Todd La Porte, University of California, Berkeley: Let me make an observation followed by an irrelevant question. I'm struck by what Nancy Jackson has shared with us. There is a sense of vulnerability of the very good analytical institutions in the United States, that we have come to expect to be remarkably good whatever happens to them. And no matter how good these institutions are, there is a willingness on the part of industry to rationalize its disregard for our society in terms of globalism. This is really extraordinarily apparent in this room today. That willingness to say, "we can go outside (overseas) and get it cheap and become international, that is, to withdraw political support from our own analytical institutions, not just Sandia."

But we know that the very same thing, not in specifics, but in the general pattern, is occurring at Los Alamos, at Livermore, and at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory as well. There is a question here with regard to American industries' understanding of its role in our national security interests in the long term.

Politically, corporations have moved in the direction through Congress of cutting the capacities of our public institutions with regard to analysis. I understand some of the background for it and some of the ideological drivers. But what Nancy Jackson has told us is an example of this decline in the willingness in our political culture, and I mean its industrial cultural element, to support national analytical capabilities that are not immediately responsive to particular individual corporate interests. We could lose the whole thing over time unless there's a much greater sense of corporate stewardship as well as national stewardship with regard to these matters (supporting national analytical capacity). And I do not hear this conversation taking place anywhere. It's a very serious problem.

And now my question. How does Lockheed Martin use its management of Sandia to help its own corporate intelligence with regard to technology? Does that work, and if so, how?

Nancy Jackson: I am not comfortable commenting on that, except that, as you can imagine, they are more closely in touch with the kind of science and engineering that we are doing at Sandia because they physically work with it. And so they benefit just intellectually, if nothing else, from that type of interaction.

Todd La Porte: You are doing better than the University of California.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement