159 



The Galvin Task Force report validated the Los Alamos role in reducing the global 

 nuclear danger and the broader role of the Department's laboratories, including Los 

 Alamos, in conducting the nation's research and development. There are still plenty 

 of challenges in the historical civilian missions of the Department of Energy — that 

 is, energy, environment, and basic research. Not surprisingly, the Galvin Task Force 

 viewed energy as a compelling national mission. But, it did admonish the labs by 

 stating that it's ironic that these institutions seem to be searching so hard for new 

 missions when there remains a compelling agenda of important work to be performed 

 in their traditional missions. These same concerns are captured again in rec- 

 ommendation 6 of the Press report. 



We have redirected our traditional mission in nuclear weapons to focus our skills 

 on reducing the global nuclear danger but with a parallel recognition that we cannot 

 be only a weapons laboratory. We must remain a top scientific institution in order 

 to underpin this national security role. 



Mission research such as that we have described is inherently interdisciplinary 

 and cuts across the traditional boundaries of academic science. As Vice President 

 Gore noted to the American Association for the Advancement of Science just two 

 weeks ago: 

 "The great power of science derives in part from specialization into disciplines. But 



much of the power also comes from open criticism and communication across dis- 

 ciplines. Indeed, some of the most significant discoveries have emerged from the 



productive friction that occurs when different perspectives rub against each other 



and produce the spark of new insight." 



Defining compelling missions, while important, should not restrict the options of 

 the laboratories. We should encourage them to use their tremendous capacity for 

 interdisciplinary R&D to push the limits of science and technology in the national 

 interest. 



The Press report speaks to the limitations of the federal laboratories, citing stud- 

 ies that describe the unfavorable environment provided by the federal government 

 for research and development, through excessive and inflexible rules governing per- 

 sonnel, supplies, equipment, and facilities. We agree! The Galvin Task Force report 

 concluded tnat the Department's system of governance was "broken and should be 

 replaced with a bold alternative." The symptoms of this failure were several, but 

 they included high overhead costs, inadequate mission focus, and outdated manage- 

 ment systems at the laboratories, as well as institutional fragmentation, inordinate 

 focus on compliance issues and process at the expense of product, and an inability 

 to recognize excess research and development capacity on the part of the Depart- 

 ment. The report laid much of the blame for the situation at the feet of the Congress 

 and the Department of Energy. 



Much has changed since the release of the Galvin Task Force report, but much 

 is still to be done. Although the Department and the Congress have largely rejected 

 the Galvin Task Force call for a bold alternative governance for the laboratories, the 

 Department is moving to address many of the problems that led to that proposal. 

 It has announced a strategic alignment initiative that has the potential to address 

 many of the governance problems internal to the Department. With the strong sup- 

 port of the President, the Department has clarified its goals for the nuclear weapons 

 program and has committed itself to a strong, science-based stewardship approach 

 that will support continued excellence at the weapons laboratories (Los Alamos, 

 Sandia and Lawrence Livermore). A Laboratory Operations Board, with strong ex- 

 ternal representation, was recently established by the DOE and is pressing the De- 

 partment and the laboratories to become more efficient and effective. 



The issue of phasing out weak or obsolete federal institutions is also raised in the 

 Press report. Improvements in governance and a sharpened mission focus for the 

 labs will yield significant productivity improvements. It is critical, however, that we 

 focus first on function and quality and then on size. After this process has been com- 

 pleted, difficult decisions about unnecessary redundancy of laboratory facilities may 

 be appropriate. Work for other government agencies must be strategically incor- 

 porated to provide synergy with the Department's missions and to take advantage 

 of that synergy to execute other programs of national need. In the end, sizing the 

 DOE labs must be done in context of the other agencies and the other research pro- 

 viders in the nation. 



Recommendation 7 of the Press report says that "federal science and tech- 

 nology funding should generally favor academic institutions because of 

 their flexibility and inherent quality control, and because they directly link 

 research to education and training in science and engineering." 



The tone of this recommendation and the discussion which follows might lead 

 some to believe that there should be a competition to see if universities or the na- 



