What’s in a name? What if I had a major mid-life crisis and ceased being JoAnne Hewett and insisted on being Susan Smith instead? How would friends and relatives get in contact with me? What if I thought I told everybody, but had forgotten about my best friend from high school who suddenly needed me? How would people connect the theoretical research of JoAnne Hewett with that of Susan Smith? Would all the work and untold fame associated with JoAnne Hewett be lost to the new Susan Smith? My identity and history would be lost, as well as a sense of who I am.
People change their names all the time, of course, for various reasons. But what about major research institutions? What if the federal government suddenly decided to change the name of one of its more prestigious national laboratories? One that has been in operation for more than 40 years and has generated several Nobel prizes and major discoveries?
This is precisely what is happening to the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, my home institution. The US Department of Energy, in its infinite wisdom, is proposing to change SLAC’s name to something as yet undecided. A committee of representatives has been formed to recommend new names for the laboratory. Persis Drell, SLAC director, quotes part of the rationale as:
Our stakeholders have suggested that the name is also no longer fully representative of the laboratory with its increased involvement in photon science and particle astrophysics in addition to our particle physics program
SLAC is in the midst of a transition. We are no longer operating an accelerator for High Energy Physics. We are building the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS), which has an exciting discovery potential in Photon Science. I can’t help but note that the word linac appears in the name of the new machine. In fact, the linear accelerator at SLAC is the cornerstone of the new LCLS. The LCLS could not be built without it. So doesn’t it seem appropriate that the lab housing the LCLS be named Stanford Linear Accelerator Center? It is hard to understand this argument.
There is also some legalese about the DOE wanting to trademark and patent the name SLAC, but is having difficulty because one apparently can’t patent a name containing “Stanford.” The University and DOE are communicating on this issue, but there is no resolution yet. Of course, there are numerous companies dotting Silicon Valley which freely use the name “Stanford” in their moniker, so it is hard to understand this argument as well.
The employees at SLAC, no matter what their discipline may be, are understandably upset. They have started a petition, addressed to the President of Stanford University and to the Secretary of Energy, asking that the name of the laboratory not be changed. This petition addresses the history of the lab, the role of accelerators in both photon and particle science, and the close connection between the lab and the university. The petition can be found here, and anyone who agrees with it may sign.
Lab name changes have happened before, albeit under different circumstances. Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Laboratory was known as CEBAF (Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility) before 1996, which is the name of its main accelerator. CEBAF was founded in 1984 and the name change took place just after construction was completed and just before the beam turned on. Likewise the National Accelerator Laboratory became the Enrico Fermi NAL in 1972 while the lab was under construction. So while laboratory names have changed, it has happened only before data taking had commenced and long before history and reputation had been established.
I wish I could wake up and discover this was only part of a really bad dream.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:25 am
How would friends and relatives get in contact with me? What if I thought I told everybody, but had forgotten about my best friend from high school who suddenly needed me? How would people connect the theoretical research of JoAnne Hewett with that of Susan Smith? Would all the work and untold fame associated with JoAnne Hewett be lost to the new Susan Smith?
If you really had any fame, Wikipedia would chronicle the name switch. You could manage the transition by calling yourself “the physicist formerly known as JoAnne Hewett.”
August 5th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Frankly, changing the name of a national lab after 45+ years to satisfy some beauracrats in DC is just stupid. Clearly those people at DOE have nothing better to do given our shrinking budgets & lack of a long-term energy plan. Maybe with the replacement of the upper hierarchy at DOE by the new Obama administration this will cease to be an issue & we can return to both serious science & to solving our national & international problems.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:54 am
PS: nice to hear from you again Susan…
August 5th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Hi JoAnne,
Nice to hear from you
How about just officially changing the meaning of the acronym to some other ‘S’ such that the Stanford problem doesn’t occur, but the abbreviation stays the same? Like *oohm* super? sexy? sophisticated? Anyway, SLAC will very likely just turn into ‘formerly known as SLAC’. Best,
B.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Palo Alto Linear Photon Source – PALPS. How does that grab you?
A committee of representatives has been formed Committee: None of us individually is as stupid as all of us together.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Back in the seventies, some genius in the House Committee on Public Works had the bright idea to rename Caltech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory after H. Allen Smith, the long-time congressional representative from the region. Smith was retiring from Congress and JPL was renamed the “H. Allen Smith Jet Propulsion Laboratory” in a bill signed into law in 1972. I graduated from Caltech in 1973 and remember the fuss that occurred at the time. People at Caltech and JPL were not amused and protested the decision. Rep. Smith was appalled at the fuss and requested that his name be removed from the facility. This was done with an amendment in a 1973 bill.
