Docstoc

Priority_Research_Areas

Document Sample
Priority_Research_Areas Powered By Docstoc
					              PRIORITY RESEARCH AREAS AND
                OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS OF
           MAJOR PUBLIC RESEARCH INSTITUTES IN
                   THE UNITED STATES*



                                        Yongsuk Jang
                                       Research Fellow
                   Center for International Science and Technology Policy
                             The George Washington University


                                    Nicholas S. Vonortas
                                           Director
                   Center for International Science and Technology Policy
                             The George Washington University




                                Research Project Sponsored by
                       Science and Technology Policy Institute (STEPI)
                                     Republic of Korea



                                           July 12, 2001




* This report would not have been possible in its present form without the assistance of a significant
number of managers in the examined research institutes and government agencies (Ames, DOE, NIH, NIST,
Sandia) who kindly volunteered to spend their valuable time on on-site and telephone interviews with the
authors. We would like to thank each and every one of them for the valuable insights they have provided.
The authors are fully responsible for any remaining misconceptions and mistakes.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


The United States’ National Innovation System has dramatically evolved since World
War II. A critical component of this system have been a number of public research
institutes that have undertaken important research to advance important missions such as
national defense, health, and the promotion of basic science. Such institutes were
established to fill the gap between the scientific and technological knowledge needed by
the economy and society and the knowledge that the private sector can and/or is
interested in developing. In other words, public research institutes address a perceived
market failure in the production of scientific and technological knowledge.

It has been estimated that out of approximately 16,000 research institutes in the United
States in the mid-1990s around 700 were public in the sense of being fully or partially
funded by governments at various levels. These public research institutes can be
classified largely into two categories on the basis of ownership and operation. One
category is the Government-Owned/Government-Operated (GOGO) institutes, which are
fully owned and operated by a government agency such as the National Institute for
Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National
Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA), and so forth. A second category is the
Government-Owned/Contractor-Operated (GOCO) institutes which are owned by the
government but are operated by non-government contractors.

The latter group of research institutes are called Federally Funded Research and
Development Centers. Many have evolved from research facilities established to meet the
special needs of World War II. They were called ‘Federal Contract Research Centers’
until 1967 when the Federal Council for Science and Technology (FCST) set criteria for
renaming those that met them Federally Funded Research and Development Centers
(FFRDCs). These general criteria describe FFRDCs as the “R&D-performing
organizations that are exclusively or substantially financed by the Federal Government
and are supported by the Federal Government either to meet a particular R&D objective
or, in some instances, to provide major facilities at universities for research and
associated training purposes.”

FFRDCs do not have a prescribed organizational structure. They cover a wide range of
GOCO structures with various degrees of contractor/government control and ownership.
Managing contractors can be industrial firms, universities, nonprofit institutions, or even
consortia. FFRDCs are thought to complement other government and private sector R&D
centers in meeting agency core area needs. According to DOD, specific objectives for
FFRDCs are to: i) maintain over the long-term a competency in technology areas where
the Government cannot rely on in-house or private sector capabilities, ii) develop and
transfer important new technology to the private sector so the Government can benefit
from a wider, broader base of expertise, and iii) engage in research programs that
emphasize the evolution and demonstration of advanced concepts and technology, and the
transfer or transition of technology.




                                             i
This report investigates five U.S. public research institutes focusing on priority research
areas and operational systems. The purpose of this investigation is to inform the current
debate concerning the institutional reform of Government-sponsored Research Institutes
(GRIs) in the Republic of Korea. The selected pubic research institutes in the U.S. are:
        National Institutes of Health (NIH)
        National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
        Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia)
        Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL)
        Ames Laboratory (Ames)

The first two can be characterized as Government-Owned/Government-Operated
(GOGO) research institutes under the Department of Health and Human Services and the
Department of Commerce respectively. The remaining three are Government-
Owned/Contractor-Operated (GOCO) research institutes sponsored by the Department of
Energy. The study opted for variation: it was expected that an examination of the
different ownership and management structures of these research institutes would confer
useful lessons for Korea.

The research was carried out in two steps. First, a large number of publicly available
documents for each research institute were examined. Some of these documents were
available on hard copy and others were available on the internet sites of the institutes. In
particular, the study draws heavily from the annual ‘Institutional’ or ‘Strategic’ Plans of
each institute. Such Plans have been required by the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 (GPRA, P.L. 103-62) that intended to enhance the effectiveness,
efficiency, and accountability of government agencies. Under GPRA, agencies must set
goals, measure performance, and report on their accomplishments. They must also
address some basic questions: What is our mission? What are our goals and how will we
achieve them? How can we measure performance? How will we use that information to
make improvements?

The second research step involved interviews with key management personnel in each
institute. We interviewed a total of 10 persons, including the Washington representatives
of research institutes, program directors, program managers, chief economists, institute
directors, and the director of DOE’s Science Office. For each institute we looked for: (i)
general information such as missions, history, major research areas, budget, personnel,
and organizational structure; (ii) information on priority research areas, funding sources,
and personnel distribution; and (iii) information on operational systems of each institute
including role, financial, project, personnel, organizational, and performance
management, external relationships and networking, evaluation of the operations, and
recent reformative actions.

In line with prior research, we’ve discovered a wide variety of missions, activities, and
organizational structures, and consequently different processes for setting research
priorities, motivating personnel, and outcome appraisal methodologies that we believe
hold important lessons for the current efforts of Korea to reform its government research
institutes. The major pertinent findings are listed below. They are all important and, in



                                             ii
our opinion, deserve further attention and more detailed analysis.

A core feature of all reviewed US public research institutes is their customer orientation.
The way they go about satisfying the customer (sponsor) differs significantly across
institutes given that we chose institutes with different sponsors and different missions and
research foci. All reviewed institutes are mission-oriented, each with a different mission
which pretty much defines their core research concentrations. It is, however, worth
underlying the extent of their effort to not just “please” their customers in a passive sense
of the term but to outreach customers, be it scientific communities, government agencies,
private industry, Congress and the general public. A great deal of effort is put in
promoting the effectiveness of their work, providing evidence of benefits, and
outreaching for support the government and other sources.

This effort drives the reviewed public research institutes to be customer-oriented in
forming research programs, in setting research priorities, and in selecting areas of
concentration. In turn, this leads to the establishment of well-organized external review
systems, an important part of public accountability.

Both top-down and bottom-up processes have been adopted in setting research priorities.
But our impression regarding the proposal and selection of specific research projects is
that the latter process (bottom-up) is much better developed. This seems to be the case at
implementation even when the missions and research area priorities are assigned from
higher up.

Public research institutes, at least those reviewed here, undertake research in more basic
and/or generic areas beyond the capabilities or willingness of companies to undertake on
their own. There is always consideration of whether a public research institute replicates
work by, thus competing with, the private sector. PRIs in the US are always trying to
focus on “market failures” in supporting R&D with widespread expected socio-economic
benefits. In other words, PRIs try to complement and promote the free market rather than
substitute for it.

Perhaps as a reflection of their success until now, US public research institutes continue
to struggle with the same questions that this study poses. How to change the priority
setting system in order to be more accountable to the customers, adaptable to the future
economic and technological environments, and effective to achievement of their
missions? How to motivate researchers to be dedicated ever more on organizational
missions and customers? How to reorganize the institutions for the future S&T needs?
These are fundamental questions to which answers depend very much on the context. The
implication is that public research institute reform should not be considered as a one-time
action but an on-going process in an era of fast evolving S&T environments and needs.

It was also noticeable, in fact it was repeatedly stressed during interviews, that every
institute gives high priority to safety, environment, contribution to communities,
education and training functions and partnerships with industry and universities. These
functions may have been considered until recently less urgent and of lower priority in



                                             iii
many Korean public research institutes.

One of the obstacles that Korean GRIs now encounter is the bureaucratic stereotype that
resulted from management under semi-public organization. This might be overcome by
offering their management to private firms, which are more likely to pursue
organizational efficiencies.

This relatively brief study of selected U.S. public research institutes teaches that diversity
is a prominent characteristic of the U.S. public research system. Management takes
various forms and organization is very diverse across institutes in terms of size, funding,
and personnel. A possible implication for the current Korean GRI reform is for
restructuring to improve diversity. By specializing missions, optimizing organizational
structures according to missions, and diversifying funding sources and management
forms, Korean GRIs can improve efficiency and effectiveness in achieving their
objectives.

Regardless of their organizational types, all public research institutes in the U.S. are very
systematic and aggressive in developing annual and longer-term strategic plans based on
rigorous performance evaluations. These efforts provide the opportunity to assess the
balance between changing environments and research competencies of the institutes
regularly, and can inform the process of reform and continuous readjustment. Korean
GRIs should devote substantial effort to both strengthening their strategic planning and
evaluation processes and to linking one to the other to gain valuable feedback.

Korean GRIs should consider becoming much more of team players with industry than in
the past. That is, they must try to commit to meeting industry R&D needs and
supplementing industrial R&D activity rather than leading it. In a changed environment
where the level of industrial innovation is much improved, GRIs should focus on
identifying industrial R&D needs and future technological trends through extensive
dialog with industry and other stakeholders and incorporating them into their into long-
term strategic planning process. Such identification is becoming increasingly difficult as
Korea has risen to the forefront of global innovation in several industries.

This is the time when Korean GRIs should try to focus their effort on basic or applied
research of more generic nature, with the objective to spread benefits across sectors.
Given Korea’s success in rising as one of the major industrial forces in recent decades, it
is considered that public needs for industrial innovation will be better served by GRIs
concentrating on this kinds of research rather than trying to compete with industry in the
development of specific technologies. The exception, of course, will be the cases of GRIs
doing research relating to public goods such as national defense.




                                             iv
INTRODUCTION


The United States’ National Innovation System has dramatically evolved since World
War II. A critical component of this system have been a number of public research
institutes that have undertaken important research to advance important missions such as
national defense, health, and the promotion of basic science. Such institutes were
established to fill the gap between the scientific and technological knowledge needed by
the economy and society and the knowledge that the private sector can and/or is
interested in developing. In other words, public research institutes address a perceived
market failure in the production of scientific and technological knowledge.

A comprehensive study (Crow and Bozeman, 1998) has estimated that out of
approximately 16,000 research institutes in the United States in the mid-1990s around
700 were public in the sense of being fully or partially funded by governments at various
levels. These public research institutes can be classified largely into two categories on the
basis of ownership and operation. One category is the Government-Owned/Government-
Operated (GOGO) institutes which are fully owned and operated by a government agency
such as the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA), and so
forth.

A second category is the Government-Owned/Contractor-Operated (GOCO) institutes
which are owned by the government but are operated by non-government contractors.
This type of public research institutes is generally called Federally Funded Research and
Development Centers. Historically, many have evolved from research facilities
established to meet the special needs of World War II. They were called ‘Federal Contract
Research Centers’ until 1967 when the Federal Council for Science and Technology
(FCST) set criteria for the renamed Federally Funded Research and Development Centers
(FFRDCs). Amended in 1984 and 1990, the criteria for identification of an FFRDC are
(NSF, 2000a):
   i)    Its primary activities include one or more of the following: basic research,
         applied research, development, or management of research and development
         (specifically excluded are organizations engaged primarily in routine quality
         control and testing, routine service activities, production, mapping and surveys,
         and information dissemination);
  ii)    It is a separate operational unit within the parent organization or is organized as a
         separately incorporated organization;
 iii)    It performs actual research and development or R&D management either upon
         direct request by the Federal Government or under a broad charter from the
         Federal Government but in either case under the direct monitorship of the
         Federal Government;
 iv)     It receives its major financial support (70 percent or more) from the Federal
         Government, usually from one agency;
  v)     It has, or is expected to have, a long-term relationship with its sponsoring agency
         (about 5 years or more), as evidenced by specific obligations assumed by it and
         the agency;


                                              1
 vi)    Most or all of its facilities are owned by, or are funded under contract with, the
        Federal Government; and
vii)    It has an average annual budget (operating and capital equipment) of at least
        $500,000.

These general criteria describe FFRDCs as the “R&D-performing organizations that are
exclusively or substantially financed by the Federal Government and are supported by the
Federal Government either to meet a particular R&D objective or, in some instances, to
provide major facilities at universities for research and associated training purposes.”
(NSF, 2000b). FFRDCs do not have a prescribed organizational structure. They can range
from    the     traditional    contractor-owned/contractor-operated   or     government-
owned/contractor-operated organizational structures to various degrees of
contractor/government control and ownership. Furthermore, the contractors for their
management can be an industrial firm, a university, another nonprofit institution, or even
consortium.

Table 1 provides the master list of federally funded research and development centers
(FFRDCs) included in the Federal funds survey for fiscal years 1998-2000, arranged by
sponsoring government agency and organizational type of contractor.


                Table 1. FFRDCs by Agency and Type of Administration
      Federally funded research and development centers, by agency and type of administration
                                                       Administered by
                             Administered by                                  Administered by
   Sponsoring agency                                    other nonprofit
                         universities and colleges                             industrial firms
                                                          institutions
 DEPARTMENT OF                                     Institute for Defense
 DEFENSE:                                          Analyses Studies and
                                                   Analyses FFRDC
 Office of the Secretary                           (Institute for Defense
 of Defense                                        Analyses), Alexandria,
                                                   VA

                                                  Logistics Management
                                                  Institute (Logistics
                                                  Management Institute),
                                                  McLean, VA

                                                  National Defense
                                                  Research Institute
                                                  (RAND Corp.), Santa
                                                  Monica, CA

                                                  C3I Federally Funded
                                                  Research and
                                                  Development Center
                                                  (MITRE Corp.),
                                                  Bedford, MA, and
                                                  McLean, VA




                                                 2
Defense Advanced        Software Engineering
Research Projects       Institute (Carnegie
Agency                  Mellon University),
                        Pittsburgh, PA
National Security                                   Institute for Defense
Agency                                              Analyses
                                                    Communications and
                                                    Computing Federally
                                                    Funded Research and
                                                    Development Center
                                                    (Institute for Defense
                                                    Analyses), Alexandria,
                                                    VA
Department of the                                   Center for Naval
Navy                                                Analyses (The CNA
                                                    Corp.), Alexandria, VA
Department of the Air   Lincoln Laboratory          Aerospace Federally
Force                   (Massachusetts Institute    Funded Research and
                        of Technology),             Development Center
                        Lexington, MA               (The Aerospace Corp.),
                                                    El Segundo, CA

                                                  Project Air Force
                                                  (RAND Corp.), Santa
                                                  Monica, CA
Department of the                                 Arroyo Center (RAND
Army                                              Corp.), Santa Monica,
                                                  CA
DEPARTMENT OF           Ames Laboratory (Iowa Brookhaven National            Idaho National
ENERGY                  State University of       Laboratory (Associated     Engineering and
                        Science and               Universities, Inc.),       Environmental
                        Technology), Ames, IA Upton, Long Island,            Laboratory
                                                  NY                         (Lockheed Martin Idaho
                        Argonne National                                     Technologies Company),
                        Laboratory (University of National Renewable         Idaho Falls, ID
                        Chicago), Argonne, IL     Energy Laboratory
                                                  (Midwest Research          Oak Ridge National
                        Ernest Orlando Lawrence Institute), Golden, CO       Laboratory (Lockheed
                        Berkeley National                                    Martin Energy Research
                        Laboratory (University of Pacific Northwest          Corp.),
                        California), Berkeley, CA National Laboratory        Oak Ridge, TN
                                                  (Battelle Memorial
                        Fermi National            Institute), Richland,      Sandia National
                        Accelerator Laboratory    WA                         Laboratories (Sandia
                        (Universities Research                               Corp., a subsidiary of
                        Association, Inc.),                                  Lockheed Martin
                        Batavia, IL                                          Corp.), Albuquerque,
                                                                             NM
                        Lawrence Livermore
                        National Laboratory                                  Savannah River
                        (University of                                       Technology Center
                        California), Livermore,                              (Westinghouse Savannah
                        CA                                                   River Co.), Aiken, SC

                        Los Alamos National
                        Laboratory (University


                                                   3
                         of California),
                         Los Alamos, NM

                         Oak Ridge Institute for
                         Science and Education
                         (Oak Ridge Associated
                         Universities, Inc.), Oak
                         Ridge, TN

                         Princeton Plasma Physics
                         Laboratory (Princeton
                         University),
                         Princeton, NJ

                         Stanford Linear
                         Accelerator Center
                         (Leland Stanford Junior
                         University),
                         Stanford, CA

                         Thomas Jefferson
                         National Accelerator
                         Facility
                         (Southeastern
                         Universities Research
                         Association, Inc.),
                         Newport News, VA
DEPARTMENT OF                                                                NCI Frederick Cancer
HEALTH AND                                                                   Research and
HUMAN SERVICES:                                                              Development Center
                                                                             (Science Applications
National Institutes of                                                       International Corp.;
Health                                                                       Advanced BioScience
                                                                             Laboratories, Inc.;
                                                                             Charles River
                                                                             Laboratories, Inc.; Data
                                                                             Management Services,
                                                                             Inc.), Frederick, MD
NATIONAL                 Jet Propulsion
AERONAUTICS AND          Laboratory (California
SPACE                    Institute of Technology),
ADMINISTRATION           Pasadena, CA
NATIONAL SCIENCE         National Astronomy and      Critical Technologies
FOUNDATION               Ionosphere Center           Institute (RAND
                         (Cornell University),       Corp.), Washington,
                         Arecibo, PR                 DC

                         National Center for
                         Atmospheric Research
                         (University Corp. for
                         Atmospheric Research),
                         Boulder, CO

                         National Optical
                         Astronomy Observatories
                         (Association of


                                                     4
                             Universities for Research
                             in Astronomy, Inc.),
                             Tucson, AZ

                             National Radio
                             Astronomy Observatory
                             (Associated Universities,
                             Inc.), Green Bank, WV
    NUCLEAR                                               Center for Nuclear
    REGULATORY                                            Waste Regulatory
    COMMISSION                                            Analyses (Southwest
                                                          Research Institute),
                                                          San Antonio, TX
    DEPARTMENT OF                                         Center for Advanced
    TRANSPORTATION:                                       Aviation System
                                                          Development (MITRE
    Federal Aviation                                      Corp.),McLean, VA
    Administration
    DEPARTMENT OF
    THE TREASURY:                                         Tax Systems
                                                          Modernization Institute
    Internal Revenue                                      (IIT Research
    Service                                               Institute), Lanham, MD
Source: NSF (2000b), Section B.

NSF also categorizes FFRDCs according to the type of activities: i) Research and
Development Laboratories, ii) Study and Analysis Centers, and iii) Systems Engineering
and Integration Centers. Majority of FFRDCs identified by NSF fall within the first
category while a few of them falls within second or third categories.

FFRDCs in the U.S. are supposed to complement other government and private sector
research and development centers in meeting agency core area needs. According to DOD1,
specific objectives for FFRDCs are to: i) maintain over the long-term a competency in
technology areas where the Government cannot rely on in-house or private sector
capabilities, ii) develop and transfer important new technology to the private sector so the
Government can benefit from a wider, broader base of expertise, and iii) engage in
research programs that emphasize the evolution and demonstration of advanced concepts
and technology, and the transfer or transition of technology.

