**Minutes for the**

**Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee Meeting**

**July 29-30, 1998, Gaithersburg Hilton Hotel, Gaithersburg, Maryland**

**BESAC members present:**

> **Boris Batterman Thomas Russell**
>
> **Jack Crow Zhi-Xun Shen**
>
> **Marye Anne Fox (Vice Chair) Sunil Sinha**
>
> **Jan Herbst Richard Smalley**
>
> **Linda Horton David Tirrell**
>
> **Franklin Orr Patricia Thiel**

**Geraldine Richmond (Chair)**

**BESAC members absent:**

> **Barbara Garrison Carolyn Meyers**
>
> **Robert Horsch Edel Wasserman**
>
> **Stephen Leone Conrad Williams**

**Marsha Lester**

**Also present:**

**Jim Decker, Deputy Director, ER (Wednesday only)**

**Patricia Dehmer, Associate Director, ER, OBES**

**Martha Krebs, Director, ER (Wednesday afternoon only)**

**Iran Thomas, Deputy Associate Director, ER, OBES and**

**Director, Division of Materials Sciences, OBES**

**July 29, 1998**

**Chair Geraldine Richmond opened the meeting at 8:30 a.m. She had each
committee member introduce himself or herself. She then introduced
Patricia Dehmer to provide an overview of the Department of Energy (DOE)
and of the Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES).**

**In her preliminary remarks, Dehmer welcomed the members to the meeting
and stressed the importance of this advisory committee, BESAC, pointing
out that it produced outcomes as well as outputs. One outcome has been
the Birgeneau Report that reviewed the major light-source initiatives;
it will be the force in determining funding for those sources, and it
has already become part of the vernacular on Capitol Hill. An output has
been the analysis of the shutdown of the High-Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR).
She pointed out that BESAC already has three charges for this year: to
review the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR), to conduct a workshop on
fourth-generation light sources, and to conduct a workshop on complex
systems. In her introductory remarks, she highlighted BES****s position
and role in the structure of DOE and pointed out that it contributes
primarily to the science and technology business line of the Department.
Basically, most of the basic research that occurs in DOE is funded by
BES; and in the physical sciences, BES funds about four times as much
basic research as does the National Science Foundation (NSF). From 1996
to 1997, BES****s funding increased \$246 million, with most of that
going for construction of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) and the
fourth and final components of the Seitz-Eastman recommendation. She
pointed out that BES has four divisions, and that the directors of each
of those divisions would address the meeting.**

**In her prepared presentation, she reviewed the organization of the DOE
and the distribution of FY‑1998 appropriations among science and
technology, energy resources, national security, and environmental
quality. She then summarized these appropriations by Department business
line. An organization chart for the Office of Energy Research (ER)
highlighted BES, which this committee serves. She noted that the
Department ranks within the top five government research organizations
for funding the physical sciences, environmental sciences, mathematics
and computing, and engineering. She described the structure of the
Department****s Energy Research portfolio and noted that it is going to
be portfolio roadmapped; the individual activities will then be
roadmapped, and the results will be fed back on the portfolio. She
stated that research funded by ER undergirds the DOE applied-research
portfolio. Positive feedback has already been received about these
efforts to analyze and map out present and future activities.**

**BES conducts 1400 peer-reviewed research projects, funds 200 research
institutions, and maintains 18 national user facilities. The FY-1999
congressional budget request for BES is \$836.1 million, about half of
which is for materials sciences; a quarter for chemical sciences; and
the rest for engineering and geosciences, energy biosciences,
construction, and small-business programs. The mission of BES is:**

>  **to foster and support fundamental research in the natural sciences
> and engineering leading to both new and improved energy technologies
> and an understanding and mitigation of the environmental impacts of
> energy technologies and**
>
>  **to plan, construct, and operate major scientific user facilities
> and to promote user communities for researchers at universities,
> national laboratories, and industrial laboratories.**

**The fundamental tenets to which BES subscribes are:**

>  **excellence in basic research;**
>
>  **relevance to the nation****s energy future; and**
>
>  **stewardship to ensure stable, essential scientific communities,
> facilities, and institutions.**

**She noted that, as DOE does portfolio mapping, roadmapping, planning,
etc., the paper flow will be overwhelming. She commented that it will be
important to remember these tenets and to maintain a balance among them.
Failure to maintain such a balance could lead to loss of intellectual
leadership, portfolio stagnation, an ivory-tower mentality, evaluation
in terms of short-term economic impacts, fashion-driven churning of the
portfolio, a trend toward megascience, and/or an inability to respond
quickly to national needs.**

**The legislative mandate for BES was shown to be grounded in the Energy
Policy Act of 1992.**

**Dehmer highlighted recent prizes and awards received by researchers
funded by BES, including six Nobel prizes since 1986, and underscored
the importance of funding work that (1) advances the fields of research
and (2) is rapidly recognized as important by scientific peers. All of
these Nobel prizes were in fields basic to the mission of DOE, and they
show that the Department funds the best researchers in the field(s).**

**BES has been improving its website, and it now has links to program
books, contracts, and the home pages of 18 BES-funded facilities around
the nation.**

**BES is made up of four divisions: The Materials Sciences Division,
which is composed of the Condensed Matter Physics and Materials
Chemistry Program and the Metal and Ceramic Sciences Program; the
Chemical Sciences Division, which is composed of the Fundamental
Interactions Program and the Molecular Processes Program; the Energy
Biosciences Division; and the Engineering and Geosciences Division,
which is composed of the Geosciences Program and the Engineering
Program. It supports four out of the five neutron-source facilities in
the United States. (The other is operated by the National Institute for
Science and Technology.) The program has a high degree of interaction
with applied research and industrial applied technology, even though it
funds virtually no industry directly.**

**The Office has published four booklets that describe its activities:
*Scientific Research Facilities*; *Basic Energy Sciences: Serving the
Present, Shaping the Future*; *Basic Energy Sciences: Research for the
Nation******s Energy Future*****; and *Medical Applications of
Non-Medical Research*.**

**A bar chart showed current DOE, ER, and BES funding of the 15 DOE
laboratories; one of the most obvious characteristics of this chart was
the dominance of the weapons laboratories. The exercises for determining
the FY-2000 budget are now complete, and the outlook is not as rosy as
had been hoped. After new initiatives (e.g., SNS) are subtracted, it
shows a slight decrease; analyzing these figures shows opportunities and
shortcomings. A bar chart of the current BES funding for each of the 15
laboratories identified funds for construction, facility operations,
research-related capital equipment, Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research (EPSCoR), materials sciences, chemical sciences,
engineering and geosciences, and energy biosciences going to each site.
A refinement of that chart showing just the research operating budget
was displayed; it clearly showed where the BES portfolio is: in user
facilities and research. It also showed the varied core strengths of the
different laboratories.**

**Analysis of these numbers and facts indicates that DOE laboratories**

>  **provide most of the nation****s major scientific user
> facilities**
>
>  **have specialized facilities not typically found at universities**
>
>  **support research that may not be** **in vogue** **at
> universities**
>
>  **can be cofunded by the technology offices**
>
>  **can support research of a longer term than that of a doctoral
> thesis**
>
>  **can be home to outstanding individual investigators.**