In reality, Smith’s name never adorned the JPL facility since the renaming was repealed before it was scheduled to take effect. I hope good sense prevails in the SLAC debate, too, but we can’t count on that.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:04 am
I agree that it is pretty stupid to rename a well-known institution (we could call the University of Oxford the Tony Blair Institute for Higher Education).
On another note, the “Linear Coherent Light Source” is an awfully non-descript name for an ultra-fast X-ray laser. In fact, I had to click on the link to find out what it was, because the name suggests nothing beyond a generic laser. If anything needs renaming, it’s the LCLS.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:21 am
sometime, it maybe a good idea to let some people feel they are winners.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Remember that the SSC lab was — at least for a while — named the “Ronald Reagan Center for High Energy Physics.”
So they could be thinking … no, they would never do that.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:47 am
The George W. Bush Center for Photon Acceleration.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Actually, LCLS stands for Linac Coherent Light Source, not Linear, but your argument is even stronger for it. I think it says something about the name that we can’t even easily remember what the acronym stands for! (I have made exactly this mistake in the past.)
August 5th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
George’s F*ing Big Laser Center?
Or something more forward looking like The Obamatron?
Nah, that’s got to be the new LHC name…
Maybe they need to hire some image consultants and come up with a futuristic fake sounding name that can be trademarked (I note that “Stringur Linear Accelerator Center” would not work).
Hm, the “Salvanator”? The “Drellac”? The “Bodmanatron”? The “Orbachinator”!
August 5th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
As an employee of SLAC whose discipline (observational cosmology, mainly in the optical) is only tenuously related to accelerator physics (if at all), I feel the need to dispel the notion that “[t]he employees at SLAC, no matter what their discipline may be, are understandably upset.” Granted, I’ve been out of town recently, but I haven’t heard any great complaints from the particle astrophysicists and cosmologists.
Honestly, it’s a bit irritating that, every time I tell someone I work at SLAC, I also have to explain that, well, SLAC is no longer really an “accelerator center,” that the accelerator has recently been shut off, actually, and that there’s a much broader range of science being done at SLAC now than just particle physics. I’m not sure that means we need to change the name, necessarily, but my opinion on the name change would be best described as “neutral, leaning toward support.” I hope we can keep the connection to Stanford in the name, certainly, but I don’t see anything wrong with changing the name, now that the major accelerator activities at the Lab have ceased.
JoAnne, with respect, I find it hard to follow the logic of some of your arguments here. You say that, if you changed your name to Susan Smith, then “[m]y identity and history would be lost, as well as a sense of who I am.” I very much doubt this. It would take some getting used to, certainly, and some of your oldest friends would probably keep referring to you as JoAnne, but the confusion would eventually settle down to be a mild irritant at best. Provided that you were famous enough, also, people would have no problem linking your new name to your old one. The best example I can think of for this is Prince (you know, the artist formerly know as The Artist Formerly Known As…), whose discography includes both his “Prince” and his “unpronounceable symbol” periods, with no confusion. SLAC, I think, is sufficiently famous in the physics community that it can survive a name change with reputation intact
The argument about the LCLS is a red herring: it will be an X-ray laser, not an accelerator. Particles will be accelerated, sure, but it will by no means be an “accelerator” in the sense that that term is usually used in physics. “Accelerator” means particle collider in common usage, and SLAC no longer has one.
But, setting aside the merits of the arguments for and against the name change, I think that we would be well advised to pick our battles more wisely. The DOE could have made a strong argument, after the B-Factory shut down, that it was time to mothball the lab entirely. It would have saved a lot of money that could have been used, for example, to extend operations at the Tevatron. Instead, they just want to change the name. We at SLAC/whatever should count our blessings.
But whatever we end up calling the Lab, I do want to close by congratulating the Babar collaboration on all their excellent science, and on their new career as the Libertarian presidential candidate (joke is ~1:45 in)
August 5th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Hi JoAnne, the phrase “Photon Science” isn’t one I’ve seen as such, or much anyway. Sure, it’s an obvious formation but I am used to seeing “photonics”, “quantum optics”, “radiation physics”, etc. I suppose that is the logical term for studying aspects of photons in general, but it is curious to be (apparently) a rare phrase. Also, why the caps?
