Review Dates 2011-2012

• The DOE is discussing the adoption of a change in the format of their annual reviews of our programs. The current scheme involves a review of 1/3 of our programs each year, on a three year cycle.  Under this plan, the physics programs would be reviewed during the week in January 2012 preceding the MLK birthday holiday.
  
  The plan under discussion, but not yet confirmed, involves a review of half our programs in years 1 and 2, with a bye in year 3.  Should this plan be adopted, we would still need to determine which half our programs would be reviewed in 2012 (although our guess is that the chemistry programs reviewed this year would not be reviewed next year.)  We would also hope that the review (perhaps three days in length rather than the current 2)  would take place, as before, during the week preceding MLK day.
  
  
• Annual Laboratory Director's Review, Napa–Condensed Matter and Materials Physics
  Monday August 22 evening through August 24 Wednesday afternoon
  

Contact Mark Alper, mdalper@lbl.gov

Standard Publication Acknowledgments

(Contact Cheri Hadley crhadley@lbl.gov with questions)

1. AFFILIATION

Authors of publications resulting from work funded through LBNL must list their LBNL affiliation before (or instead of) their campus affiliation.

2. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

All publications that report work supported by funds administered by LBNL must carry a proper acknowledgment.
An acknowledgment might have as many as 3 components:
1) Acknowledgment of funding source(s) for the research activity (every paper has this component);
2) Recognition of use of DOE User Facilities; 3) Thanks: to persons who assisted; external agencies that provided funds for a specialized instrument that was used in the work. Section 2b below is particularly critical.

PROPER WORDING FOR VARIOUS FUNDING SITUATIONS:

2a. Publications supported solely by BES/MSED funding:

“This work was supported by the Director, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Materials Sciences and Engineering Division, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.”

Abbreviated for abstracts and letters ONLY:

“This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.”

2b. Reporting work supported by ANY two or more funding sources (e.g. BES Materials Sciences and Engineering Division and BES Chemical, Geoscience and Biosciences Division, or BES MSED and a non-DOE agency):

“Research was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231 [Dr. A and Dr. B] (or [the SEM studies]), by the National Science Foundation under award #XXXXX [Dr. X and Dr. Y] (or [the synthetic studies]), and by a NIH Graduate Fellowship (Ms. M).” (order should reflect relative contributions)

2c. Publication of DOE User Facility (Foundry or NCEM) Internal Research:

“This work was performed at the Molecular Foundry (or National Center for Electron Microscopy), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and was supported by the Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Scientific User Facilities Division, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02—05CH11231.”

2d. Publication of a User Project from a DOE User Facility:

The User’s funding source is indicated first [NSF, NIH, a DOE program, BES/MSED (use the standard acknowledgment above)]. Then, “Portions of this work (e.g. [nanoparticle synthesis]) were performed as a User project at the Molecular Foundry, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which is supported by the Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02—05CH11231.”

2e. LDRD acknowledgment:

“This work was supported by the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory under U.S. Department of Energy Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.”

2f. Supported by a DOE non-BES Office:

”This work was supported by the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.”

2g. Work-for-Others acknowledgment:

“This work was supported by ... [Agency Name, Contract or Order No.] through the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.” (Contact Sally Nasman x4714 if you do not know your WFO contract number.)

Note: Research completed before June 2005 must be reported with the previous contract number: DE-AC03-76SF00098

updated 2/25/2010

Career Path for Materials Sciences Division Scientific Staff

contact Mark Alper with questions

1. Introduction
2. Recruiting and Hiring
3. Annual Review of Performance
4. Criteria for Evaluation
5. Mid-Career Review of Work of Career-Track Staff Scientists
6. Promotion of Career-Track Scientists to Career Status
7. Criteria for Promotion to Career Scientist
8. Procedure for Promotion of Career Scientists to Senior Scientist Status
9. Criteria for Promotion of Career Scientists to Senior Scientist
10. Funding of Retired Investigators

 

1. Introduction

Materials Sciences Division policies described here are intended to be wholly consistent with relevant LBNL, University and DOE policies, and are presented only to provide additional detail that is specific to the Materials Sciences Division. Policies adopted by the Laboratory, University and DOE (1) supersede those described here for the Division in any instance of inconsistency.

******************

Scientists in MSD are generally hired into a “Career-Track” position(2) with an initial four year appointment, renewable for no more than two more years(1).  The general expectation is that a scientist hired into this position has demonstrated a scientific standing equivalent to that achieved by peers offered Assistant Professor positions at major research Universities.

