Friday, June 03, 2005

Indicators of the scientific productivity

Doug -

Congratulations on your retirement! I recently did the same thing after 20-plus years at LANL. I predict that you will be relieved but not necessarily less busy.

For the Blog, I offer the two attached graphs that are indicators of the scientific productivity of UC and non-UC DOE labs. These graphs also give some comparative insight into the records of UC and Lockheed Martin as stewards of science at their respective Labs. The data are annual publication rates of the Labs between 1978 and 2002, obtained from ISI's SciSearch engine by searching "Articles" at each "Location". The UC Labs are LANL, LLNL, and LBNL. The Non-UC Labs are ANL, BNL, ORNL, and SNL. I couldn't get good data for PNNL because of ambiguities in the "Location" search for that lab's name(s).

The first graph simply compares the average annual publication rates over the years for the UC and Non-UC Labs. The 'averages" were obtained as follows: UC = (LANL+LBNL+LLNL)/3 and Non-UC = (ANL+BNL+ORNL+SNL)/4. The data were not normalized for the respective Labs' staff size because the historical workforce data were lacking, so the significance of the absolute magnitude of the numbers may be arguable. What is clearly significant, however, are the trends over 25 years (the solid lines are linear least-squares fits). The publication rates of the UC Labs have increased by an average of 34 papers per year while the increase for the non-UC Labs has been 11 papers per year. The UC Labs are threefold winners by this criterion. When compared to the growth of the ISI publications database, the non-UC labs have actually *lost* about 1/3 of their "market share" over 25 years while the UC labs have gained market share by approximately 30%. The trends for each individual Lab more-or-less track the averaged data shown.

The second graph compares the data for the weapons labs, LANL, LLNL, and SNL. The LANL publication rate started out in 1978 approximately twice those of LLNL and SNL. The latter two were approximately equal in 1978. The average growth rates for the two UC labs have been about the same (LLNL slightly greater), and the growth rate for SNL under AT&T was about the same as the average for the non-UC labs (see above). The story has been different, however, in the eight years since Lockheed Martin was formed and became the SNL contractor in 1995. The publication output of SNL has actually *dropped* significantly during this period. This appears to contradict some recent statements about the scientific stewardship of Lockheed Martin by Paul Robinson (which in any case were unsupported by any data).

One can make the argument that SNL, as primarily an engineering institution, is not expected to publish at the rate of LANL and LLNL which are primarily scientific. However, I don't think the technical demographics of SNL have changed so much since 1995 that that alone can account for SNL's decreased productivity (and even if it has, that would be the Contractor's and Director's doing, wouldn't it?). I have to suggest that much or all of this effect can be blamed on the corporate "culture" (that word again) fostered by Lockheed Martin and their upper management at SNL.

I am fully aware that publication rates are an incomplete measure of scientific health and accomplishment, but they are certainly one valid indicator. Moreover, the trends are even more significant than the annual data, especially when the trends are stable over many years. My conclusion is that UC as a contractor for the UC Labs has been an outstanding steward of science, quantitatively far superior to all of the non-UC contractors, and especially superior to Lockheed Martin which seems to have actually had an adverse effect on the scientific and technical productivity of SNL.

End of post. Feel free to attribute the post to me, but I gratefully acknowledge the help of anonymous "others" in interpreting these data.

Cheers,
Woody

Comments:
Great point, although it will be quickly attacked for bias. Some will also argue that scientific value is not in publications. However, any real scientist knows that this is an important factor. Hint for UPTE: do more research in this direction if you want to attract new members.
 
How much precisely did UC contribute to this record as opposed to the scientific missions assigned to Los Alamos and Livermore vice the engineering mission assigned to Sandia. Moreover, last year I had several technical papers published that I got out in spite of UC not because of UC. Why doesn't my situation apply to most of the papers published in the period of the standdown? At the same time, the comparison between Los Alamos (the son that, according to Foley, always does things wrong) and Livermore (the son that always does things right) is very telling.

A graph of engineered items produced might be very insightful as well. It is quite possible that Los Alamos might lead in that category as well. The on-orbit performance record of our equipment is the best in the complex. Is this due to UC? The answer again is probably not. What UC brought to the table was an exceptionally managed retirement program, attractive benefits (including 9/80), and the name-recognition of UC for recruitment and retention. The importance of these vital attributes, which are on the chopping block thanks to DOE/NNSA, cannot be overstated. However, the accomplishments of Los Alamos in papers and hardware derive from the drive, intellect, skill, and vision of our staff and not UC management or oversight. Let's be honest with our assessments.
 
