Charles Hitch, Berkeley, California: an interview by Newell Bringhurst

Transcript (23 pages) of interview by Newell Bringhurst with former UC-Berkeley President Charles J. Hitch, a friend of Fawn and Bernard Brodie, on March 3, 1989. This interview is no. 377 in the Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, and tape no. U-978. Accompanied by a biographical sketch of Charles J. Hitch

Hitch (b. 1910), former president of the University of California at Berkeley (1960s-1970s) who held several positions at the RAND corporation in California (1940s-1960s), recalls his professional association with Fawn Brodie's husband, Bernard Brodie, at RAND and the friendship as couples the two families enjoyed. He assesses the work of Bernard and provides insight into the family life of the Brodies. Interviewer: Newell Bringhurst

Interview fNo. CHARLES HITCH 377 CHARLES HITCH Berkeley, An California Interview Newell By Bringhurst Fpoave Everett L. Cooley Oral History i pEeRNCHMUEION8 March 3, Marriott Library University Salt Lake 1989 of City, Utah Utah Project THE UNIVERSTY LIBRARIES OF MARRIOTT LIBRARY SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84112 UTAH EVERETT L. COOLEY ORAL HISTORY COLLECTION Bate Wiloleli 3 I willingly 19 S’fl to scholarly contribute the my Library testimony of the recorded University on of el Utah to |990 S be used for purposes. / Open and Usable usable with the after my following review. restrictions: L ol SN VL Intervi ewge-“ el C %/WVQ&Q(— Table March 3, Tape #1: and Bernard’s With The Children The as Brodies a Couple Reputation Relations Fawn’s the Bernard His Picnics Contents 1989 Friendship Fawn of With Colleagues 12 and Parties 15 Debate in e Children at Washington Berkeley 23t FORMER OF HOME THE AT I'M 1989. 3, MARCH IS TODAY OF CALIFORNIA, OF THE UNIVERSITY HITCH CHARLES PRESIDENT THE IS FAWN BRODIE. THE SUBJECT OF OUR INTERVIEW BERKELEY. THE OF PART IS [THIS BRINGHURST. NEWELL IS INTERVIEWER TAPE #1.] EVERETT L. COOLEY ORAL HISTORY PROJECT. NB: However sequence. chronological a kindsieof forward move then and Brodies the know to EirstENgot you how chronologically, is start to place the So Fawn. than better not if well as him knew you since Bernard, inference indirect by guess I --and from that you feel comfortable. to know the have the date at NB: Yes, I €H- Et CH: got i areund) I know did friends in us. shared of art My too. a with Fawn were Nancy were great my wife number of enthusiasms music. and around life going on The other thing Nancy loved children, knew contacts and She I But Fawn. knew I than better sense, a in a saw and projects suppose, I so RAND, at in division. science some on together to not while Bernard, .a RAND to went specifically, political the in I 1948 division. social. and kinds social that that, well essentially of than him gquite Fawn all think. CaillkilEornaas to out RAND? to out ‘521 other each of lot came worked I and He they was division, that when economics an up set moved /51, earlier little they That’s do. was! which you Do 1950s. early the in Brodies So RAND and which she a was there responsible, including I sort ifo= e involved all suppose, was of adopted CHARLES HITCH the #1 Brodie friends of children and all the our She had picnics great Christmas about being of our all to age. parties. unable friends the at own for just "Nancy, up the on three and unhappy that you’re one enjoying without having that So vas Anifact, right children Brodie with them so and "Brodiles ‘Ehe the parenthood." of pains of children grandmotherhood tel kept was her said, the all we see, you’ll of Wellesell braughtus have RAND pleasures through go to Nancy children URpNEcNERENpIEESenER So contacts were there Brodies: the children. the with you and and Fawn, and then wife your between contact would how Now, contact Bernard, Fawn’s characterize you with contact the and you with levels personality? (@i great favorite, woman. She on liberal the During @ Mesk In what articulate, Politically Bernard, in and the worked and a and beautiful extremely hard were both Bernard during the was just particular, a was She ‘warm. McCarthy glued to television. Joseph other she host, remember I radio NB: very is mind marvelous a Democrats. how trial was books. her to \chatWspringst word! flle McCarthy ways did 2 hearings they you're manifest saying? their liberal #1 HITCH CHARLES @HE politics? in tendencies peliiieiesy remember can't 'E any that they his through going in ieinaliale L lejtlie clalsl, in part active tock evidence any find you’ll they think Fdentt Gk letters. of CHE- hewed RS A subtlety then? origins humble his