Each year, the work of each LBNL scientist is reviewed (PRD process) against a defined set of criteria (see Section 4) designed to measure his/her overall contribution to the Laboratory and scientific community.  The research achievements are assessed, areas for improvement during the following year are identified, and their research plan for the following year is reviewed.

No later than the first quarter of the fourth year(1) of his/her appointment, the work of a Career-Track Scientist is assessed in a “Mid-Career” review to advise him/her of the likelihood of his/her promotion to Career Scientist status and, if appropriate, to identify areas of performance in which improvement is required for him/her to achieve that promotion. Those who are considered extremely unlikely to be promoted will not have their appointment extended beyond the fourth year, providing them with approximately one year to identify a position at another institution.

By the end of the fifth year, the scientist’s work is reviewed to determine whether (s)he is to be promoted to Career Scientist. A scientist promoted to Career Scientist status is widely recognized as a leader among peers in the scientific community in a defined, important area of research and to have excelled in the various duties of LBNL scientists as defined in Section 4. Those who are not promoted will seek alternative positions during their final, sixth, year.

Career Scientists may be promoted to Senior Scientist status at such time that it is deemed that their work is of sufficient quality and impact (see criteria, Section 9).

Back to top

2. Recruiting and Hiring

1. Background.

Scientists other than students and postdocs are generally hired by MSD only as members of its three facilities and centers, The Molecular Foundry, NCEM, and CXRO. The “Core” programs may hire “group” scientists only in exceptional cases, for example:

a. as Project Scientists, to work on a defined, limited duration project for no more than three years with no possibility of extension or conversion to permanent status.

b. when the Division identifies a new research area to be pursued. In this case, the Division Director initiates an international search to recruit a scientist to create and lead a program in that area.  The scientist would be of sufficient stature that he/she would be expected to maintain a high-quality research program over a full career and, within a reasonable time, be promoted to Career Scientist (if hired into a Career-Track position) and then Senior Scientist.

The primary criterion for selection of any MSD scientist (other than Project Scientists) is his or her perceived ability to establish and maintain an outstanding independent research program. In the case of Facility and Center scientists, perceived ability to fulfill facility commitments such as working productively with users is also critical. Other selection criteria are the same as those used in the annual reviews and in promotion to Career and Senior Scientist positions (see Section 4). Job openings are generally posted at the Career-Track level although, with Division Director approval, they can (also) be posted at the Career level, in which case, the Division Staff Committee and Director will determine which title (Career-Track or Career) is appropriate based on the successful candidate’s qualifications.

 2. Recruiting/hiring process.

a. Hiring supervisor identifies position to be filled and confirms that it is consistent with Division policy

b. Business Manager confirms that funds are available

c. Hiring supervisor proposes, for Division Director approval, membership of a search committee, usually including scientists from other groups in the Division and, in the case of senior appointments, outside the Division. Approval of senior supervisors, in sequence through the Division Director, is required.

d. Hiring supervisor drafts job description and posting text for approval by the MSD HR unit and Division Director. Text must include request for both a 2-3 page description of planned research and also the names of at least 3 scientists who can be asked for letters of recommendation.  (This list is advisory to the Division Director, who may delete some names and add others in creating the final list.)

e. Candidates are recruited through appropriate ads and consultation with leaders of laboratories in the relevant field and others who may know of good candidates. MSD PI’s are informed of the search and asked to identify potential candidates.

f. Once a “short list” of candidates is identified by the search committee, the Division Director requests letters of recommendation (see d.), which are to be sent to MSD HR for the applicant’s files. The writers of the letters must be asked to indicate whether or not, in their view, the candidate is of sufficient scientific stature to be appointed to an Assistant Professor position at a major research university. The writers should also compare the scientific achievements and promise of the candidate to that of others in the field who are at the same stage of their career.

g. Candidates on the “short list” are invited to LBNL to present an open, widely-advertised seminar describing their research accomplishments and proposed program, and meet with the search committee, Division Director and other interested Berkeley scientists.

h. The search Committee identifies top (approximately) three candidates. The Search Committee Chair, hiring supervisor, and Division Staff Committee meet to review search procedures, discuss merits of top candidates, determine that all meet the high standard set for MSD scientific staff and prepare a written recommendation for Division Director (and Lab management if Career appointment). Search Committee chair, hiring supervisor, chair of the Staff Committee and Division Director then meet to identify first choice. Salary is determined by Division Director in consultation with hiring supervisor.

i. MSD HR administers and monitors process, insures that files are complete, confirms that Laboratory procedures are followed, and arranges for Lab management approval as appropriate. After approval, HR reviews offer letter with supervisor, extends it to candidate and coordinates negotiations, if any.

