tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post5218221720396617024..comments2023-08-27T06:53:36.768-06:00Comments on LANL: The Rest of the Story: Comment of the WeekFrank Younghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02134775226991383924noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-32930039742224017092009-03-17T14:37:00.000-06:002009-03-17T14:37:00.000-06:00So, there is no data to support the claim that LAN...So, there is no data to support the claim that LANL is in the top 5 science institutions in the US.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-20887838182534589642009-03-17T07:55:00.000-06:002009-03-17T07:55:00.000-06:00For last several years LANL isn't in top 5 for...For last several years LANL isn't in top 5 for R&D 100 Awards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-41210565303780101212009-03-17T05:03:00.000-06:002009-03-17T05:03:00.000-06:00What about R&D 100 Awards?What about R&D 100 Awards?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-79606422890074482242009-03-16T06:22:00.000-06:002009-03-16T06:22:00.000-06:004:41 etc,Lots of hand waving, not much data. You c...4:41 etc,<BR/><BR/>Lots of hand waving, not much data.<BR/> <BR/>You call yourselves scientists?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-78520950797345628252009-03-15T21:47:00.000-06:002009-03-15T21:47:00.000-06:00The only "index" that matters is how many of the n...The only "index" that matters is how many of the nuclear weapons in the stockpile were designed at Los Alamos.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-22504338349960651982009-03-15T21:40:00.000-06:002009-03-15T21:40:00.000-06:0012:02 pm: Could you be a little bit more verbose?12:02 pm: Could you be a little bit more verbose?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-27644546250915890702009-03-15T21:04:00.000-06:002009-03-15T21:04:00.000-06:00Hmmm...so I was curious and I checked the number o...Hmmm...so I was curious and I checked the number of NAS members at LANL compared with MIT, a top 5 school for research. LANL has 3 members, last one elected in 1984. MIT has 107. It's harder to run the numbers for LBL and LLNL b/c the staff are usually also joint faculty at a major university (such as A. Paul Alivisatos).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-33934317923176984522009-03-15T12:02:00.000-06:002009-03-15T12:02:00.000-06:00Rankings are used as a measurement of prestige. T...Rankings are used as a measurement of prestige. There are many ways that research institutions could be ranked, and the CI is but one of them. Prestige is relative and there is no absolute scale. In some measure, prestige is where informed individuals collectively would rank an institution and it has large elements of both subjective judgment and historical bias included. Therefore, institutions tend to move in prestige at a slow pace – going up or down significantly may take years.<BR/><BR/>Institutions on the way up strive to increase in prestige over time, while those at the top strive to maintain their prestige. The crux of the ranking debate is whether an institution is headed up or down on the relative scale, over some defined time period. <BR/><BR/>Universities (and even departments in universities) often issue press releases over rankings – especially those that involve some aspect of measurable data. Selectivity is important in some of these ranking formulas (number of applicants per available entering student slot). The value ratio, or rank of the institution as a function of the cost of the institution, is increasingly one of the more often cited derivative rankings. <BR/><BR/>Quantity and quality of faculty research is the major driver for graduate school rankings.<BR/><BR/>Quantity could be total number of publications. Quality might include some indication of where the work was published (again, relative to where other work was published – no absolute here either) or how many other researchers referenced the work in their own publication (CI). <BR/><BR/>Presentations on original research results are taken into account in some rankings. Here, venue is a large discriminator – was it one of several talks to a local audience of a few people or the plenary at an international meeting with several thousand in the room.<BR/><BR/>For some institutions, revenue derived from intellectual property could be a significant factor in their prestige.<BR/><BR/>Most ranking constructs give significant weight to peer honors (Nobel Prize, National Academy election, etc.).<BR/><BR/>I’m sure that there will be lots of pot shots taken at this by readers; however, the point is that CI – in isolation – should not be equated with absolute quality. For example, if one restricted the measurement of quality to peer honors, then LBL would be at the top of that list. <BR/><BR/>So, the CI debate could be raised to prestige. What additional available data can be presented to defend the claim (from the post that spawned the CI discussion) that “LANL is in top 10 research institutes in the world and top 5 in the US”?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-77624314386454507622009-03-15T11:22:00.000-06:002009-03-15T11:22:00.000-06:00"What this mean?" I know what the writer means an..."What this mean?"<BR/><BR/> I know what the writer means and asking for clarification is often a fair comment. I read this blog because there is often a real "give and take" and the Ad Hominem and cursing contributions can be ignored.