NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/research/1382

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 3.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!darwin.sura.net!dtix!relay!diamond.nswc.navy.mil!rsherme
From: [e-mail] (Russel Shermer (R43))
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: fyi #161: Change on the Horizon for Dept. of Energy National Laboratories
Keywords: science, funding, doe, national-labs.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 29 Dec 92 22:36:34 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: NAVSWC DD White Oak Det. R43
Lines: 76

Posted for:
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]



Change on the Horizon for Dept. of Energy National Laboratories

FYI No. 161, December 29, 1992


Although it is not expected to be one of his first priorities,
President-elect Bill Clinton, in cooperation with Congress, is
expected to dramatically change the mission and objectives of the
DOE national laboratories over the coming years.

This is not a new initiative, but rather a continuation of what has
been an on-going struggle by DOE to redefine itself.  DOE Secretary
James Watkins, in presenting the FY 1993 proposed budget almost a
year ago, declared "DOE is migrating to more plowshares than
swords."  Critics contend that DOE has never been certain about its
new identity, an issue which may be less troubling in the new
administration.

Although change can be expected in many of DOE's activities, one of
the most closely watched areas is certain to be its national
laboratories: Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia.  Around
two-thirds of the DOE budget is for the development and testing of
nuclear weapons, and environmental clean-up at its weapons
facilities, so considerable money is at stake.  DOE, Congress, and
industry agree that there is great potential at the laboratories
for contributions to national economic goals, but much uncertainty
about how to make this potential a reality.

The Council on Competitiveness, a private organization consisting
of American business, education, and labor interests has reviewed
this issue.  A council study has attracted considerable attention
in Washington, with some observers predicting that proposals by the
council offer a blueprint for the incoming Clinton Administration.

In one of its final activities this fall, the House science
committee held a hearing on the national laboratories at which
Erich Bloch, a Distinguished Fellow at the council, testified.
Bloch identified a number of impediments to utilization of the
national laboratories by industry, including: industry's
unfamiliarity with the labs (and vice versa); differing approaches,
bureaucracies and traditions; inadequate funding of technology
transfer programs; the tendency of laboratories to see industrial
technology and competitiveness as peripheral concerns; etc.  While
Bloch highlighted progress at NIH, Sematech, and some DOE efforts,
he characterized current efforts as requiring too much effort,
time, and money.

To remedy this situation, Bloch advocates assigning 10% of the DOE
and NASA labs' budgets to technology transfer programs -- just
under $1 billion.  This amount should be increased to 20%+ over the
coming years.  Support was also given to launching national
technology infrastructure projects, new legal mechanisms, and
outreach programs.  A system for measuring results would be
implemented.

Although it is too early to predict what action the Clinton
Administration will take, change is certain to occur.  Science
committee chairman George Brown has planned hearings early next
year to lay the foundation for legislation, with a report by the
U.S. Office of Technology Assessment nearing completion.

###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
[phone]
##END##########