the White House. The advisers 

offer timely technical counsel to the President and his senior staff 

on significant policy matters. Staff members inform good policy 

through sound science and coordinate among science and technology-related agencies. 

Finally, the OSTP strives to make sure Americans’ financial investments make the best possible contribution to our collective 

prosperity, public health, national security, and environmental 

quality. 

Dr. Carl Wieman has extensive teaching experience, has received 

numerous awards, and has conducted extensive research in atomic 

and laser physics. Currently, he serves as Professor of Physics and 

2 

Director of Collaborative Science Education Initiatives at both the 

University of British Columbia and the University of Colorado. 

From 1984 through 2006, he was a Distinguished Professor of 

Physics and Presidential Teaching Scholar at the University of Colorado. Notably, he shared the Nobel Prize in Physics and 2001 for 

the creation of the Bose-Einstein condensation, a new form of matter that I’m sure we’ll ask about in a few minutes so we can try 

to understand what that means. 

Dr. Wieman was the founding Chair of the National Academy of 

Sciences Board on Science Education. Distinguished institutions 

have conferred on him numerous prestigious awards, including the 

National Science Foundation’s Distinguished Teacher-Scholar 

Award in 2001, the Carnegie Foundation’s U.S. University Professor of the Year Award in 2004, and the American Association of 

Physics Teachers Hoersted Medal in 2007. 

We look forward to hearing Dr. Wieman’s statement and examining his credentials for this important post. But first, we have a 

friend and guest of the Committee here to introduce Dr. Wieman, 

and it is Senator Mark Udall from Colorado. Senator Udall. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO 

Senator MARK UDALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me an 

opportunity to add additional comments to the wonderful introduction you just made of Dr. Wieman. I’ve known Carl for a number 

of years through his work as a Professor of Physics and a Presidential Teaching Scholar at the University of Colorado. He was 

born in Oregon, Mr. Chairman, but we’re proud to claim him as a 

Coloradan. He is, as you pointed out, the President’s nominee to be 

the Associate Director for Science at the White House Office of 

Science and Technology Policy. 

I’m deeply pleased that President Obama recognizes the talent 

and creativity that Carl will bring to our discussions on science and 

in particular STEM education. You mentioned that Dr. Wieman 

won the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physics for producing a new state of 

matter called the Bose-Einstein condensate. I once asked him, can 

you see it, and you should maybe perhaps ask him that during his 

testimony. 

I also know in front of the Committee recently you had two Apollo astronauts, including the first human to walk on the Moon, Neil 

Armstrong, who’s an iconic figure to all of us. While no doubt this 

is a remarkable achievement, I would note that 12 men have 

walked on the Moon. How many people, however, can say they’ve 

created a new state of matter? 

Interestingly enough, Carl’s Nobel Prize-winning work built upon 

earlier work in laser cooling by the other Nobel Prize winner in 

President Obama’s Administration, Secretary of Energy, Steven 

Chu. 

While Dr. Wieman is most famous for winning the Nobel Prize, 

it is his commitment to teaching science to others that is Carl’s 

most remarkable quality in my eyes. He’s an expert not just in 

teaching science, but in improving how it is actually taught. He has 

devoted his entire professional life to STEM education. He’s currently the Director of the Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative 

3 

and, as you mentioned, still spends part of his time at the University of Colorado leading the science education initiative that he 

founded. 

He was a founding Chair of the National Academy of Sciences 

Board on Science Education and he has won many accolades for his 

teaching. 

Mr. Chairman, if we as the United States are going to continue 

to be a global leader, if we’re going to remain economically competitive with other nations, we need to teach our children math and 

science and we need to cultivate the next generation of scientists 

and engineers. Currently, it’s no secret that we’re falling behind in 

that regard. 

Carl knows better than anyone how to improve STEM education. 

That skill and his experience will be an invaluable addition to the 

Obama Administration. I hope and trust and urge you to approve 

his nomination and I encourage you to move consideration to the 

Senate floor in an expeditious manner. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear 

before your committee, and I would note one final fact, that it takes 

two Udalls to handle one Pryor. Thank you for giving me the 

chance to introduce Dr. Wieman today. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Senator Udall. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator TOM UDALL. I want to make sure we don’t let this witness leave without asking him some tough questions. 

Senator MARK UDALL. I agree with that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator PRYOR. We’ve got him under oath now. We’ll take care 

of him. 

Good. Thank you, Senator Udall. We appreciate it. 

Senator Udall, did you have an opening statement? 

Senator TOM UDALL. No, just go on. I’m here to hear his testimony and ask some questions. 

Senator PRYOR. Sure, great. 

Dr. Wieman, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF CARL E. WIEMAN, PH.D. 

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR-DESIGNATE FOR SCIENCE, 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

Dr. WIEMAN. Thank you, Mark, for that generous introduction. 

Chairman Pryor, Senator Udall, and distinguished members of 

this committee: It’s a great honor to appear before you today. I’m 

grateful for President Obama’s confidence in nominating me to be 

Associate Director for Science in the White House Office of Science 

and Technology Policy. OSTP’s science portfolio is remarkably 

broad and I appreciate the work of this committee in addressing 

many of those issues and, if confirmed, I look forward to working 

with all of you. 

I grew up deep in the forests of Oregon and I can still remember 

first getting on the school bus and riding many miles over unpaved 

4 

roads to attend first grade. I never imagined that was the first step 

on a journey that would lead me to sitting before you today to discuss my nomination. 

My early education was in a tiny school in rural Oregon and was 

greatly supplemented by reading many books from the public library in the distant town of Corvallis. For middle and high school, 

my family relocated to Corvallis, the home of Oregon State University, to allow me and my siblings to attend a better school system. 

After completing high school, getting on an airplane for the first 

time to go off to college to MIT was another big step on my journey 

to sitting here today before you. 

I nearly failed my first physics class at MIT, but I was fortunate 

enough to have the opportunity to work in a physics research lab. 

There I discovered that doing science was far more rewarding than 

studying about science. My work in the lab became a consuming 

passion and gave me a superb education. I became fascinated with 

what one could learn from blasting atoms with light from a new 

type of laser, and I saw this as an exciting unexplored territory. 

Exploring that territory led me to graduate work at Stanford 

University and ultimately to a long and successful career of physics 

at the University of Colorado. I feel that my strengths as a scientist are recognizing opportunities a little earlier and working a 

bit harder than others, and being able to build things that have 

unique capabilities, usually while held together with duct tape and 

costing a fraction of the price of the competition. All these talents 

may prove useful in government service should I be confirmed. 

I’ve also devoted much of my career to the issue of science education. As a young assistant professor, I approached teaching, as 

most firsts do, figuring out the subject to be taught very clearly in 

my own mind and then explaining it to the students, expecting 

they would understand it the way I did. However, when I actually 

measured what my students were learning carefully, I discovered 

that what I thought was clear and simple the students found incomprehensible, and I was quite puzzled and frustrated by this result. 

That experience actually led me to what’s now been nearly a 20- 

year effort of mine to understand how people learn science and how 

to teach it more effectively. I have conducted extensive research in 

this area and I have worked with a number of groups, particularly 

the National Academy of Sciences, who share my interest in improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—that’s 

STEM—education. 

This effort has led me to understand both my early failings as 

a teacher, but also how I and others can teach science much more 

effectively. This is very important because our global economy is increasingly based around science and technology. To maintain U.S. 

economic competitiveness and leadership in innovation, we need to 

also have leadership in STEM education. This will both enhance 

the scientific and engineering workforce and the technical literacy 

of all our citizens, providing them with complex problem-solving 

skills that they can use in many aspects of their jobs and lives. 

President Obama has assembled an exceptional scientific team, 

including Energy Secretary Chu, who has been a friend of mine for 

decades and first talked to me about the importance of government 

5 

service, and OSTP Director John Holdren, and I look forward to 

the opportunity to work with them as well as members of this committee and this Congress to develop effective and efficient programs that will maintain our leadership in scientific research, to 

measure the results of our investments in this area, and to greatly 

improve STEM education. 

If confirmed, I hope to use my scientific background as well as 

my experience in STEM education to deepen science policy dialogue 

and to enhance progress in STEM education in this country. 

I’m pleased to try and answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement and biographical information of Dr. 

Wieman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL E. WIEMAN, PH.D., ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR-DESIGNATE

FOR SCIENCE, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF

THE PRESIDENT

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and distinguished members of 

this Committee, it is a great honor to appear before you today. I am grateful for 

President Obama’s confidence in nominating me to be the Associate Director for 

Science in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). 

OSTP’s science portfolio is remarkably broad, and I appreciate the work of this 

Committee in addressing many of those issues. If confirmed, I look forward to working with all of you. 

I grew up deep in the forests of Oregon. I can still remember first getting on the 

school bus and riding it many miles over unpaved roads to attend first grade. I 

never imagined that was the first step on a journey that would lead me to sitting 

before you today to discuss my nomination. 

My early education was in a tiny school in rural Oregon and was greatly supplemented by reading many books from the public library in the distant town of Corvallis. For middle and high school, my family relocated to Corvallis, the home of Oregon State University, to allow me and my siblings to attend a better school system. 

After completing high school, getting on an airplane for the first time to go off to 

college at MIT was another big step on my journey to sitting here today. 

I nearly failed my first physics course at MIT, but I was fortunate enough to have 

the opportunity to work in a physics research laboratory. I discovered that doing 

science was far more rewarding than studying about science. My work in the lab 

became a consuming passion and gave me a superb education. I became fascinated 

with what one could learn from blasting atoms with light from a new type of laser, 

and I saw this as opening up an exciting unexplored territory. 

That exploration led me to graduate work at Stanford University and ultimately 

to a long and successful career as a professor of physics at the University of Colorado. I feel that my strengths as a scientist are recognizing opportunities earlier and 

working a bit harder than others, and being able to build things that have unique 

capabilities, usually while held together with duct tape and costing a fraction of the 

price of the competition. These talents may all prove useful in government service, 

should I be confirmed. 

I have also devoted much of my career to the issue of science education. As a 

young assistant professor, I approached teaching as most do, figuring out the subject 

to be taught clearly in my own mind and then explaining it to the students—expecting that they would then understand it as I did. However, when I measured what 

my students were learning I discovered that what I thought was clear and simple, 

the students found incomprehensible. I was puzzled and frustrated by this result. 

That experience led to what has now been a nearly 20 year effort of mine to understand how people learn science and how to teach it more effectively. I have conducted research and worked with a number of groups, particularly the National 

Academy of Sciences, who share my interests in improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. This has led me to understand both 

my early failings as a teacher and how I and others can teach science more effectively. 

Our global economy is increasingly based on science and technology. To maintain 

U.S. economic competitiveness and leadership in innovation, we need to also have 

leadership in STEM education. This will both enhance the scientific and engineering 

6 

workforce and the technical literacy of all our citizens, providing them with complex 

problem-solving skills they can use in many aspects of their jobs and lives. 

President Obama has assembled an exceptional scientific team, including Energy 

Secretary Chu, who has been a friend for decades and first talked to me about the 

importance of government service, and OSTP Director, Dr. Holdren. I look forward 

to the opportunity to work with them, as well as the members of this committee 

and this Congress, to develop effective and efficient programs that will maintain our 

leadership in scientific research, to measure results of our investments in this area, 

and to greatly improve STEM education. If confirmed, I hope to use my scientific 

background, as well as my experience in STEM education, to deepen the science policy dialogue and to enhance progress in STEM education in this country. 

I am pleased to try to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Carl Edwin Wieman. 

2. Position to which nominated: Associate Director for Science, OSTP. 

3. Date of Nomination: March 24, 2010. 

4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses): 

Residence: Information not available to the public. 

Office: Wesbrook Building #300, 6174 University Blvd, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z3, 

Canada. 

5. Date and Place of Birth: 3/26/51; Corvallis, Oregon. 

6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including stepchildren and children 

by a previous marriage). 

Sarah L. Gilbert, Associate Director, Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative, 

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 

7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school attended. 

B.S. in Physics, 1973 MIT. 

Ph.D. in Physics, 1977, Stanford University. 

8. List all post-undergraduate employment, and highlight all management-level 

jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate to the position for which you are 

nominated. All positions involve scientific research and science education, and hence 

relate to the position for which I am nominated. 

Assistant Research Scientist, Department of Physics, University of Michigan, 

1977–1979. 

Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Michigan, 1979–84. 

Associate Professor of Physics, University of Colorado, 1984–87. 

Fellow, JILA, 1985 to present. 

Professor of Physics, University of Colorado, 1987–1997. 

Chair, JILA, 1993–1995. JILA is highly successful 250+ person interdisciplinary 

research institute. From 1990 until 2006 I was the Principal Investigator for the 

JILA NSF center grant, which was by far the largest single grant of the institute and a large fraction of its total funding, and so I was the de facto, although 

unofficial, head during that period. 

