Segment 2 Of 4 Previous Hearing Segment(1) Next Hearing Segment(3)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 262 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Professor Keith Hodgson, Chair, Biological and Environmental Sciences Advisory Committee
REPUBLICAN MEMBER QUESTIONS:
Coordination Between DOE Science and NSF Research
Q1. DOE's Office of Science and NSF fund similar types of research, particularly in the physical sciences (high energy and nuclear physics, materials sciences, chemistry, etc.) How is DOE's research coordinated with NSF's to avoid duplication?
A1. With regard to the Department of Energy's BER program, there is a long history of very effective interagency cooperation in the management of complex projects having multiple dimensions that go beyond the means or mission of just a single agency. A prime example is that of the human genome project, which was formally initiated by the DOE and subsequently became a broad interagency initiative. DOE–BER and NIH have responsibility for the majority of the U.S. public funded initiative where the initial goal (the human genome sequence) is common, but relevance and use of the information is very specific to individual agency mission needs (for DOE–BER this includes effects of low dose radiation and science-based stewardship of the environment). Coordination occurs at all levels—from programmatic through high level management and advisory committees. Another example is the role that DOE–BER plays in the U.S. Global Change Program where NSF is also a significant partner. Following an interagency strategic plan developed and updated through an interagency process, programs are managed in a coordinated manner. A different means of effective coordination is provided in the life sciences area of synchrotron structural biology, where an interagency working group, established under the auspices of OSTP, enables joint planning and resource allocation. The DOE–BER's external advisory committee, BERAC, has frequent updates and discussions on the interagency aspects of these programs and often seeks input from representatives from other agencies, including NSF.
Page 263 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Coordination Between DOE Offices
Q2. Much research funded by DOE's Office of Science is directly applicable to the work of other DOE Offices, such as the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, etc. How does the Office of Science coordinate its work with that of other DOE Offices and what role does your Advisory Committee play?
A2. Like its external interactions with other agencies, DOE–BER has always been strongly engaged in program coordination within DOE in areas where this really makes sense from a programmatic viewpoint. For example, in the effort to develop innovative new science-based strategies for cleanup and remediation, DOE–BER partners with the environmental management office of DOE (EM) to cooperate and coordinate efforts in programs like the accelerated bioremediation (NABIR) and EM's environmental management science program (EMSP). Other examples include collaborations with NE on radioisotopes, EE on climate change research, FE on carbon sequestration and NN on bioterrorism detection and defeat. The new ''Genomes to Life'' initiative (see Q7 below) has been jointly planned and coordinated with the DOE Office of Advanced Science Computing. Until recently, there has been relatively little formal or regular coordination among the six DOE Advisory Committees. Examples do include subcommittee activities where there was formal representation from multiple Offices (for example, a report done some years ago by the High Energy Physics Advisory Committee (HEPAP) on advanced accelerator R&D). In the past two years, the Chairs of the six Committees have engaged in regular communications and informal meetings once or twice a year. Relevant subsets of the Office's Advisory Committee activities (such as found in BER and BES programs) are beginning to be coordinated for relevant specific programs through briefings of each other's committees, members of one committee attending the meetings of the other, etc.
Page 264 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Office of Science Priorities
Q3. It appears that each of the DOE Advisory Committees assists the Office of Science in establishing priorities in the fields under their purview. But what about overall priorities? What is the best way for the Office of Science to establish priorities among fields of science, and not just within them?
A3. Overall priority setting within the Office of Science, and more broadly among federal agencies funding science and technology, must occur and be coordinated at higher levels within the Department and the Administration. General programmatic direction for each of the six individual offices flows from the overall strategic plan and mission goals of DOE, a process that engages input from the advisory committees as well as individual scientists, policy makers and indeed the broader public. The chairs of the Advisory Committees have participated formally in the process of formulating DOE's strategic plan and should be expected to do so in the future as this plan continues to evolve on a periodic basis. Given the special knowledge of DOE's science programs found within each of the Advisory Committees, it should be feasible to find effective means for DOE management to utilize the Committees in issues and advice in priority setting, especially where there are areas of programmatic overlap or common focus. Advisory committees have not been traditionally used in this way (except as noted above for the few examples of joint subcommittee reports) but specific means should be created to complement the other means of prioritization already in place. It is imperative that the science and technology (S&T) related offices of the Executive Office of the President (OSTP and OMB) take a lead and active role in setting the priorities across S&T investments in the Federal Government with input from the scientific community including the SC advisory committees and other groups like the National Academy of Sciences.
Page 265 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Relationship Between Physical and Life Sciences
Q4. You stated in your testimony that ''in view of the role of physical science as the foundation for research in life sciences, DOE Office of Science funding should keep pace with the growth in the National Institutes for Health (NIH).'' This implies that all physical sciences are equally applicable to life sciences. Is this really true? Please justify this statement.
A4. There have been many accounts of how discoveries in biomedical sciences have evolved from, and built upon, advances made in the physical sciences. Some of the most notable include: The discovery of x-rays and the means to utilize them safely and reliably provided the basis for what became the first true imaging revolution in medicine. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evolved from fundamental discoveries in the physics of atoms and when combined with advanced computational methods led to the remarkable tools that today enable the study of many forms of soft tissue that are difficult to study by x-rays. Radiopharmaceutical and radiation detector imaging research has provided the scientific and technological foundation for the use of radioisotopes in a broad range of diagnostic and therapeutic applications, including routine diagnoses of cancer metastases, localized infections, and assessment of heart and lung performance. The very basis of drug discovery and creating new medicines used throughout the past 50 years is founded in the ability of chemists to synthesize new compounds and understand how they function—skills and knowledge embedded in the physical sciences. Another very prominent example is the development of information technologies, including computations and the Internet. As one looks at the great accomplishments of the last century and toward the promise of those in the coming one, its is clear that to build upon the success of projects like the human genome (which itself was very dependent on the physical, engineering and computational sciences) our Nation needs to engage and train a next generation of young scientists whose basic knowledge encompasses the physical and engineering sciences. So while it is surely not the case that ''all physical sciences are equally applicable to life sciences'' there are examples in almost every field where this interdependence exists and can be confidently linked to the potential of future medical discovery. It is admittedly an oversimplification to simply say that the increases in funding for the physical sciences need to ''keep pace'' with funding in the biomedical sciences, but the two-decade trends that I showed during my testimony of flat to declining funding for the broad physical sciences will surely have broad and deep negative impacts on scientific discovery important ultimately to human health if allowed to continue.
Page 266 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
New Research Opportunities
Q5. All of the witnesses identified new research opportunities in their fields that require more resources. Aren't there also areas in your field that are now mature and can be de-emphasized and that require less funding? How do we know if under- or over-spending in any field? Please comment.
A5. One of the really important functions of the advisory committees (in my specific case, BERAC) is to look carefully at program elements and identify both new opportunities as well as areas that can be phased out or transferred to other programs as they mature and evolve beyond the basic research phase. Examples where this has been done include the re-structuring of the radiation effects program from one historically based on studies of ionizing radiation to a new focus on using the modern tools of genetics and biology to understand the effects of low dose, long term radiation exposures (see also Q8 below). Another example is found in the boron-neutron capture therapy (BNCT) program where BER funded the basic biology and physics but as the research progressed to clinical trials and real medical evaluation, this effort was transferred to NIH. It may often seem that ''additional funds'' are always being requested (such as for the GTL program, Q7) but the point is that we are entering a new age of discovery where we can understand the very basis of life in an endeavor that will yield tremendous dividends for human health and our environment but which is of significantly greater complexity and challenge than the human genome project itself. To recognize this potential requires additional funding above that which is available from restructuring existing programs. Overall, BERAC seeks to help DOE assess existing programs in light of new opportunities and is not reserved about recommending hard actions where needed to achieve the next generation of science. Review by a group of knowledgeable peers (such as our advisory committee) remains the most proven and effective way to determine if there is appropriate effort being expended in a given area.
