| PART VI. In the space below, please add any comments that you would like to offer regarding the UC-nuclear weapons laboratories relationship. |
| # |
Responses |
| 1 |
Relationship must end now! |
| 2 |
UC is not structured, nor should it be, to manage national secrets. The inability of the University to provide adequate security of data and equipment has seriously damaged UC's reputation and distracted Regents and top officials from attending to concerns much more central to the University's purpose. |
| 3 |
We need to ensure that better management is in place to follow the required contract and security guidelines required by the U.S. DOE and the U.S. DOL. |
| 4 |
While I am troubled by nuclear weapons, I am also troubled by recent security lapses at Los Alamos that indicate UC has not done a good job managing them. |
| 5 |
While I regret that it is necessary to maintain labs for the development of nuclear weapons, I much prefer that the management of this work be in the hands of qualified and rational science workers. Despite its occasional failures, I have more trust in UC to do that properly than I have in any other US institution. |
| 6 |
The Univerisity should not be in the nuclear weapons business period. |
| 7 |
No comment needed. |
| 8 |
As pointed out before, I do not support UC involvement with research oriented towards military goals. However, it might be that the alternative of having a private company---GE comes to mind as a worst case---run these laboratories. So while I think UC should get out, it might still be better and more "democratic" to have UC run the labs if we all try to influence the kind of research and development done there in a better direction. |
| 9 |
any cooperation endorses nuclear power -- a threat to life on this planet |
| 10 |
I agree that UC would make a powerful positive statement to the world and the nation if it refused to bid on management of the labs. Developing and manufacturing nuclear weapons is not a public service. Scientists need to take responsibility for how their research is used. |
| 11 |
the University is for teaching, learning, and preserving humanity, not adding to the destruction of peoples. |
| 12 |
I am a little concerned about the way this survey pointedly and repeatedly refers to nuclear weapons labs in this survey. Both labs and LANL in particular are involved in many other areas of research in which UC has a compelling interest to stay involved. But I'm just a mere librarian so what do I know. |
| 13 |
Continued support of development of nuclear weapons undermines the brilliant research regarding the preservation and sustainability of our environment occuring on our UC campuses. Do not support this management of Nuclear Weapons Labs any longer. Put the time and energy into more forward thinking and discoveries regarding the environment. The other is a no-win situation and does not create national security! |
| 14 |
UC should develop and maintain better administration and security. Scientists need to learn to create the atmosphere necessary to do their work independently, well and safely. Sounds easy. I worked at a DOE lab. I know it is hard but can be accomplished. |
| 15 |
Nuclear weapons? You mean... WMD? Why should we be producing these? |
| 16 |
UC in a better position to observe and influence nuclear weapons policy if lab relationships continue |
| 17 |
The scandals that have developed in recent years at Los Alamos tarnish UC's reputation. We should not be managing a lab in New Mexico. Nor should we be building nuclear weapons. Doctors working for Hitler's Germany excused the experiments they performed on Jews on the grounds that they, the doctors were neutral, too. |
| 18 |
What is needed is conversion and disarmament. The precautionary principle should prevail for health, safety and sustainability. The Lab betrays the UC mission. |
| 19 |
The University of California should be educating people, not helping to kill them. |
| 20 |
My choices on the earlier questions of the survey should be sufficient to indicate that I strongly feel we should not be involved in this research at all. |
| 21 |
UC should be an instituion of education and humanitarian inquiry. We should not be in the business of destroying the world. |
| 22 |
In my opinion these labs should be run by academic institutions. It is very dangerous to allow them to become a political football. |
| 23 |
Given our fiscal situation, some degree of financial gain, should the UC continue to manage one or both labs, is now appropriate. |
| 24 |
As National Laboratories these facilities should be run by a public institution. They should be open to the scrutiny of the scientific community and such openness is NOT characteristic of commercial enterprises. Turning these public resources over to private management would not stop the design and manufacture of nuclear weapons, but it would mean such endeavors going forward without the oversight of the UC community the built these institutions and their reputations. |
| 25 |
UC should NOT be involved in the research, development, or manufacture of nuclear weapons. |
| 26 |
It is time to move on; UC will always be seen as the loser and the core mission of the University gets damaged by putting itself in this position. |
| 27 |
I believe that research collaboration and the relationship between UC libraries and the lab libraries are worth retaining. But, I have strong moral objections to the production of nuclear weapons at the lab, coupled with concern about our current fiscal problems in the UC. My preference would be not to bid on overall management of the labs, but to work on retaining those specific relationships to the labs that are most beneficial to scholars. |
| 28 |
Financial benefits from this relationship would be greatly appreciated especially during today's difficult times with huge budget cuts. However, that benefit can not justify the longterm cost and responsibility of a UC contribution to some of the most dangerous weapons for humanity. |
| 29 |
We should refuse to work on weapons systems and avoid the trap of "pure" science that leads to an amoral role in weapons development. Our relationship with weapons corporations and governmental agaencies poisons our role to provide new knowledge beneficial to the people of California and the world. |
| 30 |
UC should actively pursuade the government to seek alternatives to weapons of mass destruction. |
| 31 |
Academe would be healthier and would benefit society more if it were not tangled up in the military-industrial complex. |
| 32 |
UC should obtain some benefit from any such agreement, such as additional monies to be used to further UC collaboration or to fund related research on other campuses. Non-profit is laudable, but I believe that UC should benefit beyond mere cost-recovery. |
| 33 |
As a full professor of politics who has specialized in international security, I believe managing the nuclear weapons labs offers no credit to the University. |
| 34 |
"Defense" costs, including unneeded nuclear weapons, draw billions of dollars in funding from all other social needs, including higher education, at a time of severe budget costs and rising tuitions. |
| 35 |
The question of whether or not the UC system should manage these two weapons manufacturing facilities is complicated. On the one hand, isn't it better to have a public institution, rather than a secretive private corporation, conduct these activities? But, overall, the main issue is that in my and millions of other's opinions, this activity should not be taking place at all. This combined with the fact that this relationship is leading to a situation where the weapons manufacturing industry is creating the curricula in the sciences, makes UC's management of these laboratories unacceptable. UC's mission, as a public institution of HIGHER education, is incompatible with a technology that most of the work recognizes as a grave threat to mankind itself. We should not be in the business of making bombs. We should be in the business of teaching people to think, rather than relying on outdates cold war type scare tactics allowing U.S. global hegemony. We should be educating for a BETTER future, not one based on fear and a careless, unsustainable use of technology. |
| 36 |
Truthfully, I don't know enough about this subject as I should, but I have answered as well as I can. |
| 37 |
I think UC should not be involved in any way in the production of nuclear weapons; academic programs should not solicit funds from companies involved in the production of nuclear weapons, any other WMD etc. UC should not be in the business of killing!!! |
| 38 |
I am opposed to UC being involved in the production of nuclear weapons. |
| 39 |
This relationship must stop! How can we educate a nation away from nuclear war if we're complicit with a business to make weapons? War is not the answer! |
| 40 |
Be Careful |
| 41 |
I think the security of the labs is crucial, and apparently we haven't done the best job in this respect. |
