The 24rd General Assembly of IUPAP was held under the auspices of IUPAP and organized by the German Physical Society (DPG) for IUPAP.
The President, Burton Richter, was in the Chair for all sessions of the General Assembly as well as the related Council Meeting. The General Assembly was attended by 85 delegates from liaison committees and commission chairs, 5 observers from non-member national communities and regional physical societies, and 10 members of the IUPAP Council (Appendix A).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|1.||Opening and Introduction of Guests|
|2.||Adoption of the Agenda|
|5.||Secretary General’s Report and Members Affairs|
|6.||Revised Statues and Bylaws|
|7.||Introduction of Topics of New Business from Liaison Committees|
|8.||Report from C14 – Commission on Physics Education (ICPE)|
|9.||Report from C13 – Commission on Physics for Development|
|10.||Reports on the ICSU Energy Forum|
|11.||Report of Working Group on Communication in Physics|
|12.||Re-nominations for Council and Commission members|
|13.||Reports of the Working Group on Women in Physics|
|14.||Panel Discussion on the Role of the Physical Sciences in Development|
|15.||Report on ICSU General Assembly|
|17.||Revised Conference Fee Limit|
|18.||Report of the Working Group on Condensed Matter Physics|
|20.||Report on Working Group of Particle and Nuclear Astrophysics and Gravitational International Committee (PaNAGIC)|
|21.||2005 – World Year of Physics|
|A.||Delegates and Official Observers|
|C.||Finances of Council Meeting Minutes|
|D.||Statutes and Bylaws|
SESSION 1 (Humbolt University): Wednesday, October 9, 2002, 9:00 a.m.
IUPAP President, Burton Richter, then introduced special guests and official observers and appointed two election tellers.
Richter asked for approval of the Minutes of the General Assembly-1999 and the adoption of the Agenda. Both were approved as circulated.
President Richter noted that there had been considerable activity within IUPAP since the last General Assembly. He reported on the activities of the Working Groups and specifically on the Working Group on Women in Physics, which held a major conference attended by delegations from 65 nations, and resulted in a summary resolution that would be presented and debated later in the General Assembly.
He stated that a major theme for this General Assembly should be the potential role of physics and IUPAP in sustainable development. He stressed the importance of science in the aid of humanity and noted that IUPAP and physicists in general have taken a relatively passive role in the past and must make a more organized effort in this direction. Richter suggested that the words sustainable and development be considered separately. Sustainability implies systems that can be widely deployed without degrading the environment. Development implies facilitating the advancement of developing nations toward a better standard of living. To help developing nations build their own scientific strength it is important to develop genuine collaborations through joint projects by working scientists with IUPAP functioning as a marriage broker.
Richter then said that IUPAP has been repeatedly asked to participate in the development of a code of ethics for science. He divided ethics into external and internal classifications. External ethics (i.e. weapons of mass destruction) is too broad for discussion in IUPAP. Internal ethics relates to how science is conducted and concerns issues such as plagiarism, falsification of data, etc. He said that he had seen several attempts at a code of conduct but had found none of them satisfactory and felt that IUPAP should consider addressing the issue.
He next evaluated the state of physics and attributed the decline of funding, student enrollment, etc. to a “fading of memories”. There is a shift in public focus to biotechnology as the cure of all diseases. It must be emphasized that biomedical research cannot progress without the support of physical sciences and a case must be made that half of all economic growth comes from new technology that rests on a foundation of long-term research in the physical sciences. He stressed that improving the state of the physical sciences must occupy more attention of the scientific community. (The full text of his address can be found in (Appendix B).
Franz reported a positive balance of $47,000 for 2000. She attributed this to high interest rates and back dues being paid. She said that in 2001, income and expenditures were roughly equal. Membership dues paid were less but investment interest rates remained high. 2002 showed a projected deficit of $76,000. Guaranteed Income from ICSU disappeared, interest rates declined, and conference grants were higher.
