SCIENCE MILESTONES - on TAPE
from C&EN
(
\ D
Π I I I
Vitamin Β-12—Total Synthesis Listen to Dr R Β W o o d w a r d describe his dramatic work
Vitamin Β 12—Biological Aspects International experts discuss bioI chemistry, biosynthesis, and mechanism of action I
> I I D D I I D
I I
—other Science Symposia on Tape also available from A CS—
I I
The Energy Crisis Outlook for oil. gas. coal Fuels for the Future—Hydrogen Experts discuss solutions to the energy crisis
I I I I
I
I D
Chemical Engineering In Medicine —at the frontier of chemical engiI neering I D Drugs Affecting Learning & I Memory I A hot topic in drug research D N e w Solid W a s t e Disposal Processes New processes set to go commercial I D I
ACS response to ADL study gets under way
{ Nutrition & Public Policy— Food Quality G o v t . industry officials spell it out
Chemistry of the M o o n - I Dr Urey. top experts reveal findings
>
—
ι
VISUAL
I I I
< MATERIALS
ACS
I Members I Cassettes only $14 00 j 10% DISCOUNT if payment I order
I
I I
—
ABOVE INCLUDE
Non members I $17 00 accompanies ! I
I Name
|
I Address
I
Order from : American Chemical Society 1 1 5 5 16th Street. N.W. Washington. D C 2 0 0 3 6 | ATTN: A Poulos
ι |
I I
ν 24
I J
^ C&EN March 17, 1975
Funds still are being sought from the government and from foundations to bring some 100 younger chemists to the meeting. But the list of potential spon sors seems to be down to one—the U.S. State Department. And so far there has been no definitive response from the department. Financing of all these projects will involve about $1.1 million. The largest part of this, $750,000, is for the exhibit. So far half of this $750,000 has been raised from industry, and finance chair man Lester C. Krogh is confident that the rest can be raised as required. A total of about $550,000 will be needed to design and build the exhibit and to cover the costs of displaying it throughout 1976. The remaining $200,000 is needed to cover costs dur ing 1977 through 1979. Financing for the other centennial projects will come from a variety of sources including in dustry and admission and other charges to those actually participating in the various events. α
Any changes in the way ACS is struc tured, governed, and managed result ing from the recently completed study of the society by Arthur D. Little Inc., the Boston-based management consult ing firm, may or may not turn out to be extensive. It is far too early to tell, as any major actions will have to be made by the society's board and coun cil—and that takes time. But one thing is certain about the ADL report (C&EN, March 10, page 27)—it has triggered what will surely become the most extensive self-exami nation of the society in the past 25 years. This examination moved a fur ther step forward earlier this month when members of the ACS Board, the Council Policy Committee, and the so ciety's senior staff gathered in Wash ington, D.C., for an initial joint discus sion of the issues raised by the study. The aim of the meeting was not to arrive at hard decisions and firm rec ommendations; it was considered that such moves would inhibit full discus sion of the issues throughout the soci ety. Rather, the group met to see if there was at least a consensus on some of the major points, and to plan the next moves. On the latter point, the group asked ACS board chairman Herman S. Bloch and president William J. Bailey to ap point a task force to coordinate soci ety wide response to the study—espe cially at the spring national meeting in Philadelphia next month—and to re port back with specific recommenda tions to another special joint meeting of the board, Council Policy Commit tee, and senior staff to be held in June. The goal is to have the board and council agree in principle on proposed
changes—if any—at the ACS national meeting in Chicago this fall. This would allow time for specific petitions to be placed on the council agenda for discussion at the national meeting in New York in April 1976, and for possi ble board and council action to be taken at the 1976 fall meeting in San Francisco. The focus of the discussion at the Washington meeting was on three main questions: • Should ACS stay with its bicam eral system of an independent board and council or should it, as ADL rec ommends, move to a unicameral sys tem with the council holding all policy making power? • Should the present system of dual board and council committees be re tained or replaced, as ADL suggests, by a unified committee system when ever feasible? • Should Chemical Abstracts Ser vice and the primary publications be placed under a semiautonomous board, as recommended by ADL, and thus substantially screened from direct member control? Under the present ACS system, the board essentially makes policy and runs the society's affairs. The larger council is mostly an advisory body with relatively little power. The options dis cussed most intensively at the Wash ington meeting were staying with to day's system, with some shift in power toward the council, or switching to a unicameral system in which the coun cil has all the power and, in turn, ap points a board to carry out its policies. No clear choice developed between these options at the meeting. However, sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of having the policy-making function shared in some way by the board and council rather than have it reside com pletely with either body. The concept of single committees also was strongly supported. There was some discussion of how such com mittees could report to two bodies, as they would likely have to under a bi cameral system. However, it was pointed out that the society already has several joint board/council com mittees and that these work well. It also was observed that it could be ar ranged for some committees to report primarily to one or the other of the parent bodies. There was also a strong consensus that such joint, or "society," committees should include both board and council members as well as others, when appropriate. The ADL suggestion of placing CAS and the primary publications under a separate, semiautonomous board to screen them from too much member interference received mixed reviews at the Washington meeting. A commonly expressed sentiment was that CAS and the publications are a very essential el ement of the society and that they should not be removed entirely from member influence. D
