experimental program to quantify cloud formation processes and the role of clouds in climate change. This is a major uncertainty in present climate models.

Senator JOHNSTON. Dr. Decker, you are familiar with the various climate change initiatives that are going on in the Congress. I asked your predecessor about global climate change, and he said, in effect, that at least the initial spate of experts who testified, certainly the Energy Committee, that the connection between global warming and CO2 in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect, was not nearly so clear as those experts were saying.

What is your current view on global climate change?

Dr. DECKER. I would agree with that statement. There are some very large uncertainties in the models. For example, the coupling of the oceans to the atmosphere. The heat capacity of the first 2 meters of the surface of the ocean is the same as that for the entire Earth's atmosphere. So the ocean itself is an enormous heat sink. And how it couples with the atmosphere, for example, is just not very well understood. The whole issue of clouds, which is part of the Department's initiative in 1990 and 1991, is extremely important. Because it has-the effect of clouds has a big effect on the radiation balance between the surface of the Earth and the top of atmosphere. nd that is a very key part of the models.

So, in my view, those are just two examples of large uncertainties.

Senator JOHNSTON. And where are all these experts going wrong? Do they not look at the same data you do, or do they interpret it differently?

Dr. DECKER. Well, from my experience, people who have computer models that they deal with sometimes lose track of the uncertainties that are built into those models. One starts to believe models, when there are unfortunately still major unsolved questions associated with them.

I think I have pretty much covered global climate change, or you have helped me cover it.

SCIENCE EDUCATION

I would like to complete my remarks by mentioning our strong commitment to science education. We will continue to use the unique resources of our laboratories to expose both teachers and students to the excitement of frontier research. Our primary emphasis is shifting to focus more of our activities on the precollege level, and women and minorities, where there is a real crisis in this country.

We are simply losing too many students from science and math at an early age.

And that complete my remarks. I would be glad to answer any questions.

UNIFIED SCIENCE BUDGET

Senator JOHNSTON. Dr. Decker, there has been some discussion, and I have urged that we have a unified science budget, not that we have one committee, but that there ought to be one place where

all science, all R&D is considered. In that way we could have some sensible idea about how to prioritize.

We speak of the SCC, the space station, the National Science Foundation, and yet we never make any attempt to categorize or prioritize these initiatives, or indeed, all the other initiatives, save those that come before one committee. And we have to, therefore, prioritize between the SCC and the human genome, and those other programs which you have mentioned here today. But we ought to get all of them together.

I had understood that the administration was going to try to submit such a budget. What is the status of that?

Dr. DECKER. I am not familiar with what the administration might be doing in terms of submitting that type of budget. I know that Dr. Bromley in the Office of Science and Technology Policy is working very hard to reactivate the whole Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology. That is the body within the administration that has the responsibility for coordinating science across the various agencies. I think that Dr. Bromley is in the process of really turning that into a very effective organization.

I think that does not get directly at the question that you asked, but I think it is an important step forward in coordinating science across the government.

BUDGET PRIORITIES

Senator JOHNSTON. Then would you tell me what your top three priorities are in this budget? I know you do not like to make choices, but I could ask it another way and say the bottom three. Would you give me your top three?

Dr. DECKER. That is very, very difficult. The reason that it is so difficult, to me, is that from my observations it has been very important to try to move forward to continue to push the frontiers of our knowledge in all areas of science, and basically that is what we are trying to do. The SSC is obviously going to be necessary toward the end of the decade in pushing forward our knowledge in high energy physics.

The genome project is obviously very, very important to moving forward in the areas of human health and understanding the effects of various pollutants and so forth on human health, so that is a very important item.

One can go through and sort of make similar statements about so many areas within this budget.

MAGNETIC FUSION PROGRAM

Senator JOHNSTON. I am, frankly, looking at the magnet fusion program, as we have to save money. It just seems to me that $325 million, considering the state of that program, frankly, is like a lot of money.

Would you want to defend that figure?

Dr. DECKER. Yes. I believe that fusion can be a very important energy source for this country, and I think we need to continue to look forward to try to develop that source. From talking with Sec

retary Watkins, I believe that he sees fusion as being a very important part of the national energy strategy for the future.

I think we need to maintain at least that level during the coming year to have a viable program. That program has been cut back very substantially over a period of years. I think in real dollars it is probably nearly one-half what it was in its peak year if you counted inflation.

Senator JOHNSTON. What is the status of the Princeton Tokomak, the TFTR? They have not put the fuel in the reactor. Why is that? Dr. DECKER. We have not moved forward with burning deuterium and tritium in TFTR. We have been using it quite heavily to do studies to understand energy transport in Tokomaks. That is one of the best diagnosed Tokomak facilities in the world for that purpose.

Senator JOHNSTON. I may have some additional questions, but as we have to find money I can tell you that is one place we have to look at very carefully.

Senator Hatfield will preside for the rest of the hearing.

So I want to thank you, Dr. Decker.

I think Senator McClure arrived first, so he will ask the first questions.

BORON NEUTRON CAPTURE THERAPY RESEARCH

Senator MCCLURE. Thank you very much.

I followed with a great deal of interest the questions that were asked. Of course, the breadth of the activities of the Department of Energy is so stupendous that we could be here all afternoon talking about any one of several hundred different issues. Each one of us will highlight one or another or a half a dozen of activities.

