Topic of discussion among group of friends last evening related to shift of focus in why the Lab exists over the last 30 years. We all started early to mid 1980's and there was clarity that the sole reason for the Lab was to serve the Nation's interests. Even allowing for the halt in UGT, it seems that the general view is that the Lab now exists for a different reason. Some feel that is is now a jobs program for the region, some that it is destined to become a manufacturing plant a la Rocky Flats, while others see it as an applied energy Lab. No matter the perspective, the common view was that the Lab leadership since Sig has consistently failed to articulate a clear reason for why we come to work each morning. More importantly, no matter what the verbal or printed words from Lab leadership, their actions are indicative of seeking what is best for the Lab, vice seeking what is best for the Nation.
With the opportunity presented for a pending new contract, and presumably 100% turnover in upper level management, is it possible to return to the clarity of motivation, and daily action, for why the Lab exists?
With the opportunity presented for a pending new contract, and presumably 100% turnover in upper level management, is it possible to return to the clarity of motivation, and daily action, for why the Lab exists?
Comments
Director Charles McMillan
This. And, that is why it will continue to limp along until someone at LANL does something off-scale outrageous. Wait for it.
The worker bees are dispensable, while the mission is whatever sounds good in the current political climate. Green energy and climate change are in vogue? Why, certainly, we fashion ourselves as the Defenders of the Planet, NW and such be darned. Change of administration? What green energy? No, we would never. It was remarkable to watch our manager's rhetoric transform from liberal tree-hugging to white nationalism in a matter of two months.
Production stays
Nuclear science goes to LLNL
Nuclear engineering goes to Sandia
Other science goes to Office of science.
Footprint shrinks accordingly.
It will happen after the next for profit contractor fails because it is not about the model, it is about the lack of vision and mission.
August 5, 2017 at 4:06 PM
Nope, to Nevada test site. So it the consensus is that it should be production. The problem is production always has screw ups it is just the nature of the business.
So we LANL is slated to become a highly troubled production facility.
August 5, 2017 at 6:04 PM
Really? Consensus among whom? You and the guy in the mirror? Who exactly participated in determining this "consensus"? In case you missed it, nuclear weapon program missions and policies are not determined by "consensus."
August 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM"
There was plenty of science at LANL well before Brown, in fact I would say the highest level of of the science at LANL not directly related to weapons was really in 70s, 80s, and 90s.
After that you saw the overall decline of the lab begin in earnest. I thought the whole "capabilities" thing was to just have something so vague and unclear that there would be no way to quantify it so no one could be held accountable for the lab decline. You can always say sure measurable metrics have declined but our capabilities are good. This way managers can
always say things are going well because you no way of measuring it and when you do measure something that was in decline you can just say that is not a capability.
What decline? The per capita budget is at an all-time high.
August 6, 2017 at 1:40 PM
Money is not the proper metric, it is the quality of the work that is being done, the quality of the workforce and so on. W
August 6, 2017 at 1:40 PM
So what are you saying is that LANL is the single most expensive location on the planet to do an experiment. Not a fact that most sane people would brag about.
August 6, 2017 at 1:40 PM
So you are saying that the cost to perform experiments at LANL is the highest of any location on the planet. Not something to brag about, if you understand.
The fraction of Phds in the LANL workforce is now at an all time low, yet the budget is at an all time high. The number of managers is also at an all time high. Perhaps LANS is not using the money very wisely but you milage may very.
The bigger problems are political and cultural. Can anyone imaging the barrage of lawsuits and random activist judge rulings that would follow any serious discussion of a resumption of testing? It will never happen, certainly not on US soil.
What's your point? You want to work in a homogeneous environment where everyone else is just like you and all have a PhD?
August 8, 2017 at 10:36 AM
I think the point is that LANL has less and less people that do actual work and more and more people doing bureaucracy. Not exactly the best use of money or resources.
Are you serious? Having a problem with PhD's? Brain envy?
There are better and cheaper ways way to support non-PhD people than a science lab. This has nothing to do with homogeneous work environment but all with the mission of the lab. If you want to fund a National Management Lab or a National Support Staff Lab, we will indeed not need many scientists; but for the kind of work we are doing at LANL you need PhDs. However we can only dream of the ratio of 60% researchers - 40% support staff as they have at BNL. We are much more like the former Soviet Union, where we have 1 worker and three minders.
At LANL it is like 25% researches for 75% support staff. There was a plot on the blog where shooing that large change in this ratio a couple of years after LANS took over.
The other thing that happened after LANS came in is the attitude change in which overheard supported people started to look down on non-support people. This attitude needs to change with contract change.
So, we will continue to have more diverse work environments as long as Charlie is running the lab. That means fewer PhD's and more non PhD's.
So, we will continue to have more diverse work environments as long as Charlie is running the lab. That means fewer PhD's and more non PhD's.
LANL needs a mission. Are we a science lab (PhDs, etc.) or a production facility ("support" staff)?
That is the root problem. No Clear Mission.
August 11, 2017 at 10:09 AM
Sounds find in principle however during the 60 years which included the cold war
we had WFO, science, weapons, and engineering. Why is it a problem now? Perhaps it has to do more with the dysfunction of DOE and NNSA rather than the labs themselves. The NNSA may see the labs is just a way to keep a large bureaucracy going so cognitive dissonance is a good thing.
Blame DOE and NNSA. Standard UC/LANS tactic.