In the International Council for Science (ICSU) URSI has two significant distinctions. Among the 26 international "single discipline " scientific unions it is one of the very few multidisciplinary unions. This happened because URSI was one of four original international scientific unions forming in 1919 the International Research Council, the predecessor of ICSU. A second distinction is its young scientist program. It is the largest within ICSU and URSI is frequently held up as a good example to the other unions in this regard. How did this come about?
Professor Sam Silver, URSI president from 1966 to 1969, introduced the young scientist program. At an URSI board meeting in February 1967 he proposed "each national committee nominate one or two young research workers in their countries who should be specially invited by the president of URSI to attend the general assembly. This would be a tremendous encouragement for young people and would stimulate their interest and participation in the work of the union. Moreover this should contribute to bringing fresh talent to the general assembly." He also proposed a special fund to facilitate the participation of young scientists at URSI general assemblies.
To appreciate the significance of this proposal it is necessary to recall that URSI general assemblies were much smaller than now and were closed to all but a limited number of official delegates invited by the member committees. These were mainly internationally established scientists and research administrators. This gave the general assemblies considerable mystique for younger scientists who were excluded. The first general assembly I "attended " was at University College, London in 1960, when I was finishing my Ph.D. Other graduate students and I slipped into the darkened lecture hall to see and hear the famous senior colleagues whose papers we had been studying. I similarly "attended" my second URSI general assembly in Ottawa in 1969, along with other uninvited colleagues from Ottawa laboratories concerned with radio science.
In his 1969 presidential address Prof. Silver recognised that it was "important to the union to bring to its assembly the fresh ideas and the idealism of young people. For if the union has no ear for the aspirations and interests of the younger scientists, it will ossify out of complacency and by crystallisation of patterns of thought." It was also important to help advance science and technology in developing countries. This was explicitly the duty of UNESCO, but the unions of ICSU should both participate and provide support. Prof. Silver pointed out that "bringing the young scientists to the assembly is a way for the URSI to contribute to this program of the service of science to humanity." In a Dec. 1971 URSI Bulletin article Prof. Silver indicated that as far as he was concerned, this consideration was the main motivation for the young scientists scheme at Ottawa. The scheme also helped initiate major changes in the nature of URSI general assemblies, which only later became open to all who wished to attend.
Eighteen young scientists designated by thirteen member committees from smaller and developing countries were supported by travel grants totalling $10,000 from URSI funds at the 1969 Ottawa general assembly. Also member committees were asked to include in their delegations some research workers of age 25-35 years. These came supported by their countries or on research grants. The success of the 1969 young scientists scheme prompted the URSI board to repeat it at the Warsaw general assembly in 1972 with grants totalling $11,000 for 14 young scientists from the following member countries: Australia (4), Brazil (2), India (2), Nigeria (3), South Africa (1), Sweden (1) and USA (1); that is about half from developing countries and half from industrialised countries. This balance was intended to encourage collaboration among young scientists from different backgrounds and was maintained at later general assemblies.
At the general assemblies in Lima (1975) and Helsinki (1978) there were no young scientist programs. The reasons for this are not recorded explicitly in the general assembly proceedings for these years but evidently financial and organisational changes in URSI severely limited the resources available for the program. Also by then general assemblies were open to all radioscientists regardless of whether they were invited delegates or even from member nations, so growing numbers of both young and older scientists were attending in any case.
The program was revived and enlarged at the 1981 Washington general assembly where 24 young scientists from 17 countries were supported by grants of $300 each from ICSU. Further support was provided by USNC/URSI, and travel allowances for some of the 12 from developing countries were received from COSTED, the ICSU committee on science and technology for developing countries. For the first time young scientists from the Soviet block countries appeared at an URSI general assembly held in the West: 3 from the USSR and 2 from Poland. This contingent was to grow substantially in general assemblies from 1990, as is evident in the accompanying figure. A party held for the young scientists became traditional at subsequent general assemblies. At Washington there was no requirement for a young scientist to present a paper and only two young scientists names appear as co-authors in the scientific program, all papers of which were by invitation only. It was still an exclusive honour to present a paper at an URSI general assembly.
