University Fusion Association white paperon the status of university-based
fusion science research

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
University-based fusion research plays an indispensable role in the U.S. fusion program.
Universities are an essential incubator of ground-breaking scientific ideas anddiscoveries; a source of expertise and ideas for research conducted on major experimental
fusion facilities in the U.S. and worldwide; the source of the next generation of fusionand plasma physics researchers; and a primary interface to other Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields, as well as to the broader academic
community and general public.
A critical element in the success of the science and engineering enterprise of the U.S. isthe strong federal-university partnership that began during the Second World War.1 In
this partnership, both sides make critical investments in infrastructure and humanresources that continue to pave the way for U.S. leadership in basic and applied scientificresearch. This federal-university partnership is in peril for magnetic confinement fusion
research given current faculty demographics and hiring prospects along with recent
funding trends discussed in this report. These challenges are occurring at a time of greatscientific opportunity and fertility with strong enthusiasm among students and university
researchers to tackle the exciting scientific challenges of the field. These realities include:•

Reductions in Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) funding have occurred for many of
the university magnetic confinement fusion programs surveyed over the past five
years. On-campus experimental research activities have borne the brunt of that
reduced funding.

•

Small growth in off-campus experimental research activities relative to thedecrease in on-campus funding contributes to program contraction in university
magnetic confinement research activities. Funding trends reported by thesurveyed universities are corroborated by analysis of federal funding data
available to the working group. This program contraction, coupled with alarming
demographic and faculty hiring prospects, creates a challenging environment for
the long-term sustainment of healthy fusion research programs at our universities.

•

A key metric for the health of any academic field is prospects for long-term
university investment in faculty lines. The surveyed universities report poor
prospects for hiring new fusion faculty, despite a 10% decrease in the number offaculty dedicated to fusion research at their institutions over the past five years.
This retirement loss rate is approximately double the national average.2•

Over the last 12 years, the faculty’s average age has risen from 52.7 to 56, and up
to 30% of the current faculty at the surveyed institutions are anticipated to retire
within the next five years. Extrapolating the reported faculty demography, faculty.

1 Richard C. Atkinson & William A. Blanpied, “Research Universities: Core of the US science andtechnology system” Technology in Society 30 (2008) 30–48
2https://www.aip.org/statistics/faculty2hiring prospects, and the current loss of university-based magnetic confinement
fusion research forecasts a bleak future for university participation in fusion
science research.
•

The absence of a long-term strategy for university-based fusion research, andparticularly 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 conjunction with recent fusion program funding trends, and program
uncertainties create a discouraging atmosphere for long-term university
investment in fusion science research.

These key findings, distilled from a survey of institutions with historically strong fusion
programs, validate and amplify the informal discussion conclusions regarding the crisis
felt by the university community on these issues at both the University Round Table and
UFA Fusion Forum3 held in 2015.
Without a strong academic foundation our U.S. fusion program will wither infundamental respects. From the findings outlined above, we are well into such a trend
now. Recovery is possible, but a strong break with current trends must begin
immediately. Therefore, the University Fusion Association (UFA) concludes that it isimperative that the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) begin work with theuniversity and broader fusion community to develop a common understanding of the
problems facing U.S. based university fusion energy research and possible remedies.
We make the following specific recommendations that should be supported and acted
upon by the Office of Science and the broader fusion science community to help addressthese issues:

3•

University engagement on FES user facilities must be strong and viable
moving forward into the era of burning plasma physics. New and improved
modes of participation in off-campus research based on 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; thisleadership must be recognizable by the broader scientific community. Models
used in other scientific disciplines can inform the best approach for fusion
science.

•

Over the last several years funding opportunity announcements in some
programs within FES have become irregular, with notable exceptions being
the NSF/DOE Partnership in Basic Plasma Science and the Early Career
Research Program. The absence of predictable annual opportunities tocompete for research funding is particularly damaging to university programs
given the decision-making structure and the long-time horizon of universities.
We recommend the Office of Science develop and sustain more predictable
funding opportunities. Stable funding is a hallmark of a strong research field

https://sites.google.com/site/universityfusionassociation/3

that drives faculty and student interest, signals growth potential to university
administrations, and encourages long-term resource investment.

4•

The recent FES Ten-Year Perspective and community workshops4 identify
several research thrusts 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 ashared long-term vision and strategy for fusion science through a broadlybased initiative led by the Office of Science, the fusion science community,and other stakeholders. Within this long-term strategy, clear paths thatencourage 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. 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 and technology through peerreviewed initiatives that are best conducted using on-campus experimental
facilities.