BTW do you or anyone have opinions on the concept of better treating photons as if quantized responses to a continuous EM field, more than if themselves like “particles”? Some thinkers and experimenters find it easier and convenient to do so, but I don’t have the refs right now.
PS I often hang out with the FEL crowd at TJNAF (”Jefferson Lab”, or “J-Lab”) in VA. They are certainly interested in the LCLS etc. and I’ll send them these links. LMK if anything you want me to pass on. tx.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
The whole idea of a name change is somewhat puzzling. While Brian notes that SLAC is sufficiently famous within physics circles that its reputation will carry over to the new name, I don’t think that argument can be made for the general public. The public has heard of SLAC for years and knows that a lot of good work has been done there, but it seems highly unlikely most would pay attention to a name change; they will just stop hearing about SLAC and may assume that it went away. For the public, I think the reputation of the place will need to be rebuilt anew. At a practical level the general will likely care a lot less if future budget cuts target a lab with an unknown name than a famous one — familiarity adds an emotional component. Public perception is important!
Brian also says
August 5th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
SLAC meet SDU (quondamOU), SDU meet ???? (quondam SLAC).
No Nobels, though.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
David: Thanks for the catch – I’ve corrected the post. Seems I’ve been calling the thing by the wrong name for years now.
Brian: (1) There are numerous signatures on the written petition from my particle astro colleagues at SLAC. (2) An accelerator is a machine which accelerates particles to higher energies. A collider is a machine that collides accelerated particles. As you yourself say, particles will be accelerated for the LCLS, technically making the laboratory an Accelerator Center. (3) I am JoAnne Hewett to my very core and find it presumptive of you to tell me how I would feel if my name had to be changed.
Neil: Photon Science is the generic term used by folks at the lab to describe the science that will be done at LCLS. I’m afraid that I have no ideas on how to better treat photons, except to maybe give them some R&R and treat them to a nice meal once in awhile.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I’m in particle physics working at SLAC right now, and I found a copy of the petition left on a desk near the printers. At first I was more so indifferent to the name change, and thought the recent jokes on the matter were just a form of refusal to let go of familiarity. But after reading the petition, I found the arguments very convincing.
But I’m really leaning towards Brian’s view. When I hear of SLAC, I think of the linear accelerator, as far as smashing particles together in a linear accelerator is concerned. SLAC is taking on a broader range of topics now, and so the name change does make sense. In fact, this may even be better, for the closure of the “particle collider” that made SLAC so great, carried with it the closure of the name of the laboratory.
As far as the “Stanford” part and the DOE logistics part of it is concerned, I’m probably of your view. But it does make sense to find a name that explains the lab better, when a new generation is coming in.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
The urge to change the name stems from the same misbegotten impulse that drove astronomers to kick Pluto out of the planet club: the idea that a label must necessarily be an accurate description. Which is not true! It’s just a name, it’s not supposed to be a distillation of the nature of the thing being named. The word “cat” is useful because everyone knows what you are referring to when you say “cat,” not because the sound “cat” conveys a brief summary of cat-ness.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
The people who work at SLAC are known as SLACkers.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Wolfgang Panofsky National Lab (WPNL)
August 5th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
For the record, CEBAF had already completed two experiments that formed the thesis work of 5 PhD students before the name change. But even with the change coming just 6 months after the first experiments, there were several people who weren’t happy with the idea of changing the name.
Of course, it didn’t help that some people justified the name change as replacing a confusing acronym, CEBAF, with a much simpler one, TJNAF. It doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, does it?
August 5th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Neil B, this laser will certainly not be doing quantum optics…
August 5th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
If one must use acronyms, they should be simplifications (what’s wrong with “Jefferson Lab”?). CEBAF and TJNAF sounds like what happens when theoretical physicists are allowed in experimental labs.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
This is probably just a case of some bureaucrat, who has made a career out of bouncing from place to place renaming things. Their CV/resume probably consists of a list their brilliant renaming endeavors.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Hi Sean – I really agree with your analogy with Pluto. But perhaps I was thinking the way I did because in SLAC’s acronym, it does try to label what the center stands for. So when Brian explains to people on the street what “linear accelerator” is there, he will have to say it is no longer one. For instance, Pluto or Cat are just names, but WIMPs are not.
