6. PROPOSAL FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
FOR CHANGES IN ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF IUPAC'S SCIENTIFIC
ACTIVITIES
Prof. Jortner introduced the subject by noting that the Union
must be aware of the globalization of science, of the need to
provide a proper framework for interdisciplinary activities and
of the issues chemistry and society. The service of chemistry
is not a substitute for high level, high quality research, it
is supplementary. IUPAC must be prepared to deal with the changing
nature of the chemical sciences. The discussion of this subject
will address the impact on the scientific program of the Union
of the changes proposed by the Strategy Development and Implementation
Committee and the Committee on Project Evaluation Criteria.
The President expressed his thanks and that of the Bureau
for the rapid and effective work of CPEC under the excellent
leadership of Prof. Somsen.
It is felt that the present organization of IUPAC hinders
horizontal projects. The founders of IUPAC envisaged a dynamic
Union, making provision for the dissolution and establishment
of Commissions. Their concept of a changing structure in time
was replaced by the current concept of long term Commissions
with little opportunity for growth and renewal. Attempts to change
this situation by concepts such as the creation of the Pool of
Titular Members have been unsuccessful.
The foundations of change for IUPAC are the Strategic Plan
and the recommendations of the SDIC for reorganization of the
Union's scientific activities. The membership of the SDIC reflected
not only IUPAC, but the entire global chemistry community. IUPAC
must build on past success but modify its image. Contributions
must be relevant, timely, open and of high quality. The President
noted that preparation of his VPCA demonstrated to him the heterogeneous
nature of IUPAC's work. It was emphasized that the aim of the
recommendations is to improve the effectiveness of the Union's
scientific work not its efficiency.
Prof. Jortner noted that the basic conceptual framework for
the recommendations of the SDIC is that IUPAC must represent
the entire worldwide chemistry community. The Union must deepen
and broaden its relations to that community. It was also noted
that the responses received from the NAOs are generally positive.
The proposed changes are significant not as bureaucratic changes
but changes of fundamental importance to global chemistry.
Dr. Becker briefly reviewed the background to the proposals
made by the SDIC. The concept of Pool Titular Members had been
introduced as a means of providing flexibility and encouraging
new activities. It was generally felt that this had been unsuccessful.
The suggestion of providing funding to projects rather than to
Titular Members was made and the Secretary General wrote a discussion
paper for the Executive Committee on a new way of managing the
Union's scientific work. The Executive Committee endorsed the
concept of a project driven system at its meeting in Jerusalem
(April 1997). The SDIC was formed to determine whether the concept
was viable and to develop both a Strategic Plan and an implementation
plan for a new organization of the Union. The current system
relies on the terms of reference of the Commissions to determine
the activities carried out by each Commission. Dr. Becker pointed
out that the process leading to the current proposals has taken
two years, and that the report of the SDIC is long because it
contains the background required for someone not involved in
the process to understand the rationale for the recommendations
of the Committee.
Dr. Becker then drew the Bureau's attention to item 6.5 in the agenda.
He reviewed the actions that the Bureau was being asked to take. A
revised text for point 9 was distributed, as was a new point 12 (See
Attachment 2 for revised version). Dr. Becker observed that 3
years to implement these recommendations might seem like a long time
but that it was necessary to give Commissions the opportunity to adjust.
Prof. Jortner commented that this integrated process is intended
to ensure quality, relevance, international impact and the participation
of the worldwide chemistry community. The process is a holistic
one with major changes being the responsibility of the Division
Presidents and Division Committees. This is where the stability
of the organization will reside during these major organizational
changes.
The President introduced the report on the Project Evaluation
Process. This process is the implementation of the science policy
of the Union. Prof. Somsen was asked to briefly review the recommendations
of CPEC.
Prof. Somsen noted that he did not intend to restate the report.
The philosophy which guided the Committee was that the process
developed must be operable, that scientific responsibility must
remain with the Divisions and Standing Committees and that the
creation of a bureaucratic system should be avoided. The rôle
of the Secretariat had been formulated to be one of assistance,
not of management. It was observed that while Prof. Klein was
unable to attend the Oxford meeting, Prof. Somsen had met with
him separately and his input had been incorporated in the final
report. The comment was made that the process proposed was one
which could have been implemented at any time in the past in
the context of the existing organization.
Prof. Jortner again thanked the Committee and its Chairman
for their significant, complete and timely report.
During the ensuing discussion, the question was raised of
the length of time for the implementation of the reorganization;
the suggestion was made that the transition period should be
shortened . It was pointed out that at the meeting of the Division
Presidents on Friday it had been agreed to implement the Project
Evaluation Process as of 1 January 1999. Point 6 should be modified
to include the starting date of 1 January 1999. The creation
of new Commissions after 2001 will be in accord with the existing
Bylaws. It was noted that the authority to suspend existing Division
rules was necessary since in many cases the rules contradict
the Union Bylaws.
The Bureau discussed the question of an appropriate title
for members of task groups and other IUPAC bodies. There was
general agreement that while this was an important issue, as
was the issue of the electorate for the Division Committee, a
decision could be postponed until closer to 2001. It was also
noted that point 12 addresses this question indirectly.
There was considerable discussion of the benefits of the present
Commission system in aiding the identification of relevant experts
within IUPAC and in allowing the participation of scientists
from countries other than the major scientific centers as National
Representatives. Some Members pointed out the danger of losing
enthusiasm and participation of some Commission members during
implementation of these proposals. It was felt that many of these
potential problems could be avoided by proper implementation
within the Divisions. The proposed organization gives the Divisions
great leeway to set up mechanisms to ensure that participation
of scientists from the global chemistry community is facilitated.
The difficulty of a Division Committee having sufficient expertise
to manage the wide range of activities in a Division was discussed.
The group concluded that mechanisms, such as advisory groups,
could be set up, if that was felt to be necessary, to enable
the Division Committee to properly carry out its work. The cost
of a large Division Committee should not be excessive if it meets
only rarely and conducts most of its business by correspondence,
as envisaged by the CPEC report. It was pointed out that the
concept of accepting project proposals from non IUPAC members
was one that had been viewed favorably by some chemists not currently
active in IUPAC.
There was also some discussion of the time period for retrospective
evaluation of projects. The CPEC report mentions a period of
2-5 years. Prof. Somsen pointed out that the impact of some projects
can only be measured after as much as 5 years. After some further
discussion, Prof. Somsen noted that the Committee felt that it
should not specify the work of the Evaluation Committee too exactly,
rather the Committee should develop its own guidelines. It was
also pointed out that the CPEC report suggests that the Evaluation
Committee could begin work after the Berlin General Assembly.
The President proposed that the Bureau approve the integrated
program as proposed by the Executive Committee and the actions
described in points 1-12.
Prof. Schneider asked if a separate vote could be taken on
point 9 and the remaining 11 points. After discussion, the President
put the question. There were 2 votes in favor of a separate vote
and 20 opposed. The President then asked the Bureau to approve
the 12 points. There were 20 votes in favor and 2 abstentions,
none against.
Back to the Index
Home
- News
and Notices - Symposia/
Conferences - IUPAC
Organizations and People
Recommendations
- Provisional
Recommendations - Divisions
- Commissions
Standing
Committees - Publications
- Links - IUPAC Affiliates
Page last modified 10 November 1998.
Copyright © 1997, 98 International Union of Pure and Applied
Chemistry.