604 



Agreements for implementation of cooperative projects must deal 

 satisfactorily with a number of factors that bear on policy 

 objectives, mutuality of purpose, and conditions for working 

 together. The principal factors are timing, compatibility of goals, 

 stability in the partnership, technology transfer, flow of funds among 

 partners, equitable distribution of the benefits of cooperation, 

 suitability of institutional framework, and workability of the 

 arrangments for project management. 



It is in these terms that the report discusses whether greater 

 cooperation is desirable and, if so, what might be undertaken and how. 



THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE 



The main task set for the committee was to recommend, for the 

 consideration of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) , courses of 

 action for international cooperation, analyzed with regard to 

 technical need, relevant national policies, workability, long-term 

 implications, and other criteria of suitability. (See Appendix A for 

 a fuller description of the Scope of Work.) It was expected that the 

 committee would not advise on the content of particular technical 

 projects and programs but would merely identify topics as candidates 

 for cooperative program definition. However, as the committee 

 approached its task, it soon perceived a lack of complete world 

 readiness for large-scale cooperation. Hence the problem of the 

 committee was more one of finding ways to move toward that readiness 

 than of straightforwardly analyzing technical proposals in terms of 

 well established criteria. 



Committee Inquiries 



The first step of the committee was to explore in some depth 

 viewpoints within the United States in order to fill out the structure 

 of the problem described in the preceding section. Thus, two 

 workshops were conducted to gather domestic views. It was thought 

 impossible to separate cleanly the technical, policy, and 

 organizational aspects of the question so that these might be dealt 

 with in different workshops. Consequently, all three aspects were 

 treated together. Two workshops, covering the same ground but with 

 different participants, were conducted in order to reap a diversity of 

 viewpoints and to ascertain those viewpoints that both groups agreed 

 on. These workshops solicited prepared inputs over a wide range of 

 experience. We heard from management levels of the fusion program of 

 DOE and from the various parts of the technical fusion community 

 itself. We heard from other parts of U.S. government — in particular, 

 from the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and from 

 Congressional staff. We heard individuals who had lived through prior 



