March 2000 USNC Chairs Meeting Minutes

Summary

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a founding member of the International Council for Science (ICSU) and of most of the scientific unions federated in ICSU. It exercises U.S. membership in ICSU through a network of U.S. National Committees (USNCs). The Office of International Affairs (OIA), through the Division for International Organizations and Academy Cooperation (IOAC) manages this network. On 16-17 March 2000, IOAC convened a workshop for the chairs of the USNCs that it manages. This was the first workshop that focused on the ways that USNCs can interact. The purpose of the workshop was to:

The chair or vice-chair of each of IOAC’s USNCs attended the workshop, an indication in itself of the perceived need for and importance of such a workshop. (See Attachment A for a list of the participants.) F. Sherwood Rowland, the Foreign Secretary of the National Academy of Sciences and Chair of the International Advisory Board, chaired the workshop, which included briefings by OIA Executive Director, John Boright; ICSU Executive Director, Larry Kohler; and NAS President, Bruce Alberts. There were also detailed discussions of the roles and responsibilities of the USNCs and of ways to exploit the unique strengths of each committee to contribute to the overall strength of the system.

Organization of the USNC Chairs’ Workshop

A steering committee helped staff set the agenda and select the specific topics for in-depth discussion. The steering committee wanted the USNC chairs to focus on issues regarding the structure and operation of the committees, while also considering possible interdisciplinary projects in which their various committees could become engaged. Since each USNC has a unique nature, dictated in part by its relationship with the parent union, the briefing book included a description of and a membership roster for each committee. This proved to be important background as the chairs had an opportunity to compare their committees with the others.

The first half-day of the meeting was devoted to discussions of the roles and responsibilities of the USNCs within both the ICSU and NRC structures. The lunch on the first day encouraged the chairs to meet by broad disciplinary group in order to discuss common problems in their field.

The workshop also reached across disciplinary boundaries and much time was devoted to discussions of possible joint activities. The steering committee recommended that two thematic parallel sessions be held on the second day. The first group, “Barriers to International Scientific Collaboration”, discussed topics such as: scientific openness, universality of science, free circulation of scientists, movement of scientific materials, access to research resources, and freedom in the pursuit of science. The second group, “Outreach to Developing Countries/Capacity Building”, discussed equitable access to scientific and technical information, especially for scientists in developing countries. At lunch on the second day, the chairs engaged in a discussion about “Case Studies of Successful International Scientific Projects”. This session examined ways to preserve the scientific record in an era where many of the most significant scientific projects are performed by multiple institutions in a collaborative fashion.

The workshop had a large number of participants so the steering committee decided to keep most of the meeting closed in order to give all chairs ample time to discuss their concerns and activities. However, the steering committee also wanted to give the chairs an opportunity to meet with the sponsors from the National Science Foundation and other government agencies and with their colleagues from the professional societies that work closely with the USNCs. They, therefore, recommended a public lecture, followed by a reception. Dr. Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences, delivered the lecture entitled “Bringing the Scientific Community to the Center of World Affairs: A Great Challenge for Scientists.” More than 100 guests attended.

OIA Briefing

Drs. Rowland and Boright opened the meeting with briefings about OIA activities. The chairs showed interest in a few of OIA’s ideas for new projects but also expressed frustration at not being invited to provide input to the planning of these new projects. For example, some chairs said that their committees had relevant background and expertise in the field of food security. The USNC for soil science had heard one briefing about the food security project but, despite showing great enthusiasm for it and providing a think piece, had not been included in any subsequent discussions. There was more general interest in the report OIA had undertaken for the Department of State, The Pervasive Role of Science, Technology, and Health in Foreign Policy: Imperatives for the Department of State. The UNSC chairs asked to be kept informed as to any follow-on activities to this report.

Much of the discussion during the OIA briefing centered on the National Academies’ involvement in the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the working title for a proposed organization that would, basically, be an international version of the National Research Council. Due to reports in both Science and Nature about the IAC, the chairs were concerned about the potential competition between the IAC and ICSU. They were also concerned about the need for what seemed to them to be yet another U.S.-led initiative. Boright explained that 14 Presidents of major academies of science from around the world met in Davos, Switzerland at the time of the World Economic Forum. Those presidents discussed the IAC and decided that the idea should be presented in more detail to all the member academies of the InterAcademy Panel (IAP). They therefore appointed a four-member “constitutional committee” to draft a more detailed plan to be presented prior to and discussed at the IAP meeting in Tokyo on 14 May 2000. France, Germany, Brazil, and India are the four members of the committee.