**It also shows that universities**

>  **provide access to a major scientific talent pool**
>
>  **train the next generation of scientists**
>
>  **work in areas important to the mission of DOE**
>
>  **are not captives of the DOE system**
>
>  **provide a perspective that often complements that of DOE
> laboratories.**

**A segmented graph of budget authority versus fiscal year for (1) base
research, (2) facilities operations, and (3) capital equipment and
construction showed the variation of these components from 1988 to the
1999 request.**

**The Department is currently in the process of identifying themes that
represent its objectives and that can guide the attainment of those
objectives. The four themes that have been suggested are:**

>  **Fueling the Future: Science for affordable and clean energy**
>
>  **Protecting Our Living Planet: Energy impacts on people and the
> biosphere**
>
>  **Exploring Matter and Energy: Building blocks of atoms and life**
>
>  **Extraordinary Tools for Extraordinary Science**

**From these themes, ER****s research portfolio can be derived and
organized, showing the individual offices that contribute to the
understanding of each theme. Martha Krebs, the Director of ER, has
requested each office to provide roadmaps that show how they will pursue
these four themes. Roadmapping pure science like this is difficult but
could have a large impact; for one thing, it requires one to explicitly
set priorities among the possible actions.**

**An example of the roadmapping of science was discussed. The subject
matter was a new initiative in BES that deals with complex systems,
phenomena that are great interest to DOE and that exist only because of
the complex or collective behavior of simple entities. Examples of such
complex systems are:**

>  **materials that are beyond binary, that lack stoichiometry, that
> are far from equilibrium, or that have little or no symmetry or have
> low dimensionality**
>
>  **functional synthesis for desired properties like
> superconductivity, magnetism, catalysis, or enzymatic function**
>
>  **phenomena beyond the independent-particle approximation, such as
> high-temperature conductivity**
>
>  **scaling in space and time**
>
>  **control of entropy by such processes as photosynthesis**

**These and other intellectual problems challenge us to come to grips
with how we are going to go forward. Part of developing a roadmap is
defining the questions that will lead to discovery. A science roadmap
should provide leadership, consensus, and alternatives. Such roadmaps
are iterative and must be revisited. They should not be rigidly linked
to specific scientific disciplines, but in institutions like DOE, they
must link science to the Department****s missions.**

**The roadmap for the complex systems initiative will be developed by
using BESAC to**

>  **provide structure for one or more workshops**
>
>  **produce a clear and simple report**
>
>  **aim the discussions toward producing a roadmap and contributing to
> the development of the FY-2000 budget request**
>
>  **produce a draft of the report by December 1998**

**She closed her prepared presentation with a detailed account of how
the ER FY-1999 budget request has fared as it has progressed through
DOE, OMB, House, and Senate deliberations.**

**Jan Herbst asked about unfunded mandates. Dehmer replied that the
earmarks are not known until the last minute, but that she had not yet
heard of any of any consequence this year.**

**Russell asked for clarification of two of the BES budget charts. She
pointed out that they are the same figures, but that one is in constant
dollars.**

**Richmond commented that, in this exercise of roadmapping, the goals
are very interdisciplinary, but BES has a structure that is highly
structured by discipline. Will you go back and restructure your
organization as you set the roadmaps? Dehmer replied that education
should be disciplinary, but that scientific research should and must be
interdisciplinary. This does not mean that university structures need to
change, though. Funding mechanisms should be designed to have natural
constituencies.**

**A break was called by Richmond at 9:51 a.m.**

**The meeting was called back to order by Richmond at 10:14 a.m. She
introduced Mike Knotek to speak about DOE****s R&D portfolio. He said
that ER is in very good shape in how it is organized, how it gets
advice, the quality of the research and researchers, etc. Now the
Department is trying to attain coherence in the management of its R&D
portfolio. One group, for example, is looking at the organization of the
laboratories (the R&D Council); this effort is an outgrowth of the
Galvin report. Another concern is that, although ER is proud of its
partnerships with industry, ER needs to be more closely tied to
DOE****s applied programs. The management organizations of other parts
of DOE, however, have not progressed as fast as has that of ER; some do
not even have peer-review and project-review capabilities. DOE is trying
to duplicate ER****s success in Environmental Management (EM), Defense
Programs (DP), and other parts of the Department. Starting with FY 1999,
ER is going to describe its budget in terms of the R&D portfolio so the
Congress and the White House will know what these fundings translate
into. In the future, the mission plan and other documents will also
reflect the R&D portfolio.**

**Knotek then described one component of the future R&D portfolio, the
Scientific Simulation Plan. The advance of the frontiers of computer
science is being driven by defense concerns, specifically stockpile
stewardship requirements. Under the SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation
Talks) treaty, the United States is committed to a policy of
discontinuing the testing of nuclear weapons. Underlying this commitment
is the understanding that everything that could be learned from an
actual detonation will, by the year 2005, be able to be determined
through computer simulations. These simulations will require enormous
computational capabilities that far exceed what is currently
commercially available. But, because very few customers exist for such
machines, no companies are developing this type of product. As a result,
DOE has undertaken an initiative to produce such computers, or
ultracomputers, and they have contracted with IBM and Silicon Graphics
to design and build them. The ultimate goal is to produce a 100-teraflop
machine for nuclear-weapon simulation within the next decade. If such
systems were developed, one could attack problems currently not feasible
any other way, such as the prediction of global and regional climates,
the exploration of biological systems directly from their genetic codes,
the design of new materials, and the understanding of combustion
processes. What is envisioned is the networking of the computer
resources of a large number of institutions across the country with
high-speed communications, all anchored by centers of excellence. The
infrastructure goals of this initiative are to establish**

>  **a national network of terascale (10^14^ floating-point operations
> per second) computing systems by 2003 and**
>
>  **the crosscutting terascale technology base and operating
> environments (the requisite memory, archival storage, parallel
> input-output, communications network, and system software).**

**Some of the drivers for developing such ultracomputers are**

>  **increasingly stringent EPA requirements on heavy diesels, boilers,
> etc. that require a fundamental understanding of how combustion occurs
> and how it can be altered**
>
>  **the debate about the causes of the observed increase in global
> atmospheric temperature and its effects on extreme events (such as
> hurricanes, tornados, floods, and droughts), productivity of the
> oceans, human health, sea level, and other concerns**
>
>  **the desire of biologists to model what they believe to be a finite
> number of protein structures to control those that are associated with
> diseases (such as Alzheimer****s) and to produce new ones that have
> therapeutic value.**

**To guide and plan this initiative, many workshops have been and are
being held in 1998. Some have dealt with general topics, such as
simulation and modeling; data management, analysis, and visualization;
and applied mathematics and computer-science techniques. Others have
focused on applications of ultracomputers to specific disciplines and
research topics, such as biology, materials, chemistry, climate,
physics, and combustion.**

