[Home]
[Education]
[News]
[Links]
[Member Information]
[Download]
[Feedback]
[Announcements]
***************************************************************
UNIVERSITY FUSION ASSOCIATION
http://depts.washington.edu/ufa
E-mail Newsletter
Mar. 14 2008
sent by S. Knowlton, UFA President
***************************************************************
Items:
1. Request to contact your congressman
2. Call for papers for 2008 Innovative Confinemnet Concepts Meeting
3. Nominations sought for John Dawson Award
***************************************************************
Dear Colleagues,
I've been meaning to send out a newsletter in the last couple
of weeks, but several time-sensitive items have come across my
electronic desk that I need to send to you right away, so that's what
I'll do.
The first item is a request for you to contact your
congressman immediately to request support for DOE Science funding by
asking him or her to sign on to a letter to House appropriators.
Last Monday, I and a number of other fusion researchers met
with the staff of several Congressional and Senate committees, and
with Michael Holland of the Office of Management and Budget. The
fusion researcher contingent included Brett Chapman (University of
Wisconsin), Rob Goldston (PPPL/Princeton U.), Stan Milora (ORNL),
Miklos Porkolab (MIT), Ned Sauthoff (US ITER Project), Ron Stambaugh
(GA), Ed Synakowski (LLNL), Jim Van Dam (USBPO), and myself (UFA).
We visited with staff members of the House Science & Technology
Committee, House Appropriations Sub-Committee for Energy & Water,
Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Senate Appropriations
Sub-Committee for Energy & Water Development, and OMB (several OSTP
staff were present at the latter). In a nutshell, the staff of the
House and Senate Science committees were strongly supportive of DOE
Science, the commitment to ITER, and the America COMPETES Act. The
meetings with the Appropriations sub-committees were less thrilling.
While appropriators are not against science, or fusion in particular,
they will find it difficult to support the additional $700 M
requested for DOE Science in FY 2009 while other DOE programs,
including Environmental clean-up and the popular Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, are being significantly cut in the
Administration's 09 request. At least with the present prospect of
flat or declining level of federal discretionary spending, due in
part to the war and the setting of strict caps on most federal
spending. Congress will be asked by many interest groups to address
the cuts in programs of importance to them. So supporters of DOE
Science programs, like ourselves, are obliged to take multiple
opportunities to make our case for the importance of science research
to our districts and states, as well as for its overall benefits.
The latest opportunity has just dropped into my In basket,
and is reproduced below. I understand that it is coming in at the
last minute, and I've been told that in this instance, it couldn't be
helped. Nonetheless, the timing is not great. Most university fusion
researchers like myself increasingly find that requests to
congressional offices for programmatic support must be routed through
our VP for Research to be most effective in accomplishing their
objectives, and this request doesn't leave much time for that option.
Nevertheless, I am asking you to do what you can, both now and when
opportunities come up in the near future, because the stakes at this
juncture are very high. At the upper level, DOE Undersecretary
Orbach (who's been among our strongest champions in that position) is
doing what he can to fight for DOE Science funding because the loss
of ITER to our program will be disastrous for both our domestic and
internally-oriented activities. It is important, and crucial, that we
at universities provide grassroots support for the DOE Science
funding called for in the America COMPETES Act if we hope to see it
happen.
******************************************************************
1. Request to contact Congress
Congresspersons Tauscher (D-CA), Biggert (R-IL), Holt (D-NJ) and
Lofgren (D-CA) are circulating the attached letters supporting
increased funding for DOE's office of Science. They are looking to
get as many Members of the House to sign on as is possible in a very
short time frame.
Please note that the deadline for signatures is next Tuesday (March
18th). Please call your Congressional offices today or tomorrow and
urge them to sign this letter.
Thank you.
Chris Carter (Princeton U.) (202) 220-1365
Alison Fox (MIT) (202) 789-1828
Mark Haynes (General Atomics) (202) 496-8209
Christie Schomer (U of California) (202) 494-1905
Mary Toler (Battelle) (202) 646-7863
Physical Sciences Research
Critical to American Innovation and Competitiveness
Support Funding for the DOE Office of Science in Fiscal Year 2009
Dear Colleague:
Please join us in supporting increased funding for the Department of
Energy (DOE) Office of Science by signing the attached letter to the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Energy and Water Appropriations
Subcommittee.
There is broad, bipartisan agreement that investing in research and
development is critical to innovation and our national
competitiveness. Report after report - from the National Academy of
Sciences and the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology to the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation and
the Council on Competitiveness - has called on Congress and the
President to invest in U.S. research capabilities.
That's why Congressional Democrats, Republicans, and President Bush
have all proposed to double federal funding for basic research in the
physical sciences over five to ten years. Providing over 40 percent
of total federal funding for basic physical sciences research - more
than any other federal agency - the DOE Office of Science is the
nation's primary supporter of research in the physical sciences.
Unfortunately, Congress failed to fulfill this commitment in the
Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill. Excluding earmarks,
funding for the DOE Office of Science increased at a rate less than
inflation. As a result, hundreds of scientists were furloughed or
laid off, operations were reduced by 20 to 25 percent at scientific
facilities that serve industry, academic, and government researchers,
and U.S. participation in certain international research projects was
suspended.
