Chapter 7: Metallurgy and Materials Science: 1962-1972 

Background 

At the outset of the 1960s, general conditions favored research and development. The launching of an earth satellite by the Soviet Union in October 1957 had dramatized the role of science and technology in international competition, particularly in aerospace. At the same time, the materials needs of other technologies were becoming widely recognized. A list originally drawn up by the President's science Advisory Committee (PSAC) in 1958 and mentioned by Baker (Psaras and Langford, p. 23) named rocket propulsion, nuclear reactors, space flight, and vehicle reentry as requiring materials not available at that time. 

Starting in the late 1950s, the Federal government raised the level of its commitment to materials research. Materials centers were planned at universities as part of the National Materials Program (Psaras and Langford, pp. 19ff). The establishment of these centers will be described at the end of this chapter. 

Later in the 1960s, economic conditions began to deteriorate, leading to a recession in 1974. Research support declined with the exception of energy-related research, a special case because of shortages of available oil. Documents of this period reflect the economic constraints; for example, a letter dated December 4, 1969 to President Johnson from Professor King, the head of the Department at the time, mentioned "these times of financial stress." 

Engineering enrollments were declining in the early 1960s, even before the economic downturn. Enrollments in metallurgy followed the same trend. Toward the end of the decade, in another unfavorable development, student unrest adversely affected many universities, but at MIT the academic activities were not extensively disrupted. In a different vein, the President's Report for 1968-69 mentioned "increased student involvement" in the Department of Metallurgy and Materials Science and "an increased role of the Student Metallurgical Society." 

In the 1960s, materials science and engineering emerged as a major factor in teaching and research. During this period, in spite of temporary economic setbacks, materials science and engineering received increasing financial support from the public and private sectors. It attracted qualified people from related scientific and technical fields, and promising students in the face of fluctuations in enrollments. Although the evolution of materials science and engineering was a long-term process over several decades, it is appropriate to discuss it in this chapter because it was closely connected with two major developments affecting the Department: a name change involving the term "materials science" and the establishment of the Center for Materials Science and Engineering at MIT. 

The Emergence of Materials Science and Engineering 

By the 1960s, materials science and engineering was an accepted concept. The terms "materials science and engineering" and "materials" were used in the literature and appeared in the titles of books and journals, and in the names of academic departments and other organizations.

Materials science and engineering evolved as the result of several converging developments. The most significant were (i) broad intellectual trends in the materials-related basic sciences and the materials disciplines, (ii) scientific and technical innovations, and (iii) organizational changes in industry, universities, and government. A more detailed discussion of these developments and of the characteristics of materials science and engineering can be found in the Introduction to the "Encyclopedia of Materials Science and Engineering" (Bever, pp. xi-xiv). Various aspects of materials science and engineering are covered in the literature (Roy, Committee on the Survey of Materials Science and Engineering [COSMAT], Cohen, National Commission on Materials Policy-see Bibliography). 

Scientific and technical innovations in the 1940s were of great importance in the evolution of materials science and engineering. The atomic energy project stimulated work on a broad range of materials problems: it required the production of new materials and the investigation of their properties, focused attention on the critical role of materials processing, and stimulated research on newly discovered phenomena such as radiation darnage. The development of the gas turbine and jet engine intensified interest in high-temperature materials. The transistor led to solid state electronics and the development of other electronic materials and devices. 

Among experimental methods, the use of radioactive tracers, the investigation of surface phenomena, and highly sensitive chemical analysis were particularly important. The electron microscope greatly improved image resolution and thus extended the magnification available for the structural investigation of metals and other materials. 

Organizational trends in materials research promoted materials science and engineering. The atomic energy project depended on the participation of a diverse group of researchers comprising physicists, chemists, metallurgists, ceramists, and others. Their collaboration provided a model for the interdisciplinary approach to materials problems which has become characteristic of materials science and engineering, especially in mission-oriented research. 

The technical demands of World War II and the postwar economic expansion greatly accelerated the trend toward a new, more inclusive approach to materials research and development. Leading industrial laboratories adopted a policy of fundamental research on materials that was much less directed to specific materials than in the past. Materials research was no longer the exclusive concern of materials-producing industries, but increasingly of materials-using industries. 

A special phase of materials science and engineering, which began in the 1950s, was characterized by the interaction of materials developments and applied condensed matter sciences. Semiconductor applications, initiated by the invention of the transistor, developed into the specialty of electronic materials and created connections between materials science and engineering and communication, information handling, control, and other advanced technologies. The achievements of materials science and their technical applications attracted attention whether they affected high-technology products or consumer goods. 