Page 267 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
DOE Medical Research
Q6. Given the large increases to the NIH budget, what is the rationale for DOE's continued investment in medical research?
A6. DOE is a mission-oriented agency. There are many consequences of the production and utilization of energy sources—from nuclear to petrochemical. There are many legacy consequences to our environment from the decades long effort to develop and maintain our Nation's nuclear deterrent. A number of unique capabilities have been developed in the DOE National laboratories and with DOE funding to the research community that have created important scientific capabilities to address these mission needs, especially involving the materials, engineering, computational and accelerator sciences. While developed for these other reasons, the capabilities have potential and relevance to several specific areas of medical research. While small in magnitude, they tend to be high risk, high payoff areas that are not traditionally in the NIH-funded portfolio. NIH recognizes this value of the DOE–BER funded programs.
In a broader sense, biological systems—from microbes to man—are influenced by energy production and use. Understanding and studying these effects are generally outside the mission of NIH. It is very important to stress that many of the same forefront tools and methods needed for study and understanding the energy-related issues are also important for the health related ones—especially the tools of the ''physical sciences''. DOE's R&D role is quite complementary to that of NIH and, given proper coordination between the agencies, the result will be a continued acceleration of discovery with broad benefits for the quality of our lives and of our environment.
Page 268 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Genomes to Life Initiative
Q7. Please describe the Genomes to Life Initiative. What is NIH's interest in this initiative and how much of it is NIH willing to fund? Again, given the large increases to NIH's budget, what is the rationale for a significant DOE initiative in this area?
A7. The Genomes to Life Initiative (GTL) will build upon the success of the human, animal, plant and bacterial genome programs as a foundation for scientific discovery of the fundamental, comprehensive and systematic understanding of life at the molecular level. Stated in another way, DNA sequences are universal codes that specify the components of all known living organisms (called proteins), but it is these proteins, each specifically built according to a unique DNA code, that are the engines, the building blocks and the signaling mechanisms—the essence of life itself. The GTL initiative seeks to utilize the vast amount of sequence information now becoming available and build upon it using new techniques in molecular and structural biology, computations and imaging to understand and predict how genomes are truly ''brought to life.'' A specific focus of the initiative is in understanding simple bacteria (the ''microbial world''). This focus will enable mission-oriented benefits in areas that include chemical and biological national security (including bioterrorism detection and defeat), the carbon cycle and carbon sequestration in the atmosphere, the susceptibility of living organisms to insults such as radiation, the development of natural renewable energy sources, and in using plants and microbes for remediating contaminated sites. As noted above in Q6, these are areas of DOE mission orientation, not those of NIH. Hence, it is not reasonable to expect NIH to actually fund the initiative (or part of it) but rather to focus its resources on questions that directly relate to its health focus. Nevertheless, there is significant commonality in the tools and approaches to be used in directly health-related programs funded by NIH and other agencies like NSF, and effective coordination is essential to avoid duplication and maximize return on investment.
Page 269 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Low-Dose Radiation Research
Q8. You also noted in your testimony that the low dose radiation research program is in its early stages. As you know, the results of this program could have major regulatory implications—particularly for clean-up standards. First, when can we expect to see significant results from this program and second, how are regulatory agencies, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Agency involved?
A8. The Low-Dose Radiation Research Program builds on recent advances in both technology and biology. Application of new cellular and molecular biology techniques such as gene sequencing, gene chip technology, modern DNA repair methodologies and other cellular and molecular approaches are being used to define the mechanisms involved in radiation-induced alterations in living cells after low-dose exposures. Significant results are already beginning to come forth from this relatively young program, but it is difficult to accurately predict how quickly they can be utilized to help influence and guide regulatory guidelines. For science to impact policy, it is necessary for the data to be evaluated and incorporated into understandable and validated models. As the models are developed, it is likewise important to convey the information and implications of the models to the decision-makers and regulators. This is being done through close interaction between the DOE and regulatory agencies including the EPA and NRC. Activities include staff from other regulatory agencies being invited to actively participate in program contractor workshops, invitations for participation by representatives from other agencies in advisory committee activities and indeed formal representation by individuals from other agencies on the Low-Dose Radiation Advisory Committee. Communication, education and public outreach are important elements of this research program, since it is essential that scientific advances generated in this program be conveyed to the scientific community, policy makers and the general public in a timely manner.
Page 270 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Dr. Margaret H. Wright, Chair, Advanced Scientific Computing Research Advisory Committee
REPUBLICAN MEMBER QUESTIONS:
Coordination Between DOE Science and NSF Research
Q1. DOE's Office of Science and NSF fund similar types of research, particularly in the physical sciences (high energy and nuclear physics, materials sciences, chemistry, etc.) How is DOE's research coordinated with NSF's to avoid duplication?
A1. Many of the research and development activities in the advanced computing and mathematics subprogram are coordinated with other agencies, including NSF, through the Interagency Principals Group, chaired by the President's Science Advisor, and the Information Technology Working Group (ITWG). The focus of the recently enhanced DOE program in advanced scientific computing is on solving mission-critical problems, and DOE's program thus differs from NSF's portfolio, which covers all of information technology. Also see the answer to Q6.
Coordination Between DOE Offices
Q2. Much research funded by DOE's Office of Science is directly applicable to the work of other DOE Offices, such as the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, etc. How does the Office of Science coordinate its work with that of other DOE Offices and what role does your Advisory Committee play?
Page 271 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
A2. The Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee has not played any role in coordinating the work of the Office of Science with that of other DOE offices.
Office of Science Priorities
Q3. It appears that each of the DOE Advisory Committees assists the Office of Science in establishing priorities in the fields under their purview. But what about overall priorities? What is the best way for the Office of Science to establish priorities among fields of science, and not just within them?
A3. Your question identifies an important problem, and I am pleased to say that recent developments are leading to greater coordination among the advisory committees in this spirit. Two overarching panels have been formed recently, the first on the high-performance computational needs and capabilities throughout the Office of Science, and the second on strategies appropriate for the Office of Science in performance measurement. Each of these two panels contains a member from each of the six advisory committees, and the charter for each is deliberately broad and inclusive. The advisory committee chairs expect this coordination to continue and welcome this trend.
Relationship Between Physical and Life Sciences
Q4. You stated in your testimony that ''in view of the role of physical science as the foundation for research in life sciences, DOE Office of Science funding should keep pace with the growth in the National Institutes for Health (NIH).'' This implies that all physical sciences are equally applicable to life sciences. Is this really true? Please justify this statement.
Page 272 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
A4. Our testimony was intended to stress that sciences across the board are interconnected, with ties becoming ever stronger, especially between the physical sciences and the life sciences, and also among computing, mathematics, science, and engineering. In particular, advanced scientific computing, the purview of the committee that I chair, is becoming increasingly important as an equal partner with theory and experiment in essentially all modern science and engineering, and this trend seems to be accelerating. Biology and medicine, for example, were at one time, even twenty years ago, viewed as non-mathematical and noncomputational. Things are entirely different today. At a two-day workshop held in early September 2001 by the Office of Science on the topics of biology, computing, and mathematics, speaker after speaker from biology and the life sciences stated that they expected tremendous growth in their needs for research in advanced computing, mathematical modeling, and algorithms. Mathematical modeling and advanced computing are used in the life sciences and medicine today in ways that were unimaginable until recently, such as in visualization of tumors in real time during delicate brain surgery.
