Perhaps it's a fools errand to attempt to commence a constructive discussion on the role of basic science in the NNSA nuclear security complex in this forum. But, hey -- hope springs eternal. Or: -- I'm a glutton for punishment.
This article by Simmons & West is an interview with Pete Carruthers. I'll hold-off on giving my thoughts until others have posted.
https://library.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getfile?02-10.pdf
So, here goes (>gulp<): what do you think?
24 comments:
We have gone over this time and time again, what more needs to be said. Either you believe basic science serves a role at the labs just as it always did especially during the cold war or you think it does not. I think having top basic science is a sign of a successful lab that is always trying to position itself at the forefront in terms of various mission roles and even broader science that comes out of this, again as it has been since the labs started. There are others that think differently. You can point to all the talent that has come, in the advances that have benefited mission, the broader science and enginnering implications, the good publicity, and so on, which has been done time and time again on this blog and many other places, if you look at the bang for the buck basic science has been well worth it.
Counter arguments I have heard to 11:01 PM;
Science adds nothing to the labs mission, has not for 60 years.
Mission creep is bad for the labs, too many arrogant "I am so great scientists" playing in sandboxes.
This massive amount of money is being stolen form mission work.
Scientists want UC, but UC should not be running a national security institute.
The lab particularly LANL is going to just be doing pit production so we do not need science.
The overhead rates are way to high, science can be done way cheaper and better elsewhere.
The mission is really about a well defined set of milestones, science does not fit in such a framework.
Who cares, I have never used any basic science developed at the labs.
We do not need many Ph.D's for the current status of the labs so using science to recruit people makes no sense.
Ok these are the ones that I have heard, I am sure there are more.
1/08/2021 7:02 AM
Here's an unspoken one, so you probably haven't heard it "I'm too lazy to do the research necessary for good science."
Truly great science is no longer conducted at DOE labs where the leadership is spineless, the facilities are in decay, the funding is sporadic, the political winds strong, and the level of scientific talent 3rd rate. About every 5 years or so somebody comes along who claims they will fix this mess. It’s baloney. The downward spiral is our future.
"Here's an unspoken one, so you probably haven't heard it "I'm too lazy to do the research necessary for good science."
1/08/2021 11:19 AM"
Not one I have heard. But I have had some odd conversations where there is a sense that the rest of the world is advancing scientifically and that we need to keep up and the reply is almost like "rest of the world"?
12:18 PM is bit over the top but sort of has a point. There is good or even top science at LLBL, ORNL, and ANL but it is hard to escape the fact the NNSA labs are in decline in terms of quality of science and workforce.
As a Post-doc at LANL in the late 70's, I was told that the greatest benefit of being a scientist at LANL was that at least one of the world's experts in any given field was right down the hall to collaborate with, or at least consult with, for free. I found that to be true to immense benefit to my career, and from my continued contacts there, it is still true.
6:13 pm
Your comment was completely on the mark. This was still true in the 90's. LANL was an amazing place to work as a young person. The culture was generous and made a huge impact on me.
More importantly the science served the nation. Our Cold War investments in basic science were the foundation of National security.
The Nation has pretty much destroyed that environment. We are a shadow of our former glory. The events of 1999-2007 annihilated the culture of LANL. We made our Nation far less secure in the process. Today our basic science is garbage. All the labs care about is getting funding. No one is leading, Lab leadership is just marketing. I have little or no faith in the annual assessment.
I wouldn’t worry about science with some of these recent hires. Sandia relaxed its high GPA requirement and now they’re getting pure garbage. I know some people working there who are washouts from industry who couldn’t hold down a job for more than two years. They have technical degrees but have no knowledge of science or engineering. They do enjoy the paycheck though!
8:36 is 100% spot on.
1/09/2021 8:36 AM
I was at LANL until 2007, and still keep close contact with several colleagues (scientists) there. They agree that the culture is different, but the pursuit of science goes on, if in somewhat less favor from upper management. There are still great projects to be part of, and great Post-doc appointments to be had, and great work and subsequent publications on one's resume to be done. Of course funding is critical, but as always, good work generates good funding in science.
I was hoping to use the Carruthers interview by Simmons & West as a point of departure for a constructive discussion.
Perhaps this attempt was a dismal failure because the link doesn't point to the correct URL. Here's a corrected link:
https://library.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getfile?02-10.pdf
In any case, there's still hope for a sensible discussion based on the interview. If you don't know who Carruthers was or the mountains he moved to invigorate basic research at LANL, most I think will find his perspective amusing yet consequential.
1/11/2021 11:27 AM
And what made you think that anyone reading this blog would read through a 10 page, triple column interview?
Did I not begin this thread, 1/11/2021 5:21 PM, by intimating that I'm a glutton for punishment?
But here, 1/11/2021 5:21 PM, since apparently reading is a challenge for some -- just read Carruthers' answer to the second question: "SIMMONS: Do you think adminis- trative experience is important for most administrative jobs in science?" If you don't find it entertaining, then stop. (And realize that you might be brain-dead.)
The labs may not be doing “basic” science like they used to, but they are doing guaranteed “basic” income at a pretty large scale!
"SIMMONS: Do you think adminis- trative experience is important for most administrative jobs in science?"
1/11/2021 6:10 PM
Technical leadership and administrative skills come naturally to a gifted few, some of whom end up at the the labs. But, for most in high management positions at LANL these days the question is "How do you manage to get dressed in the morning?"
9:47 They don’t. The emperor has been without clothing in management circles at Los Alamos for at least 20 years. It’s basically a self-important nudist colony. Most of us have adopted a sort of smiling, inner funny-bone about those clowns, their antics, their lack of qualifications, their concubines, and their faux prioritization of things like safety and security. It is a miracle anything at all gets accomplished behind the scenes with the Rocky Horror Picture show on center stage. As a country we pay a very heavy price for their arrogance and incompetence.
1/13/2021 8:31 AM
You sound like the quintessential "problem employee" that every manager dreads having to deal with. Glad I'm not yours. Because my employees are all pretty damn good.
5:57 I’m nearly certain that “your employees” are, “pretty damn good”. The point of 8:31’s post was that as a member of the management class, you may not be so good. The Labs are full of excellent, world-class scientists who are managed by bureaucrats and sycophants. It does not surprise me that you view such observations as problematic because they are.
1/13/2021 8:31 AM
AMEN, Brother !
1/14/2021 11:09 AM
My employees are "pretty damn good" so I treat them pretty damn well and I pay them pretty damn well, and they rate me very high. My organization is rated highest in our Division. We all respect each other. It's a win-win. "Problem employees" don't let that happen.
Pete Caruthers was the head of T-Div (Theory Division) at Los Alamos. T-Div is still around to this day with a very strong component in basic sciences, like quantum computing, Covid work, HIV, astrophysics, nuclear, materials and so on. Something is obviously going on as half the T-Div management has stepped down the last 6 months. Maybe they are doing some kind of purge, or they simply plan on getting rid of T-Div. Over the last 10 years T-Div has lost dozens of staff members who left for faculty positions or other labs and there is lots of talk that there are numerous staff members thinking about leaving.
The point of the original thread was on basic science at the labs, maybe TRIAD is simply not interested.
7:49 - sounds like you just need to talk to Mr “pretty damn good manager”. I’m sure he can fix your problems; he knows everything.
Under Granholm (O'Leary II) basic science isn't going to be part of the mix. Neither will nuclear weapons. If you aren't green, you're out.
Is see Triad (i.e the third coming of UC) is now falling into disfavor. Will there ever be a satisfied populous at the lab.
Post a Comment