United States National Labs: How Does Their Research Measure Up?

Editor's Note: An article on page 1 of this issue addresses the government officials, and the United States public concerning ongoing funding and focus of the major national weapons labs-- Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia. The article points out that this shift, in fact, marks a time of vast change for all Department of Energy-managed labs, as the quest for global economic gain supplants the fear of global war as the prime reason for continued support of these facilities. Among the most dramatic signs of change, as these labs take new aim through creative partnerships with private-industry firms, is their increasing involvement in the life sciences. Heretofore, their achievements--individually and collectively--centered for the most part on the physical sciences, and it is worth pondering how well they will adapt to the inevitable challenges accompanying the demand to redirect their efforts. Earlier this year, the newsletter Science Watch, published by the Institute for Scientific Information in Philadelphia, undertook to evaluate through citation analysis the influence that the largest national labs have had on research during the past decade. The newsletter compared the labs' citation records in several categories--physical as well as life sciences--weighing the impact of their published work against one another, and also against the impact of all U.S.-published papers in these fields. A report on this study appeared in the March 1993 issue of Science Watch. It is reprinted here with the permission of the newsletter and of ISI. For some time now, the national laboratories of the United States Department of Energy (DOE) have been the subject of increasing scrutiny. Policymakers are openly questioning the necessity of funding the weapons labs--Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, and Los Alamos--at the same levels as during the 1980s, when the threat from the Soviet Union was considerable. Those wrestling with the ever-expanding federal budget deficit are wondering how much of the billions currently spent each year on the national labs might be saved. And some politicians, worried about America's economic competitiveness, are asking whether the DOE labs can shift their missions toward civilian research and work more closely with industry--in fact, in some cases to become contract research shops for industry. There is little question that changes are coming for the national labs, but when, how much, and what type of changes are yet to be determined. In light of all this, it seems appropriate for Science Watch to examine how scientists themselves regard the citation analysis, which reflects the influence that research at a given facility has had on others in the scientific community. Science Watch surveyed the scientific papers from eight large DOE labs that were published in journals indexed by ISI from 1981 to 1992. The papers of each were divided into subfields based on the journals in which they appeared and a journal-subfield classification scheme employed by Current Contents, an ISI publication. The labs were then ranked according to their mean citations-per-paper record in 1981-92 (papers published during 1981-92 and cited over the same period) and in the most recent five-year period, 1988-92 (papers published during 1988-92 and cited during the same period). To be ranked in a subfield, a lab had to have produced at least 100 papers in a given period; an exception was made for Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in analytical, inorganic, and nuclear chemistry in 1988-92, when it produced 90 papers. For each subfield, and for each period surveyed, the average citation impact scores for all U.S. papers are indicated at the top of each ranking. The results show that the research impact of these large DOE labs, as measured by citations per paper, generally exceeds the U.S. average. In fact, there are signs of improvement: More of the labs surpassed the U.S. average in 1988-92 than they did in 1981-92. Different labs clearly have different areas of strength and weakness. As for strengths, Brookhaven ranked first in general physics; Argonne topped the list in applied physics; Ames placed first in analytical, inorganic, and nuclear chemistry; Berkeley bested all others in materials science; and Sandia took top honors in nuclear engineering, for both periods. As for weaknesses, Oak Ridge was last in physical chemistry and in biochemistry/biophysics for both periods, and it fell from sixth to last in applied physics, comparing 1981-92 with 1988-92; Brookhaven ranked at the bottom or near to it in physical chemistry and materials science during both periods; Livermore placed last or next to last in applied physics; and Los Alamos was last in analytical, inorganic, and nuclear chemistry during both periods.

United States National Labs: How Does Their Research Measure Up?

The Scientist Staff

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of