To renew our commitment to achieving the shared, bipartisan goal to
double funding for basic physical sciences research, we invite you to
sign the attached letter. We also ask that all cosigners to the
letter include the DOE Office of Science among the programmatic
requests they submit to the Energy and Water Appropriations
Subcommittee. We will provide you with the information necessary to
make this request.
If you would like to sign this letter or if you have any questions,
please contact Paul Doucette with Rep. Biggert (5-3515), Simon Limage
with Rep. Tauscher (5-1880), Andrea Burgess with Rep. Holt (5-5801),
or Eleen Trang with Rep. Lofgren (5-3072). Our deadline for
signatures is Tuesday, March 18, 2008.
Sincerely,
Judy Biggert Ellen Tauscher
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Rush Holt Zoe Lofgren
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Signatories to FY08 Letter: Abercrombie; Allen; Altmire; Baca;
Baldwin; Bean; Becerra; Berman; Biggert; Bishop; Blumenauer; Boswell;
Boyda; Burgess; Capps; Capuano; Christensen; Cleaver; Cohen;
Courtney; Davis (IL); Davis (TN); Davis (CA); Delahunt; DeLauro;
Dent; Dicks; Dingell; Doggett; Donnelly; Doyle; Duncan; Ehlers;
Ellison; Engel; Eshoo; Etheridge; Filner; Forbes; Fortenberry; Frank;
Gerlach; Giffords; Gillibrand; Gonzalez; Green; Gutierrez; Hare;
Harman; Hastings; Hastings; Herseth-Sandlin; Hinchey; Hinojosa;
Hodes; Holden; Holt; Honda; Hooley; Inslee; Jackson- Lee; Johnson
(TX); Johnson (IL); Kagen; Kennedy; Kildee; Kind; Klein; Lampson;
Lantos; Larsen; Levin; Lewis; Lipinski; Loebsack; Lofgren; Mahoney;
Maloney; Markey; Matsui; McCarthy; McCaul; McDermott; McGovern;
McMorris-Rodgers; McNerney; McNulty; Michaud; Miller (NC); Miller
(CA); Mitchell; Moore; Nadler; Norton; Oberstar; Pascrell; Paul;
Payne; Perlmutter; Porter; Price; Roskam; Rush; Sarbanes; Saxton;
Schakowsky; Schwartz; Scott; Shays; Shea-Porter; Shimkus; Snyder;
Sutton; Tauscher; Tierney; VanHollen; Velazquez; Walz; Wamp; Wilson;
Wu; Wynn
The Honorable Peter Visclosky The Honorable David Hobson
Chairman Ranking Member
Energy and Water Appropriations Energy and Water Appropriations
Subcommittee Subcommittee
House Appropriations Committee House Appropriations Committee
2362 Rayburn House Office Building 1016 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Visclosky and Ranking Member Hobson:
As you begin your work on the Fiscal Year 2009 Energy and Water
Appropriations bill, we write to express our strong support for the
Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and urge you to
include $4.7 billion in the bill for the research and facilities it
supports. This funding is consistent with the level authorized in the
America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) and equals the level requested by
the President in his fiscal year 2009 budget proposal.
As part of their innovation and competitiveness initiatives,
Congressional Democrats, Republicans, and President Bush have
proposed doubling federal funding for basic research in the physical
sciences over five to ten years. Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2008
Omnibus Appropriations bill did not fulfill this commitment.
Excluding earmarks, funding for the DOE Office of Science, which
supports over 40 percent of total federal funding for basic physical
sciences research - more than any other federal agency - increased at
a rate less than inflation. As a result, hundreds of scientists were
furloughed or laid off, operations were reduced by 20 to 25 percent
at scientific facilities that serve industry, academic, and
government researchers, and U.S. participation in certain
international research projects was suspended. Providing $4.7 billion
for the DOE Office of Science in fiscal year 2009 is critical if we
are to renew our commitment to achieving our shared, bipartisan goal.
We face a world in which our economic competitors in Asia and Europe
are making significant new investments in their own research
capabilities. These investments are beginning to pay off, as Asian
and European countries challenge U.S. leadership in the sciences no
matter how it is measured - by number of patents won, articles
submitted to scientific journals, degrees awarded, Nobel prizes won,
or the percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) dedicated to
research and development.
Report after report - from the National Academy of Sciences and the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology to the Task
Force on the Future of American Innovation and the Council on
Competitiveness - has called on Congress and the President to invest
in U.S. research capabilities. The benefits of such an investment to
the U.S. economy and U.S. competitiveness are well known. Economic
experts have concluded that science-driven technology has accounted
for more than 50 percent of the growth of the U.S. economy during the
last half-century.
Even as we face greater international competition, these are exciting
times for science in the United States. There are many great
opportunities for scientific discovery, and with adequate funding,
the DOE Office of Science will ensure the U.S. retains its dominance
in such key scientific fields as biotechnology, nanotechnology,
materials science, and supercomputing well into the next century.
