1 / 15

DOE Faculty Opinion Survey

DOE Faculty Opinion Survey. Jan Ingham Academic Senate Town Hall Meeting April 20, 2004. University of California Academic Senate Survey on the National Laboratories.

dahlia
Download Presentation

DOE Faculty Opinion Survey

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DOE Faculty Opinion Survey Jan Ingham Academic Senate Town Hall Meeting April 20, 2004

  2. University of California Academic Senate Survey on the National Laboratories • In the next few months the Regents of the University of California will decide whether to bid to retain management of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. • So that the Academic Senate can provide timely advice from the faculty’s perspective, we request your responses to the items on a survey.

  3. “White papers” containing pertinent background information, prepared by the Academic Council’s Special Committee on the National Laboratories, can be accessed at: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/committees/council/acsconl/reports.html. • White Paper I: Overview of the National Laboratories and UC: History and Current Operations (03/04) • White Paper II: What Are Some Rationales For and Against UC Managing the National Laboratories? (03/04) • White Paper III: What are Some Benefits to UC Students and Faculty from UC’s Management of the Laboratories? (03/04) • White Paper IV: What is Required to Prepare to Bid for a Contract for Any or All of the DOE National Laboratories? (03/04) • White Paper V: DOE National Lab Employees and UC Benefits (03/04) • White Paper VI: Should a UC Bid to Continue Management of Los Alamos and/or Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories Include Partnerships with One or More Private Sector Firms? (03/04) • White Paper VII: Can There Be Anything Equivalent to Academic Freedom, an Attribute that UC Management Supposedly Brings to the National Laboratories, in the Context of Classified Research? (03/04) • White Paper VIII: What is the Role of the Faculty in the Management of the National Laboratories? (04/04) • White Paper IX: What are the Respective Roles and Authority of UC and DOE in the Management of the National Laboratories? (04/04) • White Paper X: How Does UC Oversee the Quality of Science and Technology at the National Laboratories? (04/04) • White Paper XI: Does Recent Adverse Publicity Concerning Incidents at Los Alamos and Livermore Call into Question Both UC’s Ability to Manage the National Laboratories and the Public Perception of UC as a Manager? (04/04) • UCORP Subcommittee Report on the Relationship between UC and DOE (2/03)

  4. The results of this survey will be aggregated (individual responses will not be identifiable) and presented to the Administration and Regents before UC must make its decision regarding whether to bid. • Because Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is a science lab that conducts no classified research and has been an integral part of the Berkeley campus for decades, there is widespread agreement that UC should bid to retain management of the Berkeley lab. • Therefore, the items that follow apply only to the potential future of UC’s relationship with the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories.

  5. PART I • Regarding your overall preference for UC to bid or not for continued management of the national laboratories, please read items 1, 2, and 3 below and then select the one position that comes closest to your own views by clicking on the items associated with that statement that are relevant to your position.

  6. Position 1 • I SUPPORT bidding by the University of California for the contracts to continue management of the national laboratories because (click all that apply): • Management of the laboratories is an historic obligation of public service that UC should uphold. • The importance of national security and the condition of the U.S. nuclear stockpile requires the best scientific underpinning possible, which is a capability of UC management. • The benefits to the nation of the nonclassified research conducted at the laboratories are worthy of UC leadership. • The benefits to UC faculty and students in regard to opportunities for research collaboration are invaluable. • Separation of laboratory personnel from the UC retirement system could weaken benefits to UC faculty. • The UC name enhances the laboratories’ efforts to recruit the best scientists and other employees.

  7. Position 2 • I OPPOSE bidding by University of California for the contracts to continue management of the national laboratories because (click all that apply): • The missions of the laboratories are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of the University of California. • The complexity of the management arrangements among UC, the federal government, and the laboratories are such that successful, relatively trouble-free management will always be unattainable. • Given the 60-year history of UC’s management of the laboratories as a public service to the nation, UC should not be required to bid to maintain the management contracts. • Collaborations between UC faculty and students and the laboratories can occur without UC being the laboratories’ manager. • Management of the laboratories requires inordinate attention from the Office of the President that should be directed toward management of the campuses. • The UC name and reputation are devalued by their association with the laboratories.

  8. Position 3 • I DO NOT WISH TO TAKE A POSITION regarding whether the University of California should bid for the contracts to continue management of the national laboratories because (click all that apply): • I am not well enough informed to offer advice. • The decision to bid or not has no personal or professional impact on me. • I don’t believe the Regents will respect faculty opinion. • I am not interested in these issues.

  9. PART II Separate bids will likely be required for Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. The bid for Los Alamos will come first. In your opinion, UC should (select one): • Submit bids to continue to manage both laboratories. • Submit a bid only for Los Alamos. • Submit a bid only for Lawrence Livermore. • Submit no bid for either laboratory.

  10. PART III Irrespective of the preference you indicated in Parts I and II, in the nine items that follow please indicate your opinion regarding the conditions that should prevail IF UC were to continue management of the national laboratories.

  11. Please check all that apply (optional): Assistant Professor (including in-residence, etc.) Associate Professor (including in-residence, etc.) Professor (including in-residence, etc.) Other Male Female Humanities Social Sciences Science/Engineering Professional School Other UC Berkeley UC Davis UC Irvine UC Los Angeles UC Merced UC Riverside UC San Diego UC San Francisco UC Santa Barbara UC Santa Cruz PART IV

  12. PART V In the space below, please add any comments that you would like to offer regarding the UC-national laboratories relationship.

  13. Thank you for participating in this survey so that the opinions of UC faculty will be heard.

More Related