https://science.energy.gov/fes/community-resources/

4

Introduction and Background
The University Fusion Association (UFA) has convened a working group to address thehealth and vitality of university-based magnetic confinement fusion research. This
working group is a follow-on activity designed to address issues that were raised during a
UFA sponsored Round Table discussion of university program representatives in
September 2015, and a well-attended national Fusion Forum in December 2015. At thesemeetings, widespread community concern was voiced as to current program trends andtheir impact on the long-term health and sustainment of university based magnetic
confinement fusion research. This white paper reports the working group’s findings onthese matters and is based on (1) the previous results of the Round Table and Forum
discussions, (2) a survey of the status and future prospects for university programs in the
U.S. with historically major activities in fusion research, and (3) a detailed analysis offederal funding data for university fusion programs. The working group focused on
revealing trends and prospects for future research using metrics such as faculty hiring andfunding. This analysis is intended to be an important step toward improving the prospects
for fusion research, and the working group offers recommendations for next steps thatwill help achieve a strong basis for fusion research in academia.
The Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) program in the Office of Science, Department ofEnergy (DOE-SC) is the primary steward of fusion energy science within the federal
complex. The larger realm of plasma science, with a diverse and dynamic set of subfields
and applications is supported by multiple federal agencies, principally DOE, NSF, andNASA, as well as the private sector. However, research in fusion is unlike most areas ofphysical science research in that DOE-SC currently provides the vast majority of federal
funding for research undertaken by academia in this area. Thus, the trend line that DOESC sets has a very direct one-to-one impact on the health and future prospects of researchin fusion at our universities and colleges in a way that most other areas in the physicalsciences do not experience given their broader agency support. Figure 1 in Appendix B
shows a table of all federal funding for research performed at universities and colleges for
FY 2011-14 compiled by the National Science Foundation (NSF) National Center for
Science and Engineering Statistics. 5 As indicated in this table, NSF is the primary
funding source for university-based research in the physical sciences, accounting for 46%
of the total funding received by universities and colleges. The next largest federal funding
source in the physical sciences is DOE (21%), followed by DOD (15%) and NASA(14%). Presumably most of DOE’s funding for universities and colleges is sponsoredwithin DOE-SC.
In contrast to this funding distribution for all physical sciences, DOE-SC provides thevast majority of the total federal funding for fusion research at universities and collegesin the U.S. Total funding in FY 2015 from FES has been estimated by the working group
to be between $75M-$85M (see Appendix E) and includes contributions to fusion
confinement physics and fusion related materials science, high energy density laboratory
plasma (HEDLP) science, as well as basic plasma physics research. In addition to FES
support for basic plasma physics, NSF provides $5M-$6M through the NSF-DOE joint
5

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/

5

partnership program. The new ARPA-E program (DOE) for fusion alternatives is asignificant development, but by design it will be a short-term funding source that will notsignificantly encourage long-term university investment in fusion science.
Note that the funding provided by FES for universities and colleges accounts for 20-25%
of all DOE funding of physical sciences to academia shown in Appendix B, yet FES’sshare of total DOE-SC funding is a much smaller fraction and shrinking, even with ITER
construction included. This means university funding is a larger percentage of the overall
FES budget than it is for the other Offices in the DOE-SC portfolio. Also, note that NSF
funding for all university based physical science research is steadily increasing in time,
while DOE funding for universities and colleges is steadily decreasing in time. These
trends exacerbate the challenge to maintain support for fusion science at universities andcolleges in particular given the predominance of FES fusion funding. The lack of otherfunding agency support for fusion research removes an important buffer for university
program evolution in the context of FES program redirection and budget uncertainties.
Given its current dependence on dominant funding from DOE, magnetic confinement
fusion science holds a very weak position in the fierce competition for resources on
university campuses, including new faculty positions. It is no surprise then that thesurvey of university programs described below shows poor prospects for hires in fusion
faculty at a large majority of universities, despite an increase in the faculty’s average age
and the anticipation of many faculty retirements in the next five years. The combinationof diminishing opportunities for leadership roles in fusion science together with shrinking
federal support has eroded and will continue to erode university-based fusion research.

Survey of university fusion programs
The working group undertook a survey of the health and future prospects for magnetic
confinement fusion and plasma science university programs funded by FES that havehistorically had significant activities in fusion research. The university programs includedin the survey have been estimated to collectively receive greater than approximately 80%of the current funding provided by FES for university-based research in fusion andplasma science. The survey respondents thus represent an extensive portion of those
universities receiving FES funding. The participating university survey responses
therefore give a definitive representation of the state of the overall FES funded magnetic
confinement fusion and plasma science research community.
The universities surveyed represent most of those institutions that participated in the UFA
Round Table held September 25, 2015. Some of the major themes that emerged fromthose Round Table discussions were that (1) university magnetic confinement fusionenergy research programs are contracting, (2) plasma research efforts are shifting to nonfusion areas, (3) few new faculty lines are being created to focus on fusion research, and(4) growth prospects are very limited without a clear indication of stable future researchfunding. One striking fact that emerged was that no one at the Round Table could identify
a single university that has allocated a faculty line to pursue ITER research. Further, it
was recognized that the curtailing of on-campus experimental magnetic confinement
activities at a number of universities was having a severely negative impact on university
research programs and more importantly long-term future university investment in fusion6

