Welcome!

FESAC Long Range Planning Subcommittee Virtual Workshop will begin shortly...

​

Please ensure your name is listed correctly in Zoom (use “rename” (in participants list) if needed)

​

And please add (DPS) or (FST) or (BOTH) to your name in case we need to manually place you in a breakout session and feel free to add your pronouns

e.g. Troy Carter (BOTH, he/him)

Agenda

All times Pacific

​

8:00-8:40: Welcome, Overview/Goals, Questions for breakout discussions

8:45-10:15: Breakout 1: Merging FST/DPS Mission/Vision, Merged Values

10:15-10:45: Break

10:45-11:30: Whole group: report out on breakout 1

11:30-11:40: Remarks from Jim Van Dam

11:45-1:15: Breakout 2: Merging FST and DPS into a single strategic plan

1:15-1:45: Break

1:45-2:30: Whole group: Report out on breakout 2, closing

​

Goals for this workshop

1. Provide opportunity for Discovery Plasma Science and Fusion Science and Technology communities to interact, understand each others priorities and values
2. Gather input on how to “merge” the two plans in the CPP report (how to go about splitting the constrained budgets between FST and DPS priorities), working toward a consensus way forward for the LRP Subcommittee to address the charge

​

Ultimate goal is to have a compelling, consensus FESAC report that these two intellectually diverse communities can support with one voice

Reminder: 2018 FESAC Charge

• Charge from Steve Binkley (Nov 2018): FESAC-led long range planning activity for FES
• Charge covers entire FES portfolio: “…should identify and prioritize the research required to advance both the scientific foundation needed to develop a fusion energy source, as well as the broader FES mission to steward plasma science.”

​

Reminder: 2018 FESAC Charge

• Charge from Steve Binkley (Nov 2018): FESAC-led long range planning activity for FES
• Charge covers entire FES portfolio: “…should identify and prioritize the research required to advance both the scientific foundation needed to develop a fusion energy source, as well as the broader FES mission to steward plasma science.”
• Two part process, modeled after the P5 (Particle Physics Projects Prioritization Panel) and the Nuclear Physics planning process
• Letter indicates that APS DPP will lead the first phase (DPP Community Planning Process) of community-led activities (done, thank you!)
• Phase 2, led by FESAC/FESAC Subcommittee, will take input from Phase 1 to develop the final long range plan

Budget Scenarios

• “Your report should provide recommendations on the priorities for an optimized FES program over the next ten years (FY 2022-2031) under the following three scenarios with the FY 2019 enacted budget for the FES program as the baseline:”
• Constant level of effort (with OMB inflators = 2.2% yearly growth)
• Modest growth (2% above OMB inflators = 4.2% yearly growth)
• Unconstrained, but prioritized

CPP process resulted in community-led, consensus report

• Year-long community-led process. Whitepapers, webinars, town halls and 5 major workshops; Open process, with community review/vetting of draft reports
• Provides guidance for prioritization within Fusion Science and Technology (FST) (MFE, FM&T & IFE) and within Discovery Plasma Science (DPS) (GPS, HEDP); also considered four cross-cutting areas (Theory/Computation, Workforce, Diagnostics, Enabling Technology)

Why is consensus important? Look to P5 success

• The P5 planning process for DOE High Energy Physics is held up as an example for how strategic planning should be done within DOE
• Success tied to two things
• Conveys compelling scientific opportunities and clear, prioritized plan to exploit these opportunities
• Strong backing for the report from across the entire community
• The HEP community was able to “speak with one voice” in support of the plan. Large number of endorsing signatures to final report, more importantly voices across the community signaled support for the plan to DOE, NSF & Congress

Real impact on support for the field

Our goal: a strategic plan that can have the same impact via broad support from the FES-funded research community

The FES portfolio more intellectually diverse (and more diverse in stakeholders) than HEP

• Plasma/fusion science and engineering is broad, interdisciplinary with varied applications
• APS DPP was chosen to lead CPP, however the FES-funded community spans many additional professional organizations
• ANS Fusion Energy Division, IEEE Nuclear & Plasma Sciences Society, APS DAMOP (Gaseous Electronics Conference), APS DPF & DPB (beams/plasma accelerators), American Geophysical Union, …
• Strong ties to industry: fusion (FIA), semiconductor processing, aerospace, medical applications, …
• Makes our task more challenging but also presents an opportunity: broad endorsement across these communities would send a powerful message

CPP report is foundation for our work

• CPP report conveys compelling scientific & technology development opportunities, spanning fundamental science, to plasma-based technology, to urgent development of fusion power in the US
• This is the foundation of the final plan, our report will point to the CPP report
• CPP report expresses consensus prioritization guidance that is the result of significant work by the community
• A top priority of the FESAC LRP Subcommittee is to maintain and build on that consensus so that the final plan is something that the entire FES-supported community can get behind
• We’re performing all of our work with this goal in mind