Distinguished Professor, University of Colorado, 1997 to present. 

Director, Science Education Initiative, University of Colorado, 12/2005 to 

present. 

Professor of Physics, University of British Columbia, 2007 to present. 

Director, Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative, University of British Columbia, 2007 to present. 

9. Attach a copy of your resume. A copy is attached. 

10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other than those listed above, within the last 5 years. 

Colorado blue ribbon panel on high school-college alignment 2005. 

I was the founding Chair of the National Academy of Science/National Research 

Council, Board on Science Education 1995 to 2009, and I continue to serve on that 

7 

Board as a member. This Board was frequently called upon by the Federal Government to provide consultation and objective guidance on science education. 

11. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee, partner, proprietor, 

agent, representative, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partnership, 

or other business, enterprise, educational, or other institution within the last 5 

years. 

National Math Science Initiative 

Dallas, Texas 

Serve on the Board of Directors. Nonprofit advancing 

math and science education 

4/09 to present 

Research Corporation for Science 

Advancement 

Tucson, AZ 

Serve on the Advisory 

Board. 

Nonprofit foundation 

supporting science research and education 

11/08 to present 

Center for Excellence in Math 

and Science Education of King 

Saud University, King Saud 

University 

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 

Chair the International 

Advisory Board. 

Center at a university 

devoted to improving 

math and science education in Saudi Arabia 

4/09 to present 

American Physical Society 

American Center for Physics 

College Park, MD 

Chair of the Editorial Advisory Board of ‘‘Physics 

Review: Physics Education Research’’ of the 

American Physical Society 

Physics Professional and 

Educational Society 

6/05 to present 

12. Please list each membership you have had during the past 10 years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable, educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or religious organization, private club, or other membership organization. Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any organization. Please note whether any such club or organization restricts membership 

on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, age, or handicap. 

Member of the following professional societies Location Date of membership 

American Physical Society 

I was the Vice-Chair and then the Chair of the Division of Atomic, 

Molecular, and Optical Physics in ∼1990. I currently am the Chair 

of the Editorial Advisory Board of ‘‘Physics Review: Physics Education Research’’ of the American Physical Society 

U.S. ∼35 years ago to present 

National Academy of Education U.S. 2008 to present 

Canadian Assoc. of Physicists, member Canada 2007 to present 

Optical Society of America U.S. ∼35 years ago to present 

American Academy of Arts and Science U.S. 1998 to present 

National Academy of Science, Member U.S. 1995 to present 

Founding Chair of the National Academy of Science/National Research Council, Board on Science Education. I currently serve as a 

member. 

U.S. 1995 to present 

American Association of Physics Teachers U.S. ∼10 years ago to present 

European Academy of Sciences Europe 2004 to present 

Membership to the National Academy of Education, the National Academy of 

Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Science, and the European Academy 

of Sciences is by election, based on academic credentials only. Membership in the 

other organizations is unrestricted. 

13. Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office (elected, nonelected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any campaign has any outstanding 

debt, the amount, and whether you are personally liable for that debt: No. 

14. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, 

political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $500 or more for the 

past 10 years. Also list all offices you have held with, and services rendered to, a 

state or national political party or election committee during the same period. 

I have held no offices. My political contributions are listed below: 

8 

2/26/2000 National Committee For Effective Congress (NCEC) $600 

5/30/2000 NCEC $500 

8/26/2000 NCEC $500 

2/17/2001 NCEC $600 

6/4/2001 NCEC $500 

9/8/2001 NCEC $600 

2/9/2002 NCEC $600 

4/20/2002 Mark Udall for Congress $500 

5/11/2002 NCEC $600 

8/24/2002 Strickland for Colorado $500 

9/7/2002 Rush Holt for Congress $500 

9/13/2002 NCEC $600 

10/14/2002 Colorado Democratic Victory Fund $500 

10/14/2002 Strickland for Colorado $500 

10/15/2002 NCEC $500 

2/15/2003 NCEC $600 

4/19/2003 Mark Udall for Congress $500 

5/17/2003 NCEC $600 

8/23/2003 Democratic National Committee $500 

9/20/2003 NCEC $600 

11/22/2003 League of Conservation Voters $400 

12/22/2003 NCEC $600 

1/10/2004 Democratic National Committee $500 

2/7/2004 NCEC $600 

3/13/2004 Colorado Democratic Victory Fund $500 

4/10/2004 John Kerry for President $500 

5/22/2004 NCEC $600 

7/10/2004 Democratic National Committee $500 

8/7/2004 Democratic Senate Campaign Fund $500 

8/7/2004 House Majority Project $500 

8/8/2004 NCEC $500 

8/21/2004 Matsunaka for Congress $500 

9/4/2004 Dave Thomas for Congress $500 

9/11/2004 Colorado Democratic Victory Fund $500 

9/28/2004 Democratic National Committee $1,000 

10/10/2004 League of Conservation Voters $600 

10/10/2004 Salazar For Senate $1,000 

10/10/2004 Matsunaka For Congress $500 

10/10/2004 Colorado Democratic Senate Campaign Fund $500 

10/18/2004 NCEC $1,000 

1/8/2005 Democratic National Committee $500 

2/5/2005 NCEC $600 

3/5/2005 Colorado Democratic Victory Fund $500 

5/28/2005 NCEC $600 

7/16/2005 Democratic National Committee $500 

8/27/2005 NCEC $500 

9/17/2005 League of Conservation Voters $500 

10/30/2005 Mark Udall for Congress $500 

11/11/2005 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee $500 

12/10/2005 Democratic Senate Campaign Fund $500 

1/7/2006 Democratic National Committee $500 

2/4/2006 NCEC $1,000 

3/4/2006 Colorado Democratic Victory Fund $500 

3/4/2006 House Majority Project $500 

9/23/2006 League of Conservation Voters $1,000 

9/23/2006 Dem Sen Cmp Cmm Dirct MA $500 

9/24/2006 Bill Ritter For Governor $500 

9/28/2006 National Committee For Effective Congress $1,500 

8/8/2007 NCEC $2,000 

8/9/2007 League of Conservation Voters $1,000 

8/9/2007 Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) $1,000 

10/3/2007 Democratic National Committee $1,000 

12/18/2007 Bill Foster For Congress $500 

7/10/2008 Fitz-Gerald For Congress $500 

8/12/2008 NCEC $2,000 

8/12/2008 League of Conservation Voters $1,000 

8/12/2008 DSCC $1,000 

8/12/2008 Democratic National Committee $1,000 

10/8/2008 Udall For Colorado $500 

10/8/2008 NCEC $1,000 

10/10/2008 Obama For America $1,000 

8/5/2009 NCEC $2,000 

8/5/2009 League of Conservation Voters $1,000 

8/5/2009 DSCC $500 

8/5/2009 Democratic National Committee $1,000 

9 

15. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition for outstanding service or 

achievements. 

Honors and Awards 

1. Physics Research 

E.O. Lawrence Award in Physics (DOE), 1993 

Davisson-Germer Prize (APS), 1994 

Einstein Medal for Laser Science (Society for Opt. and Quant. Elect.), 1995 

Richtmyer Memorial Lecture Award (Am. Assoc. of Physics Teachers), 1996 

Fritz London Prize in Low Temperature Physics, 1996 (IUPAP) 

Newcomb Cleveland Prize (AAAS), 1996 

King Faisal International Prize for Science, 1997 

Award for Science (Bonfils-Stanton Foundation), 1997 

Lorentz Medal (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences), 1998 

R. W. Wood Prize (Optical Society of America), 1999 

Schawlow Prize for Laser Science (American Physical Society), 1999 

Benjamin Franklin Medal in Physics (Franklin Institute), 2000 

Nobel Prize in Physics, 2001 

Nobel Prize Citation: ‘‘For the achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation 

in dilute gases of alkali atoms, and for early fundamental studies of the 

properties of the condensates’’ 

Vollum Award for Distinguished Accomplishment in Science and Technology, 

Reed College, 2009 

2. Education 

NSF Director’s Award for Distinguished Teaching Scholars, 2001 

Presidential Teaching Scholar, University of Colorado, 2004 

U.S. Professor of the Year, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of 

Teaching and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, 2004 

MERLOT Editor’s Choice Award for Exemplary Online Resources, 2006 

Oersted Medal, American Association of Physics Teachers, 2007 

3. Honorary Memberships and Fellowships 

National Academy of Sciences, elected 1995 

American Academy of Arts & Sciences, elected 1998 

European Academy of Sciences, elected 2004 

National Academy of Education, elected 2008 

Hertz Foundation Fellow, 1973–1977 

Sloan Research Fellowship, 1984 

Guggenheim Fellowship, 1990–1991 

Fellow of the American Physical Society, 1990 

Distinguished Research Lectureship (University of Colorado), 1996–97 

Frew Fellowship (Australian Academy of Science), 1998 

Cherwell-Simon Lecturer, (Oxford University), 1999 

Phi Beta Kappa Society Visiting Scholar, 1999–2000 

4. Honorary Degrees 

Doctorate of Science (Honorary), University of Chicago, 1997 

Doctorate of Science (Honorary), Ohio State, 2005 

Doctorate of Science (Honorary), Willamette University, 2007 

Doctorate of Science (Honorary), North Carolina State University, 2008 

16. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have authored, individually or with others. Also list any speeches that you have given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated. Do not attach copies of 

these publications unless otherwise instructed. 

See attached lists of publications (in my C.V.) and speeches. 

10 

The speeches are primarily lectures on various aspects of physics and science education. These lists include all the publications and speeches I could find through a 

review of my records. 

17. Please identify each instance in which you have testified orally or in writing 

before Congress in a governmental or non-governmental capacity and specify the 

date and subject matter of each testimony. 

Testified before the Research and Education Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science and Technology on March 7, 2002 and March 15, 2006. Both times 

the subject matter was science education. 

18. Given the current mission, major programs, and major operational objectives 

of the department/agency to which you have been nominated, what in your background or employment experience do you believe affirmatively qualifies you for appointment to the position for which you have been nominated, and why do you wish 

to serve in that position? 

The Associate Director for Science needs to provide advice that will preserve and 

enhance the scientific research base of the country and the scientific work force. My 

experiences as a highly successful research scientist, director of a substantial research lab, and as a long time science educator qualify me for that position. An important component of this position will also be to implement the administration’s 

desire to provide a high quality STEM education for all students. In addition to my 

research career in science, I have worked extensively in STEM education research, 

and I served as the Founding Chair and long-time member of the National Academy 

of Science/National Research Council, Board on Science Education. In these positions I have acquired expertise and knowledge on all aspects of STEM education 

and how it can be improved, and my work in this area has been widely recognized. 

19 .What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to ensure that the 

department/agency has proper management and accounting controls, and what experience do you have in managing a large organization? 

I will have the general responsibility shared by every Federal employee to ensure 

that government funds are being used in the most effective and efficient way possible. This responsibility applies both to the internal OSTP work and the broader 

OSTP mission to ensure that agency and department programs are being coordinated and executed appropriately. However, if confirmed as an OSTP Associate Director, I will have limited direct responsibility for general management and accounting controls at OSTP, as those are primarily handled by the Operations Manager, 

Deputy Chief of Staff and Chief of Staff. I will assist in implementing those agency 

controls. I will have direct responsibility for my own staff of Policy Analysts, Senior 

Policy Analysts and Assistant Directors should I be confirmed. 

I have experience in managing organizations that are small by Federal Government standards, but are comparable to OSTP and relatively large relative to the 

component of OSTP that I will oversee if confirmed. For most of the past 20 years 

I was in charge of a multimillion dollar NSF grant that supported the work of approximately 100 researchers and staff. I was responsible for ensuring that they followed proper management and spending and accounting practices, and I was responsible for setting overall research goals and making programmatic funding decisions. I also served a two-year term as Chair of JILA, a joint federal-state research 

institution with a staff of about 250. Since my NSF grant was by far the largest 

grant supporting JILA, even when not Chair I had ongoing de facto management 

responsibilities for the institute as a whole. 

20. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the department/ 

agency, and why? 

I believe that the biggest challenge facing OSTP is simply the scale of its mandate. It is charged to advise the President on all aspects of science and technology 

relevant to the country. In modern society that mandate becomes ever larger and 

more important as science and technology both grows in scope and plays an increasingly large role in such broad issues as the economy, national security, health, meeting growing energy demands, and protection of the environment. Good advice on enhancing the vitality and value of S & T in the country needs to not only include 

all aspects of research and development, but also education and the technical workforce that are at the heart of a vibrant economy and a vibrant creative S & T enterprise. Evaluating and coordinating scientific and technological efforts, developing 

budgets, performing studies and analysis, etc. across this vast mandate is a great 

challenge. Such a mandate requires seeking out the expertise and wisdom of a large 

range of scientifically and technically excellent people, both inside and outside the 

government. 

