Report on the Fourth Meeting of the IANAS Steering Committee
Monday, January 29 th , 2007
Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Mamirauá, Brazil
Present:
Hernan Chaimovich (Brazilian Academy of Sciences); Howard Alper (Royal Society of Canada); Claudio Bifano (Academy of Physical, Mathematical and Natural Sciences of Venezuela); Harold Ramkissoon (The Caribbean Scientific Union); Juan Asenjo (Chilean Academy of Sciences); Juan Pedro Laclette (Mexican Academy of Sciences); Michael Clegg (National Academy of Sciences, USA); José Antonio de la Peña (National Council for Science and Technology, Mexico); Juan Carlos Romero Hicks (National Council for Science and Technology, Mexico); Rosaura Ruiz-Gutiérrez (Mexican Academy of Sciences); Marcos Cortesão Barnsley Scheuenstuhl (IANAS Executive Secretary); Renata Villalba (Mexican Academy of Sciences).
The meeting was convened at 9:00 a.m.
• Welcome and Introductions
The meeting was opened by Juan Pedro Laclette, who welcomed all participants and expressed the satisfaction of the Mexican Academy of Sciences (MAS) to host the fourth meeting of the IANAS Steering Committee (SC). He announced that José Antonio de la Peña , Former President of MAS, was now in charge of the Office of Foreign Affairs of the Academy. Additionally, de la Peña has recently been appointed Deputy Director of the National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT). This appointment would be good not only for the Mexican scientific community, but also for IANAS, since de la Peña is well aware of the relevance of Mexican participation in international academic organizations. Laclette then informed that the General Director of the CONACYT would attend the meeting to salute the IANAS Steering Committee. He also informed that a team from the MAS Science Education Program Program would make a presentation on the Academy's experience in the morning of May 30. Laclette stressed that Science Education is a priority to the MAS. Different activities directed towards improving the teaching of science in schools are carried out throughout the country. MAS educational programs recruit almost one million students each year. He finished his welcome speech by hoping all participants a fruitful meeting and a pleasant stay in Mexico City .
The next speaker, José Antonio de la Peña , in his dual quality as Officer in charge of Foreign Affairs of the MAS and Deputy Director of the CONACYT, welcomed all to the meeting. Recognizing that he will have to work with financial constraints, he expressed his commitment to strengthen the role of the MAS and CONACYT on international collaboration. A key point was to identify opportunities where local science can make a difference. He also manifested his enthusiasm to collaborate with the sister Academies in the continent. CONACYT understands that regional networking is crucial and strong support will be given to this area. Another important challenge is the strengthening of education in the region at all levels. José Antonio de la Peña emphasized that the region scores low in international exams such as the PISA , what does not reflect the level of regional science. There is an urgent need to improve science education and education as a whole in Latin America . The CONACYT Director is very supportive and committed to science education and the hope is that science education initiatives will be amplified in the near future to the benefit of society.
IANAS co-chair Hernan Chaimovich thanked the MAS for hosting the meeting and providing such a wonderful hospitality. He then recalled that José Antonio de la Peña was not only playing two roles, for he is also the Director of the ICSU Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean . Chaimovich stressed the well-known organizational capacity of de la Peña , thanking him for being available to contribute to regional science. Chaimovich then stated the importance of the election of Laclette to the presidency of the MAS, which had brought back the Mexican Academy to the regional scenario. As for science education, Chaimovich agreed with the view expressed by de la Peña. He stated that although Brazil ranks second to last in PISA , the country is in the top as of scientific production in Latin America . Another interesting aspect is the good results obtained by Brazil in science and mathematics Olympics, which involves millions of participants. It is true that the gold medals are important, but our major concern must be the millions that are at the base of the educational system. Agreeing with the previous speaker, he highlighted the importance of networking, which allows us to learn from each other's experiences. In closing, Chaimovich recognized that there is a financial constraint in the region, but funding is not the only problem. Many times inefficient structures are responsible for constraining S&T in the region and this is a problem that IANAS should look at. The IANAS-Ford Foundation Study under implementation is focusing this issue and at the IANAS General Assembly in Venezuela we will have the opportunity to take a brief look at this problem.
Howard Alper then addressed the audience, thanking the MAS for generously hosting the Fourth Meeting of the IANAS SC. He stated that he fully agreed with what Chaimovich had said. Alper emphasized the potential contribution that the Mexican scientific community could provide to national development, recognizing the importance of de la Peña 's nomination to the position of Deputy Director of the CONACYT. He stressed that Canada had a good experience in getting science and government to work together and if Mexico managed to do the same, he was sure that Mexican science could much benefit from this. Alper concluded his opening words by stressing that the MAS has a leading role to play in catalyzing this process and that he was confident that the election of Laclette would much contribute to help build this momentum.
Note: the following talks, which conclude the opening session, were delivered later at the meeting, as previously indicated and further noted. But to assure a coherent structure to this report, they will be registered here.
