Project Place
Information about new, current, and complete IUPAC projects and related initiatives. See also www.iupac.org/projects
Stakeholders’ Thoughts on the Future of IUPAC Update on the IUPAC Organizational Structure Review project by Lori Ferrins, Ito Chao, and Mark Cesa The IUPAC Organizational Structure Review group (hereafter referred to as the Review Group) was established in 2019 following approval from the Council to assess whether IUPAC needed to evolve in order to ensure its relevance to the scientific community given the pressing challenges that we face (https:// doi.org/10.1515/ci-2020-0205). The Review Group was chaired by Mark Cesa (USA, former IUPAC President and current member of the Finance Committee) and included Ito Chao (China/Taipei), Michael Droescher (Germany, former chair of COCI), Lori Ferrins (Australia, Chair of International Younger Chemists Network), and Zhigang Shuai (China/Beijing), and ex officio Javier Garcia-Martinez (Spain, IUPAC Vice President). To assess thoughts of IUPAC’s stakeholders, the Review Group circulated a survey asking respondents to talk about the scientific work of the Union, its structure, and its financial situation. The survey was circulated to those who attended the IUPAC Council meeting in 2019, Associated Organizations, Bureau members, Company Associates, Division members, National Adhering Organization (NAO) and Associate National Adhering Organization (ANAO) representatives, project task group chairs and members, Standing Committee members, and Commissions. In total it was sent to 1724 unique respondents, and 447 responses were received. NAOs were invited to submit responses to the survey holistically to assure that their views, in addition to those of individual stakeholders, were considered. The views of the NAOs and the individual stakeholders were in general agreement and, as such, have been considered together.
The major objective of the survey was to understand the perceived impact and scope of the Union’s activities from stakeholders’ perspectives. We in the Review Group sought to understand stakeholders’ perceptions of activities such as setting and recommending standards, identifying and sharing emerging technologies, building capacity worldwide, publishing, endorsing scientific meetings, and recognizing scientific contributions and expertise, and whether respondents felt that each activity was something unique to IUPAC. Respondents were asked to look to the future and describe which areas IUPAC should be focusing on, and how the Union could adapt to the evolving needs of the scientific community. We also wanted to understand the perceived benefits of IUPAC membership, and how IUPAC could better engage with scientific societies and with industry. From a structure and financial perspective we sought to understand how IUPAC could better serve all its stakeholders, whether the current organizational structure was sufficiently agile to adapt to the changing times, and whether and how the Union should restructure to ensure that it is more responsive moving forward. Respondents to the survey spanned 61 countries, and the overwhelming majority came from academia (64 %) with responses also coming from industry, government, NPO/NGO, students, and retirees (see Figure 1). Most responses were submitted by people aged 46-65, with 73 % of respondents men, 24 % women, and a small number who choose not to identify. Anecdotally, this appears to be consistent with the demographic of the volunteers that work with IUPAC. The breadth of stakeholders invited to respond to the survey meant that some respondents may not be as aware of IUPAC’s work as others. This may explain why some respondents recommended that IUPAC do more in some areas where it is already working well. Respondents reported, unsurprisingly, that IUPAC is known internationally for being a leader in defining
Academia Retired Academia Industry Under 25
Government
25-45
Retired Industry or Government
46-65 66-75
Student
over 75
NGO/NPO
N/A
Other
Figure 1. Demographics of the IUPAC Structure Review Group survey.
36
Chemistry International
April-June 2021
