Tarter looks to the future
After serving for eight years and two months (including seven months
in an acting capacity), today will be my last as Laboratory Director.
It’s a good time to sum up the major events of the past decade and
assess the state of the Lab. I’ll do this for four areas: programs,
science and technology, administration and operations, and human resources.
Programmatically, there have been two major themes, along with one brief
excursion and some involvement in a still embryonic field. By far the
dominant change has been the transformation of the nuclear weapons program
from a design, test and build effort to one of stockpile stewardship.
The Lab has major achievements in every aspect of stewardship: greatly
enhanced surveillance of the stockpile, a successful life extension of
the W87 warhead, extraordinary advances in the science needed for stewardship
without nuclear testing, the construction of major new capabilities with
NIF and the ASCI machines, and the development of a methodology that provides
a basis for evaluating both existing warheads and future modifications
that may be required.
A source of special pride has been our ability to meet the challenge of
annual certification for Livermore’s weapons for the first six years
of this process. Nationally, stewardship has had many successes, but progress
is uneven across the program, and the challenge is to accelerate the total
effort without weakening the strong components. Nonetheless, it has been
a remarkably successful transformation that very few would have expected
given the chaos and uncertainty at the beginning of the ’90s.
The second major programmatic evolution has been in nonproliferation and
counterterrorism. Beginning from a relatively small intelligence base
combined with verification and other monitoring technologies, there has
been rapid expansion in many areas. We now have an array of projects directed
at increasing the security of Russian nuclear material; some specialized
and important projects on cybersecurity; the most advanced biodefense
work in the country; and sensors aimed at virtually every aspect of terrorism.
This collection of projects and the systems thinking that went into assembling
it is an important reason why we have been so prominently identified in
discussions about the new Homeland Security Department.
Analogously, our application of these technologies in the field after
Sept. 11 was a significant achievement for our Laboratory. The ultimate
charter and composition of this new department will significantly impact
our long-term role in these areas, but it is an opportunity to further
apply our skills to a very important national need.
Several other programmatic areas deserve special mention. First, in the
early ’90s, we saw the rapid growth (and equally rapid decline) of
technology transfer. Two lessons emerged from this: we learned that we
were already tightly tied to industry in much of our work, and that occasionally
we had special expertise that could be very useful commercially (as in
EUV lithography, environmental cleanup and medical technologies). And,
we quickly realized that the notion of national labs as the primary research
and development engine for American industry was palpably silly.
Finally, there was the astonishing tour de force of the sequencing of
the human genome. That advance and its impact on fields such as biodefense
is just beginning to be realized, and the Lab’s ultimate role in
bioscience and biotechnology is still a work in progress. In my view,
we need a strong embedding in bioscience because of its potential for
astonishing growth in the coming decade. Most other programmatic areas
at the Lab, particularly in energy and environment, remained at roughly
constant levels of effort during the last decade.
The Laboratory’s science and technology base continued to make remarkable
gains in many fields. The most spectacular was in scientific computing,
where the ASCI program not only led to much more powerful computers but
stimulated the development of software, graphics and numerical methods
to exploit the bigger computers. This led to major achievements in weapons
simulation, but we also used institutional resources to provide computing
capability to a much broader array of Lab scientists.
The last years of Nova experiments, and the potential of NIF as a scientific
laboratory, was the other area in which major advances took place. Fusion
science, material properties and astrophysics represent just a few of
the fields in which Nova/NIF have and will push the future state of the
art.
Finally, even listing the prizes and recognized achievements in other
areas (things like the discovery of metallic hydrogen, of new heavy elements,
and of dark matter in the MACHO project.) would take up an entire issue
of Newsline. Those achievements are a testimony to both the talents of
Lab scientists and the flexibility of the Lab to invest in good ideas.
However, as many of you have observed, the increasing environmental and
security requirements (often ill-matched to a basic research and development
environment) coupled with other bureaucratic constraints on our work,
are all barriers to innovation, particularly in experimental fields. A
major task of Lab managers is to work even harder to ensure that a climate
for scientific exploration is nurtured at the Laboratory. This is also
a place where the University of California can and should play a very
strong role.
Operationally, the Lab has had an increasingly excellent record over the
past decade. Our financial and business functions are first class and
have led to significant gains in productivity. Our environmental record
is sound, and we have done a good job of informing and listening to the
community about its concerns. We have successfully responded to the recent
security mandates, although few of us believe we are yet able to distribute
our security resources in an optimum fashion. The University of California,
along with Los Alamos and ourselves, are currently working to redefine
our contract measures in a way that reflects the real priorities at our
institutions, and this effort could help reduce the substantial bureaucracy
that has accrued over the years. An important test for any operational
rule or prescription is whether it reflects best practices in its broad
community and, if not, it needs to be challenged to do so at all levels.
Finally, let me turn to human resources. Here the story is more complicated.
There is plenty of good news. We are still attracting and retaining first-class
scientists and engineers, and the Lab is broadly viewed as a good place
to work. And, the diversity of our leaders and managers has grown considerably
over the decade, including positions in the most senior leadership jobs
at the Lab. And, by any measure, the training and education programs have
been greatly expanded at all levels of supervision. But there is substantial
dissatisfaction with the performance evaluation system, and in many instances
with the perceived opportunities for growth, particularly into management
jobs. And, minority groups feel like "minorities" in far too
many situations.
There are no easy solutions. Our science and engineering demographics
will inevitably reflect that of the educational system, not the general
population, so that we will not "look like" our neighborhood.
And, the Lab is strongly committed to an evaluation system that is grounded
in accomplishment and based on judgment as well as tangible measures.
The employee survey of a year ago has laid the foundation for significant
improvements in these and other human resource issues. It is very important
that the survey recommendations be implemented and then tested and refined
so that the vast majority of employees perceive the Lab as a place where
their aspirations can be realized.
Now for a few closing thoughts. As you all know, we will celebrate our
50th anniversary this September, and it has been a half-century filled
with excitement, achievements and important contributions to the nation.
We have taken Lawrence’s model "to-the-max" and we were
an instrumental force in ending the Cold War. We have helped build a national
science base in computers, lasers and materials that could not have even
been imagined in 1952.
But it is time to move on, to a new century, to a new set of national
security challenges and to a new Laboratory. There are many valuable insights
from the people and events of these past 50 years, but they can no longer
serve as either a guide or a blueprint for the future.
The new generations that will head our country were not Cold Warriors
and their challenges are very different. The Laboratory must respond to
this new world with innovative and fresh ideas, and you have an outstanding
individual in Mike Anastasio to lead you in that endeavor. I look forward
to his leadership and to helping where I can, and I thank all of you for
your efforts on behalf of the Laboratory during the time when I have been
Director.