May 2001 USNC Chairs Meeting

The National Research Council’s Board on International Scientific Organizations (BISO) manages the activities of 25 U.S. National Committees (USNCs). In order to coordinate activities and increase the interaction among the USNCs, BISO holds meetings of the chairpersons of all the USNCs at approximately 18-month intervals. The first USNC chairs meeting was held on 16-17 March 2000; the second took place on 21-23 May 2001. A summary of the first meeting can be found on the BISO Web site.

The 2001 USNC Chairs meeting began with a dinner that included the chairs and representatives from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the International Council for Science (ICSU) and its member unions, professional societies and associations, and staff from the National Research Council. Henry Metzger, Chair of the 2001 meeting and Richard Bissell, Executive Director of the Policy and Global Affairs Division (PGA), formally welcomed the USNC chairs and guests.

Metzger opened the session by asking each USNC chair to give introductory comments regarding his or her USNC or parent union. He specifically asked for thoughts on a series of questions that had been distributed the night before.

What is the role your USNC plays domestically in the development of your science per se?

In general, USNCs with strong domestic professional societies (such as the USNC/IUPAP) reported that their committees have little to do with the development of their science domestically. This job is handled primarily by the appropriate professional society. In some cases, however, a strong domestic professional society is lacking. Some USNCs represent disciplines with a small domestic professional society, one with several very specialized societies, or one not specifically represented by a single society. In these cases, USNCs see that one function of the committee is to promote the discipline domestically (such as the case with USNC/TAM).

What is the role your USNC plays domestically in non-scientific aspects (education, training, organization of meetings, publications)?

The majority of USNCs conduct activities such as working to involve younger scientists in the programs of the committee, organizing meetings and travel grant programs, suggesting topics and speakers for meetings (especially those of the professional society), coordinating activities between Unions and the U.S. scientific community at large and collaborating with other USNCs. Some USNCs are quite active at professional society meetings -- presenting ideas before executive councils, conducting information and poster sessions, and hosting ad hoc meetings to garner support for projects and new members and raise awareness about the committee. Others have a relatively low level of participation at these meetings.

What is the role the international body to which your USNC adheres plays in the development of your science per se?

Several unions are deeply involved in the development of their science, capacity building, and interdisciplinary collaboration. These unions provide an international forum to discuss pertinent scientific issues and a means by which to coordinate the positions of national members. Some specific examples are the International Union of Crystallography’s various publications, the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology’s work in Latin America and the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics' activities with regard to megacities.

What is the role the international body to which your USNC adheres plays in non-scientific aspects (education, training, organization of meetings, publications)?

Unions can play an important role in encouraging the participation of young scientists, organizing large scientific meetings and travel grant programs and publishing newsletters to keep the community abreast of union activities. Some unions are involved with running education programs and offer classes to developing country scientists.

At present, how significant for your Union’s own goals is its relationship to ICSU (including special ICSU bodies)?

Most chairs reported that their USNC had little or no direct contact with ICSU and they were unsure of the contact, if any, between their Union and ICSU. The Chairs knew little about ICSU and the role it plays as the umbrella organization to these Unions. Metzger reviewed the circumstances under which the interactions between the Unions and ICSU have progressively diminished (see also below). He explained that many of ICSU's activities do not entail regular involvement with its member Unions. He and the BISO staff feel it is important that the Chairs and their USNCs become more aware of the role of ICSU and one of the goals of the meeting was to present this type of information.

Some chairs reported that their union does have a working relationship with ICSU. For example, the International Geographical Union works closely with ICSU's International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP) and the International Human Dimensions of Biodiversity Program (IHDP). The Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA), an interdisciplinary body, works with ICSU on data issues that are crosscutting and critical to the scientific community at large.

The PGA is a new division created by the merger of the Office of International Affairs, the Office of Science and Engineering Personnel, and the Policy Division. Gerald Dinneen, Chair of the PGA, briefly addressed the Chairs. He spoke about the importance of international collaboration and the role the USNCs can play. Richard Bissell emphasized the importance of the USNC system and its function to act as the U.S. representative to ICSU and international science. Bissell complimented the Chairs and their committees for fostering international research collaboration, increasing communication in international science, and encouraging inter-disciplinary activities.