Reflecting have Fawn. than make-up Perhaps. So they Yes, for in which but it I were there was think each I can’t other. the Jjust each other in great deal of personalities? different well. Amazingly respect intcentrast? with along get to appear such of light study did. they did a represented really they How GE- rough didn’t he and less had He manner. gracious Chicago of slums the in was Bernard different. so were they Well, Fawn’s @Hi- terms personality? [laughter] EHE: in Bernard with Fawn compare you would how Now, any remember I’m quarrels. a had not apparent, other people, sure they instance had them, them knowing way. social in of front NB: Never @F- Not in front NB: If they did of it other was in other words? people. away B from you, in other words? in a CHARLES HITCH GHE Yes. NB: Did #1 you ever competitive authors CH: No, another Their books I’ve thought they were since were been of cant ENENEcan@ts expressed that they somewhat were both prominent? [laughter] Bernard sense one both didn’t. too. a with and I get study trying the to in contrast remember what psycho-biographies remember. himself a very Sew he mustl strongly, at and not I - have least in my presence. He didn’t whole (@E- No. express field didn’t Now, you say I read read read Did were Ghs way or the other on the remember. happen, their but books I’ve then learned my that memory doesn’t is were so different. number of Fawn’s. flawed. I take it them? ever those most you e SR a one [laughter] and of in some his to what AnvEhhang: hers of the work books you 0 more were read 4 read I others. on I’m except I Stevens. Bernard’s read of Well, Thaddeus and closer and finished History. Jefferson of one psycho-biography? Bernard’s I himself can it My EFE I mean that NB : of Nothing you EHi- . not sure No Man Knows her have And Nixon read of in and each course war. carefully because they doing? of o Fawn'’/s was o just I CHARLES HITCH #1 recreational. Did you consider absorbing gone @HES through that No Man Knows You mention My that History you’ve her most pretty well that. one held your interest more? Mesh Fawn, but-- There was no overlap at peripheral it’s know I career, Bernard’s on Now, @I book? her pHesT And CH: [laughter] to all. Pardon? @Hi: @E: Clsis EhinicioENanyovierlapiatsal s e andE Between the two? Between the two. Holwash oEf doing doing her thing. Doing her thing, Now, he was was /she and thing his pretty much own area yes. his in prominent extremely wasnéEsne? @Fl: VEeTrmy considered he Was of field of @HE One NB: Pardon? @ One of strategic the the leading leading of one the studies? leading that Was experts his in the reputation? thinkers. thinkers. 5 In some ways he wasn’t CHARLES HITCH an #1 expert. systems was But he the fifties I CH: The it fast at Yes. He which was something was take one weren’t the were counter EEE showed Was he very and Perhaps point. He EH: No. a He He projects, the deal work didn’t joint all. the day, prominence very of When Bernard’s a of that weapons were speéial. They based conventional on tried on a say to war. think nuclear really He through war contemptuous, was in I a mean personality. people in government? RAND. little but Weapon And nuclear certain in bit, kept attention. to I Ultimate nuclear and carrying him by of who of The that people people little deal applicable in just weapon at thinkers strategies critical largely didn’t and manner. make in called different other that great great of It Yes, a of it. very book not force interested wasn’t throughout; business Did this weapons, contemptuous a age? very weapons of strategic young attracted theme engineering sixties. wrote his and he the achieved very something EEL- of and he a physics bit he of was developing a gadfly? making that a point. very He solid worked himself. very much with naturally and other easily interdisciplinary 6 people? fall projects. into He joint did on CHARLES HITCH #1 one occasion. the consequences That was of a report the development Bheramwerxelffourior « Bitve R EREINaEls ine included 1962 o the chief EhegehieEdofy economics report it, and to story say, he Now, he 1in to that NB : --common a That was the I As you and than more together though even you good pretty of the did you dynamilcs interest? common friends. good were the close were the primarily: gave it you you divisions and division that fact the to either. Was drew this Bernard. with science of the finishing NATO division. of headquarters others with division, chief headquarters. kind it was the to H-bomb. Participants After working just it Was drawn were went economics different we us on en . that. energy Force