research. These themes were also echoed at the UFA Fusion Forum held in December of2015 at College Park, Maryland.
The working group survey aimed to further clarify the state of university research
programs by better quantifying the major themes raised anecdotally at the Round Table
and Fusion Forum discussions. Contacts at each university were asked to assemble
information for all fusion and plasma science research activities funded by FES at theirrespective institutions. The survey inquired as to (1) recent funding history, (2) future
funding outlook, (3) metrics for a healthy university fusion program, and (4) faculty andstaff demographics within the timeframe of the past five years (2010-2015). A copy ofthe survey questions is given in Appendix C, along with a list of the fourteen institutions
that responded to the survey. Princeton University is not among the surveyed institutions
due to the close association of FES funded Princeton University scientists and facultywith PPPL.
The main findings from the survey are: (1) significant reductions in FES funding haveoccurred for university magnetic confinement fusion programs over the past five years,(2) on-campus magnetic confinement research activities have borne the brunt of the
reduced funding, (3) there is small growth in off-campus experimental research activities
relative to decreases in on-campus funding leading to overall program contraction, (4)there has been a 10% decrease in the number of university faculty dedicated to fusion
research, and (5) there are poor prospects for hiring new fusion faculty, even though the
On-Campus
Change in On-Campus Funding: Change in Off-Campus Funding:Funding Institution
Expt., Theory, Comp.
Experimental
Level
1
–25%
0%
UCSD
2
–23%
+4%
Wisconsin
> 5M$
3
–11%
+5%
MIT
4
+4%
0%
UCLA
5
–73%
no activity
Maryland
< 5M$
6
–46%
0%
Washington
> 1M$
7
–40%
0%
Columbia
8
–8%
+17%
Texas
9
–21%
+35%
Auburn10
0%
no activity
NYU
11
0%
no activity
UC-Berkerley
< 1M$
12
0%
0%
UC-Irvine
13
0%
no activity
LeHeigh
14+600%
no activity
Illinois
Table 1. Survey results of recent funding history for on-campus and off-campus researchsponsored by FES for the fourteen institutions responding to the survey questionnaire. The
institutions are grouped according to funding level ranges in column one. Within each funding
range the list is ordered by percent decrease in funding, not by funding level. Twelve of the
fourteen institutions report either a decrease or flat funding in FES support (86%) over the past
five-year time frame.

7

faculty’s average age has risen to 56 and up to 30% of the current faculty at the surveyed
institutions are anticipated to retire within the next five years. A list of comments
received from the respondents regarding metrics for a healthy university fusion program
are also included in Appendix D. Table 1 summarizes the survey information obtained
concerning the history of funding for both on-campus and off-campus magnetic
confinement research. The table is organized by the total funding from FES at each
institution in three ranges: less than $1M, between $1M and $5M, and greater than $5M.
The percentage change for the 2010-2015 five-year period is listed separately for oncampus activities, including experimental research and theory and computation(independent of where the theory/computational research was conducted) and off-campus
experimental research. The percentage changes are defined relative to each institution’s
total funding in 2010, that is, the sum of both on-campus and off-campus research
activities. Within each of the three total funding ranges the list is ordered by percent
decrease in on-campus funding not by total funding level.
While four institutions report a net increase in FES funding over the past five years, themajority report flat or a net decrease in funding. The funding change reported byinstitution 14 was of a smaller, of order $100k program, that grew significantly. All of theinstitutions that experienced decreased funding have > $1M/year programs, which
implies a significant overall reduction in FES funding at these universities over the 20102015 period. Since the funding is reported in real dollars, the additional impact ofinflation tempers the gains and magnifies the losses. The funding reductions are
dominated by changes in the experimental rather than theory/computational componentsof research. Not surprisingly then, survey comments indicate that host university’s
programs have been substantially weakened over the past five years, particularly where acampus experiment has been shuttered. Such closures have happened recently atColumbia University, MIT, University of Maryland, University of Washington, and on alonger time frame at the University of California, Los Angeles and the University ofTexas at Austin. The shutdown of Alcator C-Mod at the end of FY16 (originally slated
for 2013) will result in the acceleration of these negative funding trends and further thedramatic shift from on- to off-campus research.
In contrast to on-campus magnetic confinement fusion funding for the institutions
surveyed, there are no reported cases for reduced funding of off-campus experimental
research, but the reported growth in off-campus funding is much smaller than the
reductions in on-campus funding. For off-campus research, three of the programs reportincreased funding for already existing off-campus research with two indicating that new
additional funding had been procured. Of the programs having greater than $1M in total
funding, seven of eight have an off-campus component to their research portfolio withthree programs experiencing some modest increased funding. Of the programs having
less than $1M, only two have an off-campus component to their program, with one of thetwo receiving new funding.
Given the under-representation of fusion and plasma science research in academia
relative to other STEM disciplines, contraction and termination of on-campus
experimental programs makes it exceptionally difficult to maintain research infrastructure.
The decrease in university experimental research has also occurred without
commensurate opportunity for growth in off-campus research activity. There has been no8

