187 



Let me carry this world leadership question a little bit further. 

 Our national labs have an inherent interest in these kinds of re- 

 search projects. I am wondering if world collaboration tends to de- 

 tract or enhance our own national lab efforts in terms of world 

 leadership? 



Mr. Gavin. I think the only answer that can be given to that is 

 to look at Europe, where international collaboration has occurred, 

 to see what has been the outgrowth of that. I would say that there 

 is some indication that the program, the science program in fusion 

 in Great Britain has been inhibited a bit by the fact that that is 

 the site of the Joint European Torus. 



On the other hand, it appears that in France, Germany, and 

 Italy, that the national programs are vigorous and alive. And I 

 really don't have a basis for saying that the siting of the Joint Eu- 

 ropean Torus is the entire reason why that difference seems to 

 exist. 



I think that obviously in any collaborative venture, we would 

 have to look very carefully to see what elements of research should 

 be retained in our national laboratories. I think that this is not 

 only a matter of how you divide up the money, I think it is also a 

 matter of trying to make sure that the various apparent directions 

 of effort are adequately covered. 



I think that certainly fusion is at the point in development that 

 it would be a mistake to put all of the eggs in one basket at this 

 point. There are still some alternative devices and approaches 

 which need to be better understood. 



Mr. Packard. If we are considered to be poor partners in a col- 

 laborative effort or a cooperative effort internationally, what spe- 

 cific things do you think we ought to do to change that image or 

 that perception? If, in fact, your recommendations are carried out, 

 and we do move forward on an international basis and a coopera- 

 tive basis, then what should we do to change that perception? 



Mr. Gavin. Well, I think that obviously any agreement should be 

 approved at the highest level. I don't think it has to have, perhaps, 

 the full force of a treaty, but it ought to be the next level down 

 from a treaty. 



I would suggest that since we have introduced the innovation al- 

 ready of buying certain items on a multiple-year basis in the mili- 

 tary budget, that perhaps in some of these research budgets, that 2- 

 year budgets would not be unreasonable to provide an additional 

 stability to the program. 



I think also that in any international undertaking like this there 

 has to be two different kinds of committees involved to advise the 

 governments. I think there has to be a technical committee and I 

 think there has to be a committee that, in my jargon, would be a 

 group of businessmen, people who understand the financial impact 

 of these things and who perhaps are in a position to look forward. 

 The fusion program is certainly one where it takes a lot of long- 

 range looking forward to see what the potential industrial impact 

 is. This is something that, as long as you are operating in pure sci- 

 ence, say, in the supercolliders, it is not clear that there is any in- 

 dustrial fallout to come. But if you look at the fusion program 

 today, one would have to say that Japanese industry has been 



52-283 0-86 