Upon the arrival of Juan Carlos Romero Hicks, Deputy Director of CONACYT, Juan Pedro Laclette then introduced Romero Hicks to the members of the SC, declaring that it was an honor to the MAS to have him present at the meeting. Laclette also introduced Rosaura Ruiz Gutiérrez, vice-president of the MAS, who had arrived accompanying the General Director of the CONACYT. He informed the audience that following the tradition at the MAS, the vice-president will be the next president of the Academy, becoming the first woman to preside the Mexican Academy . Laclette then asked the members of the SC to briefly present themselves to Romero Hicks.
In sequence, the IANAS co-chairs presented to those that had arrived a general background on IANAS.
Rosaura Ruiz Gutiérrez then addressed the audience, asserting that Mexico has been doing very little for science. She expressed her hope that meetings such as the meeting of the IANAS SC could help increase governmental awareness on the importance of science and on the need to invest in science for national development and the betterment of the living conditions of the Mexican people. In closing, she manifested her hope that people like Juan Carlos Romero Hicks, José Antonio de la Peña and Juan Pedro Laclette can help change this reality.
The floor was then given to the General Director of the CONACYT, who initially apologized for not being able to be present at the opening of the meeting. Thanking for the opportunity to address IANAS' SC, Romero Hicks welcomed the participants to Mexico City , wishing all a productive meeting and an enjoyable stay in Mexico . Agreeing with the words of the last speaker, he recognized that in Mexico not much has been done for science in the past, stressing that this is a reality that has to be changed. He highlighted that meetings such as this are important to allow us to learn from each others experience and networking is not only crucial but will be a priority to CONACYT. Romero Hicks stated that Mexico is a developing country facing innumerous and gigantic challenges, among which he listed the alleviation of poverty, the bettering of the wages, and social and economic development. He recognized the MAS as a very prestigious institution that much has to offer in terms of collaboration to the Mexican government and society. He affirmed that he was very pleased to have the opportunity to be at the meeting and that he would be looking forward to hear from IANAS and receive its recommendations. Romero Hicks announced that 2007 would be a very important year to the Mexican scientific community for there will be a major review of national S&T policies. He stated that S&T policies should be strengthened, becoming State and not only governmental policies, many times subject to instabilities. He thanked again for the opportunity to meet the IANAS SC, informing that he will be following the results of the meeting. • Minutes of The Previous Meeting
The second item on the agenda was the discussion and approval of the minutes of the previous meeting of the SC, held in Mamirauá , Brazil , on January 2006. These had been previously sent to the members of the SC by e-mail and the corrections suggested by the members of the SC had been incorporated.
Howard Alper asked the members of the SC if all had read the final version of the report and if there were any other corrections or addendums to be made. With no additional comments, the minutes were unanimously approved.
• Report from the co-chairs
Three years of ianas: the road behind and the way ahead
The co-chairs jointly delivered a presentation focusing on the mission, membership, structure and achievements of IANAS since its inaugural meeting in Chile . Chaimovich and Alper highlighted the active role played by the network in policy making in the region. IANAS has collaborated with IADB, participating in the seminar “Financing and Priorities in Science and Technology in Latin America and the Caribbean” , held in Lima on November 2004 and organized in collaboration with the Secretariat for the Organization of American States, the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean and the Peruvian National Council for Science and Technology. During this meeting, IANAS was recognized as an important new player in the regional scenario of S&T.
IANAS has also developed a very intense and proficuous collaboration with the Organization of American States. Several where the activities of this organization in which the network participated, among which was the First Meeting of Ministers and High Authorities on Science and Technology within the Framework of the Inter-American Council for Integrated Development. This meeting was held in Lima on November of 2004 and IANAS was one of eight Civil Society Organizations invited to attend this forum. Besides approving the Declaration of Lima and a Plan for Action, the meeting also approved 15 hemispheric initiatives, among which was the IANAS Science Education Program.
Throughout 2005, several were the OAS activities in which IANAS was engaged. The network participated i n the OAS roundtable on “Creating Employment to Confront Poverty and Strengthen Democracy”, held in Washington D.C. on January. In February IANAS coordinated an OAS virtual forum on “Civil Society on Science, Technology and Innovation“. Following the invitation of the Office of Education, Science and Technology of the OAS, in June IANAS participated in three satellite events in Fort Lauderdale , Florida , as part of the XXXV OAS General Assembly. To provide input to the discussions of the General Assembly and the IV Summit of the Americas , IANAS was invited to organize the “Inter American Academic Dialogue in the Framework of the General Assembly of the OAS, in Fort Lauderdale , on June 2005. The network also participated in the conference “Clearing the Path to Hemispheric Growth: Expanding Credit to Create Jobs and Alleviate Poverty”, promoted by the Florida International University's Summit of the Americas Center, and in the Meeting of the Civil Society Organizations with the Foreign Ministers of the OAS.