Back to top

3. Annual Review of Performance

The work of the scientific staff members in the Materials Sciences Division is reviewed annually during the summer months. The primary purpose of the review is to provide the scientists with guidance on how their work can be improved, even when excellent.  (No annual review will take place for scientists whose work has been assessed in a Mid-Career Review or review for promotion to Career status between the months of January and August.

1. Each scientist prepares an ASPR (Annual Supplement to Professional Resume), describing his or her accomplishments over the past year, and also a research plan for the coming year(s). The ASPR is formatted to allow the scientist to directly address each of the specific evaluation criteria (see Section 4).  The scientist identifies what is in his or her view, the most significant publication of the year.
2. The supervisor prepares a draft PRD (Performance Review Document), assessing the scientist’s work in each of the identified criteria. The draft PRD also includes a discussion of the research plan proposed by the scientist, the identification of a single aspect of work for focused improvement over the following year, and a discussion of the improvement made during the past year on the aspect identified for improvement in the previous PRD.
3. The Division Director and Center/Facility Director, if relevant, review the draft PRD to ensure consistency of standards across the Division. The Division Staff committee members may participate in this process.
4. The Division Director, Center/Facility Director, if relevant, and the supervisor meet to discuss and suggest changes to the PRD, if any.
5. The supervisor meets with the scientist to review the final approved PRD, discuss the research plan and focus areas for improvement during the following year.

Back to top

4. Criteria for Evaluation

Weighting factors are used for annual PRD reviews. They provide only general guidance in hiring and promotion cases.

Back to top

5.  Mid-Career Review of Work of Career-Track Staff Scientists

Background. During the first quarter of the fourth year as a Career-Track Scientist, his/her work is assessed in a “Mid-Career Review” so (s)he can be advised about his/her progress and the need, if any, for improvement in any aspect of his/her work before Career status can be granted.
Criteria. The criteria against which the performance of the scientist is judged are those listed in the annual MSD annual performance review (Sections 4 and 6; weighting factors for general guidance only).
Procedure.
1.   The scientist provides to his/her supervisor, by the first day of the fourth year

a.   a 2-3 page written summary of his/her overall research program and specific accomplishments made since the start of their career-track appointment, and research plans for the next few years.
b.   a CV and ASPR including a list of publications reporting work done as a Career-Track Scientist
c.   (for user facility scientists) a list of user projects he/she has been involved in and a list of publications resulting from those projects, indicating role the scientist played in the research
d.   a discussion of significant activities other than research that the scientist has performed at LBNL (e.g. facility management)
e.   other information the scientist wishes considered in the review.

2.   The supervisor (or Facility Director) writes an evaluation of the scientist’s work as a Career-Track Scientist using the PRD form, and submits that, along with the materials prepared by the scientist, to the chair of the MSD Staff Committee within one month of the start of the fourth year. The evaluation will include a description of the scientist’s research accomplishments and an assessment of his or her performance in each of the criteria listed in the PRD (see Section 4). Strengths and weaknesses will be identified so that a plan for improvement in areas of weakness, if any, can be developed.

3.   At the start of the second month of the fourth year, the scientist presents an open seminar, describing his/her work as a Career-Track Scientist and his/her plans for research in the coming years.  Those in MSD facilities should also discuss their role in major user projects.  The seminar will be videotaped for members of the review committee not able to attend the seminar.

4.   The Division Director, with suggestions from the Division Staff Committee chair and the scientist’s supervisor, appoints an ad hoc committee of 3-4 local scientists expert in the field of the scientist being reviewed. The ad hoc committee members read the written material provided (1 and 2 above), attend the seminar, and meet afterwards with those members of the Staff Committee who have attended. The case is discussed and the chair of the ad hoc committee, based on that discussion and comments, if any, from the other members of the staff committee, (who may view the seminar videotape), prepares, by the end of the second month of the scientist’s fourth year, a written recommendation to the Division Director, stating whether, in the view of the ad hoc committee, the scientist is “on track,” “needs improvement,” or is “deemed unlikely” to be advanced to career status at the end of the fifth year, and summarizing the committee’s comments on the scientist’s performance in the various criteria outlined in the PRD. An outline of any improvement required of those deemed not to be “on track” is prepared. Comments on further enhancement of the work of those deemed to be “on track” are also presented.