In 1989, Congress passed the National Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act, which
allows FFRDCs to partner with US companies for the development of a specific
technology for the companies’ commercial purposes. Since then, many of FFRDCs could
have established Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs), the
formalized agreements between the companies and FFRDCs. Besides ATP program
within NIST, CRADAs2 existing within various public research institutes have been the
major source of governmental funding for industrial technologies in the United States.

1
 FFRDC Management Plan, effective May 1, 1996, Department of Defense, Director of Defense Research
and Engineering, pp. 2-3.
2
    A sample of CRADA is attached at the end of this report.


                                                         5
This report investigates five public research institutes focusing on priority research areas
and operational systems. The purpose of this investigation is to inform the current debate
concerning the institutional reform of Government-sponsored Research Institutes (GRIs)
in the Republic of Korea.

The selected pubic research institutes in the U.S. are:
        National Institutes of Health (NIH)
        National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
        Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia)
        Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL)
        Ames Laboratory (Ames)

The first two can be characterized as Government-Owned/Government-Operated
(GOGO) research institutes under the Department of Health and Human Services and the
Department of Commerce respectively. The remaining three are Government-
Owned/Contractor-Operated (GOCO) research institutes sponsored by the Department of
Energy. The study opted for variation: it was expected that an examination of the
different ownership and management structures of these research institutes would confer
useful lessons for Korea.


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT R&D FUNDING


           Figure 1. Trends in Nondefense R&D by Function, FY 1953-2001




Source: AAAS (2000a)




                                             6
A brief overview of the aggregate US government R&D funding trends during the past
half century will place the discussion in subsequent sections of the report in context.


               Figure 2. Total Research by Agency, FY 2001 Proposed




Source: AAAS (2000a)


          Figure 3. Trends in Federal Research by Discipline, FY 1970-2000




Source: AAAS (2000a)




                                          7
The federal government has dramatically increased its funding on health-related research
during the past five decades (Figure 1). This growth is likely to continue in a foreseeable
future. The emphasis on health-related research is reflected on the federal R&D budget of
NIH, which has been the primary door to funding this research area (Figure 2).
Meanwhile, energy-related research followed an increasing trend until the early 1980s but
has decreased significantly the last couple of decades. NIST – called National Bureau of
Standards until 1988 – also faired well in the 1990s by taking additional responsibilities
including the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), the Manufacturing Extension
Program (MEP), and the management of the Malcolm Baldridge Award.

The functional emphasis on health has been reflected in the ballooning budgets for life
science research (Figure 3). The growth of other disciplines since 1970 has been
relatively marginal.


METHODOLOGY


The research underlying this report was carried out in two steps. First, a large number of
publicly available documents for each research institute were examined. Some of these
documents were available on hard copy and others were available on the internet sites of
the institutes. In particular, the study draws heavily from the annual ‘Institutional’ or
‘Strategic’ Plans of each institute. These documents have been required by the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA, P.L. 103-62) that intended to
enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of government agencies by
directing them to better focus their management efforts on achieved results. Under GPRA,
agencies must set goals, measure performance, and report on their accomplishments.
They must also ask and answer some basic questions: What is our mission? What are our
goals and how will we achieve them? How can we measure performance? How will we
use that information to make improvements?

While much could be learned from these documents, they do not deal with some
important questions for this study in the necessary detail. Thus, the second research step
involved interviews with key management personnel in each institute. We interviewed a
total of 10 persons, including the Washington representatives of research institutes,
program directors, program managers, chief economists, institute directors, and the
director of DOE’s Science Office.3 Interview material is incorporated in the following
chapters as appropriate.

This report consists of seven chapters. Following the introduction there are five chapters,
each devoted a research institute. These chapters follow a common format, consisting of
three sections (Table 2). The first section briefly overviews the general information such

3
  The names of the interviewees are concealed for reasons of confidentiality. In addition, the obtained
information has been blended in the text to avoid identification. The authors would like to thank all
individuals who kindly spent their valuable time educating them on their respective institutes. The authors
are fully responsible for remaining misconceptions and mistakes.


                                                     8
as missions, history, major research areas, budget, personnel, and organizational structure.
The second section focuses on priority research areas, funding sources, and personnel
distribution. The third section focuses on operational systems of each institute including
role, financial, project, personnel, organizational, and performance management, external
relationships and networking, evaluation of the operations, and recent reformative actions.
The last chapter concludes and draws tentative implications for Korean GRIs.




                                             9
                       Table 2. Organization of Chapters 2-6


U.S. PUBLIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE



INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW

  •   General information – Institutional types (GOGO or GOCO, etc.);
      general role of the institutes in the overall government R&D system
  •   Historical Background
  •   Mission/Functions
  •   Major research areas and technological emphasis
  •   Budget, Personnel, and Organizational structure


PRIORITY RESEARCH AREAS

  •   Major research areas and technological priorities
  •   Budget allocation by research area
  •   Distribution of research personnel by research area


OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS

  •   Role Management – Consensus building on its mission, Setting visionary goal,
      Adoption of strategy, Public relations
  •   Financial management – Sources of research funds, Operational structure of
      budget (general expenditures, research expenses)
  •   Project management – Types of projects, Project Implementation, Operational
      system of extramural research, Setting research priorities, Formation of research
      teams, Project selection process, Monitoring and evaluation of programs
  •   Personnel management – Employment (Contracting), Personnel appraisal,
      Knowledge management, Career development (training), Motivation
  •   Organizational management – Organizational structure, types of operating of the
      organization, Information management, Research support system
  •   External relationships and networking – Relationship with government agencies,
      academia, industry, and other research institutes, International cooperation
  •   Performance (outcome) management – Management of intellectual property,
      Technology transfer, Technology marketing, Establishment of venture business
  •   Evaluation of the operations – Factors for success, Problems
  •   Recent reformative actions – Reformative steps, Future Plan for the changed
      environment


                                          10
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH: National Cancer Institute


INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW


National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a Government-Owned/Government-Operated
(GOGO) research agency under Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The
NIH locates its headquarter and primary facilities in Bethesda, Maryland, where occupies
75 buildings on more than 300 acres. Its total FY 2001 budget reaches to more than $20.3
billion.

NIH was born in 1887 as a one-room Laboratory of Hygiene on Staten Island. At this
time, the laboratory conducted missions like to provide health care to specific population,
to collect vital statistics on health, and to provide sanitation and control of infectious
disease. Shortly after World War II, NIH took a modern shape. As science has begun to be
seen as a public good, the public and congress have also gradually recognized that it was
very important to support health research.

The first important event for modern NIH was the link between intramural and
extramural research programs that occurred in 1946. Recognizing the importance of
enlisting scientists in the country’s medical schools and universities in the national
research effort against disease, wartime government medical research contracts at
universities and medical schools around the country was transferred to the NIH and
converted into grants. For the selection of the highest quality research grant applications
for funding, NIH rapidly established the peer review system based on assessment of
scientific merit by non-government scientists.

In 1947, NIH began to fund not only individual research projects but also expenses of
maintaining the research facilities, administering the grants, and training future
generations of laboratory and clinical researchers. In 1953, the opening of research
hospital, the Clinical Center, enhanced the intramural research program by effectively
bridging laboratory research and clinical research.

As seen in the introduction chapter, during the last few decades, NIH has dramatically
evolved by expanding research funding, developing new programs, and establishing new
institutes. Such extraordinary growth has reflected political decisions concerning disease
priorities and more than anything else the battle against cardiovascular disease and cancer.

NIH is one of eight health agencies of Public Health Services at DHHS. Within NIH there
are currently 27 Institutes and Centers, excluding Office of the Director. These NIH
institutes are listed in Table 3 along with their established years and primary research
subjects. This list is also the best descriptor of the research areas supported by NIH –
simply put, all scientific disciplines related to the indicated disease classes.




                                            11
                Table 3. Institutes and Centers of NIH
                                                                   Research
Logo               Institutes & Centers               Est.Year
                                                                   Subjects

               Office of the Director (OD)                       Management

             National Cancer Institute (NCI)             1937       Cancer

              National Eye Institute (NEI)               1968         Eye
        National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
                                                         1948    Blood system
                        (NHLBI)
       National Human Genome Research Institute                    Human
                                                         1989
                      (NHGRI)                                      Genome

           National Institute on Aging (NIA)             1974       Aging
        National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
                                                         1970     Alcoholism
                 Alcoholism (NIAAA)
       National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
                                                         1948       Allergy
                   Diseases (NIAID)
           National Institute of Arthritis and
                                                                   Arthritis
           Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases             1986
                                                                    Skin
                        (NIAMS)
         National Institute of Child Health and
                                                         1963     Child health
            Human Development (NICHD)
        National Institute on Deafness and Other
                                                         1988         Ear
          Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
            National Institute of Dental and
                                                         1948       Dental
            Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
       National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive                Diabetes
                                                         1950
             and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)                           Kidney
        National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)          1974        Drug

       National Institute of Environmental Health                Environmental
                                                         1966
                   Sciences (NIEHS)                                 Health

          National Institute of General Medical                     General
                                                         1963
                   Sciences (NIGMS)                                 Medical

       National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)        1946    Mental Health

       National Institute of Neurological Disorders
                                                         1950     Neurology
                  and Stroke (NINDS)


                                   12
                  National Institute of Nursing Research
                                                                  1986         Nursing
                                  (NINR)

                   National Library of Medicine (NLM)             1968         Medicine

                 National Institute for Biomedical Imaging
                                                                  2001      Bioengineering
                            and Bioengineering
                 Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center                         Clinical
                                                                  1953
                                     (CC)                                      Research
                                                                             Information
                 Center for Information Technology (CIT)
                                                                                 Tech.
                 National Center for Complementary and                        Alternative
                                                                  1999
                    Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)                               Medicine
                 National Center for Research Resources                        Research
                                                                  1956
                                (NCRR)                                         Support
                 National Center on Minority Health and                        Minority
                                                                  2001
                      Health Disparities (NCMHD)                                Health
                                                                             International
                John E. Fogarty International Center (FIC)        1968
                                                                               Support
                    Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
                                                                  1946        Evaluation
Source: http://www.nih.gov


Each NIH institute or center has been established by separate legislation and has been
allocated a separate annual budget from the Congress. As a matter of fact, however,
research relevant to any disease cannot be confined to one Institute (NIH, 1997). It is also
extremely difficult to assign large investments in basic research to any one disease.
Research aimed at one target often hits another. Thus, the priority research areas within
NIH can be estimated only very roughly by the relative sizes of these institutes and
centers as depicted in Figure 4. In terms of annual funding budget, NCI is the largest. In
terms of disease, therefore, we can say that NIH places its highest priority on cancer.

The stated mission of NIH is ‘to uncover new knowledge that will lead to better health
for everyone.’ In other words, the goal of NIH research is ‘to acquire new knowledge to
help prevent, detect, diagnose, and treat disease and disability, from the rarest genetic
disorder to the common cold.’ To accomplish this mission, NIH:
    • conducts research in its own laboratories;
    • supports the research of non-Federal scientists in universities, medical schools,
       hospitals, and research institutions throughout the country and abroad;
    • helps in the training of research investigators; and
    • fosters communication of medical information.




                                            13
              Figure 4. Relative Size of Institutes and Centers within NIH




Source: Freire (2001)




              Figure 5. Composition of NIH Research funding (FY 2001)

                                  Other        Intramural
                                 Activities     Research
                                   9%           ($2.2 B)
                                                  11%



                                      Extramural
                                       Research
                                       ($16 B)
                                         80%




                                              14
The first two – intramural and extramural research – are the core activities of NIH. In FY
2001, NIH allocated $2.2 billion for intramural research and $16 billion for extramural
research. As depicted in Figure 5, about 80% of NIH budget is spent through research
grants to outside of NIH while only 11% is consumed for researches within NIH campus.
The research types that NIH supports are mostly basic and applied. Training and medical
information communication consume the remaining 9% of the annual budget.


PRIORITY RESEARCH AREAS


For the remainder we focus on the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which is the biggest
institute within NIH in terms of annual budget. NCI was established under the National
Cancer Act of 1937 as the Federal Government's principal agency for cancer research and
training. The National Cancer Act of 1971 broadened the scope and responsibilities of the
NCI and created the National Cancer Program. Over the years, legislative amendments
have maintained the NCI authorities and responsibilities and have added new information
dissemination mandates as well as a requirement to assess the incorporation of state-of-
the-art cancer treatments into clinical practice.

In terms of the approved FY 2001 budget (Table 4), NCI is the largest institute,
accounting for approximately one fifth of the total NIH budget. NCI has requested more
than $5 billion for FY 2002 budget. Figure 5 and Table 4 partly represent that NIH puts
the highest priority on the research on cancer disease.

During past three decades, the budget for NCI has dramatically increased from a half
billion dollars in 1973 to over three billion dollars in 2000 (Figure 6). This upward trend
is expected to continue in a foreseeable future.

In its plan and budget proposal for FY 2002, NCI defined its goal ‘to stimulate and
support scientific discovery and its application to achieve a future when all cancers are
uncommon and easily treated.’ Toward this goal, NCI:
    • conducts, coordinates, and supports cutting-edge research and its application,
    • builds upon past discoveries and promote creativity and innovation,
    • supports development of, access to, and use of new technologies,
    • disseminates cancer information,
    • supports training and career development for cancer researchers,
    • facilitates the movement of research findings into clinical practice,
    • maintains support mechanisms and collaborative environments to link scientists
        with their colleagues and with critical technological and information resources,
        and,
    • develops strategies to define, improve, measure, and monitor the quality of cancer
        prevention and care and reduce disparities in outcomes.




                                            15
                               Table 4. NIH FY 2001 Budget
                                                Action by Congress
                            FY 2000 FY 2001       FY 2001     Chg. from Request      Chg. from FY 2000
                            Estimate Request     Approved     Amount Percent         Amount Percent
Cancer                         3,312   3,505        3,757        252      7.2%           446    13.5%
Heart, Lung and Blood          2,026   2,137        2,300        163      7.6%           273    13.5%
Dental and Cranofacial
Research                        269      284           306           22     7.8%          37    13.8%
Diabetes, Digestive and
Kidney                        1,141     1,209         1,303          94     7.8%        162     14.2%
Neurological Disorders
and Stroke                    1,030     1,085         1,176          92     8.4%        147     14.3%
Allergy and Infectious
Diseases                      1,797     1,906         2,043      137        7.2%        247     13.7%
General Medical Sciences      1,354     1,428         1,536      108        7.5%        182     13.4%
Child Health & Human
Development                     859      905           976           72     7.9%         117    13.6%
Eye                             450      474           511           37     7.7%          61    13.4%
Environmental Health
Sciences                        443      469           566           97    20.7%        123     27.8%
Aging                           688      726           786           60     8.3%         98     14.3%
Arthritis &
Musculoskeletal & Skin          349      369           397           28     7.6%          47    13.5%
Deafness and Comm.
Disorders                       264       278           301          23     8.1%          37    14.0%
Mental Health                   975     1,031         1,107          76     7.3%         132    13.6%
Drug Abuse                      687       725           781          56     7.7%          94    13.7%
Alcoholism and Alcohol
Abuse                           293      309           341        32       10.4%         47     16.2%
Nursing Research                 90       93           104        12       12.8%         15     16.6%
Research Resources              675      714           817       103       14.5%        142     21.1%
Human Genome Research           336      358           382        25        6.9%         47     13.9%
Fogarty International
Center                           43       48            51            3     5.2%           7    16.6%
National Library of
Medicine                        215       230          247            17     7.2%         32    14.7%
Office of the Director          282       309          214           -95   -30.9%        -68   -24.3%
Office of AIDS Research           0   [2,111]            0            --        --        --        --
Buildings and Facilities        165       149          154             5     3.3%        -12    -7.0%
Complementary and
Alternative Medicine             69       72            89           17    23.2%          20    29.3%
Minority Health and
Health Disparities                 0        0          130     130             --     130          --
                           ________ ________     ________ ________               ________
TOTAL NIH Budget              17,813   18,813       20,376   1,563          8.3%    2,563       14.4%

Subtract:
Estimated Research
Training                         550      564          611      47          8.3%        60      11.0%
Other Non-R&D                    161      155          168      13          8.3%         7       4.4%
                           ________ ________     ________ ________               ________
TOTAL NIH R&D                 17,102   18,094       19,597   1,503          8.3%     2,495      14.6%
Source: AAAS (2000b), Table 8.


                                                 16
                   Figure 6. Appropriations of the NCI (1973-2000)




                     Source: http://www.nci.nih.gov/


For these activities, NCI involves in a number of programs categorized into three areas:
a) Core, b) NCI’s Challenge, and c) Extraordinary Opportunities. The first category
includes two core research programs, extramural and intramural, for sustaining its proven,
productive research. The second category aims to build and sustain strong research
infrastructures and interdisciplinary collaborations. Under this category, a number of
programs are carried out such as:
    i)   Investigator-Initiated research,
   ii)   Centers, Networks, and Consortia,
 iii)    National Clinical Trials Program,
  iv)    Studying Emerging Trends in Cancer,
   v)    Quality of Cancer Care,
  vi)    Reducing Cancer-Related Health Disparities,
 vii)    Informatics and Information Flow, and
viii)    Training, Education, and Career development.

The third category aims to seize extraordinary scientific opportunities identified through
formal input from cancer scientists, educators, advocates, and community leaders. Under
this category, NCI sets up the following programmatic areas:
    i)   Genes and the Environment,
   ii)   Cancer Imaging,
 iii)    Defining the Signatures of Cancer Cells,
  iv)    Molecular Targets of Prevention and Treatment,


                                           17
  v)    Research on Tobacco and Tobacco-Related Cancers, and
 vi)    Cancer Communications.

Table 5 shows the budget structure of NCI in FY 2002 budget request to Congress. The
majority (89%) of its total budget is distributed to basic and clinical research support,
which consists of extramural research and intramural research.

There are two core research programs in NCI: i) Extramural Research Program (ERP)
and ii) Intramural Research Program (IRP). ERP supports scientists, cancer centers,
collaborative research teams, a comprehensive cancer control program, and training,
education, and career development activities. The program supports individual
investigators and research teams from universities, private industry, and other Federal
agencies. Although the most of funds are unsolicited, NCI sometimes solicits for funding
(targeted funding). IRP is dedicated to cancer research problems requiring long-term
commitments and research activities not always conductive to extramural funding. This
program provides an environment of cooperative research between laboratory-based
scientists and clinical investigators in order to facilitate rapid translation of new basic
research discoveries into early clinical trials.

According to Figure 7, almost three quarters of the budget are allocated to ERP while
around 16% is allocated to IRP. About 85% of extramural research is grants while 15% is
contracts. This extramural research includes support for small business innovation
research (SBIR), which accounts for around 3% of the total. The remaining funds are
allocated to education and training, communication, and management. Research
management and support accounts for only 4%, training and education accounts another
4%, and cancer communication accounts only 3%.

                           Figure 7. NCI Budget Composition




                               Source: NCI (2001), p. 15.



