Debate needed on Los Alamos’ new management

As of June 1, responsibility for Los Alamos National Laboratory,
which created the first atomic bomb and now conducts national
security science research, will no longer rest solely in the hands
of the University of California, which has managed the lab since
its creation during World War II. Instead, it will be managed by a
consortium composed of the UC and three industry partners,
operating under a seven-year contract.

Given the lab’s $2.2 billion yearly budget, the crucial
research the laboratory performs in ensuring the safety and
reliability of the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile, and
the possibility that the lab may take on a new role in
manufacturing critical components for nuclear weapons, changes in
the structure of laboratory management deserve serious discussion
and debate.

Yet the little discourse during the period before the new
contract was awarded by the Department of Energy was dominated by
the tired debate between pro- and anti-nuclear weapons
sympathizers, not on the ramifications of the change in management.
Thus, two fundamental issues remain to be answered.

The first is determining the proper missions for the national
laboratories. During the Cold War, the primary mission of Los
Alamos was to conduct research on nuclear weapons design. The
collapse of the Soviet threat obviated this mission. Since then,
new projects, such as nanotechnology and bioinformatics, have
emerged. But the proliferation of such projects without an obvious
unifying mission has led a number of lab scientists to question the
fundamental purpose of the lab.

The change in management muddies the water even further by
implying the lab will move partially into a production role, a
change from its current status as an institution focused on
producing top quality scientific research.

The second issue is the problem of how best to manage
large-scale scientific innovation systems. There is no obvious
answer to this problem. Oversight of national scientific innovation
systems by different institutions, such as industry, the
government, the military, public and private universities, and
non-profits, has its respective strengths and weaknesses. The
consortium that will manage Los Alamos going forward intends to
combine strong academic science with sound management practices. If
it can do so, it deserves close scrutiny as a model for future
collaboration.

Immediately after World War II, Manhattan Project luminaries
such as Robert Oppenheimer thoughtfully considered the proper role
and structure of Los Alamos. Given the evolving nature of the
national security threats the U.S. faces today, we must do the
same.

Swango is a Public Policy and Nuclear Threats Fellow with
the University of California’s Institute on Global Conflict
and Cooperation.