Following the University of California’s bid to renew its
management of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, the decision
remains over the management of the Los Alamos National Laboratory
in New Mexico. While the UC has managed both labs for more than 50
years, the Los Alamos management contract is especially
controversial.
“A public university should not be involved in researching
weapons of mass destruction,” said Carah Ong, the research
and advocacy director for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which
operates a group called UC Nuclear Free.
“Devoting research capabilities to the development of
weapons of mass murder is a perversion of the purpose for which
institutions of higher knowledge were intended,” the
group’s Web site reads.
The relevant issue, however, is not whether the UC should be
involved in nuclear research. On the contrary, the only factor that
should be considered is how well the UC can manage the lab ““
and even this is something only Los Alamos is qualified to
determine.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to deny the importance of
many of the projects at Los Alamos. In February, for example, the
lab announced it had developed a sensor able to “see through
lead or other heavy shielding … to detect uranium, plutonium or
other dense materials.” This technique, called muon
radiography, is more effective than X-ray scanning and lacks the
potential hazards.
Muons, which result from the decay of cosmic rays, are able to
penetrate materials like lead (X-rays cannot), but have a
characteristic scattering pattern when they hit dense substances
like plutonium and uranium.
These detectors are ideal for use at U.S. ports and borders,
where concerns mount over the possibility of terrorists smuggling
nuclear weapons into the country.
In a much more controversial role, the Los Alamos lab also
manages the country’s stockpile of nuclear warheads. As
demonstrated during World War II, nuclear weapons are highly
effective when used properly (recall that there were no American
military casualties when occupying Japan).
Considering the importance of the work done at the lab, it needs
to be managed by the most capable party. For the last 60 years, the
UC has done the job, but that doesn’t mean someone else
can’t do it better. Recognizing this, the Department of
Energy said it would open the management of the lab up to
competition.
Considering the problems the UC has had managing the lab in the
past ““ problems ranging from the supposed missing hard drives
with nuclear secrets to employees who tried to buy personal items
(including a Ford Mustang) on company credit cards ““ the
Department of Energy should look for other groups willing to manage
the lab.
Los Alamos is a very prestigious facility that does a lot of
important work.
Companies like Lockheed Martin and other universities like Texas
A&M have expressed interest in managing the facility, but both
have recently dropped out of the running.
The only group that has so far formally announced a bid for
management of the lab is Nuclear Watch, a group that wants Los
Alamos to “change their focus to civilian science
research,” according to Scott Kovac, the research and
operations director for the group.
Such “civilian research” would include projects like
renewable energy sources, rather than national defense. In a
submission to the Daily Bruin, Kovac also said the group would
oversee “the safety and reliability of the existing arsenal,
as it awaits dismantlement.”
Losing some hard drives is bad enough, but the lab may soon find
itself under the control of a group whose main purpose is to
systematically dismantle the lab’s functionality.
Even though groups like Nuclear Watch (who may well only be
placing the bid as a PR stunt) have bid on the contract, it is
still good for the management to be open to competition ““ a
group that wants to essentially destroy the lab isn’t likely
to get the management contract anyway.
When institutions like Lockheed Martin, Texas A&M, the
University of Texas and Battelle (a group that manages other
Department of Energy facilities) are potentially vying for
management of the lab, it forces the UC to be a little more
competitive to keep the contract.
Even though many groups have dropped out, the UC has still had
to undergo a serious investigation and review process to determine
how it can compete against these groups.
As private institutions, Texas A&M and Lockheed Martin can
decide whether or not to apply. Their motives in running the lab
would be profit and prestige.
The UC, on the other hand, is a publicly funded, research-driven
university. It has an obligation to run the lab if it can do it
best. The regents should approve the management bid as quickly as
possible to ensure Los Alamos has a prosperous future, not a
dismantled one.
Hurst is a first-year chemical engineering student. E-mail
him at khurst@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.