161 



At the same time as we evaluate the quaUty of the national laboratories, requir- 

 ing them to become more cost-effective, and to make difficult decisions as to future 

 directions, we must make the same demands of academic research programs. The 

 production of Ph.D. students in the sciences is at an historic high, having previously 

 peaked in the early 1970s. ^ The nation's science and technology enterprise is enter- 

 ing another period when production of science Ph.D.'s is likelyy to decline, driven 

 again by the overarching imperative of the national budget. When the entire science 

 and technology enterprise is shrinking, it is important to recognize that the market 

 for the education product of the universities is shrinking also. The universities, in- 

 dustry, and the laboratories should therefore work even more closely together to 

 strengthen the entire scientific enterprise for the nation. 



Policy coordination of the kind suggested in recommendation 1 of the Press report 

 is appropriate and helpful, but the pluralistic system of science and technology fund- 

 ing sources and providers is one of the strengths of U.S. science and technology and 

 should not be centralized or biased in favor on any particular entity. 



Recommendation 8 of the Press report asserts that "the federal government 

 should encourage, but not directly fund, private sector commercial tech- 

 nology development, with two limited exceptions: 



• Development in pursuit of government missions, such as weapons development and 



spaceflight; or 



• Development of new enabling, or broadly applicable, technologies for which govern- 



ment is the only funder available. 



We are concerned about the somewhat negative tone of this section of the report. 

 At Los Alamos, we have strongly encouraged working with industry for almost a 

 decade, not only for the benefit of industry but also for the benefit to our own pro- 

 grams. Partnering with industry helps us to stay sharp technically and provides le- 

 verage for the federal research investment in our programs and institutions. 



At Los Alamos, we now have over 200 collaborative agreements with American 

 industry. Together the DOE labs have over 1000 such agreements. That is an enor- 

 mous change from a little over three years ago. Clearly, American industry is inter- 

 ested in working with the labs. Not all of these collaborations will succeed. This is 

 a grand experiment and at Los Alamos we have already seen a lot of benefit from 

 these collaborations — for Los Alamos and for industry. In our view, it is important 

 to continue this experiment until all of the crucial data is available and analyzed. 

 On the other hand, now that we have some experience we should continue to evalu- 

 ate this effort. 



Direct program relevance of industrial interactions is much more likely today be- 

 cause defense laboratories will be responsible for the future stewardship of many 

 of the production technologies required in the nuclear weapons program, as well as 

 for the remanufacture of some key components. The nuclear weapons production 

 complex of the future must become a model of agile manufacturing. We have a lot 

 to learn from industry in this area and we are convinced that working with industry 

 will enhance our ability to maintain a safe and reliable nuclear stockpile. 



At the same time, we must continue to demonstrate that we can have a positive 

 effect on industry. Otherwise, there is no incentive for industrial partners to partici- 

 pate and to share costs. To this end, we must continue to build better bridges to 

 our industrial partners. We just launched the second year of our award-winning In- 

 dustrial Research Institute Industrial Fellows Program, which allows our staff to 

 join industry for one year to learn its culture and to build such bridges. 



Another indication of the Laboratory's potential for the commercial sector is our 

 record of R&D 100 awards (for the 100 greatest technical innovations with commer- 

 cial potential as judged by R&D Magazine). Last September, our researchers picked 

 up six such awards at the ceremony in Chicago, for a total of 44 over the past eight 

 years (more than any other institution or company in the world). The R&D 100 

 awards were the product of research spanning a great variety of programs, ranging 

 from our internal Laboratory-Directed Research and Development to biotechnology 

 to defense research. Clearly, the potential for working with industry is not restricted 

 to defense programs. In fact, in our energy programs we view partnering with in- 

 dustry as a key part of our R&D strategy. We must look more aggressively for pro- 

 ductive industrial connections within all of our programs. 



The nation's R&D enterprise will be strongly networked in the future. Our labora- 

 tory must be an integral part of that network. To be the best in science, we will have 

 to work closely with universities. To be the best in technology, we will have to work 

 closely with industry. 



^Research Doctorate Programs in the United States, Continuity and Change, National Re- 

 search Council, National Academy Press, 1995. 



