Digital Journal
June 20, 2013
ITIF Report: Reimagining the National Laboratories
The Department of Energy's (DOE) National Laboratories System was created in the 1940s to develop the atomic bomb. From its national security origins, the Labs have become one of the centerpieces of the United States federal research enterprise, representing nearly $20 billion in annual public research dollars. However, as the pace of innovation has accelerated and the complexity of national challenges has increased, the national laboratory system has not kept stride. Significant reforms are required to better catalyze innovation and promote the 21st century economy.
To accomplish this goal, three think tanks, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), the Heritage Foundation, and the Center for American Progress (CAP), propose a set of nonpartisan policy proposals for reforming the national laboratories. Turning the Page: Re-imagining the National Labs in the 21st Century Innovation Economy makes a series of recommendations that if enacted will increase research flexibility, allow for greater cooperation between the labs and the private sector, and promote a more cohesive and efficient researchprogram within the Department of Energy.
"The national labs are a tremendous source of cutting-edge research and scientific talent, but their operations are still based on a decades-old management model that no longer meets the needs of our modern innovation ecosystem," notes Matthew Stepp, Senior Analyst with ITIF and lead author of the report. "This study presents a series of twelve proposals for Congress and the Administration that can ensure the labs better meet their mission and produce useful technologies that spur economic growth and create jobs."
While efforts to reform the lab system have become highly politicized, ITIF, Heritage, and CAP have been able to agree on common sense reforms for basic, good governance of the labs. As stated in the report, "These recommendations are as relevant to a large, highly-funded research agenda as they are to a much more limited one."
"A system that allows the market to pull technologies out of the federal research establishment rather than them being pushed into the market by Washington is the best way to get more successes like GPS and fewer failures like synfuels," adds Jack Spencer, a Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
"These pragmatic reforms won't cost the taxpayer anything, but will lead to better research, more innovation, and greater economic growth," says Sean Pool, a former policy analyst and managing editor of CAP's Science Progress program. "But pragmatic does not mean less bold.
I'm pleased that we were able to find consensus across ideological lines around a set of reforms that are both ambitious and practical."
The reforms presented fall into three main categories: (1) removing DOE micromanagement of lab decisions and replacing it with more robust contractor accountability; (2) reforming the DOE program offices to better coordinate lab stewardship, budgeting, and research; and (3) providing better incentives and flexibility for the labs, industry, and universities to move promising technologies to market.
"The national labs have been a tremendous driver of innovation and business development in the past," Stepp adds. "But the reforms we propose today are critical to the labs producing more economy-transforming research. If three ideologically diverse organizations can agree on these issues, surely Washington can as well."
Read the Report At
http://www2.itif.org/2013-turning-page-national-lab-innovation-economy.pdf
June 20, 2013
ITIF Report: Reimagining the National Laboratories
The Department of Energy's (DOE) National Laboratories System was created in the 1940s to develop the atomic bomb. From its national security origins, the Labs have become one of the centerpieces of the United States federal research enterprise, representing nearly $20 billion in annual public research dollars. However, as the pace of innovation has accelerated and the complexity of national challenges has increased, the national laboratory system has not kept stride. Significant reforms are required to better catalyze innovation and promote the 21st century economy.
To accomplish this goal, three think tanks, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), the Heritage Foundation, and the Center for American Progress (CAP), propose a set of nonpartisan policy proposals for reforming the national laboratories. Turning the Page: Re-imagining the National Labs in the 21st Century Innovation Economy makes a series of recommendations that if enacted will increase research flexibility, allow for greater cooperation between the labs and the private sector, and promote a more cohesive and efficient researchprogram within the Department of Energy.
"The national labs are a tremendous source of cutting-edge research and scientific talent, but their operations are still based on a decades-old management model that no longer meets the needs of our modern innovation ecosystem," notes Matthew Stepp, Senior Analyst with ITIF and lead author of the report. "This study presents a series of twelve proposals for Congress and the Administration that can ensure the labs better meet their mission and produce useful technologies that spur economic growth and create jobs."
While efforts to reform the lab system have become highly politicized, ITIF, Heritage, and CAP have been able to agree on common sense reforms for basic, good governance of the labs. As stated in the report, "These recommendations are as relevant to a large, highly-funded research agenda as they are to a much more limited one."
"A system that allows the market to pull technologies out of the federal research establishment rather than them being pushed into the market by Washington is the best way to get more successes like GPS and fewer failures like synfuels," adds Jack Spencer, a Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
"These pragmatic reforms won't cost the taxpayer anything, but will lead to better research, more innovation, and greater economic growth," says Sean Pool, a former policy analyst and managing editor of CAP's Science Progress program. "But pragmatic does not mean less bold.
I'm pleased that we were able to find consensus across ideological lines around a set of reforms that are both ambitious and practical."
The reforms presented fall into three main categories: (1) removing DOE micromanagement of lab decisions and replacing it with more robust contractor accountability; (2) reforming the DOE program offices to better coordinate lab stewardship, budgeting, and research; and (3) providing better incentives and flexibility for the labs, industry, and universities to move promising technologies to market.
"The national labs have been a tremendous driver of innovation and business development in the past," Stepp adds. "But the reforms we propose today are critical to the labs producing more economy-transforming research. If three ideologically diverse organizations can agree on these issues, surely Washington can as well."
Read the Report At
http://www2.itif.org/2013-turning-page-national-lab-innovation-economy.pdf
Comments
At some point in your career at LLNL you were severely b*tt hurt, is this correct? Your wishful thinking at damage to LLNL employees makes his pretty clear.
http://llnlthetruestory.blogspot.com/2013/05/hey-lanl-and-sandia.html?showComment=1368229152210#c5184911644985578339
Funding from NNSA
LLNL – 74.4%
LANL – 70.7%
SNL – 55.1%
Funding from other DOE Offices
LANL – 18.5%
SNL – 9.5%
LLNL – 6.9%
Funding from non-DOE
SNL – 35.4%
LLNL – 18.3%
LANL – 10.7%
Supposedly a lot of "technical" staff at Sandia do not have PhDs. I suggest these people get weeded out first:
http://llnlthetruestory.blogspot.com/2013/05/hey-lanl-and-sandia.html?showComment=1368229152210#c5184911644985578339
Makes no sense since they are more cost effective
Nope! LANL and LLNL have received the majority of R&D 100 awards (which are *externally* reviewed) compared to Sandia in the last 5 years. The non-PhDs in Sandia have *not* been cost effective
Sorry to break it to you, but even though the Labs are having a hard time right now, the core of these Labs are the highly-competant technical staff. I've worked in industry across this nation; the staff at LLNL are leaps and bounds better. LLNL is by no means perfect, but relatively speaking it is a crown jewel for this nation.
You immature and cowardly "Anonymous" commenters on here can play keyboard warrior until you turn blue in the face -- LLNL (or LANL, or SNL) will not be closing.
June 22, 2013 at 2:58 PM
The technical staff at LLNL are so "highly-competant" that they can't spell competent. Geezzz....
Yes, but we all know that NNSA.DoE rewards failure.
That reminds me, speaking of R&D awards, didn't PEREGRINE get an R&D 100 award? And look how successful that has been in terms of actual impact to healthcare. A real winner, indeed.
The blog belittlement of that work actually caused more people to request information about it, giving the work more publicity, and positive responses for those who did look further into it.
That made me laugh my ass off to know that naysayers of that project are actually promoting it.
The job of a scientist is to come up with new ideas. We do it for a modest salary and with the best interests of society at mind. The motivation is personal satisfaction and recognition, not stock options.
The job of free enterprise is to take these ideas and make them practical and profitable and deliver them to market.
Get rid of the contractors running the labs. These private contractors only care about money and will run the labs into the ground so long as they collect their management fees.
Go back to the old model, where government agencies or universities managed operations. The labs were far more productive, were far more efficient, and everyone was a hell of a lot happier back then.
Bingo. You hit the solution right on the head.
Okay... the chili cook-off didn't even involve any chili. Egads! What is wrong with these people? That program needs to be sequestered! We can't have nonsense where a chili cook-off doesn't involve any chili. What will the neighbors say?
Oh the humanity! No chili!
On the other hand I see that I've been subject to personal attacks, such as someone using the name Anonymous to call me a "Loser". A tad bit ironic, no? It is truly a miserable existence that many of you must come on here daily and post all these ugly and bitter messages as "Anonymous".
...and I am a SHE, thank you very much. I'm not afraid to use my real name and I'd be available to meet up in Livermore's downtown to discuss the Lab with anyone on here who wishes.
I'll say this again -- LLNL has its positives and negatives. I've worked with many intelligent, hard-working, and GOOD people -- some of the best I've ever had the pleasure to work with across industry and academia. If that goes against your agenda -- so be it.
June 23, 2013 at 5:06 PM"
You make a good point however the current holders of he contract would say that before they came in that the labs where out of control, Mustangs where being stolen, spys, meth, fires, and lasers in eyes. It was just one disaster after another and Congress wanted to shut the whole thing down. The claim was this is what happens when you let scientists run the place. Nanos even had to stand down LANL just to save it. Now we no longer have these problems, or least we do not have the perception of these problems. Congress is happy, and the contractor is happy. The workforce is irrelevant.