Harry Targ
The Purdue University community first read on April 6,
2018 about a contract bid that the university and the Bechtel Corporation proposed
to manage the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. The contract would
be worth $22 billion over a decade, a huge boost to Purdue’s finances. In an updated story on May 27 readers were
reminded that the National Nuclear Security Administration could decide on
whether the Purdue/Bechtel bid would prevail over other competitors by the end
of May (Dave Bangert, “Is Purdue Ready to Run Los Alamos?” Journal and Courier.)
The first story came as a surprise to most members of
the Purdue community. The May 27 story refers to Purdue President Mitch
Daniels’ explanation about his reluctance to reveal too much about the contract
bid as it was originally reported in April. “At the time, Daniels was treading
lightly-out of respect, he said, for the bidding process-but offered this to
the J&C. ‘I do believe this is the sort of level Purdue should be playing
at, let me put it that way.’”
The relative secrecy of this bid to run the nation’s
major nuclear weapons facility is reminiscent of the argument made in a recent
book by historian Nancy MacLean, Democracy
in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America.
In it, MacLean traces the intellectual development of the libertarian right and
their organized connections with the Koch Brothers and state programs to
promote their political agenda. What is
relevant here is MacLean’s argument that many of the libertarian right’s policy
proposals would be opposed if public discourse and majoritarian democracy
prevailed. Consequently, she suggests, efforts are made to limit transparency,
public discussion, and legislative and electoral participation in major public
policies. This approach contradicts universities where faculty should have some
role in decision-making on research and educational policy.
There are a number of issues that the Bechtel/Purdue relationship
raises. First, Bechtel and the University of California ran the labs from 2006 through
2017 and lost their contract because of serious workplace accidents. As
Pro-Publica puts it: “Analysts and experts say the fact that Bechtel and UC are
even in contention for such a plum contract shows that the government
prioritizes the lab’s nuclear-related work over workplace safety,” (Rebecca
Moss, “Two Leading Bidders for Lucrative Los Alamos Lab Contract Have Checkered
Safety Records,” ProPublica, May 8,
2018).
Second, in addition to its problematic university partnership
in managing Los Alamos, Bechtel, as one of the largest engineering and
construction companies in the world, has been criticized for quality of contracted
work done in Iraq, Eastern Europe, and Bolivia, including poor planning and inadequate
construction. (See Matthew Brunwasser, “Steamrolled.” Foreign Policy, http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/30/steamrolled-investigation-bechtel-highway-business-kosovo/
Third, there are broader policy questions about the managerial
control of the largest nuclear laboratory in the United States. For example, should
corporations and universities with financial interests in particular research
projects be given the authority to manage and determine the work of the
laboratory?
Fourth, two distinguished Purdue alums have served in
executive positions with the Bechtel Corporation and maintain close ties to
their alma mater. Do these connections raise questions about the Purdue
collaboration?
Fifth, research on nuclear weapons and energy policy
deserve intense public discussion. The Obama and Trump administrations have
committed to the development of a new round of nuclear weapons. The commitments
violate promises to denuclearize the world made at the time of the collapse of
the former Soviet Union. And US government campaigns to restrict the
possibility of nuclear development in North Korea and Iran contradict this US
policy of building new weapons.
Sixth, prioritizing nuclear energy in a post-carbon
energy world is controversial. What are the nuclear energy projects of the Los
Alamos Laboratory? Are there alternatives being researched at universities such
as Purdue University?
Seventh, the United States is the only country that
has used atomic bombs in human history. The decisions to drop the bombs, and to
maintain upgraded weapons of much greater magnitude, raise ethical questions about
their continued research and development.
In the end, the university is a space for public
discourse on ethics, public policy, research and teaching programs. As a public
university, engagement with civil society is appropriate. The issues raised about
the Los Alamos National Laboratory, collaboration with any corporate partner, and
the use of university resources are complicated and require transparency and
much public discussion. Purdue University, with its strong programs in Engineering, Science, and
the Liberal Arts, is particularly equipped to engage in public discourse which could
lead to more effective university policies. And, as Nancy MacLean warns,
circumventing public discussion weakens democracy.