                                            18
                     Table 5. Breakdown of the budget request by category
               National Cancer Institute - 2002 Budget Request (dollars in thousands)
                                      2001
                                President's        Core    Infrastructure     Priorities
                                   Budget       Increase         Increase      Increase    Total Budget
                                  Request       Request          Request       Request          Request
Research Project Grants (RPGs):
                                 $1,245,664     $156,176                 –            –     $1,401,840
 Ongoing
 New and Renewal                    404,811             –          183,261      253,000        841,072
                                  1,650,475      156,176           183,261      253,000      2,242,912
Subtotal (RPG's)

 Small Business                      71,337        1,784            13,000       14,000        100,121
 Innovation Research

Total RPGs                        1,721,812      157,960           196,261      267,000      2,343,033

Intramural Research                 532,002       13,300            39,500        2,000        586,802
Cancer Centers                      182,216        4,555            53,000       30,000        269,771
Specialized Programs of
                                     60,916        1,523            32,000       18,250        112,689
 Research Excellence

Clinical Trials Infrastructure

 Cooperative Clinical               154,763        3,869           218,500       12,250        389,382
 Research
 Community Clinical
                                     69,232        1,731            68,000       32,000        170,963
 Oncology Program

Subtotal Clinical Trials            223,995        5,600           286,500       44,250        560,345
Infrastructure

Training and Education              133,971        4,475            64,100        4,500        207,046
 Grants
Research Support
                                    367,286        9,182           101,600      122,850        600,918
 Contracts
Cancer Control
                                    105,052        2,626            10,000        2,000        119,678
 Operations
Research Management
                                    120,600        3,015            27,750       19,700        171,065
 And Support
Other Grants                         57,222        1,431                 –            –         58,653

TOTAL NCI                        $3,505,072     $203,667          $810,711     $510,550     $5,030,000

Source: NCI (2001), p.9


Research funding in NCI can be also categorized into specific types of cancers. In FY
2000, total research funding reached $3,311.1 million. Of this, the largest sum was
allocated to breast cancer followed by AIDS, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, lung
cancer, leukemia, and so on (Table 6).



                                                  19
As depicted in Figure 8, NCI is organized into the Office of the Director, one Center and
six Divisions, each specializing in a different aspect of cancer research. The Center for
Cancer Research is responsible to reduce the burden of cancer through exploration,
discovery, and translation by conducting cutting edge basic and clinical research on the
discovery of causes and mechanisms of cancer for the prevention, diagnosis, and
treatment of cancer and other diseases. Cancer Biology Division has the principal
responsibility for managing a grant- and contract-supported program of basic and applied
research on cancer cell biology, including research on carcinogenesis and cancer
immunology. The Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences (DCCPS) aims to
reduce the risk, incidence, and deaths from cancer as well as enhance the quality of life
for cancer survivors. The Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (DCEG) serves
as a national resource for population-based studies in cancer etiology. The Division of
Cancer Prevention (DCP) devotes to cancer prevention research. Unlike most of the NCI,
which is organized in a hierarchical manner with Programs, Branches, and Sections, DCP
is organized in a matrix structure in which most of the work of the Division is conducted
by Project Teams composed of staff drawn from the various Research Groups. The
Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis (DCTD) improves the lives of the American
public by discovering better ways to detect, assess, cure and control cancer. The Division
of Extramural activities (DEA) coordinates the scientific review of extramural research
before funding, and provides systematic surveillance of that research after awards are
made. More detailed organizational structure of each division can be found in the Fact
Book of NCI (2000).


          Table 6. Research Funding for Various Research Areas (in Million)
                                  1996       1997        1998        1999         2000
 Total NCI Budget             $2,254.9 $2,389.1 $2,551.3 $2,891.0 $3,311.1
 AIDS                            225.4      224.7       225.9       239.2        244.1
 Brain & ONS                       41.6       46.1        54.3        63.5         71.9
 Breast Cancer                   317.5      332.0       348.7       387.2        438.7
 Cervical Cancer                  51.6       55.8         58.0       66.3          67.0
 Colorectal Cancer                98.0      103.2       121.0       152.9        175.8
 Head and Neck Cancers            34.3       38.5         41.9       45.9         47.0
 Hodgkins Disease                   8.0        8.1         8.3         8.2          9.4
 Leukemia                         79.3       91.2       103.4       122.2        141.7
 Liver Cancer                      31.4       35.3        38.1        39.8         46.2
 Lung Cancer                     119.4      132.4       139.8       151.0        175.0
 Melanoma                         36.0       43.3         50.3       60.1          67.9
 Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma           49.9       52.7         57.1       66.2         70.4
 Ovarian Cancer                   36.5       41.7         40.8        56.5         65.5
 Pancreatic Cancer                  8.1      10.2         14.2       17.3         20.0
 Prostate Cancer                  71.7       82.3         86.9      135.7        203.2
 Stomach Cancer                     7.6        9.3         8.2         7.6          8.2
 Uterine Cancer                     8.1        8.1        12.2        13.8         16.0
 Source: NCI (2000), Fact Book National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health


                                           20
                           Figure 8. Organizational Chart of NCI




Source: NCI (2001b), p.2


OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS


NCI has a wide spectrum of research areas, which are generally set by various groups
including Congress, NIH directors, NCI directors, advisors, etc. In other words, priority
setting in NCI is diverse and decentralized. In fact, NCI actively seeks the expertise and
perspective of a variety of advisory bodies both within and outside NIH. The following
advisory bodies are currently active:
    i)   National Cancer Advisory Board: appointed by the US President, scientific
         experts and advocates provide guidance on all cancer-related issues to the
         Director and a second level of review for grant applications;
   ii)   President’s Cancer Panel: three persons appointed by the US President, monitors
         the development and execution of National Cancer Program activities;
 iii)    Board of Scientific Counselors: outside scientific experts and consumer
         advocates who provide advice on the progress, performance, and productivity of
         the Intramural Research Program;
  iv)    Board of Scientific Advisors: outside distinguished scientists and consumer
         advocates who provide advice on the progress and future direction of the
         Extramural Research Program;
   v)    Advisory Committee to the Director: chairs of all NCI advisory groups and the
         NCI’s senior leadership, make recommendations to the Director for the oversight
         and integration of various planning and advisory group activities, the official
         channel through which the findings and recommendations emerging from these
         groups are submitted;
  vi)    NCI Executive Committee: NCI division directors and other key advisors,
         regular meetings for major policy and operating decisions for the NCI;


                                            21
vii)    Director’s Consumer Liaison Group: all-consumer advocate advisory committee,
        a primary forum.

In allocating research resources and enabling organized interest groups, members of
Congress, and members of the public to understand and evaluate NIH’s program, NIH
has explicitly laid out its major criteria in Setting Research Priorities (NIH, 1997). The
major criteria that NIH uses in its overall priority setting are (NAP, 1998):
   i)   public health needs,
  ii)   scientific quality of the research,
 iii)   potential for scientific progress (the existence of promising pathways and
        qualified investigators),
 iv)    portfolio diversification along the broad and expanding frontiers of research, and
  v)    adequate support of infrastructure (human capital, equipment and
        instrumentation, and facilities)

The process of peer review is used extensively in choosing projects for funding (Figure 9).
The first step is receiving research applications from outside scientists. Currently, NIH
receives about 60 thousand proposals and gives out around 6 thousand research grants.
Once the proposals are arrived, they are peer-reviewed in terms of scientific merit. At the
second level, various advisory councils such as Board of Scientific Advisors review and
approve the applications for grants.




            Figure 9. Priorities and Opportunities Evaluated in Peer Review




Source: NCI (1997)




                                           22
Specifics on the peer review process are given in a web document of the Center for
Scientific Review (CRS) of NIH.4 The thousands of newly arrived research project grant
applications are delivered to CRS and first reviewed by a dozen of Referral Officers in
order to identify which Integrated Review groups (IRG), clusters of study sections that
review similar science, would be most appropriate for assessment of scientific merit and
which Institutes/Centers (I/C) of the NIH would be most suitable to fund the application.
This assignment process is a collegial interaction among Referral Officers, study section
Scientific Review Administrator (SRAs), Institute program representatives, and
applicants. As applications are assigned to a study section, SRAs read them for assigning
each application to the best-suited study section members. Each application is assigned to
two or three members for written reviews and one or two additional members who serve
as discussants.5 After six weeks of review period, the assigned reviewers and discussants
have two-day study section meetings, where representatives from the various NIH
Institutes are also encouraged to attend, for discussing their evaluations and providing
their priority scores privately for each application on scoring sheets. All priority score
information is entered into the application database and summarized into average of 80
summary statements that are mailed to applicants for feedback and transmitted to the
appropriate NIH Institute for funding consideration.

At each NIH Institute, there is another round of review process for funding based on each
priority score and summary statements. However, in this round of review process, there
are no defined or standardized selection criteria for funding so that the evaluation for
funding at each institute varies a lot.

The research grants usually last 5 years and can be extendable. For funded research, it is
required to submit progress reports every year. However, there is no rigorous assessment
to those reports. Since the research contract is deliverable, it is relatively easy to evaluate.
However, the funding decisions and evaluations for research grants work more towards
the reputation of the investigator(s).

NIH employees are federal employees. Differently from other research institutes,
however, scientists at NIH receive tenure (in the academic sense of the term). Since the
future excellence of the Intramural Research Program depends on the quality of the
scientists awarded tenure, the scientist is evaluated for his/her ability to establish an
effective, independent research program and provide high-quality scientific leadership
and training within the Intramural Research Program, prior to being awarded tenure (NIH,
1999b). A scientist is usually considered for tenure after a six-to-eight-year period as a
tenure-track scientist, during which the review by the Board of Scientific Counselors
(BSC) will take place. Based on BSC’s merit review of the candidate’s independent
research along with a subsequent Institute tenure panel review and six or more letters of
reference obtained from scientists outside of the Intramural Research Program (who are
not research collaborators), the NIH Central Tenure Committee votes on each case and
the Deputy Director for Intramural Research grants final approval of tenure.


4
    http://www.csr.nih.gov/review/peerrev.htm
5
    Conflicts of interest for particular members and grant applications are carefully weeded out.


                                                       23
NCI recognizes that building its research capacity is very important for the future. That is,
building and sustaining the strong research infrastructures and interdisciplinary
collaborations are the basic component leading to the major breakthrough in cancer
research. It requested a dramatic increase of $1,524,928,000 over the FY 2001 President’s
Budget. This increase is planned to be allocated as follows: core ($203,667,000), NCI’s
Challenge ($810,711,000), and Extraordinary Opportunities for Investment
($510,550,000).

A current challenge for NCI is the perceived decreasing political support for intramural
research that may result in significant brain drain. In the face of that challenge, NCI has
reviewed its intramural programs during the last decade and is now in the process of
reorganizing toward strengthening in-house education and training. Another continuing
challenge is the difficulty of aligning budget with funding and the continuity between
planning and budgeting.




                                            24
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY (NIST)


INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW


The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a Government-Owned/
Government-Operated (GOGO) research agency under the Technology Administration
(TA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Its main campus and headquarters is in
Gaithersburg, Maryland and has a second operating site in Boulder, Colorado.
Established in 1901 as the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), NIST obtained its
current name in 1988 and expanded its missions into a broader scope of research areas.
NIST has an annual budget of approximately $800 million (FY 2000 estimated operating
budget from all sources) and employs about 3,300 scientists, engineers, technicians,
business specialists, and administrative personnel including about 1,600 researchers. In
addition, at an average year NIST will have about 1,500 visiting researchers and
approximately 2,000 partner specialists and staff at affiliated centers.

The primary mission of NIST is to strengthen the U.S. economy and to improve the
quality of life by working with industry to develop and apply technology, measurement,
and standards. This primary mission is stated as “to assist industry in the development of
technology … needed to improve product quality, to modernize manufacturing processes,
to ensure product reliability … and to facilitate rapid commercialization … of products
based on new scientific discoveries.”

Basically, there are four major programs within NIST: a) Measurement and Standards
Laboratories (MSL), b) Advanced Technology Program (ATP), c) Manufacturing
Extension Partnership (MEP), and d) Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Program
(BNQP). The MSL program consists of eight core laboratories, each of which, except
Technology Services, carries out research in its discipline. This organizational structure is
shown in Figure 10.

In its Strategic Plan for FY 2000 – 2005, the US Department of Commerce (DOC)
clarifies the mission of NIST to ‘provide infrastructural tools and capabilities that
improve the productivity, quality, and efficiency of research and innovation processes’.
This mission falls within DOC’s ‘Strategic Goal 2: provide infrastructure for innovation
to enhance American competitiveness.’ The mission is further divided into several
specific performance goals, each of which is assigned to individual programs within
NIST (DOC, 2000).

The performance goal assigned to the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) is to
‘accelerate technological innovation and development of the new technologies that will
underpin future economic growth.’ Established in 1990, ATP mainly exploits R&D
partnerships with private industry for the accelerated development of innovative
technologies for broad national benefit.




                                             25
                          Figure 10. NIST Organization Chart




Source: http://www.nist.gov


The assigned performance goal of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is to
‘improve the technological capability, productivity, and competitiveness of small
manufacturers.’ For this goal, MEP provides a grassroots network of local centers
offering technical and business assistance to smaller manufacturers.

The assigned performance goal of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (BNQP)
is to ‘assist U.S. businesses and other organizations in continuously improving their
productivity, efficiency, and customer satisfaction by adopting quality and performance
improvement practices.’ That is, BNQP is a highly visible quality outreach program that
recognizes business performance excellence and quality achievement by U.S.
manufacturers, service companies, educational organizations, and health care providers.

The performance goal assigned to the Measurement and Standards Laboratories (MSL) is
to ‘provide technical leadership for the nation’s measurement and standards infrastructure
and ensure the availability of essential reference data and measurement capabilities.’ That
is, MSL performs the traditional function of provision of technical leadership for vital
components of the national technology infrastructure needed by U.S. industry to
continually improve its products and services.


                                            26
The Measurement and Standards Laboratories (MSL) is the focus of this analysis. There
are eight laboratories within MSL program: a) Building and Fire Research, b) Chemical
Science and Technology, c) Electronics and Electrical Engineering, d) Information
Technology, e) Manufacturing Engineering, f) Material Science and Engineering, g)
Physics, and h) Technology Services.

As depicted in Figure 11, in fiscal year 2001, NIST has an operating budget of about
$720 million, among which NIST appropriations are about $600 million. $301.7 million
is provided for measurement and standards research in the NIST Laboratories; $5.2
million for the Baldrige National Quality Program (BNQP); $104.9 for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP); $145.4 million for the Advanced
Technology Program (ATP); $5 million for the Information Infrastructure Protection
Grants program; and $34.8 million for renovation and repair of NIST facilities. In
addition to these NIST appropriations, NIST receives about $39.8 million in fees for
reimbursable services such as calibrations, measurement standards, and laboratory
accreditation and $82.9 million of research in the NIST Laboratories supported by other
federal agencies.


                         Figure 11. NIST Resources FY 2001




                             Source: http://www.nist.gov



                                          27
This budget structure is dramatically changed in FY 2002 budget request. Most
prominent changes include a significant decrease for ATP and increase for MSL.6 It is
primarily because ATP program is not awarding new funds while the current
Administration completes its review of the program. In contrast, the relative role of MSL
becomes more important within NIST: by requesting $337 million, the proportion of FY
2002 budget request for MSL has increased to about 69% of the total.

NIST provides three justifications for the MSL program. First, it is very important to
maintain a technical infrastructure that supports the rapid development and diffusion of
new technologies in an increasingly globalizing market. Globalizing markets make it
urgent to harmonize divergent national systems of measurement, standards, and
assessment of how products and services confirm to standards. Second, as the pace of
technological change intensifies, the demands for new standards and ever more precise
measurements are increasing across industry. Third, as the modern technology
development requires increasingly a broad scope of scientific and technical competencies,
industry is getting more dependent on external sources of advanced measurement and
standards technology and expertise. Accordingly, it is considered that the role of MSL
becomes ever more important for the U.S. industry.


PRIORITY RESEARCH AREAS


MSL is composed of eight different, functionally defined laboratories:7

      •    Building and Fire Research Laboratory – works for improving quality and
           productivity in U.S. construction and for reducing human and economic loss due
           to fires, earthquakes, wind and other hazards.
      •    Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory – conducts research for
           development of chemical, biochemical, and chemical engineering measurements,
           data, models, and reference standards required for enhancing U.S. industrial
           competitiveness and improving public health, safety, and environmental quality.
      •    Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory – works for advancing
           standards, primarily for the electronics and electrical industries, and provides the
           fundamental basis for all electrical measurements and the metrology support to
           other federal and local government agencies.
      •    Information Technology Laboratory – focuses on emerging and rapidly-changing
           information technologies to improve the usability, reliability and security of
           computers and computer networks for work and home.
      •    Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory – works closely with manufacturing
           industry to achieve greater efficiency and productivity with improved
           measurements and standards, and maintains the basic units for measuring mass
           and length.

6
    For more information, see http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/budget/nist_approp.htm
7
    http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/labs2.htm


                                                     28
   •   Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory – focused on materials
       measurement and standards infrastructure in the areas of ceramics, polymers,
       metallurgy, neutron characterization, and materials reliability for the industrial
       sectors such as microelectronics, automotive, and health care; houses the nation's
       only fully equipped cold neutron research facility, NIST Center for Neutron
       Research.
   •   Physics Laboratory – supports U.S. industry by providing measurement services
       and research for electronic, optical and radiation technology, developing new
       physical standards, measurement methods and data, and collaborating with
       industry to commercialize inventions and discoveries.
   •   Technology Services – differently from the rest of MSL, TS does not conduct its
       own research; rather TS represents all other labs to outside of NIST, nationally
       and internationally.

The name of each laboratory represents its research areas. However, the actual activity of
a lab is much broader and complex than indicated simply by its name. This study takes
the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory (MEL) and the Physics Laboratory as
examples for review.

The mission of the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory (MEL) is ‘to satisfy the
measurements and standards needs of the U.S. discrete-parts manufacturers in mechanical
and dimensional metrology and in advanced manufacturing technology by conducting
research & development, providing services and participating in standards activities.’ It
concentrates on measurements and standards problems for the U.S. manufacturing
industry’s use of leading edge technologies.

The major research areas of MEL can be deciphered from its divisional organization.
There are six divisions within MEL (NIST, 2000). They are:
   i)   Office of Manufacturing Programs (OMP) – promotes increased awareness of
        and overall management of several crosscutting programs (collaboration between
        divisions) and manages MEL’s information technology support services,
  ii)   Precision Engineering Division (PED) – focuses on high-precision dimensional
        measurements for precision-engineering system,
 iii)   Automated Production Technology Division (APTD) – fulfill the measurements
        and standards needs of the U.S. in mechanical metrology and advanced
        manufacturing technology,
 iv)    Intelligent Systems Division (ISD) – works with industry to create standards and
        opn-systems architectures for intelligent manufactruing systems,
  v)    Fabrication Technology Division (FTD) – fabricates instruments and parts for
        use by all NIST staff and provides a working machine ship floor where
        researchers can collaborate on projects of mutual interest, and
 vi)    Manufacturing Systems Integration Division (MSID) – focuses on
        interoperability standards, information models, and frameworks for integrating
        manufacturing systems.