Air social the in guess. idivision, RAND the worked nuclear to much work ©r No, Common had came having Chsis have ever friends? wives You that the friends, Yes. in interest were EFl: people was mutual as of didn’t 1in were went at of who Bernard. some I closest and us of ‘uslh the thevaireraft four present of T . would:. of division, prepared of-- because together interests. in some interests. common with interests What kind Bernard? in common 7 interests of You mentioned with Fawn, your like wife music CHARLES HITCH and CHG #1 chididren. ElGasiNaES that: economics addition division--writing sRfibefense much stime--in in“the' Nuelear overlapped interested in a book Age. Bernard’s economics to organizing called Parts an Economics of that interest. He very wasn’t but-- Yeah. G --I was with So interested strategy your in on I’'d book both had to deal Age. in brought strategy you as together you were closer in a sense? heard the economics. No. He But I’'d little it’s € Nuclear We REe'SHE Yeah, CEl= strategy. interests this professional EHi= the common working in had no Then between difference of an awful lot of He and views. [laughter] both a think division. quite had Albert And I and Bernard economics was there Well, the yes. became very nationally. sort materials they think involved. got he Wohlstetter, prominent the didn’t economics. Wohlstetter different That’s he for that of Albert Albert use heard bit that of interesting, they evidently evidently were had 8 a in because falling close out. going at through one time. CHARLES @Hs #1 Yes. Yes. with Albert Oh G HITCH I think they did. Lots of people always easy fell out Wohlstetter. really? Yes And Bernard wasn’t either. [laughter] So CHi- it was Two two difficult clashing personalities. personalities. It Dbecame rather abrasive. Pardon? ©E: It became Gy ndi abrasive. sl made collaborate. Now, division EER- rather No, I four about only difficuliE " Eor Herman Kahn was in lothersit the o economics three division. mathematics the in [laughter] pounds, hundred But [laughter] hundred. think I [laughter] presume. You [Llaughter] wheeler. free another Herman, mere also? was he it he He met never he maybe went was weighed it was his own way. (Chals across come Because I’'ve Bernard and Herman amiable for awhile. Then just shop . inevitably too big to be a correspondence Evidently Kahn. fell some apart. part of In RAND. they fact He were Herman needed between somewhat became his own CHARLES HITCH #1 NB: Is that when GH : Yes. The Hudson Institute. NB: Now, the Hudson Institute things CH:> Yes, that more set RAND or Strategic CH- he up was less think that institute? was doing, the doing only the in New of York? tank? MEeSHE along with? much I trouble Nem T guess you getting Ehinkiiame people. Yes, he don’t think Well, of have each other’s course, other people, Seon: BotyEhing | did and organizations. EEL- Yes, NB: And wanted and that His was T and anything. impression. within . the people get to trying on it so that. wasn’t swhappen want Sometimes that RAND, in# Wohlstetter Albert didn’t loner a did as. want people? he with opinions about split awe being Bernard of He too side? Well, NB: have expressed, mind his out they Were organization? problems. Bid & itircauser splEiERs ity Bhige get him? personal my was that Etol "atiigeEtingiialiong some changed persen didn’t Yand S streongly ever course with prettyatgeed did he evidently along wereMssErenglyiheld EEE kind same. SoMBernardiwasividindeofa . difficult G- same knew his how to forte, 10 get them. cultivating people? inm people. all CHARLES @CHE HITCH Well, #1 no, I was really the title wouldn’'t a strategic more Whereas say than Bernard, that was thinker. Bernard how his I forte. think he No, he deserves does. would you characterize him in comparison? (Clzis Much simpler, That’s not little of He able was nuances @ET- to to which subsequent work. much useful, simpler. but there was subtlety. more complexity, more subtle right, and he did strongly have one influenced great much idea of at RAND’s did? Albert, enemy’s first strategic that Fhattwas in the thinking late both ’‘50s, in RAND to be to an for deterrence not our the changed idea That capability. strike capability, strike had That invulnerable mattered What strike. second our strike. made forces our systems strategic our that first a to vulnerable and was idea the and reversed Was were within? time much weren’t perceive that was thoughts they Albert’s that’s were CH: say Yes, Who Cisle Bernard’s and Efirst course of everywhere. ’‘60s? mid-"50is. What would you say e S os e that Bernard’s n ovat iens? | A5 legacy