Need to go beyond the CPP to address the charge

• The CPP accomplished a great deal and provides a wealth of information, but we need more to fully address the FESAC charge
• CPP did not attempt to address the budget scenarios, did not cost initiatives and programs
• CPP process resulted in consensus guidance for prioritization within DPS and FST, but not across the entire FES portfolio
• Did not have sufficient time to have conversations between subareas so that each can understand the other’s priorities and discuss how the plan can accommodate priorities across the whole portfolio

Need to go beyond the CPP to address the charge

• The CPP accomplished a great deal and provides a wealth of information, but we need more to fully address the FESAC charge
• CPP did not attempt to address the budget scenarios, did not cost initiatives and programs
• CPP process resulted in consensus guidance for prioritization within DPS and FST, but not across the entire FES portfolio
• Did not have sufficient time to have conversations between subareas so that each can understand the other’s priorities and discuss how the plan can accommodate priorities across the whole portfolio

Why we are here today

Subcommittee making good progress but has addressed DPS and FST independently thus far

• For more details, tune into FESAC meeting next monday (Aug 24) — hour long presentation
• Subcommittee has been working incredibly hard over the last several months (up to 10+ hours a week on Zoom together):
• Have essentially finished costing CPP facilities and programs (one or two facilities wrapping up this week and next)
• Have agreed to framework, based on CPP report, for doing prioritization and constrained scenarios and are converging on how to address these scenarios within the FST and DPS parts of the program separately
• Last piece of the puzzle: how do we “merge” the two plans under constrained scenarios. Focus groups provided some information, more input needed from you today.

First step to gather input: focus groups June 11-July 2

• Continue to engage people from DPS and FST together to answer outstanding questions
• Allow people to provide input on program “balance” questions that remain
• Review cross-cuts and community synergies

​

• Multiple emails sent inviting participation. Focus groups added and interviews offered to accommodate those interested.
• Nine groups between June 11 and July 2, 2020
• N = 90
• Groups were mixed with members from each the Discovery Plasma Science and Fusion Science and Technology communities.
• Aggregated by early career, mid-senior career, graduate students, women, and underrepresented minorities.
• Did not attempt to solicit consensus on questions asked, however, there were several areas were multiple people were in agreement on a topic.

Purpose:

Process:

Focus groups: topics & tone

• How can the final strategic plan best incorporate all elements of the field in a way that represents each group’s interest areas?
• “Program balance”
• Are there additional cross-cuts (beyond Theory and Computation, Measurement and Diagnostics, Enabling Technology, and Workforce Development)?
• Areas of enthusiasm regarding the CPP report
• Unique issues relative to distinct populations within the community

​

• Interest is high – both in participating in the focus groups and supporting the community strategic planning effort overall
• This has been a lengthy process - much has been provided already
• Eager to see the report, and any iterations along the way as is possible
• Enthusiastic and constructive

Topics:

Tone:

Focus groups: Highlights

Significantly less discussion about potential additional cross-cuts

Balance does not mean equal or the same. Some didn’t like the word ‘balance’.  

Critical for program balance and down selection of projects:

• Transparency, e.g., what the criteria used were, why decisions were made, feedback offered
• A clear and compelling vision and mission – that is high level enough for everyone to see themselves
• Reliance on the Phase 1 CPP report for project information, rankings, values, PACs, etc.
• Inclusivity – solicit input from a broad audience
• No surprises — show the community a draft if possible, have good connection to the Phase 1 report, update the community along the way
• Workforce concerns are important — recruiting new students, training students, keeping people in the field, making sure the people to accomplish technical goals are available
• Demonstrate thought to workforce/program transitions needed if suggest cuts 
• ​

Focus groups: Highlights, cont.

Very few people felt that they understood other parts of the field well enough to make budget decisions.

Efforts to bring the community together and professional associations have helped

The committee’s job is difficult; On board with the end goal being a comprehensive report that was understandable and people could live with.

Many desire change, understand that can be hard and that everyone may not be happy.

Desire to repeat the process every 5 years.

An area that people felt was not fully addressed in the current process was outreach to the public.

​

Focus groups: misconceptions

• Some people think the selection of APS-DPP to help organize the Phase 1 part of the process was symbolic.  They believe that because FES selected APS-DPP, that meant that any scientific topic that a member of APS-DPP works on is in scope for the report, and if it isn’t a topic that is a focus in APS-DPP, it may not be considered for the plan.
• There was a tendency for people to talk about fusion equals application/movement away from science and DPS as working on pure science that has no application.

