Proposal to the Organizing Committee and Conveners, LLNL, November 27, 2001

Structure and Organization to Enable Discussion of Community Concerns and Issues at the 2002 Fusion Summer Study (Snowmass, CO)

Motivation

The conveners of the 2002 Fusion Summer Study have listed several key issues to be addressed. Among these are the problem of establishing agreement that it is time to proceed with a burning plasma experiment, and the need to build a consensus as to how to proceed. These questions were considered by the Burning Plasma Panel of FESAC, which concluded that the U.S. program should move expeditiously. There is now the need to have a broad community discussion that addresses community concerns as well as technical issues.

Many people within the fusion community have raised questions and concerns about the possible effects that a major burning plasma experiment would have on the present program of plasma and fusion science. Many of these questions are not technical in nature, and do not naturally fall under the rubric of the Snowmass 2002 meeting as laid out thus far by the conveners.

Mission

It is our purpose to make arrangements, within the formal structure of the meeting, to facilitate open and frank communication of community concerns and issues from the full spectrum of points of view within the fusion community. We expect that discussion of these questions in the context of the Snowmass meeting will foster understanding of different views, and will at least partially alleviate some anxieties and allow movement toward a consensus view.

Who we are

As a consequence of related suggestions, the organizing committee decided in its October 15 conference call to solicit this proposal. A working group (Ed Synakowski, Pete Politzer, Spencer Pitcher, Jill Dahlburg, and Steve Allen) was recruited by Tony Taylor. We had two lunch meetings during the APS/DPP meeting in Long Beach, and continuing e-mail and telephone discussions.

This proposal covers five areas. The specifics are intended as examples – this will of necessity be an evolving process. The areas are: (1) examples of specific community issues that ought to be discussed, (2) activities to be undertaken during the Snowmass meeting, (3) preparatory activities prior to the meeting, (4) organization and process, and (5) anticipated outcome(s) and product.

Some Community Issues

These are examples of the sorts of community issues and concerns which should be discussed in the Snowmass context. Some of them naturally fall into a bipolar structure, with the place for consensus and resolution somewhere between the extreme viewpoints. Others have to do with differing visions of the future. Please note that this list is neither comprehensive nor even definitive. Some possible topics are:

• the implications of proceeding with a U.S. or an international BPX,
• the interaction between the "science" and the "energy" missions,
• the role of the base program, and the impact of a BPX on plasma science research,
• the vision for the fusion program 10-15 years hence with and without a BPX,
• the role of IFE in the context of the fusion base program,
• the effects of possible organization and management structures for a BPX,
• the reconciliation of curiosity-driven science and goal-driven science,
• the views of the proponents of different BPXs on the impact they'll have on the fusion program as a whole.

Activities at Snowmass

The focus of activities at Snowmass will be on the process of building consensus about the future of a BPX and of the fusion program. In part this will involve presentation and discussion of differing views, and in part an explicit effort to recognize that consensus is possible and to identify points of agreement.

We envision a series of discussions throughout the two week period. These should be daytime sessions; evening sessions tend to be seen as less "significant" in many ways. One possible structure would be to devote each session to one of the community issues. We would ask individuals with clearly expressed points of view to prepare brief position statements (10 minutes or so). There would be 2-4 of these, possibly but not necessarily reflecting positions taken by the advocates of the different BPXs (including no BPX). These presentations would be followed by a group discussion moderated by the organizing committee and directed toward allowing varied views to be aired, developing an understanding of the bases for those views, and pointing if possible toward an acceptable consensus view.

Some steps we should take to promote openness, inclusiveness, and understanding:

• meetings and discussions to be webcast,
• strong moderators to promote open interaction without intimidation or personalization,
• provide sufficient advance information that people can come prepared to listen to alternate views.

Activities prior to Snowmass

Without sufficient advance preparation, we recognize that such discussions could be counterproductive. It will be necessary to provide participants with a clear idea of the structure and topics of these discussions, and of the motivations and objectives. We are considering undertaking the following activities:

• town meetings at various institutions before Snowmass to gather input and to foster an understanding of what this is about,
• a moderated web site for position papers and for interactive discussion – we would encourage those presenting positions in the Snowmass discussions to post their presentations beforehand,
• an effort to bring in people from outside the fusion community to both provide a different perspective and to communicate our thinking outside our own circles,
• a survey of the fusion community (web-based) in regard to questions such as personal goals and motivations, goals for the community, outlook and expectations.

Organization and Process

As a result of our discussions at Long Beach, we believe that even though we may disagree on specific issues, we are unanimous in our agreement on the need to address these issues and in our approach to providing a format. For the present we find that we have been able to work by consensus and would like to continue in that manner.

At present, this working group is an ad hoc addition to the Experimental Approach and Objectives Working Group, chaired by Tony Taylor. Because all four MFE working groups are directed toward dealing with specific technical issues, and because the inclusion of the IFE program in our discussions is crucial, it would be appropriate to establish the Community Issues Working Group as a separate entity within the Summer Study organization.

Anticipated Outcome and Product

This is the most difficult topic to assess. At a minimum, we want to provide a forum at which proponents of different views about the future of the fusion program can express themselves. Bringing back into the discussion those who have become skeptical about the Snowmass process and burning plasmas in general would be a major accomplishment.

Identifying and clearly defining the issues of significant concern for the Snowmass report would be the next major objective in regard to product. We hope to develop the recognition that consensus is possible, and that there are methods for reaching it. Identifying points of agreement on which consensus could be based would be the proverbial icing on the cake.

The meeting report should contain a brief summary of the activities prior to and at the Snowmass meeting, a list of the topics discussed and the points of view expressed, and an indication of where the group believes agreement was or could be reached and where further discussion is required. A paragraph in the Executive Summary of the report would summarize these accomplishments.