5.   Division Director reviews the recommendation and discusses it with the supervisor, chair of the ad hoc committee and Center Director (if the scientist is in CXRO, NCEM or the Foundry). The supervisor then discusses the review with the scientist by the end of the third month of the fourth year. A letter is prepared addressing the scientist’s performance in the areas identified in the PRD, and also, for those not considered “on track”, a clear description of what improvement is necessary and how the scientist will be assisted in making that improvement.  Those considered to be “deemed unlikely” to be promoted are informed that their appointment will not be renewed beyond the end of their fourth year.  Division Director writes to the scientist offering either congratulations, encouragement or, in the case of a scientist “deemed unlikely” to be promoted, assistance in finding another position elsewhere.

6.   MSD HR manages the schedule, documents the steps and decisions, and, ensures that the all steps in the process take place according to schedule and policy.

Back to top

6. Promotion of Career-Track Scientists to Career Status.

Background. A formal review of the accomplishments of each Career-Track Scientist is undertaken in the last quarter of the fifth year of his/her appointment at the Lab to determine whether (s)he will be promoted to career status.
Procedure. The review consists of the following:

1.   The scientist provides to his/her supervisor, by the start of the ninth month of the fifth year:

a.   a 2-3 page written summary of his/her research program and accomplishments during the career track appointment and the research plan for the following few years.
b.   a CV and ASPR including a list of publications reporting work done at LBNL, highlighting the one or two regarded as the most significant.
c.   a discussion of significant activities other than research that the scientist performs at LBNL (e.g. facility management).
d.  (for user facility scientists) a list of user projects they have been involved in, including a list of publications resulting from those projects and a description of the role played in those projects.
e.   other information the scientist wishes considered in the review.
f.    a list of prominent scientists (other than collaborators, mentors, advisees) in the scientist’s field from whom letters might be solicited.

2.   The supervisor (or Facility Director) writes an evaluation of the scientist’s research and other work at LBNL using the PRD criteria (see Section 4) and submits that, along with the materials prepared by the scientist, to the chair of the MSD Staff Committee by the start of the tenth month of the fifth year. It will include the supervisor’s opinion of whether the scientist should be promoted.

3.   The supervisor identifies prominent scientists from whom letters of recommendation will be requested. Division Director determines final list and requests the letters, which must include a comparison by the writer, of the candidate’s accomplishments and perceived promise to that of others in the field who are at a similar stage in their career.

4.   During the tenth month of the scientist’s fifth year, (s)he presents an open seminar, presenting his/her work while at the Lab and his/her plans for research in the coming years.  Scientists in user facilities should include highlights of research on user projects, indicating their role in the research.  The seminar is videotaped for viewing by Staff Committee members unable to attend.

5.   The Division Director, in consultation with the Staff Committee chair and supervisor, appoints an ad hoc committee of 3-4 scientists expert in the field of the scientist being reviewed. The ad hoc committee members read the written material provided (see 1-3 above), attend the seminar, and meet immediately afterwards to discuss and vote on a recommendation for promotion. The chair of the ad hoc committee prepares a written case for the Division Staff Committee summarizing the arguments supporting the recommendation.
     
6.   The Staff Committee and ad hoc members meet after the seminar to discuss the case and make a recommendation to the Division Director.

7.   Division Director reviews the recommendation and makes a final determination by the end of the eleventh month of the start of the scientist’s fifth year. This is then reviewed by the Laboratory Deputy Director for final approval. Division Director notifies the scientist of the decision.
     
8.   MSD HR manages the schedule, documents the steps and decisions, and, ensures that all steps in the process take place according to schedule.

Back to top

7. Criteria for Promotion to Career Scientist

The criteria to be used as a basis for promotion to Career Scientist are those used in the ASPR and PRD. The activities identified below serve to provide a more concrete description of their nature. Application of these criteria should be appropriate to the scientist’s stage in his or her career.  Note that the primary basis for the promotion is the quality and impact of the scientist’s research, individually and, in the facilities, with users.  For promotion, the quality of the scientific accomplishments should be on a par with those of a scientist promoted to tenure at a first tier university and the safety record of the candidate must be exemplary.
A Scientist appointed to Career status should be:

• making good progress in establishing an outstanding, independent, internationally recognized research program in a defined area of materials science with a high level of innovation and originality in the form of new ideas, research approaches, techniques, instruments or discoveries, creating new areas of inquiry.

• making good progress in achieving recognition as a world leader in his/her field.

• for Facility scientists, integrating individual research with a robust user program, creating a national focal point of research in an area relevant to the Foundry goals, attracting outstanding user projects that result in high impact publications with the Foundry scientist as co-author.