She then reported on restricted income, which must be used for specific purposes. In 2001 there was an increase in the C8 IBM fund because of a $20,000 gift received from the ICPS 25 (25th International Conference on the Physics of Semiconductors) held in Osaka in 2000. These funds are used to provide young investigator awards. In addition a block grant of $5,000 was received from ICSU and made available to the organizers of the IUPAP Conference on Archiving
In 2002, IUPAP provided $25,000 as seed money for the IUPAP International Conference on Women in Physics. Of the additional $450,000 raised for the conference, about $20,000 is left for use by the Working Group on Women in Physics.
Franz summarized the IUPAP financial situation by noting that IUPAP currently has assets $717,000 or twice the annual budget. She pointed out that this amount fluctuates during the year because of payments to conferences and uncertainties in payment of membership dues. She said that IUPAP is currently in good financial shape but that the future may be more problematic. (Complete budget information can be found in Appendix C).
Discussion then focused on calculating dues in Euros instead of Swiss Francs. Richter proposed the following resolution:
Resolution: IUPAP membership dues will be denominated in Euros henceforth. The change over will take place on November 1, 2002 using the ICSU exchange rate in the month of September 2002. Dues of 2500 CHF become 1700 Euros per share.
The resolution was passed unanimously.
In the absence of Secretary General, Rene Turlay, Franz gave the report on Member Affairs. She stated that the Council had provisionally approved membership in IUPAP for Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia and that all had paid their first years dues. She asked the General Assembly to officially approve their membership. Approval was unanimous. She informed the Assembly that a request for membership had been received from Cyprus and asked for a motion that upon receipt of its first year dues, Cyprus will become a member of IUPAP. The motion passed unanimously.
Franz noted that in 2000, Thailand requested that it be dropped from membership and that Kenya and Georgia have automatically been removed for non-payment of dues. Other countries with dues in arrears include France, Russia, and Argentina. She announced that Bulgaria and Kenya would not be able to vote in this General Assembly because of failure to pay dues for three years.
Because of Turlay’s absence due to illness, nominations for Inter-Union delegates were not available for approval at the General Assembly. A motion was made and approved to give Council the right to approve Inter-Union delegates at a later time.
Richter then explained the nomination process for IUPAP officers and commissioners. He described how slates were compiled and emphasized that great care was given to obtaining a geographical balance according to the number of shares held by a Member.
Richter summarized the changes in the Statutes and Bylaws (Appendix D) and opened the topic for discussion. The Australian delegation questioned the effect of the revisions with regard to the nominations being presented at this General Assembly. They proposed that changes in the Statutes and Bylaws take effect after the election process. Since no one seconded the motion, the motion died.
Vote: For -106; Against – 0; Abstain – 0.
Brisson (France) stated that insuring the free circulation of scientists was part of IUPAP’s mission and asked if IUPAP had received any reports of problems with visa applications. Richter noted governments have the right to require scientists to apply for visas to attend meetings. He had not heard of any cases of visa denial, but there have been cases where people applied too late and the visa was not approved in time for a conference. Godfrin said that just mentioning IUPAP solved many of their visa problems. Petroff urged people to let IUPAP know immediately if they encounter visa problems for IUPAP-sponsored conferences.
Hohenberg (USA) felt that IUPAP should address the issue of ethics and requested that it be put on the agenda. Richter said that he would make time to discuss ethics later in the General Assembly.
Tibell (Sweden) reviewed the mandate of C14 as being the collection, distribution and dissemination of information on physics education. He stated that physics education is the responsibility of all commissions and that the education of physics teachers should be a concern to all.
ICPE activities for the past three years have included sponsoring conferences, publishing a newsletter twice a year that is distributed to 2000 individuals and institutions world wide, and the publication of a book entitled “Connecting Research in Physics Education with Teacher Education” which can be downloaded free of charge from the web. The website has had more than 15,000 hits. Plans are underway to issue a new book and contributions will be requested. ICPE hopes to strengthen links to ICSU and other organizations.
Another ICPE-related activity mentioned by Tibell was a competition for talented physics students aged 17-19. International teams are given various problems to investigate and solve and winners are selected. This competition is a member of the World Federation of International Physics Competitions as is the Physics Olympiad, which brings together students from 50 to 60 countries.
A delegate from South Africa suggested two additional areas for C14 activities: education for people from disadvantaged countries and women in physics. She suggested that some curricula are much friendlier to girls and their interests than are others. Material could also be available on the web to attract young women.
