Kathryn Jackson is senior
vice president and chief
technology officer at
Westinghouse Electric
Company, a provider of fuel,
services, technology and
equipment for the commercial
nuclear-power industry, based
in Pennsylvania, US
Why did you choose to study physics?
I find it fascinating to understand how things work,
and physics provides a fundamental understanding
of so many things by blending how they work with
the theory of why they work. The breadth of physics,
from optics to astrophysics, really appealed to me.
My favourite class was optics. I could see optical
applications all around me and there were new
technologies becoming available, like low-cost
lasers, that had obvious implications for industry
and society. Physics was not esoteric – you could
see how it would impact on people’s lives.
What did you do next?
I actually started my career at Westinghouse, where
I worked on reactor-vessel radiation analysis for
just less than five years. Then, in 1983, I earned a
Masters degree in engineering management and
moved away from a solely technology-based focus.
I went back to academia and received my PhD in
engineering and public policy from Carnegie Mellon
University in 1990. After this I started working at
the Tennessee Valley Authority ( TVA), which is a
government-owned corporation in charge of things
like flood control and electricity generation in that
area of the country. I came full circle when I
returned to Westinghouse in 2008.
What sparked your interest in policy?
I had a fascinating experience at the beginning of
my graduate career, when one of my professors
said something to me like, “Once I get this
computer code perfect, I’m going to be rich
because everyone’s going to buy my product.”
And I thought, “Well, that doesn’t sound right to
me.” As I began thinking about this, it became
apparent to me that the context of how we design
technologies and incorporate them into products
makes such a difference to whether the technology
is accepted. Having an elegant technology, while
appealing to a physicist, is not sufficient to make
that technology useful.
What drew you back to the nuclear industry?
As the nuclear-energy industry has developed over
the years, there has been a focus on lessons
learned and on improving designs to make the
plants safer, more reliable and more cost-effective.
But historically, the industry has not been very good
at communicating these improvements to
policymakers, so there is a gap between the
technology’s realities and public perception. I think
we need people who understand the electric
industry – which I do thanks to my 17 years of
experience at the TVA – and who recognize that
technology is insufficient unless you can be
articulate about its benefits to energy security and
environmental sustainability.
How do you tackle that gap?
I think there is a growing recognition that nuclear
energy should represent a significant portion of a
low-carbon economy. Compared with the amount
of waste produced by a coal-fired plant, the
quantity that comes from a nuclear-energy facility
is very, very small. But the public perception of
nuclear spent fuel is what matters. In terms of
articulating the relative risk involved in various
forms of energy production, I believe that the
nuclear industry needs to become much more
effective. We need to be able to describe the
technology in ways that decision-makers and the
public can understand. This is even more important
in the discussions regarding climate change.
Renewables and energy efficiency are important,
but we need a baseload energy source that is
reliable and carbon-free. Nuclear must be part of
the solution.
What is the role for physicists in this debate?
There is no-one better able to talk about this than
someone who understands the technology. My
daughter is 16 and she is studying physics now,
and some classmates started talking about nuclear
power. Some said it was terrible; my daughter
asked why, and it was about Chernobyl. She
pointed out – because we have talked about this –
that Chernobyl could never happen in the light-water reactors used in the US. The physics teacher
was not aware of this. We have done our job badly
if we cannot communicate to those who have an
influence on the young people who are going to
shoulder the problems that this generation leaves.
Those of us who are fluent in technology need to be
armed with data that can provide a sound basis for
the trade-offs we need to make.
What is your advice for physics students?
The most important thing I learned – and it took me
a long time to absorb it – is that the best technical
solution is not necessarily the one that gets
implemented. You have to take business and
political realities into account, and this often results
in the implementation of a sub-optimal solution,
from a technical perspective. But if a technology
gets used to solve problems, that is a win! So I
would advise physicists to recognize that their
knowledge is incredibly valuable, but to temper their
need for perfection. You can do absolutely anything
as a physicist, because you can not only understand
the technology, but also put it into context and ask
really pertinent questions. It is that questioning
attitude that I think provides such value.
To make the most of your physics degree, visit
www.brightrecruits.com
Careers and people
Simulation experts win Dirac Medal
Condensed-matter theorists Roberto Car
of Princeton University in the US and
Michele Parrinello of the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology (E TH Zurich) have
won the 2009 Dirac Medal for their work
on numerical-simulation techniques. The
pair began developing new methods of
modelling molecular dynamics in the
mid-1980s, using elements of density
functional theory and Newtonian
molecular dynamics to calculate the
mechanical motion of atoms and
molecules in real time. Now known as
the Car–Parrinello method, their
technique has become a standard tool in
computational physics and chemistry. The
award, which is announced each year on
8 August, Dirac’s birthday, carries a cash
prize of $5000 and is sponsored by the
Abdus Salam International Centre for
Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy.
Chinese scientists unhappy in careers
Almost one-third of science and
technology workers in China would like to
change careers, according to a survey of
30 000 researchers, technicians and science
teachers carried out by the China
Association for Science and Technology
(CAST). Only 49% of those surveyed said
they were satisfied with their jobs, and
more than half do not want their children
to follow them into scientific research.
Study author Zhang Xiaomei cited low
income, intense career pressure and a lack
of career prospects as reasons for the
widespread dissatisfaction. Salaries for
roughly 32% of science and technology
workers are below China’s national
average, while 8% work more than
70 hours per week. China’s science and
technology sector employs 52 million
people, of whom 25% hold a Masters or
PhD degree.
Movers and shakers
String theorist Jaume Gomis of the
Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics
in Ontario, Canada, has won an Early
Researcher Award from the Ontario
Ministry of Research and Innovation. The
C$150 000 award is aimed at helping
scientists to build strong research groups
early in their careers.
Five amateur astronomers have won
the 2009 Edgar Wilson Award for
discovering new comets. Robert Holmes of
the US, Koichi Itagaki of Japan,
Stanislav Matricic of Slovenia, Michel Ory
of Switzerland and Dae-am Yi of South
Korea will each receive a small cash prize
from the Smithsonian Astrophysical
Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
which administers the award.