<BR/> Many of us are looking for W.F. Buckley - type discussions where points are met and there is a logical continuity of argument. One tends, however, to judge the community by the quality of writing. It's sad to read, for example, the responses in the Santa Fe New Mexican.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-14878398449506509072009-03-15T07:19:00.000-06:002009-03-15T07:19:00.000-06:00"The end of a society is marked by the end of it's..."The end of a society is marked by the end of it's language, which presages the end of it's culture."<BR/><BR/>And by its inability to use apostrophes appropriately.<BR/><BR/>Time to head for the hills, folks.<BR/><BR/>Oh, wait, you already live in the hills. Well, duck and cover, then.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-11230115387607333162009-03-14T23:25:00.000-06:002009-03-14T23:25:00.000-06:009:30 am : "What this mean?"This thread is seemingl...9:30 am : "What this mean?"<BR/><BR/>This thread is seemingly populated by inarticulate texters who have no actual language skills. Is this our fate? Yikes! How can science progress if scientists cannot communicate except through pidgin English and teenage argot? Technical jargon is bad enough!<BR/><BR/>Complete sentences? Grammar? Anyone? The end of a society is marked by the end of it's language, which presages the end of it's culture. The barbarians are at the gate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-39547346571086244112009-03-14T22:45:00.000-06:002009-03-14T22:45:00.000-06:00Seems to me that you have made the point easy."Unl...Seems to me that you have made the point easy.<BR/>"Unless LANL is 3x LBL and 2x LLNL, then they are each much more highly cited per capita than LANL.<BR/>More cites are equated with more world class science.<BR/>Ergo, LANL isn't at the top of these ranks.<BR/><BR/>3/14/09 9:39 PM"<BR/><BR/>Comparing to LBL is hard however LANL is certainly more that 2X LLNL and 6-8 X Sandia.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-57441168231731535122009-03-14T21:39:00.000-06:002009-03-14T21:39:00.000-06:00Seems to me that you have made the point easy.Unle...Seems to me that you have made the point easy.<BR/>Unless LANL is 3x LBL and 2x LLNL, then they are each much more highly cited per capita than LANL.<BR/>More cites are equated with more world class science.<BR/>Ergo, LANL isn't at the top of these ranks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-41429109257711839742009-03-14T16:41:00.001-06:002009-03-14T16:41:00.001-06:00"CI can be sort for lab. Total cite for LBL is top..."CI can be sort for lab. Total cite for LBL is top and for LLNL also very high. LANL not so high as LLNL. This for total lab. LANL three time size LBL and two time size LLNL.<BR/>What this mean?<BR/>People more cite most important paper and LANL not have so many important paper.<BR/><BR/>3/14/09 9:30 AM"<BR/><BR/>Funny CI shows LANL is higher than LBL by a small amount and much higher than LLNL. What does it mean? CI is not that hard to use. <BR/>I think you just made it up. I take it you just made this up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-5229179837442640462009-03-14T16:41:00.000-06:002009-03-14T16:41:00.000-06:00"CI can be sort for lab. Total cite for LBL is top..."CI can be sort for lab. Total cite for LBL is top and for LLNL also very high. LANL not so high as LLNL. This for total lab. LANL three time size LBL and two time size LLNL.<BR/>What this mean?<BR/>People more cite most important paper and LANL not have so many important paper.<BR/><BR/>3/14/09 9:30 AM"<BR/><BR/>Funny CI shows LANL is higher than LBL by a small amount and much higher than LLNL. What does it mean? CI is not that hard to use. <BR/>I think you just made it up. I take it you just made this up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-36035348051826355182009-03-14T09:30:00.000-06:002009-03-14T09:30:00.000-06:00CI can be sort for lab. Total cite for LBL is top...CI can be sort for lab. Total cite for LBL is top and for LLNL also very high. LANL not so high as LLNL. This for total lab. LANL three time size LBL and two time size LLNL.<BR/>What this mean?<BR/>People more cite most important paper and LANL not have so many important paper.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-10963966963186624902009-03-11T22:29:00.000-06:002009-03-11T22:29:00.000-06:00To excellent comment of 12:46 pm I can only add th...To excellent comment of 12:46 pm I can only add that paper pushing is much bigger fraction of life of a lab scientist than a university professor, and that almost at any moment (s)he has to think about the growing octopus of security and safety regulations, making us nervous wrecks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-84273468775179953892009-03-11T20:29:00.000-06:002009-03-11T20:29:00.000-06:00"3/11/09 12:46 PM"No not facts!!! noooooooooooo!!!..."3/11/09 12:46 PM"<BR/><BR/>No not facts!!! noooooooooooo!