Perspec'ves from the University Fusion
Associa'on
D. Maurer
Auburn University
UFA President
With input from J. Sarﬀ, Vice President UFA, UFA ExComm, USMFRSD
Community Workshop Program Commi=ee

Some comments on the NAS charge• Responsive to areas of present cri'cal university concern-- Current health and status of university programs aswell as the broader fusion community-- Strategic planning oﬀers possibility for a program visionthat nurtures and expands fusion research within US
academia

Some comments on the NAS charge• Responsive to areas of present cri'cal university concern-- Current health and status of university programs aswell as the broader fusion community-- Strategic planning oﬀers possibility for a program visionthat nurtures and expands fusion research within US
academia
Charge represents an enormous opportunity for addressing
cri>cal issues that the university fusion community faces

UFA background
Founded in 1979
Self-organized university fusion research advocacy body
Representa'ves elected by the community
Represents fusion researchers from ~ 40 to 50 ins'tu'ons
across the country• Primarily engaged in magne'c conﬁnement research• Long UFA history of community led ac'vi'es impac'ng
program content and direc'on••••

Past status/health of university fusion research
An Assessment of the Department ofEnergy’s Office of Fusion Energy
Sciences Program

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

Na'onal Research Council 1999

“Essen'al to the health of any scien'ﬁcﬁeld is the training and inﬂux of highquality students on a con'nuingbasis... ...There are disturbing
demographic trends in plasma scienceat the major universi'es that raisesigniﬁcant doubts about the ability of
the ﬁeld to sustain itself over the longterm.”

Past status/health of university fusion research
An Assessment of the Department ofEnergy’s Office of Fusion Energy
Sciences Program

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

Na'onal Research Council 1999

“Essen'al to the health of any scien'ﬁcﬁeld is the training and inﬂux of highquality students on a con'nuingbasis... ...There are disturbing
demographic trends in plasma scienceat the major universi'es that raisesigniﬁcant doubts about the ability of
the ﬁeld to sustain itself over the longterm.”

Concerns on status/health are well documented“Extending beyond the needs of the burning
plasma experiment is a pressing need to replaceaging personnel in fusion and plasma sciences in
the universi'es and the na'onal laboratories.”

Na'onal Research Council 2004“...the presence of fusion science research in the
top 25 physics and engineering programs is
declining just as the program is aZemp'ng tomove toward ITER and the study of burning
plasmas. This decline also raises the danger offurther isola'on of the fusion community fromthe larger scien'ﬁc community.”

Concerns on status/health are well documented“Extending beyond the needs of the burning
plasma experiment is a pressing need to replaceaging personnel in fusion and plasma sciences in
the universi'es and the na'onal laboratories.”

Na'onal Research Council 2004“...the presence of fusion science research in the
top 25 physics and engineering programs is
declining just as the program is aZemp'ng tomove toward ITER and the study of burning
plasmas. This decline also raises the danger offurther isola'on of the fusion community fromthe larger scien'ﬁc community.”

Fusion science work force is important, but the needfor a strong academic presence is more fundamental• Energy is a cri'cal issue for mankind. Academia engages big issues,and therefore a strong presence for fusion energy within academia
is essen'al to nurture a broad-based conversa'on that extends
well beyond technical challenges. Who rebuts “fusion never”?
• The mul'disciplinary environment inherent to academia provides
unique opportuni'es for innova'on and collabora'on.
• Must have leadership opportuni'es that can compete withnumerous compelling ideas in other disciplines. It is essen'al to notjust stop erosion, rather strategize for a growing academicpresence.

