. "Comparison Study with Other Federal Agency Laboratories." National Laboratories and Universities: Building New Ways to Work Together -- Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
National Laboratories and Universities: Building New Ways to Work Together - Report of a Workshop
researchers, particularly within JILA: the examples given by Casassa suggested that much NIST research was also individual PI-driven and much less involved in the “big complicated engineering team science” endeavors characteristic of DOE laboratories. Stable long-term funding and monetary or risk buy-in from both sides of a university-lab partnership were concluding requirements for success that echoed earlier sentiments presented by DOE laboratory representatives Jeffrey Wadsworth and Robert Rosner.
The extensive involvement of DOD with universities at all levels is driven by a need to keep DOD ideas and people current with the latest technological developments. With respect to DOD interactions with universities, Kenneth Harwell’s presentation illustrated that, first and foremost, much of this interaction was in the form of grants given to universities for the purpose of conducting research, acquiring instrumentation, and educating advanced degree students. The analogue would be Office of Science grants given to universities by DOE (i.e., a program at the agency level, not the laboratory level). However, whereas the Office of Science does not give student fellowships directly, DOD does (e.g., the Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship Program). This distinction means that DOD-funded fellows typically have much less extensive person-to-person partnering and research interaction than their DOE counterparts, who are sponsored and mentored directly by laboratory personnel. Cooperative and summer employment programs as described by Harwell, appeared to be much more similar in their implementation between DOD and DOE. Joint faculty appointments between DOD laboratories and universities were not mentioned and presumably do not exist, even though a number of joint centers were mentioned (e.g., the Collaborative Center in Control Science, the Collaborative Center for Polymer Photonics, the Information Institute).
Absent in the DOD presentation were any references to color-of-money or pot-of-money, administrative, or legal issues in collaborations, presumably because the origin of both money and contracts is the same for all potential collaborators. Also absent were any remarks regarding difficulties in hosting foreign graduate students in the laboratory environment or in the participation of non-citizen, U.S.-residing faculty and students at DOD laboratory events and seminars. Indeed, DOD has gone one step beyond interacting with U.S. researchers of foreign origin and has a dedicated program, “Windows on Science,” to sponsor visits of leading foreign researchers to DOD laboratories in order to capture the latest technological developments and research concepts from abroad.
Conspicuously present in Harwell’s presentation were a number of DOD collaborative programs with universities that also had substantial industry contributions. This is in contrast to the DOE national laboratory/ university interactions discussed earlier, which tended to be much more