**Thiel asked what types of proof were available to indicate that
climate was predictable. Knotek pointed to the Atmospheric Radiation
Measurement Program and other courses of investigation that, by dealing
with historical data and gathering and analyzing vast amounts of new
data, have shown an increased understanding of and ability to predict
atmospheric and oceanic processes.**

**Horton asked if there was a science-hardware duality. Knotek responded
that currently there is more money in the science than in the equipment.
He pointed out that the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather
Forecasts and others have developed their capabilities much more rapidly
than have U.S. agencies. Russell asked if this initiative has to be
internationalized. Knotek replied that the international effort is well
coordinated.**

**Sunil Sinha noted that, in the applications for weapons, you need a
lot of materials data and science and asked whose responsibility that
is. Knotek answered that the initiative has a lot of data that have been
accumulated over the years but the researchers also have an experimental
capability to supplement and extend historical data.**

**Zhi-Xun Shen asked what else this capability is applicable to. Knotek
responded that a lot of work is being done on the simulation and
analysis of the national (or, more properly, the international) power
grid and of seismic stability.**

**Richmond then introduced a collaborative presentation (one that called
for audience participation) on roadmaps and complex systems led by John
Stringer. He said the complexity issue arises because of the chaotic
nature of many systems. But, he noted, there is some predictable nature
of those systems. You must understand what you are going to do with
these systems and what you can model. In the past, we have tried to
linearize things and thus to model them.**

**What can you use roadmaps for, Stringer asked? As Lewis Carroll
noted,** **If you don****t know where you****re going, any way will
get to there.** **We may not be able to roadmap science, but we can
make *some* predictions. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),
for example, has brought up its goals on the World Wide Web. In the next
25 years, it expects to**

>  **create an electricity supply and delivery system meeting the much
> greater demands of an emerging knowledge-based economy**
>
>  **attain at least a 20% higher growth rate for national productivity
> and economic expansion**
>
>  **bring opportunity for advancement to 2 billion of the world\'s
> population currently without access to electricity**
>
>  **fill our environmental-knowledge gaps and facilitate the essential
> response strategies**
>
>  **establish the confident basis for sustainable global development
> in the 21st century.**

**He said that we do not know who our stakeholders are going to be in
the future, but a roadmap allows us to assess *opportunities*. The
roadmap itself is not a snapshot fixed in time, but something we are
going to constantly reassess. You do the best you can in predicting, and
every now and then you look back and reevaluate to see where you might
go in light of the changes that have occurred since the last
roadmapping. Another use of roadmapping is to formulate a number of
objectives and then to look back from these objectives to see where the
barriers are and to see what should be done next. Roadmapping is
intrinsically different from strategic planning. It is incremental, and
it looks *backward* to see where to go.**

**One of the benefits of having a tool like roadmapping is getting
money. One of the participants at a recent Santa Fe Institute meeting
said that scientists do not use terms that resonate on Capitol Hill. You
have to make what you are doing exciting to those who are deliberating
about funding the research, and you must make it relevant to their
*personal* interests.**

**Fox asked him to differentiate between science and technology
roadmaps. He said that one (technology) has a shorter time horizon than
the other and does not loop back on itself as does the science
roadmap.**

**Pat Dehmer said that BES has to find a way to proceed. The last time
BESAC met, gathering a panel to consider complex systems was discussed.
Is that a reasonable way to proceed? Sinha said you have to define your
possible and probable scenarios. That is very difficult! You *have* to
build consensus, though. The community includes those that need it and
those that want it. They can identify a goal *for the moment*. This goal
definition can be done by such a team if it is chosen properly.**

**Iran Thomas said that once you have decided what you do not know, you
have to decide what is worth learning. *That* is what is so difficult.
What is important is to understand whether or not the way we are
currently supporting research will get us there. Some endeavors will
require broader and stronger efforts than others will. How can a roadmap
help us make that judgment? Stringer said that EPRI can now do what, at
one time, we did not think could be done. BES does not want to support
just work that can be roadmapped; you also want to support basic
research that has no apparent application. Thomas said that a roadmap
was needed that had** **the road less taken** **as an option. Stringer
noted that Rep. Vernon Ehlers had commented that the minority report is
never read. Stringer had no answer yet on how to balance the two
approaches. The quality of the *people* supported will continue to be
the most important aspect.**

**Linda Horton voiced the concern that, if there are too many workshop
attendees, the approach would not work. Dehmer and Thomas noted that
there will be many interactions among diverse disciplines, but that they
were striving for a small, manageable workshop that will be productive.
Horton asked if they thought a larger group would bring about a broader
consensus among the scientific community. Stringer said, it is quite
logical; that was his experience at EPRI in putting together EPRI****s
*Visions and Destinations Source Book.* The same has been true at the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Air Force.
The further you go into the future, the more difficult it gets.
Programming is just a way of indicating that there are objectives;
later, you get Triptiks. Dehmer said she did not know the answer to
Horton****s question; she felt that the number 25 is reasonable and
workable. Larger workshops and their followups are incredibly
expensive.**

**Russell asked about the EPRI objectives, saying that he was curious
about the timeframe. Why 25 years? Stringer said 25 years was chosen
because that represents the characteristic timeframe of the systems we
are looking at (e.g., the construction of a power plant).**

**Jan Herbst asked what the complex systems are that BES is concerned
with. Dehmer responded that the answer to that question is undefined as
yet.**

**Richmond said that she hoped that the new people on the advisory
committee appreciate how important this initiative on complex systems
is. What BESAC needs to do is to provide Dehmer with names of people who
can contribute to a report that is to come out in December. Patricia
Thiel said that this new initiative was presented as being very small,
but today****s viewgraphs listed it as one of the four major topics,
encompassing a very large portion of BES****s portfolio. Dehmer
responded that this is correct; the Complex Systems Initiative is an
attempt to talk about where science is going in a new way.**

**Dehmer then spoke about the fourth‑generation light sources. She said
that Steve Leone has agreed to chair the panel that is to consider them,
and she passed out copies of the charge letter addressed to the panel
chair. The panel has not yet been chosen; this committee has the
opportunity to suggest names for inclusion on the panel. Linda Horton
asked if information submitted since the previous meeting should be
submitted again. Dehmer answered that that information was on file and
need not be resubmitted. Zhi-Xun Shen asked what distinction was implied
by the term** **fourth generation.** **Dehmer answered, many orders of
magnitude over the third-generation light sources. Boris Batterman
questioned whether the panel assessing fourth-generation light sources
should adopt a DOE or international perspective. Dehmer responded that
the panel should adopt a DOE perspective but be cognizant of work done
by other nations or international organizations. Sinha noted that the
Advanced Photon Source (APS) is having a workshop on fourth-generation
light sources in February or March in 1999.**

**Iran Thomas, speaking as the acting director of Engineering Research
and Geosciences Division of BES, then gave an overview of the structure
and activities of that division. Its FY‑1999 budget is about \$44
million, with about \$18 million going to engineering and about \$26
million to geosciences. The major change in this budget from the
previous year is an increase of \$3 million for the Climate Change
Technology Initiative (which is focused on carbon sequestration).**

