DOE Office of Science Director Mildred Dresselhaus, in a November 9 charge letter, has asked her Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (FESAC) to review the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (OFES) theory and computation program. She asks for the review to be completed by May 1, 2001. John Sheffield (ORNL) will chair the panel. Dresselhaus noted that "The theory and computation program is the only major element (of the OFES program) remaining to be evaluated." She said, "Because the National Academy of Sciences committee has already provided a detailed review of the scientific quality of the fusion program, FESAC should focus its effort on reviewing the theory and computation program's overall content, plans, structure and governance."

Dresselhaus asked the FESAC to review "at least the following questions:"

1. What is the appropriate role of theory and computation in the OFES program? Is the current balance between theory/computing and the rest of the fusion program reasonable?

2. Is the current structure and balance between the elements of the theory/computing program appropriate? What changes, if any, are needed in program content?

3. Several groups and numerous individual investigators at many institutions carry out theory/computing research. Is the distribution of research among these research performers appropriate? Are there structural changes that would make the program stronger?

4. In many areas of physics, "modeling/simulation" studies are now viewed as a third discipline, distinct from both experimental and theoretical studies. How effectively are the modeling/simulation and theory communities working together to support the needs of the rest of the fusion program?

5. How should the modeling/simulation efforts be conducted to increase their contribution to the overall program, considering issues such as code proliferation, legacy codes that are expensive to maintain and difficult to upgrade, introduction of modern computational techniques, and formation and functioning of multi-institutional modeling/simulation teams?

Dresselhaus says, "In reviewing program governance, FESAC should consider the following topics: planning and goal setting processes, merit review procedures, and coordination of international collaboration." She asks the review to include the following questions:

1. Are the current management practices of the program, such as program planning and merit review, sound?

2. Is the role of various organizations in managing certain elements of the program reasonable (e.g., IFS coordination of the Joint Institute for Fusion Theory {with Japan} or PPPL coordination of the Plasma Science Advanced Computing Initiative)?

3. What management would strengthen the program?