New Research Opportunities
Q5. All of the witnesses identified new research opportunities in their fields that require more resources. Aren't there also areas in your field that are now mature and can be de-emphasized and that require less funding? How do we know if we are under- or over-spending in any field? Please comment.
A5. The Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee takes a keen interest in reviewing the portfolio of its program, to ensure that the liveliest and most promising areas are being supported. Decisions about areas that are more, or less, promising are obviously extremely difficult, but members of the advisory committee understand that priorities must be set and that all areas cannot be supported. Such assessments are part of what the advisory committee does for the Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research. Similarly, the other Office of Science advisory committees work with their programs to try to identify promising and not-so-promising areas of research.
Page 273 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Coordination Between DOE Science and NNSA
Q6. How are the DOE's Office of Science scientific computing efforts coordinated with those of the National Nuclear Security Administration's and the NSF's? How is duplication of effort avoided?
A6. My understanding and observation is that the managers of the programs in scientific computing in the Office of Science and NNSA are fully aware of the scope and focus of their respective programs. Similarly, program managers at NSF and in the advanced scientific computing program in the Office of Science are in frequent touch, both formally and informally, about new programs and new directions. These conversations not only tend to avoid inappropriate duplication, but also have a positive effect on coordination within DOE and between DOE and NSF concerning common issues and scientific problems.
Scientific Discovery Through Advances Computing Program
Q7. Please explain in more detail about the Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) program.
A7. SciDAC was conceived based on the widely recognized and widely bemoaned fact that software research is, in a very large number of instances, a significant bottleneck, sometimes even an obstacle, in scientific progress. The SciDAC program accordingly places major emphasis on software research conducted by closely coupled teams that must include domain scientists, computer scientists, and mathematicians. Although everyone knows that such tight collaborations are the optimal way for progress in scientific software, the SciDAC program is unique in not just recognizing, but demanding, that teams work together in producing algorithms and in enhancing performance on high-end computing. In addition, SciDAC supports work in a variety of areas associated with advanced computing: in particular, human-computer interfaces (necessary if codes are to be useful to non-experts) and techniques for analyzing, managing, and visualizing massive volumes of data.
Page 274 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Computing Hardware vs. Software
Q8. You noted in your testimony that: (1) ''gains in raw speed, memory, and access do not translate into comparable gains in our ability to solve problems,'' (2) ''[t]he performance gap between raw speed (measured by the theoretical maximum number of calculations per second) and actual performance is already large and, more seriously, is increasing with no end in sight''; and (3) ''[c]losing this gap can be achieved only by major, coordinated investments in research on scientific modeling codes and the underlying systems software''. Why wouldn't it make more sense to apply limited resources to research on modeling codes and the underlying systems software rather than continue to purchase larger, faster, and more expensive hardware if we can't take advantage of their capabilities?
A8. This question addresses a problem that has been discussed for many years: the Moore's Law effects of dramatic increases in speed and other capabilities have not slowed down, so that computer scientists have no breathing space and need to scramble constantly to keep up with hardware developments. Without writing an essay, I cannot give an adequately thoughtful answer to your question, but I will mention a few points. It is true, as I stated, that the gap between raw speed and actual performance is increasing, and that investments in software research and modeling codes are therefore essential. On the other hand, since hardware keeps exhibiting spectacular gains, sometimes with novel architectures that are exceptionally well suited to certain kinds of problems, I would be troubled by a policy that chose not to advance hardware. We can always take advantage of new hardware, but not as much advantage as we would like to. What seems important is to balance adequate support for new hardware with support for the needed software, algorithmic, and mathematical research. Focusing only on new hardware would cause the gap I mentioned to continue to grow; but focusing too little on new hardware would mean falling behind in a different, but equally harmful, way. Hence, in my view, we need both new hardware and research on software.
Page 275 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Dr. Geraldine Richmond, Chair, Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee
REPUBLICAN MEMBER QUESTIONS:
Coordination Between DOE Science and NSF Research
Q1. DOE's Office of Science and NSF fund similar types of research,
particularly in the physical sciences (high energy and nuclear physics, materials sciences, chemistry, etc.) How is DOE's research coordinated with NSF's to avoid duplication?
A1. The fact that researchers in a particular discipline of science can seek federal support for their work at more than one agency is one of the great hallmarks of the Nation's science enterprise. This plurality of possible funding sources helps assure that high-quality innovative proposals can find support at one federal agency even if it is declined at another. Although there is overlap and complementarily among federal science programs, the process of peer review virtually guarantees that no individual research project duplicates one that has already been performed. The set of peer reviewers have knowledge of all the research performed worldwide in their given area of expertise—not just the research supported by the particular agency reviewing the proposal. A reviewer would bring any identified duplication to the attention of the selecting official, and the proposal would not be funded.
In addition, program coordination among agencies is extensive, both formally and informally, i.e., program managers talking to their counterparts in other agencies. The more the disciplines overlap, the greater the coordination. The overlap of program areas among different agencies appears to be large when defining broad areas of science, e.g., Chemical Sciences. The overlap is far less when defining more specific disciplines, e.g., organometallic chemistry. For sub-disciplines, there is very little overlap, and for individual, peer reviewed projects there is no overlap at all, as described above.
Page 276 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Given below are some of the formal mechanisms whereby the DOE Office of Science's Basic Energy Sciences program and NSF coordinate research program areas:
Research and facility operations activities within the BES program together constitute a very broad scope of work, touching many disciplines. As a result, BES is part of a large number of interagency coordination efforts. The extent of such interactions are illustrated by the large number of coordination committee names listed below. Of particular note during the past few years are activities in the areas of the formation of the National Nanotechnology Initiative and in the operations of the synchrotron light sources and the neutron scattering facilities, especially instrumentation for the Spallation Neutron Source. These activities have required extensive coordination with NSF, NIH, DOC, DOD, and many other agencies both through the formal working groups listed below and through ad hoc and/or routine day-to-day contact among agencies.
European Union: Oklo (Africa) Natural Reactor Working Group
Federal Interagency Chemistry Representatives
Geosciences Education Initiative (Mineralogical Society of America/Geochemical Society)
Hydrocarbon Geoscience Research Coordinating Committee
Interagency Atomic and Molecular Physics Coordinating Committee
Interagency Chemistry Representatives (ICR)
Interagency Committee on Arabidopsis Genome Research
Interagency Coordinating Group under the Accord on Continental Drilling
Interagency Geothermal Coordinating Council
Page 277 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Interagency Plant Science Coordination Group
Interagency Polymers Working Group (IPWG)
Interagency Power Working Group
Interagency Program on Carbohydrate Structural Data Base (Carb Bank)
Interagency Program on Collaborative Research in Plant Biology
Interagency Quantum Information Science Coordinating Group (QISCOG)
NAS/NRC Board on Earth Sciences and Resources
NAS/NRC Board on Radioactive Waste Management
National Bioenergy Initiative
National Genetic Resources Advisory Council—USDA
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
Biotechnology Research Subcommittee
Committee on Environmental and National Resources
Joint Subcommittee on Environmental Technology
Interagency Working Group on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Committee
Interagency Working Group on Structural Biology at Synchrotron Radiation Light Sources
Natural Disaster Reduction Subcommittee
Planning Group Regarding the Future of Materials Science and Engineering
Resource Use and Management Subcommittee
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program Cleanup Technology Thrust Working Group
Subcommittee on Materials Technology—MatTec
Communications Group on Superconductivity
Page 278 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Communications Group on Structural Ceramics
Communications Group on Nondestructive Evaluation
Environmentally Conscious Materials Working Group
Subgroup on Aircraft Manufacturing and Materials Technology
Subgroup on Electronics R&D
Subgroup on Partnership on a New Generation of Vehicles
Working Group on Materials Processing of COMAT
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)—active but unchartered
Interagency Committee on Bimolecular Materials
Interagency Committee on Polymeric Materials
Interagency Coordination Committee on Structural Ceramics
Interagency EPSCoR Coordinating Committee
Interagency Group on University Issues
Pan American Advanced Study Institutes (PASI)—NSF
Semi-annual Microbiology meetings (NSF/NIH/ONR/USDA/DOE/NASA)
U.S. component (NSF/DOE/USDA/NIH) of the international effort to sequence the genome of Arabidopsis
Coordination Between DOE Offices
Q2. Much research funded by DOE's Office of Science is directly applicable to the work of other DOE Offices, such as the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, etc. How does the Office of Science coordinate its work with that of other DOE Offices and what role does your Advisory Committee play?