Larry Kohler explained that scientific unions, national members, and ICSU programs had been in contact with him to express concern about the IAC and the risk of duplication with – or substitution for – ICSU activities. The current plans for the IAC provide a permanent observer status to ICSU on the board of directors. Indeed, Dr. Yoshikawa, the President of ICSU, was at the Davos meeting as both the President of the Japan Science Council and as a representative of ICSU. Still, ICSU expressed its serious reservations at Davos that this initiative was creating confusion within the science community, particularly given that the proposed IAC, the IAP, and ICSU share many of the same members. Despite the feeling that a new mechanism was not necessary to achieve the IAC goals (which are also ICSU goals), Kohler said that he thought the two organizations could co-exist and collaborate in the future. To achieve this, however, the lines of communication must remain open and the commitment of the IAC academies to ICSU must remain strong. In that regard, he urged that the supporters of IAC find new, more positive ways to express the justification for the IAC, rather than using ICSU as a negative benchmark.

The USNC System at the National Research Council

During the first morning of the workshop, the IOAC Director, Wendy White, explained that 24 national committees are managed by the IOAC. This includes two USNCs for interdisciplinary ICSU activities: CODATA and DIVERSITAS. It also includes one USNC for a regional associate of ICSU, the Pacific Science Association. She also explained that USNCs for other interdisciplinary ICSU activities, such as SCOPE, SCOR, SCAR, and COSPAR (see Attachment C for a list of acronyms), are not managed by IOAC. This means that staff for these committees do not report to IOAC and that funding for the committees is not procured through the IOAC. All of the USNCs not managed by the IOAC were invited to the workshop but only one committee, COSPAR, agreed to participate. Most of the communication with these committees happens only at the staff level and, unfortunately, there is little interaction on a committee basis.

All of the USNC chairs report good results from the reorganization of the USNC system that took place in 1997. The centralization of most of the USNCs within IOAC allows it to present a cohesive, coordinated, and comprehensive view of the entire range of ICSU activities at the National Academies. With staff working on USNCs matters all of the time, they give increased attention to the committees and can look for areas of common concern or interest. Staffs at the National Science Foundation and in IOAC work together on more targeted proposals and keep each other better informed as to the progress of the committees. The reorganization makes it easier for IOAC staff to communicate with the committees and to encourage them to become engaged in crosscutting programs, such as those ICSU has for capacity building, science education, scientific openness, or megacities. The USNC chairs workshop was made possible by the reorganization. The underlying concept of the workshop – that scientific unions and the U.S. National Committees related to them have many things in common that would benefit from structured discussion – proved to be quite correct.

The chairs also asked about the NAS role as the national member of ICSU. In the past, OIA has had a special committee that advised the NAS on issues regarding general ICSU programs and activities. That committee was incorporated into the International Advisory Board, which, frankly, has shown little interest in continuing the role of an ICSU advisory committee. While the USNC chairs group might be too large to function effectively in this capacity, it is worth considering how they might be consulted on a more regular and frequent basis. In particular, the chairs should be consulted prior to ICSU General Assemblies and the U.S. delegations to General Assemblies and other ICSU meetings should be nominated from among the chairs.

Roles and Responsibilities of the USNCs

The chairs received briefing material that explained that, although the USNCs have evolved in somewhat different ways over the years, there is still much they have in common. Very basically, they assure that membership privileges and obligations in the Union are fulfilled and that the U.S. community is appropriately represented in international congresses. They serve as neutral fora where representatives of multiple U.S. societies can meet to discuss trends in their disciplines, possible barriers to international cooperation in their fields, and opportunities for engaging scientists and engineers from all countries in new activities. The USNCs also serve as conduits of communication between the ICSU family and the professional societies and between ICSU and individual scientists. More and more, the USNCs serve as incubators of ideas that are then brought to the attention of professional societies, the disciplinary boards or commissions of the NRC, and others.

Despite this explanation, not all committee chairs yet had a clear understanding of their role in their parent union or in the umbrella body, ICSU. Because each committee has a unique relationship to its parent union and to the scientific discipline it represents, the discussion turned out to be quite difficult. There was not enough time for each chair to explain his or her committee’s roles and, even though much of this information was provided in the briefing book, the discussion was, at times, like comparing apples and oranges. It did become clear that many of the committees are trying to reinvent themselves and find a focus and direction within an overall system that is not always well understood. Many are struggling with the duties of new leadership and of worrying about how to galvanize committee members into undertaking even the limited set of activities that are possible for USNCs.

