Meeting Minutes
COCI ANNUAL MEETING BRUSSELS MAY 9-11 2004
Sunday, May 9
Informal supper meeting
Attendees included:
David Evans, Chairman
Mark Cesa, Secretary/Vice Chairman
Akira Ishitani
Jinliang Qiao
Alan Smith
Michael Booth
Charles Gwaza
The minutes from the COCI Strategy meeting of February 2004 were reviewed over dinner in advance of the official meeting starting Monday, to provide members with context for the upcoming annual meeting.
Monday, May 10
CEFIC Headquarters
1.Welcome and introductions
Attendees:
David Evans, Chairman (UK)
Mark Cesa, Secretary/Vice Chairman (USA)
Colin Humphris, TM (UK)
Akira Ishitani, TM (Japan)
Alexandre Pokrovsky, TM (Russia)
Alan Smith, TM (UK)
Jonas Unger, TM (Sweden)
Michael Booth, AM (South Africa)
Michael Droescher, AM (Germany)
Jinliang Qiao, AM (China)
Esma Toprak, AM (Turkey)
Charles Gwaza, Provisional Member (Nigeria)
Peter Atkins, Representative from CCE
Guests:
Fabienne Meyers, IUPAC Secretariat
Mara Carboara, CEFIC (Tuesday morning)
Alain Perroy, Director General, CEFIC (Monday afternoon)
Action: Members are requested to review their information in the attached member list and make corrections as necessary.
2.Apologies for absence
Apologies were received from:
Aldo Alles, TM
Khalidah Al-Dalama, AM (Kuwait)
Daniel Bernard, AM (France)
Jacek Kijenski, AM (Poland)
3.Chairman‘s business
Evans reviewed uses for $20K for COCI biennium; this level of funding is expected to support member travel expenses for meetings and commitments for 2004 and 2005. The expenses of Titular Members to attend the General Assembly in Beijing are covered by IUPAC central funds. NAO’s can be asked for funding for non-titular members.
Evans suggested an interim meeting early in 2005 pending availability of funds for travel expenses. Evans will ask members for their financial situation for Beijing, and then make a decision on funding for an interim meeting. Pokrovsky suggested that the interim meeting be held in St. Petersburg or Moscow. (see Agenda Item (21) below).
One member of the committee was unable to attend this meeting (Al Dalama) because of inability to obtain a visa in time. In many cases a letter from the COCI chairman is required to obtain the visa. Evans proposed that attendees needing visas draft an appropriate letter for signature, in order to exploit the applicant’s knowledge of local requirements. This will be important for travel to Beijing. Another suggestion, from Pokrovsky, was to ask John Jost to draft a generic letter of invitation (in electronic form) for signature by the appropriate committee chairman.
The agenda was reviewed. Humphris informed the members that Alain Perroy of CEFIC would make informal remarks at a reception for COCI on Monday evening. On Tuesday morning, Mara Carboara of CEFIC would attend to discuss possible areas of collaboration between COCI and the ICCA.
Colin Humphris was thanked for his work on preparations for the meeting, including arranging the meeting venue, lunches, dinner locations, and the hotel. The group joined Humphris in thanking Bianca Cerrato for her assistance.
4.Minutes of last meeting of COCI – Ottawa, August 2003
Minutes of the COCI meeting at the IUPAC Ottawa General Assembly were approved as written.
5.Matters arising from the minutes, not taken elsewhere
Cesa reviewed action items arising from the Safety Training Program Workshop in Ottawa (see Agenda Item 9).
Evans noted that a representative to CCH from COCI had not yet been selected.
Dr. Michael Booth has agreed to become Treasurer of COCI and assumed his responsibilities immediately.
According to Agenda item 16b of the Ottawa meeting minutes, the Macromolecular Chemistry Division was to request $3000 from COCI for a project. A formal request has not yet been received.
6.Agenda/minutes of the COCI Strategy Meeting, Farnham, UK
Evans spoke on the need for a realistic and coherent strategy for COCI. He has informally inquired of several industrial colleagues on their perceptions of the role of IUPAC. Most appreciate IUPAC for nomenclature, standards, monographs, and as organizers of symposia. For most other services, national societies are perceived as adequate. Therefore a unique role for COCI must be defined so that the committee adds value without duplicating activities of national and regional organizations. The Minutes of the COCI Strategy Meeting and the above attachment contain a prioritized list of ideas for projects and activities beyond DIDAC and the Safety Training Program (STP), based on a brainstorming session among the Strategy Meeting attendees.
Evans proposed a possible role for COCI as a non-governmental organization (NGO), acting as a “scientific straightedge” to provide non-partisan scientific input to frame public policy. Atkins stated that another role of COCI in IUPAC is to raise industrial funds. Pokrovsky spoke on the concept of matching funding as a tool for raising moneys for projects. Seed money from industrial sources can be used for this purpose. Fund raising is discussed further below in Agenda Item 14 (NAO’s).
Atkins suggested that influence over the regulatory environment should be separate topic. Humphris pointed out the global nature of COCI in contrast to the national interests of NAO’s. The Trade Associations face a similar problem, specifically the need to make efforts distinctive compared with those of national and regional organizations. He suggested a possible alignment of COCI with ICCA instead of with a regional organization such as CEFIC to emphasize a global orientation. Specific projects will emerge over time.