The second challenge I see is finding effective means to impact policies and actions in ways that are beneficial to the Nation. The OSTP does not have great authority or control of budgets, and so its tools for achieving action are limited. Its 

11 

primary tool is the development of persuasive arguments that convince people to 

move in the right direction. That is not easy, particularly when bold rapid action 

is needed. 

The third challenge is to develop and maintain suitable relationships across the 

full span of relevant Federal agencies and organizations and nongovernmental entities to ensure first, that we hear all the voices in the broad S & T discussion, and 

second, we are present in important policy discussions to provide useful advice. The 

breadth of the OSTP mandate and the limitations of its means to have an impact 

make it both challenging and essential to establish these relationships. 

B. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation agreements, and 

other continuing dealings with business associates, clients, or customers. Please include information related to retirement accounts. 

If confirmed, I will take an unpaid leave of absence from my position as Professor 

at the University of British Columbia and an unpaid leave of absence from my position as Professor at the University of Colorado. 

Upon confirmation, I will resign my position as Director of the Carl Wieman 

Science Education Initiative at the UBC and as Director of the Science Education 

Initiative at University of Colorado. I will maintain my UBC pension plan and my 

TIAA–CREF retirement plan through the University of Colorado. 

2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal, to maintain 

employment, affiliation, or practice with any business, association or other organization during your appointment? If so, please explain. 

If confirmed, I will take an unpaid leave of absence from my position as Professor 

at the University of British Columbia and an unpaid leave of absence from my position as Professor at the University of Colorado. 

Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other relationships which 

could involve potential conflicts of interest in the position to which you have been 

nominated. 

In connection with the nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of 

Government Ethics and OSTP’s designated agency ethics official to identify potential conflicts of interest. Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance with the terms of an ethics agreement that I have entered into with the Department’s designated agency ethics official and that has been provided to this committee. I am not aware of any other potential conflicts of interest. 

3. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial transaction which you 

have had during the last 10 years, whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, or 

acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a possible conflict 

of interest in the position to which you have been nominated: None. 

4. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have been engaged 

for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law or public 

policy. 

I wrote a few OpEd pieces encouraging support for legislation to provide greater 

support for science research and science education. 

5. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including any 

that may be disclosed by your responses to the above items. 

Any potential conflicts of interest will be resolved in accordance with the terms 

of an ethics agreement that I have entered into with the Department’s designated 

agency ethics official and that has been provided to this committee. 

C. LEGAL MATTERS

1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics by, or been the 

subject of a complaint to any court, administrative agency, professional association, 

disciplinary committee, or other professional group? If so, please explain. 

I have never been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics or been the subject 

of such a complaint. However, earlier this year an audit at the University of Colorado questioned $2,200 I had authorized to be spent in connection with the Science 

Education Initiative that I direct. These funds came from an account that had been 

endowed by a donor to the University, and it was my understanding that the funds 

were for my unrestricted use. According to the Chancellor of the University, the 

audit determined that—while I am generally free to use the funds as I see fit—they 

are still subject to the University’s general policies because they were dispersed 

through the University’s financial system. The audit identified $2,200 that was 

spent on services not reimbursable under University policy (out of a total of over 

$300,000 that I have donated to University projects from this account). The ChanVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:55 May 27, 2011 Jkt 066488 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\66488.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
12 

cellor has assured me that the University has determined that I had in no way intentionally misused any funds nor did I obtain any personal gain, and has taken 

no further action. I have since taken a training course on the University’s fiscal certification to avoid any such misunderstandings in the future. 

2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any Federal, 

State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal, State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic offense? If so, please explain: No. 

3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, 

please explain: No. 

4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo contendere) of 

any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense? If so, please explain: No. 

5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual harassment or 

discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or any other basis? If so, please 

explain: No. 

6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in connection with your nomination: 

None. 

D. RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMITTEE

1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with deadlines for information set by Congressional committees? Yes 

2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can to protect 

Congressional witnesses and whistle blowers from reprisal for their testimony and 

disclosures? Yes. 

3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with firsthand knowledge of matters 

of interest to the Committee? Yes. 

4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of 

the Congress on such occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so? Yes. 

RESUME OF CARL EDWIN WIEMAN

Address 

Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative (CWSEI) 

University of British Columbia 

300–6174 University Blvd. 

Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3 

Personal 

Born March 26, 1951, Corvallis, Oregon 

Degrees 

Bachelor of Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1973 

Ph.D., Stanford University, 1977 

Appointments 

Assistant Research Scientist, Department of Physics, University of Michigan, 

1977–1979 

Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Michigan, 1979–84 

Associate Professor of Physics, University of Colorado, 1984–87 

Fellow, JILA, 1985 to present 

Professor of Physics, University of Colorado, 1987–1997 

Chair, JILA, 1993–1995 

Distinguished Professor, University of Colorado, 1997 to present 

Director, Science Education Initiative, University of Colorado, 2006 to present 

Professor of Physics, University of British Columbia, 2007 to present 

Director, Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative, University of British Columbia, 2007 to present 

Current Major Service Positions 

Chair, Editorial Advisory Board, ‘‘Physics Review: Physics Education Research’’ of 

the American Physical Society 

13 

Member, National Academy of Science/National Research Council Board on 

Science Education, (Founding Chair, 2004–2009) 

Member, Advisory Board, National Math and Science Initiative 

Member, Presidential Advisory Board, Research Corporation for Science Advancement Chair, Advisory Board, Excellence Centre for Science and Mathematics Education, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia 

Honors and Awards 

Physics Research 

E.O. Lawrence Award in Physics (DOE), 1993 

Davisson-Germer Prize (APS) 1994 

Einstein Medal for Laser Science (Society for Opt. and Quant. Elect.), 1995 

Richtmyer Memorial Lecture Award (Am. Assoc. of Physics Teachers), 1996 

Fritz London Prize in Low Temperature Physics, 1996 (IUPAP) 

Newcomb Cleveland Prize (AAAS), 1996 

King Faisal International Prize for Science, 1997 

Award for Science (Bonfils-Stanton Foundation), 1997 

Lorentz Medal (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences), 1998 

R. W. Wood Prize (Optical Society of America), 1999 

Schawlow Prize for Laser Science (American Physical Society), 1999 

Benjamin Franklin Medal in Physics (Franklin Institute), 2000 

Nobel Prize in Physics, 2001 

Nobel Prize Citation: ‘‘For the achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation 

in dilute gases of alkali atoms, and for early fundamental studies of the 

properties of the condensates’’ 

Vollum Award for Distinguished Accomplishment in Science and Technology, 

Reed College, 2009 

Education 

NSF Director’s Award for Distinguished Teaching Scholars, 2001 

Presidential Teaching Scholar, University of Colorado, 2004 

U.S. Professor of the Year, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of 

Teaching and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, 2004 

MERLOT Editor’s Choice Award for Exemplary Online Resources, 2006 

Oersted Medal, American Association of Physics Teachers, 2007 

Honorary Memberships and Fellowships 

National Academy of Sciences, elected 1995 

American Academy of Arts & Sciences, elected 1998 

European Academy of Sciences, elected 2004 

National Academy of Education, elected 2008 

Hertz Foundation Fellow, 1973–1977 

Sloan Research Fellowship, 1984 

Guggenheim Fellowship, 1990–1991 

Fellow of the American Physical Society, 1990 

Distinguished Research Lectureship, 1996–97 (University of Colorado) 

Frew Fellowship (Australian Academy of Science), 1998 

Cherwell-Simon Lecturer, (Oxford University), 1999 

Phi Beta Kappa Society Visiting Scholar, 1999–2000 

Honorary Degrees 

Doctorate of Science (Honorary), University of Chicago, 1997 

Doctorate of Science (Honorary), Ohio State, 2005 

Doctorate of Science (Honorary), Willamette University, 2007 

Doctorate of Science (Honorary), North Carolina State University, 2008 

14 

Professional Associations 

Optical Society of America 

American Physical Society 

American Association of Physics Teachers 

Canadian Association of Physicists 

National Academy of Science 

National Academy of Education 

Patents 

S. Chu, W. Swann and C. Wieman, ‘‘Frequency standard using an atomic fountain of optically trapped atoms,’’ Patent #5,338,930, August 16, 1994. 

M. S. E. Stephens, P. A. Roos, C. E. Wieman and E. A. Cornell, ‘‘Laser sensor 

using optical feedback-induced frequency modulation,’’ Patent #5,808,743, September 15, 1998. 

C. E. Wieman, Z.-T. Lu, K. L. Corwin and C. Hand, ‘‘Stable Wavelength Diode 

Laser using the Zeeman Shift in an Atomic Vapor,’’ Patent #6,009,111, December 28, 1999. 

Publications 

1. T. W. Hansch, S. A. Lee, R. Wallenstein and C. Wieman, ‘‘Doppler-free two-photon spectroscopy of hydrogen 1s–2s,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 307 (1975). 

2. B. Brown, G. Henry, R. Keopcke and C. Wieman, ‘‘High-resolution measurement of the response of an isolated bubble domain to pulsed magnetic fields,’’ IEEE 

Trans. Magnetics 11, 1391 (1975). 

3. C. E. Wieman and T. W. Hansch, ‘‘Doppler-free laser polarization spectroscopy,’’ 

Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 1170 (1976). 

4. R. Feinberg, T. Hansch, A. Schawlow, R. Teets and C. Wieman, ‘‘Laser polarization spectroscopy of atoms and molecules,’’ Opt. Comm. 18, 227 (1976). 

5. Wieman and T. Hansch, ‘‘Precision measurement of the ground state Lamb 

shift in hydrogen and deuterium,’’ in Laser Spectroscopy III, Proceedings of the 

Third International Conference, Jackson Lake Lodge, Wyoming, USA (J. L. Hall and 

J. L. Carlsten, Eds., Springer-Verlag), 39–43 (1977). 

6. R. Teets and C. Wieman, ‘‘Polarization spectroscopy,’’ Focus on Science (Coherent Radiation) 1, 1 (1977). 

7. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Search for parity violation in atomic hydrogen,’’ in Proceedings 

of the 1979 Cargese Workshop on Neutral Current Interactions in Atoms (W. L. Williams, Ed., 1980). 

8. C. E. Wieman and T. W. Hansch, ‘‘Precision measurement on the 1s Lamb shift 

and of the 1s–2s isotope shift of H and D,’’ Phys. Rev. A 22, 192 (1980). 

9. D. Shiner and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Current work on two photon excitation in a hydrogen beam for measurement of the Rydberg constant and me/mp,’’ in Precision 

Measurement and Fundamental Constants II (B. N. Taylor and W. D. Phillips, Eds., 

Natl. Bur. Stand. Spec. Publ. 617, 1984). 

10. S. L. Gilbert and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘An easily constructed high vacuum valve,’’ 

Rev. Sci. Instr. 53, 1627 (1982). 

11. C. E. Wieman and S. L. Gilbert, ‘‘Laser frequency stabilization using mode interference from a reflecting reference interferometer,’’ Opt. Lett. 7, 480 (1982). 

12. S. L. Gilbert, R. Watts and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Hyperfine structure measurement 

of the 7s state of cesium,’’ Phys. Rev. A 27, 581 (1983). 

13. R. N. Watts, S. L. Gilbert and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Precision measurement of the 

Stark shift of the 6s–7s transition in atomic cesium,’’ Phys. Rev. A 27, 2769 (1983). 

14. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Lineshapes in nonlinear spectroscopy,’’ in Quantum Metrology 

and Fundamental Constants (G. Cutler and A. Lucas, Eds., Plenum Press, 1983). 

15. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Laser spectroscopy of hydrogen and the measurement of the 

fundamental constants,’’ in Quantum Metrology and Fundamental Constants (G. 

Cutler and A. Lucas, Eds., Plenum Press, 1983). 

16. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Polarization spectroscopy,’’ in Laser Based Ultrasensitive Spectroscopy (R. A. Keller, Ed., SPIE Press, 1983). 

17. S. L. Gilbert, R. N. Watts and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Measurement of the 6s→7s M1 

transition in cesium with the use of crossed electric and magnetic fields,’’ Phys. Rev. 

A 29, 137 (1984). 

18. S. L. Gilbert, M. C. Noecker, and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Absolute measurement of 

the photoionization cross section of the excited 7s state of cesium,’’ Phys. Rev. A 29, 

3150 (1984). 

15 

19. R. N. Watts and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Stopping atoms with diode lasers,’’ in Laser 

Spectroscopy VII, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference, Hawaii, June 

24–28, 1985 (T. W. Hansch and Y. R. Shen, Eds., Springer-Verlag, 1985), pp. 20– 

21. 