**The Engineering Program is divided into mechanical sciences; system
sciences, control, and instrumentation; and data and engineering
analysis. The program is aided by the Council for Energy Engineering
Research (CEER), which is not advisory in function but rather assesses
research and decides what areas would be interesting to go into. CEER
holds a workshop to review each area (e.g., instrumentation and
measurement) and to summarize the knowledge in that area. Major topics
that the program will explore in the future include
micro-electromechanical systems and nanoengineering, bio- and metabolic
engineering, picoscale issues, structural integrity and aging,
multiphase flow (continuing), computational modeling, the predictive
capability of chaos, robotics and intelligent machines, and engineering
related to global warming. An example of the program****s efforts is
the TRUST (terminal repeller unconstrained subenergy tunneling) project,
which developed a process that is 50 times faster than other techniques
for identifying minima for functions with as many as 10,000 variables.**

**The Geosciences Research Program was established in DOE because a
significant amount of the energy we use comes out of the Earth and the
wastes we produce largely go back into the Earth. It is divided into
geochemistry of mineral-fluid interactions; geophysical interrogation of
the Earth****s crust; and basic properties of rocks, minerals, and
fluids. It is aided by the Earth Sciences Council (ESC). The ESC holds
workshops for discussions about relevant topics (such as scaling in
geological systems, terrestrial sequestration of carbon dioxide, and
geophysical inverse modeling) and prepares summaries of current
knowledge and challenges for publication in peer-reviewed journals. The
future directions for this program include studies of the complex
interactions of geologic processes, predicting the performance of
hydrologic and groundwater systems, higher-resolution imaging of the
subsurface, and improving mathematical methods to invert geophysical
data to recover in situ rock and fluid properties.**

**Linda Horton asked if the portfolio of Engineering Research and
Geosciences is more heavily weighted toward university programs. Thomas
responded, yes, decidedly. Horton then asked if the members of the CEER
for Geosciences are largely affiliated with universities or if there was
an industrial component and contribution. Thomas responded that the
members are largely from academia and noted that the councils pick their
own memberships.**

**Richmond called for a lunch break at 12:27 p.m.**

**Richmond called the committee to order at 1:39 p.m. and introduced
Robert Marianelli, Director of the BES Division of Chemical Sciences, to
give an overview of that division. The Division is divided into the
Fundamental Interactions Team and the Molecular Processes Team and is
guided by a research council. The Fundamental Interactions Team is
divided into four programs: Chemical Physics; Photochemical and
Radiation Sciences; and Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics; and
Facility Operations. These focus on problems associated with atomic,
molecular, chemical, and optical physics; combustion phenomena;
catalysis; and solar energy conversion. The Molecular Processes Team is
also divided into four programs: Chemical Energy, Separations and
Analysis, Chemical Engineering Sciences, and Heavy-Element Chemistry.
These focus on understanding chemical processes at a molecular level,
new heterogeneous chemistry, and new homogeneous-phase chemistries.**

**The Division has long tried to involve and aid the chemical community
in the solution of environmental problems. Two Nobel prizes have
resulted from Division-sponsored work: the 1995 prize in chemistry for
work on photocatalytic ozone destruction and the 1996 prize in chemistry
for the discovery of Buckminsterfullerene. Another example of research
funded by the division is the development of metallocene catalysts,
which demonstrate that, with molecular architecture, you can build a
catalyst from the ground up, including the properties you want and
excluding those you do not want. Significant developments that have come
out of the Division****s programs during the past year include a
spectroscopic technique for tumor identification, a landmark experiment
that challenges current combustion models, and the first nonflammable
lithium-ion battery for consumer products.**

**The Division****s FY-1997 budget was \$201.3 million, which was
devoted to laboratory research (\$63.3 million), facility operations
(\$57.4 million), grants (\$35.8 million), equipment (\$20 million),
general plant projects (\$9.2 million), and smaller projects and
obligations (\$15.6 million).**

**Sinha noted that metallocene catalysts that DOE developed are used by
Exxon and others and asked whether these catalysts were proprietary.
Marianelli responded that they were, but noted that these companies were
consulting with former DOE researchers who have gone on to practice the
chemical arts to derive special-purpose versions of the catalysts.**

**Greg Dilworth then gave an overview of the Energy Biosciences
Division, which studies plant science, fermentation microbiology,
extremophilic organisms, and biomaterials and biocatalysis. The division
supports basic research focused on (1) mechanisms at the molecular and
atomic level and (2) processes, systems, and materials related to
energy. The research is primarily conducted by the academic community.
The division has many interactions with other federal programs to keep
track of what activities they are funding, allowing DOE to find out
about pertinent areas for research while avoiding duplication of effort;
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the major player in this
arena. The recent accomplishments of research funded by the Division
include progress made in unravelling plant cell differentiation,
building doors into cells by engineering new pores, creating a new
oil-storage organ, reversing photosynthesis, developing new ways of
isolating genetic traits, and elucidating the enzymatic mechanism
underlying the synthesis of adenosine triphosphate (an effort that won
the 1997 Nobel Prize in Chemistry).**

**The major trends that are being observed in the Division are:**

>  **More research is focusing on the interaction of molecules and
> bioprocesses rather than on the detailed characterization of
> individual entities.**
>
>  **More research is focusing on understanding the biological
> functions of specific molecules or bioprocesses in determining how
> specific entities relate to the whole organism.**

**The reasons behind these trends are (1) the past success of
biochemical and biophysical analyses and (2) the new ways that have been
derived from genomic analyses to approach biological questions.**

**The present core research program focuses on the science underlying
renewables production and conversion. Other activities that the Division
is being asked to address include phytoremediation, agricultural
efficiency, carbon management, biopolymer processing, and novel
materials. Other paths to which the Division could make a contribution
include metabolic pathway topology, artificial chromosomes, organelle
genesis, multigenome engineering, and functional genomics.**

**Carbon management is seen to be a major application of the research
that the division has supported in photosynthesis. Future work will
study the limitations of carbon flow through photosynthetic systems,
photosynthate storage and root exudation, and other autotrophic
carbon-fixing mechanisms.**

**The Division****s FY-1998 budget was about \$28 million; its FY-1999
budget is expected to be between \$25 million and \$33 million.**

**Orr asked where ocean disposal of carbon dioxide fits in the program.
Dilworth said that the Office of Biological and Ecological Research is
also strong on biology. They have also addressed this problem and taken
the systems approach to it.**

**Russell commented that the budget is constant but the program is
expanded and asked where funding is cut. Dilworth said that the Division
tries to allocate resources in such a way that unfavorable impacts are
spread over a broad range of projects to minimize impact on any one
project. Patricia Thiel asked how complex systems fit in, and he replied
that Biosciences** **research topics are very complex problems.**

