							Special Bulletin--No. 2
							February 1976

A Position Paper
on
THE LAWRENCE LIVERMORE LABORATORY

A Letter from SPSE President Suzanne Lake...

March 1, 1976

The Society of Professional Scientists and Engineers (SPSE) is an organization of professional employees of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (LLL), a national laboratory operated by the University of California under contract to the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA). The Laboratory is the larger of two national laboratories whose historic mission was the development of atomic and thermonuclear weapons. LLL now devotes approximately fifty per cent of its two hundred million dollar annual budget to weapons research. The other half of this budget is spread over diverse fields including lasers, controlled thermonuclear fusion, the efficient exploitation of traditional energy resources, biomedical research, environmental physics and others.

SPSE was formed in 1973 to promote the interests of LLL professional employees. It is affiliated with the California State Employees Association. The Society's membership numbers approximately four hundred, more than twenty per cent of all LLL professionals.

The enclosed paper was prepared by a committee of LLL scientists and engineers under the direction of the SPSE Executive Board. It was reviewed and unanimously approved by that board on February 2, 1976 and was subsequently overwhelmingly approved by the SPSE membership at its General Membership Meeting, February 26. The views presented are those of SPSE and do not necessarily represent the views of the Laboratory administration.

The discussion of problems outlined in the report can be expanded upon and documented by testimony from many individuals. SPSE will provide such information to appropriate and duly constituted investigative bodies upon request. Inquiries may be directed to Suzanne Lake, L-523, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, P. 0. Box 808, Livermore, California 94550.

We call your particular attention to Section IV, which presents positive proposals for the revitalization of the Laboratory in order that it may continue to be an important national resource.

					Suzanne Lake, President
					(for the SPSE Executive Board)

I. THE LABORATORY AS A NATIONAL RESOURCE

We, professional scientists and engineers of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, believe that our laboratory is a national resource of major importance. There is, concentrated in this laboratory, a large national investment in physical facilities, technical capabilities and highly trained human resources.
The Laboratory has made fundamental and important contributions to the nation and society we serve. In response to the needs of the nation, as perceived by our national leaders, the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory has:

led the scientific development of nuclear weapons and the assessment of their effects;
pioneered the scientific investigation of peaceful uses of both nuclear energy and the more traditional sources of energy;
pioneered the application of large, high-speed computers to scientific problems that are important to our nation;
developed the most advanced time and resource sharing computer network in the world;
made fundamental contributions to controlled thermonuclear fusion research;
developed modeling techniques for the study of such diverse fields as human cell physiology, environmental chemistry, meteorology, solid state physics, materials technology, planetary dynamics, information theory and stellar structures.

     This list of achievements could be extended to many pages. The essential point we illustrate is that a competent and interested staff has produced research of both scientific and social value. It is our contention that this staff can continue to produce such research if given proper and adequate management support.
     We are deeply involved in the success of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. As citizens, we have a stake in the efficient and productive use of this important national resource. As professional scientists and engineers, our reputations and successes are inevitably tied to the reputation and success of the Laboratory. As employees, the existence of our jobs must depend upon the relevance and productivity of the Laboratory.
     We believe it is vitally important that the Laboratory present an environment in which scientific creativity can flourish so that our contributions to Nation and Society can continue.

II. ARE WE LOSING THIS RESOURCE?

We perceive, at present, disturbing indications, trends and even fully developed management problems which portend the loss of this important national resource:

The Laboratory has been criticized by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy for its pedantic approach to weapons development.
The Laboratory is not executing a balanced program for carrying out its part of national energy development, but is responding to the national energy crisis only in piecemeal fashion.
There has been a continuing decline in research that is not tied to immediate programmatic needs. This decline is part of a national trend; the Laboratory has made little effort to oppose this trend. The Laboratory capability for producing new scientific information needed for future projects has accordingly suffered.
Instead of full involvement of the scientific staff in determining priorities and direction of technical programs, decisions are made in closed meetings of upper management and presented to the staff as fait accompli.
There has been an increasing substitution of public relations campaigns for scientific innovation and excellence .
Overall morale among professionals and other employees, particularly among experienced staff members, has progressively declined. The sense of pride and participation which was once characteristic of all LLL professionals has been seriously diminished.

     We submit that the most fertile research environment is one in which a competent scientific staff is provided with adequate tools and support, and a minimum of administrative interference; that scientific decisions are best made openly and by the scientifically competent; that science thrives in an atmosphere of open communication and that good ideas may come from all quarters. In contrast, the LLL administration has dictated both substance and direction of scientific programs; they have demoted and otherwise punished persons who have rendered scientific judgments which may conflict with these programs. Furthermore, they have failed to recognize the merit of important scientific ideas. It is an insult to common sense to expect creativity to flourish in such an atmosphere.
     We recognize that some of the above problems are part of a larger national problem. Competition for federal funding has become a major effort for many of our scientific laboratories. The government is not unified in its judgment as to national priorities. The scientific community is similarly not unified in its judgment as to scientific feasibility or desirability. This has led to the common practice of making unjustified and sometimes unrealistic forecasts in contract proposals, submitting proposals for research of marginal value and de-emphasizing essential but sometimes not immediately applicable research. Unfortunately we see the same trend at our laboratory.
     It is our belief, however, that, as a major national laboratory, LLL should be leading the way to solution of national research and development problems, rather than being a mere contributor to the solution of these problems.