I am not really encouraging the name change, but these are my thoughts.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Sure, I know what you mean. Obviously “Stanford Linear Accelerator Center” was not chosen randomly from a list of English-language sounds; it was supposed to reflect the purpose of the lab. My point is that by now, many years later, that name functions primarily as a label. And there’s nothing wrong with that! “Quantum mechanics” is not primarily about quanta, and “relativity” certainly isn’t about relativity, but they’re perfectly serviceable names, and it would be a pain in the ass to try to change them.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Sean’s analogy to Pluto is preposterous. Of course, a label does not necessarily represent scientific reality, and we should not become too hung up on the labels with which we adorn things. But even if the names of things do not, unto themselves, contain or embody scientific reality, they are still the basis of our ability to communicate effectively. Does physical reality care what nomenclature we use for planets and asteroids? Of course not. But our ability to communicate with each other about them requires a consistency of language. If I call my goldfish a planet, it does not change the nature of the goldfish or of any planet, but it’s going to make talking to someone about goldfish or planets much more difficult.
“Linear accelerator” has a definite, well-understood meaning. “Center” has a definite, well-understood meaning. When you call something a “linear accelerator center,” that means something. Otherwise, why bother using the correct names of things at all? Oops, did I just call an electron a quark? No big deal! Labels are arbitrary! Oops, did I just call creationism a scientific theory? No problem! Labels are arbitrary!
Use words to mean what they are generally accepted to mean, or don’t speak at all.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
I believe what the DoE is attempting with the name change has a tangential association to the current Bush administration’s disengenuous policies of predicating any explanation on a lie. The SLAC is currently under seige by a DoE organization that is sacrificing science on the alter of a archaic business model that demands outdated and ineffective policy and compliance procedures that have cobbled the feet of almost every department at the facility. Further, there are those who believe that the name change proposal represents a jab in the eye to the university by a functionally bankrupt agency undoubtedly on it’s way out come the November elections. If a name change must come about let it reflect the stupidity and ineptitude of the administration under which the change occurred. Let me suggest the George Bush Accelerator Center for Moronic Science.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Harold: One of the points is that the linear accelerator is still very much here and is very much a crucial element of the lab;s main program – the Linac Coherent Light Source.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
(3) I am JoAnne Hewett to my very core and find it presumptive of you to tell me how I would feel if my name had to be changed.
I find it presumptuous of you to say that “[t]he employees at SLAC, no matter what their discipline may be, are understandably upset” when some of them are just fine with it.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Troublemaker – I tend to agree with Sean on this part, that changing the name would just be a huge pain. For those who actually have any affiliation with SLAC, we all know what it is anyways. It probably is not too much trouble to explain to a stranger, and we can even offer them an interesting history on why it’s no longer “that.”
So it’s similar to Feynman’s recollection with his dad about naming Birds. As long as we know what we’re talking about, the name doesn’t have to describe it well. A good argument for the name change would be more for PR, and if the name change would at all be beneficial.
August 5th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
JoAnne:
Regarding your three points in reply to me:
(1) Your post implied that SLAC’s employees, as a general class, were upset about the name change. I don’t get that sense from where I sit, but maybe I’m just missing something. At any rate, I’m not particularly bothered, and I am a SLAC employee, so your post put a bee or two in my bonnet.
(2) When people (at least those who don’t work directly in experimental particle physics) say “accelerator” in the context of particle physics, they typically mean “accelerator and particle collider.” I don’t dispute your technical correctness on this point at all, but I’m not convinced of its relevance.
(3) I apologize if I worded my post badly: I never meant to tell you how you ought to feel. My point was about how other people would view a name change (yours, as an analogy for SLAC’s).
I should also reiterate that I’m not particularly supportive of the name change (I roughly agree with Sean’s point)–I just don’t really see why it’s such a big deal. In particular, I worry that the current response will appear, to the folks at the DOE (who pay the bills), like a bunch of particle physicists acting whiny and entitled (how dare YOU bureaucrats rename OUR lab?). Particle physics already has a political problem in this regard, frankly; I don’t see how this petition is helpful.
Again, they could have decided to shut the lab down, but instead they’re just trying to rename it. Heck, they could call it Dr. McStinky’s Cheese Factory, for all I care, as long as they keep it open. (Ok, not really …)
August 5th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Brian – I’m really tempted to put that down for a suggestion of the new lab name.
