ASSW proved immensely successful and has contin-
question! IASC structures at the time did not easi-
ued since that time. We also initiated the practice of
ly address this question (Council being too general
having two or three presentations at IASC meetings
and projects being too specific). I suggested pos-
by representatives—often the PIs or Coordinators—
sible new structures and creating of two or three
of IASC projects, once more to keep Council more
Strategic Standing Committees to receive, consider
closely in touch with the latest scientific develop-
and evaluate ideas for new projects and to rec-
ments.
ommend new initiatives to Council. The Standing
Committee would also review and monitor existing
Later in 1999 I took some time to reflect on the
projects, report to Council, and finally consider and/
important issues facing IASC, namely (1) engage-
or respond to strategic issues. The principal criti-
ment in policy dialogue, and (2) how to generate
cism at the time was that the proposal introduced a
successful IASC projects for the future. I prepared
new layer into IASC and would increase the level of
a paper for the Executive and later to the Council in
administration and possibly cost. Council members
2000. The essence of my thinking at this time was
were not convinced and the Executive was asked to
two-fold: on the first matter I was convinced that
revisit the concepts.
attention had increasingly to be paid to the politi-
In a follow-up paper, I proposed establishing a
cal context of science. For a body such as IASC, this
series of Oversight Groups, each under a Vice-Pres-
would have a number organizational implications:
ident, with membership from three to five Council
a) following significant policy developments and
members. The groups would meet during Council
differences in individual member countries; b) track-
to exam