**Richmond called for a break at 2:30 p.m.**

**The chair called the session back to order at 3:02 p.m. and introduced
Martha Krebs, who gave an update on ER****s activities. She began with
the table that Pat Dehmer had ended with, showing ER****s FY-1998
appropriation of \$667.3 million, a FY-1999 budget request of \$836.1
million (a 10% increase), the House Appropriations Committee markup of
\$779.1 million (a 6.8% increase from 1998), and the Senate
Appropriations Committee markup of \$836.1 million (an 8.3% increase).**

**She then provided a scorecard for major BES requests in the FY-1999
budget. For the SNS, \$157 million was requested. The Senate approved
all of it; the House \$100 million; the shortfall may be made up in the
FY-2000 budget. The Senate provided what was asked for
science-facilities utilization, and the House added \$7.5 million. The
House and the Senate have been quietly supportive of the Large Hadron
Collider. For the Climate Change Technology Initiative, \$27 million was
requested; the Senate provided all of it, and the House approved \$13.5
million. For the Next-Generation Internet, \$22 million was asked. The
Senate allowed participation but took off \$10 million; the House took
it all away. Both the House and the Senate added money for fusion and
the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor transition, but
there is still a big debate about U.S. participation; the big question
is how much concern there is about damaging relations with our allies.
The \$15 million science-education request was zeroed out by both the
House and the Senate, but the House added \$4 million for required
research and the Science Bowl.**

**From budgetary concerns, she turned to stewardship topics. The
Division is rethinking energy research by preparing a strategic plan for
ER and developing themes and roadmaps. The ER information system is
being improved. We have done a lot of work on safety concerns, but DOE
is very complex, and something is always happening. On the evening
before this talk, about 15 people were hospitalized and at least one
person died during a firefighting test at the Idaho National Engineering
and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). An alarm failed to sound when an
enclosed area was flooded with carbon dioxide. She said that we must
identify the best environmental- and safety-management practices and
continually compare ourselves to that benchmark of excellence. The
Division is participating in the Interagency Working Group on the U.S.
Science and Technology Workforce of the Future. She emphasized that we
must continually stress the value of the investments we make in science
and technology and find new ways to communicate that value.**

**The Division is identifying the unique role of ER programs within DOE
missions and the federal science investment. It is also developing a
shared long-term focus for ER programs, their scientific communities,
and performers. The Division****s management has been impressed with
NASA****s progress and accomplishments made through their identity
themes. The reasoning is that, if we have a common sense of where we are
going, cooperation will be made easier, especially with Congress and
other overseers. Therefore, the Division has identified the four initial
themes that Pat Dehmer cited earlier. A working group and ER identified
these themes along with several specific questions/challenges for
each.**

**The questions that exemplify Fueling the Future are:**

>  **What clean, new energy sources can be created and harnessed?**
>
>  **How can energy sources be made more efficient and environmentally
> sound?**
>
>  **How do we best recover domestic resources (i.e., oil, gas, and
> coal) to assure national security?**

**For Protecting Our Living Planet:**

>  **What are the sources and fates of energy-related byproducts?**
>
>  **What factors change global climate, and how can they be
> controlled?**
>
>  **How do complex biological and environmental systems respond to our
> energy use?**

**For Exploring Matter and Energy:**

>  **What are the fundamental components of matter?**
>
>  **How can the origin and fate of the universe reveal the secrets of
> energy and matter?**
>
>  **How do atoms and molecules combine to form complex, dynamic
> systems? This question implies the study of the physics of plasmas and
> extreme states of matter, the elucidation of the chemical pathways of
> energy and materials production, the development of molecular assembly
> and nanofabrication, and the investigation of self-organizing systems
> and the molecular basis of life.**

**For Extraordinary Tools for Extraordinary Science:**

>  **How can we explore the frontiers of the natural sciences? (The
> answers to this question that are currently known are with new
> particle accelerators and detectors, with brilliant x‑rays and
> high-flux neutrons, with innovative plasma-confinement devices, with
> facilities for high-speed genome sequencing, and with sources for
> heavy elements.)**
>
>  **How can we predict the behavior of complex systems? (The known
> answers here are with advanced mathematical tools; with petaflop
> computing and modeling; and with petabyte data acquisition,
> simulation, and imaging.)**
>
>  **How can we strengthen the nation****s capacity for
> multidisciplinary science? (The known answers here are with the
> national laboratory system and university centers, with
> government-university-industry partnerships, with virtual laboratories
> and information networks, with the next generation of scientists and
> engineers, and with energy-science literacy and education.)**

**The next step is to develop each of these themes into goals and an
overall strategy, with each of the offices of ER contributing responses
to these questions. We need BESAC to help us through this process.**

**Herbst asked her to share with the committee her concept of complex
systems. She used as examples physical and biological systems. This
concern about complex systems is also showing up in other agencies. At
the National Institutes of Health (NIH), they need new investments for
science and engineering to investigate processes at the interface of,
say, the life and engineering sciences. She noted that this was akin to
DOE****s thinking about how to harness plant processes for energy
production.**

**Orr asked if the President****s Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology report on energy R&D has had an impact on the budget this
year. Krebs said that they made an effort to use the report because it
justifies a substantial increase on the technology side. But Congress
and the White House have been at odds about how or whether to implement
the Kyoto accord. The rhetoric is more heated on the House side than the
Senate side, but she is hopeful that the disagreement will be worked out
and that the country will meet its responsibilities.**

**Russell asked her to expand on the INEEL event and its significance.
She responded that managing safety in a complex environment is with us
constantly, and we will have to keep addressing it.**

**Richmond asked if she sensed more support from Congress for long-term
research. Krebs replied that she thought the FY-2000 budget will see
some restoration of funds, but cautioned that you always have to argue
for your position. The idea of doubling the budget for science and
technology is actively under consideration, not only by the Executive
Branch but also in Congress, with the Speaker of the House leading the
charge. Energy research is a critical player in ensuring the
nation****s security. Senator Domenici and others are convinced of that
fact and are championing it. In the face of having balanced the budget,
it is easier to justify more support for research and development.
Richmond asked how BESAC could help, and Krebs responded that BESAC
could put together something that could be delivered to Congress so they
are aware of what we do and can do. In the case of the Birgeneau report,
she wanted some affirmation.**

**An unidentified representative of DOE noted that much research on
brain function is referred to as complex systems and stated that he
hoped that people are not confused by this new use of the terminology.
Krebs said that she would take advice on this issue, but** **complex
systems** **is the best term that has come up so far. ER wants to
convey interest in frontiers to people beyond ourselves. This is not
about being precise; you can be precise in the request for proposals.**

**Jack Crow then reviewed the BESAC assessment of the HFIR. He went over
the charge to the committee and identified each committee member,
telling each one****s strengths. He said the meeting, site visit, and
report writing will happen in the next few weeks or months with a draft
report given to BESAC at the next meeting and a final version prepared
by November.**

**Horton asked who will look at radiation damage. Crow answered that he
would consider this apparent need.**

**A short break was declared by Vice Chair Fox at 4:08 p.m. because the
committee was running ahead of schedule and the next speaker needed time
to set up.**