Materials Science and Engineering at MIT 

The academic community shared the interest in materials science and engineering shown by industrial and government research organizations and professional societies. At MIT a study program was sponsored by Dean C. Richard Soderberg and planned and conducted by an interdepartmental Committee on Materials Engineering under the chairmanship of Professor Morris Cohen. A study group of nearly 30 faculty members from MIT and other academic institutions and additional participants from industry met in Cambridge on August 18-29,1958. The session promoted an understanding of the nature and scope of materials science and engineering. The study program also resulted in the proposal of an interdepartmental degree in materials engineering. 

Other developments involved the role of materials science and engineering in the Department's curriculum, the designation of degrees, and a change in the name of the Department. Another name change in 1974-75 will be discussed in the next chapter. 

The Institute and the School of Engineering in the 1960s 

The Institute's faculty responded to shrinking enrollments by permitting the course choice to be postponed to the end of the sophomore year. In 1964 the core curriculum was reduced: this afforded students greater flexibility but complicated instruction in upperclass professional subjects. Two new requirements, a science distribution subject and a laboratory subject, created opportunities for Institute-wide undergraduate subjects. 

Gordon Brown became Dean of Engineering in 1960. His innovative ideas and proposed changes in the School of Engineering were supported by a Ford Foundation grant of $9.25 million. 

The Department 

In the face of lower enrollments and dwindling research support, the Department maintained a remarkably positive posture. New subjects of instruction reflecting progress in the field, successful interdepartmental subjects, and vital research programs characterized its activities. The change in the name of the Department and the establishment of the Center for Materials Science and Engineering, described below, proved to be powerful stimuli. 

Undergraduate Curriculum 

A new subject, Materials Science, was first offered in 1960-61. "Extractive metallurgy all but disappeared from the requirements" and "there now remained no trace of Mineral Engineering" (Floe, King, and Owen, pp. 4, 5). With the extension of interest from metals to materials, the subject Engineering Metals became Engineering Materials. Materials Engineering, a junior level subject, was required of all students in the School of Engineering, except those in Electrical and Chemical Engineering. 

A curriculum revision in 1966 resulted in a return to a single option called Metallurgy and Materials Science, anticipating the new name of the Department. This development was in line both with the professional trend and the reality of small enrollments that precluded options. Floe, King, and Owen comment that "the undergraduate curriculum in Metallurgy and Materials Science with its stress on scientific principles was really a preparation for graduate study." 

In 1968, Subject 3.091 Introduction to Solid State Chemistry was first offered by Professor John Wulff, "who invented the subject and taught it with inimitable verve" (Floe, King, and Owen). This subject was later taught by Professors Robert Rose, August Witt, and Ronald Latanision. It was one way of satisfying the Institute-wide undergraduate chemistry requirement. Its combined Fall and Spring enrollment exceeded 500 in recent years, making it the subject with the largest student registration in the Department. 

Graduate Studies 

Graduate students had the following choices: Metallurgy, Mineral Engineering, Ceramics, Materials Engineering, and Electronic Materials. Curiously, Materials Science was not offered as a choice at that time. Materials Engineering thus was the only generic (or materials blind) field of specialization open to graduate students in the Department. 

Metallurgy, the oldest specialty, had the largest number of graduate students, while Mineral Engineering was disappearing. Ceramics was growing steadily both in the number of students and subjects offered. Electronic Materials proved attractive to students and served in some measure as a major in Materials Science. 

Faculty 

Professor Chipman was succeeded as head of the Department in 1962 by Professor Thomas B. King. The total number of Department faculty members declined. Nevertheless, some new members were appointed. As an outstanding example, Professor John W. Cahn added strength to research and analysis in metallurgy (Floe, King, and Owen). 

Research 

Paralleling the general rapid development and increasing sophistication of metallurgy and related fields, the research conducted in the Department had gained in breadth and depth. President Compton's report for 1946-47 had listed approximately a dozen examples of government-sponsored research projects in the Department, nearly all of which were metallurgical (see Chapter 5). By contrast, two decades later President Wiesner's report for 1968-69 listed the following types of research: 

  • Quantum-level investigations of structures, especially using x-ray scattering techniques 
  • Strengthening mechanisms of alloys and plastics
  • Thermodynamics of metallic systems 
  • Phase transitions in solids, using electron microscopes and x-ray scattering 
  • High-temperature metallurgy 
  • Electron optics 
  • Nuclear materials 
  • Chemical and process metallurgy, surface chemistry, corrosion fatigue 
  • Kinetic processes in ceramics 
  • Structure-property relationships in crystals
  • Structure and properties of non-crystalline solids
  • Materials synthesis and preparation 
  • Polymeric materials 
  • Electronic materials, especially semiconductors
  • Casting and solidification in Materials Processing
  • Deformation processing 
  • Composites (with Aero-Astro Department)
  • Archaeological metallurgy 

Change of Department Name in 1967 

When the Department was separated from Mining Engineering in 1937 it was called "Department of Metallurgy." It appears from the records that for the next 20 years there was no interest in changing the Department's name, which, in fact, seemed to cover most of the activities in the Department with the exception of Ceramics. When a change was considered desirable, it came about because of two main developments: a widening interest in nonmetallic materials, especially semiconductors, and a growing acceptance of materials science and engineering. 

