from Nature | News
Nature isn’t the only one pushing back — the NIF’s
funders in Congress also want answers. “We’re disappointed,” says one
congressional staff member, who spoke to Nature only on condition on
anonymity. Critics say that the lab’s enthusiastic promotion of the idea
that laser fusion could generate electrical power led many in Congress
to believe that they were funding an energy project, when in fact laser
fusion is decades from producing electricity. “The lab overemphasized
and oversold the energy aspect of the NIF, at the expense of the very
important and successful work it was doing in stockpile stewardship and
basic science,” says a senior scientist familiar with the NIF programme.
The
NIF’s current director Ed Moses bridles at accusations that ignition
was overemphasized. “I don’t think it was oversold or undersold. It
just was.” Moses insists that “remarkable progress” has been made in the
past 16 months, since the NIF began working with hydrogen-pellet
targets. “The goal was to do the initial exploration of the ignition
conditions and see where we were, which is what we’ve done.”
Keeping
momentum in the ignition campaign may be crucial, because many in
Congress still believe in the energy-research mission being pushed by
the lab. Lawmakers have mandated that a new plan for reaching ignition
be delivered to them by the end of the month. Politicians are ready to
accept that it may take longer than originally stated, but they need to
see evidence that it is on course, the congressional staff member says:
“It can’t just be an open-ended: ‘Just give us money, we promise we will
do good science’.” And if the NIF fails to reach its ignition goal in a
few more years? “Then we’ll have to evaluate whether it’s worth
continuing to fund the facility.”
7 comments:
Kudos to the author.
He let Ed speak for himself, and in less than 50 words, he presented the status and debunked the myth.
Elsewhere within it is suggested a gullible legislative virgin might have been fooled and now is disappointed. More likely legislators and staff do no listen carefully enough to understand what they are being briefed.
The communication challenge, as the article states is to present the likely outcomes, the promise and risks. Then, if approved, proceed to discover what science presents itself.
It is the presenters duty to at least make sure the listener is awake, comprehension cannot be assured.
The ordinary listener cannot merit a seat at university introductory "Physics for Presidents" "mick", (mickey mouse course), yet this person is expected voters to have insights and make decisions about complex science policy.
Democracy is messy and amusing.
November 8, 2012 8:08 PM
WTF
Typical strategy for Ed to twist the truth when it does not line up with his fantasy narrative
Is it ironical that Ed looks like Harpo Marx (with dark hair) with Parney appearing as the stuffed duck? Harpo doesn't speak, honk, honk, ...this is a real charade!
So Ed is basically saying that the issue regarding the con job is oversimplifying more complex issues? Gimme a break. We don't care why he felt justified to perpetuate a con job. We don't care what kind of pressures he is under. We are calling a spade "a spade.". NIF was oversold by Ed and Tomas and the like.. How else can you explain all of the historical events? Someone put a gun to his head to perpetuate a fantasy? More complex science policy? Gimme a break. Take responsibility for your actions. And NO the ends don't justify the means. Such wanton willingness to con the public and public figures shows a fundamental flaw in his personality and moral compass.
I won't tolerate any disparaging analogies of Harpo Marx. Harpo was a great actor. Stop it now.
Post a Comment