July 15, 2000
Security Lapses Signal Unsettling Shift in
U.S.-University Nuclear Tie
By JAMES STERNGOLD
LOS ANGELES, July 14 -- From the
dawn of the nuclear age a half century
ago, when J. Robert Oppenheimer moved
from Berkeley to the New Mexico desert
and led the effort to build the atomic bomb,
the University of California has been the
government's close partner in running its
nuclear laboratories.
Even in the post-cold war era, this historic
relationship has endured because of a belief
that the university was uniquely suited to
nurturing the independent scientific minds
needed for creating these complex
weapons.
But suddenly, and unexpectedly, the
partnership is poised for unsettling changes,
and not because the threat of nuclear war
has all but disappeared and the mission of
the laboratories altered.
The series of security lapses that have
swamped the Los Alamos National
Laboratory over the past year have
disrupted that bedrock partnership and put
the government on an uncertain new course
of breaking free, at least partly, from the
University of California system.
The arrest last year of a scientist on charges of mishandling vast amounts
of secret data, the unexplained disappearance and then reappearance of
computer hard drives packed with classified material, and a growing
climate of anxiety about further criminal investigations related to
misplaced secrets have prompted the government to consider contracting
out some duties to private companies.
The Energy Secretary, Bill Richardson, has announced that he will strip
the university of its oversight of security at Los Alamos and the other two
government labs it manages, as well as some functions like construction
management. The university would still manage the most significant tasks,
for example research, insuring the reliability of the nuclear stockpile and
administration.
It is a shift, though, that some people feel could have subtle but profound
implications for the scientists at the labs.
In many ways the current tension between the government and the
university reflects a wider historic clash present at Los Alamos since it
inception. The scientists have long argued that without a free flow of
information they cannot accomplish their tasks, while the government has
contended that too much openness can harm national security.
The fear is that tightening security now outside of the university's control
could undermine the whole rationale for having an academic institution
overseeing weapons research -- maintaining a semblance of intellectual
freedom, required for scientific innovation, even while following strict
secrecy provisions.
The university has long argued that its solid academic reputation and
influence traditionally shielded the laboratories' scientists from some
potentially stifling government restrictions on communication so that
sophisticated scientific research could still be conducted.
The question now is, if the university loses its ability to control security
will it also lose its ability to protect the laboratories' limited intellectual
freedom?
Mr. Richardson insisted that it would not, but said the scientists would
simply have to cope because, as he put it, "The status quo isn't working."
"What I want to do," Mr. Richardson said in an interview, "is to use what
the University of California does best, and take away what it doesn't do
well, to enhance the overall management of the labs and perhaps
establish a pattern of joint ventures with the university."
He added: "We're not punishing or scapegoating the University of
California. We want to use their strengths and eliminate their
weaknesses."
Sidney Drell, a professor emeritus of physics at Stanford University and a
member of the presidential commission that criticized security at the
government's nuclear labs last year, put it more bluntly.
"It's painful for me to say, because I'm one of those scientists," Dr. Drell
said. "but I think the freedoms they had in the past and the open attitude
are unacceptable now."
There is an even more basic concern. Many officials at Los Alamos are
girding for the possible indictment of some respected, senior laboratory
scientists on criminal charges for their mishandling of the disappearance
of the hard drives earlier this year. The fear is that this could not only
harm the lab's already substantial problems in recruiting young scientists,
but could cause an exodus of senior scientists fearful of heavy-handed
government prosecutions.
Those fears have led some of those in charge at Los Alamos to warn that
any reductions in the University of California's role should be prudent,
thoughtful and modest.
"I believe that whatever appears to have broken can be fixed," said John
C. Browne, the lab's director and a university employee. "The benefits to
the country of this relationship far outweigh the problems. To me, if you
go too far, it's like you're going to throw away the whole system because
of a couple of bad apples."
In principle, Mr. Richardson agreed, saying that dropping the contract
with the university and bringing in a private defense contractor to run Los
Alamos could be devastating.
If a large government defense contractor were to take over, Mr.
Richardson said, "then you would have an exodus from our labs."
University officials have expressed a willingness to negotiate a new
arrangement with the Department of Energy, but clearly the institution's
pride has been wounded.
"It sounds arrogant to say, but we don't need this relationship for the
university," said an official, echoing a common view.