III. A NEED FOR COMPETENT MANAGEMENT

The LLL management is essentially an autonomous governing body. The Laboratory is unlike a corporation in that the Directors of LLL have no stockholders who will hold them accountable. ERDA and the Congress do not wish to meddle in what they deem to be University responsibilities. The state government, including the legislature, claims to be prevented by provisions in the state constitution from directly influencing a University facility. The Regents of the University regard the Laboratory as an ERDA- operated facility. These multiple responsibilities have been used all too often as a method of 'passing the buck' when responding to employee needs. The above cited difficulties and those cited in Section 11 appear to stem directly from a failure of leadership. from insensitive and even incompetent management. They appear to date from the late 1960's and early 1970's, a period when the nation began to look critically at scientific research programs and research budgets were curtailed. A declining budget emphasized deficiencies already present in the LLL management structure. The LLL administration responded by increasing its control over the staff, expanding the bureaucracy to consolidate this control and cutting "frills" which were in fact the seeds from which future projects would have grown.
Additionally, the top management has apparently underestimated the shift in national priorities from defense related research to social and economic competition with the Soviets and Chinese. The effort and ingenuity which characterized our development of weapons and defense systems have not been matched in our approach to energy. biological, and environmental research. We believe that a major overhaul of the LLL management structure is needed. and we single out the following management problems as requiring immediate remedial attention:

The LLL management is top-heavy with high salaried, scientifically underqualified and tenured managers.
- Persons within top management are making technical decisions even though they have not engaged in scientific or engineering work for as long as twenty years. They are not qualified to pass scientific or technical judgment on important innovative ideas and tend not to recognize the importance of ideas that they do not understand.
- With the recent retirement of Dr. Edward Teller, there is currently not even one eminent scientist on the LLL Board of Directors. His former department (Physics) has been left to flounder for over six months without representation on the Board, and efforts to attract a replacement of Dr. Teller's stature and competence have been entirely inadequate. Entrenched management has become isolated from the working scientists and engineers; they are unaware of the interests and capabilities of the staff.
- Once scientists become managers (good or bad), they seldom return to the ranks of the working scientists.
Top management is supported and isolated by an ever-expanding bureaucratic structure.
- Until the mid-1960's, LLL division leaders communicated directly with the Director. They are now isolated from him by his deputy and assistants, by department heads, assistant department heads, etc. Working scientists and engineers must penetrate even more levels of the bureaucracy: associate division leaders, assistant division leaders and group leaders_if their ideas are to have a hearing.
- It has become very difficult to pass an idea up through the hierarchy without it being misrepresented. misinterpreted, misattributed and/or misunderstood at several levels.
Personalities influence technical decisions.
- Appointments of project leaders, division leaders, etc. often are made for personal or political reasons rather than for the particular competence of the persons involved.
- Ideas often are suppressed because they threaten the security of the entrenched programs.
- Credit for ideas sometimes is manipulated to further the careers of chosen managers.
- Management decisions often are made within the "club." The staff is not consulted, and even the decisions are sometimes not made public.
The energy of the staff is increasingly spent in responding to unenlightened personnel practices and in supporting the bureaucracy.
- Our time is occupied responding to personal injustices such as unfair salary actions, layoffs, transfers, etc.
- Insensitive and unfair treatment of those who work with us (technicians, secretaries, custodians, police officers, machinists. etc.) has so depressed their morale that our efficiency has been impaired.
- The burden of paperwork and administration has been placed upon those who would more profitably be used as scientists. This burden is particularly evident at the levels below division leader.

IV. PROPOSALS

There are no panaceas for all LLL management problems. In particular, we do not suppose that the elimination of particular persons in the management structure would necessarily solve our problems. Though our management has, in recent months, made halting steps toward opening lines of communication with the staff, we believe stronger steps must be taken to depart from present practice; therefore we put forward the following proposals. They are not to be construed as attacks on any individuals but rather as serious proposals for revitalizing LLL.

We recommend that the LLL management structure be overhauled and very much simplified; that the proliferation of associate directorships be reversed; that the common practice of making lateral transfers into newly created administrative positions in order to eliminate unwanted managers should be stopped.
We recommend that all scientific management positions from Director down to group leader, but especially at the director's level, be held only for limited terms; that these individuals return regularly to the ranks of the productive and working scientists to refresh their competence and to be reacquainted with the capabilities of the staff.
We recommend that salary differentials between managers and working scientists be eliminated; that provision be made for the opportunity for continued advancement of all employees. (At present, after ten to fifteen years' service, the only route to substantial advancement is to enter the ranks of management.) It should be noted that the rewards to the creative scientists must be both monetary and nonmonetary.
We recommend that a Professional Senate, under the independent control of the professional employees themselves, be established. The Senate would be composed of elected representatives from the various departments and divisions and would give advice and consent to the Director on goals, procedures and technical programs. The Senate would establish a committee to review scientific proposals and a committee to search for eminent scientific leadership. Proceedings of the Senate would be published.
We recommend that the Laboratory act to encourage basic research and creativity among the staff members.
We recommend that a realistic and functioning leave (sabbatical) policy be established.
We recommend that the professionals be allowed and encouraged to pursue independent research projects during normal employment.
We recommend that professionals should be able to and be encouraged to make presentations of their own work to all levels of management including ERDA, DOD and other contractors.
We recommend that the Laboratory aggressively increase its interaction with the academic community through professional exchange programs and through sharing of unique laboratory facilities; and that the Laboratory substantially increase its role as a professional training facility.
We recommend that the Laboratory reevaluate its personnel policies and revise them in order that we may become a model of progressive and enlightened management practice.

In summary, in a research laboratory, the business of management must be regarded as ancillary to research. If necessary, the tasks of scientific and technical administration should be shared by a larger fraction of the staff on a circulating schedule. The business of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory is not management; it is to provide that first-rate scientific research which is needed by the nation. Furthermore, technical decisions are properly made by those who are technically competent; the proper role of administration is to provide an atmosphere which stimulates creativity and to give administrative support to decisions made by the working scientists.

Go back to the SPSE Home Page
http://www.spse.org/