* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
|
*       U N I V E R S I T Y  F U S I O N  A S S O C I A T I O N
|
*       News and Information                    Mar 12 2004
|
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
        website:        http://depts.washington.edu/ufa/home.html


CONTENTS:

	1.  FESAC Prioirities Panel posts key fusion science questions
	2.  One-pager for Fusion Day


// ----------------------------------------------------------------------
	1.  FESAC Prioirities Panel posts key fusion science questions
// ----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Priorities Panel now has a website where the questions formulated by
the Panel are posted and open for comment.
http://www.mfescience.org/fesac/index.html

In response to the NRC Report, a Priorities Panel had been set up by the
FESAC.  This panel has been charged to formulate key scientific and
technology questions of fusion science and priorities be set flowing
therefrom, under 3 budget scenarios.

Detail on the Panel, excerpted from a previous UFANews, is attached at
the end of this email.


// ----------------------------------------------------------------------
	2.  One-pager for Fusion Day
// ----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Gang of N has a consensus on a one-pager "Community Budget Request"
which could be used as talking points for Fusion Day.  This is attached to
this email.

The one-pager makes the following points:

- Overall fusion strategy, consistent with the NRC Report, is restated;

- The Presidents budget request is flat, with $7M in direct ITER support
and $31M "relabelled" from the remaining program as ITER support.  The
point is emphasised that the 31M will be required for the domestic program
even as ITER construction funding rises in later years or if ITER does not
go forward.

- the flat FY05 budget request fails to fund key elements of a
strategically balanced FES program.  An increase of 15M is requested.

- 4 areas are identified as not being adequatley funded:  Fuller
utilization of large and small existing expts, IFE technology and HEDP
opportunuties, large scale scientific computing, and support for ongoing
construction of moderate-scale domestic facilities.



Detail on Priorities Panel from previous UFANews:
================================================


3.  Charge to FESAC on Priorities in the fusion program
========================================================
http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/more_html/FESAC/ProgPrioritiesCharge.pdf


4.  Some info on the FESAC Priorities Panel
=============================================
A Priorities Panel has been set up by the FESAC.  This panel is
charged with responding to the NRC Report which asks for key scientific
and technology questions of fusion science be formulated and priorities be
set flowing therefrom, under 3 budget scenarios.

The Panel has begun its work.  They are currently collecting key science
questions.  According to Pat Looney (OSTP) (see FYI, attached below), the
report of this FESAC panel is the most important one for fusion in 6 years
(since the restructuring).  At the recent FESAC meeting and the follow-on
FPA meeting, both Looney and Joel Parriot (OMB)
(http://fire.pppl.gov/fpa03_parriott.pdf%20)  emphasised their view that
ITER/BPX is the major element of the future and the fusion program needs
to set priorities for the ITER era.  The priorities should flow from
science questions.  When asked if there was a model report one could
normalize to in asking science questions, Looney pointed to the "quarks to
cosmos" report (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10079.html).  The Astro, HEDP,
space communities also have reports posing key science questions.

fyi on Pat Looney's presentation at FESAC
==========================================

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 156: December 1, 2003

OSTP Perspective on "Balance" and Fusion; Research Business Model
Meeting

FUSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE BRIEFED: "BALANCE," NEXT STEPS:

Calls for balance in federal research funding "means no priorities"
cautioned Patrick Looney, Assistant Director for Physical Sciences
and Engineering at the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP).  Looney's warning about the allocation of federal research
dollars came during his presentation to a Fusion Energy Sciences
Advisory Committee meeting on November 17.

Looney was commenting on a recent National Academy of Sciences
report on fusion energy sciences, and how the advisory committee
could best respond to it.  "I would like to caution you about the
use of the word 'balance,'" Looney told the committee.  Declaring it
a "red-hot word" that was "divisive" he urged the committee to leave
this noun out of their response, saying that it was "just not going
to help."

Judging from Looney's remarks, the Bush Administration is bullish on
fusion energy.  Saying that OSTP's physical sciences group had spent
an "extraordinary amount of time" on formulating U.S. policy
regarding ITER, Looney called the proposed facility "the defining
experiment."  He was particularly supportive of the NAS report on
fusion energy (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10816.html) as an excellent
basis on which to move forward, saying "we are endorsing the NAS
report and many of the conclusions it drew."

Looney told the committee that "If ITER is going to be successful .
. . [we] need a common basis for dialogue."  Instability is
undesirable; all interested parties must agree on the path forward.
The decision making process must be transparent,  the administration
should be kept informed, and  "surprises" are to be avoided.
Limited budget resources will require program prioritization.
Looney said that "graceful transition pathways" for the fusion
energy sciences program must be detailed, and added, "we cannot
argue for funds in the absence of a plan we all agree on."  Fusion
program metrics must be established.

Also important as the fusion advisory committee formulates its
response to the NRC report is for it to consider its audience of
policymakers in the administration and Congress.  Looney
recommended that the committee avoid multiple budget scenarios,
instead specifying what research could be expected for the stated
guidance level of funding. Regarding the timing of the advisory
committee's report, Looney said that an interim report by next
summer would be appropriate.

RESEARCH BUSINESS MODELS MEETING IN WASHINGTON

A subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council is
preparing to "begin the process of prioritizing and initiating the
changes needed to improve performance and mechanisms of
accountability of the research enterprise" after a public two-day
meeting in Washington on December 9 and 10.  This  meeting follows
four regional meetings that were described in
http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/2003/137.html.

Public comments sent to the Research Business Models Subcommittee
have been posted at http://rbm.nih.gov/fed_reg_20030906/index.htm
Additional comments can be sent to Michael Holland at the Office of
Science and Technology Policy at mholland@ostp.eop.gov

A website at http://www.masimax.com/rbms/index4.htm has information
regarding the agenda and registration for this free meeting next
week.  Sessions have been scheduled for public comment.

###############
Richard M. Jones
Media and Government Relations Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi@aip.org    http://www.aip.org/gov
(301) 209-3094
##END##########




=======================================================================
Adil Hassam
Professor of Physics                            301 405 1417 (Voice)
University of Maryland                          301 405 1678 (Fax)
College Park, Maryland 20742                    www.glue.umd.edu/~hassam