Summary of
A Forum on the Future of Fusion Energy and Plasma Science Research in the U.S.
Sponsored by the University Fusion Association (UFA)
A two-day forum on the Future of Fusion Energy and Plasma Science Research in the U.S. washeld Dec. 14-15, 2015 on the University of Maryland-College Park campus. A remarkable
degree of agreement was reached on the issues and approaches discussed for a strong and vibrantfusion and plasma science research community in the U.S – including the need for prompt action
to address challenges to our University programs and many of the elements needed for a broadlybased and systematic approach to strategic research planning for fusion energy and plasma
science. The Forum identified several follow-on activities that could help resolve critical issues
for the success of fusion and plasma research in the U.S.
Background and workshop goals
The fusion and plasma science community has in recent years conducted comprehensive studies
of research opportunities and needs for a broad spectrum of science and technology issues related
to plasmas and fusion, but while these studies are generally well received, the outside world,
including important policy makers, still does not perceive a consistent, cohesive vision comingfrom our community. As a consequence, the support for plasma and fusion science is constantly
in jeopardy, despite the community’s enthusiastic view of the vitality and importance of ourscience both now and in the future. The forum provided an opportunity for a broad segment of
the research community to discuss key challenges and strategies needed to strengthen theposition of fusion research and plasma science in the U.S. The need for this forum recognizedthat no recent or currently planned process would address the questions of the type that werediscussed at the forum.
The forum was organized on two broad topics: (1) opportunities and requirements for nurturing
the growth of fusion and plasma science in the academic environment and (2) means fordeveloping a strategic plan for fusion and plasma science. Forty-eight scientists attended fromthe major segments of the research community: large laboratories, universities, privately funded
research enterprises, and observers from federal funding agencies. The agenda (Appendix 1)
included a plenary session on Monday morning that featured three invited speakers who helped
set the stage for discussion, followed by breakout sessions on Monday afternoon and Tuesday
morning, and closed with a plenary session on Tuesday afternoon with summaries from thebreakout groups and discussion of follow-on activities. The forum website1 includes links to thepresentations in the plenary sessions. The plenary sessions were also streamed, withapproximately 12 remote participants in total. While many of the questions posed in the breakout
discussion are relevant both to fusion energy development and basic plasma science, scientists
with active interest in magnetic fusion research dominated the attendance.

1 https://sites.google.com/site/universityfusionassociation/forum

1/17/2016

1

Opening plenary session
Prof. Gerald Navratil (Columbia U) was invited to help set the stage for discussion of theopportunities and requirements for nurturing the growth of fusion and plasma science research in
the academic environment. Prof. Navratil has a long history in fusion plasma research having
both local experiments at Columbia and collaborative research on major fusion facilities. He also
served as Dean of Columbia’s School of Engineering from 2007-2009. He reviewed the historyof the federal-university partnership that is the basis for today’s university research environment.
Among the recommendations of the Bush report “Science–the Endless Frontier” in 1945 was that
universities should be the principal sites to conduct basic research and the exclusive sites forgraduate and post-graduate education. Typically, universities invest their own resources torecruit top researchers in any given sub-field, paying close attention to the anticipated support
that will be available. In most DoE funded research areas, university researchers utilize national
and international user facilities for much of their research. The national laboratories do notprovide the majority of research personnel and scientific leadership for these facilities. The
fusion program is distinctly different from other fields of research, given the adoption of a
project-driven research model akin to that of NASA or the weapons program. This results in a
relatively small number of university faculty and creates a disadvantage for fusion research in theintensely competitive academic environment. Prof. Navratil then summarized a stepwise erosionof fusion research at major research universities that has occurred since the major restructuringof the fusion program in 1990. He nevertheless emphasized that the situation is not hopeless,recommending a two-time-scale approach to first immediately “stop the bleeding” and then “start
the healing” via 5-year strategic objectives.
Dr. Martin Greenwald (MIT) was invited to help set the stage for discussion of means fordeveloping a strategic plan for fusion and plasma science. Dr. Greenwald is Deputy Director ofMIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center and has a long history in fusion research. He has
provided important program leadership through his involvement in many research-planning
exercises and served as chair of FESAC from 2008-13. Dr. Greenwald reviewed the history of
research-planning exercises for the fusion energy sciences program but noted that strategicplanning for the program is not seen as satisfactory. He outlined the general components of astrategic planning process and those parts the fusion and plasma science community does well,e.g., conveying scientific excitement and describing research needs. He also noted areas that tend
not be done well, for example, assigning priorities and managing risk. He commented on how thecommunity’s recent strategic planning efforts have failed due to lack of a systematic approachand too great an emphasis on resource allocation, which is fundamentally an executive function.
He advocated a systematic process that is transparent, involves active participation of all
stakeholders, and avoids well-know cognitive biases. Citing examples from high energy andnuclear physics, their strategic planning processes have broad community participation andrequire 1.5 years or more to develop. He noted the importance of international research and
ITER but emphasized the role of a strong domestic program with unique research facilities.
Successful planning efforts provide many benefits: strong and bold advocacy, a framework for
decision making, a roadmap to advance our vision, and a vehicle for reaching and documenting
community consensus.
Dr. Michael Knotek, the former Deputy Under Secretary for Science and Energy, DoE , wasinvited to give his perspectives on the state of the U.S. fusion energy sciences program. One of