Page 279 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
A2. The Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES) within the Office of Science has the primary interfaces with the Department's energy technology programs. The BES mission includes fostering and supporting fundamental research to provide the basis for new, improved, environmentally conscientious energy technologies. This is accomplished through maintaining U.S. world leadership in materials sciences and chemical sciences as well as significant areas of geosciences, biosciences, and engineering. BES partners with all appropriate DOE technology offices to make the results of the BES research in these areas widely known and used. Furthermore, BES research programs are influenced by the needs of the technology offices. In general, BES research activities and those in programs of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE), the Office of Fossil Energy (FE), the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), as well as the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences are coordinated through Coordinating Committees in the Department, through respective program manager to program manager ad hoc meetings, through workshops, through joint participation in interagency working groups and committees, through joint funding at universities and at the Department's laboratories, through coordination of research topic areas and management of projects for Department crosscutting programs such as Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR), and Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR).
The Energy Materials Coordinating Committee (EMaCC) is an excellent example of BES coordination and partnering of basic research in the materials sciences and chemical sciences with energy technology research programs in EE, FE, and NE. All offices have designated representatives for the EMaCC and its subcommittees. The EmaCC meets about three times annually to enhance coordination among the Department materials programs and to further effective use of materials expertise within the Department. These functions are accomplished through the exchange of budgetary and planning information among program managers and through technical meetings/workshops on selected topics involving both DOE and major contractors. All six of the current topical subcommittees established focus on materials areas of particular importance to the Department's energy technology programs: Electrochemical Technologies; Metals; Radioactive Waste containers; Semiconductors; Structural Ceramics; and Superconductivity. The EMaCC reports to the Director of the Office of Science in his capacity as overseer of the technical programs of the Department.
Page 280 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
The Department's national laboratory system plays a special role in the ability of BES to effectively integrate research and development by providing opportunities to collocate activities at these sites. An example of this is the DOE Center of Excellence for the Synthesis and Processing of Advanced Materials (CSP). The BES Material Sciences and Engineering Division supports the CSP. This is a virtual center, with members distributed throughout many research institutions, including the DOE national laboratories. The Center has a technology perspective provided by a Technology Steering Group with membership from FE and EE as well as from industry. The Center's overall objective is to enhance the science and engineering of materials synthesis and processing in order to meet the programmatic needs of the Department and to facilitate the technological exploitation of materials. The technical emphasis of the Center is on a number of focused multi-laboratory projects that draw on the complementary strengths of the member institutions in their ongoing research programs. One project selection criterion is: ''existing or potential partnerships with DOE Technologies-funded programs.'' Current projects include: Synthesis and Processing of Carbon-Based Nanostructured Materials, Granular Flow and Kinetics, Isolated and collective Phenomena in Nanocomposite Magnets, Smart Materials Based on Electroactive Polymers, Design and Synthesis of Ultrahigh-Temperature Intermetallics; Nanoscale Phenomena in Perovskite Thin Films, Controlled Defect Structures in Rare-Earth-Ba-Cu-O Cuprate Superconductors, and The Science of Localized Corrosion.
In the area of Department crosscutting programs, the Office of Science managed SBIR/STTR program is another excellent example of coordination and cooperation The SBIR/STTR program allows for the allocation of a number of Technical Topics in the annual SBIR/STTR Program Solicitations in proportion to a program's contribution to SBIR. To help maximize the integration between the BES and the FE and EE programs, topics are prepared by FE and EE staff in coordination with BES staff and are submitted as Technical Topics to the SBIR Program's Annual Phase I Solicitation under BES' allotted SBIR/STTR Technical Topic allocation. The Technical Topic Managers are FE and EE staff who conduct the evaluation of the applications. The project management of all Phase I and Phase II SBIR/STTR awards that result are also the responsibility of EE Technical Project Managers. The BES staff provide coordination and assistance. In turn, BES prepares a number of topics with the coordination of FE and EE staff. BES staff are responsible for the evaluations of applications to these topics and management of the resultant research awards.
Page 281 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
The Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC) provides valuable, independent advice to the Department of Energy on the Basic Energy Sciences program regarding the complex scientific and technical issues that arise in the planning, management, and implementation of the program. BESAC's recommendations include advice on establishing research and facilities priorities; determining proper program balance among disciplines; and identifying opportunities for interlaboratory collaboration, program integration, and industrial participation. The Committee primarily includes representatives of universities, national laboratories, and industries involved in energy-related scientific research. Particular attention is paid to obtaining a diverse membership with a balance of disciplines, interests, experiences, points of view, and geography.
Office of Science Priorities
Q3. It appears that each of the DOE Advisory Committees assists the Office of Science in establishing priorities in the fields under their purview. But what about overall priorities? What is the best way for the Office of Science to establish priorities among fields of science, and not just within them?
A3. Priorities among fields of science funded by the federal government must be coordinated at highest levels of the Administration. It is imperative that the science and technology (S&T) related offices of the Executive Office of the President (OSTP and OMB) take a lead and active role in setting the priorities across S&T investments in the Federal Government with input from the scientific community including the science advisory committees and other groups like the National Academy of Sciences. Within the Department of Energy's Office of Science, general programmatic direction for each of the six individual offices flows from the overall strategic plan and mission goals of DOE, a process that engages input from the advisory committees as well as individual scientists, policy makers, and the broader public. The chairs of the Advisory Committees have participated formally in the process of formulating DOE's strategic plan and that for the Office of Science (SC), and the Advisory Committees will be major contributors in future strategic plans as they evolve. SC management also utilizes the Committees in helping to resolve issues and advising them on priority setting by issuing specific charge letters on matters of high importance.
Page 282 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
One must also keep in mind that science is very much a bottom up endeavor. The best ideas come from individual scientists, who propose innovative research ideas. Scientists communicate with one another in meetings and workshops, which are mechanisms for establishing overall research directions in the various disciplines. The DOE Advisory Committees assist SC in establishing such workshops in DOE mission areas. The SC programs take the results of these workshops into consideration when developing their research portfolios and issuing Requests for Proposals.
Ultimately, the best proposals get funded based on peer review. This process helps shape the priorities among the field of science as exciting new research areas grow at the expense of more stagnate research areas that cannot survive under constant or constrained budgets. The Office of Science establishes priorities among fields of science in its mission areas as part of the annual planning and budget process. The SC programs propose their highest priority focus areas based on input from the scientific community. The Director, Office of Science, has to make decisions between the proposed initiatives from different areas of science based on the quality of the science, backing by the scientific community, the Administration's priorities, and budget caps.