The second semester of 2006 was also a period of very intense collaboration between IANAS and the OAS. As part of the preparatory activities for the IV Summit of the Americas , in September IANAS participated in the “Round Table on the Fundamental Role of Science, Technology, Engineering, Innovation and Science Education within the Framework of Discussion for the Fourth Summit of the Americas ”, held in Buenos Aires . At the same opportunity, IANAS also participated in the Regional Forum with Civil Society on “Creating Jobs to Fight Poverty and Strengthen Democratic Governance”. Then, from October 28 to November 5, the network attended the IV Summit of the Americas , held in Mar del Plata , Argentina . IANAS participated in the Meeting of Foreign Affairs Ministers with Representatives from the Civil Society, highlighting the role of S,T&I in society. As a result of our efforts, five paragraphs (Articles 44 to 48) were inserted in the final version of the Declaration of Mar del Plata , approved by the Heads of State.
In May 2006, IANAS was invited by OAS to act as one of the four moderators of the Virtual Forum “Good Governance and Development in the Knowledge-Based Society”, organized as part of OAS' efforts to promote and facilitate the participation and contribution of civil society organizations within the framework of its next General Assembly. The recommendations and reflections that resulted from this Virtual Forum were later presented in the dialogue between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, the Secretary General, and the Heads of Delegation of the Member States with representatives of the civil society, held in the Dominican Republic on June, 2006.
In recognition of the network's contributions, in December 2006 the Permanent Council of OAS recognized IANAS as a civil society organization credentialed within its structure to participate and collaborate in activities of the organization. In its statement, OAS recognized that IANAS might contribute to the design and implementation of plans and projects in scientific education and research, technological cooperation, and other areas in which project implementation is based on scientific criteria.
UNESCO was another organization with which we have collaborated. IANAS participated in a meeting with UNESCO's ambassadors in the Americas on June 2005 at the organization's headquarters in Paris to discuss opportunities of collaboration between the network and UNESCO. The meeting helped UNESCO ambassadors in the hemisphere get acquainted with IANAS and identify common areas of action, thus strengthening the links between the two organizations.
The ambassadors were extremely interested in IANAS projects and initiatives. During the meeting, IANAS emphasized that the network was not merely seeking financial support from UNESCO, but also wished to build a significant link with the organization to undertake effective collaborations in areas of mutual interest. At the end of the meeting, UNESCO's Director of the Division of Basic and Engineering Sciences endorsed this vision, stating that IANAS is a legitimate partner for the necessary networking efforts in the Americas . More recently IANAS participated in the “Latin American and Caribbean Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Development”, held in Havana on December of 2005. Organized by UNESCO and the Cuban Ministry of Science and Technology, the conference assembled representatives from the scientific community and governments of fourteen different countries.
IANAS also participated in a Ministerial Round Table and on the CARICOM (Caribbean Community and Common Market) Conference on “Harnessing Science and Technology for Caribbean Development”, which were held in Trinidad & Tobago on May 2006. Organized by CARISCIENCE, the CARICOM Secretariat, UNESCO and the University of the West Indies , these two meetings brought together 6 Ministers of S&T from the region and 50 selected regional scientists.
The co-chairs praised the development of the Science Education and Water Programs, which have successfully held several meetings. The Science Education Program, presently chaired by Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, engages 16 of the 17 IANAS member Academies, having held meetings of its national focal points in Chile (2004 and 2006) and Canada (2005). Local meetings were also organized in several countries. The program also organized a “Workshop on Evaluation of Inquiry-Based Science Education”, in Rio de Janeiro , on May 2006, to regionally discuss the ideas that were being discussed by the IAP multinational Working Group of experts on science education.
The Water Program, co-chaired by the Brazilian and the Mexican Academies of Sciences, engages 14 IANAS member Academies. The program held its inaugural meeting in Bogotá in 2005 and, in 2006, held the second meeting of its national focal points in Brazil . The Water Program jointly organized with IAP a Regional Workshop for the Americas , focusing on "Bridging Water Research and Management: Enhancing Water Management Capacity in the Hemisphere“. This workshop brought together researchers and high-level water managers to regionally discuss the major problems in water resources management and how can science contribute to the overcoming of these.
As for the Capacity Building Program, this was still in the phase of implementation. In the context of this program, a IANAS delegation visited Managua on February 2006 to discuss with local authorities and members of the local scientific community the importance of a national strategy for science, technology and innovation as a tool for economic development and the reduction of poverty. This visited helped stimulate the establishment of the Nicaraguan Society for Science.