                                           29
Currently (FY 2000) ongoing research programs provide a view of MEL’s technological
priorities (total personnel and funding in parenthesis)8:
         • Advanced Optics Metrology (3.45 FTE, $630,000)
         • Characterization and Performance Improvement of Machining Systems (4.5
             FTE, $1,102,000)
         • Engineering Metrology (7.5 FTE, $1,075,000)
         • Information-Based Manufacturing (8 FTE, $3400000)
         • Information Technology Metrology for Manufacturing (11.1 FTE,
             $1,340,000)
         • Intelligent Control of Mobility Systems (10 FTE, $2,120,000)
         • Intelligent Open Architecture Control of Manufacturing Systems (4.9 FTE,
             $1,226,000)
         • Large-Scale Metrology (5.8 FTE, $983,525)
         • Manufacturing Enterprise Engineering (5.25 FTE, $1,200,000)
         • Manufacturing Simulation and Visualization (11 FTE, $1,110,000)
         • Measurement Services for Mechanical Quantities (7.2 FTE, $1,250,000)
         • Nano Manufacturing (N/A)
         • Nanometer-Scale Metrology (14.22 FTE, $3,333,000)
         • National, Regional, and International Standards and Comparisons (2.42 FTE,
             $445,000)
         • Predictive Process Engineering (15.36 FTE, $1,611,000)
         • Product Engineering (17.4 FTE, $1,533,000)
         • Research & Development to Improve Measurement Services in Mechanical
             Quantities (5.4 FTE, $1,123,000)
         • Research and Engineering of Intelligent Systems (6.05 FTE, $1,575,000)
         • Sensors, Interfaces, & Networks for Metrology & Manufacturing (3.1 FTE,
             $535,000)
         • Shop Floor as a National Measurement Institute (3.35 FTE, $854,100)
         • Surface Metrology (9.5 FTE, $1,317,000)

As seen above, MEL focuses on various manufacturing technologies. The sizes of
research projects also vary in terms of funding and number of research personnel. On
average, a research project is composed of around 10 researchers and approximately one
or two million dollars of funding.


OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS


Since 1988 when the old NBS became NIST, NIST incorporated the value of
competitiveness of the U.S. industry as its major mission. To carry out this mission, NIST
strengthened its outreach programs by making many partnerships with industry. The
8
 For more information, see Summaries of the Programs of the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory
2000, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce.


                                                  30
purpose of strengthened outreach programs is to address industrial demand on standards
and measurements. Specifically, NIST tries to participate in many industrial organizations
and associations, to help industry in creating technological road maps, and to invite
industrial research members as visitors.

One of the official doors to and from industry is the Office of Technology Services (TS).
Instead of conducting research, TS is MSL’s mirror office to industry. Its main role is to
provide a variety of products and services such as calibrations, Standard Reference
Materials, Standard Reference Data, and Weights and Measures to U.S. industry and the
public, federal agencies, national measurement institutes, state and local governments,
and the private sector. Other important roles include management of database for all
research projects within NIST, coordination of documentary standards activities, training
of foreign standards officials, laboratory accreditation, facilitating partnerships between
NIST researchers and U.S. industry and access to the NIST Research Library. Critical
roles of TS include identifying industrial demand and taking feedback from industry to
assist NIST’s planning process. For this outreach function, TS sends out a number of
representatives to industrial organizations, associations, or international conferences.

Another important effort for outreaching industrial needs is the visitor system. The
number of visiting researchers to NIST labs reaches annually around 1,500 who come
from mostly industry, academia, other national labs, and even international organizations.
This number almost matches the number of total researchers in NIST labs. They are
mostly invited by individual researchers and get paid substitute salaries and allowances
during their stay. They often participate in research projects as members of a team. NIST
does not charge any overhead but does provide scientific infrastructure for their
researches. This visitor system provides a number of benefits to NIST. First, it is more
economical and flexible than hiring regular researchers. Second, visiting researchers are
one of the major sources of new ideas about cutting-edge technologies. Third, they are
one of the major sources of identification of industry needs.

Since NIST pursues to identify broader needs of industry and to maximize its impact on
industrial innovation, the formation of consortia becomes one of the common ways that
MSL cooperates with industry for building measurement capabilities. For example, MEL
is currently involved in 12 consortia, in which many companies, universities, and other
government laboratories are teamed with MSL researchers for research and development
activities.

Given the ultimate goal of NIST to benefit U.S. industry by providing high quality
measurements and standards techniques, it is very essential to respond quickly with
specialized technological expertise to industry’s need. For this essential mission, NIST
coordinates with industry to set its priorities and plan the future research areas. The
“National Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors”, “National Electronics
Manufacturing Initiative”, “Technology Vision 2020: The U.S. Chemical Industry”,
“National Plan for Construction and Building R&D”, and the “Next Generation
Manufacturing Project” are good examples. Cooperation with industry also includes
regular consultation with industrial advisory groups, such as the Council on Ionizing



                                            31
Radiation Measurements and Standards, on key need for measurement support.

Although NIST tries to be industry-oriented in its research activities, it is not allowed by
law to intervene into free industrial market competition and pick winners. For example,
MSL does not jump in a technological standard competition and does not evaluate the
competing technologies favoring one over the others. The only exception is when public
safety issues are involved in competing technologies. NIST is only allowed to step in
areas where private industry inderinvests (market failure). So MSL does not care which
technological standards are established in the free market. What MSL cares for is only to
develop calibration and data standard reference materials, and to improve measurement
technologies, areas of which are apparently anticipated to be underinvested by the private
sector. Another important concern of MSL is to make sure that the standards established
by the U.S. industries are incorporated into the international standards and that the U.S.
companies can compete in the world market. In this sense, NIST is a technological
advocate internationally but not domestically.

The processes of research priority setting at the lab level are both top-down and bottom-
up. In many cases, laboratory or division directors suggest visions reflecting NIST-wide
missions. Sometimes, such visions are brought in from NIST level or even Congress.
Very often, however, individual scientists bring in what they believe most important.
Research projects are basically selected and funded by laboratory directors. Of course,
the first priority reflects immediate needs. Other than that, excellence and mission
relevance become the most critical criteria for the project selection. That is, directors try
to determine whether the proposed project can challenge the cutting-edge or
breakthrough and accomplish the lab missions. Average size projects are normally one or
two million dollars. Total NIST funding for projects is around $300 million. As seen in
the MEL case, a lab is normally composed of 200 to 300 people, who belong to one of
several divisions. A research division consists of 30-40 people including other supporting
personnel. Each division is also divided into several groups, consisted of normally 10 or
more members with a leader, each of which often becomes a team conducting individual
research projects.

Other than the regular research projects that pursue to solve industrial needs, NIST tries
to keep its competency at cutting-edge technologies. For example, MEL introduced a
mechanism called ‘the MEL Exploratory Project’ to encouraging new areas of research in
1998. This exploratory project aims to balance current program requirements against the
need to explore new programmatic areas in manufacturing. For this goal, MEL sets aside
a small portion of the laboratory funding specifically for exploring new ideas that cross
division or laboratory lines, and are outside the existing programs.

The procedure for supporting such challenging intramural research is as follows. Upon
the submission of staff proposals for the exploratory project, the MEL management team
reviews them based on following criteria: a) relevance to MEL and NIST missions, b)
impact to the U.S. industry and economic growth, c) scientific merit of the proposal, d)
capability of the project team, and e) relationship to established programs. Since the
primary goal of the program is to test the feasibility of new ideas or technologies, the



                                             32
selected projects are supposed to show their potential within one year. Upon the
completion of each project, the MEL management team makes one of the following
recommendations for the inclusion in the formation of subsequent year strategic program:
a) completed with no further action recommended; b) extended for one year to provide
more time for additional work; or c) tentatively recommended for inclusion in the MEL
planning process for possible consideration as a strategic program.

Since its initiation, there have been eight Exploratory Projects, four of which were
completed in FY 1999 and four of which were selected for FY 2000. Some of them are
listed below:9
     • Exploring Meso/Micro-Manufacturing and Metrology Technologies
     • E2M: Economically Driven Environmentally Sensitive Manufacturing
     • SmartCal: Calibration Data That Doesn’t Get Lost
     • Testing Algorithms for the Performance Evaluation of Machine Tools and CMMs
     • Atom-Based Realization of the Kilogram
     • Development of a Standardized Universal Instrument Control System for
        Metrology Instrumentation
     • High Accuracy Artifacts for Video Based Metrology
     • Model Manufacturing Problems for Software Agent Evaluations

Motivating researchers is a challenging issue for NIST too. Basically, NIST encourages
its researchers to be self-motivated and world leaders in their scientific fields by actively
publishing or presenting research results in reputable fora. NIST scientists are motivated
primarily by peer recognition rather than salary. In addition, NIST encourages its people
to be motivated by NIST objectives. For example, the director of Physics lab emphasized
that every activity in the lab is for industry. For such mission, lab scientists are motivated
to cooperate with industry and to involve deeply in their scientific communities. A good
work environment is also very important to keep technical personnel at NIST. Freedom in
their research is the most critical element for a good work environment. In this way,
scientists are self-motivated and most productive. Scientific excellence and mission
relevance become two critical criteria for individual performance evaluation.

The overall planning and performance evaluation system at NIST is shown in Figure 12.
First step is the Long-Term Strategic Planning, into which inputs from various sources
such as industry interaction and roadmaps, S&T conferences/workshops, strategic
planning studies, administration priorities, or congress are processed. Second step is the
Annual Program Planning, which is cyclically established on the basis of the long-term
strategic plan. Third step is the Program Implementation and Management. Finally, the
fourth step is the Performance Evaluation, which is consisted of External Assessment,
Quantitative Output Metrics, Economic Impact Studies, and Customer Satisfaction Data.
The results from performance evaluation feed back to long-term and annual planning
procedures.

9
 For more information, see Summaries of the Programs of the Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory
2000, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Technology Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, pp.30-34.


                                                  33
                  Figure 12. Planning and Performance Evaluation at NIST

     Industry Interaction &
     Roadmaps
Science &
Technology
Conferences/
Workshops
                                           Annual
                  Long-Term                                      Program
Strategic                                 Program                                     Performance
                   Strategic                                   Implementat
Planning                                  Planning                                     Evaluation
                   Planning                                        ion
Studies                                    Cycle


Administration
Priolities                                                   External          Quantitative Output
                                                           Assessment               Metrics
            Congress
                                                               Customer              Economic
                                                           Satisfaction Data       Impact Studies



Source: Doremus (1998)


The external assessment mechanisms at NIST are shown in Figure 13. The Visiting
Committee on Advanced Technology assesses the performance at the overall NIST level.
At each program level, different boards carry out external performance evaluation. The
Measurement and Standards Laboratories receives performance assessment from the
NRC Board on Assessment, the Advanced Technology Program receives from the
Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
receives from the National Advisory Board, and the National Quality Award Program
receives from the Board of Overseers.

Established in 1959, the NRC 10 Board on Assessment provides independent expert
reviews on the performance of the Measurement and Standards Laboratories. This board
is organized into 7 panels and 2 subpanels, all of which are consisted of 150 leaders from
industry, academia, and government. Although NRC controls the selection process and
vets for appropriate composition, quality, and conflict of interest, NIST has the right to
advise on and review panel memberships and composition.




10
 The National Research Council is the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences, National
Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine.


                                                 34
                   Figure 13. NIST External Assessment Mechanisms


                                                                        Visiting
                                                                     Committee on
                                          NIST                         Advanced
                                                                      Technology




   Measurement               Advanced             Manufacturing          National Quality
   and Standards            Technology             Extension                  Award
    Laboratories             Program               Partnership               Program



                              Visiting
                                                     National
   NRC Board on            Committee on                                    Board of
                                                     Advisory
    Assessment               Advanced                                      Overseers
                                                      Board
                            Technology



Source: Doremus (1998)


Focused primarily on technical quality, the annual NRC peer reviews assess the
following: a) the technical merit of the laboratory programs relative to the current state-
of-the-art; b) the degree to which the laboratory programs confirm to their mission; c) the
effectiveness with which the laboratory programs are carried out and the results
disseminated; and d) the adequacy of the laboratories’ facilities, equipment, and human
resources, insofar as they affect the quality of the technical programs. The results of NRC
peer reviews are presented at the Visiting Committee for Advanced Technology and
published as an Annual NRC report. NIST feed the findings and recommendations of
NRC peer reviews into its annual planning and program management.

Meanwhile, a number of outputs and activities are considered in Quantitative Metrics
assessment. Some of them include:
    • Standard Reference Database titles available
    • Standard Reference Materials available
    • Patents files/licenses issued
    • Standards committee participation/ chairmanships held
    • International committee participation / chairmanships held
    • Number of technical publications
    • Number of major conferences and workshops
    • Number of requests to central WWW server
    • Number of calibrations and tests performed


                                            35
   •   Standard Reference Material units sold
   •   Standard Reference Database units distributed
   •   NVLAP laboratories accredited
   •   NVLAP mutual recognition agreements

The other important source of performance evaluation is the Economic Impact Studies
that utilize conventional methods and measures used by economists and corporate finance
analysts such as research outputs and outcomes, net present value, benefit-cost ratio,
social or internal rate of return, or qualitative impact tracing. Economic Impact Studies
try to assess the economic impacts of research over log time periods.

During 2001 NIST is preparing the ‘Strategic Planning NIST 2010’ dealing with the
expected future environment and the reaction of NIST to the anticipated changes. This
effort intends to clearly state NIST’s missions, goals, and roles and the necessary
adjustment of current work processes and structures.




                                           36
SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES (Sandia)


INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW


Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) is a Government-Owned/Contractor-Operated
(GOCO) research institute that is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by
the Sandia Corporation, currently a Lockheed Martin Company. Sandia designs all non-
nuclear components for the nation’s nuclear weapons, performs a wide variety of energy
research development projects, and works on assignments that respond to national
security threats (both military and economic). In FY 2000, its estimated total budget
reached approximately $1.5 billion and its total number of employees around 7,500. An
overall structure of organization is depicted as in Figure 14.

Sandia has two primary facilities, a larger laboratory and headquarters in Albuquerque,
New Mexico with more than 6,600 employees and a smaller laboratory in Livermore,
California with about 850 employees. Besides these two main facilities, Sandia also has
other testing facilities in New Mexico, Hawaii (the Kauai Test Facility), and Nevada (The
Tonopah Test Range). Overall, the physical infrastructure of Sandia includes more than
800 government-owned buildings on approximately 344,800 acres of land and a variety
of R&D laboratories, high explosives test facilities, unique environmental testing
facilities, nuclear reactor facilities, computing facilities, and others. The current and
future physical infrastructure needs are well presented in the FY 2001 Sites
Comprehensive Plan.

In 1945, Sandia was born in Albuquerque, New Mexico, as Z division, a part of which
was what’s now Los Alamos National Laboratories. Both labs were born out of the
Manhattan Project, American’s World War II atomic bomb development effort.

In 1948, Z division was renamed Sandia Laboratory, a separate branch of Los Alamos.
Sandia had been managed by AT&T for nearly 44 years since 1949. Martin Marietta
Corp., now Lockheed Martin, took over the laboratory’s management in 1993.

Sandia identifies its primary mission in providing of scientific and engineering solutions
to meet national needs in nuclear weapons and related defense systems, energy security,
and environmental integrity, and to address emerging national changes for both
government and industry. Sandia’s core and enduring mission is to provide scientific and
engineering support for the nuclear weapons stockpile. For this core mission, Sandia
plays various roles such as preventing the spread of nuclear, chemicals, and biological
weapons; developing technologies and strategies for responding to emerging threats such
as terrorism; and preventing disruption of critical infrastructures such as energy supply
and financial networks.




                                           37
                      Figure 14. Sandia’s Organizational Chart




Source: http://www.sandia.gov


                                        38
Specifically, Sandia purports to:
   • ensure that the nuclear weapons stockpile is safe, secure, reliable, and fully
       capable of supporting our nation’s deterrence policy;
   • reduce the vulnerability of our nation to proliferation and use of weapons of mass
       destruction, nuclear incidents, and environmental damage;
   • enhance the surety (safety, security, and reliability) of energy and other critical
       infrastructures; and
   • develop high impact responses to emerging national security threats.

To address these issues, Sandia identifies thefollowing four business areas; a) Nuclear
Weapons, b) Energy and Critical Infrastructure, c) Nonproliferation and Materials
Control, and d) Emerging Threats Partnerships. These areas become organization units
called ‘strategic business units (SBU).’ To support these business areas, Sandia
underlines the importance of i) People, ii) Science and Technology, iii) Infrastructure,
and iv) Partnerships; they are supported by two ‘strategic management units (SMU).’
One is the science and technology SMU, which is composed of 6 or 7 technical councils.
These councils set research priorities, making infrastructural investment, and direct
Laboratory Directed R&D (LDRD) budgets. The other is the Partnership SMU. Sandia
especially underlines to collaborate with appropriate U.S. industry, universities and
government groups to support the emerging technologies for these missions and
objectives.

Sandia keeps its research focused on its missions instead of pursuing knowledge for its
own sake. In other words, there is a sort of division of labor between LANL and Sandia
in their research foci. Differently from LANL that focuses more on basic research for
nuclear weapons, Sandia specializes in applied research and development of
technologies. Sandia conducts research and development activities primarily in the
following research areas:
    • Materials and process science,
    • Computational and information sciences,
    • Microelectronics and photonics sciences,
    • Engineering science, and
    • Pulsed power sciences.

In addition, Sandia plans to extend its research areas during the next few years to several
other specific areas:
    • intelligent integrated microsystems,
    • engineering design and manufacturing, and
    • simulation-based life-cycle engineering.




                                            39
PRIORITY RESEARCH AREAS


As pointed out earlier, Sandia’s current major research competencies are in: a) materials
and process science, b) computational and information sciences, c) microelectronics and
photonics sciences, d) engineering sciences, and e) pulsed power sciences. These research
areas are identified as ‘Research Foundations’ in Sandia’s Institutional Plan.

Specifically, Sandia’s research foundation in materials and process science focuses on
polymers, ceramics, and metals and the interfaces among these material combinations in
nonnuclear components for the stockpile. There are three subprograms for materials and
process science: a) scientifically tailored materials, b) materials processing, and c)
materials aging and reliability.

In order to meet the need of tremendous increases in supercomputing power to analyze
complicated accident scenarios, monitor and assess weapons components and systems,
predict the aging of key stockpile materials, and design replacement components,
Sandia’s research foundation in computational and information sciences focuses on: a)
new mathematical methods, algorithms, and software, b) new parallel solvers for linear
and nonlinear systems of equations, c) new methods to solve highly nonlinear
optimization problems, and d) tools to handle the results of large-scale computations.
This research area is being conducted within the DOE Distance Computing and
Distributed Computing (DisCom2) Program.

Sandia declares the areas of intelligent integrated microsystems, engineering design and
manufacturing, simulation-based life-cycle engineering, and surety science and
technology as its additional specific research areas that will be focused during the next
few years.

To ensure state-of-the-art implementation of Sandia’s electronics systems, Sandia also
does research on microelectronics and photonics sciences. This research area includes
activities from fundamental solid-state physics to the design and fabrication of radiation-
hardened integrated circuits and integrated microsystems (silicon microelectronics,
sensors, and compound semiconductor devices).