But others say that, while eager to mend the partnership, they are looking
at possibly deeper changes in the future.
"The point when we separate is easy enough to identify," said John
Davies, a university regent and until recently the board's chairman. "It's
the point when the security becomes so burdensome that it drives the
scientists out of the labs. For me, at this point, though, I don't think we're
anywhere near that."
Rulon Linford, a former lab scientist who is now the associate vice
provost for research and laboratory programs at the university, said: "I
think the university gets out of the deal what it has always gotten out of
the deal. Its motivation is public service. If the university walked, the
national security of this country would be harmed."
The relationship between the University of California system and the
government began informally in the early 1940's as the Manhattan
Project got under way, and it was first codified in 1943 with the historic
contract W-7405-Eng-36, which established the university's management
of the previously secret Los Alamos site. Eventually, the number of labs
overseen by the university grew to include Lawrence Berkeley as well as
Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. The Berkeley site is devoted to
nonweapons research, while the other two labs do both.
The relationship, however, has traditionally been bumpy. The scientists
have always chafed under the government's security restrictions. Also,
throughout the 1960's and 1970's, many university faculty members
objected to having an academic institution so intimately involved in
creating weapons of mass destruction. On several occasions committees
explored the relationship and drew up alternatives, including separation.
And in the 1970's, as the research at Los Alamos expanded to include
the environment and energy, a consortium of Midwestern universities
asked for control of the labs to utilize this new expertise. The proposal
was rejected, but it led to other examinations of the partnership and a
series of changes throughout the 1980's.
The university says the relationship has created little in the way of
financial rewards. Under the current five-year contract, which expires in
2002, the university receives a series of fees, some of which can expand
or shrink, depending on performance.
The fee is broken down into several components. There is a payment of
$11 million to cover several federal contracts, another payment of $3.5
million to $4 million specifically to cover the costs of a central
administration office, and an administration fee, adjusted to reflect
performance, of roughly $14 million, but which could go as high as $16
million. About half of those fees are used to operate Los Alamos, with
the rest used to pay for the other two labs.
But there are some very substantial benefits to the relationship for the
university. The laboratory scientists are not like faculty members at
university campuses; they do not have tenure, they do not have complete
academic freedom and they must comply with a large body of
government rules. Also, none of the university employees at Los Alamos
are unionized, although some are at the two California labs.
The relationship, however, is an important recruiting tool. Many young
scientists who might not be thrilled at the prospect of working at a
government lab devoted to building weapons of mass destruction find the
idea of being a University of California researcher far more palatable.
The relationship also means that, should a scientist decide to leave the
lab, getting a job in academia would be easier.
For instance, Xian Chen, a young biophysicist at Los Alamos involved in
nonweapons work, said the fact that he became a university employee
was critical. "That's the reason I was attracted," he said. "Los Alamos
has a good reputation in the scientific world."
In addition, Los Alamos has some of the fastest computers in the world
and other sophisticated research equipment, all paid for by the
government. Weapons scientists can use some of these tools for
nonmilitary research.
"It's not a one-way street," acknowledged Ronald A. Nelson, the
university's director for contract management. "We get some of the
scientific results of those labs and that reinforces our reputation for
excellence and prestige."
And there are important financial incentives. The university system offers
a lucrative retirement package that some believe is perhaps the single
most important amenity offered. Also, children of Los Alamos scientists
can attend the university at the same rates as California residents, a huge
savings.
Hugh Gusterson, a professor of anthropology at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, who is writing his second book on the weapons
labs, said that he believed the supposed intellectual freedoms were a
myth. Historically, Mr. Gusterson said, the university has not stood up for
scientists who had angered the government, which is certainly the case in
the recent series of security lapses. But the economic benefits, he
maintained, have been crucial.
"The retirement package is incredibly important," Professor Gusterson
said.
"But it's my own view that the labs wouldn't be very different without the
University of California. They've been sort of an absentee landlord. I
think the U.C. element has always been this little carrot the recruiters
could dangle."
The reality now is that the priorities are changing, and whatever
protections the university could provide for the scientists involved in
sensitive research will be diminished.
"The present climate has already cost them young people," Dr. Drell said.
"The question is how we stop it and protect the quality of the labs. The
university is at its moment of truth in standing up to this, and finding a way
to make all this work. I don't think the tensions are unreconcilable, but
they are more difficult."
=================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day.
=================================================================
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
