Column 131

Revitalizing our national labs for the great technological challenges that lie ahead

As a strategic planner, I'm wary of the "Manhattan project" mindset. In general, I find it escapist at heart -- as in, "Big government, make this problem magically disappear!" But with all this talk of a huge government stimulus package, I find myself warming to the idea. Let me tell you why.

Since 2005, I've advised Oak Ridge National Laboratory on long-range strategic issues, and one thing I've definitely noticed is the staff's pronounced aging. When the average age of your scientists begins to hover around 50 or higher, that's not a good sign for American research and development.

Read on at KnoxNews.
Read on at Scripps Howard.

Comments

[Hugh]

You have articulated the bed rock reason I have always been a strong supporter of our space program, even though it has been badly mismanaged the last 25 years. I lose most arguments because "we should give the money to the poor". I am a firm believer in "the exercise of pure technology".

[John Fulmer]

I've believed that almost any reason to put scientists and engineers to work is a good one, the grander the the idea the better. the manhattan project, the apollo program and the GI Bill of the post war years are the main reason that the US has continued to ride the crest of what has been the greatest renaissance humanity has ever seen. the poor will always be there, their empty mouths will allways be there. funding them will only give you more of the same. send us to mars. build cities on the bottom of the ocean,invent a solar cell that could cheaply supply all the needs of a household, or build x-wing fighters, the spinnoffs and general improvement in the basic human condition will raise all boats. besides our poor are not shooting people over food, they're angry over lack of status consumer goods. give them a GI Bill fully funded through PHD, and more public school teachers. and if they don't succeed it's their own fault.

Obama says Yes We Can!!, I say prove it. We abandoned the moon for breads and circuses. lets see If bold vision actually exhists in washington anymore or if we're going to continue to impoverish the human species in the name of charitable works. Giving the nation a clear and difficult goal can save us from the depression we're headed towards. not funding unwanted babies, or propping up neighborhoods that have degraded to almost feral conditions. Lets begin the Human Diaspera!

[Louis Heberlein]

The Cold War, then the Space Race, drew students into college, and a focus on skills that could provide technologies that transformed our economy in tangible ways. Our last economic cycle drew youngsters into sales and administrative training programs that evolved toward into fictitious intangible products and services with apparently fast and extraordinary financial gains.

The current crisis provides an incentive for capital, labor, and students to focus on efforts needed for tangible transformations in our economy and lives.

[CBiggs]

And now that our Fed gov't is getting into the car business, there's even more TOP COVER. The P51 Mustang was the premier WW2 fighter plane: It went from drawing board to a British orders in 6 weeks... One would think the auto exec's might have the same mindset.Rock on.

[Zane Selvans]

I'm a graduate student, I've worked for NASA/JPL, and I'm applying for a job at the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), so this is a near and dear topic. NASA is not the inspiring, driven place it could be, and by all accounts once was, during the Apollo years. I'm apprehensive about working at a national lab (or NASA) largely because of all those older people, in senior positions, with decades of "experience" bickering over funding without clearly defined, motivating, strategic goals. Without a big picture in mind. Without incentives (or the freedom) to improve efficiency and organization. It would be depressing to pull a bunch of young enthusiastic scientists and engineers into the national labs, only to then stifle them with an undirected bureaucracy.

Now, I realize that part of your thrust here is the creation of direction, setting a big clear goal to rally around. I'm a little dismayed though at what seemed to be a suggestion that we should try and sneak these new minds into national service under the aegis of the War on Terror, while ultimately wanting them to work on problems such as renewable energy sources and resource efficiency. There was no (or very little) duplicity in the goals set out under Apollo or the Manhattan Project, and I think that was a lot of their appeal.

Why can't we as a nation find the prospects of (eventual) resource scarcity and climate change just as motivating (terrifying?) as the more conventional national security threats that have motivated great strategic investments in the past?