For supporting Sandia’s program elements such as weapons performance and safety;
underground transport of contaminants; and the design, fabrication, and performance of
microelectro-mechanical systems for weapons applications, Sandia is fostering researches
in engineering sciences including experiments, physical model development, and new
computational capabilities in aerosciences, fluid mechanics, thermal sciences, reactive
processes, solid mechanics, material mechanics, structural dynamics, computational
technologies, uncertainty quantification, and electrical engineering/electromagnetics.

Finally, Sandia also puts great endeavors on pulsed power sciences to provide x-ray
radiation environments for certifying the survivability of strategic systems in nuclear




                                            40
weapons stockpile and to contribute to DOE initiatives such as the Stockpile Life
Extension Program and the Inertial Confinement Fusion Program.

Total R&D budget reached approximately $1.4 billion in 1998. The largest portion (79%
or $1,086.7 M) of budget has been spent on national security. The remaining 21 % of
budget has been spent on science and technology (7% or $102.3 M), energy resources
(6% or $86.5 M), and environmental quality (8% or $116.8 M). This budget structure is
depicted in Figure 15.


        Figure 15. Sandia’s Budget Allocation by research function (FY 1998)

                                 Energy Resources
                                                         Environmental
                 Science and            6%
                                                            Quality
                 Technology
                                                               8%
                     7%




                                    National Security
                                          79%


              Source: Sandia (1999), Institutional Plan FY 1999


The budget projections (FY 1999 – 2003) by assistant secretarial office (Table 7) show
that the greatest portions are distributed to DOE programs and Defense programs.

About 7,500 personnel work for Sandia. More than half is professional staff directly
linked to research and development. Around 45% are administrative staff. Around half of
the total personnel have advanced degree.




                                          41
                 Table 7. Sandia Funding by Assistant Secretarial Officer
                                       1999        2000      2001      2002         2003
Weapons and Waste Cleanup
 Programs
 Total Deputy Administrator for
  Defense Programs
   Operating                             679.9      677.5     721.9         725.0    746.6
   Capital Equipment                      30.6       42.8      47.0          57.9     56.6
   General Plant Projects                  6.6        7.9       6.0           6.8      7.0
   Major Construction                     39.0       33.0      41.2          89.0    123.5
   Total Funding                         756.1      761.2     816.1         878.7    933.7
 Total Office of Fissile Materials
  Disposition
   Operating                               2.9         1.1       2.0          2.0       2.5
 Total Office of Nonproliferation
  and National Security
   Operating                             139.8      161.9     173.2         178.8    188.8
   Capital Equipment                       0.7        1.2       1.5           1.5      1.5
   Major Construction                     -0.1        0.0       0.0           0.0      4.8
   Total Funding                         140.4      163.1     174.7         180.3    195.1
 Total Deputy Administrator for
  Environmental Management
   Operating                              71.8       59.4      70.6          65.2     44.6
   Capital Equipment                       1.4        0.0       0.0           0.0      0.0
   Total Funding                          73.2       59.4      70.6          65.2     44.6
Energy Programs
 Total Deputy Administrator for
  Energy Efficiency and
  Renewable Energy
   Operating                              53.4       46.7      44.9          48.3     55.8
   Capital Equipment                       0.2        0.1       0.0           0.0      0.0
   Total Funding                          53.6       46.8      44.9          48.3     55.8
 Total Office of Nuclear Energy
   Operation                               9.8         1.8       2.4          3.4       3.2
   Capital Equipment                       0.1         0.2       0.0          0.0       0.0
   Total Funding                           9.9         2.0       2.4          3.4       3.2
 Total Deputy Administrator for
  Fossil Energy
   Operating                               6.3         6.1       7.8          7.3       7.2
   Total Funding                           6.3         6.1       7.8          7.3       7.2
Science and Technology Programs
 Total Office of Energy Research
   Operating                              34.2       35.0      38.3          38.3     39.9
   Capital Equipment                       2.1        1.9       2.0           2.0      2.0
   General Plant Projects                  0.1        0.1       0.1           0.2      0.2
   Major Construction                      4.0        0.0       0.0           0.0      0.0
   Total Funding                          40.4       37.0      40.4          40.5     42.1
 Total DOE Programs
   Operating                             998.5       989.5    1061.1    1068.4       1088.5
   Capital Equipment                      35.1        46.2      50.5      61.4         60.1
   General Plant Projects                  6.7         8.0       6.1       7.0          7.2
   Major Construction                     42.9        33.0      41.2      89.0        128.3
   Total Funding                       1,083.2     1,076.7   1,158.9   1,225.8      1,284.1
Source: Sandia (2000), Table 9-2


                                              42
                          Table 8. Sandia Staff Composition
                                       Ph.D. MS/MA BS/BA Other Total
   Professional Staff
      Engineers                           650     1,013       224     6 1,893
      Scientists                          668       460       227    12 1,367
      Other Technical Areas                19       196       172   472    85
   Management/Administration               27       358       173   199   757
   Support Staff
      Technicians                           0        19       198   831 1,048
      All Other                             1        29       143 1,342 1,515
   Laboratories Total Staff             1,365     2,075     1,137 2,862 7,439
Source: Sandia (2000), Institutional Plan FY 2001-2006, Table 8-1.


The projections (FY 1999 – 2003) of personnel can be also categorized by major sponsor
and research function measured in Full-Time-Equivalents (FTE).


                   Table 9. Personnel Summary by Major Sponsor
                                                 1999    2000    2001    2002    2003
DOE Programs
Weapons and Waste Cleanup
   Defense Programs                              1,985   1,984   1,977   1,977   1,977
   Nonproliferation and National Security          325     368     414     414     414
   Fissile Materials Disposition                    10       3       5       5       5
   Environmental Management                        183     141     167     167     167
Energy Programs
   Energy Efficiency and Renewable                141     144     138     138     138
      Energy
   Fossil Energy                                   22      25      33      33      33
   Nuclear Energy                                  30       5       7       7       7
Science and Technology
   Energy Research                                  90      93     101     101     102
Total DOE Programs                               2,786   2,763   2,842   2,842   2,843

Programs Other than DOE
  Department of Defense                           581     665     722     722     722
  Nuclear Regulatory Commission                    35      37      32      32      32
  All Other Federal Agencies                       94     111     120     120     120
  Nonfederal Entities                              77      90      81      81      81
  CRADA Partners/Royalties and                    100     116     105     105     105
      Licensing
  Other DOE Locations/Management and              200     195     181     181     181
     Operating Contractors
Total Work For Others                            1,087   1,214    1,41   1,241   1,241


                                            43
Total Direct Programs                          3,873 3,977 4,083            4,083     4,084
Laboratory Directed R&D                          277     266      266         270       275
  Direct Support                               1,629 1,529 1,505            1,519     1,519
  Indirect                                     1,794 1,693 1,666            1,681     1,681
Total Laboratories                             7,573 7,465 7,520            7,553     7,559
Source: Sandia (2000), Table 9-5, in Full-Time-Equivalents (FTEs).


OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS


Sandia’s primary role is to provide engineering and science for the security of the United
States. However, Sandia’s activities are extremely diverse, as the security becomes
increasingly varied and complex. Contemporary national security includes not only
traditional defense-related activities but also economic actions, terrorists, global
distribution of vital resources such as energy and information.

Sandia is a mission-oriented federal laboratory dealing with nuclear weapons and other
related defense systems. Sandia sets forth its strategic objectives in alignment to those of
DOE. They are nuclear weapons, nonproliferation and materials control, emerging
threats, energy and critical infrastructures, science and technology, partnerships,
infrastructure, and people. These strategic objectives define long-term goals with a
twenty-year horizon. For each strategic objective, Sandia identifies intermediate goals
covering a three- to fifteen-year period. Further, Sandia sets representative fiscal year
milestones for each strategic objective or intermediate goal. These strategic objectives,
intermediate goals, and milestones reflect the interests of the principle customer, the DOE
and, as appropriate, the DOD and other stakeholders.

Sandia sets its basic values in pursuing these strategic objectives as teamwork, integrity,
quality, leadership, and respect for the individual. These values are closely related to
those of Lockheed Martin’s and DOE’s as presented in Table 10.


           Table 10. Sandia’s Strategic Objectives and the DOE Equivalents
Sandia Strategic Objectives                   DOE Headquarters
                                              Strategic Plan Business Lines

Nuclear Weapons:                               National Security:
Ensure that the nuclear weapons stockpile      “ . . . effectively support and maintain a
is safe, secure, and reliable and fully        safe, secure, and reliable enduring stockpile
capable of supporting our nation’s             without nuclear testing, safely dismantle
deterrence policy indefinitely.                and dispose of excess nuclear weapons,
                                               provide technical leadership for national
Nonproliferation and Materials Control:        and global nonproliferation and nuclear


                                            44
Reduce the vulnerability of the United safety activities...” (page 9).
States to threats of proliferation and use of
weapons of mass destruction, nuclear
incidents, and environmental damage.

Emerging National Security Threats:
Develop high impact responses to
emerging national security threats.


Energy and Critical Infrastructures:          Energy Resources:
Enhance the surety (safety, security, and     “. . . assure adequate supplies of clean
reliability) of energy and other critical     energy, reduce US vulnerability to supply
infrastructures.                              disruptions, encourage efficiency and
                                              advance alternative and renewable energy
                                              technologies, and increase energy choices
                                              for all consumers” (page 9).

                                              National Security:
                                              Initiate “correction of DOE infrastructure
                                              vulnerabilities identified by the President’s
                                              Commission on Critical Infrastructure
                                              Protection” (page 20).


Science and Technology:                       Science and Technology:
Pursue ‘science with the mission in mind,’    “. . . use the unique resources of the
thereby providing solutions and options for   Department’s       laboratories     and    the
the custormers of Sandia’s current and        country’s     universities     to     maintain
future business units.                        leadership in basic research and to advance
                                              scientific knowledge, focus applied
                                              research and technology development in
                                              support of the Department’s other business
                                              lines, contribute to the nation’s science and
                                              mathematics education, and deliver
                                              relevant     scientific    and     technology
                                              information” (page 10).


Partnerships:                              Energy Resources:
Maximize our beneficial use of strategic “Cooperate with foreign governments and
partnerships to support Sandia’s strategic international institutions” (page 16).
business and management units.
                                           National Security:
                                           “Establish     strategic     alliances and
                                           collaborations among the weapons



                                          45
                                               laboratories, industries, and universities”
                                               (page 20).

                                               Science and Technology:
                                               “Pursue technology research partnerships
                                               with industry, academia and other
                                               government agencies” (page 33).


Nonproliferation and Materials Control:        Environmental Quality:
Reduce the vulnerability of the United         “. . . reduce the environmental, safety, and
States of proliferation and use of weapons     health risks and threats from DOE facilities
of mass destruction, nuclear incidents, and    and materials, safely and permanently
environmental damage.                          dispose of civilian spent nuclear fuel and
                                               defense-related radioactive waste, and
                                               develop the technologies and institutions
                                               required for solving domestic and
                                               international environmental problems”
                                               (pages 9 & 10).


Infrastructure:                                Corporate Management:
Provide necessary infrastructure for           • “Environment, Safety, and Health;
Sandia’s mission by enabling individuals       • Communication and Trust; and
and organizations to succeed in conducting     • Management Practices” (page 10).
our business. This includes enabling
Sandia’s missions today and preparing to
meet future mission needs, supporting
Sandia’s superb reputation as a national
security laboratory, creating a physical and
business environment that supports our
world-class work force, and improving the
overall cost effectiveness of mission work.

People:
Inspire people to achieve excellence in
their contribution to the Laboratories’
mission.

Source: Sandia (2000), Table 3.1, p. 3-3.


The interview over Sandia emphasized that this is pretty much a problem-solving
laboratory; the majority of its work is dedicated to solve the specific customer needs. The
principle customer is the U.S. Department of Energy, which funds annually around three
quarters of Sandia’s research activity. DOD is the second largest customer of Sandia
contributing about $250 million annually. The work for DOD is politically sensitive and


                                            46
often under Congressional oversight. In addition, it was argued that Sandia is very active
in establishing partnerships with industry, universities, and other non-federal entities,
domestically or internationally. Work for industry reaches around $60-70 million
annually. Work for industry is also subject to Congressional oversight.

Besides directed research, Sandia has an independent research program in basic science
supported by a discretionary budget approved by Congress. This budget has a strict upper
limit of 6% of the total. Although discretionary, some level of oversight review is being
done even on this program.

A source for basic research funds is the Science Office at DOE, which funds Sandia’s
Laboratory Directed R&D. Although the basic priorities are set from the sponsor, this
program solicits proposals from individual researchers in Sandia. The projects for
funding are selected by program officers at DOE.

Overall, it was argued that the research projects at Sandia can be categorized as short and
long-term. Short-term projects normally last up to 3 years. Though successive funding,
however, a series of short-term projects on a particular theme can make a long-term
project. A typical research project is $2-3 million while a typical activity for industry is
$300-400 thousands.

Sandia participates in two international science programs with the goal of reemploying
former weapons scientists in countries of the former Soviet Union. The two centers are
the International Science and Technology Center in Moscow and the Science and
Technology Center of Ukraine in Kiev.

It was emphasized that Sandia puts great effort in keeping its employees pleased with the
work environment and highly motivated. It tries to maintain a critical mass of
academically sound people in different areas. It also tries to provide a rich environment
along with the competitive salaries and benefit packages. Finally, Sandia researchers are
not federal employees: “rather, they are Sandians”, i.e., they have a strong sense of
community. This implies that they do not consider themselves as employees of Lockheed
Martin either.

The “peculiar” for other countries arrangement of a government research institute that is
managed by a private corporation was mainly followed in order to benefit from private
management practices. Under the prior AT&T management, Sandia basically had only
government liability, meaning that government was the accountable party for the positive
and the negative aspects of Sandia’s work. However, as stakeholders such as government,
Congress, oversight groups and taxpayers demanded more accountable management,
management switched from AT&T to Lockheed Martin in 1993. Greater accountability
has meant that work contracts have also become more complicated and detailed. Now the
contractor (Lockheed Martin) takes the whole liability for the work of the lab. That is,
Sandia is now fully accountable for making good progress, for managing programs, and
for maintaining a healthy R&D base.




                                            47
Consequently, performance evaluation has intensified for programs and researchers.
Every project is reviewed annually. Some programmatic projects for customers are
reviewed quarterly or semiannually. Performance evaluation on research personnel is also
done in annual base. Annual appraisal starts at mid point of every year by having
managers collect basic information and get feedback from customers and peers.
Managers review the obtained information on the basis of given evaluation guidelines
and meet to produce summary evaluation for each employee. The results of the annual
appraisal are reflected on the employee’s salary adjustment process. A number of
elements are considered for the annual appraisal, but two factors, publications and
attracting funding, become the essential criteria. These two factors may become
contradictory, requiring careful balance, because there can be tradeoffs between serving
customers and doing good research. There is no absolute formula for a desirable mix. The
appropriate mix of these two values is usually explained to the employees at the
beginning of each review cycle and, after evaluation, the weak factors are pointed out in
order to focus attention on them.

While the management model of Sandia has worked well in the past, Sandia faces a
number of challenges. First, the management of the lab oratory has become harder
because of its very complex structure. This is partly caused by increasingly tight and
detailed contracts trying to establish accountability, auditability, and trackability, all of
which require additional checkers and oversight people. Second, the demand for
increased accountability may have led in cumbersome review and evaluation processes.11
Third, although working well until now, there can be tension in applying private
management practices in a public entity.




11
     This applies more to DOD-related work.


                                              48
LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORIES (LANL)


INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW


Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) is a Government-Owned/Contractor-Operated
(GOCO) research institute that is managed by the University of California for the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE). Located in Los Alamos, New Mexico, LANL is one of the
largest multidisciplinary research institutions in the world with approximately 6,800
University of California employees and approximately 2,800 contractor personnel. Its
annual budget is approximately $1.2 billion in FY 1998.

LANL was established in 1943 as the wartime Project Y of the Manhattan Engineering
District with responsibility for developing the first nuclear weapon. During the Cold War
era, LANL became a multi-discipline, multiprogram laboratory applying capabilities
from its original mission to national and civilian needs. Since then, LANL has continued
its role as a prime defense research laboratory and it currently defines its mission as
follows:
    “Los Alamos National Laboratory is a key national resource for the development and
    integration of leading-edge science and technology to solve problems of national and
    global security.” In addition,
    “We enhance global security by:
         • Ensuring the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile,
         • Reducing threats to U.S. security with a focus on weapons of mass
             destruction,
         • Clearing up the legacy of the Cold War, and
         • Providing technical solutions to energy, environment, infrastructure, and
             health security problems.”

Los Alamos applies its expertise to key conventional defense and civilian issues that are
synergistic with its central mission and capabilities. For example the high-performance
computing capability and related competencies address national problems as wide-
ranging as epidemics, global warming, traffic patterns, and forest fires.

LANL is conducting research in very diverse areas. The following scientific or
technological capabilities are identified by LANL:




                                           49
                           Table 11. Los Alamos Capabilities
Accelerator Science and Engineering           Actinide Science
Atmospheric, Climate, and Ocean Science       Biophysics
Cell and Molecular Biology                    Chemical Analysis
Chemical and Materials Synthesis              Computer Systems and Architecture
Condensed Matter Physics                      Data Acquisition, Analysis, and
                                               Visualization
Diagnostics and Instrumentation               Functional and Structural Genomics
Geosciences and Engineering                   High Explosives and Detonation Science
High-Energy-Density Physics                   High-Performance Computing
Hydrodynamic/Fluid Dynamic Methods            Manufacturing Technology
 and Applications
Materials Processing, Fabrication, and        Mathematical and Computational Methods
 Characterization (includes high magnetic
  fields)
Mechanical Design and Fabrication             Metallurgy
Modeling and Simulation                       Nonlinear and Complex Systems
Nuclear Physics and Chemistry                 Optical Science and Technology
Particle Physics                              Plasma Physics
Polymer Science and Applications              Process Modeling and Engineering
Proton and Electron Beam Accelerators         Pulsed-Power Technology
 and Applications (includes neutron
 science)
Risk Assessment and Safety Analysis         Sensor Technology
Separations Science                         Space Sciences (includes space physics,
                                             astrophysics, and planetary science)
Systems Engineering and Analysis            Test and Evaluation
Source: LANL (2000), Institutional Plan FY 2000 – 2005, Table 1, p.5.


Computer modeling and simulation, materials technology, and component manufacture
are playing an increasingly important role in stockpile stewardship as the stockpile is
being reduced and nuclear testing is not an option for certifying stockpile reliability and
safety.