**Richmond called the group back into session at 4:21 p.m. and had Iran
Thomas introduce Barry Bozeman and Juan Rogers to speak on research
value mapping (RVM). They described a study funded by BES to identify
economic, scientific, social, and other impacts and effects of the
research sponsored over the years by BES. The** **benefits** **of such
efforts had often been interpreted much more broadly than they were
here. The approach that Bozeman and Rogers took was to**

>  **select cases for site visits;**
>
>  **make site visits at national laboratories and universities with
> semistructured interviews;**
>
>  **ask principal investigators and managers to identify projects
> that, they thought, produced significant impacts;**
>
>  **develop case study narratives;**
>
>  **select cases for a Web questionnaire;**
>
>  **develop a technique for identifying discreet variables to be
> measured; and**
>
>  **analyze the RVM and case data.**

**They wanted to find patterns among the cases so they could infer how
management affected the research, its outcome, and its impacts.**

**They found five patterns of how the organizational structure
interacted with the knowledge generated. The first was a single-sector
sporadic-exchange system in which most work was done in contact with
only similar (e.g., university) types of the research community but with
occasional contacts outside that regime. The second was a
multiple-sector, mutually adapting system in which researchers had many
contacts with individuals and institutions outside their own social
sphere with significant feedback loops occurring; the two sectors (e.g.,
university and industry) tend to adapt their operations to the models
and needs of the other sector. The third was an enabling-star system in
which the research team worked on applications that could be used only
by *other* research teams and thus have a broader effect. These
enabling-star systems would work and find their solutions in the context
of the applications** **needs rather than being driven by funding or
industrial needs. The fourth was an organized, expanding-knowledge
system in which the research organization would grow as the project
progressed, bringing them into contact with more and more institutions
throughout a field of science with a close association with support
functions. The fifth was an organized, converging-knowledge system in
which the research organization got bigger and bigger to bring multiple
talents together to study a specific knowledge goal intensively; close
connection was maintained with program managers of the supporting
agencies.**

**A major finding was that projects with patents and licenses are even
more likely than others to be examples of basic research and less likely
than others to be examples of commercially oriented applied research or
technology development.**

**The other lessons they learned were:**

**1. Producing commercial results is not dependent on doing basic
research.**

**2. BES funding is prized because it is stable, is predictable, can be
used as a core, and can be leveraged.**

**3. People develop innovative organization designs without even
thinking about it, driven by multidisciplinarism and contact between
sectors.**

**4. Interdisciplinary work requires an entrepreneurial management
concept trying to make connections with overlapping sets of communities
(e.g., using students or tapping multiple funding sources).**

**5. No big differences between universities and national laboratories
were found in the impacts produced.**

**Batterman responded that this seems to be counter to the roadmap
people. Bozeman responded that the type of research reported here seems
to go against the common perception. Batterman said he thought that we
would do better by picking out bright people and letting them do their
work. Bozeman responded that we need to observe those bright people and
learn from them. His copresenter, Juan Rogers, said that the bright
researchers often took the roadmaps and used them very creatively to
attain their knowledge goals.**

**Fox asked how much more likely basic research projects were to lead to
patents, and Bozeman responded at least two to one. Horton observed that
patenting is very rapid at the beginning of a basic research project but
slows down significantly as the project moves into applied research, so
a time factor may enter in here.**

**Fox asked about the meaning of their first RVM analysis. Bozeman
responded that core metrics are generally not metrics; they do not count
the right things or many of the important variables. Counting things is
not enough to determine how fields flourish. We need to understand not
the metrics but the change dynamics. Management by objective and
zero-based budgeting suffered from just this problem. Having a strategic
plan is a good idea. Having a roadmap to guide us is a good idea. Having
metrics is not such a good idea. If you knew what the limitations were,
it would not be so bad; but you generally do not know those
limitations.**

**Thiel noted that Bozeman and Rogers had given a lot of models and
asked if one is better than the others. Bozeman responded that it
depends on what you are trying to achieve; each one will produce a
different mix of outcomes.**

**Richmond then opened the floor to the public.**

**Judy Harrison of the APS (American Physical Society) asked if Bozeman
found that the amount of money invested is reflected in results. Bozeman
said that the number of dollars spent is not correlated with output
variables.**

**Iran Thomas commented that the management of science has evolved
haphazardly to a decentralized model (as opposed to a
centralized-economy approach) and asked if he was correct in assuming
that their research is finding such a decentralized model to be
effective. Bozeman responded that Thomas was correct and, moreover, that
the model at DOE is different from that at NIH, which is advantageous.**

**Richmond asked Bozeman and Rogers what the most interesting or
surprising upshot was from the project. Bozeman said the most unexpected
finding to them was the extent to which basic research projects are
having a commercial application. The fecundity of the fundamental
research process surprised them.**

**Richmond adjourned the session at 5:25 p.m.**

**July 30, 1998**

**Richmond called the meeting to order at 8:33 a.m. and introduced Iran
Thomas to review the organization and activities of the Division of
Materials Sciences, speaking as the director of that division. He
started on a philosophical note, commenting that we, as scientists, try
to understand fundamental principles not only so we can predict when
something will break but also so we can invent something that will not
break. Air-quality figures from the *Washington Post* showed that the
air is much better in Los Angeles, Washington, and New York than in some
cities of lesser-developed countries. The point he was trying to make
was that, ultimately, the major objectives of scientific inquiry include
increased wealth and a higher quality of life.**

**Thomas began his prepared presentation by noting that the Division of
Materials Sciences is divided into two programs. The Metal and Ceramic
Sciences Program investigates synthesis and processing science;
predictive theory, simulation, and modeling; structural characterization
at the Angstrom scale; and mechanical and physical behavior. The
Condensed Matter Physics and Materials Chemistry Program studies the
structure and dynamics of solids, liquids, and surfaces; electronic
structure; new materials synthesis; surfaces and interfaces; and the
development of experimental techniques. The total budget of the division
is more than \$417 million for FY 1999, of which \$189 million supports
research and \$218 million supports facilities operation. The division
is also responsible for EPSCoR, which allocates funds in a manner that
geographically balances funding. A major component of the budget is the
SNS, which has been under development since the 1980s. Three other
additions to this year****s budget are notable: the Climate Change
Technology Initiative, the Complex and Collective Phenomena Initiative,
and the Partnership for Academic and Industrial Research.**

**He reviewed the upgrades of the various facilities in progress. The
upgrade of the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE), which will
cost \$20.5 million over the next five years, will increase the
facility****s power and add at least four new instruments. The upgrade
of the HFIR was not fully funded, but a more modest upgrade is being
carried out (primarily the replacement of the beryllium reflector) at a
total project cost of \$38.3 million. The cost was increased by a change
in scope and by unforeseen safety requirements. The schedule of the
upgrade of the HFBR has slipped somewhat. The environmental impact
statement (EIS) is under way but is progressing slower than hoped for,
in part because of a large number of community comments (about 600),
some of which required substantial analysis. It is now hoped that a
record of decision will be dated May 1999.**