effective discussion between the university community and FES as to how strong
university fusion programs can be developed and maintained based on a user-facility
model. The transition to increased reliance on user facilities represents a major change inthe current and past successful university fusion research and educational paradigm thathas existed for decades.
The health of university programs is strongly coupled to faculty representation inacademic departments. Unfortunately, the survey reveals there has been a net loss offaculty in the past five years, and in particular the outlook for hiring new faculty with anemphasis on fusion research is poor. Table 2 summarizes faculty demographics at the
fourteen institutions participating in the survey. The change in fusion faculty is given incolumn 3, and the change in plasma science faculty (non-fusion research emphasis) is
given in column 4. The table is sorted with respect to the total number of faculty thathave been added or lost over the 2010-2015 period. While there has been successful
faculty hiring, two institutions account for 67% of all new hires. The other twelve
institutions had a combined net loss of 9.5 faculty positions in fusion and plasma science,or a 12% reduction in the total number of faculty over the 2010-2015 period.
New faculty lines with an explicit non-fusion research focus have been added over the
past 5 years with an overall gain of 1.5 faculty positions in non-fusion research. There
has been an overall loss of 6 positions for faculty who either specialize in fusion researchor a major fraction of their research is in fusion physics. Each institution’s selfassessment for their prospect of hiring new faculty with an emphasis in fusion research is

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

Table 2. Survey results for faculty demographics and prospects for hiring new faculty in fusionand plasma science at the 14 institutions listed in Table 1. Institutional ordering is based upon
the total change in faculty number from maximum additions to maximum reductions. The change
in on-campus and off-campus funding shown in Table 1 is repeated here for reference. The color
coding of institution number in column 1 is the same as used in Table 1 to give a measure of overall
program size.

9

shown in column 5. Discrete increments from “likely” to “zero” are used in column 5 tocharacterize the range of hiring prospects reported by the survey respondents. Of the
fourteen institutions surveyed only three report that hiring of fusion faculty is possible or
likely. As seen in Table 2, many others say explicitly that fusion will not be a target forhiring. One institution’s fusion faculty line is being terminated permanently. A trend for
fewer faculty focused on fusion research will therefore continue. We emphasize thatchanges in faculty numbers are a lagging indicator of the health and vitality of a given
field because of the long research lifetimes associated with tenured faculty (~25 to 30
years). Negative demographic trends in number and hiring possibilities for new faculty
therefore point to a serious long-term problem in the sustainment of a healthy research
program in any area of science.
The alarming trends in faculty hiring prompted the working group to ask for additional
demographic age data from the survey respondents, shown in columns 5-8 of Table 2.
Eleven of the fourteen institutions explicitly provided demographic data for their faculty,
and publically available Ph.D. matriculation dates were used to construct thedemographics for the other three institutions. The average age of both fusion and plasma
science faculty is now 56. This is a several year increase from the 52.7 average reported
in FESAC’s 2004 Workforce Study,6 indicating a further aging of our already seniorfaculty age demographic relative to other areas of the physical sciences noted in the 2004
Workforce Study. The working group also inquired as to the likelihood of faculty
retirements within the next five years. Consistent with their high average age,approximately 31 retirements are expected within the next several years, an unusuallylarge fraction (33%) of the total of the 95 currently active faculty in fusion and plasma
science.
The negative assessment of most institutions surveyed for the prospect for hiring fusion
faculty, together with the projection that approximately one third of the currently active
fusion and plasma science faculty plan to retire in the next several years, signals alooming major loss of faculty and with it fusion research at universities across thecountry.

Analysis of FES funding trend for university magnetic confinement
research
In addition to the survey data collected to provide metrics for the current health andfuture prospects of university-based magnetic confinement fusion research, federal
funding data was analyzed by the working group to quantify current and past trends offusion-related university research activity. In particular, the working group focused on
further quantifying the funding history reported in the survey responses. The data used in
the calculation of funding levels presented here were obtained from publically available
university funding information on the DOE SC website 7 augmented with funding
information taken from the DOE SC Portfolio Analysis and Management System(PAMS) public website. The working group analyzed three distinct data sets, one based
67

http://science.energy.gov/~/media/fes/fesac/pdf/2004/Workforce_report_mod_2004.pdf
http://science.energy.gov/universities/sc-in-your-statehttps://pamspublic.science.energy.gov/WebPAMSExternal/Interface/Awards/AwardSearchExternal.aspx

10

on funding information from the PAMS system only, a data set based on yearly funding
numbers, and a third set that was a combination or hybrid of the PAMS and yearlyfunding information. A detailed discussion of the funding analysis methodology andanalysis results for the three data sets is given in Appendix E. The funding numbers
discussed in this section are based on the so-called combined PAMS/yearly hybrid data
set.
Given that the survey responses discussed in the previous section have stated that themain decreases in university research over the last five year period have occurred in theexperimental component of their magnetic fusion programs, the working groupconcentrated its effort on quantifying the funding level change in university based
experimental research. As a measure of those funding trends, Table 3 contains a summaryof the funding level and changes in it for on-campus experimental magnetic confinement
research over the 2006 to 2015 time frame. The change in funding level has been
estimated for the years 2006 and 2015. On-campus experimental funding numbers for the
FY2006 are given in column two, while those for the FY2015 are given in column three,with the percent change between the two years given in column four.
Over the past decade the experimental portion of the university magnetic confinement
program as shown in Table 3 decreased overall by 17%, from $44.6M to $36.8M in 2015.
Given the sizes of the Alcator C-Mod and Madison Symmetric Torus (MST) programs(which represent a ~$23M baseline) with respect to the rest of the experimental grant
portfolio, their funding has been subtracted out of the total funding level in rows two andthree to give a better measure of the size and change in funding for the rest of theexperimental program. As shown in Table 3, the change in program size with C-Mod
funding subtracted out indicates a decrease of 27%, from $25.3M to $18.4M over thetime frame between 2006 and 2015. If both the C-Mod and MST funding are removed
from the overall total to give a measure of funding trends in the smaller scale
experimental magnetic confinement fusion program we find a net 34% decrease from
$19.5M to $12.9M over the previous decade.
On-Campus Funding:Experimental