20. C. E. Wieman, S. Gilbert, R. Watts and M. C. Noecker, ‘‘Atomic parity violation using the crossed beam interference technique,’’ in Laser Spectroscopy VII, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference, Hawaii, June 24–28, 1985 (T. W. 

Hansch and Y. R. Shen, Eds., Springer-Verlag, 1985), pp. 37–40. 

21. S. L. Gilbert, M. C. Noecker, R. N. Watts and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Measurement 

of parity nonconservation in atomic cesium,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2680 (1985). 

22. R. N. Watts and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘The production of a highly polarized atomic 

cesium beam,’’ Opt. Comm. 57, 45 (1986). 

23. R. N. Watts and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Manipulating atomic velocities using diode 

lasers,’’ Opt. Lett. 11, 291 (1986). 

24. S. L. Gilbert and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Atomic-beam measurement of parity nonconservation in cesium,’’ Phys. Rev. A 34, 792 (1986). 

25. D. E. Pritchard, E. L. Raab, V. Bagnato, R. N. Watts and C. E. Wieman, 

‘‘Light traps using spontaneous forces,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 310 (1986). 

26. S. L. Gilbert, B. P. Masterson, M. C. Noecker, and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Precision 

measurement of the off-diagonal hyperfine interaction,’’ Phys. Rev. A 34, 3509 

(1986). 

27. C. E. Wieman, S. L. Gilbert and M. C. Noecker, ‘‘A new measurement of parity 

nonconservation in atomic cesium,’’ in Atomic Physics 10, (H. Narumi and I. 

Shimamura, Eds., North Holland, 1987), pp. 65–76. 

28. D. W. Sesko and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘A high frequency Fabry-Perot phase modulator,’’ Appl. Opt. 26, 1663 (1987). 

29. C. E. Wieman, M. C. Noecker, B. P. Masterson and J. Cooper, ‘‘Asymmetric 

line shapes for weak transitions in strong standing wave fields,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 

58, 1738 (1987). 

30. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Parity nonconservation in atoms,’’ (Physics News of 1986) 

Physics Today 40, S. 24 (1987). 

31. C. E. Tanner, B. P. Masterson and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Atomic beam collimation 

using a laser diode with a self-locking power-buildup cavity,’’ Opt. Lett. 13, 357 

(1988). 

32. D. Sesko, C. G. Fan and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Production of a cold atomic vapor 

using diode-laser cooling,’’ J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 5, 1225 (1988). 

33. C. E. Tanner and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Precision measurement of the Stark shift 

in the 6S1/2→6P3/2 cesium transition using a frequency-stabilized laser diode,’’ Phys. 

Rev. A 38, 162 (1988). 

34. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Parity (Quantum Mechanics),’’ in 1989 McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology (McGraw-Hill, 1988), 274. 

35. C. E. Tanner and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Precision measurement of the hyperfine 

structure of the 133Cs 6P3/2, state,’’ Phys. Rev. A 38, 1616 (1988). 

36. M. C. Noecker, B. P. Masterson and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Precision measurement 

of parity nonconservation in atomic cesium: A low energy test of the electroweak 

theory,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 310 (1988). 

37. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Ion crystals,’’ (Physics News of 1988), Physics Today 42, S. 

13 (1989). 

38. D. W. Sesko and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Observation of the cesium clock transition 

in laser cooled atoms,’’ Opt. Lett. 14, 269 (1989). 

39. G. J. Dixon, C. E. Tanner and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘432-nm source based on efficient second-harmonic generation of GaA1As diode-laser radiation in self-locking external resonant cavity,’’ Opt. Lett. 14, pp. 731–733 (1989). 

40. D. Sesko, T. Walker, C. Monroe, A. Gallagher and C. Wieman, ‘‘Collisional 

losses from a light force atom trap,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, pp. 961–964 (1989). 

41. M. C. Noecker, B. P. Masterson, C. E. Wieman and S. L. Gilbert, ‘‘An improved measurement of parity nonconservation in atomic cesium: A low energy test 

of the electroweak theory and first observation of the nuclear anapole moment,’’ in 

Atomic Physics 11, Paris, July 1988 (S. Haroche, J. Gay and G. Grynberg, Eds., 

World Scientific, Singapore, 1989), pp. 619–621. 

42. C. Wieman, ‘‘Parity nonconservation in atomic physics,’’ in From Actions to 

Answers, Proceedings of the 1989 Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Particle 

Physics (T. Degrand and D. Toussaint, Eds., World Scientific, 1990), pp. 645–654. 

43. C. Wieman and S. Chu, Eds., Special Issue on Laser Trapping and Cooling, 

J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 6, 11 (1989). 

44. T. Walker, D. Sesko and C. Wieman, ‘‘Collective behavior of optically trapped 

neutral atoms,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, pp. 408–411 (1990). 

16 

45. T. G. Walker, D. W. Sesko, C. Monroe and C. Wieman, ‘‘Collisional loss mechanisms in light-force atom traps,’’ in Proceedings, Sixteenth International Conference 

on the Physics of Electronic and Atomic Collisions, (A. Dalgarno et al., Eds., Am. 

Instit. Phys., New York, 1990), pp. 593–598. 

46. C. Wieman and L. Hollberg, ‘‘Using diode lasers for atomic physics,’’ (invited 

review) Rev. Sci. Instrum. 62, pp. 1–20 (1991). 

47. D. Sesko, T. Walker and C. Wieman, ‘‘Behavior of neutral atoms in a spontaneous force trap,’’ J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 8, pp. 946–958 (1991). 

48. C. Monroe, W. Swann, H. Robinson and C. Wieman ‘‘Very cold trapped atoms 

in a vapor cell,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, pp. 1571–1574 (1990). 

49. C. Monroe, H. Robinson and C. Wieman, ‘‘Observation of the cesium clock 

transition using laser-cooled atoms in a vapor cell,’’ Opt. Lett. 16, pp. 50–52 (1991). 

50. C. Wieman, T. Walker, D. Sesko and C. Monroe, ‘‘Curious behavior of optically 

trapped atoms,’’ in Atomic Physics 12, AIP Conf Proc. 233 (J. C. Zorn and R. R. 

Lewis, Eds., Am. Instit. Phys., New York, 1991), pp. 58–73. 

51. H. Patrick and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Frequency stabilization of a diode laser using 

simultaneous optical feedback from a diffraction grating and a narrowband FabryPerot cavity,’’ Rev. Sci. Instrum. 62, pp. 2593–2595 (1991). 

52. E. A. Cornell, C. Monroe and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘A multiply-loaded, ac magnetic 

trap for neutral atoms,’’ Phys Rev. Lett. 67, pp. 2439–2442 (1991). 

53. C. E. Wieman, C. Monroe and E. Cornell, ‘‘Fundamental Physics with optically 

trapped atoms,’’ in Laser Spectroscopy X, (M. Ducloy, Ed., World Scientific, 1992), 

pp. 77–82. 

54. K. Lindquist, M. Stephens and C. Wieman, ‘‘Experimental and theoretical 

study of the vapor-cell Zeeman optical trap,’’ Phys. Rev. A 46, pp. 4082–4090 (1992). 

55. C. Sackett, E. Cornell, C. Monroe and C. Wieman, ‘‘A new magnetic suspension system for atoms and bar magnets,’’ Am. J. Phys. 61, pp. 304–309 (1993). 

56. K. B. MacAdam, A. Steinbach and C. Wieman, ‘‘A narrow band tunable diode 

laser system with grating feedback, and a saturated absorption spectrometer for Cs 

and Rb,’’ Am. J. Phys. 60, pp. 1098–1111 (1992). 

57. C. Monroe, E. Cornell and C. Wieman, ‘‘The low (temperature) road toward 

Bose-Einstein condensation in optically and magnetically trapped cesium atoms,’’ in 

Proceedings of the International School of Physics ‘Enrico Fermi’, Course CXVIII, 

Laser Manipulation of Atoms and Ions, (E. Arimondo, W. D. Phillips, and F. 

Strumia, Eds., North Holland, 1992), pp. 361–377. 

58. B. P. Masterson, C. Tanner, H. Patrick and C. Wieman, ‘‘A high brightness, 

high purity spin polarized cesium beam,’’ Phys. Rev. A 47, pp. 2139–2145 (1993). 

59. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Atomic parity nonconservation,’’ Physics in Collision 12 (J. 

Cumalat, Ed., Editions Frontiers, Gif-sur-Yvette, France, 1993), pp.47–63. 

60. C. R. Monroe, E. A. Cornell, C. A. Sackett, C. J. Myatt and C. E. Wieman, 

‘‘Measurement of Cs-Cs elastic scattering at T=30 μK’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, pp. 414– 

417 (1993). 

61. C. J. Myatt, N. R. Newbury and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Simplified atom trap using 

direct microwave modulation of a diode laser,’’ Optics Letts. 47, pp. 649–651 (1993). 

62. S. L. Gilbert and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Laser cooling and trapping for the masses,’’ 

Optics & Photonics News 4, pp. 8–10 (1993). 

63. B. P. Masterson and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Atomic parity nonconservation experiments,’’ in Precision Tests of the Standard Electroweak Model (P. Langacker, Ed., 

World Scientific, Singapore, 1995), pp. 545–76. 

64. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Parity nonconservation in atoms; past work and trapped atom 

future,’’ in Proc., Workshop on Traps for Antimatter and Radioactive Nuclei, J. 

Hyperfine Int. 81, pp. 27–34 (1993). 

65. M. Stephens, K. Lindquist and C. Wieman, ‘‘Optimizing the capture process 

in optical traps,’’ J. Hyperfine Int. 81, pp. 203–215 (1993). 

66. C. E. Wieman, S. Gilbert, C. Noecker, P. Masterson, C. Tanner, C. Wood, C. 

Cho and M. Stephens, ‘‘Measurement of parity nonconservation in atoms,’’ in Proceedings of the 1992 ‘Enrico Fermi’ Summer School, Varenna, Italy, Course CXX 

Frontiers of Laser Spectroscopy, (T. W. Hansch and M. Inguscio, Eds., North Holland, 1994), pp. 240–285. 

67. M. Stephens and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘High collection efficiency in a laser trap,’’ 

Phy. Rev. Lett. 72, pp. 3787–3790 (1994). 

68. M. Stephens, R. Rhodes and C. Wieman, ‘‘A study of wall coatings for vaporcell laser traps,’’ J. App. Phys. 76, pp. 3479–3488 (1994). 

69. L. Young, W. Hill III, S. Sibener, S. D. Price, C. E. Tanner, C. E. Wieman 

and S. R. Leone, ‘‘Precision lifetime measurements of Cs 6p2P1/2 and 6p2P3/2 by single photon counting,’’ Phys. Rev. A 50, pp. 2174–2181 (1994). 

17 

70. D, J. Wineland, C. E. Wieman and S. J. Smith, ‘‘AIP Conference Proceedings 

323,’’ Atomic Physics 14, Fourteenth International Conference on Atomic Physics, 

Boulder, CO (1994). 

71. C. Wieman, G. Flowers and S. Gilbert, ‘‘Inexpensive laser cooling and trapping 

experiment for undergraduate laboratories,’’ A. J. Phys. 63, pp. 317–330 (1995). 

72. N. R. Newbury, C. J. Myatt, E. A. Cornell and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Gravitational 

sisyphus cooling of 87Rb in a magnetic trap,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, pp. 2196–2199 

(1995). 

73. N. R. Newbury, C. J. Myatt and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘S-Wave elastic collisions between cold ground state 87Rb atoms,’’ Phy. Rev. A. 51, R2680 (1995). 

74. M. Stephens, C. Wieman, K. Corwin, Z. T. Lu, H. Gould and T. Dinneen, ‘‘Optimizing capture efficiency in a magneto-optical trap,’’ Advanced Optical Methods for 

Ultrasensitive Detection (Bryan L Fearey, Ed., SPIE 2385) (1995). 

75. D. Cho, C.S. Wood, S.C. Bennett, B.P. Masterson, C. E. Tanner and C. E. 

Wieman ‘‘Particle astrophysics, atomic physics and gravitation,’’ in Proceedings 14th 

Moriond Workshop, J. Tran Thanh Van, (G. Fontaine and E. Hinds, Eds., 1995), pp. 

325–329. 

76. M. J. Renn, O. Vdovin, D. Z. Anderson, C. E. Wieman and E. A. Cornell, 

‘‘Laser-guided atoms in hollow-core optical fibers,’’ Phys. Rev. Letts. 75, pp. 3253– 

3256 (1995). 

77. M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman and E. A. Cornell, ‘‘Observation of Bose-Einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor,’’ Science 

269, pp. 198–201 (1995). 

