FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2079129296> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2079129296 endingPage "2037" @default.
• W2079129296 startingPage "2031" @default.
• W2079129296 abstract "Andrew Lawler's News & Comment article “Fusion panel scored for tipping results” ([14 Nov., p. 1219][1]) ignores the main issue.In six meetings over 6 months, a National Research Council (NRC) committee determined that some information relevant to its charge was best obtained from senior Department of Energy (DOE) officials responsible for the Science Based Stockpile Stewardship program. That was the purpose of the 6 December meeting Lawler describes, one quite in accord with NRC procedures. Lawler's article describes the meeting as between “physicist Steve Koonin of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, chair of the NRC panel, and DOE managers.” The full committee and its NRC staff were in attendance.Lawler also reports that “NRC Executive Officer William Colglazier says he was not aware of the meeting.” Although Colglazier was not aware of the conversations at the meeting, he was fully aware that the meeting was to be held (indeed, it is on the 6 December agenda, reproduced in the committee's report), but could not attend because he lacked the DOE clearances for the level of classified information required for this study.The headline of Lawler's article and the article itself also distort reality by implying that the committee prematurely revealed its findings. The senior DOE officials were told only that the committee to date had found nothing that would warrant stopping further work on the National Ignition Facility (NIF), but that its investigations were continuing. Given that every phase of the NIF project had been subject to continuous scientific and technical scrutiny, this observation was hardly revelatory. The committee also made it clear that its conclusions had not yet been formulated and that its report had yet to be written and peer-reviewed.The main issue is the NRC report itself, which was vetted through the National Academy of Science's rigorous review process. The committee's primary task was to assess the technical statutes of the NIF project and to make technical recommendations that would increase the likelihood that a national goal endorsed by both the Administration and Congress would be achieved. We believe that the report does so, making the legal barriers to its use by the DOE antithetical to the national interest. Those who are interested can judge the report for themselves at .# {#article-title-2}Response: Koonin's and Colglazier's arguments are with each other, not with Science. The main issue in my article was not the quality of the report, but whether the NIF committee abided by NRC rules. Disclosure by NRC panels of preliminary results to sponsors is a violation of academy procedures, as Colglazier noted in the article and as he continues to affirm. He still maintains that “what was done [by the Koonin panel] was not what the Academy wants.” Whether or not the preliminary findings were “hardly revelatory,” Koonin and Colglazier acknowledge that the NIF panel provided them to DOE managers before they were seen by NRC reviewers. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.278.5341.1219a" @default.
• W2079129296 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2079129296 creator A5034034266 @default.
• W2079129296 creator A5071811125 @default.
• W2079129296 date "1997-12-19" @default.
• W2079129296 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2079129296 title "Fusion Panel Meeting" @default.
• W2079129296 doi "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.278.5346.2031c" @default.
• W2079129296 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W2079129296 type Work @default.
• W2079129296 sameAs 2079129296 @default.
• W2079129296 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2079129296 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2079129296 hasAuthorship W2079129296A5034034266 @default.
• W2079129296 hasAuthorship W2079129296A5071811125 @default.
• W2079129296 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2079129296 hasConcept C158525013 @default.
• W2079129296 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2079129296 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2079129296 hasConceptScore W2079129296C138885662 @default.
• W2079129296 hasConceptScore W2079129296C158525013 @default.
• W2079129296 hasConceptScore W2079129296C41008148 @default.
• W2079129296 hasConceptScore W2079129296C41895202 @default.
• W2079129296 hasIssue "5346" @default.
• W2079129296 hasLocation W20791292961 @default.
• W2079129296 hasOpenAccess W2079129296 @default.
• W2079129296 hasPrimaryLocation W20791292961 @default.
• W2079129296 hasRelatedWork W2096946506 @default.
• W2079129296 hasRelatedWork W2130043461 @default.
• W2079129296 hasRelatedWork W2350741829 @default.
• W2079129296 hasRelatedWork W2358668433 @default.
• W2079129296 hasRelatedWork W2376932109 @default.
• W2079129296 hasRelatedWork W2382290278 @default.
• W2079129296 hasRelatedWork W2390279801 @default.
• W2079129296 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2079129296 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2079129296 hasRelatedWork W3004735627 @default.
• W2079129296 hasVolume "278" @default.
• W2079129296 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2079129296 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2079129296 magId "2079129296" @default.
• W2079129296 workType "article" @default.