​

Goals for this workshop

• Provide opportunity for DPS and FST communities to interact, understand each others priorities and values
• Gather input on how to “merge” the plans (how to go about splitting the constrained budgets between FST and DPS priorities), working toward a consensus way forward for the LRP Subcommittee to address the charge

Ultimate goal is to have a compelling, consensus final report that these two intellectually diverse communities can support with one voice

Breakout Prompts

non-ITER-Project Budget Breakdown FY15-19 (k$)

5 year totals (excluding ITER project)

(With ITER Project costs, the DPS fraction is ~10%. e.g. for FY 19 ITER SP1 adds $132M to FST so DPS fraction with ITER included is 10.1%, but our charge has us considering the non-ITER-project budget only)

Reminder: CPP Community Agreements

Take Space, Make Space

Ouch Oops

Respect the pronouns of others

Lean into discomfort

No Quick Fixes

​

Recognize that Intent ≠ Impact

Address the Problem not the

Person

Consensus is not Community

Self-Care is Revolutionary

Private thoughts, public meeting

Ground Rules for Breakouts

• All participate – in your own way
• Manage talk time
• Respect difference – strive for commonality
• Assume positive intent
• Terms of Confidentiality – Content ok / Attribution not ok
• Stay on topic – leverage the Parking Lot

​

​

​

Breakout groups

• Two primary discussion areas:
• Merging FST/DPS Mission/Vision and/or Values
• Merging FST and DPS into a single strategic plan
• Organized into diverse groups: representation from FST, DPS, the LRP Subcommittee, FESAC and DOE.
• Note that LRP, FESAC and DOE will primarily be observers (LRP members can help answer questions about process, etc)
• Zoom will direct you to your group and bring you back at the allotted time.
• Each group has two appointed participants who will help facilitate the discussion and take notes.

�

Breakout groups

• Remember the ground rules plus…
• Share talk time
• Focus on the break-out prompts (or use the ‘parking lot’)
• Will start with introductions – please be brief
• For questions, LRP subcommittee member in your group
• Following discussion, large group conversation. All group notes sent to Troy following the session. (All groups may not have time to report out.)
• If you have technical or content related questions/issues, contact Troy: text 310-633-1618, tcarter@physics.ucla.edu

Back Up Focus Group Feedback

Early Career

N = 28; 3 sessions

What types of things are you especially excited about to see in the report?

• Myself - either my area, my input to the process, or what I can see myself doing for the next 10 years.
• A consolidated mission and vision for FST and DPS. Liked the clear mission and vision in the Phase 1 report – keep it.
• Change from the status quo: new investments, even if it’s not mine. Bold and different pathway forward. Build excitement that industry is making an impact on the world.
• NTUF to have a better name.
• A more forceful and impactful workforce development plan with funding.
• Personal research areas.
• Urgency towards fusion energy.
• University involvement to bring in more students and visibility for plasma in the field of physics.
• PPPL summer course (all online for the first time; more than 400 people). Helps outreach / recruiting.
• Frontier science mission for HEDP and the energy side of IFE included in FES.
• A clear roadmap. A graphic(s) with milestones, dates, priorities.
• More young people getting involved in the field.
• A bigger emphasis on DEI

Unique to You (Early Career)

• Struggle to find funding, especially for early career researchers.
• As students come out of PhD programs, it is often informal networking or collaboration that leads them to their next job. Would be great to have better ways of connecting graduating students with opportunities.
• Mentoring is so important for the early career stage.
• Some of the field feels like an ‘old boy’s network’. When mentoring is informal, it can lead to advancement for only a certain type of person.
• The field is dominated by senior people. Doesn’t feel like there are opportunities to lead as early career scientists. Some of this may be related to having few, large devices. If there were smaller and midscale devices, more early career people could be in leadership positions at those devices.
• DEI is critical in the early career stage. It can be intimidating starting out, so we need a better culture and fair policies to keep people in the field.
• There are many skills needed for a career outside of technical knowledge. They need to be recognized for their importance and become part of the training of new scientists.

Women

N = 9; 1 session

What types of things are you especially excited about to see in the report?

• The cool research from all across the field highlighted.
• A structured plan that is understandable by the public. We need better public outreach and raise public awareness of fusion and plasmas
• Educational aspects
• New and innovative research. I can be excited to work on a new area, no matter if it’s fundamental or applied, as long as it is impactful and interesting.

​

Unique to You (Women)

• Want to make sure that DEI is also prominent in the Phase 2 report.
• We need more women in this field.
• We have to think about retention, not just recruiting. For example, having a more senior woman as a mentor made the difference for some people to stay in the field.
• There is a perception for young women in the field that you have to be strong, tough, and loud. Would like it if the culture didn’t require this, so it is ok to be human, have trouble, have work-life balance struggles. As an early career woman, don’t feel like I have the freedom to admit that anything is ever wrong. This culture shift would benefit men too because they’re not superhuman and also have struggles.