• a sufficiently mature scientist to have compiled a record that supports the expectation that he/she will maintain this level of achievement and manage a program that evolves over time, and continue to make significant contributions to fields of importance to LBNL and DOE.

• a leader in setting and maintaining a high safety standard and culture in the facility or group

The following are examples of activities that will be evaluated to determine the degree to which these criteria have been met. It is not expected that any one scientist will have excelled in all of these areas and the review of scientists in user facilities will be performed in recognition of the amount of time the scientist must spend working with users and administering user projects.
Has the scientist:

• created a body of work demonstrating a high level of scientific creativity, methodological rigor and focus on important, outstanding questions in the field--consistent with the relatively short time involved and, where applicable, involvement with users in the Foundry, NCEM or CXRO.

• consistent with the relatively short time involved, created a significant record of publications in major peer reviewed journals, as determined by the number and quality of publications and the number of citations.   Candidate should be senior author on these papers or, if a member of a team, there should be clear evidence of distinct intellectual contribution.

• consistently and diligently engaged in safety-related activities; taken required safety training in a timely fashion; followed all safety procedures; inculcated a serious commitment to safety to all students, postdocs, visitors, and users under the scientist's supervision; and demonstrated a proactive approach toward ensuring safe operations all times.

• received repeated invitations to speak at major national or international meetings

• been favorably compared to leading contemporaries in the field in at least 5 letters from recognized experts (3 outside LBNL/UCB).

• received prizes and awards consistent with the relatively short time involved.

• demonstrated high ethical standards and integrity in directing and conducting research.

• been invited to serve on committees and panels such as agency study sections, editorial boards.

• filed or been awarded patents.

• demonstrated the ability to raise research funds, including LDRDs.

• demonstrated the ability to forge productive multidisciplinary collaborations.

• demonstrated the ability to supervise and effectively mentor younger colleagues.

• contributed to LBNL and/or UCB through service on committees and management positions.

No rigid quantitative measures are employed here. For example, the impact of papers and the role of the scientist in the work reported is more important than the number of papers.

Back to top

8.  Procedure for Promotion of Career Scientists to Senior Scientist Status

An MSD supervisor can recommend to the Division Director, that a Career Scientist in his or her group be considered by the Division Staff Committee for promotion to Senior Scientist whenever, in the view of the supervisor, the scientist’s work meets the criteria for that promotion (see Section 9).
The review will consist of the following:

1.   The scientist provides to his/her supervisor:

a.   a 4-5 page written summary of his/her research program and accomplishments and his or her research plan for the next few years.
b.   a CV and ASPR including a list of publications reporting work done at LBNL.
c.   a discussion of significant activities other than research that the scientist performs at LBNL (e.g. facility management).
d.   a list of user projects the scientist been involved in, including a list of publications resulting from those projects (User Facility scientists only).
e.   other information the scientist wishes considered in the review.
f.    a list of prominent scientists (not including collaborators, mentors or advisees) in the scientist’s field from whom letters might be solicited.

2.   The supervisor (or Facility Director) writes an evaluation of the scientist’s work at LBNL using the PRD criteria and submits that, along with the materials prepared by the scientist, to the chair of the MSD Staff Committee. The evaluation will include a description of the scientist’s research accomplishments and an assessment of his or her performance in each of the criteria listed in the PRD. It will include the supervisor’s opinion of whether the scientist should be promoted.

3.   The supervisor meets with the Division Director to identify a final list of seven or more prominent scientists from whom letters of recommendation will be requested. Division Director requests the letters, which must include a comparison by the writer, of the candidate’s accomplishments and perceived promise to that of others in the field who are at a similar stage in their career.

4.   The scientist presents an open seminar, presenting his/her work while at the Lab and his/her plans for research in the coming years.  Scientists in user facilities should include highlights of research on user projects

5.   The Division Director, in consultation with the Division Staff Committee chair and supervisor, appoints an ad hoc committee of 3-4 scientists expert in the field of the scientist being reviewed. The ad hoc committee members read the written material provided (see 1-3 above), attend the seminar, and meet immediately afterwards to discuss and vote on a recommendation for promotion. The chair of the ad hoc committee prepares a written case for the Division Staff Committee, which reviews it, votes and reports to the Division Director in writing on the vote and discussion, summarizing the arguments supporting the recommendation.

6.   The Division Director reviews the recommendation and makes a final recommendation to the Laboratory Staff Committee and Laboratory Director for a final decision.  The Laboratory Director writes scientists who are promoted informing them of the decision and offering congratulations. The Division Director meets with those whose nomination is not approved to discuss the decision.