Although some committee chairs were able to share positive experiences and provide helpful advice, most of the participants recommended that the next workshop continue to address these concerns in a more focused and pragmatic fashion. Even in the brief time allowed for this discussion, the chairs heard some new ideas. They learned, for example, that while all USNCs and Unions organize scientific meetings, those sponsored by the Unions for Radio Science, Mathematics, and Theoretical and Applied Mechanics are the most important meetings within the discipline. Also, most Unions have publication programs and, in one case, Crystallography, the Union’s journal is considered to be the principal journal in the field. One interesting discussion revolved around the issue of the Unions that operate through a commission system. The Chair of the USNC for IUPAC described the experiences of his committee in “reforming” IUPAC, leading to the decision to abolish all commissions at the end of 2001. The Chairs of the USNCs to Unions with similar structures were quite interested in learning more.

During the first lunchtime session, the USNCs met by broad disciplinary groups and discussed common problems and concerns. The USNCs representing the unions in the math and physical sciences compiled lists of the various activities that their unions or USNCs undertake. Not all USNCs are expected or even mandated to engage in all of these activities, but the lists are included in this report because they are indicative of the kinds of projects all USNCs can consider.

In general, Unions:

In general, U.S. National Committees:

Communicate with the U.S. scientific community by:

Engage in activities related to education and outreach by:

Foster research cooperation by:

Discuss policy issues impacting the discipline. Such issues include:

Dialog with Larry Kohler, Executive Director of ICSU

The steering committee invited Dr. Larry Kohler, the executive director of ICSU, to the workshop. Dr. Kohler talked about the evolving role of ICSU and its scientific unions and national members in international science. Without reviewing all of ICSU’s programs, he emphasized that the major crosscutting themes for ICSU will be capacity building for science, strengthening science and technology in developing countries, and assuring the flow of scientific information and data. Together these themes and the general activities of ICSU will greatly support the integration of science within policy-making fora. Kohler talked about the steps ICSU is taking to implement the recommendations of the Schmitt assessment report, especially now that ICSU has been restructured. One change already implemented is with the ICSU grants program. The number of grants has been reduced so that larger amounts may be given to innovative, interdisciplinary research initiatives. Examples of past innovative projects included food security, global invasive species, and a research agenda for health and the environment. ICSU is also considering possible new programs and activities on megacities and genetically-modified organisms. The newly formed Committee on Scientific Planning and Review will review the grants program for 2001 and will determine new procedures and mechanisms to help ICSU more efficiently set new priorities. It will also play a key role in carrying out regular reviews of all ICSU programs and committees. Key to this effort will be new initiatives and mechanisms for consulting with national and union members to enable them to be more effectively integrated within the wide range of ICSU activities. These mechanisms will also play an important role in ICSU’s strategy to significantly strengthen its capacity to improve communications within the ICSU family, as well as to promote outreach to policy makers and society.

Possible Collaborative Efforts for the USNCs

Throughout the two-day workshop, the chairs were encouraged to voice their concerns about their own committees and to suggest activities that would be suitable for multiple-committee projects. Because the chairs were meeting for the first time and were learning so much about the mechanics of being a USNC, the discussions about possible collaborative projects were not as concrete as staff had hoped. The break-out sessions on scientific openness and capacity building in developing countries and the plenary session on documenting successful international projects generated lively discussions about the range of problems but led to no clear action plans. Staff will, therefore, continue to explore these areas and will encourage discussions of them at the individual USNC meetings.

Regarding scientific openness, IOAC considers this to be an issue of relevance to all scientists and researchers. The Director is working with OIA’s Committee on International Security and Arms Control to plan a workshop that will address how current U.S. government policies, regulations, and procedures to protect sensitive information affect the conduct of federally funded unclassified scientific research at both government laboratories and universities. This workshop will help air these concerns to a wide audience and will be used to collect substantive input from researchers who are being affected by the new regulations.

Regarding capacity building, IOAC has several ideas related to building Internet connectivity and the capacity to use information and communication tools to foster international research collaborations. It will continue to build on the experience of the USNC/IUBMB, which organized a symposium and demonstration on “Collaboratories,” long distance collaborations facilitated by telecommunications and remote use of instrumentation. The resulting publication, Collaboratories: Improving Research Capabilities in Chemical and Biomedical Sciences: Proceedings of a Multi-site Electronic Workshop, (National Academy Press, 1999), provides useful background for other USNCs wanting to explore this innovative application of high-speed networks. The ICSU Committee on Capacity Building in Science is in the process of being reconstituted. As it develops new programs, IOAC staff will look for opportunities for the USNCs to become involved. Finally, in his dialog with the USNC chairs, Dr. Alberts encouraged them to be proactive in asking journal publishers in their disciplines to make electronic versions of their journals available free-of-charge to scientists in developing countries.