Richter pointed out that relations between ICSU and the ICPE had been strained. Tibell noted that relations have improved and Sahm described an ICSU sponsored meeting of Unions to find a common approach to science education. ICSU’s focus had been on science education at primary level but emphasis is shifting to all levels of education.
Meeting adjourned for lunch
SESSION 2 (Humbolt University): Wednesday, October 9, 2002 14:30p.m.
Zingu (South Africa) explained that C13 (Physics on Development) is an anomaly because it is not defined in terms of a specific discipline. While members of other Commissions have opportunities to meet at several topical conferences, the members of C13 have little in common except their interest and commitment to development in physics. He stated that although IUPAP supports conferences that have the potential to contribute to the development of physics in developing countries, the number of applications for funding has dramatically declined over the past six years.
C13 has tried to facilitate development through a series of conferences entitled ‘Physics in Industrial Development: Bridging the Gap’ held in Brazil, India and South Africa, but it is evident that a single conference on a particular topic is not sufficient to develop a new field of specialization for that region.
Zingu reported on the recent World Congress on Sustainable Development that focused on food, health, energy and education as the essential elements for development. He said the Congress identified particular areas where physicists could contribute directly to sustainable development namely:
Improving education and capacity building,
Bridging the North-South divide, and
Clean technologies and sustainable production and consumption
He said that development is the responsibility of everyone and should be integrated into the entire IUPAP family. He noted that there are a number of commissions that could contribute to development and suggested all commissions be included in C13 as Associate Members.
Zingu explained that a variety of regional networks funded by well-resourced countries and organizations have been established in South America and Africa. These networks have facilitated development of physics by linking individual physicists rather than institutions. He advocated that more networks be formed.
Discussion focused on adopting a project, region, or country. Expenses were estimated as follows: $25,000 to set up a network; $400,000 ($8,000 per student) for a Center for Theoretical Studies; and $200,000 to set up an experimental center, with additional operating costs of $50,000 per year for a single instrument. Since data regarding the return on an investment in developing countries is unavailable, justifying such projects to funding agencies is difficult. How do we approach funding agencies without this data?
The seeming lack of interest within the developing countries to find a way to involve their political systems is also problematic. The importance of local investment in capacity building must be emphasized.
It became apparent that IUPAP’s main role continues to be one of providing financial aid by sponsoring conferences in developing countries and by providing travel funds for physicists from developing countries to attend other conferences.
Frois reported on the ICSU Energy Forum that had just been held in South America. He said that fossil fuel energy sources are limited and will begin dropping markedly starting 2050. Renewable sources of energy– solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, etc. — provide only a small amount of the energy needed.
He stated that the increasing world population will demand large quantities of additional energy which cannot be provided by renewable energy. Most popular at present is the use of natural gas. Although it is cleaner than oil or coal, one of the problems remaining to be solved is the limitation of greenhouse gas emissions. Currently the cost of energy from gas does not incorporate the cost of CO2 sequestration, so it seems likely that the cost of burning gas will go up when this is addressed seriously.
Nuclear fission is one of the few large-scale carbon-free energy sources without CO2 waste, but the problem of public perception of safety exists. Frois suggested that the role of physicists be in the area of objective reasoning. He said that a supply of uranium at low cost will be available for another 50-100 years. Thereafter it will become more expensive.
He noted that waste management technology exists, but a decision is needed on worldwide disposal of spent fuels. An international forum has been started in the USA to look at the problems. As much as 95 percent of spent waste may be recoverable through the processing of spent fuels, the consumption of plutonium in light water reactors, and the extraction of actinides. This could reduce the long-life radiotoxicity of the waste by a factor of 100.
Blume informed the General Assembly that the Working Group on Communication in Physics was reconstituted at the 1999 General Assembly. The charge to the Working Group is to “make a set of recommendations on important issues in the international aspects of physics communication, especially electronic publication, that are appropriate for IUPAP action”. To this end the group has identified six issues relevant to IUPAP and IUPAP action. These include a) linking, searching and mirroring for publications of different societies and publishers, b) international internet availability and reliability for scientific publications, c) availability of publications in electronically remote areas, d) long-term archiving and availability of electronic publications, e) international intellectual property questions, and f) peer review and e-print archives.