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-29580383655281160762009-03-11T12:46:00.000-06:002009-03-11T12:46:00.000-06:003/10 4:04 PM, yes, the question was a serious one ...3/10 4:04 PM, yes, the question was a serious one and merited a serious answer, as opposed to the dimwitted rants of 3/05 9:35 PM. <BR/><BR/>Citations per lab employee is a fairly easy (though tedious) number to obtain. Citations per researcher much harder, because one must first define "researcher" in a context that makes comparison to university research truly "apples to apples." Would you include Lab employees whose job, per their contract with a funding agency, is to deliver a prototype satellite? Those whose job is to secure and/or verify nuclear materials in foreign countries? Those whose job is to manufacture pits? Those whose job is to design nuclear weapons detonators? <BR/><BR/>For the specific purpose of a citation index comparison, I would not include these scientists and eningeers, simply because the desired output of their work cannot be defined in terms of citable publications in the open literature. We can make some intelligent guesses at the number of "researchers" at LANL, but to my knowledge nobody has a true head count. Even the new Scientist and R&D Engineer job titles won't get you the exact answer, since many people engage in a mix of "programmatic" and "research" activities. <BR/><BR/>The other proposed denominator (research dollars) is also a tough one to measure. The answer is not $2.2B, which is the approximate Lab budget, again because most of the funding that comes to the Laboratory is for mission activities that, by design, produce an output OTHER THAN citeable publications in the open literature. If we look at the funding splits by major program activity, we can make some intelligent guesses. NNSA Safeguards and Security funding, for example, is directed 8% toward research activities, because of the LDRD program. That's at the low end. At the high end would be Office of Science funding, with this wedge being presumably 100% directed toward research activities. Everything else is somewhere in between. You'd expect that NNSA Weapons Program and DOE Environmental Management funding would have a slight "research" component (above the 8% for LDRD), but certainly not more than 5% or so, since their real desired outputs are "bombs" and "cleanup" respectively. <BR/><BR/>Using this approach, my SWAG at the actual LANL "research" budget comes out somewhere in the $400 to $500 million range. <BR/><BR/>So, my dear friend at 3/9/09 9:35 PM, would you care to post a new comment that helps us all see that your own body temparature is somewhere north of 75 degrees?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-38238757980525860152009-03-10T18:59:00.000-06:002009-03-10T18:59:00.000-06:00I agree completely. Must be some smart person her...I agree completely. Must be some smart person here tonight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-32563632035957870702009-03-10T18:58:00.000-06:002009-03-10T18:58:00.000-06:00Wow, that guy who posted a couple minutes ago has ...Wow, that guy who posted a couple minutes ago has a really good point. Must be a fucking genius!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-46815616152882603792009-03-10T18:55:00.000-06:002009-03-10T18:55:00.000-06:00It's a pyramid scheme. Universities must bring in ...It's a pyramid scheme. Universities must bring in more students to collect more tuition money so they can keep building new buildings. Professors must bring in more students to get tenure and use them as slave labor. The student eventually graduates into a society that doesn't value science and will likely work an endless string of low-wage postdocs for most of his/her career, before he/she eventually gives up and leaves science. A few will become professors to perpetuate the system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-58535242148049399372009-03-10T16:04:00.000-06:002009-03-10T16:04:00.000-06:00"And you get these numbers, how?" Th..."And you get these numbers, how?"<BR/> <BR/> This is a comment that might be honest. Citation Index (CI) is a publication that monitors other publications. Anyone with access, like all LANL employees, can submit a scientist's name and find all the journals that have been cited that bear that name among the authors. There are many other services offered and it is not unlikely that one can simply locate the relative output and citations of every lab member. LANL, of course, has a very large, proportionately, number of functionaries with advanced degrees who publish nothing at all. By not including these scientific "invisible men" one might come up with a better than deserved output per scientist.<BR/>It might be possible to find out the "non-weapons" fraction of the lab budget without a FOIA letter and get a good estimate of the dollars per paper. One should point out, however, that LANL is anxious to increase its publication record and will happily pay the publication fees for redundant and irrelevant publications. Awards can be deceiving, too, applications for the R&D 100 awards, which LANL management seems to prefer as a measure, are allocated $50,000 from one's research budget, if you choose to apply. We should all chew on that next time the awards come around.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-28130996213015457662009-03-10T00:09:00.000-06:002009-03-10T00:09:00.000-06:003/9/09 3:23 PM asked ... "Who writes those things?...3/9/09 3:23 PM asked ... "Who writes those things?"<BR/><BR/>Oh, that would be Kevin Roark with heavy input from Terry Wallace. Any further questions?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28220200.post-51433161347570921882009-03-09T21:35:00.000-06:002009-03-09T21:35:00.000-06:00"And you get these numbers, how?3/9/09 6:37 PM"Any..."And you get these numbers, how?<BR/><BR/>3/9/09 6:37 PM"<BR/><BR/>Anyone who has an IQ greater than their body temperature can figure it out. Care to try? Oh, Wait ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com