Editing Integral fast reactor (section)

===Cancellation===

With the election of President [[Bill Clinton]] in 1992, and the appointment of [[Hazel O'Leary]] as the [[Secretary of Energy]], there was pressure from the top to cancel the IFR.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html |title=Dr. Charles Till &#124; Nuclear Reaction &#124; FRONTLINE |publisher=PBS |date=2014-01-16 |access-date=2014-01-24}}</ref> Senator [[John Kerry]] (D-MA) and O'Leary led the opposition to the reactor, arguing that it would be a threat to non-proliferation efforts, and that it was a continuation of the [[Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project]] that had been canceled by Congress.<ref>{{cite web|title=ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1995 (Senate – June 30, 1994)|url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r103:1:./temp/~r103oezoex:e89574:|work=103rd Congressional Record|publisher=Library of Congress|access-date=16 December 2012|archive-date=10 January 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160110042419/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r103%3A1%3A.%2Ftemp%2F~r103oezoex%3Ae89574%3A|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Simultaneously, in 1994 Energy Secretary O'Leary awarded the lead IFR scientist with $10,000 and a gold medal, with the citation stating his work to develop IFR technology provided "improved safety, more efficient use of fuel and less [[radioactive waste]]".<ref>{{cite web|title=Ax Again Aimed at Argonne (Chicago Tribune – Feb 8, 1994)|date=8 February 1994 |url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/1994/02/08/ax-again-aimed-at-argonne-project/|publisher=Chicago Tribune|access-date=18 March 2015}}</ref>

IFR opponents also presented a report<ref>
Report of investigation into allegations of retaliation for raising safety and quality of work issues regarding Argonne National Laboratory's Integral Fast Reactor Project, Report Number DOE/NS-0005P, 1991 Dec 01
OSTI Identifier	OSTI ID: 6030509,</ref> by the DOE's Office of Nuclear Safety regarding a former Argonne employee's allegations that Argonne had retaliated against him for raising concerns about safety, as well as about the quality of research done on the IFR program. The report received international attention, with a notable difference in the coverage it received from major scientific publications. The British journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' entitled its article "Report backs whistleblower", and also noted conflicts of interest on the part of a DOE panel that assessed IFR research.<ref>Report backs whistleblower, Nature 356, 469 (9 April 1992)</ref> In contrast, the article that appeared in ''Science'' was entitled "Was Argonne Whistleblower Really Blowing Smoke?".<ref>''Science'', Vol. 256, No. 5055, 17 April 1992</ref>