FST JOURNAL

Summary:

• The Princeton Plasma Physics Lab at which Sir Cowley works is legendary within the field of plasma physics and fusion research
• There are problems in science that require scale. You need a national lab to deliver science and technology at scale. Thus, they are an essential part of the scientific landscape
• We have a small but really impressive set of national labs in the UK which need nurturing - not just money, but also organisation and a place to report into government
• Large facilities at laboratories pose significant engineering challenges because they necessarily involve cutting-edge technologies, such as superconducting magnets and fast electronics
• National laboratories are a strategic asset. In times of trouble government turns to labs for specific expertise.

My experience with national labs is predominantly shaped by the model developed in the United States during the Second World War, which Britain subsequently adopted. While national labs have existed in various forms since the time of Napoleon, the model that most prominently captured public imagination was and is the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos. Los Alamos today is a vast operation, employing about 16,000 people and forming part of the Department of Energy (DOE) system of national labs, which includes 17 institutions.

My lab, the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (PPPL), is one of the smaller DOE national labs, with approximately 850 employees. Despite its size, PPPL is legendary within the field of plasma physics and fusion research.

Our response in the UK to the Manhattan Project, both for military and for civilian reasons was of course Harwell and subsequently the whole of UKAEA. I have often felt that we have never quite celebrated enough, the immense achievement of the 40s 50s and 60s, putting ourselves on the map as a nuclear power. This was done through national labs and it couldn’t have been done without combined resources from many different labs.

My experience comes from what I call ‘my beloved Culham’ or Culham Centre for Fusion Energy -- an amazing lab where incredible things are achieved every day. Culham hosted one of the world's premier large facilities, JET, for 40 years, and ran it beautifully during that time. It's an incredible resource for the country. I now run the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab; a 91 acre site with 290 engineers and 130 PhDs – another gem.

PPPL began in 1951 as a dedicated center for fusion research. While fusion research remains a core focus, our mission has expanded to support the microelectronics industry by developing next-generation plasma tools for chip manufacturing. As the feature scale on chips reaches down to about 4 nanometers, the challenges of manufacturing with plasma tools increase. Given our expertise as the U.S.'s premier plasma physics lab, this extension of our mission was a natural progression. This new research program is well-coordinated with industry and academia.

PPPL is managed by Princeton University on behalf of the government, creating a unique managerial structure that links a leading academic institution with the primary funder, the US government. This arrangement allows the government to set the research agenda while leveraging Princeton's academic strengths.

Being a science super power

If you look at the rankings of universities around the world, British and American Universities standout. The model of an individual investigator leading a university group, supported by postdocs and graduate students, and characterized by an almost entrepreneurial spirit, has proven to be spectacularly successful.  Furthermore, research in many UK universities (e.g. Cambridge) is well connected to the tech, pharmaceutical, biomedical and computer industry. The US excels at this model. It’s a very efficient structure, but it is not something that National Labs are funded or suited to do. 

When you need to work big

Certain scientific problems require significant scale, such as the Manhattan Project, which was comparable in size and scale to the United States' automobile industry at the time. With 130,000 employees, the project necessitated teamwork and an incredible mixture of skills, including engineers, materials scientists, chemists, and physicists. Effective project management was also essential. Some scientific challenges cannot be tackled in a garage in Palo Alto or on a lab bench at Imperial College London; they require the resources of a national lab.

As lab directors in the DOE system, we often convene to discuss the management of national labs and interactions with the government. These labs have been remarkably successful. For example, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) is a shining example of success, having employed 16 Nobel laureates. LBNL, situated just up the hill from the University of California, Berkeley, maintains a strong connection with the university. This relationship mutually benefits both the lab and the university.

When you look around the world, it's not just the American labs that are successful. We have a small but really impressive set of national labs in the United Kingdom. These need nurturing and that nurturing is not just money, but also organisation and a place to report into government. There are also very strong labs in Europe. CERN is the classic example and every national lab director is envious of the stability of the funding and the European commitment to CERN. 

To become a science superpower, it is crucial to invest in both universities and national laboratories; neglecting either would be detrimental. Additionally, many scientific fields require large facilities, such as the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, and Diamond and ISIS, which are at the forefront of scientific advancement and vital for both labs and universities.

Historically, large scientific facilities were owned and operated by a single nation, and even earlier, by universities. Nowadays, these facilities are increasingly shared among countries and often involve global teams. Designing, building, and operating such facilities necessitates teams of skilled engineers, as these projects push the boundaries of technology with components like superconducting magnets and advanced electronics.

Building large facilities is not only about construction but also about collaboration with multiple industrial partners and stakeholders. The engineering challenges are immense, requiring the invention of new technologies and innovative solutions. Throughout my career, I have found this work extraordinarily rewarding. For success, the laboratory’s engineering team and industry partners must collaborate closely, enhancing each other's capabilities in the process.

National labs are a strategic asset, essential in times of trouble. Whether it's developing new weapons systems or addressing national emergencies, we rely on them for their vital expertise, which has been intentionally nurtured and grown over many years. I witnessed this firsthand at Culham, where we had—and still have—an extraordinary workforce that seamlessly transitioned between us, STFC, Oxford Instruments, Atkins, Jacobs, and various other parts of the high-tech engineering industry. Culham remains a crucial component of a portfolio of national assets, and it would be a great loss for the UK to lose this portfolio.

What should we be doing to nurture our labs?   This question has a long answer. I would like to instead focus on a pressing question on facilities. My questions are then: what is the UK’s next great science facility? Are we going to be a global competitor? Who are going to be our partners? Who would share the cost? I don't think we should be out of the business of having globally competitive large scale science facilities and it needs long term planning.