Workshop: Scientists, Human Rights, and Prospects for the Future

Friday, May 20, 2005

Welcome and Introductory Remarks Discussion Leader: Lorna Casselton

Lorna Casselton, The Royal Society, U.K. It’s a great pleasure to welcome you to the final part of this Network meeting, which will give us the chance to discuss more fully some of the important human rights issues that we touched on yesterday. I think I should like to say thank you to Carol Corillon and the other members of the Executive Committee for putting together such a remarkable program for yesterday’s symposium. It was an impressive lineup of eminent speakers, who gave us such important insights into the topics talked about. This was reflected not only in the very lively discussion after each presentation, but also in the fact that it attracted a number of people from outside the Network.

The highlight of the day was the first Max Perutz Memorial Lecture. We’re very proud to have hosted it here at The Royal Society. One thing Sir John Meurig Thomas did not say in his introduction was that yesterday, the 19th of May, was Max Perutz’s birthday—the timing for that lecture could not have been more perfect. And, of course, the choice of speaker could not have been more appropriate.

One of the international issues that the Network has focused on is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and in Switzerland we witnessed the inauguration of the Israeli-Palestinian Science Organization (IPSO). Today, we shall be hearing more about the current status of IPSO and its future. Of course, it is very embarrassing for us here in the United Kingdom to have to revisit the issue of boycotts with respect to Israel, because the action involves our Association of University Teachers, who have voted for a boycott [of certain Israeli universities].

If you had been listening to the radio this morning, you would have discovered that this event is attracting attention. It was discussed this morning on Today, a very important program on the radio, in which important issues are talked about. I think we can be proud that our event was one of the issues discussed on the radio this morning.

As Torsten said on Wednesday, the world is changing, and we need to hear the voices of different cultures and countries. A very important part of the biennial meeting is the regional discussions—an important forum for bringing to the attention of all of us here the different human rights issues that regions face. I now hand this over to Torsten, who will start off today’s workshop on the subject of the purpose, function, and future of the Network.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies Workshop: Scientists, Human Rights, and Prospects for the Future Friday, May 20, 2005 Welcome and Introductory Remarks Discussion Leader: Lorna Casselton Lorna Casselton, The Royal Society, U.K. It’s a great pleasure to welcome you to the final part of this Network meeting, which will give us the chance to discuss more fully some of the important human rights issues that we touched on yesterday. I think I should like to say thank you to Carol Corillon and the other members of the Executive Committee for putting together such a remarkable program for yesterday’s symposium. It was an impressive lineup of eminent speakers, who gave us such important insights into the topics talked about. This was reflected not only in the very lively discussion after each presentation, but also in the fact that it attracted a number of people from outside the Network. The highlight of the day was the first Max Perutz Memorial Lecture. We’re very proud to have hosted it here at The Royal Society. One thing Sir John Meurig Thomas did not say in his introduction was that yesterday, the 19th of May, was Max Perutz’s birthday—the timing for that lecture could not have been more perfect. And, of course, the choice of speaker could not have been more appropriate. One of the international issues that the Network has focused on is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and in Switzerland we witnessed the inauguration of the Israeli-Palestinian Science Organization (IPSO). Today, we shall be hearing more about the current status of IPSO and its future. Of course, it is very embarrassing for us here in the United Kingdom to have to revisit the issue of boycotts with respect to Israel, because the action involves our Association of University Teachers, who have voted for a boycott [of certain Israeli universities]. If you had been listening to the radio this morning, you would have discovered that this event is attracting attention. It was discussed this morning on Today, a very important program on the radio, in which important issues are talked about. I think we can be proud that our event was one of the issues discussed on the radio this morning. As Torsten said on Wednesday, the world is changing, and we need to hear the voices of different cultures and countries. A very important part of the biennial meeting is the regional discussions—an important forum for bringing to the attention of all of us here the different human rights issues that regions face. I now hand this over to Torsten, who will start off today’s workshop on the subject of the purpose, function, and future of the Network.

