The federal government is preparing to put up for bid the management of
the legendary but troubled Los Alamos National Laboratory for the first time in
the facility's history, with potentially great ramifications for the high-stakes
field of nuclear science.
The New Mexico laboratory, famous for developing the atomic bomb but
also widely revered as the world's leading nuclear science lab -- only about
half of it focused on weapons -- has grown into a $2.2 billion operation. Its
8,300 employees work for the University of California, which has managed the
facility since 1943 on essentially a not-for-profit basis.
In response to a string of highly publicized safety and security
problems at the lab, the government will issue within days a request for
proposals that will invite others to compete to run the sensitive complex. That
seven-year deal is far sweeter than it was a few months ago, featuring hundreds
of millions of dollars in new incentives demanded by defense contractors who
argued that an earlier version was not attractive enough.
Now, with three major corporations vying for the plumped-up contract, a
number of science and policy experts are voicing concern that the Energy
Department is turning the nation's premier nuclear weapons facility into a
profit-making venture at great expense to taxpayers and great risk to the
quality of the research. At the core of the debate are profound questions about
the kind of institution most likely to attract the best minds to conduct some of
the world's most sensitive and difficult science.
Corporate contenders for the contract -- including Lockheed Martin,
which makes missiles and other defense-related equipment, and Northrop Grumman,
which makes nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines -- say they have the
management and technical expertise to continue Los Alamos's tradition of
excellent science, which has given the United States global nuclear
superiority.
"We as a company can bring the discipline that we have in the
marketplace to make Los Alamos a better place," said James R. O'Neill, president
of Northrop's information technology sector, which would manage the lab if the
company won the contract.
Moreover, many members of Congress, frustrated with the recent lapses
at Los Alamos, have concluded that the University of California has grown
hopelessly complacent after six decades on the job. Anything less than all-new
management "will only prolong the wasting of taxpayers' money or, worse,
jeopardize national security," Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said at a House
subcommittee hearing last week.
Some scientists, however, have begun to warn that corporations, which
are legally beholden to shareholders, make decisions very differently than do
public universities, with their educational mission and commitment to academic
openness. University and corporate labs also differ in the degree of
intellectual dissent they encourage and the extent to which their work is
typically kept secret, which in turn can affect the kinds of scientists they
attract.
"Obviously there must be a balance between the openness of science and
the demands of security at a national laboratory. But the national labs that
have fared the best are those that . . . have the backing or the aura of
academic freedom that allows scientists to speak out," said Sidney Drell, deputy
director emeritus of Stanford University's Linear Accelerator Center. "So I
react against giving the corporate side dominance."
Good science does not ensure good management, as evidenced by a recent
laser-related eye injury at Los Alamos, a case of accounting fraud and the lab's
embarrassingly slow realization that two computer discs thought to be missing
never existed. Acknowledging the need for better controls, the university
announced last week that it is crafting a renewal bid that will include a team
of industrial partners led by the giant engineering firm Bechtel National, which
would oversee the lab's business operations and security.
That means that no matter who wins the contract, Los Alamos will soon
be run at least in part by a private entity. But while Lockheed and Northrop
have said their bids will include academic partners -- Lockheed with the
University of Texas and Northrop's yet to be announced -- each partnership
promises a distinct management mix.
The University of Texas, for one, has made it clear that Lockheed would
be the dominant partner. Chancellor Mark G. Yudof referred to Lockheed last week
as the team's "majority partner" and said the university would not take
responsibility for classified research. (Lockheed manages the Sandia National
Laboratories, whose activities include engineering and fabricating nuclear
weapons.) That Northrop has announced its intentions before identifying an
academic ally suggests that it, too, intends to lead its team.
以下省略。