In a memorandum dated January 11, 1967 to the Engineering Council, Professor T. B. King, head of the Department, summarized the history of the attempts to change the name of the Department: "As long ago as 1961, we proposed to the Visiting Committee that the name of the Department be changed to 'Metallurgy and Materials Science.' While the Visiting Committee was then in complete agreement, it was felt that the relationship of materials science to the broader area of materials or materials engineering ought to be clarified and the interests of other departments in the field clearly established before proceeding with such a change." Professor King's 1967 memorandum also stated: "Many of the questions which were raised in 1961 ... were concerned with the possibility that our Department might seem to pre-empt the field of materials at MIT ... there is little danger of that today [i.e., 1966-67] because of the growth of strong groups in materials in other departments." King concluded: "We may have lost the opportunity to pioneer in this process of change, but we cannot afford to fall behind those who have followed our advice and not our example." 

King's memorandum argued that "a change in the name is necessary for the health of the Department ... [and] that 'materials science' is indeed a name generally accepted as descriptive of the activities in which the Department presently engages." He stressed the importance of making students aware that "the curriculum is much broader than the name of the Department implies" and showed that the curriculum which had been introduced the year before [i.e., in 1966], in fact, bore the title "Metallurgy and Materials Science" and that all but one of the required departmental subjects were broader than "metallurgy" in the traditional meaning. 

King also showed that "an increasing fraction of the students who apply for admission specify their area of interest as materials science." He pointed out that in the ceramics group "more than a third of those presently in residence," in the electronics group "a substantial majority," and in the physics of solids group "essentially all the students would prefer their advanced degree to be in materials science rather than metallurgy." 

King's memorandum also stated that '''Metallurgy' should be retained for it is still one of the principal interests of the Department and it has great historical significance." It is interesting to note that when the name was again changed in 1974-75, "metallurgy" was, in fact, dropped from the title of the Department, but by no means from its substantive concerns. 

The formal proposal contained in King's memorandum was as follows: 

  1. That the Department be known as "Department of Metallurgy and Materials Science." 
  2. That the undergraduate degree be "Bachelor of Science in Metallurgy and Materials Science." 
  3. That one of the fields of the doctorate degree be "Materials Science." 

King's memorandum of January 11, 1967 was followed by correspondence with President Johnson, who replied favorably. Similar correspondence with the Chairman of the Faculty concerned changes in the degree designations. The proposed changes listed above were made. 

The following statement in Professor Chipman's autobiography is of interest in connection with the name change: "We had come a long way from the older metallurgical programs and were tending more and more toward a materials science curriculum. Our metallurgy was very broad. ... And we had a smaller but active group in ceramics. But we had no work in polymers and little in semiconductors and we could not adopt the broader name." The place in which this statement appears in his autobiography suggests that the subject of a name change may have come up some time during the second half of Chipman's tenure as Department head, but there is nothing to indicate that the statement was prompted by the attempt made in 1961 to include a reference to materials in the Department's name. 

The Establishment of the Center for Materials Science and Engineering 

As already mentioned, the climate of opinion and the political situation in the late 19S0s were favorable for materials research. The importance of technology and, in particular, materials technology for national well-being and security was increasingly recognized. President Eisenhower, through the White House Office of Science and Technology and the President's Science Advisory Committee, took a personal interest in materials development, as described enthusiastically by William O. Baker (Psaras and Langford, pp. 3-22). The concern with materials technology led to the National Materials Program and, on the initiative of the Department of Defense, the appointment of an interagency Coordinating Committee on Materials Research and Development (CCMRD). This committee convened first in 1958 and in 1959 recommended the founding of interdisciplinary laboratories for materials research (Psaras and Langford, p. 35). In July 1960, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of the Department of Defense reported that "the Department of Defense portion of the interdisciplinary laboratory program has been initiated" and three interdisciplinary laboratories (IDL's) were established before the end of that year (Psaras and Langford, p. 20). During the next two years, their number increased to twelve. 

Developments at MIT during the same period also moved toward a center for materials science. Interdisciplinary centers were nothing new at the Institute: the Research Laboratory for Electronics, the Laboratory for Nuclear Science, and the Center for International Studies were already in existence. In the Department of Metallurgy, Professors Chipman, Cohen, and Grant were actively exploring the establishment of a center for materials research. An interdepartmental committee of faculty members, under the chairmanship of Professor John Slater of the Department of Physics, worked on plans for a center and the proposal for such a center was included in the campaign of the Second Century Fund. The drive for a materials center was consistent with the emergence of materials science and engineering. 

