A Personal Perspective on Issues in Science and Technology in NMT Division

Since it was first organized in 1989, the scope and mission of the Nuclear Materials Technology (NMT) Division have expanded significantly. The division has grown in size-the regular employee population of about 700 represents close to 10 percent of the Laboratory population-and its annual budget represents a significantly greater part of the Lab's budget. NMT Division also operates two of the Laboratory's major facilities: the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) Building and the TA-55 Plutonium Facility.

You'd think that a division like NMT, whose "job" is to conduct scientific and technical research and experimentation, would be expert in promoting science and technology. But are we doing the best we can in these areas? Or are there significant obstacles to our doing good science? Perhaps the most useful suggestions I can make are those that can help diagnose the nature of the problems, if any, that may lie in the way of promoting science and technology.

Just like medical students following a training program in which they may use a decision-making tree to correctly diagnose a patient's illness based on the symptoms, patients' descriptions, and laboratory test results, my goal is to take a closer look at some of the issues raised by many in relation to NMT's science and technology. My analysis will be based mainly on symptoms and descriptions rather than on hard data and test results. From this analysis, we may be able to come up with ways to enhance the division's science and technology.

For those of you who may want a more complete picture of NMT's science and technology, read NMT Division's Organizational Self-Assessment, which is published annually in preparation for the annual Science and Technology Assessment (also known as the Division Review). You can get a copy from the division office.

Many common beliefs develop over time in an organization like ours. When enough people share these beliefs long enough, they become part of the organizational culture. Some beliefs contribute to the organization's strength, while others do not. Interestingly enough, one can frequently find almost as many proponents as opponents for these beliefs. The first step in addressing the science and technology issue is to understand the nature of these beliefs and to dispel aspects of the undesirable beliefs.

Belief No. 1: "Because we are working on project deliverables, we do not have the time to do science and technology."

I think this belief is shared largely among the people who are engaged in programmatic tasks such as manufacturing weapon components and plutonium heat sources for space missions and processing nuclear materials. The term "science and technology" should not be so alien a concept because these people are actually the practitioners of science and technology in their particular fields of expertise. And yet it's a contrarian view of what they do every day.

Belief No. 2: "Facility and infrastructure operation are in competition or in conflict with science and technology activities."

This is a unique problem, or a blessing, depending on your view of the organization. NMT runs two major nuclear facilities and also is the major user of the facilities. No separate funds exist for the facility operation and the programmatic work; therefore the word "competition" creeps in here. In a nuclear facility like ours, facility operation and programmatic work go hand in hand. The debate is similar to "Which came first: the chicken or the egg?" We must recognize that both operational elements are indivisible parts of the same organization.

Belief No. 3: "NMT Division's mission is geared toward production, so it has no future in science and technology."

This statement resonates with the first one, and it couldn't be further from the truth. The existence of our nuclear facilities as national assets and the continuing maintenance of the knowledge base founded on sound science and technology serve as the cornerstone for the national security. NMT members possess unique skills that must be maintained and nurtured.

While the weapons component production programs may end some day, maintaining the knowledge and capability to produce the components will always be a mission of this Laboratory and this division. Manufacturing plutonium pits is clearly an important component of NMT's long-term goal and mission, but the scope of our work in general is significantly broader than the manu-facturing program.

As painfully demonstrated in recent disastrous events worldwide, Los Alamos National Laboratory and NMT Division must be at the forefront of science and technology to meet the present and future challenges in everything nuclear - including nuclear weapons.

Belief No. 4: "We are making sufficient progress and our mission is so compelling that the business-as-usual approach will ensure our survival and future prosperity."

Programmatic dollars have been easier to obtain than scarce research dollars, but complacency is the antithesis to scientific prosperity. We should never forget that the nation relies on Los Alamos because of the scientific foundation laid by the scientists and technologists who worked here in the past.

We are the direct beneficiaries of the previous generation's great scientific minds, and our generation should in turn pass on something to future generations. Science and technology never stand still. One either advances or risks being surprised by new discoveries by friends and adversaries alike.

Belief No. 5: "Division leaders and managers know best and understand all the issues; therefore, they are likely to make the best decisions for the division's employees, the division, and the Laboratory."