Can was in terms you " point ™ ite CHARLES HITCH #1 anything CH: Well, the The was the thing idea. Weapon, which course written on you you I right Hiroshima: earlier, after the the whole first concept of weapon. s right. in Yes, the guess I was saw It field, we’ve going their interact was early. written before and think on moved to ask you children relate the little‘ about quite with whole a It was the Bernard their very came spending became interested California, find was Museum then the turned time doing Dick He a For to last and tirights year a 1L and did they a problem, wHe two there. He came back to job the he bees, achieved his at while painting. Since veocation. or and guard producing distinction a was art-related raising some has is only how Dick painting as Pasadena. he painting. the serving in that great but in from Brodies. bit, well. worked Holland, away children? eyantinding v the in bit the a hHavangidiEficul is mentioned RAND. Fawn. I out? weapon dropped MestSERaEfs Well, EH- of ultimate first stand ultimate was bomb to would Ultimate which GE: that he could Norton Simon became a [laughter] My a latest and as an all information breakthrough exhibiting future postman, in paintings artist his of seems CHARLES HITCH #1 assured. EH:: Was it her hobby, Yes, she This provided Did Yes, her a talented a special parents they wife painted amateur tie to express certainly feel quite a bit as painter and potter. Dick. concern about Dick’s lack did. that he was not goal-oriented enough? e sk that what Bruce Did Fawn recald her gxpressing' problems too. He meet fortunate very was it Yes, @E: She was She helped me. youngster. found Janet. Janet? very to for good bring well. as her interviewed I’ve NB: he that to them shy a was about theories had sure I'm know. some had you was? den/E I think I it don’t I Well, SiEabuE @H your avocation? was they Is @H- that direction? Did EH: fact Dick’s of EE: a Bruce. him in out words? other Yes: Bruce’s So was difficulty his shyness and his about that from throw much ainhiibiEiens? (Clais I don’t know. Nancy to time, and time iiehiEMeni I TN and I’m I not fact, ) for i have talked sure that Some: we people, can I'm sure, i CHARLES HITCH must #1 be very parents. Do That you Dick rough may think too? having to have such brilliant have been part of the have been the such brilliant that Maybe might having difficulty, you know, having well-known explanation. problem with parents that to and live up to? €H: @H so. think Yes, I What about Pamela? Bamelafiwaseia® Everybody loved little Pam of paEENeoENEalN unhappy doll .as' a Pam, but unfortunately she was since to marriage. But here. come closer, when Then but you Ete this had out of and 1961 for of many very were we to an Washington especially here get in she have didn’t didn’t very moved January up moved still we think doll. seen lived Brodies, the we T go we I’ve She we in left We charming see, to £irst see to opportunities children. young. Washington In Washington. d Fornial forta s whiilel Seuthernealiifornia’ then child, little a them see the very frequently. You were Undersecretary, CH- Assistant NB : And @H: SEPEEMbeEMNc that was secretary was from you? it? controller. January of Then I A6 5N weren’t department, defense the in 14 ‘61 until came’ when? here' as a wvice CHARLES HITCH #1 president. on @H Then two years later they over right after Clark asked me to stay president. as Yeah, you After Clark took Kerr got fired. Kerr, [laughter] right? Those were the days. It (155 Mesin I guess VRS, A2, Brodies 1L @Fe @l at wasn’t Bernard 255N e ISP I him before T 1961/ . e 81951t ¥eaht: ’52. or ‘51 about until RAND iinteracEiingiyous FanRasiEEcallliy S SN knew that? ligalely - alitn chiehal?ies L Jetiz weE, loeels, Jaas JmeEny the elapsed. years ten much pretty with interacted you period the during Now, @ it? doesn’t time, another like seems personally. was relationship Eight NB: ——cight would really eight wears) get you heuses?) @©F- personally So then. personal the about-- years. @ of him know didn’t You I's) or together Ehat the years, and entertain kind of at Was thing? 