The luncheon session on documenting successful international problems also generated a few project ideas. Goetz Oertel presented information about various types of international cooperative projects, their costs, and their benefits and risks. He documented several case studies and concluded with some lessons learned. The kind of information he compiled for projects in his field (astronomy) could be gathered and analyzed by other USNCs. Each USNC could identify the most important collaborations in its discipline and recommend appropriate archival measures for preserving the experience. In general, the issue of archiving the scientific record in the electronic age is one that has been discussed by the USNCs for CODATA and IUHPS. This may be a topic of a joint workshop.

Although not the topic of a breakout group or special session, the chairs did hear briefly about the new NRC activity on megacities. Recognizing that solutions to the problems facing large urban areas demand the joint efforts of engineers, physical and social scientists, and health professionals, the National Academies are proposing to launch a decade-long initiative that will engage every part of the institution. The prospective program will produce an identifiable portfolio of studies and other projects, issued under a common theme or brand. The initiative will include a signature series of both disciplinary and multidisciplinary consensus studies. Other activities will focus on the development of new tools or indicators for assessment and evaluation and on case studies, either of specific cities or of specific issues facing most cities. Public workshops and seminars and comprehensive web sites will form an integral part of the international outreach and dissemination activities. The NRC already has strong partnerships with international organizations and with academies of science, engineering, and medicine in other countries and it will use these partnerships to undertake joint projects when appropriate. The NRC project will also be carefully coordinated with any activities ICSU undertakes in this area. Since this is a topic of potential interest to almost every USNC, staff will provide updates at USNC meetings. Chairs should share with Wendy White their ideas for individual or joint USNC projects in this area.

Future Plans and Activities

There was very little time available to discuss with the USNC chairs some of the issues and activities that IOAC will be undertaking and for which staff will need assistance from their chairs and their committees. The first such activity, briefly introduced at the chairs’ workshop, is an assessment of the USNCs. When OIA’s International Advisory Board met in November 1999, it requested an external assessment of the USNCs that IOAC manages. The IAB specifically requested that this assessment focus on programs rather than on process so that the assessment could be used to provide performance guidelines to the USNCs. Because each USNC is unique, the assessment will have to be carefully structured to take these differences into account while making general recommendations for improvements and for future activities. The assessment will get underway in the next year, although it has not yet been decided if all of the committees will be reviewed at the same time. Staff will be asking for input from the chairs before proceeding with the assessments.

A second major activity that will involve the chairs is the next round of proposal writing. The USNCs are now entering their final year of a three-year grant. Each committee will have to prepare a new three-year proposal for submittal to NSF in 2001. Staff will ask each committee for new project ideas for the proposals. Also, in the last round of proposals, NSF asked that each USNC chair countersign the submission to indicate their involvement with the process. As background, the chairs were told that the USNCs are funded primarily through four major grants from NSF. The proposals are organized by broad disciplinary groups and are submitted to the Directorates for Biological Sciences, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Earth Sciences, and Social and Behavioral Sciences. The proposal for the USNC/IUTAM is submitted to Engineering Directorate along with the proposal that goes to the Social and Behavioral Science Directorate.

IOAC remains interested in improving the Web site for each committee. Staff have made much progress in the last year in getting the sites updated but, of course, this is a job that requires constant attention. The chairs will be asked to help provide information about the USNC and union activities that should be included on the sites.

Conclusion

Participants discussed whether the USNC Chairs’ Workshop should be repeated and, if so, how often. Everyone agreed that the experiment was successful and worth repeating. Given the three to four-year turnover cycle in the chairs’ appointments, the group concluded that the workshop should be held annually. Some chairs suggested that the next one could take place at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California. While this location would foster a better “retreat atmosphere”, it would be difficult to include representatives from NSF or the professional societies.

Staff have already received many suggestions for the next workshop. These include:

Providing more time for interdisciplinary break-out sessions;

In conclusion, the first ever USNC Chairs workshop was successful and, probably, long overdue. One chair said, “The USNCs now have ‘a home’ where people are really interested in what we are doing, how we do it, and are willing to help us accomplish our goals!” Another said that he wished he had the benefit of this detailed orientation at the beginning of his term, rather than at the end of it. He recommended that much of the material in the briefing book be continually updated and sent out to all incoming chairs and committee members. (Staff have subsequently decided to keep the material on the Web.) Another said that is was very useful to know the names of other USNC chairs and to have a starting point for collaborative work.

The USNC Chairs Workshop was an important first step in creating a stronger network of USNCs. The participants found the meeting useful not only for the background material it provided but for the perspective they gained on the entire ICSU system.