At Florence in 1984 the program was enlarged to 47 invitees from 33 countries by A.P. Mitra, who became URSI president (1984-1987) and a strong proponent of URSI support for developing countries, and Jean Van Bladel, who, during his term as secretary general (1979-1993) and ever since, has been a major contributor in time and effort to the success of the young scientist program. About half of the young scientists were from developing and socialist countries and received support for their travel from ICSU and COSTED. The Royal Society of London also provided funds from an account remaining from the 1960 general assembly. A source of young scientist applicants from African developing countries was found among those attending radio propagation courses at the Third World Academy of Sciences in Trieste. URSI provided all the young scientists with free registration at the general assembly and the hosts provided accommodation and living expenses. Since there were now open symposia associated with the general assembly, 9 of their names were on papers presented in the regular program. There was also a special session for those who wished to give a paper but did not have a place in the regular program.
Forty-seven young scientists from 23 countries were invited to Tel Aviv in 1987, but the accompanying figure shows fewer attendees. Usually young scientists must arrange for their visas and travel expenses, for which they are reimbursed at the general assembly. Inevitably a few are unable to do this in time and do not appear. There were two parallel special sessions of papers by young scientists chaired by URSI president (1987-1990) Alex. Cullen and vice- president S. Okamura.
Prague in 1990 was a watershed for the URSI young scientist program and indeed for URSI general assemblies for with a relaxation of travel restrictions on our Soviet colleagues there was record attendance. The numbers of official young scientists more than doubled because the local organisers, under URSI vice president V. Zima, offered to accommodate 100 young scientists at the general assembly. These extra numbers of course required extra effort from the URSI secretariat and extra sources of travel funds for those from developing countries, as indicated in the appendix. In addition perhaps a hundred more young scientists arrived from the east, mainly Russia and Ukraine, at their own expense and were accommodated and supported by the hosts. It was a tradition among the socialist countries that the local academies of sciences hosted visiting scientists from other countries at their conferences but the scale of this at Prague could have stretched the generosity of the hosts almost to the limit. At the reception and at the young scientists dinner party they appeared en masse and the Czechs, good at improvisation, hastily made extra arrangements. Most of the official awardees had indicated on their application forms that they wished to present a paper and for them 44 places were found on the regular program. For the rest there were 8 parallel sessions with a total of 60 papers, the abstracts of which appeared in a volume 3 of the proceedings. In addition some of the unofficial young scientists made presentations at the end of these lengthy sessions following the regular afternoon sessions and chaired by URSI commission chairmen and board members. The quality of most of these papers was high and many were excellent but attendance at these sessions was disappointing because most of the potential audience were too exhausted from a day already full of scientific sessions.
At Prague the first standing committee on young scientists was formed to recommend to the board ways in which the program could be improved. Previously it had been the responsibility of the URSI secretary general and a member of the URSI board. The numbers of applicants, especially from the former socialist countries, had increased greatly and URSI felt it should respond. Fortunately its financial position allowed a further expansion of the young scientist program, not only at general assemblies but also at symposia between them. In 1992 for example about 20% of URSI’s income was used for this purpose, distributed partly directly by the secretariat but increasingly by allocating funds to the commissions. It should be pointed out that URSI support for young scientists between general assemblies had been increasing for some time. Between Florence and Tel Aviv partial support of some kind was provided by URSI to 32 young scientists from 18 different countries to attend 13 different conferences. Between Tel Aviv and Prague these numbers grew to 67 young scientists from 34 different countries at 15 different meetings. Some of this support came from the conference fees, for example that at the triennial commission B symposium on electromagnetic theory, where in 1989 11 young scientists, 6 from East Europe and the USSR, were accommodated in Stockholm. By 1992 32 young scientists from East Europe, Russia and Ukraine alone were supported at the URSI symposia organized by commissions B and C and 7 were helped to attend URSI sponsored conferences.