Gauging current university fusion status/health• UFA undertook long process engaging both university
researchers and the larger fusion community concerningthese topics• UFA Round Table discussion 2015
• UFA Fusion Forum 2015
• UFA 2017 Status Report submiZed to FESAC 2017

UFA 2017 Status Report is an out growth of Round
Table and Fusion Forum discussions of 2015
Some of the major themes that emerged from those discussions
were:• University fusion energy research programs are contrac'ng• Plasma research eﬀorts are shiaing to non-fusion areas• Few new faculty lines are being created to focus on fusion research• Growth prospects are very limited without a clear indica'on of stable
future research funding

These concerns were discussed anecdotally for a number of years,
but UFA’s recent eﬀorts help clarify and quan'fy the challenges

Working group formed to addressthese important issues
Provide a quan'ta've assessment of the themes discussed
in 2015
Survey of 14 ins'tu'ons represen'ng over 80% of FES university
funding• Collect data on university program funding history• Collect data on the prospect of new faculty hires• Collect data on faculty age demographics
Analyze publically available relevant federal funding data and correlatewith survey ﬁnding

Par'cipa'ng ins'tu'ons
represent major historical players in fusion
Auburn University
Columbia University
Lehigh University
MassachuseZs Ins'tute of Technology
New York University
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Irvine

University of California, Los Angeles
University of California, San Diego
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
University of Maryland
University of Texas at Aus'n
University of Washington
University of Wisconsin, Madison

Status report key ﬁndings• University fusion funding trends• Sustainment of faculty lines• University program vision and strategy

Status report key ﬁndings• University fusion funding trends• Sustainment of faculty lines• University program vision and strategy

Key ﬁndings: University fusion funding trends
Substan'al reduc'ons in Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) funding have occurred
for most university fusion programs surveyed over the past ﬁve years. Oncampus experimental research ac'vi'es have borne the brunt of the reduced
funding.
There is small growth in oﬀ-campus experimental research ac'vi'es rela've tothe large decreases in on-campus funding leading to overall program
contrac'on and decline. Funding trends reported by universi'es arecorroborated by analysis of federal funding data available to the working group.
This decline presents a signiﬁcant challenge to the long-term sustainment of ahealthy fusion program at our universi'es.

Context: DOE-FES is the dominant steward offusion science at universi'esFederal funding for all physical sciences at universi'es and colleges:
46% – NSF, 21% – DOE, 15% – DOD, 14% – NASA
(from NSF Na'onal Center for Science and Engineering)
Unlike most physical sciences, FESʼs funding has a direct one-to-one
impact on the health of fusion research in academia
Fusion has a minority posi'on within academia, which makes is
especially vulnerable as declining support exacerbates the ﬁerce
compe''on for resources on campuses, including faculty posi'onsStatus report key ﬁndings• University fusion funding trends• Sustainment of faculty lines• University program vision and strategy

Key ﬁndings: Sustainment of faculty lines
A key metric for the health of any academic ﬁeld is prospects for long-term
university investment in faculty lines. The surveyed universi'es report poor
prospects for hiring new fusion faculty, despite a 10% decrease in the numberof faculty dedicated to fusion research at their ins'tu'ons over the past ﬁve
years. This re'rement loss rate is approximately double the na'onal averageOver the last 12 years, the faculty’s average age has risen from 53 to 56, and up
to 30% of the current faculty at the surveyed ins'tu'ons are an'cipated tore're within the next ﬁve years. Extrapola'ng the reported faculty
demography, faculty hiring prospects, and the current loss of university based
fusion research forecasts a bleak future for university par'cipa'on in fusion
science research.

Status report key ﬁndings• University fusion funding trends• Sustainment of faculty lines• University program vision and strategy

Key ﬁndings: University program vision and strategy
The absence of a long-term strategy for university-based fusion research, and in
par'cular how university research evolves going forward into the era of burning
plasma physics on ITER, contributes to the poor prospects for faculty hires. Thisabsence in conjunc'on with recent fusion program funding trends, andprogram uncertain'es create a discouraging atmosphere for long-term
university investment in fusion science research.

UFA has made several construc've recommenda'ons
to address these problems that should be acted upon
• University situa'on is cri'cal, but we s'll have a world leading
university workforce that can s'll be built upon for a future
vigorous program• These challenges are occurring at a 'me of great scien'ﬁcopportunity and fer'lity with strong enthusiasm among
students and university researchers to tackle the exci'ng
scien'ﬁc challenges of the ﬁeld.