7.   MSD HR manages the process, documents the steps and decisions, and, ensures that all steps in the process take place according to schedule.

Back to top

9. Criteria for Promotion of Career Scientists to Senior Scientist

Background. An LBNL Senior Scientist has significant experience and achievements in research and plays a leadership role at the Laboratory. Senior Scientists are internationally recognized authorities and leaders in one or more scientific or engineering areas who have made major contributions to the Laboratory and the broader scientific/engineering community through their leadership and creativity.
The criteria applied in promotion to Senior Scientist are the same as those employed in the ASPR, PRD, and in the promotion from Career-Track to Career positions.  The discussion below is intended to provide more detail and a further explanation of the factors involved in these criteria. 
A Scientist appointed to Senior status should have:

• an established, independent, internationally recognized record of outstanding research
• recognition as a world leader in his/her field,
• demonstrated high level of innovation and originality in the form of new ideas, research approaches, techniques, instruments, discoveries that create new areas of inquiry
• a record that supports the expectation that he/she will maintain an internationally respected independent program that evolves over time and will continue to make significant recognized contributions to a field of importance to LBNL and DOE

These determinations will be made on the basis of the following criteria, where applicable.  It is not expected that any one scientist will have excelled in all of these areas and the review of scientists in user facilities will be performed in recognition of the amount of time spent working with users and administering user projects.
Has the scientist:

• created a body of work that demonstrates the highest levels of scientific creativity, methodological rigor and focus on important outstanding questions in the field.
• a prolific record of frequently cited publications in major peer reviewed journals.
• been named senior author on these papers or, if a member of a team, is there clear evidence of distinct intellectual contribution.
• received repeated invitations to speak at major international meetings, often as plenary speaker.
• been favorably compared-- in at least 7 letters from recognized experts (3 outside LBNL/UCB) --with leading contemporaries in the field. Letters should explicitly address the promotion to Senior Scientist and be invited using the standard MSD request for letter.
• won major national and international prizes/awards; election to Fellow status of major societies.
• demonstrated high ethical standards and integrity in directing and conducting research.
• served on major national and international committees and panels such as granting agency study sections, NRC panels, editorial boards of major journals.
• served on review boards for departments in major research universities and labs.
• accumulated a substantial record of patents.
• demonstrated the ability to raise research funds, including LDRDs.
• demonstrated the ability to forge productive multidisciplinary collaborations.
• demonstrated theability to mentor and nurture younger colleagues as evidenced by their publication record, standing in the field and current position.
•   demonstrated a strong and effective commitment to safety, environment and health.
• made a significant contribution on LBNL /University committees and management groups.

No rigid quantitative measures are employed here. For example, the impact of papers and the role of the scientist in the work reported is more important than the number of papers.

Back to top

10. Funding of Retired Investigators

1.   Status.  LBNL staff, whether or not they have Berkeley faculty positions, retire from the University of California, not from a campus or Laboratory. A retiree may, in exceptional cases, be rehired at LBNL at the discretion of the Laboratory Deputy Director or at a campus at the discretion of the Chancellor.  In those cases, total effort devoted to activities on all UC campuses and labs may not exceed 43% time.

2.   Announcement of Retirement. If possible, announcement of retirement should be made sufficiently far in advance for staff to be reassigned, for students (who are beyond the end of their first year) to complete their theses, and for postdocs to complete their work and find other positions before the retirement date. No new LBNL students or postdocs should be hired after the retirement announcement unless it is expected that they will complete their work before the investigator’s retirement date.  Funding for summer salary of retiring faculty investigators will be continued until retirement in reasonable proportion to the number of students, postdocs and staff supervised, provided that support for those researchers is assured within budget. 

3.   Rehiring of retirees at LBL for research.  In very exceptional cases, the Division Director, with advice, if desired, of the Scientific Council, and approval of the Laboratory Deputy Director, may allow continued or new funding of projects directed by retired investigators, providing that such funding is available. In these cases the PI will be re-appointed as an LBNL “rehired retiree”. Retired investigators may also, as rehired retirees, join and be supported by programs directed by other investigators, again, with the approval of the Division Director and Laboratory Deputy Director. Continued funding and its level will be reviewed annually and must comply with DOE/LBNL policies. Salary provided will reflect the extent of the research effort of the investigator. For faculty, this would be in reasonable proportion to summer salary provided during the last few years of active service unless DOE provides additional funding explicitly for the increased salary.  Rehirees may not, by Lab policy, be official supervisors of staff or students.