Year 2006(M$)

Year 2015(M$)

Change in On-Campus Funding:Experimental

Total

44.6

36.8

–17%

w/o C-Mod

25.3

18.4

–27%

w/o C-Mod & MST

19.5

12.9

–34%

Table 3. Funding levels for university experimental fusion research activities that are
predominantly based on-campus. Funding amounts are given for the 2006 and 2015 fiscal years
as a measure of the change in funding over the last decade. The funding levels and trends givenin this table support and substantiate the information presented in the survey section on funding.
Estimated 2017 funding including the closure of C-Mod leads to a 54% decrease in program size
relative to 2006.

We note that these negative funding trends will undergo a substantial step-change
decrease in 2017 with the closure of C-Mod. To gain a measure of the effect of C-Mod
11

shutdown on overall university based experimental magnetic confinement researchfunding, we estimate the projected FY2017 total funding as equal to current FY2015
spending taking into account the expected decrease due to the closure. This projected2017 total leads to a 54% decrease in program size relative to funding levels in 2006. The
key points summarized in the survey section as to university fusion research program
contraction and reduction are supported by the analysis presented here.

Key findings and recommendations•

Reductions in Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) funding have occurred for many of
the university magnetic confinement fusion programs surveyed over the past five
years. On-campus experimental research activities have borne the brunt of that
reduced funding.

•

Small growth in off-campus experimental research activities relative to thedecrease in on-campus funding contributes to program contraction in university
magnetic confinement research activities. Funding trends reported by thesurveyed universities are corroborated by analysis of federal funding data
available to the working group. This program contraction, coupled with alarming
demographic and faculty hiring prospects, creates a challenging environment for
the long-term sustainment of healthy fusion research programs at our universities.

•

A key metric for the health of any academic field is prospects for long-term
university investment in faculty lines. The surveyed universities report poor
prospects for hiring new fusion faculty, despite a 10% decrease in the number offaculty dedicated to fusion research at their institutions over the past five years.
This retirement loss rate is approximately double the national average.8•

Over the last 12 years, the faculty’s average age has risen from 52.7 to 56, and up
to 30% of the current faculty at the surveyed institutions are anticipated to retire
within the next five years. Extrapolating the reported faculty demography, faculty
hiring prospects, and the current loss of university-based magnetic confinement
fusion research forecasts a bleak future for university participation in fusion
science research.

•

The absence of a long-term strategy for university-based fusion research, andparticularly 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 conjunction with recent fusion program funding trends, and program
uncertainties create a discouraging atmosphere for long-term university
investment in fusion science research.

These key findings, distilled from a survey of institutions with historically strong fusion
programs, validate and amplify the informal discussion conclusions regarding the crisis

8

https://www.aip.org/statistics/faculty12felt by the university community on these issues at both the University Round Table and
UFA Fusion Forum9 held in 2015.
Without a strong academic foundation our U.S. fusion program will wither infundamental respects. From the findings outlined above, we are well into such a trend
now. Recovery is possible, but a strong break with current trends must begin
immediately. Therefore, the University Fusion Association (UFA) concludes that it isimperative that the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) begin work with theuniversity and broader fusion community to develop a common understanding of the
problems facing U.S. based university fusion energy research and possible remedies.
We make the following specific recommendations that should be supported and acted
upon by the Office of Science and the broader fusion science community to help addressthese issues:

9•

University engagement on FES user facilities must be strong and viable
moving forward into the era of burning plasma physics. New and improved
modes of participation in off-campus research based on 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; thisleadership must be recognizable by the broader scientific community. Models
used in other scientific disciplines can inform the best approach for fusion
science.

•

Over the last several years funding opportunity announcements in some
programs within FES have become irregular, with notable exceptions being
the NSF/DOE Partnership in Basic Plasma Science and the Early Career
Research Program. The absence of predictable annual opportunities tocompete for research funding is particularly damaging to university programs
given the decision-making structure and the long time horizon of universities.
We recommend the Office of Science develop and sustain more predictable
funding opportunities. Stable funding is a hallmark of a strong research fieldthat drives faculty and student interest, signals growth potential to university
administrations, and encourages long-term resource investment.