The Board on International Scientific Organizations is a new board created from the former Division for International Organizations and Academy Cooperation. It resides within the PGA. Metzger outlined the responsibilities and mission of BISO and explained that the goals of BISO are to strengthen U.S. participation in international scientific and engineering organizations and to help build the capacity of these organizations. BISO, he said, will examine issues related to the conduct of science and evaluate opportunities for and barriers to international collaboration in scientific research.

White explained how the system of 25 USNCs fits into the structure of the National Academies and how BISO serves as the focal point for ICSU-related activities in the United States. She pointed out information provided in the briefing book including an organizational chart, a list of USNCs managed by BISO, and current rosters and detailed updates of the activities of each USNC.

Metzger discussed the reorganization of ICSU carried out in response to 1997 Schmitt Assessment. Essentially, the General Committee was eliminated and replaced with an expanded executive committee. Since this allowed for representation from only four unions and four national members, ICSU has decided to hold regular meeting of union presidents and to create a similar forum for national members. The first meeting of union presidents was held in Paris in February 2001. Critical issues covered at this meeting included the status of union interactions, emerging scientific initiatives, and the role of unions in capacity building. Also in response to the Schmitt Assessment, ICSU has created the Committee on Scientific Planning and Review (CSPR) to provide guidance to the ICSU Executive Board and enable it to develop a new vision for ICSU. ICSU's newsletter, Science International, provides the minutes for all CSPR and Executive Board meetings.

Paul Turner, BISO Program Officer, briefed the chairs on the draft of the U.S. National Committees, An Introductory Guide, an informative handbook designed for current, new and prospective USNC members as well as a select audience outside the USNC system. The aim of the guide is to give a broad overview of the workings of the USNCs and the larger organizational context in which they operate. The chairs were asked to review the USNC guide prior to the meeting and present comments and suggestions for discussion. Once the changes are incorporated, the document will be submitted for publication and distribution.

Metzger distributed draft copies of ICSU for Beginners. Like the USNC guide, ICSU for Beginners presents basic information about ICSU and its programs to newcomers and those interested in ICSU programs. The ICSU guide, once finalized, will be distributed with the USNC Guide.

At lunch, the Chairs divided into two brainstorming groups to discuss either issues related to young scientists or to USNC outreach and communication.

Session A: What can the USNCs do to help introduce young scientists to their committee and international activities?

The relatively low level of participation of young scientists in USNC activities has become a concern to many of the chairs. Several committees run programs for young scientists, such as travel grants and young observer programs, and in some cases include young scientists in their membership. Acting as moderator for this session, Gary Brown talked about three essential aspects related to involving young scientists in the work of the USNCs and international science: recruiting, rewarding, and retention.

Session B: What can the USNCs do to better inform their discipline and the scientific community at large about their activities and those of their union?

A pressing issue for most USNCs is how they can better inform their discipline and the scientific community at large about their activities and those of their unions. Committee activity runs from USNCs with a relatively low level of engagement to those with a high level, including committee Web sites, newsletters and outreach and having a strong presence at international scientific meetings. Chairs learned the differences between how their USNCs operate in this regard and were able to better assess how they may adapt their practices to better address these questions.

The purpose of this session was to discuss the relationship between the USNCs, the National Academies and professional scientific societies and to look at strengthening those relationships. Bill Colglazier, Executive Officer of the National Research Council, moderated and began with an overview of the National Research Council and the USNC system. He first explained that the USNCs are housed at the National Academies for the following reasons:

The NAS is a founding member of the International Council for Science (ICSU) and has, since the 1930s, had an active ICSU program.
In addition to being the national member of ICSU, the NAS is also the official adhering body to most of the disciplinary unions and scientific and interdisciplinary committees of ICSU.
This provides a center of gravity or focal point for ICSU activities in the United States.
NAS coordinates this broad program on behalf of the scientific community. It brings prestige, visibility, and international recognition to each of the USNCs individually and to the entire ICSU program collectively.
The NAS program also assures funding, coordination among the committees, and consistency in following ICSU, union, government, and NRC policies and procedures.
The Chair of the National Research Council appoints the members of the USNCs. Committee members are recognized experts in their fields and the committees are balanced and independent.
The National Academies have convening power. Neutral and independent environment allows for frank and open discussions and attracts top-level scientists to program.

