Some Historical Perspective
Philosophical Basis for a New Organization
Proposed Course of Action
During the last few years there has been intensive study, discussion
and debate within the Union on what was first termed "restructuring"
but later broadened to the more general "Scientific Policy of the
Union." A number of proposals have been advanced, some have been adopted,
some have been rejected outright and others have been declined for the
present but might be introduced at a future date. Concurrently, during
the last year, there have been increased efforts to address the overall
mission and strategy of the Union, partially with advice from leading chemists
outside IUPAC. These broader ideas have been focused in Vice-President
Jortner's Critical Assessment (VPCA), which presents recommendations for
establishing overall Goals and for expanding the scope and emphasis of
IUPAC's scientific work. The present document complements the VPCA in addressing
questions of organization and management of the scientific work.
Within the last two years, three of our seven Divisions have been or
are being restructured to create Divisions of (i) Chemistry and the Environment,
(ii) Chemistry and Human Health and (iii) Macromolecular Chemistry and
Materials [name subject to modification]. Although further restructuring
at the Division level is certainly possible, it has been decided as a result
of discussions within the last year that the remaining four Divisions will
in the near future retain their traditional scope of Physical, Inorganic,
Organic and Analytical Chemistry. However, at the level of the Division
Presidents and the Executive Committee, there is a strong consensus that
additional flexibility is needed to tackle projects within a specific and
limited timeframe and to address problems that cross traditional boundaries
within chemistry and between chemistry and other disciplines.
Some Historical Perspective
Most of the scientific work of the Union emanates from Commissions, augmented
in many instances by Division Subcommittees, Working Parties and Task Forces.
Over the years IUPAC has established a network of Commissions (currently
numbering 37). Occasionally a new Commission is formed, sometimes there
is a change in the name and/or terms of reference of a Commission and (quite
infrequently) a Commission is abolished. Overall, there has evolved an
organization that has the virtue of stability but the shortcomings of a
static structure. Yet, the Statutes and Bylaws anticipate a more dynamic
composition of Commissions. Statute 10.4 states: "Each Division and
Section may include such Commissions as are approved by the Council",
while Bylaw 4.301 prescribes a detailed procedure for analyzing the need
for a new Commission, including a report to Council. B 4.301 concludes:
"This report, if favourable to the creation of a new body [Commission],
shall contain an indication as to the probable duration of the life of
the new body and an estimate of its annual cost." [Emphasis added]
Bylaw 4.302 states: "At each General Assembly, the Council shall in
the light of the Division or Section President's report and on the recommendation
of the Bureau decide whether or not to continue each Commission."
[Emphasis added]
In spite of the flexibility built into the Statutes and Bylaws, the
structure has been largely static. As long ago as 1955, President Tiselius
observed that "... many of our Commissions do very fine work and have
justified their existence beyond any doubt. ... Perhaps it would be practical
to introduce a distinction between standing Commissions and Commissions
set up for a definite, limited task. The second type should be limited
in their mandate to, for example, two years (that is to say, between two
Conferences of the Union), and should be given opportunities to meet within
this period. Their task would, of course, be entirely different from that
of a standing Commission which involves maintaining a more or less continuous
survey of a given field and taking action whenever necessary." Yet,
such limited lifetime Commissions have been formed only once - as an interim
measure to postpone or avoid the creation of more permanent Commissions
- and few Commissions have been abolished. In 1973, President BÈnard
pointed out why this is the case: "It is easy to obtain general approval
for the creation of new bodies, but it is difficult to decide to abandon
existing ones. The reason for this is that it takes far more courage to
say ëno' than to say ëyes', particularly when the consequences
involve our friends." He went on to say: "An institution which
does not have the strength to renew itself is an institution condemned
at length to sterility."
The current concerns on restructuring stem from 1981, when President
Zollinger made the first real "critical assessment" of IUPAC
projects. According to his analysis, the problems seemed to stem from "(1)
inefficiency and too long duration of a relatively large number of projects;
(2) insufficient use of our traditional means to solve problems in a changing
world; (3) the involvement of too small a circle of chemists in IUPAC work
- a reporter in Davos even called this circle a ëcharmed circle'."
Sixteen years after Zollinger's appraisal, and after a series of initiatives
to correct these perceived deficiencies, we have many more projects than
Zollinger had to contend with, the traditional means are not working well,
and we still have a "charmed circle."
Let's be clear: Even with these shortcomings, IUPAC Commissions have
done and continue to do outstanding work for the international chemical
community. Our challenge is to insure that such high quality work continues
but that the projects undertaken are widely regarded as relevant to today's
world and are completed in a timeframe consistent with the fast pace of
modern research and industrial development. We must reach out to a broad
international community of chemists to help define the needs on which IUPAC
projects are based and to recruit the most talented chemists worldwide
to work on these projects. As evidenced by the quotes from 1955, 1973 and
1981, it has not been possible to achieve the dynamism needed within our
present structure and mode of operation. We need to convert from a primarily
static Commission structure to one that is largely based on time-limited
Commissions formed to carry out specific, well defined tasks.