Leadership in these areas will benefit our health, our environment,
our economy, and our national security. And through critical new
investments in biofuels research and basic energy science, the DOE
Office of Science will continue to play a vital role in developing
the knowledge and the technologies essential to ensuring the nation's
future energy security.
U.S. scientists are as bright as any in the world, but they
traditionally have had better tools than everyone else. The DOE
Office of Science has led the way in creating a unique system of
large-scale, specialized user facilities for scientific discovery.
This collection of cutting-edge - often one-of-a-kind - tools makes
the DOE Office of Science a unique and critical component of the
federal science portfolio. Other federal science agencies, such as
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science
Foundation (NSF), greatly depend upon these DOE Office of Science
facilities in carrying out their own research activities. Under the
President's budget, 21,500 researchers would have access to these DOE
facilities. Nearly half of those users will be university faculty
and students - many whose research is being supported by other
federal agencies - and a significant number will be from U.S.
industry.
For these many reasons, we urge you to appropriate at least $4.7
billion - an increase of almost $750 million over fiscal year 2008
funding - for the DOE Office of Science and the physical sciences
research it supports. Furthermore, we urge you to focus this funding
on mission-related activities and facilities, and to avoid using core
DOE research program budgets to fund extraneous projects. With this
funding, the DOE Office of Science will attract the best minds,
educate the next generation of scientists and engineers, support the
construction and operation of modern facilities, and conduct even
more of the quality scientific research that will ensure the U.S.
retains its competitive edge for many years to come.
Thanks for your consideration. We are cognizant of the difficult
budget situation under which your subcommittee is working, and we
urge you to contact us if we may be of assistance in any way.
Sincerely,
******************************************************************
2. Announcement of 2008 ICC Meeting
The ICC 2009 conference will be held at the University of Nevada Reno
June 24-27. the conference hotel is the nearby Eldorado Hotel. The
abstract deadline is March 31. Additional details provided to me by
conference chair Tom Jarboe (University of Washington;
jarboe@aa.washington.edu) are included in an attachment.
******************************************************************
3. Nominations sought for John Dawson Award
Call for Nominations
APS 2008 John Dawson Award for Excellence in Plasma Physics Research
The time is NOW for nominating your well deserving colleagues for the
American Physical Society (APS) John Dawson Award for Excellence in
Plasma Physics Research. This award was established in 1981. Prior to
2007, it was named APS Award for Excellence in Plasma Physics
Research.
The nomination deadline is April 1, 2008.
We are writing to encourage you to take a moment and nominate your
outstanding colleague(s) for this important award. Nominations are
open to scientists of all nationalities regardless of the
geographical site at which the work was done.
Information about this award and the selection committee chair can be found at
http://www.aps.org/programs/honors/awards/dawson.cfm
Nomination guidelines are copied below and available at
http://www.aps.org/programs/honors/nomination.cfm
Please note that award(s) can only be awarded to those individuals
who have been nominated! Your nominations are essential to the
success and work of the selection committees.
The nomination package requires only a nominating letter, at least
two seconding letters, and a list of important publications.
Although web-site indicates five (5) copies of nominations and
supporting documentation for the 2008 Prize should be sent to the
Chair of the 2008 Selection Committee (Uri Shumlak at
shumlak@u.washington.edu), you are strongly urged to submit
nominations electronically.
Thank you in advance for your help with this pleasant and important
responsibility.
Best regards,
Uri Shumlak, Chair
APS John Dawson Excellence in Plasma Physics Research Award Committee
================
APS 2008 John Dawson Award for Excellence in Plasma Physics Research
http://www.aps.org/programs/honors/awards/dawson.cfm
Purpose: To recognize a particular recent outstanding achievement in
plasma physics research.
Nature: The award consists of $5,000 to be divided equally in the
case of multiple recipients, and includes a certificate citing the
contributions made by the recipient or recipients, to be presented at
an award ceremony at the Division of Plasma Physics Annual Meeting
Banquet. It will be awarded annually.
Establishment and Support: This award was established in 1981 with
support from friends of the Division of Plasma Physics. Prior to
2007, it was named Award for Excellence in Plasma Physics Research.
Rules and Eligibility: Nominations are open to scientists of all
nationalities regardless of the geographical site at which the work
was done. It may be a given to a set of individuals as well as to
individual scientists, as appropriate, to honor those who make
essential contributions to the cited research achievement.
Nominations are active for three years.
Nomination Guidelines: see http://www.aps.org/programs/honors/nomination.cfm
Nomination Deadline: April 1, 2008. Please send nominations and
supporting documentation electronically to the chair
[shumlak@u.washington.edu]. If that is not possible, five (5) copies
of nominations and supporting documentation should be sent to the
Chair of the 2008 Selection Committee:
Uri Shumlak
University of Washington
120 AERB, Box 352250
Seattle, WA 98195-2250
Phone: 206-616-1986
Fax: 206-543-4719
E-mail: shumlak@u.washington.edu
2008 Selection Committee
Chair: Uri Shumlak
Members: John Sarff, Gerald A. Navratil (2007 recipient),
Peter Catto (vice chair), Christine Coverdale
*************************
In haste,
Stephen Knowlton, UFA President