Friday, January 24, 1997
TECHNOLOGY:
Relationship with Department of Energy touted as mutually
beneficialBy Gil Hopenstand and Brooke Olson
Daily Bruin Staff
An advisory committee recently recommended that the University
of California maintain its nuclear family  literally.
The 30-member President’s Council on the National Laboratories
urged the university to continue managing the three Department of
Energy (DOE) labs, including one in Los Alamos, N.M. and two in
California at Berkeley and Livermore.
The laboratories, historically known for their controversial
nuclear technology development, have been increasingly widening
their core research to incorporate bioscience and environmental
restoration.
The committee contended that managing these facilities provides
benefits to both the nation and the university, since the DOE
receives top-notch research in exchange for graduate student and
faculty use of the labs.
"The University of California is the best public institution in
the world and the nation benefits by having the best (university)
scientists in the world work on problems of such national urgency,"
said Siegfried S. Hecker, director of the Los Alamos National
Laboratory.
In addition, the country benefits from the university’s
traditionally open-minded research programs, laboratory
administrators contended.
"The nation gets the university to bring integrity and freedom
of expression into the Energy Department, that is not widely known
for those characteristics," said John Ahearne, a council member
from the Sigma Xi Center at Duke University.
"The University of California has good, strong standards that
having it provide oversight is a benefit to the nation," he
said.
But, as council members were quick to explain, the possible
benefits are mutual.
"The university has the opportunity to interact with a lot of
good scientists in some areas that university faculty are working
on. These labs have facilities that are quite expensive to build
and it gives (UC researchers) an opportunity to use these
facilities," Ahearne said.
The university’s five-year contract with the Department of
Energy is up for renewal at the end of September. The council
"wholeheartedly" recommended continuing this relationship well into
the next century.
But some question a university’s involvement in continuing
nuclear research.
"This is a learning institution and it doesn’t seem right that
we should be supporting any nuclear industry," said UCLA
Environmental Coalition Director Yuki Kadokoro. "Clearly, this is
just another business for the regents."
But this business is not profitable. The university merely
manages the laboratories for the Department of Energy and is
reimbursed for operating expenses.
"This is a very important public service job and all the
decisions that are made have to be done with the public in mind,
rather than profit," Hecker said.
"My worry is not whether I’ll be making money off this, but
whether I can tell the president that all the nuclear weapons we
have are safe."
Despite it being a non-profit organization, the University of
California does incur some costs.
"The costs come in the amount of time of (the university’s) top
administrators, such as the president and the provost and the
provost’s staff. It’s the time of important people," said Herbert
York, director emeritus of the Institute on Global Conflict and
Cooperation in San Diego.
"The DOE pays management fees, but they can never adequately
compensate the university for the time of its officials."
Operated by the University of California since their creation in
the 1940s in order to develop the first atomic bombs, the
laboratories’ research has "dramatically" changed, according to
Hecker.
"In 1943, the focus was to develop the bomb before the Germans
did. From 1945 to 1989, it was how to deter what was a formidable
enemy  the Soviet Union," Hecker said.
With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and federal cuts in
defense spending, the laboratories have stopped both manufacturing
and testing nuclear weapons. Instead, their primary concern is the
disposal of these weapons while safeguarding them from
terrorists.
"I think it’s abhorrent that the university is even involved
with nuclear disposal at all because how can you safely rid the
world of plutonium?" said Jason Markson, a fourth-year political
science student. "It’s a radioactive substance that has potential
side effects that can last for hundreds of years."
But laboratory researchers contend that all nuclear disposal is
done in the best interests of the public.
"The DOE made the decision that (the labs) will follow dual
contract  either safely disposing the weapons or using the
plutonium for reactor fuel," Hecker said. "And all of this is done
safely and securely with no harm to the public."
Indeed, in the last few years the laboratories have come under
less and less fire as their mission has shifted. With fewer
protests, as well as with the council’s recommendation, it is
likely that the university will renew their contract in
September.
"The labs were very controversial from the 1960s to the ’80s
because they were engaged in nuclear weapon research and there was
a lot of protest by the faculty and the students," said Student
Regent Jess Bravin.
"But now the labs are very eager to change gears and involve
themselves in much more practical and humanitarian-type research.
As a result, faculty and students are much more accepting of the
labs," Bravin said.