John Fleck just sent me this, with the following note:
Thanks, John.
-Gus
____________________________________________________________
Written by John Fleck Wednesday, 31 October 2007
When I was working over the last week on this morning's story on the National Nuclear Security Administration's "Complex Transformation," there was an interesting subtext that didn't make it into the story, but that is worth fleshing out in a bit more detail here.
It's the question of the future of science at the labs.
Both Los Alamos and Sandia are fundamentally research institutions, but they both have long been involved, to greater or lesser degrees, in nuclear weapons manufacturing as well.
Back in the 1990s, when the Cold War ended and the federal government was trying to figure out how to shrink the footprint of its massive nuclear weapons complex, both Sandia and Los Alamos picked up production missions that used to be done at weapons factories that were being closed. Sandia, for example, now makes little gizmos called "neutron generators" for U.S. nuclear weapons. The plant that used to make them, Pinellas in Florida, was closed. Los Alamos, meanwhile, took over the manufacture of beryllium parts once made at Rocky Flats, outside Denver.
Most importantly, Los Alamos has picked up interim responsibility for making plutonium pits, which were also made at Rocky Flats. One of the big issue hanging fire right now is the question of whether that interim job because a permanent assignment. Major infrastructure spending decisions hang on the answer to that question.
The interface between research and weapons manufacturing has always been an uncomfortable one, and that issue is lurking behind the current discussion about the "transformation" of the nuclear weapons complex. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., issued a statement to me yesterday about the subject. It didn't make the story, but it's worth sharing:
I have had initial briefings with the NNSA, and I have stressed to the NNSA that strong investment in the scientific capabilities of our labs must be included in any long-term plan to reform and manage the complex. This new plan must also involve a long-term evaluation of our nonproliferation capabilities of the national labs. We cannot forget the importance of science facilities and the important role advanced computing has had on our stockpile stewardship program. I have encouraged the DOE to improve its vision for investing in scientific research and advanced computing at our national laboratories which will put them in the best position to excel in the future.
Clearly Domenici, guardian of the labs, thinks an emphasis on science is important, and must be included in the final plan that when it comes out in November or December.
I didn't put it in the story because I'm not sure what, in practice, it might mean in terms of the NNSA's proposal. But it will be worth watching how NNSA, in its proposal, characterizes the role of science in the labs' futures.
22 comments:
"But it will be worth watching how NNSA, in its proposal, characterizes the role of science in the labs' futures."
Shoot fire, John, that's an easy one. At LANL, if it ain't pit production, it ain't science. The other NNSA production facilities, er, labs' mileage may vary...
-Gus
What is really sad is that neither DOE nor NNSA truly give a damn about science.
Gus -
Thanks for sharing your audience. :-)
Speaking for both Pinky and myself: any time, John.
-Gus
Science at LANL comes from small projects, often the result of open competition following a RFP. The giant programs with beams and lasers are not the result of open competition but
are awarded without real peer revue and their outcomes kept secret. (Look into, for example, the Antares "success".) These giant programs drive the lab budget and have a poor yield in spin-off. The "science" that is often praised can just as well be performed with more economy in small institution. To sum it up: A big institution run like LANL does a poor job of science by any criterion that takes scale into account. Take a look, for example, at the value, from licensing, of all the LANL patents.
What is the value of licensing? Just curious if anyone knows.
Amen 10/31/07 2:44 PM.
If a patent contains a valuable and unique invention, one must pay a licensing fee to utilize someone else's invention in a product. I'm sure you've read of the recent large lawsuits for patent infringement (Blackberry). The suits are demanding those self-same fees because a manufacture "stole" the patent. The fees, therefore, determine the value of the invention.
Patents that never draw any fees are often used as a means of padding an resume or as a false indicator of the value of institutional research. I suggest that you compare the cost of the LANL attorneys plus the LANL technology transfer with the return from fees.
Sorry, I did not mean what the theoretical value of patents was (although that was useful).
I meant what is the actual value of LANL's licensing activities?
I caught only a few minutes of D'Agostino's talk today, however Marty Schoenbauer talked quite about about reducing the physical footprint of several plants (Y-12, Pantex, and KCP). The numbers were typically "30% of today." He did not mention the labs in this context, however it made me wonder what plans NNSA may have to raze our non-weapons buildings.
I once asked for that specific information but, even though I had a "Q" clearance, I was told that I must file under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA). In other words, "The lab does great science but we don't want it's value to be measured." Why, do you think, such information is kept secret?
I have no doubt, however, that LANL's return on patents is much worse than Sandia's or Livermore's. The "breakthroughs" that we read about in the Journal or New Mexican such as the plasma assisted gasoline engine and the R&D 100 awards rarely amount to more than a press release.
Science at LANL? Well, not looking so good these days since DOE is back at LANL investigating the Americium Contamination Incident and the Aqua Regia Inhalation Incident and seeing if LANL learned anything. Clearly not and they are looking at every nook and crany and grilling every TSM that works in the facilities where these incidents happened. I work in TA-48/RC-1 where the Aqua Regia TSM resides and I personally think Terry Wallace and Mike Anastasio need to fire that wench so that we don't have to keep dealing with the legacy of her negligence and abuse of her subordinates. DOE/Congress if you are listening why don't you just get rid of the problems instead of making the rest of our lives a living hell?
Gee, or maybe it's the complete cutthroat attitude and utter lack of collegiality that's killing science at LANL. Did ya ever think of walking down the hall and asking the "wench" to tell you what really happened? Or do you just have a vested interest in getting rid of yet another strong female chemist because your itty bitty balls aren't up to the competition?
Complex Transformation of Nuclear Weapons?
Is that something like an FFT to change it from the Time domain to the Money domain?
8:31 and 6:48, that is Dr. Wench to you. Let's not forget out manners.
8:08am: Sort of. We're currently experiencing the outcome of LANL being convolved with LANS, which would involve a Fourier transform or two.
You know, 6:48 AM, if you knew what I know, you would be singing a differnt tune. So STFU as you clearly don't know shit - I don't know how the Aqua Regia TSM returned and landed in what is now known as MPA, but at least C-management refused to carry her on throught the transition and they wanted to keep the postdoc.
Unfortunately for you, the term "termination for cause" is not inclusive of "because some anonymous jackass on the blog doesn't like you." And her new group likes her and wants to collaborate with her, and fellowship quality postdocs keep knocking on her door, and she keeps producing JACS-quality research. Apparently that really gets under your skin!
p.s. I wouldn't wish that postdoc on anyone. She was Trouble in grad school and she was Trouble again at LANL. Be grateful her thesis committee decided she needed to work for a female.
Yes, not every UGS, GRA, or PostDoc that gets injured is an innocent bystander.
11/1/07 6:48 AM:
"Special Education," "Special Olympics," and "Affirmative Action" are all different words for the same thing - lowering the bar for those who can't make it on their own merits. Why do white girls need "Affirmative Action?" Is it because they can't do the math?
Get over it.
"Why do white girls need "Affirmative Action?" Is it because they can't do the math?"
My dear 6:26 PM, this fits the Aqua Regia wench to a "T". Yes, let's get over it.
Dipshits:
Please prove to me, with data, that any successful white female at LANL has received "affirmative action" preferences.
And prove to me, conversely, that any successful white male at LANL has NOT been the beneficiary of "old boys' club" favoritism.
Oh, that's right, you can't prove it. It's just a cheap shot!
Post a Comment