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies Purpose, Function, and Future of the Network Discussion Leader: Torsten Wiesel Torsten Wiesel, The National Academy of Science, U.S.A. Since this morning is set aside to discuss the future of the Network, we want to be sure that we hear all your voices and that we listen to you. It is very important, as representatives of academies, that you speak up for what kinds of issues you think the Network should deal with. We had some of that discussion on the first day in the afternoon, after the regional meetings. It is clear that there are some differences of opinion, and we want to hear from the members. Some of you haven’t said anything yet, and some have said a lot—you should feel free. I suggest that we begin with the mission statement. To us on the Executive Committee, we feel responsible for the formulation and direction of the mission statement. Lord Dahrendorf yesterday emphasized the importance of addressing the concern of single prisoners of conscience. From the outset this has been our sense of what the Network’s purpose and function should be. In the discussion yesterday, and on Wednesday in particular, some members expressed the view that the Network should have a broader mission than that which was narrowly defined initially. I want you to speak up now. What is your sense of the Network’s mission? Arne Haaland, Norwegian Academy — I think a Network of this kind must have as its goal to apply uniform standards to all countries. It is easy to accept as a goal, it is difficult to achieve in practice, but that should be the goal. All cases are different. I think we will have to learn to live with a situation where we disagree in individual cases. This is not surprising, because some people who are persecuted are not paragons of virtue or wisdom. This does not remove their human rights. When governments act, some of the motives are entirely unacceptable, and some motives you can understand and accept. Each person here, weighing the pros and cons, may not agree. It is necessary that the Network and the Executive Committee have a large, comfortable majority whenever they decide to intervene. But I’m not sure that one should require absolute unanimity. Wiesel – You should keep in mind that this is a network of independent academies. For example, the Norwegian Academy can do anything it likes, and you should use the Network to communicate your action and inform the members of the Network of cases that you are concerned about and actions you propose. But the Network as such is more a means of communication. The reason for this sort of meeting is for all of us to meet and have personal discussions, not just by email and so on. There is often a misconception that the Network is like an Academy itself. It is not. Just keep that in mind. The effectiveness of the Network depends on what you do in your own academies to carry out the work. Communicate with your members, ask them to write letters, use the information that Carol provides through the Network as Action Alerts from the Network secretariat.

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies Haaland – I think the Executive Committee has a certain amount of autonomy relative to the individual members. If you have a clear majority, you are not bound to satisfy every national affiliate. John Eckert, German Academy of Sciences, Leopoldina – First, I think it is generally agreed that this Network should take care of the individual scientists or individuals in the academic field who are in trouble. Second, I think the Network should continue to support and enhance international scientific cooperation, as it was done in the case of Israel and Palestine, especially groups that are in political conflict. There may be other examples in which the Network could be active—China and Taiwan, even Korea, and other areas. In this connection, I would like to say that the Leopoldina had a long-lasting experience in bridging east and west when Germany was divided. The Leopoldina was the only institution that had a high degree of independence in East Germany. Therefore, people from western countries could be invited or international scientists could be invited, and this was a very important bridge for science at this difficult time during the separation of the country. This group has discussed that the Network should be involved in issues like genetic manipulation and human rights and similar [human rights-related] issues. I think these issues are so complicated and so difficult that they should be dealt with by the national academies. This is already being done, and we would not be able to cover all these issues adequately. The last point I would make is that after each meeting there should be a summary of the points of discussion, the results, and conclusions that could be taken home and distributed to the media. Having a summary of some common points would help to disseminate more information about the Network. Juha Sihvola, Finnish Delegation of Scientific and Scholarly Societies – This is the first time for me in this Network, and I’ve been very excited about what I have experienced. To a large extent, I agree with the previous speakers, especially my Norwegian colleague. I think there are at least three possible activities for this kind of Network. One is concrete cases, assisting individual scientists and intellectuals and so on. Of course, even in that activity, making distinctions in what kind of cases should be covered may be difficult. That is a very important core area of activity. Another activity is promoting, in principle, peaceful solutions to international conflicts, like the activities related to Israel and Palestine. I would also gladly support this aspect, which is very important and would probably get good results. The third aspect is related to principles of human rights, which, as we have seen, is a pretty complicated issue, even if we restrict the notion of human rights in a narrow way, for example, as Lord Dahrendorf did in his very excellent talk. Human rights is a much wider issue—social rights, cultural rights, and even so-called bio-rights related to biotechnology and stem cell research and that kind of thing. It might become too complicated for the Network to extend its activities to all these area. But because this Network has very high-level participants, drawing together institutions and prominent people from all over the world and in all academic fields, it is very important to also discuss theoretical difficulties in the protection of human rights. It looks very different not only from different countries, but also depending on your view