In 1990 those bidding for the 1993 general assembly were asked how many young scientists they could accommodate and support. Professor Okoshi, representing the Japanese organising committee for Kyoto in 1993, proposed 120. In spite of their changing economic conditions between 1990 and 1993, this number was upheld by the Japanese organisers. It has been maintained subsequently because at about 10% of the total general assembly registration it was found to be about the limit of the resources URSI and the host country had available for the program. A major change in 1993 is that there were no special sessions for young scientists: all their papers were accommodated in the regular program. This required program organisers who acted quickly to inform the URSI secretariat of the program so young scientist selection could begin and awardees notified in time to complete their visa and travel arrangements. Fortunately at Kyoto we had efficient organisers in Professors Matsumoto and Kimura, but in spite of improved fax and email communications this timing has sometimes been a source of difficulty for a few of our young scientists.
With this change, acceptance and delivery of a paper on the regular program became a necessary condition for an award, with geographical distribution and financial need secondary considerations. A survey of young scientists at Kyoto indicated that most preferred to be selected primarily on the basis of the scientific merit of their paper. Then an URSI young scientist award rightly became something to include in one’s resume. It was of course almost impossible for the three individuals involved in the selection process to accurately assess the relative merits of all the applicants, particularly those in commissions different from their own. So all URSI member committees were asked to rank the applicants from their countries. A few member countries had been doing this earlier but by the 1996 general assembly at Lille 88% of the 238 applications examined by the selection committee had been ranked. This ranking was adhered to in selection with a few exceptions such as if the applicant’s paper was not in the program or if there was a previous young scientist award. Unranked applicants were usually from countries with few applicants or from countries not members of URSI and their numbers were small enough to be dealt with by the selection committee. In another change implemented at Lille applicants were considered on the basis of the countries in which they were working or studying rather than on their citizenship or origin as they sometimes were earlier.
At Lille 120 awards were made to applicants from 40 different countries, 18 or 15% of them female. This had risen from 10% at Kyoto and about 5% at earlier general assemblies. At Toronto in 1999 there were 222 applicants of which 120 from 36 different countries were selected. The number of women young scientists at Toronto was 24 or 20% of the total. These increasing numbers of young ladies receiving awards are almost entirely due to increasing numbers of female applicants rather than to any policy in selection. It seems likely that there will be even more women young scientists at the next general assembly.
The distribution of awards by commission at Lille and Toronto also correlates well with the distribution in applicants by commission. At these two most recent general assemblies the approximate percentages of young scientists receiving awards by commission were, respectively: A (3 %; 8%); B (25%; 18%); C (9%; 11%); D (10%; 8%); E (4%; 4%); F (14%; 8%); G (15%; 12%); H (9%; 11%); J (7%; 9%); K (4%; 11%). These percentages depend not only on the size, activity and scientific program of the commission but also on the publicity given to the young scientist program at commission activities and in commission related sources of information in the year preceding a general assembly. Evidently they can change significantly from one general assembly to the next.
Financing the travel expenses of the young scientists from developing countries and from the countries of Eastern Europe and the former USSR has been a challenge at each general assembly. It was particularly difficult in 1999 when, following a reorganisation of ICSU, funds from this major source were no longer available. URSI, which has always been the other major source, had to make up the difference with considerable impact on its general assembly budget. The situation may improve at Maastricht in 2002 because for many of the recipients travel to a European location is less costly and because in the past the EU has provided some support for this purpose. There was some discussion at Toronto on whether the young scientist program should be scaled down, but the URSI council gave clear support to maintaining it. There was general recognition that the young scientist program has been and will continue to be an important way for URSI to fulfil its mission and that it is a sound investment in the future of the union.
E.V. Jull
APPENDIX
Travel funds for young scientists from developing countries have been gratefully received from the following sources besides UNESCO/ICSU and URSI:
