UT Austin flagship campus not on board with UT system bid for LANL http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2017/12/05/the-ut-system%E2%80%99s-bid-for-los-alamos-is-an-accident-waiting-to-happen
You must go to the site and see the picture! There are several very strong reasons put forward for why it is not in UT Austin best interest for the UT system to win the LANL bid.
7 comments:
Outstanding article it puts the risk not at LANL but with industrial partnerships and the for profit model.
"Under the current system at Los Alamos, scientists attribute chronic mishaps and headaches to private industry pressures and Department of Energy policy. The UC system runs Los Alamos in a public-private partnership with multiple corporations, putting research-driven university initiatives at odds with profit-driven corporate initiatives that often throw safety out the window. Management is further complicated by Department of Energy monetary kickbacks that are only handed out if the lab meets what can be infeasible deadlines."
How to fix LANL is simple, get rid of the for profit model. Bring back a culture of excellence,
bring in the highest quality people, and do what is best for the nation not the local New Mexico economy.
The link does NOT say "UT Austin flagship campus not on board". The link is to an editorial by a UT Austin freshman. That's all, nothing more. The arguments he put forward could equally apply to UC or any other university.
A freshman's editorial won't change the UT board of Regents vote.
11:04 apparently didn't even read what he posted - "Private industry pressures *AND* Department of Energy policy."
Getting rid of the for-profit model addresses only ONE of these TWO problems postulated by the college freshman author of this article. The second problem, Department of Energy policy, would still exist under a return to the nonprofit model. Of course, the author probably meant NNSA when he wrote DOE.
The inept management at DOE/NNSA is one of the two primary reasons why LANL was badly run even back when UC ran LANL as a nonprofit. The second primary reason why LANL was badly run was UC's inept management with two Directors who had to be removed (John Browne and Admiral "Butthead" Nanos). UC's AWFUL management continued under the UC-led LANS LLC with awful Directors like Mike "Ewok" Anastasio and Charlie "Um" McMillan. Terry "Rocks for Brains" Wallace, the second-rate geologist, will continue UC's string of bad Director hires.
It's not a particularly well written editorial, either. I'll give him points for being a college freshman, but there is no wisdom or insight in it at all, and it also has multiple grammar errors.
11:04 apparently didn't even read what he posted - "Private industry pressures *AND* Department of Energy policy."
Good point. I think this is a very nice article coming from just a freshman. To be honest it seems better written and thought out than anything from Santa Fe or the New Mexican papers. Perhaps that is not such a complement after all but hey I still give the kid credit.
"UC's AWFUL management continued under the UC-led LANS LLC with awful Directors like Mike "Ewok" Anastasio and Charlie "Um" McMillan. Terry "Rocks for Brains" Wallace, the second-rate geologist, will continue UC's string of bad Director hires."
To fair to UC I had heard that UC has always wanted some external high level scientists to be the Director but NNSA always put a stop to this. This kind of goes with your point about DOE/NNSA policies since it seems to become increasingly clear that they like to call the shots from behind the scenes so UC has very little say in who the Director will be. With that said the last four have been total zeros.
You are entitled to your opinions on the Directors but you seem to lack credibility on Wallace
as he is not a second rate geologist which is easily checked by looking at his publication record. Also it is pretty clear he is not a dumb person. None of this means he will be a good director but your comments on him simply not correct.
Terry Wallace is not suitable as Director. This opinion comes from having "worked" with him off and on for years. I put "worked" in quotes as he has a strange idea of work - he goes missing in action for long periods with no excuse.
Even in his own field he has been highly controversial. His estimates of nuclear test yields dropped LANL down a rung on the credibility scale with our customers.
Terry simply doesn't have the physics background to understand nuclear weapons issues. I've heard it said that he wouldn't have even been hired by LANL had it not been for his (late) mommy, Jeanette Wallace.
Terry Wallace is not suitable as Director. This opinion comes from having "worked" with him off and on for years. I put "worked" in quotes as he has a strange idea of work - he goes missing in action for long periods with no excuse.
Even in his own field he has been highly controversial. His estimates of nuclear test yields dropped LANL down a rung on the credibility scale with our customers.
Terry simply doesn't have the physics background to understand nuclear weapons issues. I've heard it said that he wouldn't have even been hired by LANL had it not been for his (late) mommy, Jeanette Wallace.
December 7, 2017 at 5:36 PM
Sorry, but I am going make bullshit call on this. You never worked for Terry Wallace, he never went missing in action for long
periods, he never dropped LAN down a rung on yields or anything. I know for a fact you are lying. It is one thing to have an opinion on Wallace but it is entirely another to actually lie. Was Terry hired because of his mother, who knows and you certainly do not know.
I have no problem with the blog but people who are not familiar with blogs should realize that they can and do get people who will lie, make stuff up, say crazy things and so on. It is up to the readers to realize this and not take anything stated on a blog at face value but question everything. The above poster is just one example of this. This and many other blogs can be breeding ground for bitter people with an agenda and hopefully people reading the blog are adults who can come to their own conclusions.
Post a Comment