The Institute began to explore with the Department of Defense the way in which MIT could "contribute its maximum potential [to the] proposed program:' MIT concluded that it would be most effective to "establish a materials center which would make it possible to bring together the various disciplines of [the] faculty interested in materials research." It was recognized that the center could not "house all ... current programs in materials research and simultaneously provide for the necessary expense." MIT, therefore, proposed "to bring the core of existing programs into the new center in such a way as to achieve the maximum interaction of disciplines." 

The Institute administration stressed that materials research, including theoretical work, had been carried out in a large number of departments in several of MIT's Schools. In the proposals, the Department's activities were extensively cited. It was pointed out that of a total of 99 MIT faculty members active in materials research in ten departments, 24 were in the Department of Metallurgy and that the Department had approximately 51 materials-related government contracts out of a total of 108 contracts for the Institute as a whole. 

MIT made its final proposal to ARPA in May 1961. This resulted in a contract before the end of the year whereby ARPA would provide $3 million of the projected $6 million cost of establishing the Center. The balance would be contributed by MIT from the Second Century Fund with further help from the Sloan Foundation. The Center was officially established in 1961. 

Operation of the Center 

The CMSE building was named after Vannevar Bush and dedicated in June 1965. Two of the five floors were assigned to the Department of Metallurgy. Most of the Physical Metallurgy and Physics of Metals groups, Electronic Materials, Ceramics, and Electron Microscopy moved to the new building. 

The mode of operation was determined by ARPA's work statement in IDL contracts (1960), according to which "an interdisciplinary materials research program was to be established for research in the science of materials ... " (Psaras and Langford, p. 37). The interdisciplinary nature of the intended program implied an interactive team approach. The emphasis on a team approach was reinforced in the 1970s when NSF took charge of the centers. An important feature of the operation was that the federal funds were given as block grants; however, much research in the Center was also supported by individual project funding. Another important feature was that the centers had to provide central facilities for preparation, characterization, and, in certain cases, evaluation of materials for use by any unit in the Center. 

The initial phase of the Center's operation is described in an article by its first director, Professor R.A. Smith. The article explained that three types of research were being conducted: (i) solid state physics and chemistry; (ii) materials of electronic interest; and (iii) materials of metallurgical interest. 

Toward the end of the 1960s, a change occurred in the political climate with respect to research funding, especially of research that was not mission oriented. The IDL's were transferred to NSF and renamed "Materials Research Laboratories" (MRL's). "Scientific excellence was no longer sufficient to qualify for support," but the important features of block funding, local responsibility and center-wide shared facilities were retained. The decision to transfer the centers to NSF was reached in 1970, but the actual transfer did not occur until 1972 (Psaras and Langford, p.40). 

The new policy for the centers was expressed in the emphasis on major thrust areas requiring the expertise of two or more materials-related disciplines and the accompanying formation of thrust groups. Reports from that period suggest that different centers responded differently. 

Schwartz states in describing the major impact of the centers that the new mode of funding university research would threaten traditional department organization (Psaras and Langford, p. 38). This statement, written in retrospect in 1986, did not, in fact, apply to MIT.

Schwartz mentions with respect to faculty distribution in the centers that, on the average for all centers, faculty members in departments of metallurgy or materials science and engineering increased from 19 percent in 1970 to 35 percent in 1985. In the same period, the absolute number of faculty members involved in IDL's/MRL's decreased from 600 to 400. 

In a survey of the accomplishments of the various centers nationwide, Schwartz lists for MIT, in addition to research on intercalated compounds, rapid solidification. The latter work was carried out by faculty members and students in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering. 

As mentioned already, the Center was expected to establish and operate central facilities. Some of these were developed from existing facilities and others were established as the need and opportunity arose. After various organizational and personnel changes, the following facilities were in operation in 1988 under the direction of Department faculty members: 

  • Central Analytical: Professor Witt 
  • Microprobe: Professor Vander Sande 
  • Rapid Solidification: Professor Yurek 
  • Transmission Electron and Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy: Professor Vander Sande 
  • X-Ray Diffraction: Professor Hobbs 

The history of the Central Analytical Facility goes back to Professor Chipman's research on the physical chemistry of steelmaking. The Microprobe Facility had its origins in development work by Professor Ogilvie and the X-Ray Diffraction Facility, in a laboratory organized by Professor John Norton and continued by Professor Ogilvie. It should be mentioned that much research on rapid solidification was carried out also independently of the Central Facility 

A number of Central facilities were also under the direction of faculty members from other departments. In 1988 these were the Crystal Physics, Optical Electronics, Microelectronics Technologies, Polymer, Scanning Electron Microscopy, Surface Analytical, and Synchrotron Radiation facilities. 

  • No labels