1. See Section IV "Core Technical Capabilities of the DOE Laboratories" for additional information on budgetary and workforce levels across the major technical competencies of the laboratories.
2. In response to such concerns, the Department in 1993 launched a major contract reform initiative aimed at preserving the attributes of GOCO management while addressing acknowledged deficiencies which had been experienced primarily at the Department's GOCO weapons production facilities.
3. The Defense Science Board in 1987 proposed that some of the Department of Defense laboratories be converted from government-owned, government-operated (GOGO) labs to GOCOs. The Office of Technology Assessment and National Academy of Sciences also have made recommendations that the GOCO model be seriously considered for DOD's laboratories.
4. Synchrotron light sources utilize powerful beams of x-rays and ultraviolet radiation for conducting state-of-the-art structural studies. Synchrotron radiation initially was derived as a by-product of electron accelerators built for physics research. The results showed such high promise that later accelerators were built expressly to produce synchrotron radiation for materials research.
5. The 1980 Stevenson-Wydler Act required the Department of Energy to establish technology transfer as an explicit mission of its laboratories. Subsequent amendments to that act, in the form of the 1986 Federal Technology Transfer Act and the 1989 National Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act, gave the Department and its Laboratories and facilities additional authority and mechanisms for working cooperatively with industry.
6. The Laboratories also are major players, in collaboration with the "Big Three" auto manufacturers and other agencies, in the Partnership for New Generation Vehicles, an R&D effort aimed at developing a new generation of vehicles that will be three times more energy-efficient than today's cars.
7. These arrangements included cost-shared contracts, cooperative research and development agreements, R&D consortia, personnel exchange programs, licensing agreements, user facility agreements, and consulting agreements.
8. The President's Science Advisor has referred to the establishment of a "virtual R&D agency," which involves utilization of the full spectrum of federal R&D capabilities in an integrated and coordinated fashion, facilitated by the National Science and Technology Council.
9. Technology for a Sustainable Future: A Framework for Action, The White House, July 1994, p 1.
10. The Department of Energy laboratory system includes nine multi-program, National laboratories; 11 smaller, single-program laboratories; and 10 highly-focussed mission-specific laboratories.
11. Includes research, development, capital equipment and construction of research facilities.
12. This figure includes R&D and R&D plant operations; source: Science & Engineering Indicators-1993, National Science Foundation, National Science Board.
13. Science in the National Interest delineates five major goals for continued stewardship of the nation's basic science enterprise; for the purposes of this White Paper, the fourth and fifth goals--which both address training and education--are combined.
14. Guests are researchers who visit and work at a laboratory for a period of ten days or more. A much larger number of people (over 200,000) visit the laboratories for shorter periods of time to do research or to talk with laboratory staff, or to tour the site.
15. Sometimes the costs are covered by a separate university or industry research contract with the government, but not by the laboratory.
16. The statement was made by Vice President Gore to the Forum on Science in the National Interest in February, 1994.
17. Chubin, Daryl E. and Hackett, Edward J., Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1990).
18. U.S. Department of Energy, "Making Contracting Work Better and Cost Less; Report of the Contract Reform Team." (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, February 1994).
19. National Institutes of Health, "Report of the External Advisory Committee of the Director's Advisory Committee." (Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health, April 1994).
20. Chubin, Daryl E., et al., op. cit.
21. Bozeman, B., "Peer Review and Evaluation of R&D Impacts", in ed. Bozeman, B., and Melkers, J., Evaluating R&D Impacts: Methods and Practice, p. 79-98. (Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993).
22. Kostoff, R., "Assessing Research Impact: Federal Peer Review Practices", in ed. Kostoff, R., Evaluation Review vol. 18, No. 1, p. 31-40. (Sage Publications, February 1994).
23. The R&D 100 Awards are given each year to innovations both in public and private institutions which hold a high prospect for commercial success. The Department of Energy laboratories have received more of these awards than all other federal agency laboratories combined; more than 50 percent of the113 award-winning DOE technologies between 1989 and 1992 already have been commercialized.
24. C.K. Prahalad and Gary Hamel, The Core Competence of the Corporation, Harvard Business Review. May-June, 1990, pp. 79-91.
25. The results of this excercise were reported in Changes and Challenges at
the
Department of Energy Laboratories: Report of the Laboratory Missions Priority
Team.
That report termed the major laboratory strengths as "core competencies."
Others have
commented that these more accurately are the "core technical capabilities" of
the
laboratories. For this purposes of this paper, the term core technical
capabilities is
used.