When I first started to become involved with international geoscience,
the biggest challenge was to master the multiplicity of acronyms. Even
when I started to cope with these, there remained the problem of understanding
what the names of these international science groups really meant, and
how they interacted with one another. The target is a moving once since
they are constantly becoming extinct, withering into inactivity (more likely
than extinction), or evolving into new generations of organizations.
| I was asked to give my personal perspectives of international geoscience. To provide a context, I’ve constructed the attached chart. It shows, from a strictly geological (i.e. not geophysical or biological) perspective, the principal interrelationships among the three major players on the international scene: the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) and the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). | To see how ICSU, IUGS and UNESCO fit together, click here for a chart by A.J. Naldrett. |
UNESCO
and IGCP
UNESCO, of which the United States is not a member even though it continues
to contribute to “worthy” programs, is guided by a biannual General Conference,
at which all 192 full and associate member states attend and vote on an
agenda prepared by an executive board and UNESCO headquarters staff. Critical
decisions are the appointment of the 58-member executive board and its
president, the budget, and the election of the Director General every six
years. UNESCO operates a number of earth science programs and, through
its Earth Sciences Division, a number of joint programs with other organizations,
particularly ICSU and IUGS.
The two-year UNESCO budget approved at the 1999 General Conference for
the period 2000-2001 was $544 million, of which $88 million is for science.
Looking closer, $23 million was for basic and engineering science, largely
information transfer; $7 million was for earth sciences and disaster reduction;
and $6 million was for hydrology. UNESCO programs emphasize information
and technology transfer to the developing world, and programs can become
bureaucratic and politicized.
Nevertheless, good science finds a home in UNESCO, and the International
Geological Correlation Program (IGCP) is an example. Its budget is miniscule,
about $300,000 a year, but the 50 or so projects within the program serve
as a focus for research requiring an international approach. The multiplication
factor achieved through harnessing and focusing the individual research
support of participating scientists is on the order of 10 to 20. Unlike
many other international programs, ideas within IGCP come from the grass
roots upward, not from the top down.
ICSU
Founded in 1931as a successor to the International Research Council,
ICSU operates on a budget of about $15 million per year that is derived
from the contributions of member states and contracts from UNESCO and non-governmental
organizations. It is governed by a general assembly composed of National
Scientific Members and representatives of cooperating scientific unions,
an executive, and a secretariat. Most national representatives are appointed
by a country’s national science academy. The assembly meets every two to
three years to review or ratify decisions of the executive board, elect
this board and set general priorities for the council.
A major goal of ICSU is to encourage an interdisciplinary approach to international science, mainly through interdisciplinary standing committees and joint initiatives.
IUGS
IUGS is a relative newcomer to the scene. The first of many International
Geological Congresses was held in Paris in 1878. IUGS was established in
1961 to continue the congresses and to coordinate international geoscientific
research. Now IUGS advises and assists organizers for the International
Geological Congress every four years. It is governed by a council, composed
of representatives of participating nations who meet during the International
Geological Congress to oversee the actions of the executive and secretariat
(the secretariat has a home at the Norwegian Geological Survey, which absorbs
most of the cost). The annual IUGS budget ($582,000 this year) is derived
from the dues of participating nations, contracts from UNESCO and other
bodies, and grants from ICSU.
Traditionally, apart from the participation of scientists in the scientific agenda, the United States has been very involved in the governance of IUGS. It has been one of the pipelines through which U.S. contributions to “worthy” UNESCO programs have passed. IGCP is currently benefiting to the tune of $70,000 per year in this way, and if this pipeline ran dry, the effect on IGCP would be disastrous.
Still
a void
From my perspective, an aspect in which IUGS could have been more active
in the past is that of coordinating its 35 affiliated organizations. On
the one hand, the 1998 International Mineralogical Association (IMA) conference
that took place in Toronto obtained a grant of $15,000 from ICSU through
IUGS. The grant helped scientists from disadvantaged countries attend the
meeting, and clearly IMA and international mineralogy in general benefited
from the affiliation.
On the other hand, it is difficult to see how affiliation is of any advantage to large U.S.-based earth science societies, such as the Geological Society of America (GSA). Perhaps this is the reason why, out of the 35 such societies, the only exceptions to filing the mandatory annual report to IUGS were the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (last 2 years), the Geochemical Society (last 2 years), the Society of Sedimentary Geology (last 2 years), and GSA (no 1999 report).
In keeping with our shrinking world, GSA, the America Geophysical Union
and many similar organizations in the United States and elsewhere are currently
seeking to become more active globally. In June, for example, GSA worked
with the Geological Society of London to host a meeting in Edinburgh, Scotland,
on earth systems science. GSA is also working on a joint publication with
the Geological Society of Australia, and is discussing future joint meetings
with other international societies.
But these initiatives are bilateral. Its affiliated societies are what
give IUGS its credibility as the summit organization of international geological
science, and until now this resource has not been utilized effectively.
It is encouraging to read in the recent IUGS “Action Plan” that much more
attention will be given to its affiliated societies in the future.
A vast infrastructure of international geoscience exists, but this structure
is largely unknown at the national level, unless an individual has had
occasion to serve on an ICSU scientific committee, an IUGS commission or
a UNESCO program. Much of such service is by invitation and tends to be
restricted to a relatively small pool of acquaintances.
At the same time, the best science is financed at the national level
and is necessarily presented at that level to an audience of those who
might well be judging the next grant application. For example, who saves
their best work to be revealed at an International Geological Congress?
We have a gap that needs bridging, but we have no obvious way of bridging
it except through piecemeal contacts between individuals and individual
organizations in different countries. Hopefully, we will build better bridges
in the future.
 |
Geotimes Home | AGI Home | Information Services | Geoscience Education | Public Policy | Programs | Publications | Careers  |