BERKELEY -- As the University of California's grip on its national laboratories faces its first challenge, a panel of experts this week tackled the thorny question at the heart of the UC's decades-old stewardship of the labs: Does the creation of nuclear weapons fall within the mission of a public institution committed to educating students and fostering academic pursuits?

"That certainly is a conundrum," acknowledged panelist William Kastenberg, professor of nuclear engineering at UC Berkeley.

His observation drew muted laughter from the roughly four dozen students, lecturers and community members who attended the two-hour discussion, held Wednesday in International House at UC Berkeley. Berkeley's Graduate Assembly co-sponsored the event along with a number of other campus organizations, to explore UC's management of the Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Lawrence Berkeley laboratories.

UC manages the labs under contract with the Department of Energy. The contracts have gone unchallenged for years, but charges of lax management at Los Alamos helped spur federal officials to rule that UC's contracts must go out to bid when they expire. UC's governing Board of Regents has yet to decide whether to compete.

Panelists on both sides of the issue discussed the concerns and benefits associated with UC's continuing management of the labs. KQED radio host and San Francisco State University professor Michael Krasny moderated the discussion.

Panelist Piermaria Oddone, deputy director of Lawrence Berkeley lab, said he hopes the university retains its management oversight of his lab, which conducts unclassified research.

"Our lab could not be what it is without this particular linkage," said Oddone, who added that the partnership offers the lab access to some of the best research minds in science.

Michael May, who served as director of Lawrence Livermore Lab from 1965 to 1971, said the lab's connection with the university allows for "better science" and allowed for scientists to "sleep more soundly" than if they were directly overseen by the government.

"The university connection ... makes a good deal of sense, compared to the alternatives," May said.

But panelist Laura Nader, a UC Berkeley anthropology professor, said she hoped to debunk notions that UC, with its reputation for research and scholarly pursuits, is the best steward of the nuclear work conducted at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos.

"It's just nonsense to say that somehow these labs would be better and that we could have any influence over the work that they do," Nader said. "The university has been a fig leaf.'

Marylia Kelley of Livermore, executive director of Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, or CARES, said debates about who should manage the labs are academic. The real concern is the danger of the weapons themselves, including the effects of their production on surrounding communities.

UC Berkeley political science professor Robert Powell said attitudes about UC's involvement in the labs have been a barometer of general attitudes about nuclear warfare. The Academic Senate is currently conducting a poll of faculty views regarding UC's continuing management, Powell said, and results of that survey are expected next month.

Powell said his "best guess" indicates the poll results will show that faculty "sentiment for continued management ... will be less than it was in the '90s."

Other panelists were Todd Haines, research scientist at Los Alamos lab; Karl Hufbauer, emeritus history professor at UC Irvine; and Andrew Lichterman, program director of Western States Legal Foundation.