1/17/20162

his main points of emphasis was the need for effective governance, citing examples from othercommunities and his own experience in leading scientific program change. In his view, there is alack of effective governance in the fusion energy sciences program, and this compounds thechallenges associated with ITER in particular. He offered a frank assessment of the status andnature of the ITER project, but he emphasized that the fusion community must accept liability
for its direction and the need to provide leadership for its success. At the same time, heemphasized that the program must effectively articulate its research aims in addition to ITER,
including dimensions other than fusion energy, e.g., plasma science and technology. An effective
governance process is essential to deal with this complexity and allow the program to react andevolve. When asked for specific examples of effective governance, he outlined several generalcharacteristics: an accepted decision making process vis-à-vis scientific goals and priorities,
broad community involvement, agreement on purpose and deliverables, truthfulness with respect
to the state of the science, and cooperation between the community and DoE via FESAC, given
the legal ramifications associated with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). In
reference to larger experiments, Knotek noted that “facilities do not set scientific priorities”.
Instead, community governance processes should set scientific priorities. He offered his opinion
that major budget relief for the fusion energy sciences program is not likely in the near future
and that the community needs to take advantage of available opportunities, stressing predictivemodeling utilizing the DOE strengths in high performance computing, and the fleet of national
and international facilities (ITER included) as examples.
Breakout sessions
The forum Steering Committee divided the attendance into three groups, each with 16 members(Appendix 2). These groups were charged to discuss the two broad topics with the guidelines
shown in Appendix 1 and report their discussions in the closing plenary session. The distributionof membership in the three groups was balanced for representation by institution type (large lab,
university, privately funded enterprise, and federal agency), and attendees from the same
institution were assigned to different groups. Each group had a designated discussion leader anda scribe who were charged to moderate and summarize the discussion. For the breakout session
on Monday, each group was charged to spend equal time on topics related to the two broad
questions. This ensured that all attendees were allowed the opportunity to engage in and hear
their colleagues’ thoughts on all topics. In the Tuesday morning breakout, attendees were given
the opportunity to make short presentations within their breakout group. Hence, the discussion
on Tuesday was guided by these presentations and previous discussions during the breakout
sessions on Monday.
While consensus was not an explicit goal for the forum, the reports from the three breakout
groups were remarkably similar. This is a significant outcome of the forum’s discussion. Below
are bulleted statements that capture key conclusions from the breakout discussions:• A healthy plasma and fusion science program must have strong university programs thatinvolve experiments, theory, and computation• Unlike some fields, world-class research programs in fusion and plasma physics can be
carried out in small to medium-scale experimental facilities located at universities• Student training (workforce development) is a strong benefit but not the primary motivation
for university research, which is instead frontier science and innovation

1/17/2016

3

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

University faculty need local, on-campus research efforts, but this does not always have to becentered on a local facility
A combination of local and off-site activities is powerful and stimulates useful synergies
Multilateral collaborations between university-located research and large labs should be
pursuedScientific leadership opportunities in frontier-class research are essential for the viability andgrowth of fusion and plasma science faculty hires
University programs are relatively fragile due to the long time constant for developing andmaintaining faculty slots, lab space, and infrastructure
Our national fusion facilities already involve university researchers but a better model andprocess is needed to support faculty leadership for off-site-focused research programs
Models for user facilities used by other communities could be viable but work best if they are
in place at the start of large programs, not implemented midstream; we need a better
understanding of how other communities deal with this issue
Funded “missions” or “campaigns” on important science topics that are linked to multiple
facilities, theory and computation is one possible approach
Validation and material science offer possible growth areas, given DoE emphasis on highperformance computing and leveraging with BES
Stewardship of all of plasma and fusion science by a single federal agency is challenging andmay be limiting the scope of our research program; we should nurture growth in multiple
agencies and learn how this is done in other communities
The fusion program needs a community-engaged strategic planning process that includes
ITER plus a vision for other compelling program components
Partnership with DoE is key to developing strategic planning and should be mediated through
FESAC
Strategic planning should not be “one off” but rather continual, as done for P5 and HEPAP,
for example, allowing the program to adapt to evolving needs in fusion and plasma science
Strategic planning should engage younger researchers to help develop future leadership
U.S. contributions to ITER should not be a barrier to progress
The development of predictive capability is essential to ITER’s success
The U.S. should prepare for modes of participation in ITER research; we should be a leader
in developing this common need for the world fusion effort