I am delighted to see this report. It is exactly the kind of information, using a commonly used and easily understood metric that is invaluable to policymakers. It would have been very valuable to me, during my four years as the Chief of Staff for the Chair of the California State Senate Oversight Committee on the UC Labs, in explaining the positive value of the three Labs managed by UC.

I hope this information is more widely disseminated. Thank you.

Saeed Ali
Sacramento CA
 
The unasked question is what this has to do with LANL's mission. What is LANL's mission? I thought it had something to do with Stockpile Stewardship?
In 2003 LANL had, per a DOE report, 478 Post Docs (PD) with 278 of them supported by LDRD. That accounts for a lot of publications. Sandia had, from the same report, 169 PD with 82 of them supported by LDRD. This accounts for a lot less publications.
Sandia Lab had their contract extended by DOE, for excellent performance. LANL, after a few very rough years, is having their contract competed. If the mission were to have papers published, Sandia could likely do that.
The question for LANL and DOE is; what is LANL's mission? Right now they are doing publications well, with a large stable of PD; and their weapons work is not going well. Are the taxpayers interests being served? LANL is not a university, it is a DOE lab, and its performance must be judged against DOE's goals. That may be a surprise to some.
 
THere may be some underlying meaning here, but I would welcome a much more careful analysis. These graphs are pretty half-baked. You're not even attempting to normalize for staff size? THe labs have all shrunk, some at different rates than others.

Why not throw in INEL, PNNL, etc. to drag the non-UC labs down even further?

I would think a more meaningful approach would be to look at normalized pub rates for EACH lab, before and after they switched contractors (for the ones that went pure academic->corporate or consortium). The time axis could be shifted to a common 'zero' for comparison.
 
Dear Bystander,

Woody never stated that what he posted was 100% accurate. If you believe the data needs more normalization and amplification, then please contribute towards it rather than just criticizing Woody's work.
 
On the mission of LANL
(following 09:06)

If the mission of Los Alamos is revisited or redefined, this would lead to significant downsizing of basic and applied science at Los Alamos.

Stockpile stewardship is a questionable mission, invented with the sole purpose of maintaining the dollar stream from Washington to New Mexico. In the no-testing era, this is a freud enterprize. It is grossly overpriced, and it produces no tangible results. Just think about that for a moment: Los Alamos primary product, a guarantee from the LANL director to the nation that the stockpile is safe, costs 1 Billion Dollars annually (the rough size of the weapons program).

Yet, Los Alamos is a national treasure, a scientific arsenal that is unique given both its quality and its magnitude. Despite its questionable mission, Los Alamos is able to produce first rate basic and applied science for the benefit of the nation.

We do not live in a perfect world and some of the funds spent in Los Alamos could be better spent. However, "Fixing" Los Alamos, as congress and the DOE are now trying to do, is very likely to lead to the end science at Los Alamos. This would be a huge and irreversible loss to the nation.

In this era of rapidly changing national priorities, and short-term thinking politicians, a vaguely defined mission is an imperfection that we should understand as being unavoidable.
 
6/4/2005 12:34:46 PM writes: "Stockpile stewardship is a questionable mission, invented with the sole purpose of maintaining the dollar stream from Washington to New Mexico. In the no-testing era, this is a freud enterprize. It is grossly overpriced, and it produces no tangible results."

The writer provids no measurable facts or evidence, leading me to believe s/he has no participation in Stockpile Stewardship, and therefore no credibility to make such a statement.

Stockpile Stewardship does provide very serious, substantial and critical results. It is a real mission, with real consequences for failure.

It is not in existence for the purpose of providing a stream of money from Washington to New Mexico. The money comes to LANL, SNL and LLNL because that's where the people who know how to do it are.

The writer doesn't know about the results, because s/he does not need to know them, and clearly doesn't know them.
 
If LANL employees are concerned with the quality of their work, I suggest that we find an external agency or organization that has at least the potential of objective analysis. Does anyone second that? The conversation on this blog, where anonymous writers are congratulating themselves on the quality of their own work is, at best, an embarrassment or an invitation of mockery.
How about our co-employees, the faculty of the university of California? I think that we might already know how they value LANL. We should ask them how they’ve formed their opinions. I would also suggest that the readers of this blog consider the fate of Bell labs, arguably the highest quality non-university laboratory. There is a lesson in that story and we ought to consider it before we brag about the quality of LANL.
 