•

The recent FES Ten-Year Perspective and community workshops10 identify
several research thrusts 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 ashared long-term vision and strategy for fusion science through a broadlybased initiative led by the Office of Science, the fusion science community,and other stakeholders. Within this long-term strategy, clear paths thatencourage and foster university investments in fusion research must be
explicitly identified and developed. This can, in part, be accomplished byhttps://sites.google.com/site/universityfusionassociation/
https://science.energy.gov/fes/community-resources/

1013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 tomaximize 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 and technology
through peer-reviewed initiatives that are best conducted using on-campus
experimental facilities.

14Appendix A
Working group charge and membership
In response to the crisis in university fusion research, as described during the December
2015 UFA Forum, the Working Group is charged with:(1) providing a clear articulation of the crisis that is supported by evidence and(2) identifying actionable remedies that address the crisis and can be presented to DOE
FES to enlist their participation.
The Working Group is charged with providing a final report to the UFA ExComm by
April 30, 2016.
Working Group Membership:
Martin Greenwald

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Mark Haynes

Concordia Power,

Christopher Holland University of California, San Diego
David Maurer

Auburn University (Chair)

Stewart Prager

Princeton University

John Sarff

University of Wisconsin, Madison

Uri Shumlak

University of Washington

15Appendix B
Federal funding summary for basic science research at universities andcolleges
TABLE 2. Federal obligations for basic research performed at universities and colleges, by selected agency and broad field of science and engineering:FYs 2011–14(Dollars in millions)
Computer sciences
EnvironmentalLifeand mathematics Engineeringsciencessciences

Physicalsciences

Psychology

SocialsciencesOther
sciences nec

8,972
8,917
8,987
9,099

1,652
1,754
1,620
1,776

646
688
690
707

245
255
262
279

617
457
406
527

117
99
98
99

7,832
7,808
7,867
7,909

89
75
76
76

606
636
641
644

55
46
46
46

284
101
101
101

582
599
609
658

539
530
539
582

619
620
631
681

729
742
755
815

27
31
31
34

135
160
163
176

231
239
243
263

181
234
218
256

383
383
358
401

87
91
94
105

121
160
133
137

261
260
172
262

12
19
17
28

27
21
19
23

11
20
16
16

725
699
535
678

44
35
18
33

26
28
23
31

50
37
24
44

111
109
85
107

438
440
386
365

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

56
51
0
98

314
578
557
623

3
6
6
6

58
107
103
115

89
164
158
177

14
26
25
28

124
228
219
245

1
1
1
1

*
*
*
*

25
47
45
50

360
269
340
326

7
7
8
7

18
22
29
27

13
10
9
9

273
194
247
237

11
9
13
13

*
0
0
0

27
27
34
33

10
0
0
0

AgencyTotal

All agencies surveyed
2011
2012
2013 (preliminary)2014 (projected)

15,72015,674
15,528
16,279

1,237
1,162
1,143
1,265

1,455
1,511
1,498
1,610

896
930
922
1,016

Department of Health and Human Services
2011
2012
2013 (preliminary)2014 (projected)

9,439
9,181
9,247
9,296

67
42
43
43

387
374
376
378

National Science Foundation
2011
2012
2013 (preliminary)2014 (projected)

3,797
3,759
3,822
4,128

936
838
852
920

Department of Defense
2011
2012
2013 (preliminary)2014 (projected)

1,084
1,188
1,027
1,228

Department of Energy
2011
2012
2013 (preliminary)2014 (projected)
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
2011
2012
2013 (preliminary)2014 (projected)
Other agencies
2011
2012
2013 (preliminary)2014 (projected)* = value less than $500,000 in obligations.
nec = not elsewhere classified.

NOTES: Because of rounding, detail may not add to total. Seven agencies are required to report data for this section of the survey: the Departments of Agriculture (USDA),
Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security (DHS); the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and the National Science Foundation.
Basic research obligations of these seven agencies represented over 99% of total federal basic research obligations to universities and colleges in FYs 2011–14. Other
agencies includes USDA and DHS.
SOURCE: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development.

Figure 1. Analysis of federal funding for basic research in the sciences. Taken from NSF
publication 14-318 “Info Brief: Federal Funding for Basic Research at Universities and Colleges
Essentially Unchanged in FY 2012” by the NSF National Center for Science and Engineering
Statistics.

September 201416

NSF 14-318 g InfoBrief

3

Appendix C
UFA university survey
Dear Colleagues,
Recall that this past September you participated in a round table discussion on the current
state of health of university programs in fusion and plasma science. As one of the followon activities the UFA has appointed a working group to articulate the situation in a form
that can be conveyed persuasively to DOE and other stakeholders. I am writing to seek
just a bit more information from you, in part to help us reconcile two apparent facts. First,
from the round table we know that the outlook for nearly every university represented iseither bleak or highly uncertain, with reports of program contraction, few new facultylines, weak university administration commitment to fusion, and limited growth prospects.
However, data from the PAMS system would indicate that annual FES funding foruniversities nationwide has been roughly constant over the past five or more years at
about $90M. To engage DOE and others in a remedy, we must reconcile how it is that
university programs are in crisis while this overall PAMS generated funding number has
not declined significantly. To answer this question, we are requesting that you answer
five questions below for your university. None of the university-specific information you
provide will be disseminated. We will only convey aggregate information.
We would be most appreciative if you could respond, by email to me, by March 21.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. And we thank you in advancefor your response.
Funding history
Over the past five years, how has total funding from FES varied for your university? How
has funding from other agencies varied, e.g., NSF, NASA? If it is important that funding
for individual programs within your university varied differently than the total, pleaseprovide that information as well.
Funding outlook
Please describe the outlook for FES funding at your university for the next five years andthe next ten years – the expectation and the confidence in the expectation. How does thiscompare with the outlook for funding by other agencies, e.g., NSF, NASA?
Metrics for a healthy university fusion program
Please describe the attributes of the FES-funded program at your university during aperiod when you considered your local program to be healthy and thriving.