Blume said that the Working Group convened a conference on Long Term Archiving of Digital Documents in Physics. The object of the meeting was to discuss ways in which digital documents can be assured of preservation into the future. Attendees included publishers, librarians and working scientists from around the world.
A clear need for a structured plan to read data into the future was established. Since it is not possible to predict the technology in 100 years, the periodic updating of backups and the monitoring of data for corruption and outdated systems was recommended.
Blume then discussed linking – the ability to go with a simple click of a mouse from one article to another that is cited by Crossref – a central clearing house for articles and references. He said that cross journal searching (Crossjour) is also making progress and may become available in the future.
The next step of the Working Group includes putting together an action plan to provide better internet services to developing countries. He cited ICTP as a great asset in providing actual help and mentioned a meeting that had just been convened there to discuss access to journals for sub-Saharan Africa. Recommendations include promoting web-to-email access, providing low-cost or free access to journals using web-to-mail techniques, monitoring the connectivity of institutions, and devoting resources toward the development of connectivity. The obligations of well-off institutions to those less well off was noted.
Resolution: The mandate of the Working Group on Communications is extended to the next General Assembly. The resolution was passed unanimously.
Richter asked for re-nominations of Commission and Council members. There were none. Because of this, time became available for general discussion, which turned to ethics.
Blume stated that plagiarism is a major form of misconduct in publishing. He pointed out the need for IUPAP action on the ethics because it impacts greatly on scientific journals. One problem is that journals serve the international community and countries have differing rules for dealing with misconduct. He questioned the responsibility of the institutions where the misconduct occurs.
Lerch (USA) provided sources for information on ethics. He said that the AAAS Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility looked into the problems of developing standards for ethical codes of conduct and considered requiring authors to take an oath.
The requirement for reproducible results has generally worked well within the physics community, and system is thought to be self-correcting. Hohenberg suggested that IUPAP could provide a useful service by coordinating the efforts of IUPAP communities.
Participants questioned the extent of the responsibility of co-authors? Is every author responsible for all information in a publication? An explanation of the role of co-authors is needed. Is he/she responsible for all of the data and analysis before signing on? Must all authors at the very least read the paper prior to publication? Should all authors coming from a small group be responsible for the data? To what extent can data obtained by a student be trusted without reproducing the experiment? What is the responsibility of referees? Has the field of biology learned anything so far? If so, what?
In summary, participants believed that IUPAP could only collect and summarize information from different parts of the world but could not draw up a universal code of conduct. Each liaison committee is asked to determine the rules of conduct in their region and forward them to IUPAP Secretariat before the next Council meeting.
SESSION 3 (Humbolt University): Thursday, October 10, 2002, 9:00am
Barbosa (Brazil) reviewed the charge to the Working Group on Women in Physics. She introduced the members of the working group and gave a history of the work done by the group. She reported on the IUPAP International Conference on Women in Physics that was held in Paris in March 2002. She thanked Franz, Hartline, and Molinari for their hard work in raising more than $450,000 and gave credit to the sponsors for their generosity in providing the funds.
Barbosa pointed out that the results of the benchmarking survey that was commissioned by the Working Group showed a remarkable similarity worldwide. In all countries, the higher the level of education or career, the lower the percentage of women in physics.
She reported that a set of resolutions was adopted by Conference participants that can be used to urge governments, institutions and industries to adopt more equitable treatment of women. Concrete results of the conference include the formation of working groups on women in physics in Japan, Korea, and the European Physical Society. Some women participants also report that they have been asked to take on higher-level responsibilities. Fukuyama (Japan) informed the General Assembly that extensive surveys had been carried out by the Japan Physical Society (JPS) and the Japan Society of Applied Physics (JSAP) and their work had already inspired other sciences and engineering groups in Japan to take an interest in promoting women. Kwun (Korea) stated that Korea is also working hard to improve the life of the woman physicists – a direct result of the Conference.
Barbosa emphasized that much remains to be done. Plans include creating a data bank of women in physics, special sessions about women in physics at scientific meetings, and using the remaining funds to grant awards to women physicists from developing countries to attend meetings and present talks at conferences.