IANAS has also been successful in disclosing its actions, via the maintenance of its trilingual website and via the edition of bulletins, that circulate both electronically and in paper form. In conclusion, the co-chairs stated that if 2004 had been the year of establishment of the network, 2005 was the year of its consolidation and 2006 could be considered the year in which IANAS had amplified its actions and had its role recognized by different multilateral organizations and governments within the region. In the opinion of Chaimovich and Alper, much has already been achieved, but there is still a lot to be done. 4. General discussion on the report of the co-chairs
Hernan Chaimovich noted that Howard Alper had been elected IAP co-chair, during the last IAP General Assembly, held in Alexandria . He congratulated Alper for his election, stressing that the IANAS experience and the fact that the network is recognized as extremely efficient helped consolidate Alper's candidacy. Chaimovich expressed his satisfaction on having worked with Alper as IANAS co-chair, stating that it was an honor for us to have one of IANAS' co-chairs being now an IAP co-chair. As for the double representation, this would not be a problem since we will be having a General Assembly in a few months, with a new co-chair being then elected. Chaimovich invited the members of the SC to not only discuss the report of the co-chairs, but to also point proposals and priorities for the network in the coming three years. During the General Assembly, new programs and/or initiatives will probably be established, and he considered that one possibility to which we could look at would be an action focused on the Amazon region. This is an extremely sensitive topic and several Science Academies from countries sharing the Amazon Forest have been claiming for a joint action on this area. Chaimovich stated that presently there are hundreds of programs (national, bilateral or multilateral) being carried out in the Amazon region, but there is a lack of coordination among these. IANAS can make a difference in this area, bringing an important contribution to regional S&T and development, which must necessarily be considered from a sustainable perspective.
Harold Ramkissoon was given the floor and he initially congratulated and thanked the MAS for efficiently organizing the meeting of the SC. He also congratulated the co-chairs for their report, stressing that they had presented a good overview of the actions of the network since its last General Assembly. Ramkissoon then expressed his support to the idea of having an action for the Amazon region, but he thought that the network should also support more effectively the countries with less developed scientific communities. Questioned by Chaimovich about how would IANAS make a difference on this, Ramkissoon explained that the network should work together with ICSU and TWAS to help foster scientific development in the least developed countries.
Howard Alper pondered that actions supporting the scientific development of less developed countries would fit better under the scope of the Capacity Building Programme. He understood that this was an important issue for the region, but thorough attention should be given to how exactly could IANAS support scientists in the region.
Juan Asenjo agreed with Alper, stating that he also thought that this type of action would be better under the umbrella of the Capacity Building Program. Support to the structuring of new Science Academies would be more effective to strengthen local research than a direct action of IANAS. Academies from the more developed countries and IANAS could play an important role in helping countries with no Academies to organize their national scientific communities. Without local organization, no kind of support would be sustainable in the long run.
Claudio Bifano declared his support to the implementation of a program related to the Amazon region. He emphasized that since the General Assembly in Chile , the Academies from Venezuela , Brazil , Peru , Colombia and Bolivia have been talking about the possibility of having these five Academies organize a joint meeting to discuss the Amazon region. Indeed IANAS could play a role here, implementing a program on a topic that is extremely sensitive. Another issue that IANAS should look at, via its Science Education Program, is the decreasing quality of higher education in the region. Bifano also highlighted that during the General Assembly, IANAS should discuss how could the Academies more effectively work together. It is important that the network knows which Academies are willing to collaborate in the implementation of actions. We should also try to identify countries in which we would initially focus our capacity building efforts. For this we need to identify leading scientists in the countries with no Academies, so that through them we can help the local scientific communities to become organized. Bifano stressed that this would be a better strategy than trying to do this through governments. Chaimovich then argued that although he agreed with Bifano's concerns, we cannot ignore the existing local structures. We have to go through channels such as rectors, ministers, presidents of research councils, for example. It would be impossible to try to build something consistent if we do not work together with these structures and institutional channels.
Michael Clegg was the next speaker to address the audience. He agreed that IANAS had proven to be an extremely dynamic organization, being the most effective and inclusive of the regional networks affiliated to IAP. He stated that global challenges will be increasingly important, demanding common actions involving a wide variety of actors. Networking will be crucial to make viable these actions. Clegg emphasized that the prime role of IANAS should be capacity building and that the network should work more effectively towards the empowerment of the scientific community in the Americas . He concluded his talk suggesting that IANAS implement a program on Global Warming. Upon considerations from Chaimovich and Alper on the need for a narrower focus to this proposal, Mike agreed that if this program comes to be established it should focus Global Change from a regional perspective.
In sequence, Juan Pedro affirmed that IANAS has an important role to play articulating diverse existing initiatives. The network was already successful through bringing to the table the different actors, but now they should discuss collaborative issues on Global Warming. He proposed the implementation of actions related to the Mesoamerican rainforest, a region that encompasses several countries included in IANAS. This action could receive feedback from the Amazon action, and vice-versa, for the benefit of both initiatives.
Alper agreed that getting people together to discuss what they are doing and what is common to their work would for itself be a good contribution. But IANAS needs to identify the niches in which it will operate, being these areas in which necessarily the networks' intervention can make a difference. He also emphasized the importance of Science Education for IANAS, stressing that a major problem in this area are the low wages that teachers throughout the region receive.
