LANL: The Real Story

I think we just located a little pocket of deadwood.

LANS, here's a cherry-picking opportunity if you're looking for ways to reduce the FY07 budget shortfall.

Unless, of course, you want to have expensive people on staff whose sole responsibility is to produce worthless, empty academic papers...
 

I can only say that these responses support my reasons for not bothering to post the paper. This should be obvious to even the casual viewer.
 

David,

I read the paper, and I have to say that I pretty much agree with the comments that have been posted so far, at least as they pertain to the usefulness of the paper with respect to the issues and problems that currently exist at LANL.

I'm sorry the paper did not meet with rave reviews, but in my opinion, it does not deserve them. It comes across as disconnected from the real problems at LANL, as having been produced by committee, and is far off the mark in terms of providing realistic, useful solutions. We all know what the current issues at LANL are. LAUR_06_3393 does not address any of them.

--Doug
 

Given that this blog will close in a couple of weeks, what might be a good mechanism to extend this discussion and get an improved document for Dave and the rest of us?

I have a blog and other resources if anyone would like to use them.

Cheers.
 

For anyone who's ever contemplated marrying a sibling, please read this paper first. Oh where are the Oppi's, Teller's and Fermi's of the world when you need them?
 

It was refreshing to see some actual discussion on this topic rather than multitudinous personal attacks. I only discount comments when they are personal attacks rather than substantive discussion, and unfortunately, the former has been the majority. The purpose of the paper wasn't to increase morale or establish the purpose of the Laboratory. It was to provide a tool to enable scientific excellence to be part of the management of the Laboratory rather than be an after thought. The Lab Fellows are only trying to provide input into this process. We are not a political body, never have been, and shouldn't be, in my opinion. We try to provide technical help for the science and engineering at the Laboratory. We have great respect for the staff at this Laboratory and we all work with the staff everyday doing "real" work as do the staff. To attack the fellows for being recognized for the ability to have done and to do excellent science is to attack the Laboratory itself. We have tried to raise the level of discussion to what could be done to sustain and improve scientific excellence. The Lab has many problems to deal with, but this is one that we felt we could contribute to. Many of the ideas in this document came from the staff and organizations outside the Laboratory. We have just tried to assemble the important ideas and have management recognize that ensuring scientific excellence is part of the managements responsibility and provide a constructive process to do so. We accept all constructive suggestions to add to or modify the metrics to ensure that what goes on at the Lab is quality work and consistent with quality science and engineering which is at the core of the Laboratory regardless of its mission.
 

I appreciate the substantive discussion that has gone on for this topic.

I have vetted documents that would extend the discussion for those who would be interested.

To answer the obvious question, no I am not going to post them here. The documents are hundreds of pages long and go into great detail about the topics that were mentioned today.

Any blog reader can find out more about these documents, and,hopefully, extend the present discussion by contacting me directly.

Cheers
 

My difficulty with the request of Gruntled Guy of asking for a clear direction and clear goals for 2012 is that I have not found people able to answer that question in D.C. with a credible answer.

People change jobs frequently and goals are redone on an impulse.

So my question is "If the where is D.C . going in 2012?" question has no credible answer, how should we behave locally in order to do good science?