I am interested in attending the “Gov 2.0 summit” Sept. 7-8 to gather ideas for better ways for data and government to support fusion research. More about Gov 2.0 here.

This looks like a great place to network and find people that are interested in more effective approaches to large hairy problems like the fusion challenge. A place to brainstorm, and another class of expertise to recruit to the cause.

Many scientists in the fusion community agree that more government spending on diverse fusion projects is essential to advancement in fusion. There needs to be outside the box thinking, and researchers need the freedom to try bold ideas. That’s where the miracles might come from.

Alas, most government fusion money is spoken for in the big projects, and there isn’t public support for fusion to warrant an even bigger fusion budget. This leaves us at an impasse. (Note: Focus Fusion Society is also working on the “public support” “Pro-Fusion Culture” angle – that’s another topic!)

I think the fusion community needs to develop some ideas about how to leverage emerging technologies and networks so that instead of just asking for buckets of money, they have a more compelling case to present. This requires some introspection, and some cross-disciplinary collaboration with folks of the type you might find at a Gov 2.0 summit.

“Gov 2.0” is about the use of data; government release of data; more creative government policies and better leveraging of data. So there are several dimensions. All of which could provide better support for fusion science. Some ideas here which could be a function of Gov 2.0, but also private investor 2.0 and citizen 2.0 – I don’t want to limit it:

1) The first is technology itself. Communication technology can be better developed to help fusion via better data support and comparison (Gov comes in here, because they have all the data on file – here’s some data you can start building apps with. Minor problem for fusion community requiring introspection: many research projects are mired in secrecy, even the collegial ones. People don’t release data until they feel better about it. These issues need to be addressed.

There are many advantages to working out microformats and metadata on fusion projects and sharing them across projects (with the help of a government funded, or privately funded program) many people could start to design all kinds of fusion research supporting apps…. These would feed into support and feedback for researchers, as well as things you could pull out to put into digestible formats for public awareness and appreciation. If it’s not clear what I’m talking about, take a look at this article on open data and transportation.

2) Better communication and coordination among government funded research projects for components. For example, the LPPX crew continues to have problems with their switches – but aren’t there government funded projects elsewhere that have developed precision switches for a very different purposes and hence this information is not available? With metadata about things government is making – perhaps these components could be more easily found and shared/applied to vastly different projects. Match problems with solutions. Think of the metadata required to get that communication going.

3) More money. Yes, we can lobby the government for more $, and run the risk of the zero sum fight for $ that is already spoken for. But I think if the fusion community gets together and comes up with other creative funding strategies which focus not only on the volume of money, but look at creative policy – that might open something up.

Government fusion bonds, for example. Possibly in conjunction with a “fusion fund”. A combination of government and private investment capital. (think each one through separately, and then think of how they could work together).

One could develop a fusion fund which allows people to invest in multiple fusion projects at once, and government as well. It’s multiple projects so that the projects are encouraged to share information with each other. This leverages both cooperation and competition. It’s competitive (the big winner takes more), but collaborative (they all at least get some return by being linked up to each other – you hedge your bets). There are different variations of this – perhaps as a tax deductible for private investors until/unless the fusion pays off (Only one of the fusion projects in the funds needs to succeed – and you can allocate most of your investment to the one you think is the winner, but a portion goes to all of them.)

4) Gov 2.0 is also about technology being leveraged to release the “long tail” – microinvestors – right now, the only entities considered as funding sources for fusion are big government and big investors. But with technology, some SEC rules can and should be rethought. We could make the above fund have an exception for investments so that any person can invest in fusion without being accredited. They are limited by their income – can’t sell the house – but I bet a lot of private individuals would be happy to get the same deal as outlined above. And it’s paternalistic to deny them the opportunity.

These are some initial things that come to mind. I think it would be fruitful if a few fusion folk attended the above event and we brainstormed with people there. People outside of the fusion and government boxes. Do you see the possibilities?