Relationship Between Physical and Life Sciences
Q4. You stated in your testimony that ''in view of the role of physical science as the foundation for research in life sciences, DOE Office of Science funding should keep pace with the growth in the National Institutes for Health (NIH).'' This implies that all physical sciences are equally applicable to life sciences. Is this really true? Please justify this statement.
Page 283 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
A4. As the science community has called for an increase in federal research funding, it has repeatedly stressed the theme of the interconnectedness of science—the ability of progress in one field of science to benefit a totally separate field. Obviously, all of the individual disciplines within the physical sciences are not directly applicable to the life sciences. However, the vitality of one area of the physical sciences affects neighboring disciplines and the entire health of the physical sciences. For example, one might think that high energy physics might not have much applicability to the life sciences. However, the accelerator-related technology that was essential for creating the synchrotron radiation light sources now in much demand by life science researchers was developed by high energy physicists.
It has long been recognized that tools and concepts developed in the physical sciences can revolutionize the life sciences. One need only consider the impact of x-ray synchrotron radiation and MAD (multiple wavelength anomalous diffraction) phasing on macromolecular crystallography; both were developed within the Department's Office of Science. Many other DOE highlights illustrate the rapidity with which advances in the physical sciences are impacting the life sciences. Support for research in material sciences, lasers, spectroscopy, biosensors, micro-fabricated machines, and the computational sciences has a significant impact on many areas of the life sciences and medicine including the construction of artificial organs, the development of smaller, more sensitive instrumentation to diagnose and monitor disease, and assembly of cost efficient, more durable prosthetic devices for patient rehabilitation. The interdisciplinary nature of research requires close and significant collaboration between the DOE national laboratories as well as with the broader biomedical research communities at universities and medical research institutions.
Page 284 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
The development of instrumentation in the physical sciences contributes greatly to advances in the life sciences. Two recent examples are given here. First, new techniques of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) are being used to study the molecular structures of solid protein deposits implicated in brain diseases such as Alzheimer's Disease and BSE (Mad Cow Disease); both diseases involve the transformation of normal, soluble proteins in the brain (whose structure is known) into fibers of insoluble plaque (whose structure is largely unknown). Second, a nano-laser device has been shown to have the potential to quickly identify a cell population that has begun the rapid protein synthesis and mitosis characteristic of cancerous cell proliferation. Pathologists currently rely on microscopic examination of cell morphology using century-old staining methods that are labor-intensive, time-consuming, and frequently in error.
The DOE laboratories have been successfully involved in biomedical engineering since 1947. They are a national resource for applying the knowledge gain in the physical sciences to the life sciences because of the large number of talented investigators and the extraordinary science and technology applicable to medicine at the laboratories. For example, collaborations with physicists and chemists are needed to develop techniques for studying protein folding and for rational design of new drugs. During the past two decades bioengineering research has also benefited from rapid advances in nuclear physics, engineering, chemistry, and molecular biology. There is no reason to suspect that developments in the physical sciences will not continue to contribute to biomedicine.
Harold Varmus, the former Director of the National Institutes of Health, has frequently stressed the importance of all forms of research to the Nation's health and welfare. For example, Varmus said the following in ''New Directions in Biology and Medicine,'' the AAAS plenary lecture in Philadelphia, PA on February 13, 1998:
Page 285 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
''Most of the revolutionary changes that have occurred in biology and medicine are rooted in new methods. Those, in turn, are usually rooted in fundamental discoveries in many different fields. Some of these are so obvious that we lose sight of them—like the role of nuclear physics in producing the radioisotopes essential for most of modern medical science. Physics also supplied the ingredients fundamental to many common clinical practices—x-rays, CAT scans, fiber optic viewing, laser surgery, ECHO cardiography and fetal sonograms. Materials science is helping with new joints, heart valves, and other tissue mimetics. Likewise, an understanding of nuclear magnetic resonance and positron emissions was required for the imaging experiments that allow us to follow the location and timing of brain activities that accompany thought, motion, sensation, speech, or drug use. Similarly, x-ray crystallography, chemistry, and computer modeling are now being used to improve the design of drugs, based on three-dimensional protein structures. . .. These are but few of many examples of the dependence of biomedical sciences on a wide range of disciplines-physics, chemistry, engineering and many allied fields.''
New Research Opportunities
Q5. All of the witnesses identified new research opportunities in their fields that require more resources. Aren't there also areas in your field that are now mature and can be de-emphasized and that require less funding? How do we know if we are under- or over-spending in any field? Please comment.
A5. Scientific meetings and workshops are important mechanisms whereby the scientific community establishes and communicates research directions in the various disciplines. The DOE Advisory Committees, such as the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC), assists the Office of Science in establishing such workshops in areas important to DOE mission areas. The Office of Science takes the results of these workshops into consideration when developing their research portfolios and issuing Requests for Proposals. Ultimately, the best proposals get funded based on peer review. This process helps shape the priorities within each field of science as exciting new research areas grow at the expense of more stagnate research areas that cannot survive the intense peer review competition.
Page 286 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
For example, BESAC has been fully engaged in activities relating to nanoscale science, including the formation of Nanoscale Science Research Centers, and has clearly articulated that scientific understanding at the nanoscale is required for the development of larger functional systems that use nanoscale building blocks. A report of the workshop on Complex Systems outlined an exciting science agenda that integrates the disciplines of physics, chemistry, materials science, and biology to build on the foundations that now have been put in place by the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Currently, BESAC is charged with refining that research agenda. In the world ''beyond nano,'' it will be necessary to use atoms, molecules, and nanoscale materials as the building blocks for larger supramolecules and hierarchical assemblies. As was described in Complex Systems—Science for the 21st Century, the promise is nanometer-scale (and larger) chemical factories, molecular pumps, and sensors. This has the potential to provide new routes to high-performance materials such as adhesives and composites, highly specific membrane and filtration systems, low-friction bearings, wear-resistant materials, high-strength lightweight materials, photosynthetic materials with built-in energy storage devices, and much more.
Peer Review
Q6. You stated in your testimony that ''regular peer review and merit evaluation is conducted for all activities, except those Congressionally mandated, based on published procedures and criteria.'' This raises two questions. First, how does the rigor of DOE's peer review and merit evaluation process compare with that of NSF's. And second, why aren't Congressionally mandated activities also subject to the same process?
Page 287 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
A6. All research projects supported by the Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES) undergo regular peer review and merit evaluation comparable to those at NSF. The BES peer review procedures are set down in 10 CFR Part 605 for the extramural grant program and in an analogous process for the laboratory programs and scientific user facilities. These details of these peer review and merit evaluation procedures are described within documents available on the Internet (http://www.science.doe.gov/production/bes/peerreview.html).
At the request of the House Committee on Science, the GAO conducted a study to audit of the peer review procedures of BES. The resulting GAO report, ''Federal Research: DOE Is Providing Independent Review of the Scientific Merit of Its Research'' (GAO/RCED–00–109), 36 pages, April 2000) found that, ''On the basis of our review of available documentation from program and project files for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, the Office of Basic Energy Sciences. . .[followed] the merit review procedures they have established. . .[and] are performing merit reviews on projects or programs, are selecting reviewers with the requisite knowledge of the research, are requiring those reviewers to apply appropriate criteria in making their evaluations, and are using the merit review evaluations in making award decisions'' (page 15).
Beginning this year, the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC) will also evaluate the proposal review and selection process and provide advice on subprogram portfolios on a rotating basis, completing the entire BES program portfolio approximately every three to five years. This new procedure was initiated within BES to evaluate peer review and management practices on an ongoing basic similar to the activities of the Committee of Visitors at NSF.