78. C. J. Myatt, N. R. Newbury, R. W. Ghrist, S. Loutzenhiser and C. E. Wieman, 

‘‘Multiply loaded magneto-optical trap,’’ Optics Letter 21, pp. 290–292 (1996). 

79. N. R. Newbury and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Resource Letter TNA–1: Trapping of neutral atoms,’’ Am. J. Phys. 64, pp. 18–20 (1996). 

80. M. J. Renn, E. A. Donley, E. A. Cornell, C. E. Wieman, and D. Z. Anderson, 

‘‘Evanescent wave guiding of atoms in hollow optical fibers,’’ Phys. Rev. A. 53, pp. 

R648–R651 (1996). 

81. D. S. Jin, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman and E. A. Cornell, 

‘‘Collective excitations of a Bose-Einstein condensate in a dilute gas,’’ Phy. Rev. 

Letts. 77, pp. 420–423 (1996). 

82. M.H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, E. A. Cornell, 

‘‘Evidence for Bose-Einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor,’’ Laser Spectroscopy (M. Inguscio, M. Allegrini and A. Sasso, Eds., Word Scientific, Singapore), pp. 

3–6 (1996). 

83. Z. T. Lu, K. L. Corwin, M. J. Renn, M. H. Anderson, E. A. Cornell and C. 

E. Wieman, ‘‘A low-velocity intense source of atoms from a magneto-optical trap,’’ 

Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, pp. 3331–3334 (1996). 

84. P. A. Roos, M. Stephens and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Laser vibrometer using optical 

feedback-induced frequency modulation for a single mode laser diode,’’ Applied Optics 35, pp. 6754–6761 (1996). 

85. J. R. Ensher, D. S. Jin, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman and E. A. Cornell, 

‘‘Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Dilute Gas: Measurement of Energy and GroundState Occupation,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, pp. 4984–4987 (1996). 

86. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘The Richtmyer Memorial Lecture: Bose-Einstein condensation 

in an ultracold gas,’’ Am. J. Phys. 64, pp. 847–855 (1996). 

87. D. S. Jin, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, 

‘‘Quantitative Studies of Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Dilute Atomic Vapor,’’ 

Czech Journal of Physics, Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Low Temperature 

Physics 46—Suppl., Part S6, pp. 3070–3076 (1996). 

88. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘The Creation of Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Cold Vapor— 

Fritz London Award Lecture,’’ Czech Journal of Physics, Proceedings of the 21st 

Conference on Low Temperature Physics 46—Suppl., Part S6, pp. 2923–2927 (1996). 

89. E. A. Cornell and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Bose-Einstein Condensation,’’ Physics News 

in 1995, (P. F. Schewe, Ed., American Institute of Physics, 1996), pp. 10–12. 

90. S. L. Gilbert and C. Wieman, ‘‘Laser cooling,’’ Macmillian Encyclopedia of 

Physics, J. Rigden, editor (Simon & Schuster Macmillan, New York, NY, 1996), pp. 

836–838. 

91. C. J. Myatt, E. A. Burt, R. W Christ, E. A. Cornell, and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Production of Two Overlapping Bose-Einstein Condensates by Sympathetic Cooling,’’ 

Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, pp. 587–589 (1997). 

92. D. S. Jin, M. R. Matthews, J. R. Ensher, C. E. Wieman and E. A. Cornell, 

‘‘Temperature-Dependent Damping and Frequency Shifts in Collective Excitations of 

a Dilute Bose-Einstein Condensate,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, pp. 764–767 (1997). 

18 

93. D. Cho, C. S. Wood, S. C. Bennett, J. L. Roberts, and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Precision 

Measurement of the Ratio of Scalar to Tensor Transition Polarizabilities for the Cesium 6S–7S Transition,’’ Phys. Rev. A, 55, pp. 1007–1011 (1997). 

94. C. S. Wood, S. C. Bennett, D. Cho, B. P. Masterson, J. L. Roberts, C. Tanner 

and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Measurement of parity nonconservation and an anapole moment in cesium,’’ Science 275, pp. 1759–1763 (1997). 

95. Z.-T. Lu, K. L. Corwin, K. R. Vogel and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Efficient Collection 

of 221Fr into a Vapor Cell Magneto-optical Trap,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, pp. 994–998 

(1997). 

96. E. A. Burt, R. W. Ghrist, C. J. Myatt, M. J. Holland, E. A. Cornell and C. 

E. Wieman, ‘‘Coherence, correlations, and collisions: What one learns about BoseEinstein condensates from their decay,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, pp. 337–340 (1997). 

97. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘The creation and study of Bose-Einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor,’’ Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 355, pp. 2247–2257 (1997), Proceedings of the Royal Society Discussion Meeting Highlights in Quantum Optics. 

98. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Bose-Einstein condensation in an ultracold gas,’’ Inter. J. Mod. 

Phys. B 11, No. 28, pp. 3281–3296 (1997), Proc. of Inauguration Conference of Asia 

Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics, (World Scientific Publishing Co.). 

99. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Observation and study of Bose-Einstein Condensation in a 

cold alkali vapor,’’ J. Korean Phys. Soc. 32, No. 3, pp. 394–397 (March 1998), Proceedings of the 3rd Asia International Seminar on Atomic & Molecular Physics. 

100. J. Williams, R. Walser, C. Wieman, J. Cooper and M. Holland, ‘‘Achieving 

Steady State Bose-Einstein Condensation,’’ Phys. Rev. A 57, pp. 2030–2036 (1998). 

101. C. E. Wieman and E. A. Cornell, ‘‘The Bose-Einstein Condensate,’’ Scientific 

American 278, No. 3, pp. 40–45 (1998). 

102. D. S. Hall, J. R. Ensher, D. S. Jin, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman and E. 

A. Cornell, ‘‘Recent experiments with Bose-condensed gases at JILA,’’ Proceedings 

of SPIE 3270, pp. 98–106 (1998). 

103. K. L. Corwin. Z.-T. Lu, C. Hand, R. J. Epstein and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Frequency-stabilized diode laser using the Zeeman shift in an atomic vapor,’’ App. Optics 37, No. 15, pp. 3295–3298 (1998). 

104. D. S. Hall, M. R. Matthews, J. R. Ensher, C. E. Wieman and E. A. Cornell, 

‘‘The dynamics of component separation in a binary mixture of Bose-Einstein condensates,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, pp. 1539–1542 (1998). 

105. D. S. Hall, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman and E. A. Cornell, ‘‘Measurements 

of relative phase in two-component mixtures of Bose-Einstein condensates,’’ Phys. 

Rev. Lett. 81, pp. 1543–1546 (1998). 

106. Carl E. Wieman, Photonic, Electronic and Atomic Collisions, ‘‘Bose-Einstein 

Condensation and PeV Collisions,’’ pp. 9–21 (1998), Proc. of the XX International 

Conference on the Physics of Electronic and Atomic Collisions (ICPEAC), Vienna, 

Austria, (World Scientific Publishing Co.). 

107. M. R. Matthews, D. S. Hall, D. S. Jin, J. R. Ensher. C. E. Wieman and E. 

A. Cornell, ‘‘Dynamical Response of a Bose-Einstein condensate to a discontinuous 

Change in Internal State,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, pp. 243–247 (1998). 

108. E. A. Cornell, D. S. Hall, M. R. Matthews and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Having it both 

ways: Distinguishable yet phase-coherent mixtures of Bose-Einstein condensates,’’ J. 

Low Temp. Phys. 113, Nos. 3/4, pp. 151–165 (1998). 

109. S. C. Bennett, J. L. Roberts and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Measurement of the dc 

Stark shift of the 6S → 7S transition in atomic cesium,’’ Phys. Rev. A 59, pp. R16– 

R18 (1999). 

110. S. C. Bennett and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Measurement of the 6S → 7S transition 

polarizability in atomic cesium and an improved test of the standard model,’’ Phys. 

Rev. Lett. 82, p. 2484 (1999). 

111. J. L. Roberts, N. R. Claussen, James P. Burke, Jr., Chris H. Greene, E. A. 

Cornell and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Resonant magnetic field control of elastic scattering in 

cold 85Rb,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, pp. 5109–5112 (1998). 

112. N. R. Newbury and C. Wieman, Eds., Trapping of Neutral Atoms (American 

Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 1998), 129 pages. 

113. C. S. Wood, S. C. Bennett, J. L. Roberts, D. Cho and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Precision measurement of parity nonconservation in cesium,’’ Can. J. Phys. 77, 7 (1999). 

114. Carl E. Wieman, David E. Pritchard and David J. Wineland, ‘‘Atom cooling, 

trapping and quantum manipulation,’’ Centennial Edition, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 2, 

pp. S253–S262 (1999). 

115. C. E. Wieman, E. A. Cornell, D. Jin, J. Ensher, M. Matthews, C. Myatt, E. 

Burt and R. Ghrist, ‘‘The Creation and Study of Bose-Einstein Condensation in a 

Cold Alkali Vapor,’’ in Proceedings, Fifteenth International Conference on Atomic 

Physics: Zeeman-Effect Centenary, (J. Walraven, Ed.) (1996). 

19 

116. C. E. Wieman and E. A. Cornell, ‘‘Bose-Einstein condensation in a cold 

vapor,’’ in the 1997 King Faisal International Prize, King Faisal Award Proceedings 

(King Faisal Foundation, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1998), pp. 86–93. 

117. D. S. Hall, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman and E. A. Cornell, ‘‘Measurements 

of relative phase and quantum beat note between Bose-Einstein condensates,’’ in 

Quantum Coherence and Decoherence, ISQM-Tokyo ’98 (Y. A. Ono and K. Fujikawa, 

Eds., Elsevier, 1999), pp. 123–128. 

118. Wieman, Carl E., ‘‘Recent improvements in measurement of parity violations 

in atoms,’’ 1, in Atomic Physics 15, ed. W. Bayliss and G. Drake, AIP press, NY 

(1999). 

119. E. A. Cornell, J. R. Ensher, and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Experiments in dilute atomic 

Bose-Einstein condensation,’’ (in M. Inguscio, S. Stringari, and C. E. Wieman, Eds., 

Bose-Einstein Condensation in Atomic Gases, Proceedings of the International School 

of Physics ‘‘Enrico Fermi’’ Course CXL, Italian Physical Society, October 1999. 

120. C. E. Wieman and E. A. Cornell, ‘‘Seventy years later: the creation of a BoseEinstein condensate in an ultracold gas,’’ Lorentz Prize talk (1999). Proceedings of 

the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. 

121. K. L. Corwin, S. J. M. Kuppens, D. Cho, and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Spin-polarized 

atoms in a circularly polarized optical dipole trap,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett, 83, pp. 1311– 

1314 (1999). 

122. M. R. Matthews, B. P. Anderson, P. C. Haljan, D. S. Hall, M. J. Holland, 

J. E. Williams, C. E. Wieman and E. A. Cornell, ‘‘Watching a superfluid untwist 

itself: Recurrence of Rabi oscillations in a Bose-Einstein condensate,’’ Phys. Rev. 

Lett. 83, p. 3358 (1999). 

123. M. R. Matthews, B. P. Anderson, P. C. Haljan, D. S. Hall, C. E. Wieman and 

E. A. Cornell, ‘‘Vortices in a Bose-Einstein Condensate,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, pp. 

2498–2501 (1999). 

124. D. Cho, S. C. Bennett and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Transverse cooling of a cesium 

atomic beam,’’ J. Korean Phys. Soc. 35, 3, pp. 244–247 (1999). 

125. M. Inguscio, S. Stringari, and C. E. Wieman, Eds., Bose-Einstein Condensation in Atomic Gases, Proceedings of the International School of Physics ‘‘Enrico 

Fermi’’ Course CXL, Italian Physical Society (1999). 

126. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Precision measurement of parity nonconservation in cesium 

and its implications for nuclear and elementary particle physics,’’ in Laser Spectroscopy XIV International Conference (R. Blatt et al., Eds, World Scientific, pp. 33–40) 

(1999). 

127. S. L. Cornish, N. R. Claussen, J. L. Roberts, E. A. Cornell and C. E. Wieman, 

‘‘Stable 85Rb Bose-Einstein condensates with widely tunable interactions,’’ Physical 

Rev. Lett. 85, pp. 1795–1798 (2000). 

128. S. Kuppens, K. Corwin, K. Miller, T. Chupp, and C. Wieman, ‘‘Loading an 

optical dipole trap,’’ Phys. Rev. A 62, 013406 (1–13) (1999). 

129. B. P. Anderson, P. C. Halijan, C. E. Wieman and E. A. Cornell, ‘‘Vortex 

precession in Bose-Einstein condensates: observations with filled and empty cores,’’ 

Physical Review Letters 85, pp. 2857–2860 (2000). 

130. S. Duerr, K. W. Miller, and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Improved loading of an optical 

dipole trap by suppression of radiative escape,’’ Physical Review A 63, 011401–1– 

4 (2000). 