Graduate Students

N = 6; 1 session

What types of things are you especially excited about to see in the report?

• IFE as part of the energy mission.
• A cohesive identity for American fusion; to see a strategy that distinguishes us from the rest of the world.
• The active diversification efforts to bring in more genders, races, etc. A culture shift in the field to be more inclusive.
• More medium and small projects. (Help bring diversity of thought and show progress faster than waiting decades for a huge project to end).

Unique to You (Graduate Students)

• Not nearly enough plasma graduate students. Need more outreach to undergraduate students to get them to know/be excited about the field.
• Plasma research is rarely its own department, so have to seek it out in other departments. This hurts its visibility to students.
• Undergraduate students rarely know about big flagship devices at national labs, but will interact with the small and mid-scale experiments at their university. Key to recruiting new students.
• Need to retain students who train in plasma. They need to see something exciting for them to choose to stay and work in plasma.
• Graduate students are aware of the joke of fusion always being 30 years away. Want this report to make a difference so we can achieve fusion energy in our careers.
• Public outreach needed to see fusion as part of climate change and energy solution for the US.
• Need fundamental change in the program if we want to get to fusion energy.
• Excited to see us push to build an FPP, want to see change in the program to do that.
• Maintain caution that we don’t overpromise what fusion can achieve and when and disappointing the public.

Underrepresented Minorities

N = 8; 1 session

​

What types of things are you especially excited about to see in the report?

• Proposal funding in DOE linked to workforce development and DEI. Any funded proposal would have to have some aspect of workforce and/or DEI
• Emphasis on the cross-cuts
• A plan to incorporate new people into the community. Hear from recent graduates that it is difficult to obtain a permanent position, get into cycle of multiple post-docs. If people can’t find a permanent position, will leave and go to industry or other area.
• A specific plan for how to be more diverse and bring in more young people, not only underrepresented minorities.

Unique to You (Underrepresented Minorities)

• If we’re serious about DEI, that needs to be part of the reward structure. Can’t do all these activities in our free time.
• If funding is tied to DEI efforts in institutions, that could be an incentive to make change.
• If something like bystander intervention, unconscious bias, etc. training is required for all PIs, the training needs to be well done and the same everywhere. Otherwise some institutions will take it seriously and others won’t.
• Would like something like a “broader impacts” section for all grants in FES that is quality controlled and monitored. It can do harm if someone with no idea about DEI tries to start a program. Also, would want the activities to be quality over quantity—not just listing a bunch of activities on your CV to check the box. (several agreed)
• More than just the underrepresented minorities need to participate in DEI efforts. Those efforts need to be valued (funding is given and/or must do the DEI in a positive way to receive research funding). We may need outside experts to know the best approach.

Mid and Senior Career

N = 39; 3 sessions

What types of things are you especially excited about to see in the report?

• Affirmation of the fusion energy mission and linkage to some of the Strategic Objectives from phase 1 report.
• A push for fusion as a way to decarbonize
• A big vision that is exciting.
• New innovative concepts like IFE.
• Some bold steps and an urgency for fusion energy
• As impactful as possible statement of the DPS side research
• Midsized projects. Multiscale projects and dynamic team projects.
• Support for university research in theory and experiment
• Clarity on what is the scope for different agencies that also fund plasma research.
• Emphasis and better integration among technology, materials, and tritium research with the rest of the fusion program.
• How the US sets itself apart and compliments the worldwide research.
• More emphasis on engineering simulation as a design tool and in general integration of the engineering aspects with the plasma program.
• ITER included in the program.
• A community wide vision for how to handle coding and simulation and coordinate across the program.
• Realistic cost estimates for large facilities.
• How my personal research can fit in.
• An emphasis on DEI and making a more welcoming culture for everyone.
• A believable plan that looks like we can move forward on it.
• Alignment with other reports going on recently (NA Burning Plasma Report, Plasma Decadal, others)
• More than a wish list of everything. Want a real strategy and a clear plan – then I’ll be happy no matter the details.
• A plan for working with private industry.
• Clarity on what DOE is able to do or not do for building an FPP.

​

Unique to You (Mid and Senior Career)

• Typical grants are 3-5 years. If you have one big grant that gets cut, it can be difficult to transition because you’re not well known outside your area. Multi-institution teams help so no one institution or person depends 100% on one project. (some agreed)
• Make things easier for early and mid-career scientists to have funding continuity. This may require a new way of doing things.
• Need a transition plan for any large or mid-size facility shutting down. The senior people have bad past experiences with this and want to make sure it’s different next time.
• Want to have research that can be done in teams and with collaboration.

​