4.   Requests for continued research funding will be considered for approval if:

•    the research proposed is consistent with and is an important component of the current and planned mission and goals of MSD and LBNL.
•    sufficient laboratory and office space is available.
•    the PI formally commits to a continued high level of attention to the oversight of the scientific, financial, personnel, ESH, and other aspects of the project.
•    participation in another program is strongly supported by that programs’ Program Leader.

No commitments can be made to students, postdocs or staff that cannot be fully met by funding that has formally approved by the funding agency as available for that project.

5.   Leaves. Retirees continuing to lead projects on the scale of those led before retirement may not be away from Berkeley for a greater time than is customary for non-retired investigators. One-year leaves of absence may be taken, with Division Director approval, consistent with DOE/LBNL and University of California policies. If a leave extends beyond one year, no new staff may be hired during that leave and research funding for the second or later years of leave will be reduced consistent with reduced staff salary and supply needs, but may be reinstated to pre-leave levels upon the return of the investigator from leave, at the discretion of the Division Director.

6.   Procedures.  Investigators inform the Division Director of their decision to retire as far in advance as possible.  They review the financial position of all their projects to plan for orderly phase downs, covering commitments to students and postdocs.  Those who wish to continue as PI of their own project or as a participant in another PI’s project submit a request to the Division Director as far in advance as possible, providing a description of each project, its goals, its funding status- both current and projected-- and the plan for supervision of students and postdocs by another investigator. Note that rehire cannot start less than 30 days after the retirement date.

Back to top

_________________________

(1)  Laboratory policy prescribes a 5 year maximum for Career-Track appointments.  It is recognized, however, that in divisions such as MSD, considerable time is often required for a newly hired Career-Track scientist to set up the lab and purchase or construct required instrumentation.  As a result requests for extension to a 6 year maximum appointment will be considered favorably. Extension of review dates can also be granted for scientists who have taken one or months of approved Leave of Absence. The schedule of reviews described in this policy assumes a six-year term. Accelerated review is, however, encouraged, with intermediate steps moved up as much as one year from the dates listed here.  Scientists hired in other than Fall months, might also wish to accelerate the review process so that it can be completed in time for the start of the academic recruiting cycle in the early Fall.
 (2)      A Scientist may be hired as Project Scientist. This is not a Career-Track position and no promotion to Career Scientist status is possible. Project Scientists wishing a Career-Track or Career position must apply and compete for a posted position.

Back to top

Facilities Rates

Materials Fabrication (MAT), 62-142
contact: James Wu x5672
Specialty materials processing including heat treatment, application of high pressures, induction or arc-melting and casting of pure metal and alloys to strict composition requirements, and powder metallurgy.  Fabrication of custom sputtering and laser deposition targets.  Processing and fabrication of metal-ceramic oxides.   $84/hr

Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM), 62-116
contact: Grace Lau x5850
Hitachi environmental SEM with field emission electron source and EDAX detector, Hitachi S-4300SE/NT
$78/hr

X-Ray Diffractometers (XRAY), 62-145
contact: Grace Lau x5850
Siemens x-ray diffractometer, can be used for powder and thin film samples, $89/hr

Ion Beam (IOB), B53
contact: K.M. Yu x6656
Pelletron ion source with tunable beam energy (H+, He+, AR+) at an energy range up to 5 MeV.  Used for Rutherford backscattering spectrometry (RBS) for exploring thin-film composition, interfacial phenomena at thin-film/substrate boundaries, ion implantation profiles and damage, lattice location of dopants in single crystals, etc.  X-ray detection (PIXE) and related techniques also available. $203/hr

Electronic Shop (ESHOP), 62-101B
contact: Jim Severns, x6058
Mechanic Shop (MSHOP), 62-101A
contact: Mark West, x5783

---

Questions?

Sandra McFarland, Senior Business Manager
510.486.4666
somcfarland@lbl.gov

Laura Luo, Budget and Accounting
510.486.5952
ljluo@lbl.gov

Materials Sciences Division Office

Division Director: Miquel B. Salmeron
            Assistant:  Alice Mulller-Egan  486-6230  66-242   amuller-egan@lbl.gov
Deputy Director for Science: Jeffrey Neaton jbneaton@lbl.gov
Deputy Director: Mark D. Alper  486-6581   mdalper@lbl.gov
            Assistant:  Jeri Edgar    486-4755   66-248   jledgar@lbl.gov
Business Manager: Sandra McFarland 486-4666 66-245  somcfarland@lbl.gov
Strategic Management & Program Development: Elaine Chandler, 486-6854
            66-243   eachandler@lbl.gov