131. J. L. Roberts, N. R. Claussen, S. L. Cornish, and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Magnetic 

field dependence of ultracold inelastic collisions near a Feshbach resonance,’’ Phys. 

Rev. Lett. 85, pp. 728–731 (2000). 

132. N. R. Claussen, S. L. Cornish, J. L. Roberts, E. A. Cornell, C. E. Wieman, 

‘‘ 85Rb BEC Near a Feshbach Resonance,’’ The 17th International Conference on 

Atomic Physics (ICAP–2000) 17, pp. 325–336 (2001). 

133. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘A bibliography of atomic parity violation and electric dipole 

moment experiments,’’ Flavor Physics for the Millennium, TASI 2000 (Jonathan L. 

Rosner, ed., World Scientific) (2001). 

134. J. L. Roberts, N. R. Claussen, S. L. Cornish, E. A. Donley, E. A. Cornell and 

C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Controlled Collapse of a Bose-Einstein Condensate,’’ Phys Rev Lett. 

86, pp. 4211–4214 (2001). 

135. J. L. Roberts, J. P. Burke, Jr., N. R. Claussen, S. L. Cornish, E. A. Donley 

and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Improved characterization of elastic scattering near a Feshbach 

resonance in 85Rb,’’ Phys. Rev. A 64, 024702/1–3 (2001). 

136. W. C. Haxton and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Atomic Parity Nonconservation and Nuclear Anapole Moments,’’ Annual Rev. of Nucl. Part. Sci. 51, pp. 261–293 (2001). 

137. E. A. Donley, N. R. Claussen, S. L. Cornish, J. L. Roberts, E. A. Cornell and 

C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Dynamics of collapsing and exploding Bose-Einstein condensates,’’ 

Nature 412, pp. 295–299 (2001). 

20 

138. C. E. Wieman, T. Applequist, D. Arnett, A. G. Cohen, S. N. Coppersmith, S. 

C. Cowley, P. Galison, J. B. Hartle, W. Haxton, J. N. Marx, C. A. Murray, C. F. 

Stevens, J. A. Tyson, J. M. Wilson, Physics in a New Era: An Overview, National 

Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. (2001). 

139. C. E. Wieman, E. A. Donley, N. R. Claussen, S. T. Thompson, S. L. Cornish 

and J. L. Roberts, ‘‘Quantum implosions and explosions in a 85Rb BEC,’’ in Proc., 

XV International Conf. on Laser Spectroscopy (2001). 

140. E. A. Donley, B. P. Anderson, and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘New twists in Bose-Einstein condensation,’’ Optics & Photonics News, October Issue, p.26 (2001). 

141. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Pursuing Fundamental Physics with Novel Laser Technology,’’ in Laser Physics at the Limits (Figger, H., Meschede, D., Zimmermann, C., 

eds.) Springer Verlag, (2002). 

142. N. R. Claussen, E. A. Donley, S. T. Thompson and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Microscopic Dynamics in a Strongly Interacting Bose-Einstein Condensate,’’ Phys. Rev. 

Lett. 89, 010401 (2002). 

143. E. A. Cornell and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Dilute 

Gas: The First 70 Years and Some Recent Experiments (Nobel Lecture),’’ 

ChemPhysChem 3, pp.476–493 (2002). 

144. E. A. Donley, N. R. Claussen, S. T. Thompson and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘AtomMolecule Coherence in a Bose-Einstein Condensate,’’ Nature 417, pp. 529–533 

(2002). 

145. K. W. Miller, S. Duerr and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘rf-induced Sisyphus cooling in 

an optical dipole trap,’’ Phys. Rev. A 66, 023406 (2002). 

146. E. A. Cornell, C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Nobel Lectures in Physics 2001,’’ Rev. Mod. 

Phys. 74, 3, pp. 875–893 (2002). 

147. N. R. Claussen, S.J.J.M.F. Kokkelmans, S. T. Thompson, E. A. Donley, E. 

Hodby and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Very high precision bound state spectroscopy near a 85Rb 

Feshbach resonance,’’ Phys. Rev. A 67, 060701 (2003). 

148. E. A. Cornell and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Dilute 

Gas: The First 70 Years and Some Recent Experiments (Nobel Lecture),’’ in Les Prix 

Nobel (2001). 

149. C. Wieman, ‘‘Good science and business practices also yield positive educational results,’’ Laser Focus World, Comment 40 (April 2004). 

150. W. K. Adams, K. K. Perkins, M. Dubson, N. D. Finkelstein and C. E. 

Wieman, ‘‘The Design and Validation of the Colorado Learning Attitudes about 

Science Survey,’’ PERC Proceedings, edited by Jeff Marx, P. Heron, and S. Franklin, 

AIP Conf. Proc. (2004). 

151. K. K. Perkins, W. K. Adams, N. D. Finkelstein, and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Correlating Student Beliefs with Student Learning Using the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey,’’ PERC Proceedings, edited by Jeff Marx, P. Heron, and 

S. Franklin, AIP Conf. Proc. (2004). 

152. C. Wieman, ‘‘Firming Up Physics,’’ AAPT Announcer 34, 6 (Summer 2004). 

153. S. T. Thompson, E. Hodby, and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Spontaneous Dissociation of 85Rb Feshbach Molecules,’’ Phys Rev Lett. 94, 020401 (2005). 

154. K. Perkins and C. Wieman, ‘‘Free on-line resource connects real-life phenomena to science,’’ Physics Education, pp. 93–95 (Jan 2005). 

155. E. Hodby, S. T. Thompson, C. A. Regal, M. Greiner, A. C. Wilson, D. S. Jin, 

E. A. Cornell, and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Production Efficiency of Ultracold Feshbach Molecules in Bosonic and Fermionic Systems,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 120402 (2005). 

156. K. K. Perkins and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘The surprising impact of seat location on 

student performance,’’ The Physics Teacher 43, 30 (2005). 

157. K. K. Perkins, W. K. Adams, N. D. Finkelstein, S. J. Pollock and C. E. 

Wieman, ‘‘Correlating student attitudes with student learning using the Colorado 

Learning Attitudes about Science Survey,’’ PERC Proceedings (2005). 

158. C. Wieman, ‘‘Minimize Your Mistakes by Learning from Those of Others,’’ 

Phys. Teach. 43, pp. 252–253 (2005). 

159. J. Barbera, K. Perkins, W. Adams, C. Wieman, ‘‘Studying the importance of 

students’ beliefs in chemistry education,’’ Abstracts of Papers of the American 

Chemical Society 230, pp. U752–753 (Aug. 2005). 

160. C. Wieman, ‘‘Engaging Students with Active Thinking,’’ Peer Review (Winter 

2005). 

161. S. Thompson, E. Hodby, C. Wieman, ‘‘Ultracold Molecule Production Via a 

Resonant Oscillating Magnetic Field,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 190404 (November 2005). 

162. S. Singer, H. Dyasi, A. Eisenkraft, P. Hines, M. Lach, D. P. Licata, N. Pelaez, 

W. Sandoval, J. Spillane, C. E. Wieman, America’s Lab Report: Investigations in 

High School Science, Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, Susan R. Singer, Margaret L. Hilton, and Heidi A. Schweingruber, eds. Board 

21 

on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social 

Sciences and Education, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. (2005). 

163. C. E. Wieman and K. K. Perkins, ‘‘Transforming Physics Education,’’ Physics 

Today 58, pp. 36–41 (November 2005). 

164. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘From the National Academies: Overview of the National Research Council’s Board on Science Education and Personal Reflections as a Science 

Teacher,’’ Cell Biology Education Features 4, pp. 118–120 (Summer 2005). 

165. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘BEC: The First 10 Years, IN Laser Spectroscopy,’’ Proceedings of the XVII International Conference, eds. E. A. Hinds, Allister Ferguson, 

Erling Riis, p. 139 (2005). 

166. C. E. Wieman and K. K. Perkins, ‘‘Transforming Physics Education,’’ 

Obzornik Za Matematiko In Fiziko, Slovene Translation, ISSN 0473–7466 (2006). 

167. S. B. McKagan and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Exploring Student Understanding of Energy through the Quantum Mechanics Conceptual Survey,’’ PERC Proceedings 2005, 

AIP Press (2006). 

168. S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Reforming a large lecture 

modern physics course for engineering majors using a PER-based design,’’ PERC 

Proceedings 2006, AIP Press (2006). 

169. K. K. Perkins, W. Adams, M. Dubson, N. D. Finkelstein, S. Reid, C. E. 

Wieman, and R. LeMaster, ‘‘PhET: Interactive Simulations for Teaching and Learning Physics,’’ The Physics Teacher 44, 18 (2006). 

170. K. K. Perkins, M. M. Gratny, W. Adams, N. D. Finkelstein, and C. E. 

Wieman, ‘‘Toward characterizing the relationship between students’ self-reported interest in and their surveyed beliefs about physics,’’ PERC Proceedings 2005, AIP 

Press, 818, 137 (2006). 

171. C. E. Wieman and K. K. Perkins, ‘‘Transforming Physics Education,’’ Parity, 

Maruzen Co., Japan, Japanese Translation (September 2006). 

172. W. K. Adams, K. K. Perkins, M. Dubson, N. D. Finkelstein and C. E. 

Wieman, ‘‘A new instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey,’’ Physical Review Special Topics: Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 1, 010101 (2006). 

173. S. Cornish, Sarah T. Thompson and Carl E. Wieman, ‘‘Formation of bright 

matter-wave solitons during the collapse of Bose—Einstein condensates,’’ Phys. Rev. 

Lett. 96, 170401 (May 2006). 

174. C. Wieman and K. Perkins, ‘‘Online Interactive Simulations: A powerful tool 

for teaching science,’’ Nature Physics 2, pp. 290–292 (May 2006). 

175. C. Wieman and K. Perkins, ‘‘Meeting challenges and facing the music in 

physics education—Reply,’’ Physics Today 59, pp. 10–11 (Aug 2006) 

176. N. D. Finkelstein, W. K. Adams, C Keller, K Perkins, C. E. Wieman and the 

PhET Team, ‘‘High-Tech Tools for Teaching Physics: the Physics Education Technology Project,’’ Journal of Online Teaching and Learning 2, No. 3 (September 

2006). 

177. S. B. Papp and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Observation of heteronuclear Feshbach molecules from a 85Rb–87Rb gas,’’ Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 180404 (November 2006). 

178. C. Wieman, ‘‘Science Education in a New Century,’’ Academic Matters, pp. 

18–19 (Winter 2006). 

179. K. K. Perkins, J. Barbera, W. K. Adams, and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Chemistry vs. 

Physics: A Comparison of How Biology Majors View Each Discipline,’’ 2006 PERC 

Proceedings 883, 53 (2007). 

180. W. K. Adams and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Problem Solving Skill Evaluation Instrument -Validation Studies,’’ PERC Proceedings 2006 (2007). 

181. C. Wieman, ‘‘A Scientific Approach to Science Education,’’ Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (STLHE) Newsletter (Fall 2007). 

182. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Why Not Try a Scientific Approach to Science Education?’’ 

Change Magazine 39, 5 (September/October 2007). 

183. C. Wieman, Collected papers of Carl Wieman, World Scientific Publishing 

(2008). 

184. W. K. Adams, S. Reid, R. LeMaster, S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, M. 

Dubson, and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘A Study of Educational Simulations Part I—Engagement and Learning,’’ Journal of Interactive Learning Research 19, 3, pp. 397–419 

(July 2008). 

185. W. K. Adams, S. Reid, R. LeMaster, S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, M. 

Dubson, and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘A Study of Educational Simulations Part II—Interface 

Design,’’ Journal of Interactive Learning Research 19, 4, pp. 551–577 (October 

2008). 

186. J. Barbera, W. K. Adams, C. E. Wieman and K. K. Perkins, ‘‘The Colorado 

Learning Attitudes about Science Survey: Modification and Validation for use in 

Chemistry,’’ Journal of Chemical Education 85, pp. 1435–1439 (October 2008). 

22 

187. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘A Scientific Approach to Science Education,’’ The Hertz 

Foundation Newsletter (Winter 2008). 

188. K. E. Gray, W. K. Adams, C. E. Wieman and K. K. Perkins, ‘‘Students know 

what physicists believe, but they don’t agree: A study using the CLASS survey,’’ 

Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research 4, 020106 (November 

2008). 

189. C. E. Wieman, W. K. Adams, and K. K. Perkins, ‘‘Oersted Medal Lecture 

2007: Interactive Simulations for Teaching Physics: What works, what doesn’t, and 

why,’’ Theme Double-Issue Computation and Computer-Based Instruction—American Journal of Physics 76, pp. 393–9 (April/May 2008). 

190. S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Why we should teach the 

Bohr model and how to teach it effectively,’’ Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research 4, 010103 (March 2008). 