LANL addresses DOE’s four main business areas (national security, energy resources,
environmental quality, and science and technology) through its various research programs.
The linkages between them are well described in the Plan:

• National Security Mission
The Laboratory’s national security mission provides support for and ensure confidence in
the Nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. It is responsible for the safe and reliable
condition of the weapons under its care. Each year, the Laboratory certifies the safety and
reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile to the U.S. Government. In the absence of
nuclear testing, stockpile stewardship is a scientific and technical challenge requiring
interdisciplinary approaches and the development of advanced computational modeling


                                            50
and simulation capabilities; enhanced surveillance techniques, tools, and instruments for
complex experimentation, including hydrodynamic testing and high-energy-density
physics experiments; innovative materials-science efforts; and establishment of new,
efficient, economical, and environmentally compliant manufacturing methods. In
addition, the Laboratory develops and applies the science and technology required to
prevent, detect, and respond to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It works
actively on many fronts to control nuclear proliferation and smuggling, such as
developing new sensors and systems. It is also adapting advanced information and
computing technologies to meet the challenge of nuclear, biological, and chemical
weapons proliferation and terrorism. Major national security activities include the
following:
– Certification of the national nuclear weapons stockpile to ensure the safety, reliability,
and performance of the stockpile through activities such as Annual Certification and Dual
Revalidation.
– Stockpile Stewardship Program, to support the enduring nuclear stockpile including
surveillance, advanced surveillance and assessment; non-nuclear reconfiguration;
materials support; fissile materials disposition; and enhanced experimentation in
specialized facilities.
– Theory, modeling, and high performance computing in support of science-based
stockpile stewardship, including development of predictive three-dimensional simulation
and modeling codes and the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) to enable
development and validation of the necessary computational simulation capability.
– Technology and expertise for securing and reducing nuclear weapons and materials and
for preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Includes domestic and
international safeguards for nuclear materials and technology; joint programs with Russia
for securing and for converting and disposing of fissile material; and technologies to
verify arms control agreements.
– Detection and response technologies to counter proliferation or terrorism using nuclear,
chemical, or biological weapons or threats against the US critical infrastructure (electrical
grid, cyber, etc.), including training in unique facilities for national and international
inspectors. Also includes programs for the Department of Defense, such as defeat of hard
and deeply buried targets.
– Science and Math Education Program that gives students and teachers unique
experiences by tying projects to Laboratory programs and capabilities.

• Science and Technology Mission
Science and Technology programs at Los Alamos provide a strong foundation for the
Nation’s efforts in national security, energy, and the environment. The Laboratory
engages in a wide spectrum of fundamental and strategic research such as materials
science, neutron and accelerator science, high-performance computing, and biosciences.
Activities include:
– Nuclear and High-Energy Physics such as search for neutrino oscillations, heavy ion
physics, and particle physics research.
– Basic Energy Sciences such as development of advanced materials. Astrophysics and
Fusion Energy including Magnetized Target Fusion.
– Computation, Modeling, and Simulation, e.g., modeling of combustion systems, and



                                             51
the DELPHI Project modeling the oceans, epidemics, and infrastructure.
– Biological and Environmental Research including the Human Genome Project,
structural biology, epidemiology to develop the foundation for national health security
and programs that counter threats from biological agents and infectious disease.

• Environmental Quality Mission
Los Alamos Environmental programs contribute to the preservation of regional and world
sustainability. The Laboratory contributes to regional sustainability by addressing legacy
contamination, by managing its waste streams in a responsible manner and by
streamlining its operations. The Laboratory also contributes to solving complex
environmental problems by applying its scientific expertise. Global environmental issues
are addressed by linking environmental measurements, high-performance computing
modeling, simulation, and assessment capabilities that provide prediction tools for
decision-makers. These tools are used to evaluate the environmental consequences of
major decisions such as damming a river or the effects of urban sprawl in arid regions.
Major activities include the following:
– Environmental Restoration includes risk-based decontamination and decommissioning
of surplus facilities.
– Waste Management, international control of actinides in the environment; Yucca
Mountain site characterization.
– Pollution Prevention includes waste minimization, recycling, and process
improvements.
– Technical Assessments and modeling for evaluating potential environmental impacts.
– Environmental Technology Development, ocean and climate modeling, modeling of
wildfires, water resources, transportation system.

• Energy Resources Mission
Activities in the energy portfolio focus on improving the Nation’s energy efficiency,
enhancing energy independence, mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and developing
renewable energy sources. Major activities include:
– Energy and renewable energy research such as high-temperature superconductivity,
proton exchange membrane for fuel cells, and advanced computer programs for designing
cleaner combustion systems, development of clean car technology.
– Energy technology such as simulation of transportation systems, air quality, nuclear
waste management (e.g., characterizing the Yucca Mountain site), and medical isotope
production.
– Advanced Chemistry for the development of better catalysts.
– Carbon Management to prevent the emission of carbon dioxide generated in the
combustion of fossil fuels.

LANL identifies three scientific and technological components to address its mission.
They are Nuclear Weapons, Threat Reduction, and Strategic and Supporting Research.
The laboratory develops the strategic objectives under each component of the mission as
follows:




                                           52
•   Nuclear Weapons Objectives
    1. Maintain and certify the safety, reliability, and performance of U.S. nuclear
         weapons.
    2. Execute a preeminent science-based program that is the basis for the national
         Stockpile Stewardship Program.
    3. Conduct surveillance on and manufacture those nuclear weapons components
         assigned to the Laboratory by the U.S. national program in a safe, secure, and
         environmentally sound manner.
    4. Protect and strengthen the Department of Energy’s national security mission.
    5. Shape, respond to, and prepare for emergent national security issues in a timely
         and effective manner.
•   Threat Reduction Objectives
    1. Enhance U.S. and global security through expanded engagement of Russia
         rearding nuclear matters.
    2. Provided technologies to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and
         biological weapons; materials; and know-how on a global basis
         (nonproliferation).
    3. Provide technologies and assessments to counter weapons of mass destruction,
         terrorism, and proliferation.
    4. Solve technically challenging mission requirements for the U.S. military forces.
    5. Provide technologies to protect critical U.S. infrastructures from intrinsic
         vulnerabilities and all forms of attack.
•   Strategic Research Objectives
    1. Provide scientific leadership and serve as the nucleus for new programs and
         directions for the Laboratory.
    2. Foster excellence in basic research.

LANL adds some more objectives to address the integration of its science, technology
development, and programmatic activities.

•   Integration Objectives
    1. Strengthen and provide broad-based, scientifically grounded support for
         programmatic mission elements.
    2. Ensure that our core science and technology capabilities are integrated and are
         recognized by government, universities, and industry as being among the nation’s
         best.
    3. Foster partnerships with universities, industries, other government laboratories,
         and other scientific institutions to enhance our research efforts and to extend our
         capabilities.

In FY 1998, the total number of FTE employees was 7,140. Among them, 1,722 held
doctorate degrees and 2,066 held B.A. and M.A. degrees. Around one-third of LANL’s
technical staff are physicists, one-fourth are engineers, one-sixth are chemists and
material scientists, and the remainder are in mathematics and computational science,
biological science, geoscience, and other disciplines.




                                            53
                      Figure 16. LANL Organizational Chart




Source: LANL (2000)




                                      54
                            Figure 17. Technical Staff by Discipline


                                                                  Mathematics and
            Chemists
                                                                   Computational
            /Materials
                                                                     Science,
            Scientists
                                                                     Biological
              17%
                                                                     Science,
                                                                  Geoscience, and
                                                                  Other Disciplines
                                                                        25%




      Engineers
        25%




                                                     Physicists
                                                       33%




PRIORITY RESEARCH AREAS


Unfortunately, the data on funding and personnel structure in terms of research areas are
not available. Instead, available is the distributions of funding and personnel in terms of
Secretarial Officer, which may give us a good insight on the funding and personnel
structure of LANL. They are presented in the Table 12 and Table 13, respectively.
According to these tables, we could find that LANL is heavily involved in defense-
related research, which is primarily funded by Defense Office at DOE.

                         Table 12. Funding by Secretarial Officer ($M)
                     Actual Projected
                        Cost     Cost          BA          BA         BA          BA          BA     BA
                      FY98     FY99          FY00        FY01       FY02        FY03        FY04   FY05
Chief Financial Officer
Operating                2.2      1.5          0.0          0.0        0.0            0.0    0.0    0.0
Capital Equipment        0.0      0.0          0.0          0.0        0.0            0.0    0.0    0.0
Construction             0.0      0.0          0.0          0.0        0.0            0.0    0.0    0.0
Subtotal                 2.2      1.5          0.0          0.0        0.0            0.0    0.0    0.0

Counterintelligence
Operating                  0.0        1.4      1.4          1.4        1.4            1.4    1.4    1.4
Capital Equipment          0.0        0.0      0.0          0.0        0.0            0.0    0.0    0.0
Construction               0.0        0.0      0.0          0.0        0.0            0.0    0.0    0.0
Subtotal                   0.0        1.4      1.4          1.4        1.4            1.4    1.4    1.4



                                              55
Defense Programs
Operating              636.5      844.8   857.5   862.6   944.3   975.4   985.4 1,013.2
Capital Equipment       36.1       47.1     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0
Construction            83.1       96.1   114.3   120.8    29.8    19.9    25.0    20.0
Subtotal               755.7      988.0   971.8   983.4   974.1   995.3 1,010.4 1,033.2

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Operating             14.3      16.7       17.3    19.0    19.0    19.0    19.0    19.0
Capital Equipment      0.3       0.4        0.4     0.4     0.4     0.4     0.4     0.4
Construction           0.0       0.0        0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0
Subtotal              14.6      17.1       17.7    19.4    19.4    19.4    19.4    19.4

Environment, Safety, and Health
Operating               0.9         0.3     0.3     0.3     0.3     0.3     0.3     0.3
Capital Equipment       0.0         0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0
Construction            0.0         0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0
Subtotal                0.9         0.3     0.3     0.3     0.3     0.3     0.3     0.3

Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
Operating           147.9      84.8   104.3    102.9      112.1   138.4   160.1   162.9
Capital Equipment      4.4      4.3     0.0      0.0        0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0
Construction           0.3      0.1     0.0      0.0        0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0
Subtotal            152.6      89.2   104.3    102.9      112.1   138.4   160.1   162.9

Fissile Materials Disposition
Operating               24.8       27.4    37.6    44.3    35.2    26.7    20.1    12.1
Capital Equipment         2.6       1.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0
Construction              0.0       0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0
Subtotal                27.4       28.4    37.6    44.3    35.2    26.7    20.1    12.1

Fossil Energy
Operating                5.2        4.5     5.7     7.0     7.0     7.0     7.0     7.0
Capital Equipment        0.1        0.1     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0
Construction             0.0        0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0
Subtotal                 5.3        4.6     5.7     7.0     7.0     7.0     7.0     7.0

Human Resources and Administration
Operating            0.2        0.0         0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0
Capital Equipment    0.0        0.0         0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0
Construction         0.0        0.0         0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0
Subtotal             0.2        0.0         0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0

Nonproliferation and National Security
Operating            108.1      105.4     107.1   119.6   122.1   124.3   125.7   127.0
Capital Equipment      3.3        1.7       3.3     3.8     3.8     3.8     3.8     3.8
Construction           0.0        0.0       6.0     7.0    36.0     9.7     0.0     0.0
Subtotal             111.4      107.1     116.4   130.4   161.9   137.8   129.5   130.8

Nuclear Energy
Operating               12.6       12.2    14.3    13.7    13.7    13.7    13.7    13.7
Capital Equipment        1.3        0.9     0.5     1.4     1.4     1.4     1.4     1.4


                                           56
Construction                0.0         4.0        8.0        0.0       0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0
Subtotal                   13.9        17.1       22.8       15.1      15.1    15.1    15.1    15.1

Office of Science
Operating                  62.6        62.5       63.9       72.5      74.5    74.5    74.5    74.5
Capital Equipment           8.1         7.1        8.1        5.5       5.5     5.5     5.5     5.5
Construction                0.1         0.0        0.0        0.0       0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0
Subtotal                   70.8        69.6       72.0       78.0      80.0    80.0    80.0    80.0

Miscellaneous               0.0          0.0       0.0        0.0       0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0
 DOE Programs
Other DOE                  57.3        64.8      109.1     109.1      109.1   109.1   109.1   109.1
Facilities
(Reimbursables
DOE Work)
Subtotal DOE           1,072.6      1,226.3 1,318.5 1,352.4 1,438.7 1,489.8 1,516.3 1,540.2
Operating1

Work for Others
NRC                         2.8         2.7        1.8        1.0       1.0     1.0     1.0     1.0
DoD                        45.5        37.6       42.7       44.7      44.7    44.7    44.7    44.7
HHS/NIH                    10.7         7.1        7.4        4.8       4.8     4.8     4.8     4.8
NASA                        7.9         9.7        6.4        3.5       3.5     3.5     3.5     3.5
EPA                         0.8         0.5        0.6        0.6       0.6     0.6     0.6     0.6
Other Federal              28.7        30.0       31.2       33.2      33.2    33.2    33.2    33.2
Agencies
Private Industry           16.0        17.0       18.0       21.0      25.0    30.0    40.0    40.0
All Other                   2.7         2.5        2.0        2.0       2.0     2.0     2.0     2.0
Nonfederal
Subtotal Work for        115.1        107.1      110.1     110.8      114.8   119.8   129.8   129.8
Others

Total Program          1,187.7      1,333.4 1,428.6 1,463.2 1,553.5 1,609.6 1,646.1 1,670.0
Funding

Capital Equipment          56.2        62.6       12.3       11.1      11.1    11.1    11.1    11.1
General-Purpose             0.0         0.0        0.0        0.0       0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0
Equipment
Total Capital              56.2        62.6       12.3       11.1      11.1    11.1    11.1    11.1
Equipment

Program                    79.4        75.2      127.8     127.3       65.3    29.1    24.5    19.5
Construction2
General Plant               4.1        25.0        0.5        0.5       0.5     0.5     0.5     0.5
Projects (GPP)
Proposed                    0.0          0.0       0.0        0.0       0.0     0.0     0.0     0.0
Construction3
Total GPP/                 83.5       100.2      128.3     127.8       65.8    29.6    25.0    20.0
Construction4
1. DOEfunding includes net of transfers to other DOE contractors.
2. Program construction does not include any proposed construction.


                                                   57
3. Proposed construction is an optional estimate of future     construction funding.
4. Total GPP/Construction is also included in the individual construction funding.
Source: LANL (2000), Table 23.


                       Table 13. Personnel by Secretarial Officer in FTE
Description                Actual Projected
                            FTEs      FTEs         FTEs      FTEs      FTEs      FTEs       FTEs    FTEs
                            FY98     FY99          FY00      FY01      FY02      FY03       FY04    FY05
Chief Financial                2          1           0         0         0         0          0       0
Officer
Counterintelligence             0            6         6         6         6         6          6       6
Defense Programs            2,036        2,869     2,735     2,575     2,710     2,693      2,620   2,590
Energy Efficiency              50           61        61        65        63        61         59      57
and Renewable
Energy
Environment, Safety,             3            1          1        1         1           1      1       1
and Health
Environmental                 315          196       227       217       227       269       299     293
Restoration and
Waste Management
Fissile Materials              75           86       113       128        98           71     51      30
Disposition
Fossil Energy                  16            16       19        22        22           22     22      22
Human Resources                 1             0        0         0         0            0      0       0
and Administration
Nonproliferation and          326          327       319       344       336       328       318     308
National Security
Nuclear Energy                 49           51        58        54        52        50        48      46
Office of Science             239          251       247       268       265       256       247     238

Miscellaneous DOE                0            0          0        0         0           0      0       0
Programs
Other DOE                     193          210       269       269       269       269       269     269
Facilities
(Reimbursable DOE
Work)
Subtotal DOE                3,305        4,075     4,055     3,949     4,049     4,026      3,940   3,860
Programs
Work for Others
NRC                            10           10         7         4         4         4         4       4
DoD                           138          114       129       135       135       135       135     135
HHS/NIH                        46           31        32        21        21        21        21      21
NASA                           29           36        24        13        13        13        13      13
EPA                             3            2         2         2         2         2         2       2
Other Federal                  85           89        93        99        99        99        99      99
Agencies
Private Industry               57            61       65        76        90       108       144     144
All Other                      40            37       30        30        30        30        30      30



                                                    58
Nonfederal
Subtotal Work for        408        380     382      380     394     412      448     448
Others

Total Direct           3,713      4,455    4,437    4,329   4,443   4,438   4,388   4,308
Personnel for
Program Effort

Program Capital           64         68       13      11      11       11      11      11
Equipment
Program                  144        216     323      309     150       61      48       0
Construction
General-Purpose            0          0         0      0       0        0       0       0
Equipment
General Plant              2         10         6      6       6        6       6       0
Projects
General-Purpose            0          0         0      0       0        0       0       0
Facilities
Proposed                   0          0         0      0       0        0       0       0
Construction

Total Direct           3,923      4,749    4,779    4,655   4,610   4,516   4,453   4,319
Personnel

Total Indirect         3,390      3,390    3,390    3,390   3,390   3,390   3,390   3,390
Personnel
Source: LANL (2000), Table 24


OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS


LANL combines the performance appraisal and salary review processes in the
“Performance and Salary Management (PSM)” system. The purpose of PSM is to help
managers develop, motivate and guide employees so that they contribute most effectively
to the Laboratory’s mission, and to reward employees fairly and equitably for their
contributions. Practically, LANL set up PSM to: i) tie LANL average pay to market
average pay, ii) differentiate among employees, iii) link individual pay to individual
contribution, and iv) manage salaries, not raises.

As depicted in Figure 18, the Performance and Salary Management process has eight
main steps that are performed by employees, supervisors or both. It starts with draft
performance results, which is summarized into performance summary. This summary
becomes the basis for determination of Overall Relative Contribution (ORC) score, which
is reviewed and discussed at two levels. The results of performance appraisal feed back to
the process of salary review.




                                           59
        Figure 18. Performance Appraisal and Salary Review Process in LANL




                              Source: http://www.lanl.gov




    Figure 19. Timeline of Performance Appraisal and Salary Evaluation in LANL




Source: http://www.lanl.gov



                                          60
                  Table 14. Laboratory Funding Summary in $million
               Actual Projected
Funding          Cost      Cost      BA            BA       BA        BA        BA        BA
($M)            FY98     FY99       FY00          FY01     FY02      FY03      FY04      FY05
DOE
Funding        1,072.6   1,226.3   1,318.5   1,352.4      1,438.7   1,489.8   1,516.3   1,540.2
Work for
Others          115.1     107.1     110.1         110.8    114.8     119.8     129.8     129.8
Subtotal
Operating
Funding        1,187.7   1,333.4   1,428.6   1,463.2      1,553.5   1,609.6   1,646.1   1,670.0
Program
Capital
Equipment        56.2      62.6      12.3          11.1     11.1      11.1      11.1      11.1
Program
Construction     79.4      75.2     127.8         127.3     65.3      29.1      24.5      19.5
General-
Purpose
Facilities         0.0       0.0       0.0          0.0       0.0       0.0       0.0       0.0
General
Plant
Projects           4.1     25.0        0.5          0.5       0.5       0.5       0.5       0.5
General-
Purpose
Equipment          0.0       0.0       0.0          0.0       0.0       0.0       0.0       0.0
Total
Laboratory     1,327.4   1,496.2   1,569.2   1,602.1      1,630.4   1,650.3   1,682.7   1,701.1
Funding
Source: LANL (2000), Table 21


For strengthening and sustaining its scientific competency, LANL established three
programs: a) University of California-Directed Research and Development (UCDRD); b)
Laboratory-Directed Research and Development (LDRD); and c) Science and
Mathematics Education.

