The U.S. is an unreliable Scientific Ally

Norman Neureiter has an article titled 'The Role of the US in Promoting Global Science" in the current Bridges. He is a former Science Adviser to the Secretary of State, and currently is the director of the AAAS Center for Science, Technology, and Security Policy. The article is as you would expect, clear and informed by a long and distinguished career in international science and technology. I quote one section of the paper, to underline its importance:

If we are going to expect responsibility from other countries, we must be responsible ourselves. We must keep our international agreements. We must be good partners. One of the potentially promising, but in practical terms extremely challenging, solutions for the energy problem is fusion energy – in essence, a controlled hydrogen bomb confined in a magnetic bottle.

This past year, after some 24 years of struggle, of ups and downs, of negotiations and research, a formal coalition of Russia, the EU, Japan, the US, China, South Korea, and India was finally formed through intergovernmental agreement to build ITER – a huge fusion experimental facility. This is the next critical step in seeing whether this approach to an ultimate source of energy can possibly succeed. It is being built in France and the US is a partner for only 10 percent of the perhaps $10–20 billion that will be needed over the 10 years of construction and 10 years of operation of ITER.

The US does not have a great reputation as an international partner in big intergovernmental projects – even when we have been responsible for starting them, as was the case with ITER. But after six years of work to make ITER an international reality since the US rejoined the project after having dropped out as a result of congressional pressure in 1998, the final agreements were signed last year. Only a few months later, in the chaos and confrontational rhetoric of the recent omnibus funding appropriations bill, Congress reduced the US contribution to ITER to zero for this year. It has produced a torrent of complaints from abroad, and it is not clear how the problem will be solved. Nothing has yet happened though there are rumors that something may be included in a supplemental appropriations bill, which has not yet surfaced.

Comment: The failure of the Government to live up to an international commitment that had been so long and so completely vetted is itself wrong and sure to anger our collaborators.

You only need to drive by a gas station to see why we need an alternate energy source. Hydrogen would seem to be the best alternative for powering cars in the future, but that is going to demand huge amounts of electrical energy to generate the hydrogen. Hydrogen fusion reactors would seem the best long term alternative for generating that electrical energy, and the ITER is an important step in the development of that technology. The United States, as the world's richest country has a responsibility to help fund the center. If we want to be a leader in the development of commercial fusion reactors in the future, as we sure do if only for commercial reasons, we should be participating the the ITER.

Not only is fusion power an important element in the long term strategy to prevent further global warming, it offers an important tool for water desalinization, which may be the key to avoiding water related conflicts which would dwarf the conflicts over land of the past. Huge amounts of energy from a supply that would not be exhausted for centuries are a potential solution to many of the problems of the coming century.

What is the Government thinking of? Or perhaps our leaders are not thinking at all! JAD