SAN FRANCISCO “”mdash; Faculty members of the University of
California voted nearly three to one in an electronic poll that the
UC should bid to keep stewardship of the Department of Energy Labs
when bidding begins later this year.
The two-week long survey was intended to determine what UC
faculty members thought about the university competing for
management of labs which are involved in nuclear weapons
research.
Of 3,300 faculty members who responded to the survey, 67 percent
said the UC should compete to keep the Los Alamos and Lawrence
Livermore labs when they go up for bid later this year.
The Lawrence Berkeley lab, which will be up for bid this summer,
was not part of the survey, since it does not do classified
research or deal with nuclear weapons and is therefore not as
controversial.
In November 2004, a committee of the House and Senate determined
that any contracts that have been held uncontested for more than 50
years, which include all three of the the university’s lab
contracts, will be put up for bid.
If the UC decides to bid for the labs, it will likely face stiff
competition from other universities and private companies.
The UC’s survey, which included links to informational
materials and videos of town hall meetings, also found that 75
percent of faculty members think it is inappropriate for the UC to
be associated with the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. Currently,
some plutonium pits, which are used in nuclear weapons, are
manufactured at Los Alamos.
Despite the strong support from faculty, the UC will still face
controversy if it decides to bid.
The public comment period at Wednesday’s regents meeting
was a reminder of the controversial nature of the labs. Although
the regents were slated to address student fee increases ““ a
traditionally hot topic ““ many of the speakers in the
extended comment period spoke about the labs.
Jonathan Chao, a doctoral student in political science at UC
Berkeley, criticized the UC for participating in nuclear weapons
research that contributed to the development of “bunker
busters and mini nukes.”
Retired Admiral Robert Foley, vice president for laboratory
management, said the number of faculty in favor of bidding for the
labs are a good foundation for preparing to bid for the labs.
He said it is important that the UC prepare to vote now, because
once the Request for Proposals come out, which will likely be next
fall for Los Alamos and Livermore, the UC will only have about 45
days to respond.
The survey showed virtually no statically significant difference
between the professors based on gender or specialty.
Faculty who voted in favor of bidding for the labs often cited
the quality of non-classified research done at the labs ““
such as the human genome project ““ and the value of
collaboration between UC faculty and other scientists at the labs
as reasons to bid for them.
Of the faculty who opposed bidding on the labs, 80 percent said
the mission of the labs was essentially different from that of the
UC, and 50 percent felt the UC’s image has suffered from
association with the recent administrative scandals at Los Alamos
and Livermore.
Such administrative scandals, which occurred last year, included
the misappropriation of funds and misplacing equipment.