Page 288 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Peer reviews are independent assessments of the scientific merit of research by experts having knowledge of the research area equal to that of the performers of the work. The purpose of peer reviewing research projects is to provide BES program managers with independent technical evaluations in order to help them make funding decisions between competing projects. Congressionally mandated activities already have received a funding decision, thus negating the purpose of the peer review.
Additional reasons hamper the peer review of Congressionally mandated activities. The mandated activity may not be a research project suitable for scientific peer review, or the performer of the mandated activities might not feel obligated to submit a proposal of sufficient detail that can be peer reviewed. Congressionally mandated activities of a research nature that occur over multiple years may indeed receive peer review by BES. An example of the latter is the Midwest Superconductivity Consortium (MISCON), which is no longer funded by the BES program.
Energy Biosciences Projects
Q7. How do Energy Biosciences projects differ from Biological and Environmental Research projects? What are the differences and similarities?
A7. The Energy Biosciences subprogram supports fundamental biological research providing the foundation for future biotechnologies related to energy production and conservation. The Biological and Environmental Research program supports basic research on the effects of energy production and use on the environment and human health. The disciplines covered by Energy Biosciences are the molecular plant sciences and fermentative microbiology. Biological and Environmental Research covers the environmental and ecological sciences, bioremediation, biomedical research, and human, animal, and microbial genomics.
Page 289 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
BES Grant Size
Q8. You noted in your testimony that over the past ten years, the average BES grant size has not changed. What is the average BES grant size and how does this compare with the average NSF grant size?
A8. The average grant by the Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES) in FY 2000 was $138,000/year compared to $107,000/year in FY 1990. Typically, BES grants run for three years. The average size of these BES grants is identical when corrected for inflation using OMB inflation indices. The salaries of researchers, however, increase at a faster rate than indicated by the OMB indices. Hence, the level of research effort supported by the average grant in BES has fallen over the past ten years.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports a broader range of activities than those in BES. For example, NSF funds the social, behavioral, and economic sciences as well as educational activities within their grant program. Such grants tend to be of smaller size than grants in the natural sciences. I do not have available the average size of an NSF grant in the fields of research similar to those in BES. However, the following information provides an interesting comparison.
In her remarks before the Consortium of Social Science Associations on December 4, 2000, Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director of NSF, stated that the average size of an NSF grant is $93,000/year and it's average duration is 2.8 years. She said that the average grant in 2000 is worth $1,000 less than the average NSF grant 40 years ago in real dollars. By comparison, the average size of an NIH grant is $283,000/year for an average duration of 4.1 years. NSF funds only about one-third of the 30,000 proposals it receives each year. Thirteen percent of the unfunded proposals are highly rated, which translates into nearly $1.5 billion in lost opportunities.
Page 290 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
''Put these items together, and it's no surprise we're all feeling like we're on a treadmill. Instead of spending time on research and in the classroom, we turn out proposal after proposal. As you can see, we need a new kind of deficit reduction in this country. We need to reduce the cost to the nation of not pursuing promising ideas and proposals, and the cost of not supporting and training the nation's most talented researchers, students and educators. These lost opportunities will eventually translate into lost jobs, lost wealth, and lost possibilities to improve our every-day lives.'' (Rita Colwell, ''NSF: Looking Ahead,'' http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/forum/colwell/rcOO1204cossa.htm)
BES User Facilities
Q9. You stated in your testimony that BES user facilities are operating ''very close to the margin.'' This being the case, why wouldn't it make sense to close down one or more of them, and applying the funds to the more productive facilities so that they can be fully utilized?
A9. BES undergoes formal peer review of its major scientific user facilities by BESAC to assess, in the aggregate, the scientific output and productivity of facilities. Expert panels have studied in detail the issue of closing one facility to benefit the others. For example, the 1997 BESAC review of the four synchrotron radiation light sources, ''Synchrotron Radiation Sources and Science,'' considered the future of the aging second-generation light sources (NSLS and SSRL) in light of the recently build third-generation light sources. The panel stressed the importance of all four facilities and emphasized the need to upgrade and revitalize the second-generation sources.
Page 291 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Several BESAC review panels also found an urgent national need for all the neutron scattering facilities, especially after the permanent closure of the High Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR). As it turns out, there are too few user facilities to serve the nation's needs, and all the BES user facilities are over subscribed. Each also serves an important regional research community, as these facilities are strategically located across the nation. It makes no sense to close a BES user facility down for fiscal reasons.
By stating that BES user facilities are operating ''very close to the margin,'' I was referring to the fact that the major facility budgets are front-end loaded. For example, the first 80 to 90% of the funds are needed to pay the base operating costs, while the last 10%–20% is what supports the users. Small reductions are magnified, and a 5% cut in the overall budget could reduce user support by 25%. Increasing operating funds to more fully utilize the facilities seems to be an independent decision from any decision to close down a facility (e.g., the HFBR).
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Professor Richard Hazeltine, Chair, Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee
REPUBLICAN MEMBER QUESTIONS:
Coordination Between DOE Science and NSF Research
Page 292 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Q1. DOE's Office of Science and NSF fund similar types of research, particularly in the physical sciences (high energy and nuclear physics, materials sciences, chemistry, etc.) How is DOE's research coordinated with NSF's to avoid duplication?
A1. The Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation have been working together since 1996 in the NSF/DOE Partnership for Basic and Applied Plasma Physics to provide a continuing basis for support for basic plasma physics. This cooperation is a natural one, since both agencies have programmatic interest in plasma physics. This cooperation is carried out under a Memo of Understanding between the two agencies signed in 1996. Under the Partnership, the two agencies jointly review and then independently fund highly reviewed proposals in basic plasma physics. There have been two joint announcements of funding opportunities made during the Partnership, in Fiscal Years 1997 and 2000. In other years, the agencies have worked together on an informal basis. At present, discussions are underway for a renewal of the Partnership.
Coordination Between DOE Offices
Q2. Much research funded by DOE's Office of Science is directly applicable to the work of other DOE Offices, such as the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, etc. How does the Office of Science coordinate its work with that of other DOE Offices and what role does your Advisory Committee play?
A2. I know just one thing about coordination between the Office of Science and other parts of DOE: that FESAC has played no role in it.
Office of Science Priorities
Page 293 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Q3. It appears that each of the DOE Advisory Committees assists the Office of Science in establishing priorities in the fields under their purview. But what about overall priorities? What is the best way for the Office of Science to establish priorities among fields of science, and not just within them?
A3. The overall priorities of the Office of Science can only follow from the Office's sense of its mission-from planning and policy decisions made at the highest levels of DOE. The Advisory Committees are poorly positioned to advise on these priorities. Even the best scientists are rarely competent to judge the importance of their own fields compared to others; indeed, such judgments usually involve societal and policy issues on which scientists have no special competence.
Relationship Between Physical and Life Sciences
Q4. You stated in your testimony that ''in view of the role of physical science as the foundation for research in life sciences, DOE Office of Science funding should keep pace with the growth in the National Institutes for Health (NIH).'' This implies that all physical sciences are equally applicable to life sciences. Is this really true? Please justify this statement.
A4. It is not true that ''all physical sciences are equally applicable to life sciences.'' Indeed there are important qualitative differences between various physical sciences in their application to life science: some directly bear on biological understanding (such as the details of cell chemistry, or the mechanism that allows muscle to function), while others provide instruments essential to biological research (such as MRI, magnetic resonance imaging). Similarly, some areas have a long history of contribution, while others have revealed their usefulness to lifescience research only recently. But it would be extremely difficult to rank the physical sciences in terms of their expected contributions to life science. When nuclear magnetic resonance was discovered, no one anticipated that it would lead to a pivotal tool in medical research; similarly the huge role of positron emission spectroscopy was not anticipated when the existence of the positron was first predicted-and so on. What is clear is that the role of physical science in biological and medical advances is crucial to our present progress in these fields, and growing rapidly in importance. The intent of my testimony was to express concern about the future of such contributions, which need to be appreciated and nourished.
