With proposals for tactical nuclear bombs and bunker-busters being thrown around in Congress, a UT physics professor told students Thursday it is imperative an acclaimed academic institution like the University maintain control over Los Alamos National Laboratory.
"Do you want smart physicists weighing in on these issues, or do you want a bunch of chumps to give in to purely political pressures?" Dr. Todd Ditmire asked students at a public forum hosted by the UT Society of Physics Students.
Ditmire was one of four UT physics professors participating in the discussion, and the only one willing to argue that the UT System should compete against the University of California, who currently operates the lab in conjunction with the government.
UC is expected to bid on the lab when the Department of Energy releases the application, as is the UT System. The DOE has stalled the application deadline since mid-October. There has been no word since.
Included in that application are the government's requirements for universities seeking to manage the lab which, among many things, oversees the nation's stockpile of nuclear weapons.
While UC has had many problems with the lab, Ditmire could not tell students that the UT System could do a better job.
"I'm kind of on the fence," he said.
He was alone among the panel on that fence.
"I can't ever think, in my life, that we would manage it better," said Dr. Austin Gleeson, who is investigating the University's interest in another national lab, Sandia.
Dr. Peter Riley, associate dean for research and facilities and former Los Alamos employee of two decades, agreed.
"Competing with UC would be stupid," said Dr. Roy Schwitters, chair of UT's physics department and a member of the Los Alamos Task Force.
Schwitters said both universities have the same goal - ensuring that the nation's top physicists secure the stockpiles protected by Los Alamos. One of the major selling points for continuing the lab under university control, he said, was the recruiting element an accredited university could bring. UC, he pointed out, is ranked higher than UT.
The panel agreed that any university's primary goal in bidding on the lab must be public service.
"We need to be sure we have a stockpile that works with some assurance so we can say, 'No, Mr. President, we don't have to go back to testing,'" said Ditmire.
The panel discounted many of the arguments in favor of the System's bid, such as possible research benefits to faculty and students.
Any additional research collaboration would be negligible, all four agreed, and the idea that the University managing the lab gets special access is simply unfounded, Schwitters said.
"We currently have the level of access that we want," he said.
Schwitters added that, while some believe an economic gain is possible, the management fee paid by the government has traditionally been reinvested into the lab. No one would profit economically, he said.
However, the University could see some benefits to recruiting and would gain a chance to influence national policy, Schwitters and Ditmire argued. Schwitters added that the System is in a unique position to defend the lab's often controversial positions on nuclear policy because of the strength of the Texas Legislature.
UT Watch member Austin Van Zant, who attended the panel, said no university should be responsible for the lab. He was among several students questioning the professors.
No university, he said, is capable of changing the structure of operations at the lab. The lab's security is contracted out by the government, and the environmental and regulatory policies are already set in place by the government. That bureaucracy allowed purchasing scandals to disgrace the lab, he said, where more than $2.7 million was spent on things like shirts and goggles, and there's no indication that the System can do better than UC. Van Zant said he thinks the lab should be run by a private company, such as Lockheed Martin - something the panel warned against.
"I don't give a damn about the quality of the stamps," said Schwitters, reacting to Van Zant's claims of purchasing scandals. "I give a damn about the quality of the people."
Be the first to comment on this article!