17Faculty and staff demographics
Please list the number of faculty and staff in fusion and plasma science that have been
hired during the last five years. Also list the number that have retired or otherwise leftyour institution during the same period. Please describe the prospects in your department
or institution for hiring new faculty and staff in fusion and plasma science. What are theprimary barriers for new hires? Are there specific programmatic changes that could be
helpful to increase prospects in hiring?
Synthesis of the above
If the overall FES funding at your university has indeed not decreased significantly, we
would welcome your comments on why that metric does not describe the health of yourprograms.
Additional comments
We welcome any further information that would be useful.
Sincerely,
Uri Shumlak
UFA President

Participating institutions
Auburn University
Columbia University
Lehigh University
Massachusetts Institute 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 at Urbana-Champaign
University of Maryland
University of Texas at Austin
University of Washington
University of Wisconsin, Madison18Appendix D
Survey response comments on metrics for a healthy university fusion
program
The UFA survey asked the respondents to describe the requirements for a healthy fusion
program at their university. The collection of respondents’ comments are:
•
•
•
•
•

•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

There should be a well-described vision for the overall program and at universities inparticular
A perspective of a healthy, vibrant science program is necessary for recruiting
There should be on-going open dialogue and effective communication between
university researchers and FES
Technical leadership recognized nationally, internationally AND by the university isessential for university programs
Historically, research activities on shared user-facilities are strongly guided by thehost programmatic management, which makes leadership-class research very difficultat universities; this decreases the institution’s interest in fusion science
FES deference to a few major facility programs for determining scientific directions
and resource allocations in the overall national program strongly suggests no respect
or recognition of scientific and technical expertise in the university community
The best route for leadership is on-campus research
There should be strong integration of on-campus and off-campus personnel andactivities
There should be a diversity of ideas and projects; new ideas should be rewarded
Stable funding with cost-of-living increases is essential
There should be support for non-faculty career researchers
There should be recognition of university personnel as valuable sources of
independent expertise
There is great concern about the funneling of DOE graduate student support toward
national laboratories, e.g., the NUF program and DOE-SC wide postdoc fellowships
Apparent absence of cultivating university research by FES
ITER is a barrier to hiring university faculty in fusion science

19Appendix E
Analysis of trends in FES university fusion funding
In addition to the survey data collected to quantify recent university program evolution
for fusion research, the working group also collected several forms of federal funding
data that were then analyzed to quantify current and past trends of fusion related
university research activity.
The data used in the calculation of funding levels presented here were obtained frompublically available university funding information on the DOE SC website11 augmented
with funding information taken from the DOE SC Portfolio Analysis and Management
System (PAMS) public website. The working group analyzed three distinct funding data
sets based on this information. The first data set was based on funding information fromthe PAMS system only, a second data set was generated based on yearly funding
numbers, and a third set was a combination or hybrid of yearly data and a subset of
PAMS funding information.
Funding data was downloaded from the Portfolio Analysis and Management System(PAMS) public website in February of 2016. This PAMS data was filtered to extract
funding information for all universities12 that received funding from FES (Org. Codes
SC-24.1 and SC-24.2). The start and end dates are used to isolate projects that wereactive during a given calendar year. A project is active if it starts before or during thatyear and ends during or after that year. A significant deficiency of the PAMS public
website data is that it provides funding amounts integrated over the duration of the
project and hence no historical profiles of the annual funding levels are available.
Therefore, only annual funding levels averaged over the duration of the project can becomputed by dividing the amount awarded to date by the duration of the project. We notethat the lack of historical profiles will remove actual gradients in the funding time series
and suppress important details of yearly funding trends. The second data set was
downloaded in May of 2016, and is composed of actual yearly funding figures available
on the DOE SC website. This yearly data set is composed of the actual funding disbursed
for a given grant in a particular year. Hence, the yearly data allow the working group to
track actual funding trends that are suppressed in the averaged PAMS data set. The yearlyfunding data set therefore gives a more accurate picture of past and current funding levels
for the university research community. The effects of forward funding were accounted
for in both the 2015 PAMS and yearly data. Finally, a hybrid data set composed of thetotal set of yearly funding data along with a subset of PAMS data was developed toaccount for grants that were not listed in the yearly data, but were listed in the PAMS
11

http://science.energy.gov/universities/sc-in-your-statehttps://pamspublic.science.energy.gov/WebPAMSExternal/Interface/Awards/AwardSearchExternal.aspx