Page 294 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
New Research Opportunities
Q5. All of the witnesses identified new research opportunities in their fields that require more resources. Aren't there also areas in your field that are now mature and can be de-emphasized and that require less funding? How do we know if under- or over-spending in any field? Please comment.
A5. Identifying areas in the DOE fusion energy science program that can be deemphasized or discontinued is a principal concern of FESAC—the central focus of many of our meetings. A prominent recent example of a program element that was terminated, consistently with FESAC advice, is the TFTR tokamak that operated at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. Because such devices are conceived with a broad scientific agenda, and because, in any vital research program, each scientific answer leads to several new questions, devices are terminated long before they have run out of things to explore. Indeed, fusion research programs have remained scientifically productive until the day they were discontinued. The decision to redirect funds has been based on the discovery of exciting new phenomena, of clear importance to fusion program objectives, which would be most effectively studied using new or modified facilities. Because of funding constraints, we can build such new facilities only by taking resources from an existing effort.
In other words, FESAC advice tries to balance the promise of new frontiers against the scientific productivity of existing projects. We consider fusion dollars to be overspent on a particular project if we find, usually in view of some proposed initiative, that directing its funding elsewhere would better advance fusion energy science.
Page 295 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
The last part of question Q5 may refer to over-funding of an entire field of science. Such a situation is too far from my experience for me to usefully comment.
NRC Report on Fusion Science
Q6. As you know, the National Research Council recently released its report, ''An Assessment of the Department of Energy's Office of Fusion Energy Sciences Program.'' It made seven specific recommendations, including one that called for the establishment of several new centers, selected through a competitive, peer-review process and devoted to exploring the frontiers of fusion science. What is the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee's FESAC reaction to the report and are its findings and recommendations consistent with the priorities of the program as seen by Committee?
A6. FESAC concluded that the NRC conducted a thoughtful and penetrating study of the magnetic fusion energy scientific research program. We appreciated the NRC's warm praise for the quality of fusion science, and we welcomed the NRC reinforcement of the fusion community's recent emphasis on the scientific foundations of fusion. In general, FESAC found the recommendations given in the assessment to be compatible with our own sense of the program priorities.
These statements are paraphrased from a letter of December 5, 2000, from FESAC to the Director of the Office of Energy Research, Dr. Mildred Dresselhaus. A subsequent letter (April 21, 2001) to Dr. James Decker, Acting Director of the Office of Science, confirmed the conclusions and addressed each NRC recommendation in detail. Copies of both letters are attached.
Page 296 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Burning Plasma Experiment
Q7. You stated in your testimony that ''a burning plasma experiment is within our reach, and it could be constructed at lower cost and higher confidence than would have been possible a decade or so ago.'' At what ''lower cost and higher confidence''?
A7. Some sense of the cost savings is indicated by the expected cost of the new Iter device, which is approximately half that of the original Iter. Alternative burning plasma experiments under consideration in the U.S. and elsewhere would cost still less. It is important to note that much of the saving (especially with regard to the Iter alternatives) reflects reduced experimental ambitions: shorter fusion pulse length and less thorough study of fusion power technology. But the reduced cost of Iter also reflects major advances in the physical understanding of plasma confinement since the original Iter was designed. In particular, progress in understanding and predicting plasma transport properties allows a design that is less ''over-built'' and thus less expensive.
Confidence levels are difficult to quantify, but it is significant that the U.S. fusion community is now nearly unanimously in favor of embarking on a burning plasma experiment. Some years ago the same community displayed a broad spectrum of views as to whether a burning plasma was within reach. In particular, some of the scientists who expressed the strongest reservations in the past have become strong supporters of the new initiative; they now consider the confinement issues sufficiently understood to allow construction to proceed with confidence in ultimate performance.
ITER
Page 297 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Q8. You also noted in your testimony that ''an effective U.S. role in an international burning plasma experiment would require us to enter negotiations with the other participants very soon.'' How soon?
A8. Our international partners are urging us to join the Iter effort right away, pointing out that only in that case can we participate in the allocation of responsibilities that they plan to complete in the next six to nine months. They want our involvement for our intellectual contributions and as a positive means of making further questions about our withdrawal moot. FESAC, on the other hand, has established a plan for evaluating various routes to a burning plasma experiment, some of which involve Iter. We are in the process of turning this plan into a systematic and coherent strategy, which should be complete within two years. (The asynchronism in these two schedules arises from skepticism on the part of the U.S. fusion community regarding the future of ITER. Should a construction decision be made soon, then the U.S. community would consider accelerating its own decision-making schedule.) If Iter goes ahead, with or without U.S. participation, we estimate that construction funding, following establishment of the formal agreement and then licensing, will not be applied until 2006.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Professor Frederick Gilman, Chair, High Energy Physics Advisory Panel
REPUBLICAN MEMBER QUESTIONS:
Coordination Between DOE Science and NSF Research
Page 298 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Q1. DOE's Office of Science and NSF fund similar types of research, particularly in the physical sciences (high energy and nuclear physics, materials sciences, chemistry, etc.) How is DOE's research coordinated with NSF's to avoid duplication?
A1. As stated in my written testimony, the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) that I chair reports to both agencies starting this year and they have jointly charged HEPAP with developing a twenty-year plan for the field. In the past, when HEPAP reported officially just to DOE, NSF representatives were present at all meetings. There has been good communication and coordination between the DOE and the NSF high energy programs for many years.
Coordination Between DOE Offices
Q2. Much research funded by DOE's Office of Science is directly applicable to the work of other DOE Offices, such as the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, etc. How does the Office of Science coordinate its work with that of other DOE Offices and what role does your Advisory Committee play?
A2. HEPAP reports to the Director of the Office of Science, who typically appears once or more per year at our meetings and informs us of the broader issues facing that Office. However, it is rare that we are directly consulted on matters outside the Office of Science. HEPAP itself is not involved in coordinating with the other DOE offices. If issues arise that involve other fields of science, HEPAP will request that appropriate scientists or officials from the relevant government agencies make a presentation at a HEPAP meeting.
Page 299 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Office of Science Priorities
Q3. It appears that each of the DOE Advisory Committees assists the Office of Science in establishing priorities in the fields under their purview. But what about overall priorities? What is the best way for the Office of Science to establish priorities among fields of science, and not just within them?
A3. HEPAP has expertise within the field of high-energy physics, but is neither charged nor constituted to establish priorities outside of particle physics. It is very difficult to establish relative priorities across different areas of science, and I do not have an opinion on how the Office of Science might do this.
Relationship Between Physical and Life Sciences
Q4. You stated in your testimony that ''in view of the role of physical science as the foundation for research in life sciences, DOE Office of Science funding should keep pace with the growth in the National Institutes for Health (NIH).'' This implies that all physical sciences are equally applicable to life sciences. Is this really true? Please justify this statement.
A4. The statement quoted above on the importance of physical science as the foundation for research in the life sciences is true, but it does not imply that all physical sciences are equally applicable at any given time. The various physical sciences contribute in diverse and different ways. An important example from our field is the accelerator science that was developed for high-energy physics. It has led to pioneering and leadership by the U.S. in synchrotron radiation facilities, mostly at DOE laboratories. These facilities have become indispensable tools in research in materials science, biology, chemistry, and medicine.