So, LANL publishes a lot of good papers because there are postdocs who are parasites on "the Main Mission"? What a deep thought! This is in line with the earlier suggestions to eliminate "science for science's sake", as a way to improve the Lab. Great idea! Splendid! Let's treat Basic Science as just another wasteful activity to be eliminated.

Seriously, this idea that true science has no place in a National Lab is extremely dangerous. Every scientist at the Lab, whether working on basic or applied topics, open or classified stuff, should be scared by "suggestions" like this. People posting these messages demonstrate extremely myopic vision. Turning this Lab into a 100% Bomb Maintenance Factory, or a Pit Production Facility may sound like a good idea to some, but in fact the opposite should be happening. Given the dynamic, evolving nature of the threats the Nation faces, it is prudent to have the National Lab that is dynamic, broad, and attracts the best and the brightest. To have a lot of good people around is a National asset, especially as new threats emerge. Remember, how crucial "pure scientists" were for the Manhattan Project? Your 100% Bomb Maintenance Factory will just be closed when it is no longer needed.
 
To the 9:06 poster.

You make the assertion that the postdoctroal researchers are
responsible for most of the publications at LANl. This is simply not true. If I examine
my division, which accounts for 1/3 of all publications from
Los Alamos, in any one year the postdocs and students supported by LDRD will contribute less than 1/4 of the division publications. The rest of the publications come from the TSM's or TSM's
with external collaborators.
The same is probably true of the other prolific divisions. Another point is that 1/3 of the
postdocs stay on as staff members in a variety of
LANL divisions including the more directly "missioned oriented groups". The
postdocs that become staff
on average are the better ones, thus LDRD than provides a service for recruitment
and the quality of this recruitment. In some sense the comparing Sandia and LANL
is unfair because Sandia has a far different focus than LANL.
LANL is a more science based lab therefore basic science is
absolutely necessary to that end and part of basic science is
publications. You also say that if publishing papers
was the only mission than
Sandia could likely do that. This is not true, you cannot simply just start publishing papers. One of the
reasons that publications in top journals is such a valuable indicator of quality is because it is externally peered reviewed.

Now some other posters have suggested normalizing the graphs
for different sizes of the labs
and so on. These are all good points. I do not have these numbers but I will give you some
anecdotal evidence that LANL has the most outstanding scientists of all the national laboratories.
If you look at where some of the staff from Los Alamos have
received faculty offerers, (which in many ways is like an external peer review) than you will see that a large number have received offerers from the best universities in the United States. This is really
not the case for Sandia or LLNL. This is a testament to outstanding quality of the
scientists at LANL. A simple test might be to ask department heads at the top 30 universities to rank the national labs. Most likely LANL will be first.


LDRD is not responsible for the LANLs trouble. It is perhaps the
greatest highlight of the LANL and the other labs. It is only accounts for 6 percent the budget yet provides for
the majority of the publications and the the majority of the new staff come to LANL through LDRD.
Part of the lab mission must be basic science and LDRD provides
for that. All quantitative measures show that LANL does have some of best basic science in the United States. Not only does this basic science help the lab mission in the long-term, like 10 to 20 yrs, it also goes on to benefit the the greater whole of the United States.
LDRD is one of the absolutely best uses of the taxpayers money, to suggest otherwise is simply absurd.

Now I would like to address your comments about Sandia's performance being excellent and and LANL's performance not
being excellent which is why DOE
is putting the contract up for bid. I really hope you are not
so naive to believe this. Time and time again when LANL's safety record, security record, and business record are quantitatively compared to the other labs, LANL consistently comes out as one of the
best. It should be clear the the rebid has nothing to with
performance, it is simply politically motived and driven by money. If you want something is a waste to the taxpayers money than it is the redid.
 
It may be difficult, but it might be interest to to try to "separate" out publications by postdocs and staff, although in many (most?) cases, the postdoctoral publications are co-authored by staff. Postdocs serve many purposes. They are training for postdocs after their degrees, but they also bring new ideas to the staff and potential new employees for the future. I agree with 3:37 that science is critical to the primary mission of the Laboratory. In a separate thread I've argued that we have to think thoughts before our enemy thinks those thoughts if we are to try to remain strong on defense and secure. This applies to nuclear weapons as well as other areas of defense. Basic science and applied science is an integral part of the Lab, the absence of which would mean we couldn't accomplish our mission and might as well be shut down. Publications is one way to be sure that we are at the forefront of technology, not just some factory that rapidly becomes obsolete. The benefit of the Lab to the nation has gone FAR beyond the nuclear weapons area perhaps in disproportion to the money spent. A weakness I see in the Lab is to not encourage classified technical publications as much as it could and push for peer review in this area. It is being done, but not well enough, in my opinion.
 
