6. Status of Changes in Organization and
Management of IUPAC's Scientific Activities
Prof. Jortner noted that the program approved by the Bureau at
its meeting in Frankfurt was an integrated program. This program
is well under way. The Division Committees have been given greater
responsibility. The Project Approval and planning process is
proceeding. The steps the Council is being asked to approve will
enable the continuation of the holistic program approved by the
Bureau. What is wrong in the current system is not individual
Commissions but the Commission structure as an organizational
form.
Dr. Becker reviewed the paper in the Agenda Materials. Most implementation
items have been initiated. Two implementation items require approval
by Council: the change to Bylaw 4.307 (see
Attachment
1) regarding the right of Titular Members of IUPAC bodies to receive
support and under Bylaw 4.302, decide to continue each of the current
Commissions for the next biennium only, with termination at the end
of 2001. The right of Titular Members of IUPAC bodies to receive support
has not engendered much discussion and seems to be generally accepted.
The non-continuation of Commissions has also received widespread support,
but two counter-proposals have been received from NAOs and several
individuals have voiced strong objections. While some Commissions
feel the need to continue, most seem to believe that their work can
be carried on under the new structure. It would be difficult to continue
some Commissions and not others.
Dr. Becker then noted the new role of the Division Committees.
They are not expected to generate new projects or to cover all
of a broad area of chemistry. He also pointed out that Commissions
can be reestablished using the procedure described in Bylaw 4.301.
The response of the Divisions to the new processes has been good.
Project proposals are being handled. All the Division Committees
have been expanded to include current Commission Chairmen. Division
II has gone through the full Nominating Committee procedure for
choosing new members of he Division Committee.
Dr. Becker pointed out that current Commission Members are in
an excellent position to submit new projects. He also noted that
the new Project Committee had met and the Chairman, Prof. den
Boef would report to the Bureau later in the meeting. The Evaluation
Committee had also met and was beginning its work.
In summary, a large amount of work has already been done. A major
issue that must be decided before the 2001 General Assembly is
what constitutes the membership of a Division. This must be decided
to determine the electorate for the Division Committee. One proposal
is to include the Chairmen of Task Groups and possibly the members
of ancillary bodies.
Dr. Becker then introduced a proposed Policy Statement by the Bureau
on National Representatives. It was noted that National Representatives
normally participate by e-mail and therefore NR candidates should
have internet e-mail access. Travel and subsistence is normally not
provided by IUPAC for NRs. A number of members commented on the importance
of NRs to the interaction of IUPAC with the worldwide chemistry community.
Further discussion noted the importance of NRs as a mechanism for
bringing new people into IUPAC activities. Prof. Steyn suggested that
a phrase be added to the Policy statement regarding the situation
in which a nominee is suggested by the Chairman of the Task Group
to the NAO for Nomination as a National Representative. The Policy
Statement (see Attachment 2), as amended,
was unanimously approved by the Bureau.
Prof. Jortner expressed his appreciation of the leadership shown
by the Division Presidents in the past two years. He then asked
Prof. Schneider to give a brief overview of the first meeting
of the Evaluation Committee.
Prof. Schneider began by reviewing the Terms of Reference of
the Committee. He described the Committee's work as having two
main aspects. The evaluation of the conformance of completed
projects to plan. This is a relatively short term activity that
can be done soon after a project is completed. It involves reviewing
data compiled by the Secretariat on expenditures vs. budget,
actual time required for completion, nature of the product, report,
book, web database, etc. as compared to the original proposal.
The second aspect is a longer term activity, namely, the evaluation
of the impact of a project. This can usually only be done some
time after the project is completed and requires judgement based
on a number of criteria-- some quantitative, such as citations,
web site hits, adoption by journals; others more qualitative,
based on evidence regarding the use of the information in a report
by the industrial or academic chemical community. The Committee
plans to begin its work by requesting each Division and Standing
Committee to submit two projects for evaluation, one recently
completed and one completed long enough in the past so that its
impact on the community can be measured. A meeting will be held
early in 2000 to review the submitted projects. This will enable
the committee to prepare a report for the Bureau meeting in September
2000.
The Bureau then discussed a number of different points. It was
noted that the Division Committee is solely responsible for approving
projects for Division Funding. The need for a special procedure
in the case of projects submitted by a member of the Division
Committee, especially the Division President, was noted. The
importance of titles was discussed. While the group recognized
their importance, it was also felt to be important not to use
the same titles in different circumstances. The question of the
ability of Division Committees to form subcommittees was discussed.
Divisions have been asked to terminate all existing Subcommittees
as part of the change to a project driven system. However, Division
Committees can form new subcommittees if they feel they are necessary
for the work of the Division. The procedure for selection of
Division Officers was reviewed. Division Committees are elected
by the membership of the Division from a slate of nominees selected
by a Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee should have
three outside members. The Division Officers are then elected
by the members of the Division Committee. It was noted that since
the Division Committees are self-controlling, it was important
to have external reviewers for projects and outside members of
the Nominating Committees. The importance of defining the electorate
for the Division Committee was noted. Election by e-mail can
lead to a depersonalization of the process. The value of having
some members of Task Groups at the General Assembly was stressed.
The structure of the General Assembly will in the future be largely
up to the Divisions.
A brief discussion of the project approval system noted that
the Division Committee names outside reviewers and raised the
question of the possible value of an example to clarify for Council
how a project is approved. The role of the Division Committee
is seen as that of managing projects, not originating them. The
suggestion was made that those National Chemical Societies that
are not NAOs should be asked to suggest (via their NAOs) National
Representatives for projects. IUPAC sponsored conferences were
seen as a potentially important source of project ideas.
The mechanism for the creation of a new Commission according
to the procedure described in Bylaw 4.301 was discussed. The
earliest that a proposal to create a new Commission can be brought
before Council will be at Brisbane. This requires presentation
of a proposal to the Bureau in 2000 and the formation of a three
member Committee. It was pointed out that this procedure transfers
the burden of proof to those who wish to create a new Commission.
Prof. Gilbert reported that his Division Committee had voted (19 for
11 against) to formally request that Commission IV.1 be continued.
Prof. Jortner noted that the Council will make the final decision
on continuing any Commissions. It is not clear that the interests
of the chemical sciences are best served by four commissions on Nomenclature.
He proposed that an ad hoc Committee on IUPAC Strategy for
Chemical Nomenclature be created to study this most important issue.
The importance of having representation from the existing Nomenclature
Commissions on the ad hoc Committee was stressed by a number
of members. The discussion emphasized the necessity of having the
ad hoc Committee finish its work in time so that its report
can be available to guide the Bureau if, as expected, requests are
made to create new Commissions. The Bureau authorized the President
to form the proposed ad hoc Committee on IUPAC Strategy for
Chemical Nomenclature.
Back to the Index - Next
Item
Home - News & Notices
- Organizations &
People - Standing
Committees - Divisions
Projects
- Reports - Publications -
Symposia/Conferences
- Links - AMP
Page last modified 18 November 1999.
Copyright © 1999 International Union of Pure and Applied
Chemistry.