Michael Clegg agreed with the previous speakers, accentuating that IANAS has to help the Academies empower themselves to make their expertise publicized. It is important that we provide the Academies tools to help them strengthen their roles.
Juan Asenjo then highlighted the success of IANAS, stressing that it was very clear during the IAP General Assembly in Alexandria that our network is recognized by the other Academies as an active organization, serving as an example to IAP. IANAS' success is intrinsically related to correct choices of programs that had been made, with these programs presenting concrete results. Asenjo called the attention to the fact that when the network discusses the implementation of new programs, we must keep this in mind. In conclusion, if a program to the Amazon region is to be launched, it must define a very clear focus for it.
At this point the discussion was interrupted due to the arrival of the General Director of the CONACYT, Juan Carlos Romero Hicks. The register of this part of the meeting was inserted at the beginning of this report, to assure a coherent structure to this document.
After the pronouncement of General Director Romero Hicks, Laclette thanked him for coming to the meeting and resumed the meeting's agenda.
Asenjo asked for the floor and reaffirmed the importance of networking and international collaboration. He also advocated the need to improve the links between science and society, a concern that has been present in international fora and that IAP has extensively sustained. In closing, he stressed the need to tack science, technology and innovation.
Chaimovich agreed with Asenjo's considerations, stating that what was under discussion was capacity building. Questions such as how do we relate to society and how to articulate S,T&I are interrogations that should be dealt with under the scope of a capacity building program.
Laclette then added that when we think about what is left of nature in the planet, by far the Amazon region is the most important asset. This reason by itself would justify the importance of a program on the Amazon. However, as he mentioned earlier, this would be specific to a region in the continent, and suggested to consider other programs, for example on Mesoamerica so that other countries and member Academies find their own niche. He regretted not being aware on the discussion of specific proposal during this meeting, for he could have proposed additional possibilities for discussion.
Commenting on Laclette's words, Alper declared that if we happen to build two initiatives – Amazon and Mesoamerica – it would be very positive to see what converge in these two regions. Crossing information from these two regions and learning from this process might be beneficial to all. As for Laclette's concern on not having brought specific program proposals, he commented that one of IANAS' strengths is exactly its experience on building collectively its actions. He personally has been involved in organizations such as NATO and the University of Ottawa , where brainstorming is a crucial aspect for the construction of plans of action. On his opinion, the group assembled in the IANAS SC has been working magnificently and this is, to a big extent, due to collective building. This dynamics has been very important for the strengthening of the group.
Chaimovich agreed with Alper, stressing that the SC is a space for discussion, where ideas to be presented to the General Assembly are proposed. It is fundamental that the SC works as a brainstorming arena, allowing us to collectively build proposals. When he brings to the table the idea of a program on the Amazon, which is something that has evolved from previous discussions, evidently this is not a closed proposal. Chaimovich stated that although biodiversity is a crucial topic for research in the Amazon, he does not consider it the most important issue for the region. The Amazon Forest plays an important role in regulating the climate and consequently has a direct impact on climate change. This correlation and its extend needs to be studied and IANAS can add value to this process. But this was a proposal do be discussed and eventually presented to the General Assembly, not a closed proposal. Asenjo reinforced the position of the co-chairs, praising IANAS experience in collective construction. He also participated in other organization in Chile where open debate proved to be an important component to the establishment of priorities. This mechanism has proven to be effective in IANAS, where we brainstorm on proposals that will be discussed and decided only at the General Assembly.
Ramkissoon was the next to agree with the co-chairs and Asenjo, sharing his view on the importance of the brainstorming sessions in the meetings of the IANAS SC. Since the first meeting held in Ottawa , the SC had been a forum for open discussion, which has allowed us to grow as a group that learned to closely interact and work together in an open minded way. On his opinion, this experience has been crucial to consolidate IANAS and make it a successful organization.
Laclette then raised the possibility of IANAS having an initiative on vaccine production. He remembered that this is an area where several countries in the region have good expertise. Considering that there is a huge demand in the region for vaccines, especially in the least developed countries, this initiative could contribute for the improvement of public health in the region.
Clegg stated that although this topic was certainly important for the region, he was skeptical if IANAS could effectively do anything on this area. The network works with a limited budget and any action related to vaccine research and/or production necessarily demands a huge amount of funds.
Chaimovich stated that he agreed with the importance of vaccine research and production, but he was not sure if IANAS could make a difference on this topic. Although this is an essential issue for the Americas , he thinks that IANAS will not be able to do much here, for the reasons exposed by Clegg. Chaimovich also stressed the importance of bringing together policy makers and other stakeholders in the region, to discuss and identify priorities.
Laclette affirmed that each proposal will necessarily have its limitations, even the Amazon proposal. He reemphasized the need to identify issues that would involve a bigger number of IANAS member Academies.