How bad is sometimes the feeling of being right. I supplied the first post, and look at the few following ones. I see the goal of bidding as castration of LANL and nothing else. The posts like the original one are the "swan song". I wish I am not right this time.
 
anon@12:54 - if I review a paper, do I need to do the missing work rather than criticize the author? Give me a break. How about instead of criticizing my post, you contribute something yourself?
 
The 4:57 post seems pretty incoherent. A lot of speculation, and while claims about who publishes and the importance of publications etc. One interesting point, if true, is that LDRD supports most of the publications at LANL. In other words, they do not come out of directly funded, mission related, work for DOE. If the work supports the mission, why isn't it funded directly, if a case can be made for it? It again raises the question; what is the mission of LANL? To publish papers? or to support nuclear weapons? Or, has there been so much "mission creep" that we can't even agree on LANL's mission?
As for blaming Sandia's success on "politics", while Domenici continues to blindly support LANL, this is a bit funny. We all know that Sandia is very competent. And, don't forget, or have you forgotten, that DOE is contracting with the Labs for services rendered. LANL has no "divine right" to tax money; they are to be paid for work performed to DOE specifications. As LANL employees seem to have forgotten that, in their constant harping on the DOE; the contract competition perhaps serves as a useful reminder. LANL is NOT a university, it is a weapons lab!!!
Lastly, I have known many post docs at LANL, a fine group. Some of them, from places like Berkeley and Cornell, would not consider working at LANL long term. But, for the short term, it paid well, was a nice place to extend/complete their research, and a good place to make contacts with other PD, for future collaborations and networking. All the PD I met were quickly aware of the shortcomings of LANL, its strengths and weaknesses. Unclear what this wonderful group has to do with the LANL mission, however.
And will someone please explain why "Quantum Computing", and other such exotics, should be funded at a nuclear weapons lab? If they are mission related, let them be so funded. If not, LDRD seems a work around! Papers are not a product! They should flow from the mission, not BE the mission.
 
The analysis of the Sandia publications is in error.

ISI own website has a database called "essential science indicators". It lists total publications by institution and plots them, too. The ISI bar chart clearly shows a STEADY publication rate at Sandia over the past 10 years. There are tiny insignificant fluctuations from year to year. The downward slope plotted in the posted graph is erroneous. ISI correctly aggregate publications over 5 year periods to eliminate statistical fluctuations. What is posted represents a poor interpretation of data.

Fellow LANL scientists, please think twice before posting "scientific studies of why LANL is great" and "objective evidence of why UC should be retained".

Numbers are easy to manipulate and there is always a way to use such numbers against LANL. Just look at the latest trend "why should a weapons lab have any publications?", "what do publications have to do with LANL's mission?". (By the way, does LANL have a clearly defined mission?)

Offending Sandia and Livermore, where we many of us have colleagues that perform first rate work, does us very little good. It simply reinforces the culture of arrogance at LANL. Our absurd logo "The worlds best science protecting America", or something like that, should go too, and the sooner the better.
 
To 9:36 Mentioning quantum computing as something not mission related is a proof of total ignorance, worthy a member of the bidding committee, not a member of staff of LANL. Similarly with other assertions, but not that obvious to prove.
 
Lousy point. I'm a Sandian and have published in Nature, Science, and numerous PRL's. But that's not why I work at Sandia. I work to contribute to national security.
 
Poster 9:36AM

Where is your proof that PD's account for most of the publications? Also why should I believe you when you say that PD's do not want to stay at LANL for the long term and just want to make contacts with other PD's rather than staff members. Where is you proof of this. It seems completely contrary to my experience. I am very suspicious that you are an employee of LANL. Please present some quantitative data on you assertions or just stop posting.

By the way when you ask why is "Quantum Computing" funded at LANL it really shows how utterly ignorant you are on what QC even is. If you knew something about the subject it would be immediately obvious why this line of work is being done. I am not going to go into why it is. I want you to tell why it is not related to the lab mission. Again I am starting to think you are not someone from LANL and I am becoming very suspicion's of what your real intentions are.
 