Suggested follow-on activities
1. Complete a report on the UFA Round Table, documenting the situation in university researchand conveying the boundary conditions for the academic environment. This might include
additional data, e.g., faculty demographics
2. Immediately establish a working group to develop an approach to addressing the crisis inuniversity fusion research
3. Initiate a dialog with the NRC panel on coordinating UFA and other group-led planning
and/or forums that link research strategies to the broad practice of plasma science
4. Initiate a dialog with DoE on strategic planning that is adaptive to changing circumstances
5. Develop a community-wide, systematic approach to strategic planning with a scientificroadmap for fusion and plasma science, i.e., a Snowmass-like process; this could be part of
the NRC Decadal Study process
1/17/2016

4

6. Collect information and best practices on strategic planning in various fields of science
7. Collect information on modes of university participation on user facilities in various fields ofscience
Forum organization
Steering Committee:
Brett Chapman (UW-Madison)
Martin Greenwald (MIT)Michael Mauel (Columbia U)
Dave Maurer (Auburn U)
John Sarff (UW-Madison), Chair
Uri Shumlak (U Washington)
Breakout Discussion Leaders:
Troy Carter (UCLA), Group 1
François Waelbroeck (U Texas), Group 2
Anne White (MIT), Group 3
Local Organizers (U Maryland):William Dorland
Adil Hassam
Matthew Landreman

1/17/20165

Appendix 1
A Forum on the Future of Fusion Energy and Plasma Science Research in the U.S.
December 14-15, 2015
Sponsored by the University Fusion Association (UFA)
Hosted by the University of Maryland-College Park
AgendaMonday, Dec 14
Plenary Session (Chair, Uri Shumlak)
8:30 AM Welcome and Introduction, John Sarff, University of Wisconsin-Madison
9:00 AM Overview 1, Gerald Navratil, Columbia University“Nurturing Research in the Academic Environment: Federal-University Partnership”
10:00 AM Coffee Break
10:15 AM Overview 2, Martin Greenwald, M.I.T.
“Community Planning For Fusion Energy and Plasma Science: The Good, the Bad,and the Ugly”
11:00 AM Overview 3, Michael Knotek, Former Deputy Under Secretary for Science andEnergy, US DoE
12:00 – 1:30 PM Lunch
Parallel Breakout Session #1 (see group membership assignments)
1:30 – 3:30 PM (2 Hours)
3:30 – 3:45 PM Coffee Break
3:45 – 6:00 PM (2 1/4 Hours)
Tuesday, Dec. 15
Parallel Breakout Session #2
8:30 – 10:00 AM (1 1/2 Hours)
Opportunity for contributed presentations (2-3 slides, 5 minutes)
10:00 – 10:15 AM Coffee Break
10:15 – 12:00 PM (1 3/4 Hours)
12:00 – 1:30 PM Lunch
Plenary Session (Chair, John Sarff)
1:30 PM Reports from breakout groups
3:00 PM Discussion and organization of follow-on activities
4:00 PM

1/17/2016

Forum ends

6

Appendix 1 (continued)
Guidelines for Breakout Group Discussions
Each breakout group will engage the two broad topics and several subtopics listed below:
1. Opportunities and requirements for nurturing the growth of fusion and plasma science
research in the academic environment
A. Role of experiments located on campus
B. Model(s) for university leadership on shared user facilities for fusion and plasma science
C. Growing the stewardship of plasma science in the federal complex
2. Means for developing a strategic plan for fusion and plasma science
A. Developing and nurturing a strategic plan
B. Impact of delayed ITER
Each group has a Discussion Leader and a Scribe. The Discussion Leaders will manage the
Monday afternoon breakout sessions such that equal time is devoted to the two broad topics.
Thus, all participants will have an opportunity to share their points of view and engage theircolleagues’ points of view on both topics.
On Tuesday morning, participants will be able to make short presentations within their breakout
groups (2-3 slides, 5 minute). We strongly encourage participants to align their presentations
with the discussions that occur Monday afternoon. Hence, the discussions Tuesday morning will
be guided by the ideas that evolve within each breakout group separately.
The Discussion Leaders and Scribes will prepare short summaries of their breakout discussions
to be presented in the plenary session Tuesday afternoon.
Anticipated outcome: The ultimate goal of the effort being initiated by this forum is thedevelopment of a comprehensive vision and plan that strengthens the future of fusion energy andplasma science research with broad support by the community, policy makers, and funding
agencies. While complete answers to key questions are beyond the scope of a two-day meeting,the forum will promote discussion on the challenges and future research that is not likely tooccur in current and anticipated planning activities. Specifically for this meeting we aim to
identify:a) Areas and issues with broad agreementb) Issues for which there is a significant divergence in viewpointsc) Issues where follow-on effort can provide the additional information needed to continue thediscussiond) Ideas for further deliberation, aiming toward consensus on open issues