Philosophical Basis for a New Organization
Under this concept, the IUPAC organization would continue to consist
of Council, Bureau, Standing Committees and Divisions (including Division
Committees). However, the norm would be that Commissions should not be
regarded as part of the ìregularî organization but rather
as the temporary working groups that carry out specific projects developed
by the Division Committees with the help of the Governance and the Secretariat.
There may be areas in which continuity is needed, such as organization
of a regular series of symposia. Such activities might now be carried out
by a Commission, but a continuing Subcommittee of the Division Committee
could take over such functions.
Divisions should regard the entire worldwide chemical community as the
resource for both ideas and for volunteers to carry out projects, not the
"charmed circle" of IUPAC insiders. Likewise, ideas for projects
should come from the worldwide community. Just how to generate such ideas,
develop projects and seek out people able and willing to work on the projects
is, of course, the key to success or failure. I am convinced that ideas
for useful work usually originate in a "bottoms-up" manner, not
as directed from "top-down". In fact, the establishment of the
pool TMs was to permit the undertaking of such "top-down" projects
generated outside the mainstream of Commission activity, but after several
years there are very few such projects. If we implement the type of structure
envisioned here, but without a good mechanism to identify and develop projects
- and to secure the services of experts on the Commissions - we will kill
the useful work that is now being done. A great deal of thought and planning
is needed to insure that IUPAC can develop the processes to do this without
the large cadre of long-term members of Commissions. I do not pretend to
have the answers, but I think that the following steps would be desirable:
o Insure through the nomination process that the members of the Division
Committees are people with a broad outlook in their discipline. This will
help in generating ideas and in finding good people to work on Commissions.
o Include on Division Committees (wherever possible) editors of major
journals, who have databases of potential project referees and Commission
members. Also, editors may be more aware than the average chemist of areas
in which IUPAC work on standardization, terminology, etc. is really needed.
o Establish close relations between the professional staff of the Secretariat
and national chemical societies and NAOs to identify potential workers.
o Use IUPAC-sponsored symposia more effectively to advertise IUPAC activities
and to solicit ideas for projects through brainstorming sessions at such
symposia. The Secretariat should play a stronger role than it now does
in the arrangements for symposia, and a staff member could attend to note
what ideas are generated.
o Ask Division Committees to organize planning meetings of carefully
chosen people to evaluate the need for a Commission in a given field or
to define a project and suggest Commission members.
o Insure that a real refereeing system is in place for projects proposed
by members of Division Committees or members of any existing Commission.
Under this concept, each Commission would have a defined task with a
defined product and a defined time in which to carry out the project, along
with a budget, expressed in dollars, not Titular Members. It would be expected
that the members of a Commission which has completed its task will consider
their current active involvement in IUPAC to be over until they are asked
to serve on a new Commission. Clearly, some people who distinguish themselves
on such projects may also be asked to serve on Division Committees or in
some other capacity, but there should be no general expectation of a long-term
active involvement. However, creation of an IUPAC Fellows Program [as will
be proposed to Council in Geneva] would, over the course of time, insure
that anyone who has ever worked on any IUPAC activity or project would
have the opportunity to remain in touch with current activities and to
make suggestions for new projects and Commission members.
Proposed Course of Action
The first step, completed at the Executive Committee in Jerusalem, was
to discuss the ideas articulated here and to integrate those with proposals
from individual Divisions and with aspects of the VPCA. The EC endorsed
the concept of an organization based primarily on time-limited Commissions
but recognized that implementation will be dependent on solving a number
of problems, some of which are given above.
The EC also endorsed in principle the recommendations in the VPCA to
establish clear Goals for IUPAC but, again, recognized that further thought
and discussion are needed to refine the Goals. The EC concluded that a
broad-based committee would be needed to develop the necessary strategic
thrusts and to consider their implementation in terms of the structure
and guidelines for scientific activity. The EC therefore authorized the
formation of a Strategy Development and Implementation Committee (SDIC),
to report back to the EC in April 1998. From the findings and recommendations
of the SDIC, the EC expects to formulate specific proposals for approval
by the Bureau in September 1998 and for necessary action by Council in
1999.
The examination of these issues by the SDIC and the possible implementation
of broad changes in goals, structure and operation of IUPAC and its constituent
parts should not negate actions currently underway in and between several
Divisions to effect a number of specific structural and functional changes
during 1997.
Edwin D. Becker
Secretary General
Executive Summary
Formation of the SDIC
Strategic Plan
Organization and Management of Scientific Work
Responsibilities of Division Committees
Election of Division Committees and Division Officers
Project-Driven System
Conversion to a New Project-Driven System
Operation of a Project-Driven System
Evaluation of Projects
Role of the Secretariat
Financial Considerations
Summary of Recommendations on Organization and
Management
Summary of Formal Actions Required
Concluding Statement
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Home - News and Notices - Symposia/ Conferences - IUPAC Organizations and People
Recommendations
- Provisional
Recommendations - Divisions
- Commissions
Standing Committees
- Publications -
Links - IUPAC
Affiliates
Page last modified 5 October 1998.
Copyright © 1997, 98 International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry.
Questions or comments about IUPAC
please contact the Secretariat.
Questions regarding the website
please contact Web Help.