191. J. J. Zirbel, K.-K. Ni, S Ospelkaus, J. P. D’Incao, C. E. Wieman, J. Ye, and 

D. S. Jim, ‘‘Collisional stability of fermionic Feshbach molecules,’’ Physical Review 

Letters 100, 143201 (11 April 2008). 

192. S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, M. Dubson, C. Malley, S. Reid, R. LeMaster, 

and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Developing and researching PhET simulations for teaching 

quantum mechanics,’’ Theme Double-Issue Computation and Computer-Based Instruction—American Journal of Physics 76, pp. 406–417 (May 2008). 

193. J. J. Zirbel, K.-K. Ni, S. Ospelkaus, T. L. Nicholson, M. L. Olsen, P. S. Julienne, C. E. Wieman, J. Ye, and D. S. Jin, ‘‘Heteronuclear molecules in an optical 

dipole trap,’’ Physical Review A. 78, 013416 (July 2008). 

194. S. B. Papp, J. M. Pino, and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Tunable miscibility in a dualspecies Bose-Einstein condensate,’’ Physical Review Letters 101, 040402 (July 2008). 

195. S. B. Papp, J. M. Pino, R. J. Wild, S. Ronen, C. E. Wieman, D. S. Jin, and 

E. A. Cornell, ‘‘Bragg Spectroscopy of a Strongly Interacting 85Rb Bose-Einstein Condensate,’’ Physical Review Letters 101, 135301 (26 September 2008). 

196. C. E. Wieman, W. K. Adams, and K. K. Perkins, ‘‘PhET: Simulations that 

Enhance Learning,’’ Science 322, pp. 682–683 (October 2008). 

197. J. Barbera and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Effect of a Dynamic Learning Tutorial on Undergraduate Students’ Understanding of Heat and the First Law of Thermodynamics,’’ The Chemical Educator 14, pp. 45–48 (2009). 

198. S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, M. Dubson, C. Malley, S. Reid, R. LeMaster, 

and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘A deeper look at student learning of quantum mechanics: the 

case of tunneling,’’ Phys Rev. ST Physics Ed. Research 4, 020103 (March 2008). 

199. J. Barbera, W. K. Adams, C. E. Wieman, and K. K. Perkins, ‘‘Modifying and 

Validating the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey for Use in Chemistry,’’ Journal of Chemistry Education 85, pp. 1435–1439 (October 2008). 

200. S. B. McKagan, W. Handley, K. K. Perkins and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘A researchbased curriculum for teaching the photoelectric effect,’’ American Journal of Physics 

77, pp. 87–94 (January 2009). 

201. M. K. Smith, W. B. Wood, W. K. Adams, C. E. Wieman, J. Knight, N. Guild, 

and T. Su, ‘‘Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions,’’ Science 323, pp. 122–124 (January 2009). 

202. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Why Not Try a Scientific Approach to Science Education?’’ 

University General Education Bulletin at the Chinese University of Hong Kong 

(2009). 

203. N. S. Podolefsky, W. K. Adams, and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Student Choices when 

Learning with Computer Simulations,’’ PERC Proceedings 2009, AIP Press (2009). 

204. H. Alhadlaq, F. Alshaya, S. Alabdulkareem, K. K. Perkins, W. K. Adams, and 

C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Measuring Students’ Beliefs about Physics in Saudi Arabia,’’ PERC 

Proceedings 2009, AIP Press (2009). 

205. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Galvanizing Science Department,’’ Science 325, 5, p. 1181 

(September 2009). 

206. W. K. Adams, H. Alhadlaq, C. Mally, K. K. Perkins, J. Olson, F. Alshaya, 

S. Alabdulkareem, and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Making On-line Science Course Materials 

Easily Translatable and Accessible Worldwide: Challenges and Solutions,’’ The 

Multimedia in Physics Teaching and Learning (MPTL) Conference Proceedings (submitted Sept. 2009). 

207. C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Why Not Try a Scientific Approach to Science Education?’’ 

Taking Stock: Research on Teaching and Learning in. Higher Education, School of 

Policy Studies of Queen’s University at Kingston & McGill-Queen’s University Press 

(2010). 

208. C. E. Wieman, K. K. Perkins, S. L Gilbert, ‘‘Transforming Science Education 

at Large Research Universities: A Case Study in Progress,’’ Change: The Magazine 

of Higher Learning (March/April 2010). 

23 

209. W. K. Adams and C. E. Wieman, ‘‘Development and validation of instruments 

to measure learning of expert-like thinking,’’ International Journal of Science Education (submitted). 

210. C. E. Wieman, W. K. Adams, P. Loebelin, K. K. Perkins, ‘‘Teaching Physics 

Using PhET Simulations,’’ The Physics Teachers 48, pp. 225–227 (April 2010). 

I also have written a number of publications in relationship to scientific conferences. These publications overlap with the material of the papers I listed above. 

Other publications not listed above: 

• Football scandal OpEd, 2/2004, Boulder Daily Camera. 

• The Optimized University. 2006 A commissioned paper for the BC ministry of 

education, posted online and subsequently reprinted online in various places. 

• Rebuilding Science OpEd, approximately 2002, Rocky Mountain News and/or 

Denver Post. 

• The importance of science education OpEd, 9/2007, various Canadian papers. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Let me start off here. Senator Udall, I have a few questions and 

I’ll turn it over to you, and I may clean up unless you want to do 

a second round. 

But first, let me start with your background. I think it’s interesting that you nearly failed your first physics class. That gives 

hope to a lot of first year college students, I’m sure. But let me ask 

a question, and it may be the same question or it may be two different questions, but just for our background on the Subcommittee: 

Would you describe your research on atomic physics and laser spectroscopy and-or—again, it may be the same question—tell us about 

the Bose-Einstein—is it a condensate? Is that what it is? 

Dr. WIEMAN. Condensate, yes. 

Senator PRYOR. So tell us about those? 

Dr. WIEMAN. OK. So they’re actually somewhat different things. 

For many years I carried out an extensive program of using laser 

light to probe atoms and study their structure, learn about how 

they behave, how they interact with light, and a whole variety of 

ways that, if we probe more sensitively, we could understand more 

details about the structure of atoms. 

Out of that work also, as we came to understand better about 

atoms and how they interacted with light, we came to understand 

how we could control them better as well. Part of that control 

meant that the scientific community—and Steve Chu was one of 

the leaders in this—part of that control was how you could use 

light to actually slow down atoms, if you did just exactly the right 

things. 

Senator PRYOR. So light can actually change the behavior of 

atoms? 

Dr. WIEMAN. Light can actually change them. You can think 

about light, laser light, as like little ping-pong balls and an atom 

as a bowling ball. An atom in the air here is whizzing along and 

you’re bouncing these little particles of light off it, and they’re giving it little kicks. And if the light has just the right characteristics, 

those lots of little kicks slow down that bowling ball atom. 

It turns out a slow atom is a cold atom. So that led us to understand how you could make them much colder, you could hold them 

where you want them. That has technological implications. We can 

make better atomic clocks and things. But it also led us to realize 

that we could make them so slow, where we possibly could make 

24 

them so slow, using these new cooling techniques, that we could 

reach this kind of holy grail myth of physics which was the BoseEinstein condensate. 

This was a new form of matter that Einstein predicted way back 

in 1924, just looking at the basic equations of physics. But it was 

predicted to happen at ridiculously cold temperatures and so nobody really took it very seriously. 

We figured out how to get things much, much colder than anyone 

had cooled atoms before, using this new laser cooling technology, 

and we saw that Einstein was right. This strange new material 

formed. It’s fascinating to study. It doesn’t behave like anything 

anybody’s ever seen before, and we learned lots about quantum 

physics as a result of looking at it. 

Senator PRYOR. Does that mean you actually stop the atom? 

Dr. WIEMAN. We get them very, very, very close to being stopped. 

Senator PRYOR. How does that become a new type of matter? 

Dr. WIEMAN. The getting them cold doesn’t make them a new 

type of matter. What makes them a new type of matter is, as you 

get things colder there are the laws of quantum physics that come 

into play when we get Bose condensation. People thought about 

matter being described by these laws of quantum physics that are 

important on the very, very tiny scale, but on the bigger scale these 

weird, bizarre quantum behaviors are never seen. 

But if you get things colder, it turns out that the quantum 

waviness gets bigger and bigger. So if you get things so cold that 

the quantum waviness of one atom starts to overlap the quantum 

waviness of its neighbor, then instead of acting like two independent atoms any more, they turn into one gigantic quantum 

wave. And that’s what a Bose condensate is; it’s a whole bunch of 

atoms no longer acting like little particles that we’re used to thinking about atoms as, but as this gigantic single quantum wave without any individual identities at all. 

I realize that all sounds very strange and sort of weird, and it’s 

because it is strange and weird, but that’s the way nature behaves. 

Senator PRYOR. Senator Udall. 

Senator TOM UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Pryor. 

It’s very good to have you here today, Dr. Wieman, and we look 

forward to your work in the executive branch, especially in the 

teaching area. As a researcher, you relied on the NIST facility in 

Boulder, Colorado, to help achieve a scientific breakthrough that 

led to your joint Nobel Prize. NIST and our national laboratories 

contribute much to science and apply some of the brightest minds 

in the country to some of the most significant challenges facing our 

Nation, from fighting terrorism to achieving energy independence. 

The national labs I think are really crown jewels in our country’s 

research infrastructure. As Associate Director for Science, how 

would you employ the diverse knowledge and work of the national 

labs in your efforts to improve our Nation’s competitiveness and 

maintain our leadership in scientific research? 

Dr. WIEMAN. So I certainly agree with you on the value of national labs. As you point out, my close friend and collaborator at 

Cornell is a NIST employee and he brought enormous contributions 

to making all this work possible. And my wife actually directed a 

25 

large research group in NIST for many years. So I certainly won’t 

disagree about their importance. 

I think really, as Associate Director of OSTP if confirmed, I’d be 

looking to work, to support the strength and health of all of the research infrastructure in the U.S. and the national labs are a major 

component of that, along with the other national facilities and the 

research universities. But absolutely, the national labs do play a 

large part in that and I would see that as an important part of my 

responsibility, to make sure they’re healthy and properly supported. 

Senator TOM UDALL. Well, and we really look forward to working 

with you. We have two of the great national laboratories in New 

Mexico, Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory, that do a lot of the work that I talked about in terms of 

energy independence, helping the warrior out in the field, and a variety of other things. 

Let me ask you a little bit about education because I know that’s 

what you really want to focus on. You note in your testimony that 

you attended a tiny rural school in western Oregon and relied on 

a public library in a nearby town to supplement your education. My 

home State of New Mexico also faces significant challenges when 

it comes to rural schools and especially schools on tribal lands. 

Do you have any thoughts on what efforts have been successful 

to overcome these challenges to teaching science in rural schools? 

Do you have any recommendations for how better broadband 

connectivity or access to other technologies might put students in 

rural schools on a more even footing with their peers in metropolitan areas? And also, I talked to you before the hearing about how 

you’ve developed techniques and protocols, I think, to teach science 

to children, and I’m interested in what are those protocols and how 

do you approach it, and especially dealing with disadvantaged students. 

Dr. WIEMAN. Starting with the issue of the rural schools, I think 

this is a very important issue in the country as we try and look 

at the broader workforce and participation issues of how we can do 

a better job there, because it is a real challenge if you’re out at a 

school of seven students in a grade, like I had, having a good 

science teacher and good science teaching there. 

I actually started what’s now quite a major project in developing 

on-line resources, interactive simulations for teaching science. I 

think we had about 10 million run off our website last year, so it’s 

actually one of the major on-line education resources. We do a lot 

of work on research on how to make these effective, how people can 

learn from them. 

So, I see there’s tremendous potential to be tapped there, and it’s 

something I’ve been quite involved in and would certainly see an 

important aspect of working with the Committee, if confirmed, to 

advance this. 

I will say, though, that, just on the subject of rural schools, part 

of what our research shows is the same as everyone else’s: that you 

have to have an effective teacher in the classroom, though. So I 

think that one of the other issues one has to be addressing is the 

shortage of well-qualified STEM teachers in this country, particularly in rural areas, and how we can better address that need. 

26 

Senator TOM UDALL. You really hit it on the head, I think. 

Thank you. 

I think I’m in good shape. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

Let me follow up on that last point. How can policymakers here 

in Washington improve undergraduate physics courses? How can 

we improve those? 

Dr. WIEMAN. Well, this is something that I’ve been devoting, 

well, really quite a number of years, but the last 3 years full-time, 

to thinking how we can address this. I think at this point I’m willing to make the claim that we know how to do this. There’s a small 

community, of which I count myself part of, that has been approaching the learning of science as a science and carrying out systematic research about what works and what doesn’t work and 

why. 