August 5th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
By all means,
I think the D. O. E. should go out and hire one of those firms that comes up with snazzy corporate names for big bucks. They can come back with something like:
Experisys or Phonatia
or something like that and present a bill for $700.000.00
That’s the American way.
e.
August 5th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Sean’s comparison with Pluto is spot on. Pluto and like planets are now no longer planets but plutoids. So SLAC is now a lab-oid, and the scientists who work there are now humanoid and … . Often when elected officials and beaurocrats have nothings else to do they just rename things. It gives them the sense they have accomplished something. Hmmm …, I am thinking of renaming my dog!
The SSC as The Ronald Reagan Center for High Energy Physics? The idea is enough to cause a burp — but do remember that G.H. Bush was for the SSC and Clinton killed it.
Lawrence B. Crowell
August 5th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
[...] to names, whilst making Dungeons and Dragons references. Joanne Hewitt at Cosmic Variance has posted about the proposed name change to the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), where she works as [...]
August 5th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Hmmm…a Silly Lunatic Acronym Change for Some Laboratory Along the Coast.
August 5th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Xenophage a dit:
>Palo Alto Linear Photon Source – PALPS. How does that grab you?
It grabs me well… to bad the front entrance to the lab is in Menlo Park
MPLPS?
August 5th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Think of that lab in Idaho. INEL, INEEL, INL, something new every couple of years. They may have paid more for stationary and sign changes than they did for science.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Hmm, why not do this ?
SLAC= Slac LAsing Center ( SLAC invariance )
This would officially distance you from the “Stanford” issue because you are trademarking the embedded string “Slac” which can ( i would imagine) be legally argued to have no meaning of its own once S.L.A.C., as Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, is officially dissolved. In other words, this “Slac” is not S.L.A.C.
The seeming emphasis of the Center’s activities on LAser based research in the new acronym would be offset by the presence of the embedded “Slac” which would allude, informally, in a kind of tip of the hat, to its past meaning and the history of the Center.
Sneakily ( or elegantly ) preserving but redefining the same overall SLAC acronym might please everyone and might also reduce costs. Name changes are notoriously expensive. You might avoid replacing some signs or redesigning some logos and/or maybe even only change to new stationary and such at its usual attrition rate rather than immediately, etc.
So overall, this suggestion would ease the disruptions associated with any institutional name change, help to minimize costs, maximally preserve a positive brand name recognition with the public and still retain an obvious linkage between pre_ and post_change publications.
I hope this suggestion can help if the name ultimately must be changed.
I was always very irritated by the Canaveral-Kennedy-Canaveral-Kennedy history of KSC’s name.
Sorry if the margins were insufficient for my equally elegant and simple Quantum Gravity proposal.
Maybe next time …
( in rereading comments prior to sending this, I belatedly have to credit B (#4) for possibly stimulating the above proposal in my unconscious. My suggestion turns out to be quite similar to the idea facetiously presented there. )
August 5th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
As far as outgrowing names is concerned, when is the last time the Jet Propulsion Laboratory did anything with turbine powered aircraft?
That being said, the acronym invariant name change (#41) is a clever compromise.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:47 am
You know, a change in the name might actually help SLAC (or whatever it is to be named) in the future. A good case in point:
It used to be Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Or more officially, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) was simply known as Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. In fact, it’s quite common these days to find hardhats with the old LBL logo, and the website is still http://www.lbl.gov (www.lbnl.gov is not registered by anyone!!!).
Yet on all official memoranda and references to LBL, it is referred to as LBNL.
The reason for the name change? (Not fair to SLAC, I know, as all that happened was that the word National was put into the name)
“Why the heck are we funding a Lab at the University with all the hippies? Strike it from the budget!”
The word National was added to emphasis the DoE nature of the Laboratory (in line with most other general science facilities run by the DoE) and to separate itself from Berkeley (the University) to Berkeley (the location). If I recall correctly, it was done with the Laboratory’s blessing as it was tired of explaining to Congress that it was a multi-disciplinary DoE laboratory.
In the same vein, I get the sense that “observing super-fast reactions that might elucidate how proteins interact in order to cure… ” is a much better sell than “we accelerate particles fast and hit them with each other!”