Atkins suggested Sustainable Development as a focus area. This is a broad and diffuse topic with a plethora of meanings, but a role for COCI was foreseen for individual components. With regard to the COCI Terms of Reference (TOR), Evans asked for ideas on a mechanism for COCI to provide the advisory role to the IUPAC President and Executive Committee. The other TORs were reviewed. Pokrovsky emphasized collaboration with other organizations beyond UNESCO and UNIDO.
7.Future organisation and operation of COCI
In addition to the roles agreed at the Strategy meeting, Pokrovsky will be responsible for NGO/IGO aspects of COCI activities. Draft Remits are not intended to be inflexible or prescriptive, but rather a way of organizing work – each project leader is empowered to recruit appropriate help from other members. Evans reviewed suggested project leader responsibilities. He recognized that COCI work is voluntary, and asked that project leaders advise if objectives are delayed due to other responsibilities. Regarding reporting on progress, Evans proposed a twice yearly 1 page report from each project leader for all COCI members to review.
Comments were solicited. Pokrovsky suggested autonomy of project leaders as they pursue project work, with the exception of financial issues (treasurer accountable) or governmental issues (travel/visa requests) and this was agreed. There was discussion on funding for travel for members who are unable to locate funding; this issue needs to be addressed to assure active participation by all members.
Atkins pointed out and discussed the project budget of CCE. Such a budget does not currently exist for COCI, because there is an expectation that COCI will be able to locate sufficient funding from industry. It was pointed out that industry has supported COCI projects. both financially (e.g. DIDAC) and ‘in kind (e.g. the Safety Training Program). Pokrovsky mentioned that seed money could be used to raise matching funds from industry to make projects (or a project budget) possible. Evans concurred, but pointed out that project funding from industry normally requires clear description of benefit to companies.
Action: Evans to prepare request for project seed fund for COCI from IUPAC management – see action below on “contributions in kind,” which will form basis for quantification of industry’s contributions to date.
Action: Pokrovsky and Booth to identify UNESCO contact to obtain financial support for Gwaza for upcoming conference participation.
8.The IUPAC and COCI Project Structure
The Projects Leader in COCI (Alles) will act as the COCI expert on the project system. As such, he will: advise COCI members during the process for applying for project funding; keep a log of COCI projects and report status and progress; together with Smith, vet the IUPAC project list for industrial relevance. Smith, as a member of the IUPAC Projects Committee, will identify projects within divisions that have relevance to segments of industry. Alles and Smith will liaise with Ishitani to provide a digest of industrially-relevant projects for circulation to CA’s.
Some discussion followed on the workings of the IUPAC project system, and how best to provide information on projects. Evans asked whether summaries of projects were already available or whether it would be feasible to prepare brief descriptions of projects – Smith and Meyers said they would possibly be able to do this. It was suggested to place a brief summary of each project in the documentation of projects on the IUPAC Web site.
Meyers summarized the process of project review. Project proposals go to the IUPAC Project Committee when of sufficient size, or when the project spans several divisions; otherwise individual committees or divisions review projects. Divisions have $40K project funding for the biennium. In either case the first step is review and recommendation from individual committees. Since we lack a project budget, project proposals from COCI will go directly to the Project Committee.
Project vetting will encompass some editorial work (e.g. preparation of a summary) beyond titles and abstracts for communications to CAs. A mechanism will be built where CAs can comment and advise on project proposals. Regarding vetting of new proposals, it was suggested to establish an e-mail based sub-team – Alles + the divisions coordinator, the CA project leader, and Meyers. Members were reminded to send new project proposals through Alles as the Projects coordinator.
Action: Alles to keep list of projects and provide information on how to prepare proposals. Alles to be kept informed on status of project proposals in preparation.
Action: Alles to keep log of COCI project progress, and liaise with Meyers and project committee to assist decisions on project funding.
Action: COCI to become involved in project vetting for industrial interest (Alles). Alles to appoint sub-team for project vetting/coordination (with Evans’ assistance as required).
Action: Ishitani, Alles and Smith to prepare regularly distributed digest of new and existing projects of interest to industry. Digest will include brief description that describes the project easily for industrial interest – see also agenda item (11) for details.
- Safety Training Program and Workshops
Cesa reviewed activities since Ottawa. In 2003 the first training visit was held in which two trainees worked together (Arocena and Nyakang’o at BP in the USA). This concept was suggested in feedback from previous trainees and turned out to be successful. The two trainees benefited from the opportunities to collaborate. Host Companies have been open to the idea of having two or more trainees in a single visit, since training is more efficient and opportunities to learn are increased. This success illustrated the value of feedback from the trainees and can be useful in justification for future Safety Training Program workshops.
Attendees were referred to the attached summary of the Ottawa Safety Training Program workshop for details on the proceedings. While highly successful in terms of presentation and content, the workshop was not well attended. Suggestions for improvement of publicity for such workshops within IUPAC (via CI, e-news, activity reports, etc.) were collected. In response to a question on recruiting of new trainee candidates, it was stated that there are no current restrictions with regard to the origin of applicants, i.e., he/she does not have to be from a NAO or ANAO.