Richter then opened the topic for discussion. The question arose as to whether the statistics had changed in the last 30 years. Barbosa stated that statistics were not available for that time. The question was raised at what point women are no longer considered to be under-represented. Richter said that about 15% of PhDs in physics now go to women, but professorships awarded to women are much lower and should be the same percentage as the number of PhDs. He pointed out, however, that equal opportunity is the key, and numbers are less relevant.
Richter called for a vote on the following resolution:
Resolution: The mandate of the Working Group on Women in Physics is extended to the 2005 General Assembly.
The resolution was passed unanimously.
Richter then called for discussion of the Summary Resolution on Enhancing the Role of Women in Physics (Appendix F). Discussion centered on Item 5 and the concern that enforcing this might place additional pressure on the limited number of women available if they must serve on multiple committees. Franz stated that there is additional pressure during any transitional period, but this sacrifice is necessary. She said that in many countries there are no women on the boards that grant research funds, and this must be changed if equity is to be attained. She said that women should be given the opportunity to decide whether they will be overworked by accepting these responsibilities. Ruskai (USA) added that it is more important to have women represented on key committees and their workload could be lessened in other ways.
It was suggested that IUPAP should ‘practice what it preaches’ and amend the Resolution so that every delegation to the next General Assembly would be required to include at least one woman (for delegations of at least two), that every Commission contain at least two women members, and that 20% of the Executive Council be women.
A motion was made by Australia and seconded by Argentina that the Resolution be amended as follows: The General Assembly further requires that each Commission have at least 2 women and 20% of the IUPAP Executive Council be made up of women. Several women spoke against the amendment, saying that they would prefer to have change without enforced quotas.
Vote: For – 29; Against – 77. The amendment was defeated
Richter then called for a vote on Resolution 5. The resolution was passed unanimously.
Richter introduced the three participants: Thomas Rosswall from the International Council for Science (ICSU), Hilda Cerdeira from the International Center for Theoretical Physics (ICTP), and Stefan Michalowski from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Rosswall reviewed the role of science and sustainable development. He said that successes for the past 10 years included international cooperation on global change science, collaboration between natural and social sciences, links to policy development, and increased involvement of scientists from developing countries. Lack of involvement of the health sciences and engineering sciences remains a major problem.
He noted that a strong commitment is needed by the science and technology community to a) make science more policy relevant, b) to focus on all three pillars of sustainable development – environmental, social, economic, c) to develop participatory approaches involving other sectors in society, and d) to make a major effort on capacity building for science and technology.
Rosswall stated that a new contract between science and society is needed to make science more socially relevant. This includes linking on global-regional-global scales, capacity building in basic sciences, and increased funding for science and technology in all countries.
He perceived a fundamental role for IUPAP and the physics community in climate research, in the development of sustainable energy systems and sustainable production, in nanotechnology, in physics linked with chemistry and biology, and in capacity building in basic sciences.
Future ICSU plans include preparing a program on science for sustainable development, a program on energy, and an area wide assessment in the areas of environment, data and information capacity building. Rosswall summed up his presentation by saying that “there is no applied science if there is no science to apply”.
Cerdeira explained that both the International Center for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) and the Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) were created by Abdul Salam. The structure of ICTP consists of Research Groups, a Diploma Program, an Awards to Scientists Program, and Associate and Federation Schemes (which awards funding for visits to the Center), and the ICTP/TWAS Donation Program (which operates an e-journals delivery service).
TWAS recognizes, supports and promotes the excellence of scientific research in the Southern Hemisphere. It responds to the needs of scientists working under unfavorable conditions by supporting South-South scientific exchange and collaboration, and promoting South-North cooperation and dissemination of scientific research.
Michalowski briefed the participants on the Global Science Forum recently held under the auspices of the OECD. He informed the General Assembly that OECD is an inter-governmental organization whose membership is comprised the governments of 30 industrial democratic countries whose focus is on sustainable economic growth. He defined sustainability as a mode of economic development that satisfies the needs of today’s generation without compromising the chances of later generations to satisfy their needs.
The Global Science Forum was held to review activities since 1995 and to address long-term needs, trends, consequences, and risks. Issues discussed were global change, land use, energy and population, as well as poverty reduction, good governance, capacity building, national, regional and global security, partnerships, and equity.