1961. until ‘51 ten each it So other’s that kind relationship? VespEhat houses, sk slightiMuchentertaining and picnics. My 15 wife was a in! great each othexr’s picnic fan CHARLES and . #1 HITCH the Brodies liked picnics, pIenesIenithefsbeach or' and 'up 1In the the kids 1liked Santa Monica Mountains. @Hi Oh really? on the Yes, Let’s beach see, and behind on where so the they you’d have frequent hills back of their lived. Yes, farther picnics house? out. What? CH Above the know, to take walks and you’d just drive up So have EE- what you’d a lot of other There varied. That very have fine scenic place, you there and picnics. there usually and hike up in do? were Oh really? Who name was S99 all the very to frequently Hitches, the do, and Mark which there Brodies about of she would and girls the same age a lot of had Nancy So The Peter. Fran were they 16 both [laughter] that? and whom girls. six had They to family another was ‘'kids. the " Brodie there people? Peter, beautiful grandmothering So was would or families two the be close. us Their it Would what? were NB : a BESE be @E: quite picnic? that And CH: It’s Yes. Is EH - a coast. loved. be the the three Peters, families: who’d get CHARLES CH: HITCH #1 together on Picnics, yes. year the in Hitches kids. (Clals was form what created of have became a an great the quite you An would be sannual® a institution: Christmas party every party. primarily for all The the famous. and your wife put together? Eor thefkidsi We No. were ferward institution a Rent living in the which is a when big to. we Then we moved up cultivate would Nancy these have do? you would What look president. we’d and kids to same became the event? muchy 'the I and here annual event, established @i we Righg. That @ - picnics? Then would It That these Christmas parties hall? house-- president’s (0] alks @ Blake What house, Did California? (Clale in down about you Monica, Santa have enough large it at your mansion. down southern in home? Yes. When you had these three @ More. Broader NB : A (Cials Yes. lot of the families people than at Christmas or would that. RAND L7/ then? party, it would be--? slie,. o2 E@E CHARLES HITCH #1 was sort NB: It @ES A NB: Mm. CH:: NeS S fhere were Peters Brodies RAND So a and beach were ‘others a party with kids, but were the mainstays. year you would or up in the I’d either say the get together those picnics mountains? be more than just would be once for mentioning? Me Sk tee with just in entertained hostess I Fawn she guess elegant, go to one people Several Yes. And NB: Your wife @Fliss She liked that too. wisitors ter be way have was great. you mentioned elaborate we or it Frequently always We RAND was another. talked about that she’d dinner parties. frequently? reciprocated. liked to entertaining formal a what marvelous was. Ehlesefairly @Hi- the adults? with assecidted® Yes, the would there Yes, it times other At @HE: Christmas? party. times would you @EE- RAND Yes. That E©HE of Christmas several for EHE a to entertain? entertain too. 18 these give So I guess rather you’d CHARLES NB: HITCH Liked #1 to much entertain. of the a loner, workplace yourself? but that You anybody Now, you were he was at RAND Bernard there any somewhat mentioned else say he pretty individuals closer yourself, that was to but besides was interacted in there with more frequently? @EH He struck Plesset and up Was was quite the a @H- I Oh. So He he of at up set 1like a Plesset. a close in the study of They one had group the H-bomb. in thing I RAND left tank. think then? in the that had been That may have getting their for responsible He included were odd profession. Plesset Ernie the of member involved to Plessets The rather independent another a in division to was interest science happened He no Seemed Plesset. uncommon yes. subsequently. nuclear Ernie an parties. been the with least pretty was close, was was what’s think and chief It know friendship physicist. friendship. don’t a together they had economics, not common, economics. Pardon? G They NB : He CH:: Yes. had liked no Charles Charles in interest Wolf. He was [laughter] Wolf? Charles SeetilNscience. NB: economics. economics. 569 Wolf was in CHARLES @ HITCH #1 BhaEdsEeiightasinthank Charles QEEERuEEREheNSecial different and did and iseilence less Bernard divisien did was hit a it little interacting. Really? EH:: Yes. Less that my people activities even wasn’t only that So the liked to there sit a We to come would probably debate, Will on Were you from in of himself. the social i ght S an but inferior, join I ‘75 of 20 defense the Brodies? to Fawn ’'79. publisher, that? one GEcasien, L algalioei were we and Fawn Occasionally remember period Jefferson attendance see you the correspondence. her by on division sociable. would general. NB: members infrequently. again book by to RAND on the her science books RAND Bernard soctdialily,. = That/s Washington. arranged of group. during Washington insisted economics. were--not leftyl very them saw too be they carried you Obviously for frequently how write N execeptn your department, social and minority a of the I mainstream pure to not the