Pokrovsky brought up for discussion the role of UNIDO in the Safety Training Program. While historically UNIDO was involved in the funding and support of the program, particularly in recruitment of candidate trainees, there is little current activity on UNIDO’s part. Pokrovsky suggested that the role of UNIDO be reviewed and reinvigorated if possible. Regarding funding for the STP, Pokrovsky suggested that COCI should not seek funding from UNESCO headquarters, but instead directly with the 'field' offices individually, depending where the training is planned. Specific suggestions included UNESCO facilities in Namibia, Mauritius, and Japan.
Cesa solicited suggestions from the IUPAC project committee on funding for the STP and for safety workshops. Somsen, the chairman of the IUPAC project committee, suggested that each trainee visit be treated as a separate project for possible IUPAC funding, and that workshop funding be approached as funding under the IUPAC procedures for soliciting funding for Conferences. Buxthorf, however, reiterated the importance of industrial funding for the STP and workshops. Pokrovsky proposed raising “matching funding” from Host Companies, UNESCO (via field offices), and ISESCO.
Six trainees have expressed interest in participating in a possible Safety Training Workshop in conjunction with the IUPAC Congress in Beijing. A placeholder for this workshop is now in the Beijing Program under the heading Innovation in the Chemical Industry (see Item 19 below for further discussion of the status of the Beijing Congress program). Pokrovsky proposed that a $2000 USD commitment be made from COCI as seed money for obtaining matching funding for this workshop. Toprak and Unger agreed to assist with the program.
Action: Treasurer Booth to provide $2000 of COCI funds as seed money for the proposed Beijing Safety Training Program Workshop.
It was also suggested to investigate possible collaboration with ICCA on Safety Training Program activities during discussion with Mara Carboara of ICCA on Tuesday. Results are summarized in Agenda Item 13 below.
10.Public Appreciation of Science project
In the field of public awareness or appreciation of science, there are many high quality activities worldwide, but little coordination amongst them. Two initiatives discussed at this meeting were the Przybylowicz/Becker project proposal on development of a Web site on the benefits of chemistry to humankind and the UK resolution to Council regarding the decline in number of students entering the chemical fields.
Discussion first focused on the Web site project proposal. Atkins and Evans believe that the project task team should focus on the content of the Web site and not just on compiling links to other sites. Humphris offered the opinion that the audience should be the general public, and that there needs to be balance between benefits of science and responsibilities of scientists. Ishitani reported that the Japanese chemical industries are not popular with the public; “chemical=toxic.” The Japanese science council prepared a white paper on the subject; Ishitani agreed with the need to include a balanced view with both positive and negative aspects, and he suggested that the intended users of the proposed Web site should be scientists and engineers and government officials. Evans agreed that the task force on the project needs to determine the appropriate audience. Cesa pointed out the need to assure that the website is set up so that “googling” (using an Internet search engine) will allow potential users to find the site readily. Pokrovsky pointed out that funding for public perception of science (chemistry) is relatively easy to find. He proposed that coci/cce ask for funding via UNESCO local offices. Atkins offered that teachers (HS, middle school) and their students should be included in the audience for this site, and recommended return to original brief to review and verify the goals and objectives. Booth said that if the time frame of the project is short, there will be a need to pull it back on track rapidly. He suggested that the Bureau meeting in October could be an opportunity for this activity. Humphris stated that the subject of the net benefits of chemistry could develop into a major effort and a substantial communications exercise.
The UK resolution to Council (Ottawa) on the propagation of chemistry met with overwhelming approval at Council, and Atkins and Evans met to draft a proposal for the Executive meeting in Bangalore. The remit, constitution and budget for a task force (to include Atkins, Evans, and a non-UK chairman) was proposed to Council. The Executive Committee felt that the problem was not uniform across all IUPAC countries and proposed instead a comparative study of differences in the status of chemistry across countries prior to a decision to proceed - for example, the increase in students in chemistry in Germany and India compared with decreases elsewhere. The question of the degree to which the EC is subject to resolutions of Council was raised.
Action: Atkins and Evans to express comments on the project proposal on Task Force on Benefits of Chemistry (Przybylowicz, Becker) situation to the IUPAC Executive Committee.
Pokrovsky spoke about recruitment and training of teachers and professors in Africa. With the spread of AIDS and other diseases, African countries need many more trained teachers today to make sure that there are enough teachers in 10 years; for example, 4 teachers must be trained today to assure that there will be 1 teacher in 10 years. Pokrovsky also stated that no current professors in French speaking Africa will likely be active in 10 years.
Droescher stated that the sustainable number of chemistry students is around 4000/yr in Germany. Pokrovsky stated that the number of chemistry students in institutions of higher education in Russia has dropped to 700 from 4000 30 years ago. Ishitani pointed out that, similar to other industrialized countries, there appear to be too many chemists in Japan. Humphris said that an agenda is needed for determining future needs accurately. Qiao pointed out that the quality of students is also an issue; the best students are typically studying in other fields.