Sir — Your Editorial “Time for Japan toshine?” (Nature 427, 763; 2004) clearlypresents the necessity of building ITER,formerly the International ThermonuclearExperimental Reactor. But I must say — asa European negotiator in the ITER talks — that, in trying not to be Euro-parochial,you do injustice to the role played byEurope in controlled fusion and in ITER.

Indeed, there is no mention of Europe’suncontested leading role in fusion, nor ofthe fact that data from the largest and best-performing machine, the Joint EuropeanTorus (JET) — which is above par —proved essential in designing ITER and increating our confidence that ITER willmeet its aims. The European Union (EU),more than any other partner, has providedconstant, substantial support to the ITERproject since its inception. The remarkablesupport given by Japan should also bementioned at this point, although in termsof financial and human resources it hastaken place at a significantly lower level.

Since July 2001, the EU has kept theproject alive by spending €160 million

(US$197 million), at a time when theUnited States had left the project. Yourassertion that political and public supportfor ITER is less than whole-hearted inEurope does not rest on facts. TheEuropean Council of Ministers decidedunanimously to present Cadarache, France,as the site, with reference to the financialestimate of costs made by the EuropeanCommission. The people living aroundCadarache support ITER, and the region ofProvence–Alpes–Côte d’Azur unanimouslyagreed to pay €447 million towards itscosts. Although you say that Japan has agreater commitment to future energysources, the legal framework for licensingITER does not yet exist in Japan —whereas the licensing procedure hasalready started in Cadarache.

Nature correctly states that, if Europe’scase is technically strongest, then Japan’scompensation should include internationalcontribution to an upgrade of the JT-60tokamak to achieve critical science on theway to Demo, the engineering prototypereactor. But the EU negotiators deplore the

correspondence

NATURE | VOL 428 | 11 MARCH 2004 | www.nature.com/nature 119

fact that the United States and Japan refusea direct and objective comparison of thetechnical assets of the European andJapanese sites. Is this because Cadarachemeets most of the nine criteria better?

For the above reasons, we feel that theITER partners should now quickly decideto locate ITER in Cadarache, and that this decision should be accompanied by acommitment at the highest political levelto implement a broader approach to fusionenergy, well balanced between the needs ofthe programme and the capabilities of thepartners. The world programme couldinclude, in addition to ITER, the technologyprogramme required for a commercialreactor (for example, a material-testingfacility) and joint exploitation of ‘satellite’tokamak facilities. This coherent approachwould be the best way of getting on asquickly as possible with one of the mostimportant world challenges of this century.Paul Vandenplas Consultative Committee Euratom-Fusion, and Ecole Royale Militaire, 30 avenue de la Renaissance,1000 Brussels, Belgium

US science has neverbeen more coherentSir — Your Editorial “Budget let-downs”(Nature 427, 571; 2004) paints a picture ofUS science funding that differs astoundinglyfrom reality. The trajectory of R&D growththat you call “lacklustre” has risen morerapidly during the past four years than at any time in the past three decades: anaverage of 10% per year under the currentadministration. At US$132 billion, theproposed 2005 R&D budget is at an all-time high and consumes a greater fractionof the domestic discretionary budget thanat any time since the height of the Apollospace programme.

The proposals for priority programmesat the National Institutes of Health, theNational Science Foundation, NASA andother agencies are above current andanticipated inflation levels and are wellabove the 0.5% increase for other parts of the non-defence discretionary budget.Priorities are well defined, established withwide interagency planning, and generallysupported across agencies.

The proposed reorientation of NASAintegrates robotic and human exploration,strengthens the scientific rationale forhuman spaceflight, and sets long-termbudget guidelines that will protect NASA

science from overruns elsewhere. TheHubble Telescope decision is not connectedwith this reorientation, but strongly relatedto safety issues identified by the ColumbiaAccident Investigation Board.

The United States leads the world inproviding resources to pursue criticalresearch in areas such as environment,energy and global health. Some programmeshave been reduced or eliminated on thebasis of their performance record; othershave been enhanced. Investments in areasof research related to domestic security,including emerging infectious diseases,belie your puzzling statement that“pressing scientific challenges … evidentlycannot attract sufficient resources.”

Equally puzzling is your failure todiscover direction and coordination in a budget shaped by specific interagencyinitiatives for security, space exploration,climate change, nanotechnology,information technology and energyinitiatives. These are identified so explicitlyin the budget materials that one marvels atyour statement: “No sign of that this year”.On the contrary, the coherence andstrength of US science has never beengreater or more productive.John H. MarburgerOffice of Science and Technology Policy,Executive Office of the President,Washington, DC 20502, USA

More to consider aboutEuropean research body Sir — The Royal Society’s working paperon the European science base, discussed inyour News story “Europe warned againstresearch council” (Nature 427, 184; 2004),is much more positive about the creationof a proposed European Research Council(ERC) than you suggest. We do expressreservations about certain proposals, butthis does not mean that a more focusedand prioritized version would not benefitresearch within the European Union (EU).

One of the main reasons that an ERChas been proposed is to increase spendingon research and development in the EU, toclose the gap with the United States. How-ever, 90% of this gap is due to differencesin business expenditure, so the potentialcreation of an ERC must not divertattention from this problem.

Our paper (www.royalsoc.ac.uk/policy)highlights other issues, including gaps inknowledge, that should be considered. Weare studying proposals in the final Mayorreport (www.ercexpertgroup.org), releasedon 15 December 2003, and hope that theywill stimulate an informed wider debate.Julia HigginsThe Royal Society, 6–9 Carlton House Terrace,London SW1Y 5AG, UK

Time to choose the right site for a fusion reactorEurope is ready, willing and able to host the ITER, so let’s get on and meet the challenge.

11.3 correspondence 119 MH 8/3/04 5:08 pm Page 1

© 2004 Nature Publishing Group