I will take the time of the committee only to develop one because of particular interest that I have but also because I think it has fallen between the cracks somewhere, and I want to lift it out of the cracks; and second, because in going through your statement I see a great deal about many of the other issues, but I do not see much about this one, which also indicates to me it has fallen in the cracks somewhere.

Let me go through a list of what I think I know, and I hope you will check it off and tell me where I am wrong or if you disagree with what I think I know. I am talking about the Boron Neutron Capture Therapy [BNCT] Program.

I am aware that for scheduling and economic reasons researchers at the BNCT programs selected the Brookhaven reactor as the neutron source for initial BNCT animal brain tumor research.

I am aware that the Idaho researchers designed, built, and in collaboration with researchers at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, installed the neutron transmission filter in the Brookhaven reactor.

I also believe that the Idaho brain tumor treatment research using the Brookhaven neutron beam and dogs with naturally occurring brain tumors similar to those occurring in man is achieving good boron concentrations and has shown dramatic tumor control, control not achievable with any other treatment modality.

I am aware that the neutron beam purity achievable at the Brookhaven reactor will severely limit the radiation dose that can be delivered to human tumors because they are deeper in normal brain tissue than the dog tumors treated so far.

I believe that the MIT/Tuft's BNCT research that you have been funding for the last 2 years has now demonstrated that the MIT research reactor is not suitable for the treatment of deep human tumors with any known boron drug.

I am also aware that the Idaho BNCT program is not just an Idaho program. I use that label only to conveniently label it. It is a comprehensive national program with active participation by researchers from the University of Washington, Washington State University, UCLA, Oregon Health Sciences University, Idaho State University, the University of Utah, Cornell, and several other entities.

Furthermore, the Biomedical Advisory Committee that guides the Idaho research includes the leading U.S. researchers in all related fields and because of the Idaho program's internationally recognized technical accomplishments, three of the Idaho program leaders have been elected to the board of governors for the International Society for Neutron Capture Therapy.

Now is there any part of that recitation with which you would take exception or desire to make a correction?

Dr. DECKER. There is nothing that I would take exception with, since there are several things that you mentioned that I am just not familiar with.

Senator MCCLURE. OK. If you are not familiar with them, you might make a note, and if you find some reason to tell me that the information I have is incorrect, please let me know.

Dr. DECKER. I am just not up on the latest information with regard to the dog experiments.

Senator MCCLURE. I do not want to be misled, and I do not want to mislead anyone else if I do not have good information.

In view of the international BNCT research lead achieved by this program and the clear superiority of the Idaho PBF reactor for human tumor treatment, why does your fiscal year 1991 budget request not support continuation of this program?

Dr. DECKER. The fiscal year 1991 budget request does request funds to continue the BNCT program.

Senator MCCLURE. But not the research at the Idaho facility, not the Idaho portion of the research. It supports Brookhaven. It supports continuing the power burst facility in standby condition, but it terminates important aspects of the Idaho activity.

Dr. DECKER. I believe that there is still research planned at Idaho. I think the confusion may be that the money that was going to researchers outside of Idaho at universities and so forth will be funded directly out of DOE headquarters rather than through the laboratory.

Let me just mention that this whole program is under review at the present time by a subcommittee of the Health Environmental Research Advisory Committee. They have presented a draft report to the full committee, and because of comments from the full committee they are going back to do some rewriting. I am not sure what the due date is. I think it is fairly soon now.

Senator MCCLURE. I would be interested in that process as well as the results of that process.

I would also like the opportunity to at some point, in some way, plug into the process so that I may know what my information is and also test the information which they are using.

Dr. DECKER. OK; that is fair.

Senator MCCLURE. As I understand it, the DOE/NCI research focus since the beginning of this program has been the drug used in the Idaho program which was developed 25 years ago, and that so far there is no other drug that has demonstrated any superiority, although there are some who are now saying, hey, this drug will not do what needs to be done, let us wait until we find something new.

Dr. DECKER. That is correct. My understanding is that there is not now a good enough boron compound in many people's view, that there is not sufficient concentration of the boron compound in the tumors, and there is too much that either remains in surrounding tissue or in the blood and blood vessels.

Senator MCCLURE. You indicated a moment ago you really were not up to date as to what was being done right now, and I do not mean to press that issue at all.

EUROPEAN BNCT RESEARCH

Are you aware that the collaborative European BNCT research program reviewed the near-term treatment options this winter and they selected the same boron drug that has been used in the Idaho experiments and that the Europeans are preparing to modify a reactor that is not as good as the PBF and to have it on line using this boron compound that you are apparently advised is not good enough?

Dr. DECKER. When I say it is not good enough, what I have heard is it is not good enough to start the preclinical trials.

No; I was unaware of the European findings, and I would be interested in that.

Senator MCCLURE. Are you aware that they have treated a number of dogs with tumors using this drug?

Dr. DECKER. Yes.

Senator MCCLURE. And that the treatment has been successful? Dr. DECKER. I am aware that experiments are being done on dogs, but I do not know what the results have been. The last I heard, I guess, was that the number of dogs treated was pretty small.

Senator MCCLURE. It is small in number. Two dogs died. One was too far gone before they got to him, and the other died from the anesthesia. Of the dogs which were treated and lived, the imagery of the tumor is without exception exciting and dramatic following treatment.

Dr. DECKER. The purpose of this advisory committee will be to look at all of those results and to provide recommendations for a future program.

Senator MCCLURE. As I understand it, the Idaho program participants submitted in December 1988 a recommendation and a comprehensive program plan to expand their research to include mela