Recommenda'ons• Large facility engagement and collabora'on• Funding stability• Strategic planning• University-based experimental facili'esRecommenda'ons• Large facility engagement and collabora'on• Funding stability• Strategic planning• University-based experimental facili'esRecommenda'ons
University engagement on FES user facilities must be strong and viable moving forward into the eraof burning plasma physics. New and improved modes of participation in off-campus research basedon fusion user facility participation must be developed by the fusion community in partnership with
the Office of Science that lead to enhanced university leadership roles; this leadership must berecognizable by the broader scientific community. Models used in other scientific disciplines caninform the best approach for fusion science.
Over the last several years funding opportunity announcements in many programs within FES havebecome irregular, with a few notable exceptions, e.g. NSF/DOE Partnership in Basic Plasma Scienceand the Early Career Research Program. The absence of predictable annual opportunities tocompete for research funding is particularly damaging to university programs given the decisionmaking structure and the long time horizon of universities. We recommend the Office of Sciencedevelop and sustain more predictable funding opportunities. Stable funding is a hallmark of a strong
research field that drives faculty and student interest, signals growth potential to university
administrations, and encourages long-term resource investment.

Recommenda'ons• Large facility engagement and collabora'on• Funding stability• Strategic planning• University-based experimental facili'esRecommenda'ons
The recent FES Ten-Year Perspective and community workshops identify several researchthrusts that are critical to the development of fusion energy. While these thrusts are clearly
important, the vision and strategy for fusion science is not yet comprehensive. We recommend
continued development of a shared long-term vision and strategy for fusion science through abroadly-based initiative led by the Office of Science, the fusion science community, and otherstakeholders. Within this long-term strategy, clear paths that encourage and foster university
investments in fusion research must be explicitly identified and developed. This can, in part, be
accomplished by explicit and strong university leadership in planned National ResearchCouncil studies for both fusion and broader plasma science.
World-leading research programs in fusion physics can be and are being carried out
economically in small to medium scale facilities. In order to maximize innovation and to foster
the essential role of academia in fusion science, we recommend that the developed strategy
for university fusion research promote new ideas and innovations in fusion science andtechnology through peer-reviewed initiatives that are best conducted using on-campus
experimental facilities.

Present ac'vi'es addressing the recommenda'ons• Large facility engagement and collabora'on• Funding stability (not discussed)• Strategic planning• University-based experimental facili'esPresent ac'vi'es addressing the recommenda'ons• Large facility engagement and collabora'on• Funding stability (not discussed)• Strategic planning• University-based experimental facili'esLarge facility engagement and collabora'on• Working group formed --- preliminary report developed to
inform longer term process and ﬁnal reportLarge facility engagement and collabora'on• Working group formed --- preliminary report developed to
inform longer term process and ﬁnal report• Planned Round Table discussion on current modes ofcollabora'on – Sept. 2017
• Planned university community wide survey to broadly canvas
all interested par'es on current modes of collabora'on – Oct.
2017
• Complete ﬁnal summary report by late spring 2018 to act as
input for NAS ﬁnal reportPresent ac'vi'es addressing the recommenda'ons• Large facility engagement and collabora'on• Funding stability (not discussed)• Strategic planning• University-based experimental facili'esMadison Workshop:
Points of Unanimous Agreement/Consensus• Agreement that there are many exci'ng opportuni'es for US
leadership• Cri'cal need for a strategic plan/roadmap for fusion researchgoing forward• The community should lead a on-going strategic planning
process and set scien'ﬁc priori'es; This will ensure strong
community support for the generated strategic plan; This
process needs to be done with FES engagement

Madison Workshop:
Points of Unanimous Agreement/Consensus• The US program has strengths but it is not healthy overall(universi'es and technology). The trajectory is in the wrong
direc'on in general• Burning plasma is s'll an essen'al step for our ﬁeld
• Also, agreement on many technical areas of strategic
importance and possible future US leadership: HTSC,
Stellarators, PMI, Theory/Computa'on, others...

