HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobaaxbb0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
DOCUMENT RESURE
05655 - [B124 2,13]
[Need for Improvements in the Evaluation System fox Unsolicited
Nuclear Fusion Research Proposals]. ENE-78-63; B-164105 April
26, 1978. 9 pp.
Report to Secretary, Department of Energy; by Monte Canfie'.d,
Jr., Energy ard Minerals Div.
Issue Area; Enerqy j1600).
Contact: Energy and Minerals Div.
Budget Function. Natural Resources, Evvironuent, and Energy:
Energy (305).
Orqanization Concerned: Department of Energy: Office of Fusion
Energy; Fusion Energy Corp.
Conqre-sional Relevance: House Committee on Science and
Technology; Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
The system the Department of Energy uses for assessing
unsolicited proposals in the fusicn area needa to be improved to
assure that all potential approaches 1o fasion power are
objectively and consistertly evaluated. The Departmentfs
Division ol Magnetic Fusion Energy (MFE), now the Gffice o
Fusion Energy, uses varying procedures for reviewing unsolicited
proposals. Proposals are sent to the rational laboratories and
other experts in the area tor review or are reviewed by a panel
of scientists selected for their competence in the area under
consideration. MFE's procedures for evaluating the unsolicited
proposal from the Fusion Energy Corporation (FEC) were reviewed.
Following review by a technically qualified pinel, 11FE declined
to tund FEC's proposals for fusion research based cn the lack of
promise of the proposed concept and on MFE Frcgram priorities.
Questions aoout the issues of similarity and identicalne~s
between devices raised some queries atout the effectivenaiss of
kFE's evaluation system. Since the emphasis must be on ftrmal
and systematic evaluation procedures to ensure that reascnable
and scientifically sound evaluations have been performed, the
development of such procedures should consider the need for: a
determination that potential panelists do not have direct
financial interests in proposals under review, explicit
provision for the expression ot minority views in panel reports,
and an independent appeal process and administrative review
outside9 the technical program. The Secretary of Energy should
direct MFE to develop and issue standard review procedures and
require that a determinaticn be made cf the adequacy of such
procedures. (RRS)](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobaaxbb0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)