1/17/20167

Appendix 1 (continued)
Questions to Guide Discussion
To help stimulate and focus the dialog, a number of questions related to the topics above arerecommended as starting points for discussions. These sets of questions are listed below. Other
questions may be raised, but each group should manage the time available such that all of the
topics listed above are covered in the Monday sessions.
1. Opportunities and requirements for nurturing the growth of fusion and plasma science
research in the academic environment
A. Role of experiments located on campus
i. Can experimental plasma physics and fusion sustain their presence at universities
without local experiments? i.e. can it generate and maintain faculty positions andsignificant student engagement?
ii. What are the unique advantages of university-based experiments and what has
their role been historically?
iii. What are the advantages of facilities at the national labs?
iv. What is the appropriate scale(s) for each venue?
v. What about computational plasma physics? Do similar arguments apply?
B. Model(s) for university leadership on shared user facilities for fusion and plasma science
i. What models for university participation and university leadership in large
scientific endeavors are there? (e.g., large telescopes and observatories, spaceprobes, light/particle sources, accelerators …)
ii. What governance models are used?
iii. How does (or should) research on plasma physics and fusion map onto thesemodels? What is similar and different?
iv. Are there models within the Office of Science complex relevant to fusion?
v. Will this be feasible for U.S. participation on ITER?
vi. Who should we talk to find out more?
C. Growing the stewardship of plasma science in the federal complex
i. What is working or not working about the current model?
ii. How can we establish a broader base for plasma science within the U.S.
government? Which Agencies are appropriate?
iii. How would this come about?
2. Means for developing a strategic plan for fusion and plasma science
A. Developing and nurturing a strategic plani. What are the essential elements of a strategic plan for a science program?
ii. Are there special features or issues particular to plasma and fusion science?
– Can we employ an “industry-standard” logical and stepwise process fordeveloping such plans?
– What processes have other science communities used for their plans?

1/17/20168

– What has worked or been difficult?
iii. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the FESAC plan?
B. Impact of delayed ITER
i. ITER has been the centerpiece of our future planning for more than 20 years
ii. Given the current schedule and uncertainties, how do we maintain the overall
health of the program?
iii. What types of new activities should we be pursuing?
iv. In addition to efforts already planned, what can the U.S. community do to hasten
ITER’s progress?
v. How should we plan for ITER operations?
vi. What should be our contingency plan in case U.S. participation in ITER is
terminated?

1/17/20169

Appendix 2
Attendees and Breakout Groups
Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Troy Carter (UCLA),
Discussion Leader

François Waelbroeck (U Texas),
Discussion Leader

Anne White (MIT),
Discussion Leader

Brett Chapman (U Wisconsin),
ScribeDavid Maurer (Auburn U),
ScribeMartin Greenwald (MIT),
ScribeDylan Brennan (Princeton U)

John Canik (ORNL)

Sarah Castro (U Washington)

Michael Brown (Swarthmore)

Julie Groeninger (Princeton U)

Michael Delage (General Fusion)Richard Buttery (General Atomics)

Richard Hawryluk (PPPL)David Ennis (Auburn U)

Sean Finnegan (DoE)David Hill (General Atomics)

Charles Greenfield (General Atomics)

Chris Hansen (U Washington)

Chris Holland (UCSD)Mark Haynes (Concordia Power)

Adil Hassam (U Maryland)

George McKee (U Wisconsin)

Matthew Landreman (U Maryland)Thomas Jarboe (U Washington)

Bob Mumgaard (MIT)Jeffrey Levesque (Columbia U)

Catherine Johnson (U Wisconsin)

Gerald Navratil (Columbia U)

Richard Majeski (PPPL)

Mike Knotek (retired)

Hutch Neilson (PPPL)

Joshua Reusch (U Wisconsin)Michel Laberge (General Fusion)

Nirmol Podder (DoE)

Ned Sauthoff (ORNL)

Earl Marmar (MIT)David Ruzic (U Illinois-UC)

Uri Shumlak (U Washington)

Michael Mauel (Columbia U)

John Sarff (U Wisconsin)

Ryan Umstattd (ARPA-E)

Jon Menard (PPPL)Fred Skiff (U Iowa)

James Van Dam (DoE)

Stewart Prager (PPPL)

Derek Sutherland (U Washington)

Michael Zarnstroff (PPPL)

1/17/201610