44 



IMI'RUVISG THE ALLOCATIOS PROCESS / 19 



I .S. indu.str\ and national competitiveness, arguing that other mechanisms were 

 more effective or appropriate.-" As a result, it concluded that the DOE national 

 laboratory s\stem should be "downsized " by refocusing on specific missions require- 

 ments, and it called for a more appropriate division of labor among the various 

 performers — national laboratories, industrial research institutions, and research 

 universities.-' 



The committee concurs with the general thrust of these recommendations. 

 Federal laboratories should not seek new mis.sions unless they offer both a critical 

 ad\ antage over other performers and the new mission better meets national needs. 

 As with intramural laboratories, there is a natural tendency' to maintain national 

 laboratories and other FFRDCls with special relationships to their sponsoring agen- 

 cies until the budget climate improves.-- Their size and location make several DOE 

 national laboratories particularK important sources of employment. Local factors 

 arc important to take into account in a transition strategy, but the size of the labora- 

 tories should in the long term be guided by mission requirements and national need. 

 The be.st FFRlXls that serve the specialized needs of their sponsoring agencies 

 should be sustained. Resizing of the national laboratory system should be balanced 

 and appropriate within the larger division of labor among all federally funded per- 

 formers of research and development. 



The National Science andTechnology Council (NSTC) recently produced a set 

 of recommendations for .NA.SA. DOE. and DOD laboratories.-* NSTC noted "manage- 

 ment problems that must be repaired" at NASA and DOE, particularh overstaffing 

 within the agencies, overlap among mis.si(ms of different laboratories, and excess 

 micromanagement. especialh at DOE. NSTC endorsed recent steps by NASA and 

 DOE to reduce the size and simplifx the management of their laboratories. NSTC 

 judged management of DOD laboratories to be "generally effective." but noted that 

 DOD "missed an opportunity to improve cross-service integration, reduce redun- 

 dancy, and Nhrink existing laboratories.-' 



The .NSTC review and the agencies Own internal reviews, as well as the 

 recent reviews of intramural research at NIH.are only now taking hold. The recom- 

 mendations of the many reports, as well as oversight actions by Congress, should 

 impro\e the effectiveness of the federal laboratory .system, reducing its size and co,st 

 and impro\ing its management. Federal laboratories will continue to play an impor- 

 tant role in I .S. science and technolog). The committee is concerned, however, 

 that current reforms ma\ bog down. The 1995 DOD review-^ recommended onh' a 

 few major closings, for example. Recent reports on NIH. DOE, and NASA laborato- 

 ries have not recommended closure of specific laboratories; however, the reports on 

 NASA and DOE noted that sucii closures may be necessary in the future,-'' and a 

 recent report on the largest NIH intramural program, the National (dancer Institute, 

 recommended significant shrinkage.-" If current initiatives do not achieve sufficient 

 reductions, so that the federal laboratory .svstem matches mission requirements, 

 further steps may be necessary. Given the scale of the laboratories and their local 

 economic significance, a de\ ice like the Base Clo.sure and Realignment Commission 

 will probably be needed as a last resort.-'* 