2:29 pm and 5:01 pm both seem quite sure that quantum computing is a really important area for mission-focused research. Both imply that anyone who attacks it doesn’t know what they are talking about. In fact that person would be ignorant! I think they should take a little time to enlighten us since quantum computing’s relevance to LANL’s mission appears awfully thin. Moreover I am not ignorant, I’ve served on many LDRD committees including computing ones. Don’t go claiming that these ties are obvious, I’ve been working in the core of LANL’s computing research for over a decade and I don’t see its utility.

From what I can see quantum computing’s principal application is principally cryptography, which has much more to do with the NSA’s mission, but not LANL’s. I’m not sure what else it has been demonstrated as good for and the cryptography results have only been proof-of-principle. Actual quantum computing is still decades away. The people doing quantum computing have been on the LDRD gravy train for years. A great many more mission relevant research lies unfunded in the wake of funding quantum computing whose ties to the mission appear weak at best. LDRD is supposed to fund things that are more than 5 years out. Continually funding something that is 20 or 30 years out seems to be speculative at best.
 
To anonymous 11:08:24
"The analysis of the Sandia publications is in error.
"
Wrong!

If you take five-year running averages, the Sandia publications rates are indeed, as you say, flat (translation - Sandia is losing market share to database expansion at a significant rate) - but the point is, the five-year averages would be insensitive to the period since 1995 when LockMart took over, wouldn't they???

Take some advice from Casey Stengel - "You can look it up" with respect to the annual data. If you are so sure of yourself, get yourself in gear and deal with the facts, as I have.

Woody
 
9:20pm poster.

What you say is not correct. If you really know what QC is and and what it can do you would know why it is funded at LANL. I do not think you work at LANL. I think you are the 9:36 am poster yet again.
 
In reply to 09:45:

Firstly, the ISI official web site is more accurate than LANL's scisearch that is derived from it. ISI is the source of the data. My experience with scisearch shows significant inconsistencies: same search gives significantely different total numbers even within a few minutes span.

Secondly, what is challenged as being in error, if you read the post carefuly, is plotting a line with a downward slope through such noisy data. I did look it up, a little more carefully and systematicaly than you did, using more reliable data.

Thirdly, the wisdom of puting down our colleagues from other national labs in such a public forum is what is really questioned in my post.
 
To 10:47pm.

Give me a break! I am a different poster, and in any case there have been five posts on QC and only one of them has even a hint of technical information, mine!

There is the initial post that asks whether QC should be funded, three that tell us that we are ignorant for questioning QCs relevance, but nary a single detail of what is so mission relevant about QC. At least my post mentions an application of QC and a timeline for its use.

I'm asking the author(s) of the three posts to ante up and let everyone else know what QC does that is so important. I don't know what that might be. What I do see in QC is some cool ideas and the hint of what might be some cool technology later on this century. Cool and later this century do not good funding decisions make!

Oh yeah, I do work at LANL. Being anonymous its hard to prove it, but let's just say that the fact that Zurek's DR on QC is still in play shows that someone thinks that its a good idea to keep funding QC (hence the gravy train comment in my previous post).
 
5:43AM poster.

QC is something LANL needs to be doing. I will not go into why, that is is easy for you to look up. Why not go read some of papers on the subject. By the way Zurek is one of the most cited and one of LANL's best people. If anyone should be funded it is him.

A gravy train? The people who do QC at LANL are some of the hardest working people I have ever meet, 60hrs + per week. Some of the "good media" stories at LANL come
from QC. You should take back your comment on gravy train. Why attack one of the few good things at LANL.
 
So 8:14 am

Given the response to the requests for explanation given, I can conclude the following:

1. You have no coherent argument about how QC is related to the Lab’s mission.
2. You think that QC should be funded because the people working on QC are so darn smart, and smart people should be funded a priori
3. And the people working on QC are so often cited that their work must be good (and relevant),
4. And that QC is good PR for the Lab.
5. And that these people work really hard… 60 hours a week!

You sound just like the person that I served with on an LDRD committee who told me that we should fund somebody because they were so smart. They weren’t going to do what they proposed to do, but they were soooooooo smart that something great would come of it. So we’re left with funding people because they are really smart and their work is good PR. Oh yeah and they’re not the only one who work 60 hours a week, or 80 even. Your whole argument is specious at best.