First, by recognizing the importance of synergistic interactions among the UC campuses,
the Laboratory, and New Mexico institutions of higher education, LANL established the
UCDRD program through which collaborative research projects involving LANL and
universities in California and New Mexico are funded. There are four subprograms that
are being funded under this program: a) Collaborative UC/LANL Research Program
focusing on materials science, bioscience and biotechnology, and earth and evironmental
systems; b) UC Research Partnership Initiatives that provide seed funding for
collaborations with UC campuses; c) New Mexico Universities Collaborative Research
focusing on bioscience and biotechnology, earth and environmental systems, materials
and manufacturing, and satellites and remote sensing; and d) New Mexico Universities
Research Partnership Initiatives that provide seed funding for collaborations with New
Mexico universities. Materials science, earth and environmental systems, and


                                             61
biotechnology are the major research areas for funding under these programs. They are
functioning as a part of strengthening the close partnerships with community (universities
and state institutes) as well as its competency for the future.

Second, the LDRD program is authorized by Congress to invest up to a maximum of 6
percent of the operating budget for extending LANL’s science and technology capabilities.
In FY 1998, the total funding of this program was $67.7 million. Under this program,
there are two categorical components of the Exploratory Research (ER) for relatively
smaller projects and the Directed Research (DR) for addressing longer-term strategic
objectives of the Laboratory. Competitive peer and/or scientific manager reviews are
adopted for the selection of projects under this program. The key selection criteria are
innovation and scientific excellence (such as scientific and technical merit, creativity,
originality of the proposed effort, and the ability of the team to succeed within the
budgetary constraints). The Director makes the ultimate decisions on project funding.
Examples of successful projects under this program include: a) determining the Neutron
Lifetime and Developing an Ultracold Neutron Source, b) Mutiscale Science for Science-
Based Stockpile Stewardship, c) Reaction processes in Energetic materials, d) Dynamic
Fracture of Heterogeneous Materials, e) Advancing X-Ray Hydroradiography, f) The
Molecular Basis of Universal Scaling Laws in Biology, and g) Sensors for Point
Detection of Biological and Chemical Warfare Agents.

Third, LANL has established a program for science and mathematics education, primarily
funded by DOE’s Office of Defense Programs. This program supports all kinds of science
and mathematics educational programs from kindergarten to postdoctoral and from
students to teachers. Diversity has been an important objective of this program.


                   Table 15. Laboratory Personnel Summary in FTE
Personnel (FTEs)        FY98     FY99    FY00     FY01    FY02     FY03     FY04    FY05
Direct
DOE Effort              3,305    4,075   4,055    3,949   4,049    4,026    3,940   3,860
Work for Others           408      380     382      380     394      412      448     448
Subtotal Direct for
 Program Effort         3,713    4,455   4,437    4,329   4,443    4,438    4,388   4,308
Program Capital
Equipment                  64       68      13       11      11       11       11      11
Program Construction      146      226     329      315     156       67       54       0
Total Direct            3,923    4,749   4,779    4,655   4,610    4,516    4,453   4,319
Indirect                3,390    3,390   3,390    3,390   3,390    3,390    3,390   3,390
Total Personnel         7,313    8,139   8,169    8,045   8,000    7,906    7,843   7,709
Source: LANL (2000), Table 22


Besides work for DOE, LANL conducts research for other agencies including NRC,
DOD, HHS/NIH, NASA, EPA as well as for private industry.




                                           62
             Table 16. Major partnerships, collaborations, and CRADAs
MISSION          PARTNER                                      DESCRIPTION
National         SGI/Cray, Cray Research, LLNL and            ASCI Tri-lab advanced computing
Security         Sandia                                       initiative,
                                                              High Performance Computing
                 Russia, IAEA, Sandia, LLNL, ORNL             Nonproliferation
                 Rensselaer Polytech. Inst., U of Illinois,   Explosives science and technology.
                 Utah, Delaware, Illinois, Hawaii, and
                 Washington St, UNM
                 Colorado School of Mines (with NREL)
                 Cambridge (UK), Cal Tech, Oak Ridge          Materials Science and technology
                 Y-12, Cornell, Xerox                         Knowledge management

Environmental    DoD (Yuma), NOAA, DOI, Bandelier             Water Quality and Environmental
Quality          Nat Mon                                      studies
                 USGS, UN State (Governor and
                 Engineer), IT Corp
                 Rocky Flats, LLNL, Sandia, LBL,              Clean-up Waste Mgnt .&
                 WIPP,                                        Transportation. (Inc. Yucca Mtn.)
                 Pantex, NATO, Faraday, FETC                  Green Chemistry
                 EPA, NREL, PNNL                              Ocean and climate modeling
                 NCAR
Science &        U of Chicago, Illinois, Stanford, and        Supercomputing, Quantum
Technology       Caltech.                                     Computing,
                 U of Wisconsin & Minnesota, MIT,             Non linear systems studies
                 NSA USG                                      mathematical modeling,
                 U of Arizona, State U of New York,           prediction, simulation
                 Proctor & Gamble,
                 ORNL, Fermilab, Brookhaven, CERN,            Physics & model verification
                 Kamiokande
                 All-Russian Sci Res Insti of
                 Experimental Physics (VNIIF)
                 State U of New York
                 Power Superconducting Devices,               Superconductivity
                 Boeing, ABB, Perilli,
                 Oxford Inst, Argonne, ORNL,
                 Brookhaven, Sandia
                 LLNL: LBNL

Energy           Dpt. of Transportation, EPA,                 Joint Genome Institute for
Resources        Cummings, Caterpillar,                        Sequencing DNA
                 Cray Research                                Simulation and Modeling,
                 French Petroleum Institute                    ACTI IFP
Source: LANL (2000), p.171.


LANL collaborates with universities and industry in both basic and applied research to
accomplish its missions. It has carried out collaborative research with more than 230
universities worldwide. It has also executed over 270 CRADAs, nearly $750 million


                                              63
worth of company and laboratory effort over the lives of the projects, mostly in science,
technology and energy.

Table 16 presents some of collaborative research efforts. High-performance computing
and special facilities in all mission areas provide most partnering opportunities.

In 1992 the contract between DOE and UC for management for the Laboratory set forth a
performance-based management system in which performance is measured against
negotiated objective standards. This performance-based management system requires
measuring the Laboratory’s performance in two specific areas: a) science and technology
and b) administrative and operations systems.

External peer reviews are utilized to assess the quality of the laboratory’s science and
technology. The reviews conducted by all peer review committees are submitted to the
UC Office of the President (UCOP). The UC President’s Council evaluates the reports
and makes recommendations to the President of the UC. Then UC submits a report to
DOE and DOE uses this information as part of its overall assessment of the Laboratory.

LANL develops four broad criteria that are used for the evaluation of divisions by each
review committee: a) quality of science, b) relevance to national needs and agency
missions, c) performance in the technical development and operation of major research
facilities, and d) programmatic performance and planning.




                                           64
AMES LABORATORY (Ames)


INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW


Ames Laboratory (Ames) is a Government-Owned/Contractor-Operated research institute
that is managed by Iowa State University for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The
primary facilities of Ames are physically located within the Iowa State University at
Ames, Iowa, thus accomplishing cost-effective research by utilizing the research facilities
already built in the University. In FY 2000, Ames’ estimated annual budget was
approximately $27 million and the total number of employees is approximately 500,
including 260 scientists and engineers.

Officially established in 1947 by the Atomic Energy Commission, Ames was originally
part of the Office of Scientific Research and Development devoted to the Manhattan
Project. For the success of the Manhattan Project, a large amount of uranium metal with
purity far beyond what was then commercially available was necessary. To meet this
demand, the Ames Project was set up in 1942 by Iowa State College’s Frank H. Spedding,
an expert in the chemistry of rare earths, to develop the most efficient production process
of high-purity uranium metal in large quantities for atomic energy. As a result of
successful development of new methods for both meting and casting uranium metal that
enabled reducing production costs dramatically, the Project ultimately became the Ames
Laboratory in 1947.

The primary missions of Ames are “to provide diverse fundamental and applied research
strengths upon issues of national concern, to cultivate tomorrow’s research talent, and to
develop and transfer technologies to improve industrial competitiveness and to enhance
U.S. economic security.” (Ames, 2000) These missions are essentially consistent with
DOE’s vision “to increase the general levels of knowledge and technical capabilities, to
prepare engineering and physical sciences students for the future, and to develop new
technologies and practical applications arising from our basic scientific programs.” As
one of the twelve Program Dedicated Laboratories within the DOE complex, Ames
especially finds its primary role in complying with the Fundamental Science mission of
DOE’s Office of Science, which is stated as “directed to the fundamental properties of
matter, materials, and biological systems… ” That is, the primary role of Ames is to
provide fundamental research in material sciences. More recently, Ames has broadened
its scope beyond materials synthesis and processing (materials sciences). The research
areas currently include photosynthesis, chemical analysis, chemical sciences,
environmental and protection sciences, applied mathematical sciences, engineering
sciences, and physical sciences. The major foci of these research areas are energy
production and utilization and environmental restoration and waste management. In
addition, Ames also identifies the technology transfer, training or education, and technical
services as its important roles.




                                            65
                           Figure 20. Organization Chart of Ames

                                             Director
Education              Internal              Deputy            Office of            Public Affairs
Coordinator            Auditor               Director     Industrial Outreach      and Information

                                                                    Environment, Safety,
                                                                    Health & Assurance




                          Division of                       Division of Technical and
                    Science and Technology                  Administrative Services


Applied Mathematics and                Matallurgy and
                                                                                 Accounting
Computational Sciences                   Ceramics

                                                                                 Budget
 Biorenuwable Resources                     Materials Preparation
                                                   Center                        Engineering
                                                                                   Servies
       Condensed Matter
                                       Molecular Processes
           Physics                                                               Facilities
                                                                                 Services
      Environmental and                Nondestructive
     Protection Sciences                 Evaluation                               Human
                                                                                 Resources
                                       Physical and Biological
     Materials Chemistry                                                         Information
                                             Chemistry
                                                                                  Systems
                       Representatives to
                         Interlaboratory                                          Purchasing and
                          Committees                                             Property Services


Source: Ames (2000), Institutional Plan FY 2001 – 2006, p.55

Under lab director Ames has two broad divisions, the division of science and technology
and the division of technical and administrative services. The former directly involves in
fundamental and applied research while the latter provides operational support. The
division of science and technology consists of several program offices such as Applied
Mathematics and Computational Sciences, Metallurgy and Ceramics, Biorenewable
Resources, Condensed Matter Physics, Molecular Processes, Environmental and
Protection Sciences, Nondestructive Evaluation, Materials Chemistry, Physical and
Biological Chemistry. A special service center under Metallurgy and Ceramics office,
called the Materials Preparation Center (MPC), has been established to provide advanced
materials and technical expertise to industry, university and government research
communities.


                                               66
PRIORITY RESEARCH AREAS


Ames conducts the long-term basic and intermediate-range applied research needed to
solve the complex problems encountered in energy production and utilization as well as
environmental restoration and waste management. The priority research areas are clearly
summarized in its scientific and engineering core competencies. The Institutional Plan of
Ames declares that the laboratory has core competencies in:
    • Advanced Materials Synthesis, Characterization and Processing
    • Computational and Theoretical Sciences
    • Environmental Characterization and Remediation Technologies
    • Chemical and Analytical Sciences

These priority research areas are reflected in the nine subdivisions of the division of
science and technology. They are: a) Applied Mathematics and Computational Sciences,
b) Biorenewable Resources, c) Condensed Matter Physics, d) Environmental and
Protection Sciences, e) Materials Chemistry, f) Metallurgy and Ceramics, g) Molecular
Processes, h) Nondestructive Evaluation, and i) Physical and Biological Chemistry.

Basically, the research areas of Ames comply with the missions of DOE’s Office of
Science. The following are the some specific research areas or projects contributing to the
visionary missions of DOE’s Office of Science:12
1. Fuel the Future – Science for clean and affordable energy
    • Chemical Energy
    • Chemical Separations and Analysis
    • High Performance Quasicrystal-Polymer Composites
    • High Temperature Materials for Reduced Emissions
    • The First Icosahedral Chain – an Intermetallic Nona-Wire
    • Thermochemistry of Organogermanium Precursors for Germanium Chemical
       Vapor Deposition
    • Remarkable Solid, Remarkable Surface
    • High-Resolution Pulsed Field Ionization-Photo-electron (PFI-PE) and PFI-PE-
       Photoion Coincidence Spectroscopy at the Chemical Dynamics Beamline
    • Prosessing of High Temperature Superconductors
    • Solidification Control of Permanent Magnets
    • Solidification Microstructures
    • Plastic Processing of Metallic Glasses
    • Shedding New Light on Advanced Materials
    • Resonant and Nonresonant X-ray Scattering Determination of Magnetic Structure
    • Invention of a New Integrated Organic Light-emitting Sensor
    • Photonic Band Gap (PBG) Materials



12
  For more information on each research areas or projects, see Institutional Plan: FY 2001 – 2006, Ames
Laboratory, December 2000, pp. 11-22.


                                                   67
2. Protect Our Living Planet – Energy Impacts on People and the Biosphere
   • Development of a Mercury Continuous Emission Monitor
   • Identification of Trace Elements in Biological Systems

3. Explore Matter and Energy – Building Blocks from Atoms to Life
   • Low Temperature Growth of Self-organized Structures: Pb on Si (111)
   • RNi2B2C Magnetic Crystals: Testing “Conventional” Superconductivity

4. Provide Extraordinary Tools for Extraordinary Science – National Assets for
   Multidisciplinary Research
   • Computational Materials Sciences Network
   • Process Science Initiative at the Materials Preparation Center

Ames intends to extend its capabilities in a variety of new areas such as biochemical
characterization, biorenewable resources and forensic science instrumentation and
application.

                        Figure 21. Funding by Secretarial Officer

                                                                   2%
                                          7%        1% 4%
                                    0%
                                                                        2%




                                                84%



                Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renew able Energy
                Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
                Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy
                Office of Nonproliferation and National Security
                Office of Science
                Office of Security and Emergency Operations
                Reimbursable Work for Others




                                                   68
Unfortunately, there is no information about the distribution of research budget and
personnel by research area. Instead, the secretarial office becomes a meaningful criterion
for distribution of funding and personnel in Ames. The distributions of funding and
personnel by secretarial office in FY 2000 are presented in the latest Institutional Plan
(pp.57-62) and Figure 21 and Figure 22 below.

Figure 21 and Figure 22 show that Ames conducts research mostly for DOE’s Office of
Science (84% of funding and 55% of personnel). This implies the basic science focus of
Ames. In addition, Ames also undertakes work for other DOE offices including Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Environmental Restoration and Waste Management,
Fossil Energy, Nonproliferation and National Security, and Security and Emergency
Operations. However, funding from other DOE offices accounts for less than 10% of the
total. Finally, about 7% of Ames’ work is funded by federal agencies other than DOE,
including DOD, DOC, and HHS. About one-third of work force has a supporting role and
two-thirds are involved in scientific research activities.


                           Figure 22. Personnel by Secretarial Officer

                                                                      1%3%
                                                                           1%
                                                                            1%
                            34%




             0%

              3%

                  2%
                                                                             55%
                   0%
                   Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renew able Energy
                   0%
                   Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
                   Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy
                   Office of Nonproliferation and National Security
                   Office of Science
                   Office of Security and Emergency Operations
                   Other DOE Facilities
                   Office of Chief Financial Officer
                   Private Industry
                   All Other Non-Federal
                   Total Indirect




                                                       69
OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS


Ames’ management anticipates increasing demand for more innovative materials
synthesis and processing, for increased federal laboratory–industry partnering, for
characterization and remediation of environmentally degraded sites worldwide, and for
combining of practical hands-on scientific training with formal education. It is confronted
with stagnating federally funded research which makes it difficult to acquire, upgrade,
and maintain institute’s facilities and equipment. Based on such analysis, Ames sets five
visionary goals and develops specific strategies for their achievement as follow:

1. Enhance and strengthen the Laboratory’s scientific and technical programs.
   • Promote interdisciplinary research activities and pursue new interdisciplinary
     research opportunities;
   • Nurture the excellence of its scientific and technical work in a cost-effective
     manner;
   • Actively seek funding for major integrating activities.

2. Implement self-identified organizational improvements and increase existing
   organizational efficiencies.
   • Improve its Environment, Safety, and Health (ES&H) systems by fully complying
      with DOE’s Integrated Safety Management policy;
   • Implement appropriate hardware/software systems for open but secure cyber
      network;
   • Assure protection of proprietary, confidential and sensitive information;
   • Provide opportunities for employees to complete training in new and emerging
      management areas;
   • Diversify its workforce and seek diversified partnerships;
   • Streamline reporting, performance evaluation metrics, web-based data-collection
      and analysis, and other cost- and time-effective tools;
   • Commit to a rigorous performance measurement through peer reviews,
      performance audits, DOE performance reviews, and new management and
      performance measurement tools;

3. Extend the laboratory’s industrial relations.
   • Encourage private sector industry participation in cooperative research and
      development efforts;
   • Encourage Ames scientists, researchers and staffs to cooperate with industry and
      to actively pursue Work for Others;
   • Encourage the creation and development of spin-off companies;
   • See to participate in DOE’s Laboratory Technology Research Program, the Iowa
      Companies Assistance Program (ICAP) the SBIR and STTR programs, and other
      related University, State and Federal initiatives.




                                            70
4. Increase Laboratory Outreach.
   • Enhance the Laboratory’s internal and external communications;
   • Participate in DOE, multi-laboratory, university and advanced business
      communications efforts;
   • Maintain effective public affairs output to DOE and ISU stakeholders;
   • Nurture the constituencies;
   • Apply to nationally recognized award programs.

5. Continue and strengthen the Laboratory’s education programs.
   • Continue support for undergraduate and graduate students, and postdoctoral
     researchers;
   • Continue to foster close working relationships with nontraditional or under
     represented population segments to science and engineering;
   • Increase the numbers of all students entering scientific disciplines.

As a partial way to accomplish the projected goals and strategies, Ames proposes several
new program initiatives13 in the following research fields:
   • Forensic Science – pursue to establish a regional center where Ames can work
       with diverse organizations such as FBI, DOJ, the Iowa Criminalistics Laboratory
       (ICL), and others at federal, state and local levels in order to utilize Ames’s
       traditional core strengths for forensic sciences.
   • Biorenewable Resources – develop alternatives to fossil resources and
       petrochemicals based on agricultural resources by establishing a strong new
       partnership with ISU and agricultural industry and two new programs, the
       Biorenewable Refining Program and Virtual Pilot Plants Program.
   • Medical Imaging Enhancement – establish a program for enhancement in medical
       imaging, novel cancer screening technologies, by combining intellectual resources
       in Ames and ISU.
   • Biochemical Characterization and Instrumentation – develop new technological
       approaches, methodology and instrumentation applicable to a wide range of
       biomolecular analyses utilizing the existing research resources such as Physical
       and Biological Chemistry Program and Office of Biological and Environmental
       Research.
   • Catalysis Center – establish a center to facilitate the exchange of scientific
       information and promote collaboration between various groups and laboratories
       involved in DOE sponsored catalysis research.

