Galvin Task Force Issues Report on DOE National Laboratories
On February 1, the Task Force on Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy National Laboratories issued its much anticipated report. Chaired by Robert Galvin, the 23-member task force issued a 78-page report concluding ten months of intensive study. The report was presented to DOE Secretary Hazel O’Leary at a meeting of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board.
The Task Force expressed its conclusion about the missions of the laboratories early in the report: “One general observation of the Task Force is that the national laboratories, and the Department, appear to believe that they have the potential to serve an extraordinarily broad role in scientific investigation and technical research for the nation. The Task Force does not support this view. Rather, we see the laboratories as having clear areas of expertise, yet limited to their traditional mission areas of national security, energy, and environmental science and technology, as well as in the fields of fundamental science which underpin these missions and in basic science associated with high energy, nuclear, and condensed matter physics.” The report continues, “the urgent requirement for these laboratories is to provide more disciplined focus on the new research needs within the traditional set of mission areas....” These missions are: national security, energy, environmental science and technology, fundamental science, and industrial technologies.
A major conclusion of the report, discussed below, concerns the governance of the laboratories. Other findings revolved around issues that have long been raised about the labs. For example, while acknowledging industrial technologies as a mission, the report states, “Development of technologies for which private sector companies are the major beneficiary is not an appropriate mission for the national laboratories.” It later continues, “Industrial competitiveness, broadly defined, has no place as a stand-alone mission of the laboratories, but rather should be regarded, and treated, as a derivative of their primary missions. The idea that the laboratories are, or could become, cornucopias of relevant technology for a broad range of industries is a myth.”
Concerning the laboratories’ science-engineering role, the report concludes, “The Task Force is concerned about what appears to have been a significant decline in DOE funding for fundamental research over the past three years, with the prospect of still deeper cuts to follow.” The report continues, “The Nation presently faces the challenge of finding an institutional substitute for the corporate central research laboratories. However, we do not think that the national laboratories provide a good institutional basis for a general solution.” Early in the report, the Task Force states, “The Department should sustain and strengthen its support of fundamental science.” While the Task Force generally reached consensus positions, it was “divided concerning a recommendation for the level of support needed in the area of fusion energy.”
The report did not recommend the closure of a specific laboratory, instead stating that comparative validation and independence from DOE would “force the elimination of redundancies and less than world-class capabilities.” Finding that the “laboratories do not have sufficient focus or clarity of purpose,” the Task Force recommends the creation of “Centers of Excellence” to institutionalize differentiation and specialization.
Describing a “counterproductive federal system of operation” placing the laboratories’ quality and effectiveness in “serious jeopardy,” the Task Force concluded, “Government ownership and operation of these laboratories does not work well.” Governmental domination of the laboratories continues to grow, significantly driven by congressional policy. As a remedy, the report recommends a “private sector style `corporatized’ laboratory organization system.” Not-for-profit corporation(s) would be governed by a Board of Trustees appointed by the president. DOE would sponsor this work, with Congress determining broad mission funding levels. “An improvement of between 20 and 50 percent in the effectiveness of the laboratories themselves, on top of significant staff and overhead economies in the Department” is predicted.
The report notes that the Task Force was split over whether nuclear weapons laboratories would be appropriate candidates for this governance. The report cautions that this new mechanism should not be used as a pretext to dismantle or disband the system, or to change the laboratories’ focus from long-term, fundamental research to short-term “job shop” responsibilities. The Task Force “sees no compelling reason for DOD to manage the national security activities at the weapons laboratories.”
Secretary Hazel O’Leary agreed with most of the conclusions of the Task Force. Her largest area of disagreement concerned findings critical of the Environmental Management Program. Most of advisory board members expressed general agreement with the report, the major exception being former Congressman Butler Derrick. Regarding the recommendation to change the governance of the laboratories, he said, “This is not going to happen.... You’re dreaming if you think Congress is going to give you $6 billion, cut you loose and say, `Do what you want.’”
A period of public comment on this report ends on February 15. A full analysis and implementation plan will be sent to the National Science and Technology Council by March 7. That material will be included in a report to the president on DOE, Department of Defense, and NASA laboratories due on April 15.
To obtain a copy of this report, access the “What’s New” section of the Department of Energy’s HomePage at http://www.doe.gov DOE can also mail you a copy; please call 202-586-7092, fax to 202-586-6279, or send an e-mail message to sean.mcdonald@hq.doe.gov
