43 



18/ IMPROVING THE ALLOCATION PROCESS 



following at all times: continual review of their success in meeting the missions of 

 their agencies. 



In the committee's view, some of the major reasons for supponing federal 

 laboratories — both those the government operates directly and those operated by 

 contractors — are less compelling than in the past. For some purposes, such as 

 software system design and integration, private-sector firms increasingly have the 

 highly sophisticated research and development capabilities that once justified 

 unique arrangements with federally funded research and development centers 

 (FFRDCs).'^ In addition, an increasing burden of federal regulations on those federal 

 laboratories operated by universities and private firms has reduced many of the 

 advantages of operation by nongovernment contractors, such as freedom from 

 federal civil service restrictions and procurement regulations. 



The damage and inefficiency induced by micromanagement from Washington 

 emerge as major themes in the many reviews of federal laboratories.''' Intrusions 

 that come from agencies and through congressional mandates and earmarks are 

 counterproductive, because any successful R&D laboratory' must retain great flex- 

 ibilirv' and substantial autonomy to respond to rapidly paced scientific and technical 

 change. 



The end of the Cold War coupled with the pressures of the federal deficit have 

 already affected the national laboratories and other FFRDCs significantly. National 

 Science Foundation (NSF) reports estimate an 18 percent decrease for FFRDCs 

 between 1992 and 1994,"' and subsequent budget proposals by the President and 

 Congress promise to cut substantially more. There remain, however superb 

 FFRDCs that contribute uniquely to their agency's missions. '" It would be unwise 

 to weaken these excellent performers. The recent review of NASA laboratories in 

 fact pointed to several educational and management advantages of linking federalh- 

 funded research to universities, and pointed to one NASA-funded FFRDC as a mode! 

 for other NASA laboratories to emulate.'** The general presumption, however, is 

 against creating new federal laboratories when an alternative exists. Moreover, 

 existing laboratories should undergo renewed scrutiny, with the possibility- of redi- 

 recting or eliminating resources when mission requirements have diminished or if 

 external reviewers judge that investments in a particular laboratory- under review 

 are less effective than other alternatives. 



The February' 1995 external review task force on the Department of Energy 

 national laboratories concluded that they have clear expertise in their traditional 

 mission areas of national security', energy, and environmental protection and in the 

 fields of fundamental science underlying those missions (e.g., in basic research 

 associated with high-energy, nuclear, and condensed-matter physics).''' The task 

 force viewed the DOE national laboratories as having "a distinctive role in conduct- 

 ing long-term, often high-risk R&D, frequently through the utilization of capital- 

 intensive facilities which are beyond the financial reach of industrv- and academia, 

 and generally through the application of multidisciplinary teams of scientists and 

 engineers." However, the task force discouraged efforts of the DOE national labora- 

 tories to develop new missions, such as research and development in suppon of 