**He noted that the Division is aided by the Council on Materials
Sciences, which studies and reports on potential courses of research.
The future directions and opportunities of the Metal and Ceramic
Sciences Program include bulk metallic glasses, electron-beam
microcharacterization, mechanical behavior of condensed matter,
monolithic and composite structural ceramics for ultrahigh- temperature
load-bearing applications, predictive theory and modeling,
nondestructive evaluation, and reliable predictive modeling of and
improved resistance to radiation-induced damage and embrittlement. The
future directions and opportunities of the Condensed Matter Physics and
Materials Chemistry Program include advanced-level neutron scattering,
properties and behavior of complex materials at high magnetic fields,
Sp^2^-bonded materials, granular materials, complex materials,
high-temperature superconductivity, molecular self-assembly, complex
fluids, theory and simulation, and combinatorial chemistry.**

**Russell asked the tenor of the comments about the HFBR. Thomas replied
some were favorable, some reasonable, and some unreasonable; most were
not positive; and many voiced concern about restarting the reactor.
Sinha asked if the new management at Brookhaven National
Laboratory (BNL) was committed to restart. Thomas said they are awaiting
guidance from Duke Power, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Congress,
and the community. When they receive that guidance, they will make a
decision. From a technical sense, what is coming in does not preclude
restart. Herbst asked what Duke Power had had to say about BNL****s
restart of the HFBR. Thomas said that nothing additional had been found
that would make the reactor unsafe to operate.**

**Sinha commented that no mention had been made about the upgrades of
synchrotrons. Thomas replied that what he talked about was upgrades that
have been funded. Congress has not provided funds for the recommended
upgrades of the synchrotrons, although some funds have been shifted to
start those upgrades.**

**Daniel Chemla reviewed his career and qualifications and described the
background of the Advanced Light Source (ALS). The birth of the ALS was
difficult; only enough money for one beamline and a very modest
experimental program was allocated. At the time of the Birgeneau Report,
it had 13 beamlines. Today it has 27 (out of a possible 38) beamlines
operating. Each beamline is designed for a specific class of
experiments, and the scientists coordinate their experiments and access
to the beamlines.**

**Many managerial changes have been made in light of the criticisms
leveled by the Birgeneau report:**

>  **ALS was established as an independent division of the Lawrence
> Berkeley National**
>
> **Laboratory (LBNL).**
>
>  **The ALS Scientific Policy Board was convened to reevaluate the
> scientific program. The strategic priorities that it set forth were to
> develop (1) the best possible scientific program, (2) a partnership
> between ALS and its users, and (3) *all* the capabilities of the
> ALS.**
>
>  **The ALS International Workshop was held to define the scientific
> program that would be pursued; it attracted 330 attendees from 10
> countries, representing industry, the national laboratories, and
> academia. Working groups considered the scientific issues that should
> be addressed, the role of the ALS, and the specific tools that would
> be needed. The working groups recommended an openness to proposals in
> three main areas:**
>
> **(1) complex materials (including unconventional superconductivity;
> magnetism in multielectron extended systems; reduced or confined
> dimensionality in mesoscopic systems, nanostructures, quantum wells,
> etc.; multiparticle and correlated systems; and novel phase
> transitions),**
>
> **(2) environmental and earth sciences (including in situ speciation
> studies of soils, clays, minerals, and bioorganisms; speciation
> spectroscopy of second-row-element K-edges; and buildout of the entire
> sector), and**
>
> **(3) protein crystallography \[including superbend
> microcrystallography MAD (multiwavelength anomalous dispersion)
> beamlines, side stations on the ALS wiggler for non-MAD work, existing
> ALS bend magnets, and structural genomics\]; there is a huge need in
> the western United States for these capabilities**
>
>  **The ALS Users Task Force made a series of recommendations to
> establish a world-class**
>
> **user program:**
>
> **(1) establish productive and respectful two-way communications,**
>
> **(2) articulate and pursue a clear scientific vision for the
> facility,**
>
> **(3) establish a well understood process for resource allocation,**
>
> **(4) strengthen general support to users and streamline
> administration, and**
>
> **(5) maintain and enhance resources for technical support to users.**
>
>  **A new ALS director was appointed.**
>
>  **The average number of hours per day that the ALS operates has been
> increased.**

**In addition to all these changes, a joint western U.S. center is being
negotiated with the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory (SSRL).**

**A series of examples of research being pursued at the ALS was
presented; it included probing coupled quantum wells with microfocused
x-rays, multiatom resonant photoemission, high-resolution zone plate
microscopy, macromolecular structures of humic substances, chemical
heterogeneity in soil organic molecules, x-ray microscopy of the tubulin
network in epithelial cells, soft x-ray and confocal microscopy of the
splicing factor in HMEC (S1-50), and the development of a figure of
merit for protein crystallography. The point being made was that a lot
of science can be performed in this range of energy.**

**From FY 1997 to FY 1998, the annual number of users increased from 291
to 600. Since November 1997, the Macromolecular Crystallography Facility
alone attracted more than 100 users from 26 research groups. Still, the
beamlines are oversubscribed, the most heavily used ones turning down as
much as 75% of the beamline requests. At the same time that the number
of users has dramatically increased, the facility****s
inflation-adjusted operating budget has declined slightly but steadily
for four years.**

**Nevertheless, measures have been taken to respond to the ALS Users
Task Force****s recommendations:**

>  **Users\' Executive Committee (UEC) and Center for X-Ray Optics
> (CXRO) representatives attend the weekly Strategic Management Team
> meetings.**
>
>  **The UEC chair and representatives and the CXRO representatives
> attend the semiannual ALS Strategic Planning Meeting.**
>
>  **The representation of users in the ALS Science Advisory Committee
> is larger.**
>
>  **The representation of users in the Program Study Panel that
> evaluates proposals for beamline allocation is larger.**

**Involvement of faculty members of the University of California at
Berkeley has also been increased.**

**The performance of the ALS will be enhanced by improving the
third-harmonic RF system to increase beam lifetime from 4 to 12 hours,
developing new instrumentation, coordinating activities with the LBNL
Materials Sciences Division and CXRO, and helping users develop *their*
programs. And the capabilities of the ALS will be extended to include
infrared beamlines, a 1- to 4-keV undulator, femtosecond x-ray sources,
and superbends with superconducting magnets.**

**Chemla ended by stating that users are influenced by hardware
capabilities, beamlines, resolution, and energy range. The ALS will
continue to conduct workshops to identify both people working on similar
scientific problems and how the ALS can support them.**

**Thiel commented that examples of participation had been given in terms
of people, but support in the form of administrative actions is more
important. Chemla responded that 30% of the assistance is in the form of
administrative support.**

**Sinha asked about pharmaceutical research, and Chemla responded that
he thought that it is going to grow as, say, the drug companies see the
results. Batterman said that he would agree but that it would be the
type of research that could be done rather than the uniqueness that
would be attractive. Chemla responded that they were doing the best they
could to help the users by giving them some money and beam time. There
is a need to understand the stress field at a submicron level; once we
have met demonstration, we will have a large impact in this area; a
proposal is in the works. Batterman countered that his concern was that
there were so few Berkeley people involved. Chemla said that the
mechanism is to use the discretionary funds of the director for their
first experiments and to have them find the funds thereafter.**

