160 



tional laboratories are better at doing basic research. That would be a foolish en- 

 deavor! Both types of institutions conduct basic research and should continue to do 

 so. Universities must do high-quality basic research to provide the best education 

 possible. The laboratories must do high-quality basic research to carry out their mis- 

 sions. The two types of institutions generally differ in the type of research that they 

 are best suited for. Universities shine in principal investigator modes and labs shine 

 in larger, more multidisciplinary, facility-intensive modes. Both, of course, do some 

 of each and the best of both are very good at it. But the centers of gravity of their 

 efforts are different. This difference has led to effective collaborations that thrive be- 

 cause of these complementary capabilities. We believe, this has contributed to the 

 United States' leadership position in basic research in the world. Why destroy some- 

 thing that works? In fact, we are strong proponents of having the labs work even 

 more closely in partnership with universities to enhance the benefits from both. 



At Los Alamos, being at the forefront of several areas of science and having close 

 ties with universities is imperative for carrying out our government missions. Our 

 association with the University of California not only assists us in recruiting the 

 best science and engineering talent, it reminds us that science and excellence must 

 be our highest priorities. Retaining a focus on science also provides us the flexibility 

 to adjust or anticipate changing national mission requirements. Last year, almost 

 60% of the Los Alamos' roughly 1200 peer-reviewed publications were co-authored 

 by academic investigators. The Laboratory also supported over 1300 students (split 

 roughly 50:50 between undergraduate and graduate students) and over 350 

 postdoctoral research associates. 



Some examples of current basic research at Los Alamos are: 



• The search for neutrino mass including investigations of neutrino oscillations at 



our large proton linear accelerator (the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility). 



• Developing a self-consistent 3-D model of the geodynamo — explaining the origin of 



the earth's magnetic field. 



• Understanding and modeling nonlinear systems and chaotic behavior. 



• Investigating novel mechanisms of superconductivity. 



• Studying protein function and structure using synchrotron radiation. 



All of these projects have university collaborators and benefit from those collabo- 

 rations. And, all of these areas of research have benefited from the government's 

 investment in defense research at Los Alamos. In turn, this type of research pro- 

 vides significant benefit back to the defense programs by strengthening and advanc- 

 ing the core competencies of the Laboratory. This mutual leverage of defense and 

 civilian research — the multiprogram nature of our laboratory — is critical to our abil- 

 ity to continue to respond to changing priorities. 



We can and should do more. We should strengthen the fundamental research com- 

 ponent of all of our mission-oriented research and involve university faculty to a 

 greater extent. The DOE Defense Program laboratories, in particular, need to en- 

 gage the academic community to be successful in the new mission of science-based 

 stockpile stewardship. The opportunities for advances in fundamental knowledge 

 are especially great in the following areas: 



• High performance computing, modeling, simulation and information science. 



• New tools or diagnostic capabilities to explore physical regimes of weapons inter- 



est, such as the large lasers at Livermore, neutrons and protons at Los Alamos, 

 and the pulsed power machines at Los Alamos and Sandia. 



• Materials and materials properties, especially those properties that affect long- 



term reliability, as well as the dynamic behavior of materials. 



However, the real issue here is the question of how the nation ensures that it gets 

 the best R&D for its investment. Recommendation 10 cites competitive merit review 

 as the preferred vehicle for making R&D awards. While we agree that peer review 

 is the best procedure for making small scale exploratory research awards at the 

 principal investigator level (and we practice it here at Los Alamos), there are other, 

 more appropriate, mechanisms for ensuring quality in larger programs. We whole- 

 heartedly agree with the desirability of independent reviewers, but we believe that 

 institutions can be held accountable for the quality of their work directly, particu- 

 larly for large-scale mission research. 



As an example, a key component of the University of California's annual assess- 

 ment of the Laboratory involves an evaluation of the quality of our science and tech- 

 nology, the Laboratory's primary product. The key to this assessment is review by 

 external peers. The information gained from independent and impartial review is 

 of great benefit in helping us make decisions about appropriate new directions for 

 the Laboratory. Quality control is possible through mechanisms other than the peer 

 review of awards. 