Rosaura Ruiz-Gutiérrez then addressed the SC, expressing her satisfaction with the level of the discussion that she was witnessing. She also suggested that IANAS could consider the possibility of implementing a program on “Women in Science”.
Alper agreed on the importance of action targeted at the empowerment of women in Science, informing that many organizations already develop initiatives on this area. Specifically he mentioned an IAC report that lists several recommendations. The major problem is that in spite of many documents, there is little implementation of the proposed action. Rather then building a specific program on “Women in Science”, it would be best to promote programs that can make a difference, where women – and also young scientists – can effectively participate. As an example, he noted that Canada has developed a program with Japan and the UK , in which two women from each country visit other countries for lectures and meetings. This program has been very successful, contributing to empower women in Science in Canada .
Asenjo informed that Chile has a good experience in investigating the interest of women in getting into Science. He agrees that this is a very important issue, but he thinks that this should be tackled nationally by each Academy, once there is much specificity in each country.
Chaimovich recognized the importance of this issue. But again he called the attention to the fact that IANAS should reflect on what can it effectively do in this area. We could eventually ask national governments to devote a percentage of exchange scholarships for a program such as the one mentioned by Alper. Additionally, IANAS could approach TWAS to discuss this issue.
Ramkissoon remarked that the participation of women in Science is a problem at the Caribbean , but he also understands that this is a problem that must be coped nationally. He could not see IANAS making a big difference on this area.
Clegg highlighted the fact the IANAS programs are usually related to IAP. In discussing new programs and initiatives, besides looking at other actions of IAP not yet replicated by IANAS, we could consider other specific regional problems and issues to which IANAS could look at.
Chaimovich featured that another issue toward which IANAS could look at is capacity building in S&T decision making. Many countries in the Americas are building, discussing and/or reviewing their S&T structures. This is an issue in the region towards which many Academies have been looking at. IANAS can potentially contribute to this debate by assembling S&T executives in the region to discuss their experiences in the organization of the national S&T systems. He also stated that IANAS must work closely with OAS on this issue, once OAS and other organizations such as UNESCO may be willing to support initiatives in this area. In conclusion, Chaimovich remembered that IANAS' basic mission is to help empower the local scientific communities, helping them serve society. Consequently, IANAS should definitely launch a vigorous capacity building program. This proposal has been present since the SC meeting in Tobago and the General Assembly would be the opportunity to officially launch this program.
Clegg agreed that this could be an issue to be dealt with by IANAS. He mentioned that at the TWAS meeting in Angra dos Reis, he was impressed by the presence of 35 S&T ministers that, under the invitation of TWAS, went to Brazil to discuss their views and experiences. Clegg also listed other topics that will certainly be in the agenda in the coming years and that can be tackled by the network: biodiversity loss; climate change; energy; emerging diseases. These could be potential programs and initiatives towards which IANAS could look at.
Chaimovich and Alper then thanked the members of the SC for the productive brainstorming session, informing that several proposals had been presented and that during the coming General Assembly we will have the opportunity to further discuss the proposals and decide which shall be adopted as new IANAS programs and/or initiatives.
5. Statutes: Are New Rules Necessary?
The co-chairs proposed to the members of the SC that IANAS should benefit from the first General Assembly after its inaugural meeting, to be held in June, to review the networks statute, based on the three years experience of the organization. Recently IAP also reviewed its statute, during the General Assembly held in Egypt , and IANAS should develop a similar process to adjust situations that had not been foreseen.
The members of the SC unanimously agreed on the establishment of a review process. A review committee was chosen, being composed by Harold Ramkissoon, Howard Alper, Juan Pedro Laclette, and Michael Clegg.
Laclette informed that he would shortly have to go to Washington and the committee could benefit from this opportunity to hold a meeting. All agreed on that and the members of the review committee would be in touch to close the date. This meeting would scrutinize the statute, draft a proposal and send it out to the other members of the SC for comments.
6. IANAS Secretariat: Strengthening Its Role
Chaimovich appraised the functioning of the network's secretariat, considering that it has been very effective during the last years. He noted that IANAS has operated with a double secretariat - one in Brazil and the other in Canada - what sometimes seemed confusing to those needing a contact reference. Although this has functioned quite well in the past, he feels that the growth of the organization demands a more clear structure. For this reason, he suggested that the network should adopt an executive secretariat, to be hosted by one of the IANAS member Academies.
Clegg endorsed Chaimovich's words, stressing the importance of having a dynamic structure for the organization. He stated that IANAS should look at IAP's experience, as well as the experience of other international S&T organizations. All of these operate under an executive secretariat and maybe IANAS should adopt the same structure.
Asenjo was next to speak, emphasizing that the crucial issue was to have a secretariat that works. He stated that IANAS should see which Academies would be willing to host the executive secretariat and then decide upon these.
