Excerpts of the 1995 UCORP Meeting Minutes on the DOE Lab
A summary of testimony from various consultants on the role of the University of California in managing the DOE Laboratories.
Laboratory Testing in a Test Ban/Non-Proliferation Regime
This is a study by well-informed public citizens groups on the role of the DOE National Laboratories in maintaining US nuclear supremacy in an era of above-ground testing and simulation. The implications of the federal investment in these programs for the Non-Proliferation Treaty and Complete Test Ban Treaty are examined.
The Nuclear Deterrence Role of the DOE Weapons Laboratories in the
Post-Cold War Era
This is a position paper by the Office of Research on the Nuclear Deterrence Role of the DOE Weapons Laboratories in the Post-Cold War Era. It summarizes the goals of START I and START II, the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Complete Test Ban Treaty, the importance of the Science Based Stockpile Stewardship to these treaties, and the role of the DOE Laboratories in attaining these goals. The perspective is that of the DOE and the National Laboratories.
The DOE asked a special task force of experts, the Galvin Committee, to review and "propose alternative futures" for the DOE National Laboratories. In a 1995 report, The Galvin Committee recommended establishment of clear missions with lead laboratories and Centers of Excellence to foster basic science integrated with university research, as well as national security, energy, environment, and waste management. The Galvin Report also recommended much more public involvement in decision making, especially in matters related to the environment. Much more controversial was the Galvin report's recommendations that weapons design, development and direct stockpile support be moved from LLNL to other laboratories; and that the Federal support for the national laboratories should be based on a "private sector style--"corporatized"-- laboratory system.
The Jendresen Committee in 1989 was charged by the UC Academic Council to provide a thoughtful and independent evaluation of the role of the University in managing the DOE Labs. In responding to the Academic Council's statement that the public service function of the University is central to the argument justifying the University's role in managing the Labs, the Committee proposed a set of general criteria for public service appropriate to the University. Of the eight members of the Jendresen Committee, all but one member found that the University operation of the Laboratories failed to satisfy these criteria. Six members concluded that the University should, in a timely and orderly manner, phase out its responsibility for operating the Laboratories while maintaining its cooperative relationship with them in teaching and research. Two members felt that a contractual break was not required.