12

Public/State Controlled Institution of Higher Education, Private Institution of Higher Education, andHistorically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)

20

data and would suggest that they are currently active. This hybrid data set therefore
makes the assumption that PAMS is correct that a given grant is active even if it is notlisted in the published yearly data made public by DOE SC due the Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA). The working group filtered all three data sets to generatefunding trend information on the total university program as well a breakdown of theoverall program into specific research areas. A summary of overall funding changes overthe last decade with a breakdown of that funding into major components of the programis given in Table 1.
Funding Data Set

FES Funding Category

Year 2006(M$)

Year 2015(M$)

Change inFunding

Total

80

91.3

+14%

MCF

70.6

73.3

+4%

ICF/HEDLP

4.4

7.9

+80%

Basic plasma

4.9

9.8

+100%

Total

81.2

74.2

–9%

MCF

71

64.4

–9%

ICF/HEDLP

5.3

2.0

–62%

Basic plasma

4.8

7.4

+54%

Total

81.2

86.6

+7%

MCF

71

68.5

–4%

ICF/HEDLP

5.3

7.6

+43

Basic plasma

4.8

10.0

+108%

PAMS

YearlyHybrid PAMS/Yearly

Table 1. Funding levels for all university research activities sponsored by FES. Overall funding
levels are given for three main components to the university program. These three areas areresearch directed at magnetic confinement (MCF), inertial confinement and high energy density
plasmas (ICF/HEDLP) and basic plasma physics. Funding amounts are given for the 2006 and2015 fiscal years as a measure of the change in funding over the last decade.

The major components of the program summarized in Table 1 for the three data sets are
the total funding calculated for each, as well as estimates of the amount of funding in the
research areas of magnetic confinement, inertial confinement and high energy density
plasma physics, and basic plasma physics. Each of the three research areas have bothexperimental as well as theory/computational components.
Table 2 investigates changes in funding over the last decade in the area of magnetic
confinement, and also includes fusion technology and materials research components.
21

Funding Data Set

MCF Funding Category

Year 2006(M$)

Year 2015(M$)

Change inFunding

MCF Total

70.6

73.3

+4%

Theory/Computation

20.6

20.5

0%

Expt. On-campus

42.2

40.2

–5%

Expt. Off-campus

5.8

12.0

+107%

MCF Total

71.0

64.4

–9%

Theory/Computation

21.4

19.0

–11%

Expt. On-campus

44.6

35.1

–21.3%

Expt. Off-campus

5.6

11.0

+96%

MCF Total

71.0

68.5

–4%

Theory/Computation

21.4

20.0

–7%

Expt. On-campus

44.6

36.8

–17%

Expt. Off-campus

5.6

12.0

+114%

PAMS

YearlyHybrid PAMS/Yearly

Table 2. Overall funding levels for university magnetic confinement fusion (MCF) research intheory/computation and experimental activities. The experimental research has also been sorted
into on- and off-campus research components. Funding amounts are again given for the 2006
and 2015 fiscal years as a measure of the change in funding over the last decade.

The overall total funding in this area of research sponsored by FES is also categorized
into research directed towards theory/computational activities and predominantly
experimental research. The experimental research has been further filtered as to whether
it is primarily based on- or off-campus. Inspection of the off-campus funding data
indicates that the average duration of active grants is 10 years, with approximately 40%of the off-campus grants having a duration less than 5 years. Percent change in thevarious areas is given in the last column of the table.
Finally given the institutional responses discussed in the white paper, the working groupfurther analyzed funding trends in the three data sets for experimental fusion research thatis carried out primarily at the universities surveyed. The evolution of this on-campus
research activity is presented in Table 3 below for the three data sets. The FES funding
information discussed in the main narrative of the white paper was taken from the socalled hybrid data set. This hybrid data set gives intermediate levels of funding decrease
relative to the PAMS and yearly only data sets as can be seen in Table 3. We also notethat all three data sets indicate program reduction in this area of the FES fusion portfolio.

22

Funding Data Set

PAMSYearlyHybrid PAMS/YearlyOn-campus Funding:Experimental

Year 2006(M$)

Year 2015(M$)

Change inFunding

Total

42.2

40.2

–5%

w/o C-Mod

25.9

23.1

–11%

w/o C-Mod & MST

19.7

16.8

–14%

Total

44.6

35.1

–21.3%

w/o C-Mod

25.3

16.7

–34%

w/o C-Mod & MST

19.5

11.2

–42%

Total

44.6

36.8

–17%

w/o C-Mod

25.3

18.4

–27%

w/o C-Mod & MST

19.5

12.9

–34%

Table 3. Funding levels for university experimental fusion research activities that are
predominantly based on-campus for the three funding data sets analyzed. Funding amounts are
given for the 2006 and 2015 fiscal years as a measure of the change in funding over the last
decade. The funding levels and trends used in the white paper discussion of FES funding (Table 3,
page 11) are the hybrid data set listed again as the last entry in the above table.

23