In its operation, Ames reportedly emphasizes the importance of safe and healthy work
environment. That is, Ames is dedicated to conducting activities in a safe manner and
maintaining the health of its employees while protecting or improving the quality of the
environment. For this operational goal, Ames has set up the Environment, Safety, Health
& Assurance Office and the Ames Laboratory’s Integrated Safety Management System
(ISMS), through which the Laboratory’s Work Smart Standards (WSS) have been

13
  For more information, see Institutional Plan: FY 2001 – 2006, Ames Laboratory, December 2000, pp.
23-29.


                                                 71
implemented in accordance with the performance-based elements of the M&O contract
with DOE. The Laboratory’s ISMS is regularly audited via an ISM Self-Assessment and
reviewed via Verification Assessment.

An important priority for Ames is strong partnerships with communities and stakeholders
and enhancement of public trust. Ames is a member of the Industrial Advisory Board of
the Institute for Physical Research and Technology (IPRT), including as members ten top-
level research and development officials from Fortune 500 and other U.S. companies.
The board offers insight and advice to the director of Ames on the Laboratory’s future
direction such as new technical opportunities and directions and research-funding
strategies. In addition, the ISU Ames Laboratory Oversight Committee provides oversight
on Ames management and operation. Ames Laboratory Community Advisory Group,
consisted of citizens with diverse backgrounds, is formed to provide recommendations
and advice regarding environmental restoration and related issues. Finally, Ames makes
great efforts such as establishment of Ames Public Library and publications of Inquiry
magazine and internal newsletter, Insider, to build close communications with
communities and robust public trusts.

Ames actively pursues effective partnerships with other federal labs, industry, and
universities. Examples of such interactions include:
   • The Materials Preparation Center (IPC) prepares high-purity metals for many of
       the Laboratories.
   • Ames cooperates with Brookhaven National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National
       Laboratory in order to challenge the High Performance Computing and
       Communication initiative.
   • For the research of weathering of paint, Ames cooperates with four industrial
       partners through the scheme of CRADA.
   • Ames forms the Computational Materials Science Network with Oak Ridge and
       Pacific Northwest Laboratories for advancement of computational materials
       science.
   • Ames cooperates with Sandia National Laboratory for the research on photonic
       band gaps.
   • Ames cooperates with the Advance Photon Source (APS) at Argonne National
       Laboratory for construction and instrumentation of an undulator beamline.
   • Ames cooperates with scientists from Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory for
       the research of surface structure determination using electron diffraction of
       quasicrystals.

In selecting research projects, Ames closely works with managers at DOE headquarters,
especially in Germantown. Both top-down and bottom-up project selection processes are
adopted. Research projects for nanotechnologies, for example, are typically demanded by
DOE because this is a technological area of national interest. Meanwhile, scientists in
Ames often bring their research ideas to the program setting stage. A third avenue for
project initiation is through Ames scientist response to calls for proposals by DOE in new
programs.



                                           72
Typically, program managers or directors – i.e., upper level administrators – as well as
University faculty select the individual research projects. They interact and cooperate
with the counterparts in DOE headquarters (Germantown) for the selection. The most
important criterion for the selection of research projects is good science complying with
the agency missions.

In its personnel management, Ames pursues diversity and training. More than half of
research staff is in ages between 35 and 50. Meanwhile, Ames also maintains a
continuous flow of new approaches and fresh ideas into its research programs by
accepting substantial numbers of graduate and postdoctoral associates as permanent
scientific staff. Diversity in sex and race is pursued by fully complying with all policies
and procedures of affirmative action and equal employment opportunity established by
ISU. Since Ames does not carry out security work, employees do not need to be U.S.
citizens. Graduate students from China are the majority of non-US employees.


                        Table 17. Laboratory Staff Composition
    Occupational Codes                 Total PhD MS/MA BS/BA Other
          Professional Staff
    Scientists                            88      62        13       13         0
    % of Total                            38      84        62       30         0
    Engineers                              7       3         1         3        0
    % of Total                             3       4         5         7        0
    Management & Administration           50       9         6       21        14
    % of Total                            22      12        28       49        15
          Support Staff
    Technicians                           16       0         0         0       16
    % of Total                             7       0         0         0       17
    All Other                             70       0         1         6       63
    % of Total                            30       0         5       14        68
    Total                                231      74        21       43        93
Source: Ames (2000), Institutional Plan: FY2001-2006, Ames Laboratory, Table 2.
Laboratory Staff Composition (Full- and Part-time Permanent Employees) – 2000, p.37.


Permanent staff at Ames are ISU employees, falling in one of three employee groups: i)
Faculty, ii) Professional and Scientific, and iii) Merit. Faculty employees are academics
recruited through their home department. Professional and Scientific (P&S) employees
are ISU employees without faculty rank; they are recruited through Ames’ Human
Resources Office. Merit employees are permanent employees who are recruited through
the Merit Employment Office at ISU. About 20% of the Ames employees are university
graduate students and another 5-10% are post-docs.

Ames motivates its people by creating hard-working ethics and environment. Ames,
however, undertakes intensive annual evaluations on its people, programs and research


                                            73
projects. Evaluations are carried out not only internally but also by external review teams
including DOE reviews. Since the research works at Ames is mostly of basic nature, the
most critical criteria for the evaluation of Ames’ researchers are the traditional factors
such as publications in reputable journals, citations, lectures, etc. Such evaluations are
mostly annual reviews, except some programmatic projects for customers that are
evaluated quarterly or semiannually.

For the continuous upgrade of its S&T capabilities, Ames also provides various training
opportunities to its employees. Internally, the General Employee Training (GET),
Emergency Awareness Training, Training Needs Assessment Process, and the Ames
Laboratory Training Records System (ALTRS) focus on the laboratory’s new and existing
employees. Externally, Ames takes advantage of ISU resources to support and attendance
of its employees in continuing education opportunities.

Ames’ facilities consist of the government-owned and ISU-owned buildings on
approximately 10 acres of University land that has been leased to the Federal government
on a long-term basis. Although all these facilities get an ‘outstanding’ rating in terms of
the Facilities and Business Performance Based Contract Measure, most buildings are
aged over 30 years. For the anticipated rehabilitation needs and other construction plans,
Ames has requested increased funding from DOE.

One of the major goals of Ames is to expand industrial relations and technology transfer
by encouraging industry to participate with the Laboratory’s research and by fostering
spin-off companies based on Laboratory developed technologies. To accomplish this goal
effectively, the Office of Industrial Outreach has been established to manage several
programs such as CRADAs, Information Exchange and Referral, Intellectual Property
Management, Technical Assistance, and Work for Others (WFO). In FY 2000, four
CRADAs were ongoing and one was under negotiation. Through the Materials Referral
System Hotline (MRSH), Ames responds to over 200 inquiries on materials information a
year. It is primarily the responsibility of Iowa State University Research Foundation
(ISURF) to obtain patents for inventions resulting from funded work at Ames and to
market such inventions to interested industrial clients. In FY 2000, eight patent
applications were filed, three were awarded patents, and eight patents were licensed by
ISURF. The partners under WFO include Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ARPA, NIST,
and NIH. Ames also contributes its technical expertise to Iowa companies. Besides these
programs, Ames exploits a DOE User Facility, Materials Preparation Center (MPC), to
provide specialized materials preparation and characterization services to industry,
university and government research communities including companies such as AT&T and
Pratt & Whitney. One example in FY 2000 was the assistance of MPC with the
preparation of alloys for fabrication of superconducting wire for building a Korean
Tokomak.

Ames also receives research funds from state government, specifically the Iowa
Economic Development Department. State money is used to help Iowa manufacturers.
When such a company requests technical assistance that can be solved within the lab or
university, the lab provides technical services without charge if the work is less than 40



                                            74
hours. If the work is anticipated to be over 40 hours, it becomes a research project on a
contract basis and cost-sharing with the company (1:2). Ames not only responds to state
industrial requests but also actively tries to outreach to various interest groups within the
state and detect state industrial needs.

A GOCO like Ames managed by a university and staged on (or near) campus has a lot of
advantages in undertaking public research. It also entails some problems relating to the
delicate relationship between the lab and the university. For example, a faculty member
may argue that he/she is able to run a lab project cheaper at the university. Such project
competition between the lab and the university is very hard to resolve. Another example
involves the case where a faculty member refuses to involve in a lab project simply
because it is not considered interesting. Ames cannot fully control its people because its
employees are also faculties at the university.


THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE AT DOE


The last three sections reviewed three GOCOs of the same government agency, the U.S.
Department of Energy. Although it has been very useful to review them individually since
their organizational and operational practices are very different, it is also very useful to
briefly overview priority setting one level above, at the surveillance Office of Science.

At DOE, the Defense Office manages nuclear weapon labs such as Sandia, Livermore,
and Los Alamos while the Office of Science (OS) manages the civilian part of national
labs that do primarily pure basic science. OS has annual budget of around $3 billion.
Each national lab under OS surveillance is unique in its culture and areas of concentration
so that the direct comparison is very difficult.

Within OS there are six major research programs according to broad disciplinary
categories, each of which is managed by an associate director. Each associate director is
responsible for peer review, management of budget, and overall oversight of his/her
discipline. Each associate director is advised by an advisory committee on budget
allocation. Associate directors stay closely associated to their disciplinary communities.
Under the six associate directors, there are about 110 program managers, all Ph.D.
holding scientists deeply involved in their scientific fields. Each of these scientists
manages 50 to 200 projects related to his/her scientific field.

DOE funds science not only for meeting its primary missions but also for assisting the
country to maintain international leadership in important disciplines. The process of
national science priority setting is a complicated process involving many stakeholders
including government agencies such as OSTP and OMB, Congress, and many scientific
communities and associations. For such national priority science fields OS creates
research-funding programs, typically calling for 3-year research proposals, which are
mostly renewable. OS normally allocates around 10-15% of its annual budget to new
programs.



                                             75
DOE puts great effort on appraisal and evaluation of national labs and their research
projects. Peer review is the major method, for which pretty standardized guidelines are
set up. An example is the David Lehman evaluation process for big projects reaching
normally over $500 million. According to this process, about ten reviewers together
review all scientific aspects of the program semi-annually. Other examples are annual lab
review for the purpose of GPRA and annual invited external reviews which is basically
qualitative evaluation done by members of the National Academy, CRS, or industrial
associations. The most fundamental criteria for evaluation are scientific excellence,
mission relevance, and international leadership. OS is now placing great effort to develop
new quantitative performance measurement methods that can give more objective scores.
Such heavy evaluation burden seems to cause scientists’ complain of over-evaluation,
particularly in defense labs.




                                           76
CONCLUSION: SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR KOREAN GRIs

An important feature of all reviewed US public research institutes is their customer
orientation. The way they go about satisfying the customer (sponsor) differs significantly
across institutes given that we chose institutes with different sponsors and different
missions and research foci. All reviewed institutes are mission-oriented, each with a
different mission which pretty much defines their core research concentrations. It is,
however, worth underlying the extent of their effort to not just “please” their customers in
a passive sense of the term but to outreach customers, be it scientific communities,
government agencies, private industry, Congress and the general public. A great deal of
effort is put in promoting the effectiveness of their work, providing evidence of benefits,
and outreaching for support the government and other sources.

This effort drives the reviewed public research institutes to be customer-oriented in
forming research programs, in setting research priorities, and in selecting areas of
concentration. In turn, this leads to the establishment of well-organized external review
systems, an important part of public accountability.

Both top-down and bottom-up processes have been adopted in setting research priorities.
But our impression regarding the proposal and selection of specific research projects is
that the latter process (bottom-up) is much better developed. This seems to be the case at
implementation even when the missions and research area priorities are assigned from the
top.

Public research institutes, at least those reviewed here, undertake research in more basic
and/or generic areas beyond the capabilities or willingness of companies to undertake on
their own. There is always consideration of whether a public research institute replicates
work by, thus competing with, the private sector. PRIs in the US are always trying to
focus on “market failures” in supporting R&D with widespread expected socio-economic
benefits. In other words, PRIs try to complement and promote the free market rather than
substituting for it.

Perhaps as a reflection of their success until now, US public research institutes continue
to struggle with the same questions that this study poses. How to change the priority
setting system in order to be more accountable to the customers, adaptable to the future
economic and technological environments, and effective to achievement of their
missions? How to motivate researchers to be dedicated ever more on organizational
missions and customers? How to reorganize the institutions for the future S&T needs?
These are fundamental questions to which answers depend very much on the context. In
other words, public research institute reform should not be considered as a one-time
action but an on-going process in an era of fast evolving S&T environments and needs.

It was also noticeable, in fact it was always stressed during interviews, that every institute
gives high priority on safety, environment, contribution to communities, education and
training functions and partnerships with industry and universities. In the majority of
Korean research institutes, these functions may have been considered less urgent and of
lower priority until recently.


                                             77
One of the obstacles that Korean GRIs now encounter is the bureaucratic stereotype that
resulted from management under semi-public organization. This might be overcome by
offering their management to private firms, which are more likely to pursue
organizational efficiencies.

This relatively brief study of selected U.S. public research institutes tells us that diversity
is a prominent characteristic of the U.S. public research system. Management takes
various forms and their organization is very diverse in terms of size, funding, and
personnel. A possible implication for the current Korean GRI reform is for restructuring
to improve diversity. By specializing their missions, optimizing their organizational
structures according to the missions, and diversifying their funding sources and
management forms, Korean GRIs can improve efficiency and effectiveness in achieving
their objectives.

Regardless of their organizational types, all public research institutes in the U.S. are very
systematic and aggressive in developing long-term and annual strategic plans based on
rigorous performance evaluations. These efforts provide the opportunity to assess the
balance between changing environments and research competencies of the institutes
regularly, and can inform the process of reform and continuous readjustment. Korean
GRIs should devote substantial effort to strengthen the strategic planning and evaluation
processes and to link them together for valuable feedback.

Korean GRIs should consider becoming much more of team players with industry than in
the past. That is, they must try to commit to meeting industry R&D needs and
supplementing industrial R&D activity rather than leading it. In a changed environment
where the level of industrial innovation is much improved, GRIs should focus on
identifying industrial R&D needs and future technological trends and incorporating them
into their into long-term strategic planning process. Such identification is becoming
increasingly difficult as Korea has risen to the forefront of global innovation in several
industries.

This is the time when Korean GRIs should try to focus their effort on basic or applied
research of more generic nature, with the objective to spread benefits across sectors.
Given Korea’s success in rising as one of the major industrial forces in recent decades, it
is considered that public needs for industrial innovation will be better served by GRIs
concentrating on this kinds of research rather than trying to compete with industry in the
development of specific technologies. The exception, of course, will be the cases of GRIs
doing research relating to public goods such as national defense.




                                              78
REFERENCES



American Association for the Advancement of Science (2000a), AAAS Report XXV:
    Research and Development FY 2001, Intersociety Working Group

American Association for the Advancement of Science (2000b), Congressional Action on
    R&D in the FY 2001 Budget, Intersociety Working Group

Ames Laboratory (2001), Self-Assessment and Performance Measures: Annual Report
    Calendar Year 2000, Ames Laboratory, Ames, Iowa

Ames Laboratory (2000), Institutional Plan: 2001-2006, Ames Laboratory, Ames, Iowa

Los Alamos National Laboratory (2000), Institutional Plan: FY 2000-2005, Los Alamos
     National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico

Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory (2000), Summaries of the Programs of the
    Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory 2000, National Institute of Standards and
    Technology, Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

Freire, Maria C. (2001), Evolution of Revolution, Slide Show presented to the Technology
      and Innovation Seminar series at the George Washington University, Washington,
      DC.

Michael Crow and Barry Bozeman (1998), Limited by Design: R&D laboratories in the
     U.S. national innovation system, New York, Columbia University Press.

National Academy Press (1988), Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving
     Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health, Committee on
     the NIH Research Priority-Setting Process, Health Sciences Policy Program,
     Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington, DC

National Cancer Institute (2001a), The Nation’s Investment in Cancer Research: A Plan
     and Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2002, The National Cancer Institute, National
     Institutes of Health

National Cancer Institute (2001b), FY 2002 Budget Justification, National Cancer
     Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services

National Cancer Institute (2000), Fact Book: 2000, National Cancer Institute, National
     Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services

National Institutes of Health (2001a), NIH Grants Policy Statement




                                           79
National Institutes of Health (2001b), NIH Instructions to Reviewers for Evaluating
     Research involving Human Subjects in Grant and Cooperative Agreement
     Applications, February 2001

National Institutes of Health (2000), Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),
     Final FY 2001 GPRA Annual Performance Plan, Revised Final FY 2000 GPRA
     Annual Performance Plan, and FY 1999 GPRA Annual Performance Plan

National Institutes of Health (1999a), Report of GPRA Assessment Working Group of the
     Advisory Committee to the Director, NIH: Assessment of NIH Research Program
     Outcomes

National Institutes of Health (1999b), Orientation Guidelines for Boards of Scientific
     Counselors, http://www1.od.nih.gov/oir/sourcebook/sci-review/bsc-orient.htm

National Institutes of Health (1997), Setting Research Priorities at the National Institutes
     of Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland

National Institute of Standard and Technology (2000), Summaries of Programs of the
     Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory 2000 Draft

National Research Council (1999), Industry-Laboratory Partnerships: A Review of the
     Sandia Science and Technology Park Initiative (1999), edited by Charles W.
     Wessner, Board of Science, Technology and Economic Policy, National Research
     Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

National Science Foundation (1998), Annotated List of Federally Funded Research and
     Development Centers (FFRDC), March 1998

National Science Foundation (2000a), Annotated List of 36 Federally Funded Research
     and Development Centers (FFRDCs): Fiscal Year 2001, October 2000

National Science Foundation (2000b), Federal Funds for Research and Development:
     Fiscal Years 1998, 1999, and 2000, Detailed Statistical Tables, Volume 48, October
     2000

National Science Foundation (2001), Master Government List of Federally Funded
     Research and Development Centers, Fiscal Year 2001

Paul N. Doremus (1998), Performance Evaluation at the NIST: Measurement and
     Standards Laboratories, Office of Strategic Planning and Economic Analysis,
     Memo presented on Workshop on Methods to Evaluate Research Outcomes,
     Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of
     Sciences, June 8, 1998




                                            80
Paul N. Doremus (1999), GPRA Performance Reporting: Views from an S&T Bureau,
     Strategic Planning & Economic Analysis Group, National Institute of Standards and
     Technology, Memo presented to American Association for Budget and Program
     Analysis, Fall Symposium, Nov. 15, 1999


Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy (1999), Strategic Plan of the Office of
      Science

Sandia National Laboratories (2000), Institutional Plan: FY 2001-2006, Sandia National
     Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico

University of California (1997), Contract between The United States of America and The
     Regents of the University of America for Management of the Los Alamos National
     Laboratory, Supplemental Agreement to Contract No. W-7405-ENG-36

University of California (2000), Appendix F Section B Self Assessment and Annual
     Review Manual

U.S. Department of Commerce (2000), Strategic Plan: FY 2000-FY 2005




http://www.ameslab.gov/     Ames Laboratory

http://www.lanl.gov/        Los Alamos National Laboratories

http://www.sandia.gov/      Sandia National Laboratories

http://www.nist.gov/        National Institute of Standards and Technology

http://www.mel.nist.gov/    Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory

http://www.nih.gov/         National Institutes of Health

http://www.nci.nih.gov/     National Cancer Institute




                                          81
APPENDIX


A Sample of CRADA <See Separate pdf file>




                                      82

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:112
posted:4/6/2010
language:English
pages:87