Dr. Michael Holland, Program Examiner for the Department of Energy's Office of Science account at the Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, spoke at Fusion Power Associates 20-year anniversary meeting and symposium, October 19, in Washington, DC.
In introducting him, FPA president Steve Dean noted that Dr. Holland received his Ph.D. in analytical chemistry from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and did post-doctoral work at Penn State University. His undergraduate degrees were in electrical engineering and chemistry.
The following is the text of Dr. Holland's remarks.
"Thank you for inviting me. This is a welcome opportunity to come out and meet some of the people whose budgets I review.
"When I was preparing to come here, I dug around in some of the files that have been passed down to me from previous examiners. It's well-known history that in '95 and '96 Congress reduced funds for the fusion research program from $336 million down to $230 million. And now we're working back up. Had the U.S. participation in ITER continued, budget projections would have put the fusion budget this year around a billion dollars. So it's no surprise when I say that is not the world in which fusion finds itself at the current time.
"From OMB's view, I'd like to emphasize that we see fusion as a science program and not an energy technology program. And that means that we judge you according to the criteria that we judge the other programs in the science portfolio, high energy physics, nuclear physics, basic energy sciences. Scientific excellence is the critical performance measure that we look for. Part of the reason why we look at fusion sciences as a science program and not an energy technology program is due to some of the recent actions that Congress took, particularly moving fusion out of the energy supply budget account and into the science account. Also, DOE's signal to us by including fusion energy sciences in the science portfolio during their portfolio exercise and not in the energy technology portfolio. The cross-reference is fine, but the signal is you're in the science program. OSTP also supported this emphasis by moving you from the technology side of their shop to the science side of their shop in the past few years.
"As a science program, we look for a balance between efforts in targeted basic research and pure curiosity-driven research. One of the metaphors that people like to use is saying that you are in 'Pasteur's Quadrant.' Things (in this Quadrant) should be both scientifically rigorous but also directed. But in a basic science program, we look for a balance between Pasteur's Quadrant and Bohr's quadrant -- some work that you do simply because it's scientifically challenging, scientifically interesting, and intellectually rewarding. And to further elaborate on targeted basic research, I'll pull a comment from 'Unlocking Our Future: Towards a New National Science Policy,' which the House Committee on Science recently released. They defined targeted basic research as research that is largely basic in nature but is done with a sense that some downstream use may exist but is not done in direct pursuit of a specific application.
"Now, I would like to say that in light of that, a periodic look at how the field is progressing towards its energy goal is completely justifiable, should be done. But that's something that's done at a much longer timeframe -- every five years, every seven years, every 10 years, something like that. Constant evaluation of every component in the portfolio for usefulness and advancing the field towards an economical powerplant is probably not appropriate.
"The scientific priorities, however, should be reviewed and set on a more frequent basis, in much the same way that HEPAP (High Energy Physics Advisory Panel)and NSAC (Nuclear Sciences Advisory Committee) do for high energy and nuclear physics. Given the very long time horizon for the practical application of fusion, again, I'd like to emphasize that scientific excellence is the criteria. Support for general plasma science and collaboration and integration with other physics disciplines and other scientific disciplines -- say, material science, computational science -- is critical for OMB's evaluation of fusion sciences.
"I'd like to take a quote from they Associate Director that I report to, who is a political appointee, who says 'The basic point seems to be that with such a long-term horizon -- even PCAST talked about a 50-year timeframe for R&D investment -- we should be putting scarce resources into the basic science issues associated with fusion.' This is a point with which he wholeheartedly agrees.
"With respect to the long-term goal of a central powerplant, that is one that does, in fact, have a potentially high payoff. However, it is not a certain payoff. So if you just calculate expectation values, and if we were to make investments based upon expectation values, that probability of an outcome is highly uncertain. So what we would like is an emphasis on what the current benefits are in the same way that we look at some of the current benefits of the other science programs -- high energy physics, nuclear physics, chemistry -- those being workforce preparation, investment in human capital, intellectual capital, and scientific understanding. This is part of the reason why the Federal Government invests in basic research -- purely scientific understanding. In fact, you have a lot of very interesting physics to do.
"On a more personal note, as an examiner, I will be very interested in NRC's FUSAC (Fusion Sciences Assessment Committee) review. The kinds of questions that they have set out in their interim report that they say they will be evaluating are the kinds of questions that I want answers to. They will be asking, "Does the program ask deep physics questions? What are the current role and future prospects for scientific predictive capability for advancing fusion energy? And how can the connectivity of fusion science with other scientific disciplines be strengthened?" Those are the things that I'm going to be looking at as an examiner.
"While looking back through some of the documents that have been kept by previous examiners, I looked at one of the five-year plans, funding plans, from 1996 - 2001. So the budget we're working on currently, is the end of that plan. Comparing the Fiscal Year '99 and Fiscal Year 2000 enacted budgets to the '96 five-year funding plan, the following observations jump right out. Funds have been shifted out of the enabling technology area into alternate concepts, compared to what the funding plan projections were. Alternate concepts is now allotted in both the '99 and the 2000 budget, approximately 25 percent, compared to a plan number of 15 percent. Now, in 1996, alternate concepts garnered only three percent of the actual budget. We view this as a good thing. Tokamak research garners now about 38 percent of the budget. That is lower than plan, or what the projection would have had, but it's lower by about the amount of the TFTR D&D. That's significantly down from the '96 level of 53 percent share of the budget. Theory -- it's up slightly from plan. It's now about 10 percent of the budget, was seven percent in '96. General plasma seems to be holding constant per plan at three percent of the total budget. However, granted, that is a dramatic improvement because in 1996 there was no money in general plasma science. However, if the connections to the other fields in physics and outside physics are to really be strengthened, some of the recent work that I've seen come out of the community, and where the fusion community has gotten the most attention, have been in theory, Bill Tang's papers, and also in some of the work that has been funded by the general plasma sciences part of the budget. And that would, say, be the magnetic reconnection work.
"So, you have done some restructuring. There has been a change in focus, and, as is evident from congressional appropriations, that has gotten support. So I think it's safe to say changes have been made, and they have been well received.
"Thank you."
In response to questions, Dr. Holland made the following additional comments:
"My personal feeling is that the technology aspects of the fusion sciences program ought to be considered in the same way that the technology aspects of high energy physics are considered. We invest a lot in accelerator R&D, but we do that to advance science in high energy physics. And accelerator R&D is not an end to itself. So if the technology aspects of the fusion sciences program are connected to the science that you're trying to advance, then I think that's a wise investment. I guess that's the only way I would imagine doing that part of the budget."