I can read why QC is related to the mission for myself, or so I’m told. You claim its easy, and it is, the problem is that the QC research is almost entirely unrelated to the Lab mission. I’ve asked several times for your explanation and you still can’t provide anything more than empty rhetorical arguments.

I’ve read the QC articles and a half dozen QC proposals and it still doesn’t add up to having a coherent connection to the mission. QC is really cool stuff, great research that should be done somewhere, but not here. It belongs in academia and the NSF is the right agency to fund it. There is too much important research that is relevant that is not funded and more importantly not done (or cannot be done) elsewhere. That’s what is at stake.

Its attitudes like yours that make LDRD indefensible in DC and keep the LDRD program from actually revitalizing the Lab’s programmatic science. QC is not one of the good things, its one of the things that should not be part of our scientific portfolio.
 
To 9:15 Your statements in short mean there is no place for science in our scientific research and there is no mission orientation in mission oriented research of LANL. Of course, there exist bad proposals concerning good science, and arogant scientists who want to be funded just because they look smart, but I have strong doubts you can comprehend either of these. Trying to intimidate us by stating that you worked on LDRD committees does not change the fact that you are far away from main stream science. It only supports common opinion that many LDRD committees are full of old boys who are cluless about what science is and do strange decisions. It is only very high overall level of proposals that makes the choice looking not that horribly wrong. Whatever you choose will be somewhat good, although not necessary the best.
 
Poster 9:15,

Can you tell me why it is a bad idea to fund people who have had real impact, who are really smart, and work hard? If you are going to fund someone you go with the best people, the smartest people and the hardest working people. No? Seems clear cut to me. It is the tax-payers dollar and I think we owe it to them to have the best science done by the best people.
 
The fact is that LDRD proposals are generally very good in terms of quality. One can be sure that funding decisions are defensible in terms of quality almost without question. IMHO I’d say that about half of the proposals received are worthy of being funded. Since about 10-15 percent can actually be funded, the devil is in the details of how one gets from the 50 percent worth funding to the 10-15 percent that are. The issue is that the 10-15 percent that are funded too often come from the same set of people, groups and divisions. Other people, groups and divisions are routinely excluded.

Its not a matter of not funding the “best and brightest,” it’s a matter of funding the work that has the greatest opportunity to impact the institution in a positive manner. If one considers that PR and great science in the abstract are sufficient reasons than the current LDRD system should provide them great comfort.

My opinion is that finding the “great science” in the Lab’s mission is a much better way to go. This is opposed to the idea that we should fund whatever science suits our whims or intellectual curiosity. There is a huge difference. One requires the scientist to work within a somewhat constrained system where pure intellectual curiosity must be tempered with the specific needs of an application. The other is unfettered and guided by little but individual judgment and curiosity.

I’ll remind the reader that the work done at Los Alamos during WWII was the former, great science and great scientists working on a constrained mission-focused project, not on whatever pleased them. I would contend that an enormous amount of groundbreaking great science stemmed from working in the constrained, mission-focused system. Today we are hamstrung by a system that cuts itself off from the mission-focused great science in favor of mission-unfocused research, which is also great science.

My contention is that doing the great science with a mission-focus is much harder. It is much harder to do research where one must balance the needs of an application with scientific quality than to simply look to scientific quality as the only guide. The real irony is that our mission has enormous scientific opportunities that go unexplored.

The consequence of our present system is that LANL is two nearly independent Labs:

1. There is the Great Science LANL where intellectual curiosity rules. This is the land of ivory tower academia without the burden of teaching. This is where people should be (and are) funded because they are super-smart. This is the land of the Great Science PR. The leadership of Great Science LANL shuns all connections to the actual mission of the Lab, or rather their Mission is to be Great Science PR. It’s the great bait-and-switch of "look at all the articles in Science and Nature, or PRLs therefore the science we can’t tell you about must be great too."
2. There is the Mission-Focused LANL that is increasingly lacking in science in the programs and has been cut off from the revitalizing impact that LDRD should provide. Since the Mission-Focused LANL provides the lion’s share of the money for LDRD, they rightly view LDRD as outright theft with little or no return. The problem is that the science in Mission-Focused LANL is in decay and the quality of the scientists is also in severe decline.

