A new mission for the national laboratories

Electronic News, April 27, 1992 by William J. Spencer

The time has come to enlist our national laboratories to help us with an Economic War. America's 10 national laboratories are home to some of the best scientists and engineers in the world. We should redirect those assets, which are unmatched by any other country, to help this nation regain its economic strength and competitiveness.

Other nations have surpassed us not in technology development but in manufacturing high-quality, low-cost products whether they are automobiles, computers, televisions or fax machines. We are losing our ability to design for manufacturing and to manufacture. I believe the national laboratories could play a critical role in putting our economic ship back on course. Here is the way to do it.

For any successful and meaningful redirection of the national laboratories to occur, there must be industry involvement. Industry should help drive the new mission for the labs and help set priorities for their research.

I have heard suggestions that we can best utilize the resources of the national laboratories by redirecting their mission to commercializing products for the market place. The better way to do it is to direct the national laboratories to form partnerships with industry, universities and consortia with a mission of collaboration on manufacturing and development that is industry driven.

Unless industry has input into the resource allocations within the national laboratories, we won't be able to change their culture quickly enough to make a difference and be successful.

There is no question that we should pick up technology in the national laboratories wherever we can and transfer it to U.S. industry. Technology transfer to U.S. industry has been very modest, but the potential is very significant. One of the best examples was a project I was involved in at Sandia and the University of New Mexico School of Medicine 15 years ago. The university used technology developed by Sandia to produce an insulin pump for diabetics, eliminating the need for daily injections.

While that was a remarkable breakthrough, it isn't enough. The issue facing the government is how to use internal Department of Energy funds to do those kinds of technology transfers and how to balance it with industry funds. Partnering is the answer.

Rather than individual companies coming in and making their case for projects with a particular laboratory, we should start the transition by requiring the labs to work with industry consortia where the issues already are prioritized. That way, it is less likely that a single company will be given an advantage and the possibility that the entire industry will benefit increases.

Funding will be a critical issue in any redirection of the national laboratories' mission. I believe there should be more shared funding from the Department of Energy (DOE) budget. I recognize that DOE faces the same budgetary limitations that other government entities face, but I believe this would help attract industry funds.

I also believe we must redirect research dollars toward commercial problems as opposed to strictly military applications. Technology has moved so quickly that many of the chips in the latest hand-held video cameras and CD players are far more sophisticated than those found in the smart weapons used in Operation Desert Storm.

One of the best ways to tap into the enormous reservoir of scientific brilliance and engineering genius that exists in our national laboratories is to exploit their expertise in a number of areas. For example, we could apply the vast knowledge and experience of the labs in modeling weapons systems to modeling activities and problems that have commercial interests.

The possibilities are endless. This year, we have seen the profound effects of a unique climatic condition known as "El Nino." By using the modeling expertise at Los Alamos, for example, researchers could study that phenomenon. The modeling expertise also could be used to study global warning.

The national laboratories also have a tremendous amount of testing capability, especially at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. There is no reason why that testing expertise should not be used for commercial purposes. Warren Chernock of the Department of Energy recently told a Senate Armed Services subcommittee that Los Alamos is working on a project with a small U.S. cutting tool manufacturer to develop a cost effective diamond coating process for machine tools.

The project combines the laboratory's expertise in the fluidized-bed chemical vapor deposition process with the production and testing capabilities of the U.S. machine tool industry. Mr. Chernock said that the ability to machine light-weight alloys, composites and polymers is important because these materials are replacing ferrous metals in many military and commercial applications.

The profound changes that have taken place in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the past few years have decreased the need for nuclear weapons. Therefore, I believe it is prudent to reconsider the R&D emphasis of Los Alamo, Lawrence Livermore and Sandia where more than half of their programs are focused on nuclear weapons research. We frankly don't have to continue those programs.