Ramkissoon declared that Brazil has been very efficient in hosting the IANAS secretariat. He suggested that Brazil should keep hosting the executive secretariat, and in the future it could rotate among member Academies. Alper attested that Canada and Brazil have worked quite well and the Brazilian Academy has been extremely effective in the work it has done. He supported Ramkissoon's proposal, arguing that Brazil should continue to serve as executive secretariat. Alper mentioned that with his election to IAP, Canada would be leaving the position of co-chair. Having Brazil host the executive secretariat would assure continuity to the network.
After a short debate, there was a general agreement that it would be important to have the network's executive secretariat hosted by only one Academy, thus providing a central office to IANAS. The members of the SC agreed that the Brazilian Academy of Sciences has functioned well as a secretariat and that it should be kept as the central office. Notwithstanding, this is a decision that has to be taken by the General Assembly, when any other Academy may present its candidacy to serve as executive secretariat.
The co-chairs as well as other members of the IANAS SC recognized the efficient work of Marcos Cortesão Barnsley Scheuenstuhl as Executive Secretary. The SC then decided that Marcos will continue coordinating the IANAS Secretariat.
7. IANAS Steering Committee: Increasing Responsibilities
Chaimovich opened the discussion, recognizing that the collaboration of the members of the SC has been essential for the success of IANAS. Notwithstanding, the increasing responsibilities of the network make it impossible for the co-chairs to attend all the invitations and satisfactorily exercise the network's representation. Many are the demands and this will certainly increase with the growth of IANAS. Looking at the future, we must engage even more effectively the members of the SC, having these sharing a larger responsibility in the daily affairs of the network. Chaimovich stated that different multilateral organizations invite IANAS to develop partnerships and to participate on activities. Being IANAS the only significant regional civil society organization in the area of S&T, it is important that we assure our representation when it is required. This is crucial to strengthen S&T and promote regional development. IANAS' participation in OAS activities are a good example of how can we make a difference, contributing to the fulfillment of our mission. In conclusion, he reaffirmed that the increasing responsibilities demand a wider representation and participation. He suggested that Laclette and Asenjo could assume the responsibility of helping the co-chairs represent the network in meetings with multilateral organizations and Clegg could chair the capacity building programme, which will require a lot of energy.
Alper stated that the increasing demands of IANAS require a more active engagement of the SC that goes beyond participating in meetings. To build an effective collaboration with regional multilateral organizations we need to establish a closer contact with these, asking for suggestions and trying to work together in a daily basis. An on-going relationship is important and will be beneficial to both parties.
Asenjo declared that he was available and willing to assume further tasks. As for the need to assure a stronger IANAS presence in the hemisphere, he emphasized that this indeed represents an important challenge to IANAS. More than just asking for financial support from the multilateral organizations, the network has to show presence and represent the voice of Science in the regional scenario.
Clegg agreed with the co-chairs on the importance of getting the members of the SC to share a larger responsibility. He asked about the prestige of OAS within the Americas and asked how could the NAS support more effectively the work of the network.
Chaimovich explained that OAS was central in the sixties and seventies for the S&T community in the Americas , playing a major role in networking. Presently the organization faces political challenges, but it can play a role in S&T in the hemisphere. IANAS can help OAS recover the role it used to play.
Alper stated that Canada foresees an important role for the OAS and IANAS should try to help the organization recover its role, as suggested by Chaimovich.
Laclette declared that he was willing to participate actively and support the actions of IANAS, and would be open to work together with the co-chairs and the other members of the SC to assure a stronger participation of IANAS in the region.
Clegg resumed the discussion of the capacity building program, remembering the visit of a IANAS delegation to Nicaragua . He considered that a very positive example of how can IANAS help countries with no Academies to mobilize local scientific community. After that visit, a scientific society was organized and IANAS played a role on this process. IANAS should identify other countries that could be visited and a visit agenda should be organized.
Ramkissoon informed that Panama was also in a process of organizing its scientific community and IANAS should try to approach them to make us available to help in whatever they might need.
Cortesão mentioned that in the recent IAP General Assembly, a Strategic Plan for the organization for the period 2007-2009 had been approved. This document has a strong emphasis on capacity building and the role that Academies can play in effectively assisting their national governments and societies. Recognizing that many Academies lack strong structures and visibility, the Strategic Plan proposes an emphasis in helping member Academies enhance their visibility and strengthen their advisory capacity. Cortesão stated that this document could be a good reference for the discussion of the IANAS Capacity Building Program and suggested that during the IANAS General Assembly a session should be held for the presentation and discussion of this document.
Chaimovich then stated that to orient our action it would be enriching to have solid information on the scientific communities of the countries where we are to focus our capacity building efforts. It would be important to organize a database - such as ISI, SciELO, and RECyT - providing us input for our action. Additionally, besides the personal contact with eminent researchers, Chaimovich stressed that it is important to establish institutional channels for the unfolding of IANAS' capacity building actions.