Assure that membership privileges and obligations to the international unions are fulfilled and that the U.S. community is appropriately and fully represented in international forums with other scientific communities around the world.
Serve as neutral forums where representatives of multiple U.S. societies and government agencies can meet to discuss trends in their disciplines.
Focus on common issues related to changing practices in the conduct of science (i.e.: communications, publishing, access to facilities, free circulation of scientists) and find common ground across disciplines.
Work with other USNCs in the network to foster interdisciplinary projects.
Serve as conduits of communication between the ICSU family and the professional societies and between ICSU and individual scientists.
Serve as incubators of ideas that are then brought to the attention of professional societies, NRC disciplinary boards or commissions, and others.

Colglazier spoke of the unique nature of the USNCs. He stated that a common thread linking all USNC members is their expressed interest in international cooperation, their focus on common issues related to the conduct of science, their desire to foster interdisciplinary interactions, and their willingness to reach out and work with professional societies, federal agencies and other organizations to meet these goals.

In searching for ways in which the National Academies and professional societies could collaborate, Colglazier suggested a joint workshop on the congressional budget earmarking process. He also mentioned possible collaborations with respect to future publishing projects and on programs promoting the public understanding of science.

The discussion then turned to the three professional society discussants: Joann Buchanan of the American Psychological Association, Martin Frank of the American Physiological Society, and John Malin of the American Chemical Society.

Frank discussed the USNC roles in providing vehicles for the international activities of larger societies and forums for the exchange of ideas; coordinating travel award programs for international congresses; and serving as the official host for international congresses. He suggested that the USNCs often lack adequate staff and financial resources and mentioned the financial and logistical problems of hosting international meetings in the U.S. Although USNC members review travel applications to such meetings, it is actually the society that serves as the financial agent, applying for funds and coordinating disbursements. Frank questioned whether international unions were actually needed. He argued that professional societies boast significant international membership and that their meetings are increasingly international in nature.

Buchanan reported that the APA works closely with the USNC/IUPsyS to assign observers to USNC meetings, provide financial assistance, and administer travel grants programs. APA is currently planning to conduct a survey among graduate departments regarding international scientific linkages in hopes of strengthening and increasing them. Buchanan said working with the USNC on a project like this adds the prestige of the National Academies to the process. Buchanan then noted that USNC does a great deal for the APA by acting as a clearinghouse of information and as a means through which APA can have an input to Union activities. The USNC also provides a forum for several psychological societies to come together and collaborate on issues of common interest. Buchanan agreed that there is some tension in having similar programs to the USNC and the Union, but said it will not halt APA’s continuing efforts to work closely with the USNC. In fact, she hopes to increase the promotion of USNC activities, perhaps by discussing them in the APA newsletter.

Malin provided an overview of the ACS and its international activities, explaining that the ACS works closely with the Union and the USNC/IUPAC. He said the USNC acts mostly as a conduit of information between the Union and the U.S. chemical community. He talked at some length about the need for the Union to assist the chemical community in developing countries. Touching on an earlier point, he thought that although there may be some future competition between the ACS and the Union for international projects, the two will continue to collaborate and move forward on common goals.

During the question and answer session, issues were raised regarding professional societies’ financial assistance to USNCs, the necessity of international unions, and the domestic agendas of the USNCs versus the professional societies. Each USNC has unique relationships with the relevant professional societies in its discipline and interactions range from negative to positive. Additional dialogs may prove useful in strengthening the lines of communication and relationships between the professional societies, the USNCs, and the international unions.

Other professional societies and organizations represented at this sessions included: the Ecological Society of America; the U.S. Geological Survey; the American Anthropological Association; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the American Society of Agronomy; the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; the Biophysical Society; the American Geophysical Union; the Council for Chemical Research; the Conference Board for the Mathematical Societies; and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers.

