Whither Go the DOE National Labs?

“There does not currently exist a statutory description of the major research and development missions of the DOE laboratories. At a time when the missions of the DOE labs are in a state of considerable flux, we believe that Congress must come forth with appropriate guidance.” - Rep. George Brown

In this post-Cold War era of looming budget deficits, the government is looking for ways to consolidate and streamline many of its activities, and to measure which efforts are producing the most bang for the buck. One major area ripe for reexamination in the light of post-Cold War priorities is government-funded R&D, and one major proponent of such a review is Rep. George Brown (D-California), chairman of the House science committee. In addition to a series of hearings on R&D funding in general, Brown has initiated legislation that would examine and redefine the role of the Department of Energy’s national labs.

The labs, some of which date back to World War II, include 30 R&D facilities, which employ 56,000 people and cost over $6.5 billion a year. In introducing his bill, H.R. 1432, the DOE Laboratory Technology Act, Brown announced, “Our goal with this bill is to create a process of disciplined evolution for the DOE laboratories-- a process through which the enormous resources of these labs are carefully directed toward meeting some of the nation’s most pressing needs, while ensuring that the labs are rigorously evaluated to determine whether they are meeting their new challenges.”

The bill would require the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress next year a plan for consolidating nuclear weapons research, provide for committees to advise the labs on technology transfer, streamline the CRADA (Cooperative Research and Development Agreement) process, require performance milestones and evaluation for all CRADAs of $500,000 or more, and define eight primary missions for the labs. These missions are: enhancing the nation’s understanding of energy production and use; advancing nuclear science and technology for national security purposes; assisting in the dismantlement of nuclear weapons, curbing nuclear proliferation and conducting R&D on arms control verification; conducting energy-related research; developing technologies for disposal of hazardous waste resulting from the nuclear weapons program; helping develop environmentally-benign “green” technologies; conducting technology transfer activities; and supporting the national goal of improving science, math and engineering education.

A series of hearings has been scheduled to consider various portions of H.R. 1432. On May 18, the energy subcommittee, chaired by Marilyn Lloyd (D-Tennessee), met to receive testimony regarding the provisions for evaluating the labs’ performance. Five witnesses representing R&D performers in both the public and private sectors discussed their methods of assessing performance.

All five witnesses strongly endorsed the importance of performance evaluation. William Burnett of the Gas Research Institute stated that “there are two schools of thought regarding R&D management.” The national labs have always operated on the philosophy of employing the best scientists and leaving them alone, Burnett said, but with limited funding available, he advocated a process of identifying needs, setting specific goals, and then measuring the progress toward those goals. He recommended altering the bill’s language to require “quantifiable” milestones to make assessing progress easier.

There was consensus that industry needs to be involved in lab R&D from the very beginning. To generate successful partnerships, industry has to help set R&D directions, not just agree to help commercialize already-developed technologies. Burnett and Bob Aldrich of the Electric Power Research Institute both spoke of the need for more “market pull” rather than the labs’ approach of “technology push.” William Spencer of Sematech commented that in his experience, successful cooperations with the labs relied on their personnel and facilities, not “shelves of technologies waiting to be commercialized.”

The witnesses applauded provisions in the bill to simplify and streamline the CRADA process, and cited past difficulties over intellectual property rights, control of technology and product liability. Burnett said the labs “must let industry take the technology and run with it.” He suggested that the rights revert to the lab if industry fails to commercialize a technology within three years.

Several witnesses warned of the threat of bureaucratization from too many advisory committees, and advocated giving laboratory directors greater flexibility in negotiating agreements and setting milestones. “The lab people are rarely the bottleneck” in reaching agreements, Burnett said.

One area on which the witnesses could not agree was the need to consolidate some of the labs. While Spencer believed that there was “not enough business in nuclear weapons to have more than one facility,” Paul Robinson of Sandia National Laboratory argued that “competition in ideas . . . is one of the greatest strengths” of the lab system.

Further hearings on H.R. 1432 will focus on the missions of the labs and technology transfer. A final hearing at the full committee level will feature the lab directors as witnesses.