 Budget and Accounting

    Sandra McFarland    486-4666   66-245   SOMcfarland@lbl.gov
    Laura Luo   486-5952   66-249    LJLuo@lbl.gov
    Hang Quan  486-6482  66-240   HQuan@lbl.gov 

MSD Building Manager

    Gil Torres,  486-5395,  62-104A    GJTorres@lbl.gov

Center for X-ray Optics    Patrick Naulleau,  Director
   
    Juanita Jones   486-4394    2-442    jjones@lbl.gov
    Su-Jane Lai     486-5786     2-436   sjlai@lbl.gov

DOE Reporting and Programs

     Cheri Hadley   496-5966    66-203   crhadley@lbl.gov

Electronic Support

     Jim Severns, 486-6058,   62-0101   JESeverns@lbl.gov

General information and special help

    Jeri Edgar 486-4755   66-248  JLEdgar@lbl.gov

Helios SERC Administrator

    Melanie Sonsteng    486-6419  66-241   MSonsteng@lbl.gov

Human Resources

    Tracy Bigelow,   HR Center Manager
    510-486-6065,   66-222   tlbigelow@lbl.gov

    Penny Wong ,  Sr. HR Partner
    510-486-7254,  66-223   pywong@lbl.gov

   Mauri Miller,   Recruiter
   510-486-6401, mmiller1@lbl.gov,46A-114

    Paris Gordon,  HR Assistant
GSRAs, Student Assistants, Limited and Postdocs (non-recruited) for Supervisor w/ Last Name A -M
510-486-6685,   66-226   pcgordon@lbl.gov

    Diana Cerin,    HR Assistant
GSRAs, Student Assistants, Limited and Postdocs (non-recruited) for Supervisor w/ Last Name N-Z
510-486-6509,  66-220    dmcerin@lbl.gov

   Meghan Johnson,   Division Affiliate (Division Guests)
   510-486-2401,  affiliate@lbl.gov, 65A

    Lorri St. Claire, Foundry Affiliates
    510-486-7493, lmstclaire@lbl.gov, 67

LETS Timekeeper

    Carmen Ross   486-5671   66-239  CBRoss@lbl.gov

Machine Shop

     Mark West    486-5783   62-0101    MWWest@lbl.gov

Molecular Foundry   Jim DeYoreo, Interim Director

     Deputy Director for Science, Jeff Bokor; 486-4134, JBokor@eecs.berkeley.edu
     Deputy Director for Research, Jim DeYoreo; 486-7343, JJDeyoreo@lbl.gov
     Directorate Executive Assistant, Kathleen Pappas; 486-5259, KJPappas@lbl.gov
     Outreach Manager,   Aditi Risbud,   486- 4861,  asrisbud@lbl.gov  
     Foundry Administration, Theresa Short; 486-4886, TMShort@lbl.gov
     Foundry Administration, Kymba A'Hearn; 486-6780, KSAHearn@lbl.gov
     User Program,  David Bunzow, 486-4574,  DABunzow@lbl.gov
     User Program Administration, Lorri St. Claire; 486-7493, LMStClaire@lbl.gov   
     EHS Technician,   Carleton Falzone, 486-7679    crfalzone@lbl.gov

Nano*High

    Sally Nasman 486-4714 66-237 SFNasman@lbl.gov
    Meg Holm 486-5135 66-238 MCHolm@lbl.gov

National Center for Electron Microscopy    Uli Dahmen, Director
   
     Jane Cavlina,   486-6036   72-131   jlcavlina@lbl.gov

Property Inventory,  Records, Travel

    Kyle Davis, 486-6303; 66-250E; KRDavis@lbl.gov

Property and Purchase special help

    Carmen Ross 486-6230 66-206 CBRoss@lbl.gov

Proposals: LDRD, Sponsored Projects and DOE FWPs

    Sally Nasman 486-4714 66-237 SFNasman@lbl.gov

Purchase Requisition Preparer

    Rosemary Williams 495-2645 66-242 RMWilliams@lbl.gov

Safety Coordinator

    Rick Kelly  486-4088   67-3205   RJKelly@lbl.gov
    Paul Johnson,  EHS Technician,  486-5810; 66-414,   PMJohnson@lbl.gov
    Susan Waters, Safety Administrator,   486-5690;  SLWaters@lbl.gov

Technical Illustration, Information, Division Website, Research Highlights

    Meg Holm 486-5135 66-238 MCHolm@lbl.gov

Travel Coordinator

    Kyle Davis, 486-6303; 66-250E; KRDavis@lbl.gov