Aus'n Workshop: Near-term ac'ons• PC is iden'fying issues and strategic areas that should
receive aZen'on prior to Aus'n mee'ng-- Form sub-groups (including members outside of PC) to work
these issues in prep for Aus'n• Technical & programma'c evalua'on metrics, risks, costs,'melines for elements iden'ﬁed as impacrul in Madison:-- HTS magnet development for fusion applica'ons-- QS stellarators-- Others…

Aus'n Workshop: Near-term ac'ons• Framework and Governance for community-led strategicplan-- P5 example• Use unpriori'zed “Science Ques'ons” and “Science Drivers” as compelling lines ofinquiry for next 1-2 decades.
• Then use two sets of priori'za'on criteria:– Op'miza'on of program: Science, interna'onal context, sustained
produc'vity– Evalua'on of individual projects: Science, 'ming, uniqueness, cost vs. value,
history and dependencies, feasibility, roles/leadership• Formulate program-wide recommenda'ons, project speciﬁc recommenda'ons,
and consider ﬂat, reduced, increased budget scenarios.

Possible community input for Aus'n•

Solicit 2 page whitepapers (again)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–

•

Proposed vision & mission statements for US fusion program
Key science and technical drivers and ques'ons addressed by proposed mission
10 and 20 year goals/sub-goals
Strategic elements, wedges, growth/decrement areas, logical sequencing/'meline of proposed
strategic planInterna'onal context + impact on other NAS sub-ques'ons
Diﬀerences in plan with/without US a partner in ITER
…otherPC/sub-group reviews strategic whitepapers––

Looks for common themes among proposals, consolidates into smaller number of proposals /aggregates proposers
Proposed mission/vision/goals/sequencing/in-out-of-ITER presented at Aus'n mee'ng, assess via
parallel break-outs

PC open to input/guidance on any of these issues from the NAS commiZee

Present ac'vi'es addressing the recommenda'ons• Large facility engagement and collabora'on• Funding stability (not discussed)• Strategic planning• University-based experimental facili'esOn-campus experimental facili'es provide obvious
leadership, recognized within & outside ins'tu'on• Con'nuing need for mul'-conﬁgura'on research– Valida'on to develop predic've fusion science– Develop and test innova've and exploratory concepts• Opportuni'es beyond conﬁnement conﬁgura'ons– Plasma-material interface– Enabling technologies

Tac'cal plan should iden'fy opportuni'es suited for oncampus facili'es as part of overall fusion program strategy

Role of alternate magne'c conﬁgura'ons was
discussed at the Madison Workshop• Alternate magne'c conﬁgura'on research discussed andreceived support by many groups, but further discussion ofalternates as a program element is needed.
• Need for evalua'on of metrics both on the physics andtechnical issues to fusion pointed out by some groups

Role of alternate magne'c conﬁgura'ons was
discussed at the Madison Workshop• Alternate magne'c conﬁgura'on research discussed andreceived support by many groups, but further discussion ofalternates as a program element is needed.
• Need for evalua'on of metrics both on the physics andtechnical issues to fusion pointed out by some groups
UFA strongly encourages/supports this as an important topic
for further discussion and possible consensus building at
Aus'n given it’s possible impact for on-campus experiments

Personal viewpoint• The following are my own thoughts on a possible strategic
program element to address the current university
situa'onStellarators oﬀer the possibility for university intellectual
leadership doing world leading fusion research
Rich 3D theory/computa'onal opportuni'es as well as experimental
valida'on opportuni'es at small/medium facility scale• 3D magne'c ﬁeld oﬀers huge magne'c design space to scien'ﬁcally
explore: Possible op'miza'on of thermal conﬁnement, energe'c
par'cle conﬁnement, MHD stability, turbulent transport, and others• In collabora'on with our na'onal laboratory colleagues•

