Anonymously contributed:
Take a look at Hugh Gusterson's article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "The Assault on Los Alamos National Laboratory". I think it does a pretty good job of briefly describing the mismanagement and decline of LANL (and LLNL) over the last several years.
http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/6/9.full.pdf+html
19 comments:
Hugh Gusterson is in academia. The labs are are not academic institutes
therefore his opinion on this manner is irrelevant.
Hugh Gusterson is in academia. The labs are are not academic institutes
therefore his opinion on this manner is irrelevant.
November 2, 2011 9:00 PM
They used to be. And the new status is not better. The labs have declined significantly since the Congress - mandated corporate takeover. This is indisputable. No one in Congress will ever be held accountable for the irrevocable reduction in our nuclear strategic capability. We no longer have a cadre of experienced, knowledgeable, and capable nuclear weapon scientists. Iran is rejoicing over the stupid choices of our so-called "government".
"They used to be." Has it ever occurred to you that being academic was part of thecultural problems? The labs are not nor should they ever have been academic places. Now I know that no specifics on what the actual culture problems at LANL where ever given but the academic one seemed seems damming. In any case the LLNL culture needed to fixed as well. I am not sure what that culture is at LLNL but I am sure it is bad. Another problem with our culture is that we keep asking "what is our culture" this shows a state of extreme denial. So the labs has a culture of denial and to deny that proves it is true.
Another problem with our culture is that we keep asking "what is our culture" this shows a state of extreme denial. So the labs has a culture of denial and to deny that proves it is true.
November 3, 2011 7:37 AM
HeHeHeHe... Thank you Dr. Freud. Your cognitive powers are unique.
Posters might want to take the time to actually read Hugh's assessment...
------------
Abstract
Since the late 1990s, nuclear weapons scientists at the US Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory have faced an unanticipated threat to their work, from politicians and administrators whose reforms and management policies - enacted in the name of national security and efficiency - have substantially undermined the lab's ability to function as an institution and to superintend the nuclear stockpile.
Morale and productivity have suffered at Los Alamos - and at the nation's other weapons lab, Lawrence Livermore. The institutional decline of Los Alamos has occurred in three distinct phases: beginning with an overreaction to the Chinese-American scientist Wen Ho Lee's downloading of secret computer codes, exacerbated by the heavy-handed leadership of Admiral Pete Nanos, and continuing under new management by a for-profit company that focuses more on personal bonuses than on scientific achievement.
The author writes that security lapses at Los Alamos are not, as media and government officials have portrayed them, the result of a culture of arrogance and carelessness. More likely, they are symptoms of structural flaws in the workplace, but it is easier to stereotype and scapegoat scientists than to address these structural problems.
-------------
and continuing under new management by a for-profit company that focuses more on personal bonuses than on scientific achievement.....
November 3, 2011 2:16 PM
Not only has LANS compromised scientific achievement but also compromised goals on the nuclear weapon program. Best example is Bret Knapp (GIVER) and Scott Gibbs (TAKER) moving weapon engineers (CATTLE) working on nuclear weapon quality, nuclear weapon analysis, nuclear weapon safety, nuclear weapon safety, and nuclear weapon system engineering to work on faltering LANS nuclear facilities. This "quick fix" was all done to meet PBIs (i.e. bonus) for senior managers.
November 2, 2011 9:00 PM:
Very insightful:
Congress people are in politics. The labs are not political institutes, therefore the labs opinions are irrelevant.
"Congress people are in politics. The labs are not political institutes, therefore the labs opinions are irrelevant.
November 4, 2011 5:38 AM"
Yes this is true, the lab people do not understand or get politics. They may have opinions but these never reflected in the political realities of the day and therefore are irrelevant.
Scapegoats wanted...
Like British pundits who from times long past torment continental regimes recounting their blunders to take the British publics eye off of British leadership incompetence, the American Congress needs the occasional scapegoat to attract the American publics eyes away from its own tawdry foolishness.
The problem isn't and never was at LANL. It is rather the need of the current flock of baby-boom letchers who discredit historical congress with their membership to deflect public scrutiny.
In the presence of a powerful madman, you keep your head down.
Think of the old Far Side classic of the bear in the gunsight pointing discreetly to the back of the nearby bear suggesting the hunter nail him instead.
With friends like Boxer who.....
A pretty good peak behind the fence.
This "quick fix" was all done to meet PBIs (i.e. bonus) for senior managers.
November 3, 2011 6:28 PM
Is Congress ignoring this issue or are they just plain dumb? LANS/LLNS is just using TAXPAYER money to coat their respective pockets.
Is Congress ignoring this issue or are they just plain dumb? LANS/LLNS is just using TAXPAYER money to coat their respective pockets.
November 5, 2011 7:01 AM
Uh, did you notice that "Congress" is also "using TAXPAYER money to coat their respective pockets"??
It always amuses me when the whiners here wonder why "Congress" isn't doing something about the problems they perceive at the labs. What a joke. In case you don't watch or read the news, Congress isn't doing ANYTHING and hasn't for quite some time. Given the political crap going on in Washington, it is naive at best and incredibly parochial at worst to think "Congress" gives a damn about you and your problems.
I started at LANL in march 1999, just as the wen ho lee thing happened, and was there right through rectel taking over. Hugh Gusterson is on the money with his description of events.
Best example is Bret Knapp (GIVER) and Scott Gibbs (TAKER) moving weapon engineers (CATTLE) ... to work on faltering LANS nuclear facilities. This "quick fix" was all done to meet PBIs (i.e. bonus) for senior managers.
PBIs are the priorities that NNSA has established. I guess management could have laid off said weapon engineers to hire nuclear facilities people instead.
Congress is too busy descending into a bitter, partisan "death match" -- and taking the whole country down with them(!) -- to care about what has happened to this nation's once "crown jewel" research labs.
The observations in this article are all true and right on point but no one cares. Sorry to have to say this, but that is the way it is. Bechtel now uses these former "research labs" as a corporate profit center. The only thing that matter to the new upper manager team is "business operations", not scientific research.
Repeat after me....
"PBIs, Baby !!!!!"
And be sure to wear those "Shoes that GRIP!" and take your mandatory lab training on how to walk up and down a stairway.
"The problem is that we are devouring ourselves. We can create celebrities, but not leaders. We generate fame, but not honor"
Dick Meyers
Before the for-profit LLCs took over the nuclear labs, UC ran LANL and LLNL for less than $10 million per year. Any money left over from this meager amount was placed back into the labs. It was a totally non-profit management team with a long, proud history.
With the for-profit management team from Bechtel, the costs of running these labs has increased by over a factor of x20! A figure around $250 million per year is probably about right to cover the new mode of for-profit management. In return, less work is getting done and the technical staff has terrible morale.
Quite a trade-off in these times of tight money at the federal level. What were they thinking?
Quite a trade-off in these times of tight money at the federal level. What were they thinking?
November 14, 2011 8:37 AM
They weren't. And still aren't.
Post a Comment