Re: [AISdiscuss] Re: AIS Bulletin Scientific Editor

[Bill Shear <wshear@hams-hsc.hsc.edu>]

Dear Friends,

I'm pasting in below my contribution to the exchange of e-mails between
Chandler Fulton, Bob Hollingworth and myself on the issue of the scientific
committees of AIS.

Here goes:

"The Grants Committee has evolved a great deal since its founding 20 years
ago as the Scholarship Committee.  At that time, the leadership of AIS
thought the best use of the modest funds then at its disposal was to grant
actual scholarships to graduate students with an interest in iris.   My
immediate predecessor as chair of the committee, John Taylor, moved the
committee more in the direction of a granting agency in that students were
not granted 'scholarships' per se, but funds to support certain specific
projects."

"Twice since I have been chair, the Board has seen fit to raise the amount
granted annually, which now stands at $5000.  Recently, policy was changed
to allow 1) established postgraduate researchers to apply for funds, and 2)
consideration of projects that last more than one year."

"These changes were spurred by the fact that there had been a steady decline
in proposals reaching the committee, to the point where in 2002 only a
single proposal came in.  Many of the past proposals, furthermore, touched
only tangentially on the genus Iris."

"In response to this change, we received three outstanding proposals for
2004, such that the committee was deadlocked on which one to fund.  Both the
Society and the Foundation came to the rescue with additional money so that
all three of these worthy projects were funded, at least for their first
year.  I think the increase in worthy proposals shows we are on the right
track.  But due to a lack of communication, mostly on my part, the situation
got confusing."

"My continued concern, however, is that the proposals, while interesting and
exciting, bear only very indirectly on the Society's main interest:
horticulture.    The projects we have going now are primarily related to the
evolutionary relationships of irises and the ecological genetics of native
populations.  We all know that there are horticultural issues, primary among
them disease and pest resistance, that are greatly in need of research. Such
research, in the long run, will probably have to be funded by AIS or a
similar organization due to the low economic potential of irises as a
commercial crop.  That means that state agriculture departments and state
universities are not going to be at all keen on funding research on iris
culture.  I don't know how we can encourage the development of such
proposals.  One person has talked to me informally about making such a
proposal, but the conversation revealed that the individual lacked
scientific training and did not understand how to organize such a project."

"My initial thinking is that a single Scientific Committee, expanded in its
membership, and (if legally possible--perhaps Bob Plank could weigh in on
this) involving the foundation, could speak with one voice on grants and
other scientific issues.  Chandler points out that separating oversight and
granting are desirable, but while what he describes for federal agencies
might be the desideratum, my 25 years of experience with the National
Science Foundation as both a funded researcher and a frequent panel member
tells me that this is definitely not the practice.  I've been funded by NSF
since 1981 and not once has my work been evaluated by anyone but NSF.
Perhaps it is different in the medical field."

"Chandler, I note that in your message you seem to be saying two things.
One is that the agency that gives the money should not be the one to
evaluate the proposals.  For federal research funding, this is only partly
true (in my experience).  NSF panels rate and rank proposals, but the
Program Director and his staff make the final decisions on funding, and NSF
disburses the money.  The National Academy carries out studies on science
policy and makes recommendations, but high-level policy at NSF is set by
statute, and operational decisions are made within the agency."

"If what you are suggesting is that one committee evaluate proposals and the
other disburse the funds, it seems to me that this is not an improvement.  I
would, however, agree that POLICY should be established by a larger group
within AIS (the Board?) and that the committee or committees then carry out
that policy.  Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying, or your
experience in the research funding process has been different."

"I think both Bob and Chandler are quite correct when they point out that
the amount we have to grant is small.  However, even at $5000 per year, we
are now funding some very respectable projects.  Each of those investigators
has additional support from their institutions, and probably from other
granting agencies.  It's possible to cobble together enough support from
various sources to do some pretty good things."

"The question of encouraging the kind of research we want to have done is a
vexing one.  How to do this?  I'm afraid that aside from being as generous
as we can with funding, I don't have any fresh ideas."

I'd like to add that the two grants being supported by the grants committee
this year are both being done by researchers at state-supported
horticultural research facilities.  Our financial contribution represents
only a part of the total funding for each of these grants.  Both grants, as
well as the one now being funded by the foundation, are what I would call
"academic" grants, having to do with ecological genetics and phylogenetics
of iris species, and not likely to produce any results of horticultural
value.  Still, knowledge of the population structure and evolutionary
relationships of iris species may prove at some future time to be very
valuable to hybridizers.  And, it may not be true that state or federally
supported research has to be predicated on big economic returns.  One of our
current researches, Alan Meerow, carried out a multi-year project
hybridizing potentially commercial varieties of Hippeastrum, perhaps not as
big a "seller" as tall bearded irises.

After further thought, I have come down on the side of having a single
Scientific Committee with expanded membership (I would suggest 5 members,
with 3 to have some form of scientific credentials, such as a MS degree in a
scientific field).  This committee would have the responsibility for
administering the grants program, advising the board on scientific matters,
and advising the Bulletin editor on scientifically oriented material to be
published in the Bulletin.  This would avoid duplication of effort, help the
society speak to scientific matters with one voice, and centralize what
research efforts are now being made and may be made in the future.

AIS policy, including scientific research, should always be set by the
board.  In this case, the first iteration of the committee would advise the
board on defining the committee's work and procedures.

I see no problem whatsoever in a single committee both evaluating and
funding scientific research.  This is the way most private sources of
research money work.  Certainly, outside reviews (advice from persons not on
the committee) might be sought when needed.

The unaddressed problem so far has to do with the foundation's additional
support of iris research.  Should the foundation proceed independently, or
in exchange for a seat or seats on the Scientific Committee, provide funds
to the Society?  I do not know the legal implications of any of this, but
when I was chair of the board of the Virginia Museum of Natural History, we
set up a foundation, independently governed, but the purpose of which was to
raise private funds for the (inadequately) state-supported museum.  I
suspect that the American Iris Society Foundation could act in a similar
fashion, but am making that suggestion in total ignorance of its charter and
relationship to the society.

I've gone on much to long about this--got to get back to writing tomorrow's
lecture!

Best wishes

Bill Shear

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pdf which had a name of 2005 Announcement.pdf"; x-mac-type="50444620]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
aissecjill@earthlink.net.