Tulse wrote: It seems to me that aneutronic and other “alt-fusion” approaches are in far greater need of champions, especially as they are often dismissed by Big Fusion supporters.

Per the draft above:

“We will pursue this purpose by developing and promoting effective strategies, initiatives and policies that support diverse approaches to fusion research”

Can you suggest wording that could make this more explicit? I DO want to convey that we are championing aneutronic and other “alt-fusion” approaches – that priority is given to these. We don’t have to say this in the bylaws, by the way. On the website, we just have a link to diverse, and that opens the whole case file on diversity.

If ITER ultimately produces something that can be turned into practical fusion power, it won’t need a non-profit society to help. So I don’t think advocacy for “fusion in general” in needed, so much as assistance to those approaches that aren’t supported by massive research funds.

The folks getting massive research funds don’t see it that way. They think they’re underfunded, too.