JMHO.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:50 am
How about Light Bulb National Lab (LBNL)?? Whoops, sorry, I see that one is taken.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Hi JoAnne, I fully agree with you and Sean. Names bear the history of the objects, to which they are attached. I came across SLAC while I was reading all the books about the history and great discoveries of particle physics. Now when I hear it I associate it with the institution and with all the strories about it. I’m asking myself if it is a purely american problem, since nobody would come to the idea to rename DESY (Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron – German Elektron Syncrotron) altough it was the name of the first particle accelerator here in the 50s. DESY shares the fate of SLAC since it will also host two major brilliant light sources (PETRA III and XFEL) but no actual accelerator for paricle physics research. There are more examples: University of Karlsruhe has an Institute for Experimental Nuclear Physics (Institut fuer Experimentelle Kernphysik), where everyone is doing particle physics research, but whose name refers to its tradition.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:45 am
What about the proposed renaming of this facility?
August 6th, 2008 at 8:58 am
How about naming it “The Best Physics Lab in the World”?
A few decades ago, a positive thinker worked their way into the St. Louis streets dept., and all the Bus Stops got renamed to Bus Starts.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I vote for changing the full name, if necessary, but in such a way as to leave the acronym SLAC intact.
Attempting to change the name of a lab after decades of work really is a bit of a stupid thing to do; couldn’t they spend their time, money, and energy on some other more pressing problem?
August 6th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
This reminds of the many name changing events through the course of the now called INL.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:18 am
Here is a suggestion:
Rename the laboratory as ‘SLAC’, and copyrighted the name. Here ‘SLAC’ is a name, and NOT an acronym of anything. It is SLAC, but NOT ‘Stanford Linear Accelerator Center’ anymore.
August 7th, 2008 at 4:39 am
What’s to be done when an organization survives its rationale? Remember not to name the next one for something transitory. Place names are good: Oxford, Cambridge, Los Alamos. Ditto naming after some famous scientist: Cavendish, Fermilab. Not so good are politicians, whose notoriety or fame may fade: Kennedy, Ray Gunn. Initials, if suitably obscure, may do in a pinch: SLAC, CERN, JPL.
Good luck!
August 7th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Actually, the case of JPL is rather interesting, since — unlike corporate names such as IBM, where the initials now (officially) stand for nothing at all — JPL still means “Jet Propulsion Laboratory” (Visit their web site and you’ll see this is the case.) This suggests that it is in principle possible for SLAC to go on calling itself “Stanford Linear Accelerator Center” and yet be doing other things.
Sean’s analogy with Pluto is erroneous and confusing; the argument is about possibly changing SLAC’s name, not its classification. If it were an argument about whether SLAC was best described as a “laboratory” or a “center”, or whether it was an FFRDC (”Federally Funded R&D Center”) or not, then the analogy to the “is Pluto a planet” debate would be apropos.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
JoAnne—In the hopefully unlikely event that SLAC is renamed, then what happens to the e-mail addresses? We are so used to slac.stanford.edu. And would the first initial of SPIRES have to be changed as well?
BTW, the name “Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility” was a “facility” and not a “lab” because national labs were defined (back then) to have a budget exceeding $100M, and they were a little short of that. Nathan Isgur didn’t object too strongly to the name because he was assured that they could use the abbreviation Jefferson Lab. Note, though, that the e-mail addresses are jlab.org rather than jlab.gov for that reason. Bureaucrats&)_*^#)_*^_*#&+_@
August 8th, 2008 at 9:46 am
How about “SLac Ain’t a Collider”?
August 8th, 2008 at 9:54 am
“Some Large Acronym Center”?
“Stupid Legalese Ain’t Cool”?
“Some Low-energy, Astro, bio- or Condensed-matter” physics center? (The ‘b’ is silent)
OK, I’ll stop, I’ll stop.
August 9th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
#52 – IBM, the trademark initials that now (officially) stand for nothing at all, is owned by INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP of 1 NEW ORCHARD ROAD, ARMONK, New York 10504 according to their latest 10-Q SEC filing. That corporation also has the meaningless, non-acronym ticker symbol IBM on the NYSE and has invested heavily for many years in the initials IBM as a brand, not to be confused with the corporate entity whose initials it doesn’t officially represent.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
SLAC = Science LAboratory in California
Then you can do anything you want
October 29th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory (aka Stanford Linear Accelerator Center National Accelerator Laboratory)
Seems like a lot of cloth rending for a change that essentially remains…SLAC.
Sometimes I just don’t understand government logic.