Larry Kohler, Executive Director of ICSU explained the structure of ICSU and spoke of its role as the voice of science in the international community. He informed the audience of the recent reforms ICSU has undergone as a result of the Schmitt Report. Kohler argued that the creation of the Committee on Scientific Planning and Review (CSPR) was potentially the most important change to come out of the reform. This committee is charged with identifying, promoting, and funding new and emerging scientific initiatives. He also talked about ICSU’s new initiatives with respect to capacity building for women, minorities, and third world scientists. Kohler talked about involving the U.S. scientific community in the WSSD -- the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio +10) -- to be held in South Africa in 2002. He mentioned the work of ICSU’s Commission on Sustainable Development and its important role in setting the agenda for the meeting and the desire for ICSU to be closely involved with this activity. He urged the USNCs to fully contribute to the U.S. national preparatory process for the WSSD.

Jane Lubchenco, President-Elect of ICSU and Professor of Marine Biology in the Department of Zoology at Oregon State University, presented the keynote address on her vision for the future of ICSU and international science. A summary of her remarks will be available on the BISO Web site, in the near future.

USNC chairs asked for a dedicated discussion on how their committee can initiate and fund new projects and activities. This session was provided in an attempt to answer this question through examples and comparisons of USNC activities. A list possible USNC activities that was provided in the agenda book can be found below:

Wendy White explained that the funds received from NSF to support USNC activities are based on multi-year proposals submitted by the NRC, after review and approval from the NRC Governing Board and the Office of Contracts and Grants. The proposals outline specific activities that are then carefully matched to the budget request. For the most part, funds received from NSF support the dues to the parent union, staff time, domestic travel to the USNC meetings (usually twice a year), and international travel to international congresses. Often some additional support is received for travel grants, workshops, seminars, or other special activities. All committee expenditures are thus approved in advance by the NRC and NSF and the funds are not available to committee members for individual activities. The staff officer for each committee is responsible for assuring that all expenditures are made in accordance with NRC and NSF policies and that the committee does not exceed its budget. She pointed out that limited funding comes from professional societies and other sources.

Several of the chairs then offered examples of activities their USNCs had initiated. The USNC/IUHPS is looking into the issue of scientific and indigenous and local knowledge. The USNCs for IUBS, IUAES, IUPsyS, IUSS, and the Committee on Geography have all expressed an interest in collaborating on this project. The USNC/IUBS put together a series of workshops on the topic of aquaculture. The USNCMI assisted in organizing a U.S.-Japanese teacher workshop. The purpose of the meeting was to bring American and Japanese teachers together to share teaching methods and experiences and provide insight into each other’s work. Finally, the USNC/SS has been working on a carbon sequestration initiative.

Pierre Perrolle, Director of the National Science Foundation’s Division for International Programs, was the final speaker on the agenda. He was asked to discuss his NSF’s priority areas and how the USNCs can fit into these and future activities. Perrolle spoke broadly of the functions and priorities of NSF and then more specifically of the role of the International Programs Office. He explained that NSF is currently focused on four main priority areas: biocomplexity in the environment, information technology research, nanoscale science and engineering, and learning for the 21st century. Perrolle also gave examples of NSF partnerships which included its links with the National Research Council and ICSU. His discussion gave the Chairs an opportunity to better understand the USNC’s relationships with NSF and to focus some of their initiatives based on NSF's priorities.

Chairs and other meeting participants generally gave positive reviews of the meeting. A key element of this meeting is that it allows members from such varied scientific disciplines to come together and discuss issues that are of a common nature. Several chairs commented that they enjoyed learning how other USNCs work, what types of activities they are involved in and what their relationship is with their parent union and ICSU. Many also found the USNC guide and the summary of USNC activities provided in the agenda book extremely informative. The brainstorming sessions also proved a useful activity. Chairs were impressed with Lubchenco and her vision for ICSU.

After some brief closing comments, Metzger asked the Chairs to report back to their committees and provide information on the meeting. They were also encouraged to send comments and suggestions to BISO staff to enhance the effectiveness of future meeting. The next Chairs meeting will be held in September or October 2002.