Michalowski mentioned that sustainability is not a mainstream preoccupation of governments. He said that collective actions by physicists are needed through national, regional and global association. Physicists should provide information, offer guidance to young scientists, engage in capacity building activities, explain and defend fundamental curiosity-driven research, and provide information, analysis, guidance, and advice to decision makers in government, industry and civil society.
In summary the panel stressed that they are the ear and not the mouth for their agencies and that they need input from the physical sciences. Richter admonished the participants to take the message home that physicists are essential, physical sciences are essential, and that instruments developed to solve problems in the other sciences have often been developed by physicists.
Meeting adjourned for lunch
Academic Session 14:30pm
Public Lecture 19:30pm
SESSION 4 (Humbolt University): Friday, October 11, 2002, 9:00 a.m.
Petroff (France) reported that the recent ICSU General Assembly in Brazil was well organized. He said that ICSU consists of an Executive Board, permanent staff, plus advisory committees. The General Assembly was dedicated to presentations of ICSU achievements in the last two years and four parallel forums.
Petroff attended the Forum on Energy that covered bio-energy, fuel cells and nuclear energy. Emphasis was on the understanding of the complex links between the scientific, technological, environmental, economic, social, political, and cultural aspects. The Forum concluded that the demand for energy will increase to such an extent that solutions are needed in the near future.
Petroff noted that the approach for solutions should be scientific rather than emotional and that ICSU grants will focus on technology for sustainable development, capacity building for science education, the dissemination of information on science and technology, and emerging issues of technology. The emerging issues are the environment, biology and engineering. Basic science as an issue has disappeared. Petroff suggested that IUPAP approach the other unions to have a common statement about the need for basic research and apply pressure on ICSU. A paper on the Value of Basic Physics by Kalmus (UK) had been prepared for IUPAP.
Richter called for a vote on the following resolution:
Resolution: The General Assembly notes that the International Council for Science (ICSU) has identified Energy as a priority area for interdisciplinary activities. The General Assembly endorses this action and directs the Executive Council to establish an appropriate working group.
The resolution was passed unanimously.
Richter called for discussion of the slates of nominations for the Council and Commissions. The slate of C11 contains two nominations from the USA and asked for an exception to the rule limiting the number of nominations from a country to one. The Executive Council had already endorsed the exception. The General Assembly agreed to the exception.
Word was received that one of the nominations on C12 had declined to serve. It was decided to treat this as a vacancy. There were no additional comments so Richter asked for approval of slates. The slates were approved unanimously as presented.
Barber (Canada) gave a brief history of conference registration fees. He said he had received complaints by conference organizers that the current registration fee was too low. Since IUPAP sponsorship requires organizers to adhere to the conference registration fee limit, he suggested that conference fees be raised to $400. This would allow the important, large conferences to continue to request IUPAP endorsement.
Richter called for approval of the following resolution:
Resolution: As a condition for IUPAP endorsement of a conference, the maximum registration fee may not exceed US $400. Conference organizers should give special financial consideration to unsupported young scientists and scientists from developing countries. For the purpose of this resolution, “developing countries” are defined by the World Bank’s most recent list of “low income” and “lower middle income” countries.
The Executive Council is directed to review this upper limit at its annual meeting, and to adjust it as required to take into account the international value of the US dollar and the effects of inflation.
Resolutions passed unanimously.
Parak (Germany) presented a brief history of the Working Group on Condensed Matter Physics (WPCMP). He said that WPCMP’s task is divided into three subareas, but that the Working Group has concentrated on only one of these: neutron sources.
He said that the neutron gap is very real and that facilities currently in an advanced state of planning and building should go into service as soon as possible. The infrastructure of some existing neutron sources should be upgraded to meet modern standards.
A lively discussion ensued as to what IUPAP can really do to influence the decision-making people on this issue. Richter said that IUPAP can give the unbiased voice of science and recommended amending the resolution to ask the working group to review from a scientific perspective the needs of the user groups and the present status in Europe and report to the Council in 2003. Parak responded that a number of existing reports clarify the needs. Richter said that IUPAP can do nothing unless there is a clear, current report defining the needs. A short amendment to the resolution was passed by consensus.
