|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Nuclear Scientists Question Their Role as Los Alamos National Laboratory Management Bids Near
As the list of bidders grows to take over management of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the facility’s historic role as an institution of science is being questioned, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, May 13). The University of California’s management contract ends in September. Some scientists fear that if defense contractors Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman take control of the laboratory, the focus at Los Alamos will shift to weapon production and design. The Energy Department is expected to release this week a request for proposals outlining the type of work the department wants performed at the laboratory. Bids are due within 60 days. Important personnel would leave Los Alamos if the work is to focus on weapon production, warns Hugh Gusterson, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientist who studies nuclear laboratories. “I’m not sure that turning Los Alamos into a lackluster lab focused on manufacturing is a good thing for the country,” Gusterson said “If you’re trying to recruit a young Ph.D. from Princeton, and you tell them you’re working for the University of California and not a bomb shop, it really matters.” Gusterson, who last month visited the laboratory, said the possible shift away from science is hurting morale. “People were just stricken,” Gusterson said. “They’re worried that Los Alamos will increasingly become a manufacturing facility. A lot of people were talking about early retirement.” However, Lockheed and Northrop say science does not have to be sacrificed in the name of industrial production. “We don’t want to devalue the role of science and technology,” Lockheed’s Paul Robinson said. “That’s what drives the innovation.” Robinson, who will head Lockheed’s bid for Los Alamos, is the former director of Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico Gusterson says the Energy Department must be careful not to stifle the innovations that have traditionally emerged from Los Alamos. “I’m sure it’s attractive to have a tightly run ship,” Gusterson said. “But you’ll get worse science” (William Broad, New York Times, May 17).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
