WFO is not a big deal to the Labs
For years this was the unstated policy and now it is becoming more of a firm stance. After the new SNL team came in there was a big change because under L-M the leadership was always pro WFO and they had very experienced and well respected WFO leadership. The new SNL team doesn't have much in this regard, at least compared to the L-M team.
At LANL the WFO is an undesired fit in any location. They had in under weapons, then made it a stand alone and now Triad has pushed it way down under STE. Hard to see that it matters much to them when the numbers have dropped sharply over the recent several years. It winds up that maybe the projects just aren't all that important to the Labs after all.
15 comments:
The big investments at LANL have never come from WFO. Obviously the missions are important, but the investments do not reflect the importance.
WFO should not be part of the labs. They are not lab mission work and they use up lab resources. Another problem is that WFO allows for the labs to interface with the outside world which can be very inconvenient. The labs need to be insulated from the outside world. The labs need to live in mission space which is the only thing that should be relevant to the labs and anything else adds nothing and could be done better and cheaper elsewhere. Also LDRD needs to be stopped, again it adds nothing and also brings in outside science and engineering into the lab which is not needed. I would add that in some cases there is BES, DOE and NIH, and even some NFS money they gets into the lab and again these are outside influences that are not in mission space. We also need to rethink the idea of postdocs at the labs. The traditional view of a postdoc is someone that does basic science connected to a the larger scientific world in other words postdocs are necessarily connected to the outside world, this is not of value to the labs or mission space. The lab should instead create a new form of probationary technical staff in place of postdocs this way they can not interface with the outside world of science or try and understand the so called recent advances which are not are living in mission space. The NNSA labs are not Universities or DOE labs, those labs do not live in mission space.
Yes, September 22, 2018 at 12:07 PM, that would be the most effective way to eventually destroy what remains of the labs. No doubt about it.
Where to start in response to 12:07 pm? There is some WFO that only the DOE Labs can do. Sounds like you are afraid of "outside science and engineering" and "outside influences;" are you afraid of peer review? Are you afraid of new ideas that might challenge your insular views? Don't you understand postdocs are our future scientific workforce at the labs? How would you propose to bring in new talent? Please define the "mission space" of a national laboratory. I hope you are not a current manager, a new manager, or a future manager at any of the DOE labs.
"There is some WFO that only the DOE Labs can do"
We agree that they should be done at DOE labs not NNSA labs.
"Sounds like you are afraid of "outside science and engineering" and "outside influences;" are you afraid of peer review? "
Peer review can be done internally within the labs. It is doubtful than anyone from outside and NNSA lab would have the knowledge or ability to even peer review mission relevant work. Additionally academic science is filled with fads and other useless junk, we really do not need that stuff at a mission focused lab.
"Don't you understand postdocs are our future scientific workforce at the labs?"
You do understand that most of the high prestige postdocs and fellows leave the lab don't you? Also other postdocs that are highly productive by academic standards leave the labs and many don't have good things to say when they do. I think we should at the very least rethink the postdoc program to get people that will be more at home in mission space rather than science space.
"How would you propose to bring in new talent? "
Adds or just having programs directly feed in a pipeline from a few select schools so this way they enter into mission space or a moving toward mission space right away.
" Please define the "mission space" of a national laboratory. "
The lab mission nothing more nothing less. It goes directly into lab program or gets thrown out. In case you have not noticed the NNSA labs have been a disaster from the last 15 years, contract after contract is lost, screw up after screw up. The labs need to change and change radically to stay in the mission space orbit.
September 22, 2018 at 12:07 PM does not want the labs "to interface with the outside world which can be very inconvenient." This is laughable. With whom should they interface? I assume you recognize the "mission space" of nuclear deterrence is directed at "the outside world"? Or is the "mission space" of nonproliferation and proliferation deterrence, detection, and forensics not an appropriate "mission space"? Such short-sighted, narrow, naive thinking would result in incredible waste of absolutely unique talent in service to the country.