Well, wasn}t tendency o fEellt Watter New, it down NeotEEcoMseociablie different, @EiE if into member was Phamicathiey [laughter] get division science S interacting. had against a ol public George psycho-biography in CHARLES HITCH CH: Yes. NB: How EH: I #1 Fawn did was she think staying react she suspect it with to a at that time. that? enjoyed sold us ever lot of minute her of it. [laughter] I books. Pardon? EHe: I suspect it sold a lot of her books. Mm. ©H- Well, let “Sme * finish = answering Occasionally one children but recall did I don’t happen Either EHE CH: Dick Yes, any All three Yes, That’s the CEE you Berkeley, UCLA. children to on their question. there’s a they if to with own. away when interesting. their Certainly time in through, Washington. were here. didn’t they? It Bruce? came choose good on happening come times. of their a to or them children Because far of affiliated That’s that might question. them. kind chose @E Pam different encourage the time or of at both from of your frem I’'m of sort like « home as 2/ and Did go Bernard they away to were deliberately school, or did own? not pattern were circumstances. Fawn me. i sure. I expect they that-- I to wanted el abia get as Skl ileve CHARLES NB : HITCH So you and #1 think probably that? their I hard go own"? tell we said remember her idea [you] "Well, because never [whose but say, away She to children, didn’t to never was the Fawn children CH- it it aren’t we sure of encouraged felt they should anything like that? trying was], to Jjustify the be on those decisions. I guess get a I should chanece have to asked ask the that. children. I didn’t I just know there’s guess that would have a patteEntEaiNlithireet ofthem== E©En: Came to Berkeley. Yes, came to been the Hin o gol to! | Eox « them" logicaltischicol Ehc I Berkeley. UC system. Els the @ (Entertain what? oececasienally 'yeuid Eadise been. have would it Yes, children? EH: Mese Or @ They And @EE Yes, I did, us would Fawn then the visit visit would see the would they you? occasionally come into town to us at children? don’t recall that house, but know Bernard did. I 22 ever Fawn President’s and house. President’s the at I think stayed with Dick and Bruce CHARLES NE SR HITCH rucclantdEBernard S remember CH: Fawn, NB: So no. with helped CH: #1 Yes, Fawn doing Pam, the very " Dick did, A number going some contact of you don’t to times. Berkeley, with limited. [END but so? children maintain but yes. and OF .INTERVIEW] 23 the I guess Brodies. that CHARLES Born, with January highest 9, 1910, distinction in Boonville, from the J. HITCH Missouri, University Mr. Hitch of Arizona in received 1931. his B.A. At Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship, he was elected in 1935 a Fellow of Queen’s College, a position he held until 1948. He was general editor of the Oxford Economic Papers. Mr. Hitch was with the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, from 1948 to 1961, first as Head of its Economic Division and later as Chairman of its Research Council. He was appointed Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) by President Kennedy in January 1961, a position he held until September 1965. He then became Professor of Economics and Vice President Business and Finance of the University of California in September 1965, Vice President of the University for Administration in July 1966, and was President of the University of California from January 1, 1968 to June 30, 1975. He joined Resources for the Future as its president on July 1, 1975, a position from which he retired in June 1979. Mr. Hitch has written and edited several books-and has been active in professional organizations, serving as President of the Operations Research Society of America, 1959-60, and Vice President of the American Economic Association, 1965. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the Econometric Society. He served as a trustee of the Asia Foundation, the Aerospace Corporation, and the Center for Biotechnology Research, and as a member of the Advisory Councils of the Gas Research Institute and the Electric Power Research Institute. He was chairman of the General Advisory Committee of the Energy Research and Development Administration during 1975-77, and a member of the Energy Research Advisory Board of the U.S. Department of Energy 1978-85. He was a member of the Assembly of Engineering of the National Research Council 1975-78, and a Phi Beta Kappa Visiting Scholar 197778. Mr. Hiteh is nofiv living in Berkeley, California, and has Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory of the University of California. an office in the