Latest
Westfall, 2024, The Age of the National Laboratories: The Advent of the New Big Science, in: Between Science and Industry
Gargini, 2023, Semiconductor Crises and Roadmap Rescue (International Roadmap for Devices and Systems)
Mody, 2022, The Squares: US Physical and Engineering Scientists in the Long 1970s (review by Stuart Macdonald)
Whitford, 2022, Herding Scientists: A Story of Failed Reform at the CDC
Robert Jacobs, 2022, Nuclear Bodies
NREL – Saving the Planet Since 1977 (2021) [film]
2010-2020
Department of Energy, 2020, THE STATE OF THE DOE NATIONAL LABORATORIES 2020 EDITION
*Bin-Nun, et al., 2017, The Department of Energy National Laboratories: Organizational design and management strategies to improve federal energy innovation and technology transfer to the private sector (Harvard Kennedy School, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs). Note the literature survey pp. 30-34.
Dittrich and Ständer, 2017, A European agency for disruptive innovation: How could it look like and what would it do? (Jacques Delors Institut Berlin)
*Weinberger, 2017, The Imagineers of War: the Untold Story of DARPA, the Pentagon Agency that Changed the World
Biggs, 2018, Following dioxin’s drift: Agent orange stories and the challenge of metabolic history, in: International Review of Environmental History (“DARPA funded the new herbicide research at Detrick”, p. 17)
Díaz Anadón, et al., 2016, The pressing energy innovation challenge of the US National Laboratories, in: Nature Energy
Hecker (ed.), 2016, Doomed to Cooperate: How American and Russian Scientists Joined Forces to Avert Some of the Greatest Post-Cold War Nuclear Dangers
Roland, 2016, War and Technology: a very short introduction
Jacobsen, 2015, The Pentagon’s Brain: an Uncensored History of DARPA, America’s Top-Secret Military Research Agency
Bridger, 2015, Scientists at War: the ethics of Cold War weapons research
Arnett, 2015, Welcome to hyperwar, in: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Mustar, et al., 2014, Public Research Organizations as a Base for High-Tech Entrepreneurship in Europe: the Case of IMEC and INRIA, in: Building Technology Transfer within Research Universities: An Entrepreneurial Approach
Mirabeau, et al., 2014, Archetypes of governance for science and technology labs, in: Technology Analysis & Strategic Management
Westfall, 2012, Institutional persistence and the material transformation of the US national labs: The curious story of the advent of the Advanced Photon Source, in: Science and Public Policy
van Rooij, 2011, Knowledge, money and data: an integrated account of the evolution of eight types of laboratory, in: British Journal for the History of Science
Zierler, 2011, The Invention of Ecocide
2000-2010
Fuchs, 2009, Cloning DARPA successfully, in: Issues in Science and Technology
Statement of Dr. Richard Van Atta, Research Staff Member, Science and Technology Policy Institute, Institute for Defense Analyses, in: Establishing the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), 2007, pp. 34-47 (“There is and should not be a singular answer on “what is DARPA” – and if someone tells you that – they don’t understand DARPA”, p. 41; “ad-hoc activities like SEMATECH”, p. 41)
Cohen and Noll, 2006, The future of the national laboratories, in: PNAS
Weinberger, 2006, Imaginary Weapons: A Journey Through the Pentagon’s Scientific Underworld
Asner, 2006, The Cold War and American Industrial Research (Carnegie Mellon University)
*Westwick, 2004, The National Labs: Science in an American System, 1947-1974
Kingsley, 2004, ON BECOMING JUST ANOTHER CONTRACTOR Contract Competition and the Management of Science at Sandia National Laboratories, in: Public Performance & Management Review
Carayannis and Alexander, 2004, Strategy, structure, and performance issues of pre-competitive R&D consortia: insights and lessons learned from SEMATECH, in: IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
Asner, 2004, The Linear Model, the US Department of Defense, and Golden Age of Industrial Research, in: The Science-Industry Nexus
Schiermeier, 2003, Europe seeks single defence research agency, in: Nature
Auer, 2003, Bionic kitty, pigeon alarms, and the dolphins of war, in: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
1990-2000
National Academies, 2000, Balancing Scientific Openness and National Security Controls at the Nuclear Weapons Laboratories
*Crow and Bozeman, 1998, Limited by Design: R&D Laboratories in the U.S. National Innovation System
*Rosenberg and Nelson, 1994, American universities and technical advance in industry, in: Research Policy
Leslie, 1993, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic
Complex at MIT and Stanford
**Shapley, 1993, Clintonizing science policy, in: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. “The Clinton goal that federal support for civilian R&D reach parity with military R&D by 1998 was aimed at giving the United States a long-term posture like that of its economic rivals…It was also clear early on that the White House had no stomach for putting existing military R&D programs out of business, especially those that have conversion or dual-use missions. Thus Clinton left control of the still-largest share of R&D funds to the Defense and Energy Departments. And he left the detailed disposition of R&D funds to literally hundreds of congressmen with fingers in today’s sweet defense-budget pie…The great strength of U .S. research has been its openness to all, dating from policy choices made a century ago about the terms of the geologic survey and agricultural research and extension, Noll says. The best U.S. defense and energy laboratories were managed by universities, open to students, post-does, and professors who could wander through and contribute. That insured that work would be of the highest quality and widely diffused. But ‘already whole buildings on campuses are sealed off’ because the work done inside is proprietary’. Noll asks why the United States should rush to imitate the closed and ultimately less successful research systems of Japan and Europe.”
*Cohen and Noll, 1991, The Technology Pork Barrel (Brookings Institution)
Irwin and Klenow, 1994, High tech R&D Subsidies: Estimating the Effects of SEMATECH (National Bureau of Economic Research)
ESPRIT, The European Strategic Programme for Research and Development in Information Technology, in: Speech and Natural Language: Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Pacific Grove, California, February 19-22, 1991 (ESPRIT compared to DARPA)
Reed, et al., 1990, DARPA Technical Accomplishments: an Historical Review of Selected DARPA Projects, vols. 1 and 2 (Institute of Defense Analyses)
Webre, 1990, Using R&D Consortia for Commercial Innovation: SEMATECH, X-ray Lithography, and High-resolution Systems (Congressional Budget Office)
*Tsipis and Abbotts, 1990, Time for rebirth of civilian R&D, in: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Before 1990
Fat Man and Little Boy (1989) [film]. Paul Newman takes a turn as General “give me the bomb” Groves, licking a crack squad of academics into shape while keeping skeptical top brass at bay.
DARPA Statement by Dr. James A. Tegnelia, Acting Director, Before the Task-force on Science Policy of the Committee on Science and Technology, October 2, 1985, in: Science in the Mission Agencies and Federal Laboratories: Hearings Before the Task Force on Science Policy of the Committee on Science and Technology, pp. 110-116 (see, e.g., note on projects ‘frequently’ stemming from small individual investigator grants of the Services’ Research Offices and NSF; note on upgrading university instrumentation)
Science Think Tank 