Result: Steady-state
Well-conﬁned
High fusion energy gain

Challenges:
Experimental valida'on
Find op'mum

Stellarators oﬀer the possibility for university intellectual
leadership doing world leading fusion research
Rich 3D theory/computa'onal opportuni'es as well as experimental
valida'on opportuni'es at small/medium facility scale• 3D magne'c ﬁeld oﬀers huge magne'c design space to scien'ﬁcally
explore: Possible op'miza'on of thermal conﬁnement, energe'c
par'cle conﬁnement, MHD stability, turbulent transport, and others• In collabora'on with our na'onal laboratory colleagues•

These challenges represent signiﬁcant newopportuni'es Challenges:

Result: Steady-state
No current driveHigh fusion energy gain

Experimental valida'on
Find op'mum

Possible new and poten'ally transforma've
university-based stellarator research•••

Begin a na'onal op'miza'on/design study NOW
Focused on design that complements interna'onal eﬀort(e.g., quasisymmetry, incorporate new ideas such as
turbulent transport op'miza'on, magnet simpliﬁca'on
energe'c par'cle conﬁnement, strong ﬂow…)
Construct small/mid-scale facili'es to test these ideas as mo'vated by
op'miza'on study and build these experiments at universi'es
Lays ground work for future performance class experiment (integra'on
step)Mo'vated by challenges in fundamental plasma physics
encouraging long term university resource investment• This possible strategic element is driven by major magne'c
plasma conﬁnement physics ques'ons-- Turbulence, energe'c par'cle conﬁnement, impurity transport,
symmetry eﬀects, MHD, others• The connec'ons to other areas of science oﬀers thepossibility of high impact and could reverse current, divorcing
trend of fusion’s further isola'on in academia-- Astrophysics, space/magnetoshperic plasmas, nonlinear
dynamics and complex systems

Closing comments• Current university situa'on requires immediate aZen'on, butideas are in place to help address the issues discussed• Our scien'ﬁc focus at this point in 'me needs to maintain theintellectual breath of conﬁnement physics and stressinnova'on/predic've capability given the long 'me scale to afusion reactor• Any new strategy for fusion needs to emphasize explicitly the
cri'cal role of university research and oﬀer paths to foster
growth of fusion in academia

Backup slides

Faculty hiring prospects are poor indica'ng challenges inmaintaining a healthy fusion research program
Institution

4
9
14
6
12
11
10
13
7
8
1
3
2
5
Total orAverage

Prospect for
Hiring Fusion
Non-fusion
Faculty

Change in Faculty

Fusion Faculty

Fusion#Avg Age#

Avg Age

7
4
3
3
3
0
2
1
6
6
4
3
8
4

53
46
44
54
50
–
54
45
59
70
60
59
55
62

11
5
0
4
0
5
0
0
0
2
3
3
4
4

60
49
–
46
–
61
–
–
–
55
60
58
52
60

54

56

41

56

+2
+2
+2

+3
+2

–1
–1
–1
–1
–2
–4
–2

–1
–2
–1
+1
–2

very poor
very poor
poor
very poor
poor
zero
neutralzero
poor
neutral+1, possible+1, likely+1, possible
very poor

–6

+1.5

poor

+1
+0.5

Non-Fusion Faculty

Change inChange in
On-Campus Off-Campus
Funding
Funding

+4%
–21%
+600%
–46%
0%
0%
0%
0%
–40%
–8%
–25%
–11%
–23%
–75%

0%
35%
no activity0%
no activity0%
no activity
no activity
0%
17%
0%
5%
4%
no activity• Two institutions account for 67% of all new hires• The other institutions had a combined net loss of 9.5 faculty positions (12% loss)• Only three institutions report the possibility of hiring faculty with a fusion focus• Faculty population continues to “gray” with mean age of 56• Expected or anticipated retirements of ~ 30% with prospect for replacement poor