**Russell asked what arrangements were in place between ALS and SSRL.
Chemla said there is a large amount of science going on. If the
facilities are doing complementary work, duplication can be avoided if
overlapping work is coordinated carefully.**

**Russell asked why the ALS capabilities are being extended with
superbends and undulators. Chemla said it was to meet the demand of
users. Dehmer commented that the committee looking into this issue
reported out about two months ago and suggested that committee members
might want to consider making a formal response to its report. Boris
Batterman said that what we heard here today was a lot of planning,
which is extremely positive. He said that he was happy with what he had
heard.**

**Richmond said that the ALS aspires to be a world-class facility and
asked how it is going to assure that it gets the best users addressing
the most important issues. Chemla cited two mechanisms: (1) Procedures
and administrative concerns have been simplified by conducting all
experiments in the extreme ultraviolet. It is difficult for someone to
just arrive and insert a sample. The process needs to be made user
friendly by lowering the barriers to using the facility. (2) The LBNL
Director is committed to use discretionary funds to support the research
of non-LBNL workers within the legal restrictions on the use of such
funds.**

**A break was declared at 10:30 a.m.**

**Richmond called the attendees back into session at 11:02 a.m. She
commented on the ALS presentation and said that BESAC is impressed with
their efforts to address user concerns, the need for management
reorganization, and a focus on world-class science. She said that the
committee was pleased with the planning and progress to date and that
she would be writing a letter to BES expressing this approval. She
introduced Iran Thomas to talk about BES****s provision of user
facilities.**

**He pointed out that the Department is the major supporter of research
in the physical sciences among all government agencies. Moreover, for
historical reasons, DOE is the largest supporter of R&D proposals in the
United States. Early on, the Department started building a wide range of
facilities to host research efforts.**

**Thomas presented a series of bar charts that were constructed by ER
personnel from the advice and suggestions of the scientific community
and of the division****s advisory committees. The subjects of the
charts were facilities that could be built to advance one or more
frontiers of science. The charts (one for high-energy-physics
facilities, one for nuclear-physics facilities, one for major fusion
facilities, and one for major biological and environmental facilities)
postulated when the research, construction, and operation for each
recommended facility might occur. To give decision makers a full view of
the opportunities available for scientific advance, all needs of the
scientific community were considered and mapped out as timelines without
regard to budgetary constraints.**

**He then exhibited a roadmap for BES facilities covering the period
from 1999 to 2020, indicating when R&D, construction, and operations
would be expected to occur. This chart included existing facilities (the
SNS, HFIR upgrade, HFBR upgrade, Second Generation Synchrotron Radiation
Light Source upgrade, Third Generation Synchrotron Radiation Light
Source upgrades and beamlines, and the APS) as well as new ones (the
Fourth Generation Light Source, additional Electron Beam
Microcharacterization equipment, and Steady State Neutron Source). A
question was raised as to why the computational facilities were not
included in the roadmap, and Dehmer replied that they are now.**

**Sinha asked if there were any planning for a prioritization of these
items if an infinite amount of money were not available. Thomas replied
that for the SNS, the money was added on *top* of the BES budget. That
might also happen for other projects. Usually, though, the Department
gets a target from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). If the
Department exceeds that target, they can go back to OMB and request an
adjustment of the target. Or OMB may instruct the Department to take
something else out of the proposed budget. Or, a new project may be
undertaken in phases, and the full amount for the complete project will
not adversely affect the budget for any given fiscal year. He hastened
to point out that, every time BES builds up a facility, the operating
costs go up, too.**

**Pat Dehmer commented on a small interagency activity with the Office
of Science and Technology Policy that was based on anecdotal reports
that microbiologist user groups did not have adequate access to
synchrotrons. Reports are being issued by a working group and by another
group. These reports show that, indeed, access was slow and the
beamlines needed improvement. The reports have not yet been officially
released. Nevertheless, actions are going forward even though the
beamlines are being upgraded across the country. Small blocks of time
are going to be made available for immediate use. Also, the facilities
will be operated for the maximum number of hours per year. These actions
all have costs and put budgeting pressures on DOE. These actions come
directly from the Birgeneau Report and the Committee****s
recommendations, and they underscore the specific recommendation that
funds for operating these facilities should come from a single source.**

**A National Academy of Sciences study has been initiated by the
observation that many facilities evolve to new uses that are very
different from their original purposes and roles. For example, some
facilities have started out with a materials-science focus and ended up
being used for biological-science studies. The NSF prompted this study
and wants to have planning for change built into future facilities like
the SNS. This study has not yet begun. A workshop will be held Nov.
10-11 to gather data.**

**Richmond summarized committee actions since the February meeting:**

>  **The report on *Neutron Source Facility Upgrades and the Technical
> Specifications for the Spallation Neutron Source* was published by
> BESAC.**
>
>  **The Birgeneau Report was given broader publication by DOE at
> BESAC****s request.**
>
>  **Writing of the BESAC annual report was begun by John Stringer.**

**She then initiated a discussion of new business by putting forward
tentative dates for the next two meetings: Nov. 2-3 and Feb. 24-25.
Russell noted that it had been suggested that some of these meetings be
held elsewhere than Washington, perhaps at a user facility. Richmond
said that the suggestion will be taken under advisement in setting the
schedules. Pat Dehmer noted that BESAC members are always welcome at the
various workshops organized by the committee. She also stated that names
for the two upcoming workshops are due by Aug. 7.**

**The meeting was opened to public comment.**

**Denis McWhan of BNL made the comment that, at the EIS scoping
meetings, the comments were roughly 50-50, a very balanced discussion.
He also said that Chemla****s comments on the ALS as being the only
such source in the country were incorrect in that the Brookhaven light
source also has a ring optimized for such capabilities. He also
commented on the infinite-dollar roadmap with upgrades for the ALS by
pointing out that parallel committees like NSAC (Nuclear Science
Advisory Committee) play an important role in determining the priorities
among such lists of possible activities.**

**Roger Pynn of Los Alamos National Laboratory said that he was
surprised that BES did not take credit for the LANSCE upgrade. He noted
that the neutron reactors will need to be shut down for upgrades and
maintenance. This will not only shut off the nation****s supply of
specialty isotopes but also cripple neutron-scattering research, so DOE
should have another neutron source besides the SNS, preferably a
complementary type of facility. \[In fact, Thomas did include the LANSCE
upgrade in his presentation on the Division of Materials Science, and a
multipage description of the LANSCE upgrade was included in the handouts
that accompanied that presentation.\]**

**John Stringer of EPRI stated that what Iran Thomas presented was not a
roadmap in any way. It was a wish list of what might be considered in
deriving a roadmap.**

**There being no other comments, Richmond adjourned the meeting at 12:00
noon sharp.**

**F. M. O****Hara, Jr 8/22/98, 10/5/98**

**L. L. Horton, rev. 8/23/98, 9/8/98**

**G. L. Richmond, rev. 10/2/98**