Page 300 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
New Research Opportunities
Q5. All of the witnesses identified new research opportunities in their fields that require more resources. Aren't there also areas in your field that are now mature and can be de-emphasized and that require less funding? How do we know if under- or over-spending in any field? Please comment.
A5. There are indeed areas that have been de-emphasized or terminated and our planning for the future incorporates turning off some facilities and experiments as others are turned on. In particular, the 1998 Subpanel of HEPAP laid out a strategy for U.S. high-energy physics for a decade with a central budget scenario of a constant-level-of-effort. That strategy balanced exciting near-term opportunities with preparations for the most important discovery possibilities in the longer-term. Difficult choices were made to end several highly productive programs and to reduce others. These included stopping the 800 GeV fixed target program at Fermilab, terminating operation of the SLC collider for the SLD experiment at SLAC, and dramatically reducing the AGS high-energy program at Brookhaven. The budgets of the last years have been such that additional cuts had to be made in personnel and physics, so that we are not fully realizing our investment in the new facilities at Fermilab and SLAC and not restoring some of the cuts made previously in the university program.
Fermilab and SLAC
Q6. What is your estimate of the additional FY 2002 funding that would be required to optimize facility run times at Fermilab and SLAC?
Page 301 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
A6. The high-energy budget proposed for FY 2002 already has been designed to put relative emphasis on running the Tevatron collider at Fermilab and the B-factory at SLAC as part of a strategy of trying to run the colliders in order to produce the data needed to potentially make great discoveries. This has meant that other parts of the program have had to endure painful cuts. The university-based high-energy program and the laboratories without operating high-energy accelerators took the biggest cuts. Thus, while the support for operation of the facilities at Fermilab and SLAC is not fully realizing our investment in them, additional funding for FY 2002 would be optimally used if applied to some parts of the university program and that at the laboratories without operating high-energy accelerators.
European High-Energy Physics Research
Q7. You stated in your testimony that European support for high-energy physics is ''much greater than in the U.S.'' How much greater?
A7. The U.S. and Europe have a comparable base of GNP and of scientists. The yearly funding level for just the two major European high-energy physics laboratories (CERN and DESY) is more than that for the whole U.S. program (DOE plus NSF). Additional sources of funding in Europe from the agencies in each country to their own national laboratories and universities makes total European support between 1.5 and 2 times that for the U.S. program.
Future Energy Frontier Facility
Q8. What options are being considered for a future energy frontier facility?
Page 302 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
A8. All three major regions of the world now see an electron-positron linear collider (LC) as the next major frontier facility in high-energy physics. Such a machine is essential to understand physics at the TeV scale, together with the LHC. Each of the regions has been making major strides in R&D towards a linear collider operating at energies up to a TeV. Its scale, both intellectually and financially, require the linear collider to be an international project from the start. The decision on whether to start construction of the linear collider will come in the next few years.
Long-Range High-Energy Physics Plans
Q9. Why is the High-Energy Physics Advisory Panel developing a long-range plan with a 20-year planning horizon? What is significant about 20 years?
A9. The scope of future energy frontier facilities in high-energy physics is such that the time needed for R&D, design, construction and commissioning of such a facility is in the neighborhood of twenty years. This is exemplified by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN which is now under construction: the original concept and R&D for the LHC started in the mid-1980's, and it is slated to be finished in the middle of this decade. Naturally, in light of the long lead-times, planning for high-energy physics in Europe and Asia is carried out with a similar time horizon.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Submitted to Dr. T. James Symons, Chair, DOE/NSF Nuclear Sciences Advisory Committee
Page 303 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
REPUBLICAN MEMBER QUESTIONS:
These questions where submitted to the witness, but were not responded to by the time of publication.
Q1. DOE's Office of Science and NSF fund similar types of research, particularly in the physical sciences (high energy and nuclear physics, materials sciences, chemistry, etc.) How is DOE's research coordinated with NSF's to avoid duplication?
Q2. Much research funded by DOE's Office of Science is directly applicable to the work of other DOE Offices, such as the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, etc. How does the Office of Science coordinate its work with that of other DOE Offices and what role does your Advisory Committee play?
Q3. It appears that each of the DOE Advisory Committees assists the Office of Science in establishing priorities in the fields under their purview. But what about overall priorities? What is the best way for the Office of Science to establish priorities among fields of science, and not just within them?
Q4. You stated in your testimony that ''in view of the role of physical science as the foundation for research in life sciences, DOE Office of Science funding should keep pace with the growth in the National Institutes for Health (NIH).'' This implies that all physical sciences are equally applicable to life sciences. Is this really true? Please justify this statement.
Q5. All of the witnesses identified new research opportunities in their fields that require more resources. Aren't there also areas in your field that are now mature and can be de-emphasized and that require less funding? How do we know if we are under- or over-spending in any field? Please comment.
Page 304 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Q6. You noted in your testimony that the Nuclear Sciences Advisory Committee's highest priority is to ''increase support for facility operation, increase investment in university research and infrastructure, and significantly increase funding for nuclear theory.'' What level of increased support are you seeking for FY 2002?
Q7. You stated in your testimony that the ''Rare Isotope Accelerator (RIA)'' is the Nuclear Sciences Advisory Committee's ''highest priority for major new construction.'' What is the Rare Isotope Accelerator and what is it estimated to cost?
Q8. You also stated that the Nuclear Sciences Advisory Committee strongly recommends ''the upgrade of CEBAF at Jefferson Laboratory to 12 GeV as soon as possible.'' What would such an upgrade provide scientifically and what would it cost?
Q9. Finally, you noted in your testimony that the Nuclear Sciences Advisory Committee ''strongly recommends that an underground laboratory be built in the United States and supports the proposal which has been submitted to the National Science Foundation.'' Please elaborate on this proposal.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Submitted to Dr. Robert C. Richardson, Vice Provost for Research, Cornell University
REPUBLICAN MEMBER QUESTIONS:
Page 305 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
These questions were submitted to the witness, but were not responded to by the time of publication.
Q1. You have proposed in your testimony two solutions to addressing the problems of science at DOE, with one alternative being to elevating the Director of the DOE Office of Science to the rank of Under Secretary for Science and Energy, with additional responsibilities as Science Adviser to the Secretary; and the second being to combine DOE science and energy programs with NIST, NOAA, and possibly USGS to form the major part of a new 21St Century Department of Commerce.''
Please elaborate on what you believe to be the pros and cons of each solution.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Submitted to Dr. Charles V. Shank, Director, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
REPUBLICAN MEMBER QUESTIONS:
These questions were submitted to the witness, but were not responded to by the time of publication.
Q1. What is the impact of the California energy crisis on the operation of your laboratory?
Page 306 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
Q2. In the past two years, there has been an increased DOE-wide emphasis on security. While most of the emphasis has been on the DOE weapons laboratories, the Office of Science labs have also been impacted. What has been the impact on your lab?
Q3. The most rapidly growing item in the Office of Science's budget has been for Safeguards and Security. How have these increases impacted your science programs?
Q4. You noted in your testimony that many of the buildings at your lab, as well as other DOE labs were built during or soon after World War II. How should DOE address this infrastructure problem?
Appendix 2:
Additional Material for the Record
73328u.eps
73328v.eps
73328w.eps
73328x.eps
73328y.eps
Page 307 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
73328z.eps
73328aa.eps
73328bb.eps
73328cc.eps
73328dd.eps
73328ee.eps
73328ff.eps
73328gg.eps
73328hh.eps
73328ii.eps
73328jj.eps
73328kk.eps
73328ll.eps
Page 308 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 4
73328mm.eps
73328nn.eps
73328oo.eps
73328pp.eps
73328qq.eps
73328rr.eps
Next Hearing Segment(3)