Given that, the one I selected this week for COTW was from a "Yes we are!", "No you're not!" bit of back and forth on last week's COTW. It seems that somebody criticized LANL's LDRD system, and before you knew it there was mild hysteria. I plucked this one: short & sweet, from the middle of that verbal buzzsaw:
-
The LANL LDRD protected class doth protest too much, methinks
Weak
ReplyDelete"The LANL LDRD protected class doth protest too much, methinks"
ReplyDeleteThere is no LDRD protected class.
10:47 Perhaps. There is a class of individuals who are protected by LDRD funding scraped off the top of other work however. I think LDRD is a good idea. I just don't think it is managed very well at all. Havig said that, LDRD isn't the first thing I would change at LANL by a long shot. There are far bigger, more important fish to fry.
ReplyDeletefrom last week's cotw...puts the quote into perspective.
ReplyDelete""LDRD on on whole is comparable if not more stringent that NSF. If you referee NSF, DOE, or NIH grants you would know this."
Man, this makes my blood boil. I referee several proposals per month for these funding agencies and you are way off base here.
The numbers may be a bit off since it is hard to find them on the web, but they are not wild. LDRD at LANL is ~100M$ per year and ~4,000 scientists are able to compete for it. NSF math and physical sciences has 1.2B$ per year. ALL of that is open to ALL faculty at ALL universities and can not even be compared to the protected LDRD.
You work at a lab that was built with my tax dollars, on instruments that were bought with my tax dollars and you can even compete with me as a faculty member for NSF grants! You have NO idea about funding competition!!
You may do great work -- so could a lot of other people if they got to compete with your favorable odds."
10:47 PM, uh, yes there is ... Klimov, Trugman, Kiplinger, Thompson, Nastasi ... to name but a few.
ReplyDeleteI've been on LDRD committees, DOE committees, and NSF committees. The success rates on all three are about the same: 5%-10%. With those kinds of odds you are pretty much dead if you don't have an advocate on the committee. You may have a great proposal, but if noone is there to promote it, it won't be good enough. That's a problem, but frankly I don't know how to fix it.
ReplyDeleteThe future of LANL appears to be composed of 92% cleanup and plant activities lead by Bechtel, BWXT and Washington Group (URS) with only the remaining 8% as "science" funded almost exclusive through LDRD overhead.
ReplyDeleteOh, wait, make that 4% science. LDRD is about to be cut in half.
Given the rapid decline in the lab's science, isn't it time to start coming up with a more appropriate name for Los Alamos than the current title of Los Alamos National Lab (LANL)?
Nuclear Weapons Complex hearing, Tom D´Agostino et al, with webcast, start time: Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 1:00 PM ET.
ReplyDelete(http://appropriations.house.gov/Subcommittees/sub_ew.shtml)
someone needs to explain why one needs an endorsement from the division for LDRD proposals. it seems to me that the corrupt system starts there.
ReplyDeleteGosh, it's been really slow the last few days. End of the blog too much to hope for?
ReplyDeleteToo much, yes.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 3/16/09 7:40 PM asks:
ReplyDelete"someone needs to explain why one needs an endorsement from the division for LDRD proposals. it seems to me that the corrupt system starts there."
Some review of proposal prior to submission is appropriate.
For instance, in some cases a proposal may state that it will use existing experimental equipment that in fact may not be availble.
The fact is that LANL employees are not free agents. Sometimes their assigned work may be more important than their proposed LDRD research.
Gosh, it's been really slow the last few days. End of the blog too much to hope for?
ReplyDelete3/16/09 10:23 PM
Don't get your hopes up 10:23. Given their track record, NNSA will soon drop another cover-their-ass edict or LANS will squeeze out another obscene profit-motivated decision. As soon as that happens, and it will, the blog will be back to a fever pitch.
it may be slow due to the nice weather.
ReplyDeleteanyone else notice the ornl director's release last week? plan to hire 1,000 new scientists / engineers in next two years. that works out to about 2 new hires per working day. wonder what the rate is at lanl?
3/17/09 7:52 AM
ReplyDeleteLANL plans:
Engineers: 1000
Scientists: 0
Gotta read a little bit before you post on the easy stuff. I see a total of 68 external job ads. The ads include:
ReplyDeleteResearch
3-Scientist4;
2-Scientist3;
2-Scientist2;
4-R&DEng3;
4-R&DEng2.
Eng Services
7-Engineer1,2,3;
1-ProjEng2;
1-ProjEng3.
Hey 12:36, you are an idiot - Mary Neu - most of those jobs have been cancelled. Say, like the Scientist 4 position in C-IIAC. Guess we couldn't find a competent person for the job INSIDE or out.
ReplyDeleteLot of anger 4:01, lot of anger. Did you check the external job ads?
ReplyDeleteSci2- EES-16, B-9
Sci3- ACS-PO, ISR-2
Sci4- B-9, MST-8, X-3
R&DEng2- D-6, D-6, EES-12, D-5
R&DEng3- WT-7, EES-12, WT-7, EES-12
On there today. If they're canceled, well then they're canceled.
4:01
ReplyDeletewere any of those people worth hiring? just curious.
Well, let's see, 68 job listings for a scientific lab (you know, a place that hires 'scientists' to do research), and only 7 of these positions are for scientists, and even these few positions are highly suspect.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, LANS (aka Bechtel) is extremely excited about the prospects of hiring as many plant engineers (aka CESs) as they can stuff into this 'scientific lab' which they manage for a healthy profit.
That speaks volumes. It's become pretty clear where Bechtel wants to take this institution.
you can add Jen Martinez and Basil Swanson to the LDRD club. DRs are always politically attributed, now with LANS in, ERs and Director's fellowships join in. It is true one needs some friend on a committee to step in for support, but think all these dinosaurs like Klimov and Swanson have friends and formr postdocs in these LDRD commitees to support their proposals and can any competitor, if any. This is why LDRD brings back so very little, even publications.
ReplyDeleterelated to our LDRD discussion...the dilbert of the day!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-03-18/