697 



supporting technology development. A workshop, on the model o£ the 

 International Tokamak Reactor (commonly known as INTOR) , might meet 

 periodically to define questions to be answered by each country in the 

 interim between meetings, to discuss these answers, and to draft 

 tentative agreements. Such a workshop could formulate a cooperative 

 or collaborative program, guide its implementation, and monitor its 

 progress. Participants in this workshop should be permanent, so as to 

 establish continuity, and should have the stature and background to 

 address the technical and administrative aspects. 



A cooperative and collaborative program of the type suggested by 

 the JAERI leaders would work to the long-term disadvantage of the 

 United States because the Japanese would gain a disproportionate share 

 of the valuable industrial experience relevant to a next-generation 

 machine. However, the suggestion provides a starting point for 

 working out a more favorable program, perhaps involving a 

 collaboration (in the sense defined above) on an engineering test 

 reactor (FER in the case of Japan) . ITiere were indications from the 

 JAERI leaders that subsequent U.S. cooperation on a Japanese FER need 

 not be an essential element of the collaboration. 



Some attention must be paid to reconciling the Japanese "bottom-up" 

 and the U.S. "top-down" decision-making processes. U.S. fusion 

 program leaders might benefit by adopting, for their own programs, 

 some aspects of the Japanese procedure of developing a consensus among 

 the technical people involved. Such an approach would not only lead 

 to better thought-out programs, but would also lead to a greater 

 compatibility between the U.S. and Japanese technical program 

 objectives. On the other hand, a necessary prerequisite to useful 

 cooperation is agreement between the governments at the very top, 

 which embraces cooperation as national policy. 