Agreeing with the importance of having IANAS develop a Capacity Building Program, Ramkissoon remembered that other networks such as TWAS already play a role on this area. Noting that the roles of IANAS, IAP and TWAS were different, he stressed that it would be important to articulate the initiatives from these organizations to avoid duplication of efforts.
A general discussion on the organization of the Capacity Building Program then took place and it was agreed that IANAS would not be able to implement action in many countries at the same time. The network needs to identify potential targets and focus on no more than two countries per year. It was highlighted that each country would have different local realities that would demand specific actions. A list of people and countries to be invited to the IANAS General Assembly should be prepared. Paraguay , Ecuador , Uruguay , Honduras , Nicaragua , Panama and El Salvador were mentioned as countries that could be approached by IANAS. Clegg assumed the responsibility of identifying contacts on these countries. He also informed that the NAS would be open to help cover travel expenses of participants from these countries, if this proved to be necessary. Clegg would also prepare a plan of action to the program, to be proposed at the IANAS General Assembly in Venezuela .
8. General Assembly
Invited by the co-chairs to inform the SC on the organization of the IANAS General Assembly, Bifano reaffirmed the interest of the Academy of Physical , Mathematical and Natural Sciences of Venezuela to host this meeting. He stated that the Academy has allocated funds to help fund the General Assembly. Additionally he will approach the Polar Foundation to discuss the possibility of having them help support the meeting. Bifano noted that he also counts on the support of IANAS to help with some of the expenses. The idea is to hold the meeting in Margarita Island , right after the CCC meeting that will also be hosted by the Venezuelan Academy . Holding the two meetings simultaneously will be productive for it will help in the mobilization of the Academies and in lowering costs. After a brief discussion, it was approved that prior to the General Assembly, a two-day conference will be organized. This conference will represent a good opportunity for member Academies to discuss regional S&T capacity building, the role of the Academies and the actions of IANAS in the past three years. The conference will be held in June 7-8 and the General Assembly will be on June 9.
After contacting hotels in Margarita Island , Bifano will prepare a budget for the meeting. The co-chairs will prepare an agenda proposal to be discussed by the SC. As soon as possible, invitations shall be sent out. The Venezuelan Academy will contact national authorities, inviting them to participate at the IANAS Conference and General Assembly. The executive secretariat will consult member Academies on candidacies for co-chairmanship, as established by the statute. 9. Other business
Ramkissoon reported the SC on the Ministerial Round Table and CARICOM Conference, held in Trinidad & Tobago on May 2006. These meetings, organized by CARISCIENCE, the CARICOM Secretariat, UNESCO and the University of the West Indies , brought together six Ministers of Science and Technology from the region and fifty selected outstanding regional scientists. Besides Keith Mitchell, Prime Minister of Grenada and responsible for S&T in CARICOM, who delivered the feature address, representatives from important organizations (UNESCO; IADB; OAS; IAP) were also present. Ramkissoon informed that during these meetings a Tobago Declaration and a Plan of Action were approved. A Steering Committee responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Plan of Action, reporting directly to Prime Minister Mitchell, was chosen and he had been selected to head this committee. Since the establishment of this Steering Committee, two meetings had already been held.
Laclette remembered the members of the SC that for those who would be staying for one more day in Mexico , the MAS had prepared a presentation of the Science Education Programme implemented by the Academy. A team from the program, coordinated by Carlos Bosch, will come to the meeting room in the morning and all were invited to be present.
The co-chairs congratulated the members of the SC for the accomplishment of a productive discussion and thanked the Mexican Academy of Sciences for the excellent job in organizing the meeting. A special thanks was made to Renata Villalba, who efficiently interacted with the members of the SC making everything easier for all. NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the IANAS Steering Committee will take place in Margarita Island on the evening of June 6, 2006. The Academy of Physical , Mathematical and Natural Sciences of Venezuela will soon be contacting the Steering Committee to provide further details.
The meeting was successfully concluded at 5:55 p.m. Present
Hernan Chaimovich (co-chair, Brazilian Academy of Sciences); Howard Alper (co-chair, Royal Society of Canada); Claudio Bifano (Academy of Physical, Mathematical and Natural Sciences of Venezuela); Harold Ramkissoon (The Caribbean Scientific Union); Juan Asenjo (Chilean Academy of Sciences); Michael Clegg (National Academy of Sciences); José Galizia Tundisi (Water Programme co-chair); Marcos Cortesão Barnsley Scheuenstuhl (IANAS - Brazilian Secretariat); Avílio Antonio Franco (Secretary in Charge of the Research Institutes, Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology); Ana Rita Pereira Alves (General Director of the Mamirauá Sustainable Development Institute).
Unable to Attend
Octavio Paredes (Mexican Academy of Sciences).
The meeting was convened at 9:00 a.m.
BACK
|