I think we understand now the basic principles about how to do 

much more effective teaching. I’ve got some recent experiments 

where we’ve been able to come in and redesign a course and get 

over a factor of two improvement compared to the way a good, 

qualified teacher has been doing it, and the amount of learning 

they’ve been getting. 

So the real challenge now is how to get that implemented, how 

to do the policy of changing the practices so that all the teachers 

are following effective principles. I can’t say that I’m ready to pronounce, do A, B, C, and D and it’ll solve this. I can say that I think 

there are some important ideas out there. It’s an area that I come 

to from the side of understanding what people need to do. I am not 

an expert on how to make policy that accomplishes that. 

I can see that, if I’m confirmed to this position, this would be 

something I would be working with this committee and others, to 

figure out how to best implement the policy to achieve the results 

that we are now pretty convinced we know are possible, and we 

know how to do it. I think there are opportunities through looking 

carefully at how the Federal dollars are spent and the Federal programs to look carefully at what the efficiency and the effectiveness, 

and ask some hard questions about that and make sure that 

they’re pursuing directions that we see are more effective. 

Senator PRYOR. According to this year’s Science and Engineering 

Indicators Report of the National Science Board, although America 

continues to lead in science and engineering, Asian countries are 

closing the gap through significantly increased investments in 

science and engineering, business investment, and education and 

infrastructure. So we may still be dominant, but it sounds like our 

dominance is fading. 

How will you apply your knowledge in an attempt to redirect 

America’s course and get us going in the right direction again? 

Dr. WIEMAN. First, I’m not sure we’re going in such a wrong direction. I think you have to look at this from the perspective, that 

for the Asian countries, an awful lot of what has made them successful is they’ve been copying us. They’ve been changing. If we 

look at their school systems they look better, but that is really at 

the K–12 level. There’s an awful lot at the undergraduate level 

where we do better. We’re doing better than they have in the past, 

27 

and they’re copying this. And at the graduate level they’re putting 

more money in. 

So I think it’s an issue of everybody’s getting faster. We have to 

figure out how we can speed up. I think that that involves—well, 

realistically, we’re never going to have the dominance we once did. 

There were world factors that just enhanced that. Everybody else 

is doing better now. 

And it’s not so terrible. Science is really a global activity. We all 

do better when some of us do better. But at the same time, we’d 

like to keep the U.S. at the cutting edge. That means looking hard 

at what are the gaps, where are places we really have unique 

strengths. We can enhance those. I think there are certainly a 

number of areas where the U.S. is still unprecedented, certainly, 

in innovation, entrepreneurial, dynamic, independent ways of 

thinking. The rest of the world would still love to be like we are. 

But if we can provide the work force, the education, that’s pushing our students to the front to build on those, I think we can do 

better. 

Senator PRYOR. Are you familiar with the America Competes 

Act? 

Dr. WIEMAN. Yes. 

Senator PRYOR. It expires at the end of Fiscal Year 2010. What 

provisions of America Competes have proven to be the most successful and which programs do you think should be strengthened? 

Dr. WIEMAN. Boy, that’s a good question, one I’m not sure I’m yet 

qualified to answer. I’d have to look carefully at it. 

Senator PRYOR. Sure. Well, as we go through a reauthorization, 

those are the kind of questions we’ll be asking, basically how is it 

working, are there things that we need to improve or delete or 

change, that kind of exercise. So I hope you can help us through 

that as we go through. 

Dr. WIEMAN. Yes, and I fully would expect to and want to do exactly that. It’s just that hasn’t been my day job right now, so I’m 

not quite ready to weigh in. 

Senator PRYOR. I understand. 

STEM is a program that I think has been great in a lot of ways, 

and NASA has been kind of a lead agency. Do you think that 

NASA should play a leading role with STEM? 

Dr. WIEMAN. In the education aspects? I think that’s unclear. 

The answer to that’s kind of unclear. I think NASA has a kind of 

unique role in inspiring people. I wanted to be an astronaut when 

I was a child. There’s something really dramatic and inspiring 

about rockets blasting into outer space to explore the universe. But 

at the same time, NASA does not bring much expertise to exactly 

what’s really critical to achieving learning in science, engineering, 

and so on. 

part of my work as chairing the Board on Science Education at 

the NRC saw this. We were charged to review NASA education 

programs. Out of that work, it was clear that they needed to be 

looking a lot harder at accountability, at how well their programs 

are really working and were they really being guided by the best 

understanding of effective STEM education. 

So I think it would be probably best to have them focus on what 

they’re really uniquely good at and the aspects of education they’re 

28 

uniquely good at, but not necessarily turn everything over to them. 

It’s getting the right balance. 

Senator PRYOR. That’s fair enough. 

The last question I really have is about science parks. Some people call these innovation centers or business incubators. There are 

different words and maybe different nuances in what they are. But 

generally, you know what they are. They’re places where science, 

engineering, and what-not come together and try to be innovative 

and get things out to the marketplace, etcetera. 

I’ve seen first-hand in my state a science park really does some 

great things at the University of Arkansas. It has just been, I 

think, a real success story. We have a couple of other sites that are 

trying to get up and running in our state. 

But let me ask you from your perspective, to what extent do you 

believe that science parks can contribute to scientific discovery and 

to technological advances? 

Dr. WIEMAN. I think science parks can be wonderful. We’ve got 

spectacular examples. You list some in Arkansas. Silicon Valley, 

and Stanford, the Stanford Research Park, is a tremendous example of where it has really been uniquely powerful at both taking the 

fundamental research out of the lab and turning it into innovative 

products, and then at the same time turning those products back 

into the research lab. 

Certainly everybody knows about the transistor and integrated 

electronics. But for my field of lasers, in fact, there has been a tremendous amount of work, even from my graduate school days on 

up, in the area of laser research turning into products through the 

Stanford science park. And you’ve got examples at many other universities. 

So I think they really have demonstrated they can be tremendously valuable. I think it is important to put in a note of caution, 

though, because people talk a lot more about the ones that are successful. They don’t talk, people don’t advertise the failures, so 

often. And I do know there are failures of science parks, where universities or regions tried to start one up. The University of Colorado is a good example. They put a lot of money into it, but they 

really didn’t have all the right pieces, and it just didn’t pan out. 

So I think, while I certainly would endorse the value of science 

parks, I think it’s important, if one’s looking at policy to advance 

these, to look very carefully at what elements you have to have in 

place to make them successful and learn from the failures in terms 

of making effective ones. 

Senator PRYOR. I think part of the key there is recognizing your 

strengths and having some flexibility and the appropriate expectations. I know one of the advantages of the one that’s in Fayetteville, Arkansas, at least what I hear about it, is that because the 

University of Arkansas is a relatively small university—it’s not a 

huge university; it only has about maybe 16 or 17,000 students— 

because it is smaller, that’s actually a strength because the faculty 

and the researchers tend to know each other, they work in closer 

proximity, and they say that they’re better there in sharing ideas 

and collaborating together than some of the older, more established 

institutions, if that makes sense, where you kind of get your area 

of expertise and you’re kind of so big that’s all you do. 

29 

The other thing that they really focus on in Arkansas is trying 

to bring these ideas actually to the marketplace. So like for example, in nanotechnology, their effort there, they don’t just call it 

nanotechnology. They like to call it ‘‘nano manufacturing,’’ because 

they really want to try to get these ideas out of the lab and get 

them out in the marketplace. 

So I know not everybody has the same mission, nor should they, 

because there’s going to be different strengths and different roles 

as we do this. But I agree, I think that they can play a very significant role in trying to stimulate more scientific activity, research activity, innovation, technology. 

What we’re going to do, Dr. Wieman, is we’re going to leave the 

record open until 6 p.m. tomorrow, for all the Senators and staffs 

who want to ask you more questions, like they want to get you to 

explain this Bose-Einstein thing one more time or something like 

that. We’re going to leave it open until tomorrow evening. 

So what we’d ask all the staffs to do and all the offices to do is 

to get those as quickly as possible over here to the Committee, and 

then we’ll get those to you, and a rapid response would be very 

much appreciated. 

But I want to thank you for your willingness to take on this public service and really do some great things there and play a key 

role in developing this policy and giving advice to the folks who 

need it. So I want to thank you for being here today and thank you 

for all the folks you brought with you. 

So I thank you and we’ll adjourn the hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 3:31 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(31) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

Thank you, Mr Chairman. 

Dr. Wieman, we had the opportunity to meet last month and from that conversation, as well as from your testimony here today, I can say that I’m impressed with 

your zeal for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) issues. In your 

written testimony you state, ‘‘Our global economy is increasingly based on science 

and technology. To maintain U.S. economic competitiveness and leadership in innovation, we need to also have leadership in STEM education.’’ 

Amen—as Chairman of the Science and Space Subcommittee I share your enthusiasm on this subject and couldn’t agree with you more. The efforts we make in 

STEM education today will pay dividends in the future as the next generation of 

leaders comes to maturity and strives to keep the United States as the world’s leader in these areas. 

Today I’d like to explore these subjects with you a little further and to gain a better understanding of some of the specific actions you will take in this important role 

we are considering for you. I look forward to our exchange. 

Thank you, Mr Chairman. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

CARL E. WIEMAN, PH.D. 

Question 1. During the launch of the ‘‘Educate to Innovate’’ Campaign in November 2009, the President called for the expansion of STEM opportunities for all young 

people. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden has also identified STEM education as 

a pressing need. 

In response to this need, NASA is launching the Summer of Innovation program 

to increase the scope and scale of the agency’s commitment to STEM. The Summer 

of Innovation is designed to improve STEM teaching and learning in partnership 

with Federal agencies, philanthropic institutions, universities, industry, museums, 

nonprofit organizations, and states and localities. 

Dr. Wieman, please discuss the specific actions you intend to take to meet the 

President’s call to action regarding STEM. How will you work with NASA to ensure 

the Nation’s space and aeronautics programs are best used to inspire and educate 

the nation, especially young people? 

Answer. We know that too often, even students who are proficient in STEM subjects choose not to pursue them. The STEM ‘‘pipeline’’ narrows dramatically in the 

older grades, due especially to attrition of girls and minorities, and it narrows again 

within the first years of college. We can and must do better. 

I believe NASA has unique assets that can make a significant difference in addressing this challenge. First is its ability to inspire and connect with Americans’ 

inherent enthusiasm for discovery. As I mentioned during my hearing, I was inspired by the space program as a young boy and even wanted to be an astronaut. 

As the President has stated: ‘‘The space program has always captured an essential 

part of what it means to be an American—reaching for new heights, stretching beyond what previously did not seem possible. . . . Space exploration is not a luxury, 

it’s not an afterthought in America’s quest for a brighter future—it is an essential 

part of that quest.’’ I think we can do much more to bring that spirit of discovery 

and imagination into every community and classroom. NASA’s ‘‘Summer of Innovation’’ has that potential. 

Question 2. In 2007 Congress passed the America COMPETES Act, landmark legislation intended to increase the Nation’s investment in research and development 

(R&D), and in STEM education. Authorizations for the America COMPETES Act expire this year and, as we consider a reauthorization and the President’s FY 2011 

budget proposal, we need to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs funded by 

COMPETES in increasing American innovation and competitiveness. 

32 

Dr. Wieman, please comment on the COMPETES Act as implemented thus far. 

What changes to the Act would you recommend as we reconsider a reauthorization 

this year? 

Answer. The America COMPETES Act provides a valuable guide to Federal policies in innovation, competitiveness, and STEM education. As with any program of 

this scope, a review should be welcomed: to strengthen the parts that have the most 

capacity to leverage the American economy and secure America’s future, and to trim 

or amend those parts that have proven less valuable. 

The original COMPETES Act identified three key science agencies—the National 

Science Foundation, the DOE Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology laboratories—as essential to our Nation’s future prosperity and 

to preserving America’s place as the world leader in science and technology. I support the Administration’s ongoing efforts to ensure that the doubling trajectory for 

these three agencies remains on track. 

One critical role a review of the Federal STEM education program can do is to 

look carefully at the STEM education system from an overall perspective, supporting work to understand what the essential components are and how they are 

linked, and what is necessary for each component to make the final result most effective. Many STEM education programs are piecemeal, short-term attempts to deal 

with what is a complex, long-term problem. The substantial Federal investment in 

STEM education requires improved efficiencies and effectiveness for these investments. Congress made some attempts at this by not funding some programs in the 

original authorization. We should streamline duplicative programs. The reauthorization is an opportunity to articulate the highest-priority initiatives that truly have 

the promise of making significant impacts on innovation and competitiveness and 

to leave out studies, programs, or process requirements with minimal impacts or 

minimal prospects for funding. 

If confirmed, I would work with this committee to streamline the STEM education 

components of the bill to ensure the maximum impact on U.S. STEM education from 

the Act. 

Æ