Peer Review and Design Competition in the NNSA National Security Laboratories (2015) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1 Introduction and Charge
1 Introduction and Charge
Pages 7-16
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 7... ...
Whereas a nuclear test was in some sense the ultimate "peer review" of the performance of a particular NEP design, the cessation of nuclear testing necessitated a much greater reliance on both intralab and interlab expert peer review to identify potential problems with weapon designs and define the solution space. 1 On September 24, 1996, the United States signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, although it had been observing a nuclear explosion testing moratorium since 1992.
|
From page 8... ...
The committee has understood that the "effectiveness" of peer review referred to in its charge is the effectiveness that can be achieved under the current conditions in which the nuclear weapons program now operates -- that is, without nuclear explosion testing. HISTORICAL CONTEXT Founded in 1943, Los Alamos was the first U.S.
|
From page 9... ...
The nuclear explosion testing moratorium implemented in 1992 resulted in a fundamental shift in the approach for maintaining the safety, security, and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.
|
From page 10... ...
The laboratories have also strengthened their technical evaluation and peer review processes to ensure the safety, security, and effectiveness of the nuclear stockpile and to help maintain the associated S&E design and innovation capabilities. PEER REVIEW Peer review has become an increasingly important practice at the three NNSA laboratories as a means of reducing the risk of misconceptions and errors slipping into their science and engineering activities.
|
From page 11... ...
who review the laboratory's work in the given area; • Subject-matter reviews, involving internal and external subject matter experts, who review a laboratory's execution of, or capa bilities in, particular areas of science or engineering; and • Technical reviews of programs or projects, involving internal and external experts who may not have as full a range of expertise as the people performing the original work but who provide techni cal scrutiny and checking of selected aspects of the work. Examples of Peer Review Because of the wide variation in how "review" and "peer review" are understood, the committee found it useful to develop a taxonomy that describes the primary types of review and structured competition activities that are valuable for strengthening S&E quality at the laboratories: • Traditional peer review.
|
From page 12... ...
In the context of this report, a review by JASON would differ from the traditional peer review described above because the outside experts might have backgrounds in disciplines other than nuclear weapons. As a result, they are not peers in the sense of themselves being able to carry out the work being reviewed.
|
From page 13... ...
Whereas the primary goal of peer review is to check the quality of cuttingedge work, design competition fosters parallel efforts that vie to push frontiers. In this report the committee distinguishes two types of design competition: • Design studies.
|
From page 14... ...
And, limited-scope design competitions are embarked upon to explore a broader set of refurbishment options while at the same time providing an opportunity to exercise and transfer necessary skill sets to the next generation of nuclear weapons designers, in closer analogy to the successful modes of activity that were practiced during the Cold War. In this report, the committee evaluates the efficacy of peer review and design competition in today's national nuclear security program and provides recommendations for how to ensure robust and reliable processes for peer review and design competition in the future.
|
From page 15... ...
OUTLINE OF THE REPORT The chapters that follow are organized chronologically, looking first at peer review and design competition during the period when nuclear explosion tests were still being conducted and new weapons developed, followed by a discussion of today's practices, and, finally, making recommendations to improve peer review and design competition at the laboratories going forward. As discussed in Chapter 2, during the Cold War the United States designed, built, tested, and deployed numerous nuclear warheads of various designs.
|
From page 16... ...
Chapter 4 provides conclusions and recommendations for strengthening current practices of peer review and design competition related to nuclear weapons and for maintaining a credible nuclear weapons design capability and an effective deterrent.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.