Rather than coupling the two LANLs so that each is stronger we have a system where they are increasingly distant. The Mission-Focused LANL would gladly see LDRD disappear. Congress may indeed help this happen. It would be much better to reform LDRD so that we split the difference. Each side needs to give some ground. The Great Science LANL needs to roll up their sleeves and work in an application-constrained system, and the Mission-Focused LANL needs to realize that they need an injection of scientific quality. LDRD should be structured so that the science in Mission-Focused LANL is revitalized. We would be much better off if all those super-smart people were doing their research with a mission-focus and all of those great PR opportunities were actually tied to the science that should be the foundation of our programs.
 
As long as they continue to provide support to scientists who engage in scientific misconduct, fraud and discrimination, UT Lockheed Martin and UC are not eligible for stewardship of any National Lab. For current realted issues please visit our website and go to the scientific misconduct section.

www.bccmeteorites.com
 
Who are you, really, 6/9/2005 04:43:19 AM (S. Ray Derusse)? I went to your site and found:
"Much of the misconduct flows from a need to maintain control and ownership by whites..."

We do not condone racist trash like this. The articles at your site read like tabloid op-ed with no documentation and references to corroborate your allegations. Go peddle your moon dust and your cheap attempt at science elsewhere. We are dealing with bigger issues of national security.
 
To; Anonymous said...

I think you completely misread our website. Our previous post mentioned nothing about selling anything. Anybody can say anything they want anonymously but can you prove it? One of the hallmarks of being put to the task in the area of credibility is a person's willingness to come forward without a mask. Other than that they cannot be taken seriously. Issues of national security? You mean national paranoia? Is that what you mean? What have we done to the rest of the world that we need to be so secure and need to watch our backs constantly?

Anonymous wrote:
"One of the reasons that publications in top journals is such a valuable indicator of quality is because it is externally peered reviewed." Get real. There is no connection between [peer review][indicator of quality] and [top journals]. We have launched an investigation (Federal) into a scientist who serves as editor of a top journal with peer reviwed publications whose editor(s) has committed scientific misconduct and fraud. Therefore, publication in top journals is not necessarily a positive measure of prestige and means nothing in the face of a discredited journal and or its editors. Racism, scientific misconduct and fraud in planetary science at UT Austin, UC and TCU is real Mr.-Mrs. Anonymous. It's not? Then why are they being investigated for it? Once again, a University whos scientists have demosntrated a profound inclination to enage in racism, scientific misconduct, and fraud pose a risk to the national fabric and cannot partner with Lockheed Martin to manage a National Lab.

Cordially,
S. Ray DeRusse
www.bccmeteorites.com
 
To 6/10/2005 09:02:10 AM S. Ray DeRusse, www.bccmeteorites.com, the 6/9/2005 11:10:08 PM poster has it right. Below follow some quotes taken from your site.

"We discourage the collaboration of Private Industry and National Laboratories with College and University Faculty because of the culture of scientific misconduct which is designed to restrain competition and the free markets."

" This web site promotes the sale, collection, trading and auction of meteorite samples..."

"Weights and prices for polished BCC9601 samples at left are measured-priced on a gram wt. basis. The current price is $75,000.00 per gram. 1 gm = 5 ct."

"1) We no longer send out samples without full payment. All samples must be prepaid. 2) There are no refunds on samples"

"Samples are available prior to purchase, for viewing and analysis by any competent scientist..."

"Much of the misconduct flows from a need to maintain control and ownership by whites..."

"This Account Has Been Suspended
The site that you are trying to reach has been disabled. If You Are The Owner of This Account Please contact the billing department as soon as possible to re-activate your web hosting account."

Presumably, a scientist must be non-white and also NOT a collaborator between National Labs and academia to meet your definition of "competent". Sad, sad! Sounds like you have some real problems. Also, sounds like you ARE peddling moon dust and, by the way, where are your citations?

"...national paranoia...What have we done to the rest of the world that we need to be so secure and need to watch our backs constantly?"

What planet are you on? Ask this question to the families who lost loved ones in 9/11.
 
Hello to the list from Bill Cutler.

Group of scientists band together to perpetuate a fraudulent scheme against BCC Meteorites....implicate The Smithsonian Institution and NASA by email. The scheme is short circuited and foiled by S. Ray DeRusse. Condensed but entire story is in html and word format at;

www.bccmeteorites.com/ferguson/ferguson.html or
www.bccmeteorites.com/ferguson/ferguson.doc


Sincerely,
Bill Cutler
www.bccmeteorites.com and
www.meteoritedealers.com (under construction)
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?