To 12:24 pm, thanks for your reply; I'm 10:23 pm. I've worked at the lab for 24 years now and still going strong. I came to the lab as a postdoc; I wanted to be here and did not apply anywhere else. Along the way, I've been involved in LDRD, WFO, JTOT, weapon science/ surveillance/physics, global security, project management. Most done concurrently. Been part of the core mission from the start; currently working in X-div.
I've found there is plenty of good science to be done within the mission space, stockpile stewardship. Seen first hand in project/program reviews the value of outside peer review and university collaboration/pipelines that move beyond just internal review by llnl, lanl, and snl scientists/engineers.
There is some WFO that NNSA labs are uniquely qualified to do.
The postdoc issue is complicated, but I think we need a program that encompasses more than "a few select schools." The main problem I see getting postdocs engaged quickly in "mission space" is getting a clearance. We ask postdocs to come for a two year stint (they can apply for a third year) and sometimes they wait a year for a clearance. While they wait, they can make contributions to stockpile stewardship science, but that's more difficult in some parts of the lab. I do agree that we have high postdoc turnover, especially in T-div.
One issue wrt turnover, both postdoc and young staff, is the benefits package (retirement). In my opinion, when the lab was privatized, the playing field was overly leveled, why work here rather than some other place. (some young folks have interesting expectations these days that play into retention) Used to be the trade was we would take care of the stockpile and UC would take care of us.
I'll agree the last 15 years have been tough, I'm hopeful for the future.
You imply that mission not aligned with lab program needs to go, what is your position on global security, is that a part of the lab's mission?
Thank you for answering my questions and a civil discussion.
I think someone missed the sarcasm...
September 24, 2018 at 12:24 PM
Any time I hear someone talking about mission space, I am reminded of the stupid flyer we all got at LANL about what LANL's mission is. It is just managerial blabla, completely devoid of any meaning, but looks great on the typical manager power point presentation.
What I also find typical managerial behavior, is not answering a question. September 23, 2018 at 10:23 PM asked you to define mission space. Complete silence.
You have to understand that everything done at the lab is for the purpose of conveniencing the management. WFO is inconvenient. It requires travel and contact with outsiders. It does not result in a higher salary for the managers. I never encountered a manager at the lab who gave a crap about WFO. The customer is the NNSA, period. I have even seen a manager express relief when WFO money was lost.
Not all WFO is created equal. The NSF, NASA, BES, NIH projects are a hard fit into a weapons lab. If you define everything that is not NA-10 as WFO then it gets a bit more complicated. How does NA-20 and DOD and related projects qualify? No matter the listing, LANL has cut way back in this area in the past five years or so, and TRIAD looks to continue the decline.
The entire WFO argument is worth having, but recognize that DOE/NNSA explicitly and officially recognizes WFO as valuable in its Orders, especially DHS WFO, which has its own separate Order. Sure WFO uses DOE/NNSA space/utilities, infrastructure, computing power, trained and experienced technical staff, etc. DOE/NNSA, as a matter of policy, seems to value this arrangement. Maybe DOE/NNSA employees and prime contractors should recognize and accept this decision made by their employers.
Maybe DOE/NNSA employees and prime contractors should recognize and accept this decision made by their employers.
September 25, 2018 at 6:08 PM
McMillan and Wallace went out of their way to do everything that they could to reduce WFO at LANL, and as an earlier poster noted, it is shaping up that Triad has accelerated this reduction. Likewise, the new SNL contractor has greatly depressed WFO since they came in and took over from LockheedMartin.
At least at LANL and SNL, WFO has been taken way down, from where it was at either Lab 5-10 years ago.
At least at LANL and SNL, WFO has been taken way down, from where it was at either Lab 5-10 years ago.
October 1, 2018 at 9:57 AM
Either way, if DOE/NNSA accepts what the labs are doing with WFO, it should be accepted by lab employees since it is what their employer expects and accepts. Anything else is pure arrogance and naivete.
LANL thrives in arrogance and naïveté. Know your audience.
Post a Comment