Science and technology is not a spectator sport; we all should be engaged in it, but we should make sure that people are spending their time doing what they do best. The division's main task is to conduct its science and technology work. Managers are here to ensure that we have skilled people to conduct the tasks, resources are properly allocated, work gets done on schedule and budget, we meet all regulatory requirements, we interact with our sponsors and customers, etc. The scientists and technologists should not have to spend their time doing these things; they are here to do the actual science. We need to clearly separate the responsibilities of the scientific staff and the management staff, yet create an atmosphere where the two halves can communicate and work in tandem to achieve the whole.

While it's easy to list the problems, it's harder to come up with solutions. The question remains: How do we enhance the division's science and technology?

I think the answer is threefold: a skilled workforce, enhanced productivity, and strong leadership.

A scientific organization is only as good as its people. Without knowledgeable and skilled people, there can be no productivity or excellence. Division leadership and management can, and should, employ effective recruiting and hiring plans to ensure that there are people in all work areas with the proper skills and talents.

NMT's core technical capabilities include plutonium metallurgy, actinide process chemistry, actinide ceramics, manufacturing nuclear parts, and nuclear facility operation. Our efforts should be directed toward enhancing these core capabilities for present as well as future missions. Not all of our projects or tasks have the same priority. The leadership and management must set the priority and allocate the resources accordingly.

The recent realignment of the Laboratory program offices into line organizations should help all technical divisions run more effectively. Under the realignment, our division office will have greater responsibility in making sure that the right amount of resources is allocated to various tasks and that our goals and deliverables are met. Also, our division office will have to see that NMT maintains and fosters the right mix of capabilities for our present and future missions.

Next to the work itself, the most important part of our business is documenting the work. NMT Division's productivity as measured in terms of published reports and scientific articles lags behind other technical divisions.

One of the problems we have identified is that our people are not documenting what they do in their technical work. By documenting, I mean recording the experimental steps, the processes followed, the observations made, the data obtained, etc. From this documentation, researchers can write reports, publish technical papers, or present the findings at scientific meetings.

Experimental results should be recorded so that other researchers can repoduce the same results. Without documenting the scientific work or theory in laboratory notebooks, anything a researcher might write could be considered fiction. You have no proof.

Documentation can be done in a variety of ways. Reports are the most common in technical work. Just as any engineered product comes with a manual, all of our work and products should be accompanied by reports. When the products, inventions, or results of a researcher's investigation are deemed sufficiently original, innovative, and new, the results should be published in scientific journals for public dissemination. Some may even be patented.

In NMT, we have voluminous documentation of how we do certain tasks, but not everyone keep records of what they actually do, and not enough documents are produced to keep track of what's been accomplished. In recording one's own work, it is important to record both successes and failures, because failure, as well as success, adds to the scientific knowledge base.

In addition to NMT's continued scientific productivity and meeting its programmatic goals, the division has had a number of scientific and technological initiatives with Laboratory-wide implications and visibility. These include the establishment of the Glenn T. Seaborg Institute for Transactinium Science; hosting two international Plutonium Futures-The Science conferences; publication for the past seven years of The Actinide Research Quarterly; and the annual Science and Technology Assessment. All of these endeavors have been highly successful, and NMT Division members collectively should be proud of these accomplishments.

Some of our scientists and technologists are engaged in nonscientific work for some portion of their time. None of us spends all of our time doing science and technology; we all have a variety of other responsibilities and tasks. And some of us may not feel so compelled to do original scientific work outside our programmatic tasks. Whether one does scientific work or programmatic work, the burden is on us to convince our sponsors of the importance and relevance of our work to the sponsors', and in our case, national need. It would be foolhardy to expect that all of our scientific ideas will be considered worth pursuing.

In summary, we have been doing many things very well and some others not too well. It is time to review all of our activities in light of our present objective of enhancing NMT Division's science and technology. While we are asking our members to excel in their work and make changes as necessary, the leadership and management also should lead and show a willingness to change their mode of operation when necessary. We need to become expert at "self-critiquing" to keep up with the changing times.

The work of science and technology is based on creativity and imagination, and the people in NMT Division excel at both. In light of our present objective of enhancing the divisionŐs science and technology, let's take the time to review all of our activities.

Together, we can build upon the legacy of a scientific institution that the nation has come to rely on and respect.

This article was contributed by Kyu C. Kim, chief scientist of NMT Division.

The opinions in this editorial are the author's. They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Los Alamos National Laboratory, the University of California, the Department of Energy, or the U.S. government.

NMT | LANL | DOE
Phone Book | Search | Help/Info

L O S  A L A M O S  N A T I O N A L   L A B O R A T O R Y
Operated by the University of California for the US Department of Energy