The question arose as to whether synchrotron light sources are to be covered by the Working Group as well as Neutron Sources. Richter said that progress on impacting the neutron source community had been hard and slow. It has taken the Working Group three years to make progress in gaining recognition. Petroff remarked that synchrotron light sources will probably be studied.
Richter called for a vote on the Resolution:
Resolution a) The mandate of the Working Group on Facilities of Condensed Matter Physics is extended to the 2005 General Assembly.
The General Assembly suggests that the Working Group conduct a study to review the status of neutron sources in Europe and the scientific need for facilities in the next decade.
Both a) and b) were approved unanimously.
At this point Yamaguchi from Japan reminded the IUPAP officers that all resolutions and amendments to resolutions should be available in writing to help those for whom English is not their native language.
Richter called for discussion on the resolution to increase IUPAP member dues 3% per year for the next three years. Finland expressed its concern and Canada reported that it had been instructed not to support an increase above 2% per year. Canada proposed an amendment, which was seconded by India, to reduce the increase from 3% to 2%. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 71 to 34. Richter then called for a vote on the resolution:
Resolution: Member dues per unit shall be 1750 Euros (SF 2575) for the year 2003, 1800 Euros (SF 2650) for the year 2004, and 1850 Euros (SF2730) for the years 2005 and beyond.
Vote: For – 89; Against – 6; Abstain – 11.
Due to a change in the agenda, Bettini (Italy) who was scheduled to speak on Saturday, was unable to make the presentation on Friday. The Working Group’s report can be found in the “Reports of International Commissions of IUPAP….” distributed at the General Assembly. Richter called for a vote on the following resolution:
Resolution: The mandate of PaNAGIC is extended to the 2005 General Assembly.
The resolution was passed unanimously.
Ducloy (France) pointed to a worldwide need to increase the public understanding of physics at all stages of the educational program. Holding a “Year of Physics” in 2000 in Germany was successful, and it has dramatically increased the enrollment of physics students. So it is clear that the physics community can have an effect.
The focus of a World Year of Physics (WYP) would be the:
a) promotion of public understanding of physics and physical sciences.
b) physics education
c) physics as the basis of many other disciplines and the incubator for newly
emerging scientific and technological fields
d) the great challenges of physics for the 21st century
e) physics in developing countries and for development
f) increasing the number of women in physics
g) physics as part of our cultural heritage
Plans include local and itinerant exhibits, local events on physics in everyday life, and actions in schools, universities, etc.
Ducloy outlined the tasks for national physics societies. He asked them to send out special announcements regarding WYP and to devote special sections in their news letters. Australia stressed the need to have societies post information regarding their activities on the web. The European Physical Society will serve as a central clearing house.
Discussion centered on the designation of a World Year of Physics. Alarcon (UNESCO) stated that only the United Nations can declare an International Year, whereas IUPAP could declare a World Year of Physics. Time is very short to get UN to make a declaration. Richter called for a vote on the resolution:
Whereas Physics has been the basis of a developing understanding of the physical world and nature as a whole,
Whereas Physics and its application are the basis of much of today’s technology,
Whereas an education in Physics is essential for the nations of the developing world to develop their scientific infrastructure, and
Whereas the year 2005 marks the 100th anniversary of a series of great scientific advances of Albert Einstein,
Therefore, at the suggestion of the European Physical Society, the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics declares that 2005 should be the World Year of Physics and will seek support from appropriate national and international organizations.
The resolution was passed unanimously.
Richter asked for new business, and there being none, introduced the Resolution of Appreciation by thanking all the outgoing officers and the individuals involved in the planning and execution of the General Assembly.
Resolution of Appreciation:
The General Assembly of IUPAP wishes to take note of and express its appreciation for the efforts of:
As a small token of our appreciation, the General Assembly awards all of the above the IUPAP cube. We also particularly express our best wishes to Dr. Turlay for a speedy return to health.
The resolution was approved unanimously.
Richter then declared that Petroff the new president of IUPAP and adjourned the meeting.
Petroff thanked Richter for his outstanding service as President of IUPAP during the past three years.