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies of the extent, nature, and contents of human rights. To promote this kind of discussion in all academies and in all fields in a cross-disciplinary and border-crossing way is also very important. Wiesel – On the last point, could you be specific? Sihvola – Take, for example, the speech of Baroness O’Neill on difficulties in the theoretical underpinnings of human rights. We could invite prominent philosophers and international lawyers to come together to examine potential difficulties in the interpretation of human rights, political rights, freedom of expression, and secondly, social rights, thirdly, cultural rights and the so-called bio-rights—fourth-generation human rights, as they are sometimes called. Wiesel – Any comments from my colleagues on the Executive Committee? Pieter van Dijk, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences – I just want to say, that is what we tried to do in the colloquium. At every biennial meeting, we have both a colloquium and a workshop. In the colloquium, we address more general questions of human rights and human rights issues. Your second point, regarding contributions to a peaceful settlement of disputes, is also very broad. I cannot imagine myself going for a mission to divide two fighting parties. But I suppose you mean the contribution of scientific cooperation, because IPSO is exactly that. Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, French Academy of Sciences – I understand what you mean about enlarging our scope, but aren’t you afraid it would be too much work? Too difficult to address all the important questions, and we would therefore be less efficient on the individual cases, in which sometimes we can get some success? Sihvola – Actually, I talked too much about the general issues. It would be better to have the focus on individual cases, that is, the concrete results. That is something that can be achieved by a joint action. Action on the general issue could come through the individual academies. Cohen-Tannoudji – What you have in mind is perhaps a new or different network, which would consist of people coming from all of academia, who could address the issue of human rights theoretically and find some basic principles and some general laws. That was not the initial mission of this Network, and I’m afraid it is too ambitious, although I like the idea. It is very important to have people coming from different countries and from various academies to think together about general problems. Wiesel – If I understood you right, you said that the concept of human rights has different meanings for different cultures. We have had speakers in previous years from different countries expressing the point of view that freedom of speech may not be the most important thing in their culture. Other things are also important. We always invite the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences to come to these meetings because their representatives would perhaps be more interested in other social issues. We emphasize scientific issues here, rather than social issues like food and shelter and health care—which are also part of human rights.

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies Sihvola – My personal view is that the most important human rights are freedom of movement, freedom of expression, and freedom of participation. But there is some disagreement on this. So, in order to raise consciousness about the basic importance of these most important human rights, one should also have the broader discussion about their relations to the other aspects. Paul Mugambi, Ugandan Academy of Sciences – I am President of the Uganda National Academy of Sciences. The history of academies in Africa, as you might know, is not a very rosy one. In Uganda, under the East African Community, we had an Eastern African Academy involving Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda, and then Idi Amin came onto the scene. During his regime, the academies broke up, and people went underground. In Uganda, in particular, the Uganda Medical Association suffered heavily. Doctors were murdered in broad daylight because they spoke about these very issues that we are discussing. So, in Africa the academies are young, and, as mentioned yesterday, there is a whole mixture of scenarios of failed and failing states. In terms of a mission statement—yes, I do support individuals. In addition, to promote and protect the independence of academies and scholarly societies worldwide attracts my attention in connection with the African academies. Most of them are very young. We have only 10 active academies. We hope that we will benefit from this Network to build the capacity of our academies to promote awareness of these rights. Some of our scientists suffer from self-censorship. They need to be made aware that they can speak out on issues. It is my hope that our membership in the Network will enable us to promote awareness of these issues in our countries. Wiesel – We very much want to and have done our very best to try to support you in this. Michael Clegg, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. – There is quite an array of global and regional academy organizations that emerged over the last decade. The Network plays an immensely important role in informing people about abuses of the rights of scientists. There is also the Inter-Academy Panel, which takes on a larger role of trying to articulate statements on major issues of concern to the global science community. These may range from statements about the health of mothers and children, to the importance of science education, to issues related to the global management of water resources. In my view, the Network plays a crucial role, but that role should be a focused and well defined role that is concerned with the rights of scientists and the suppression of the rights of scientists. With regard to our [the U.S. National Academies] engagement in Africa, we have been very fortunate to receive a major grant from the Gates Foundation, which has allowed us to launch a program that is now in its very early phases, aimed at building the capacity of academies in Sub-Saharan Africa. There are seven academies that we are trying to work with— three in a more focused way, including Uganda, South Africa, and Nigeria. The goal is capacity building: helping to provide academies with the tools to be effective institutions in their own countries and to be effective, in particular, in influencing decision makers and policy makers in

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies their own countries. We are really delighted to be able to work with Paul Mugambi and Gideon Okelo on this wonderful project, but it is separate from the concerns of the Network. Alenka Selih, Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts – I am from Slovenia, a new nation and an ex-socialist country. I have been following the work of the Network for the last four years, and we have become more active in supporting individual cases recently after some changes in our academy have taken place. When I was looking at the program of this meeting, it seemed to me as if the democratic and developed countries somehow pointed the finger at those who are not so fortunate. I was therefore very satisfied to see the program of yesterday’s symposium. I think it is very important to address the problems of September 11, which really changed a lot of things in many democratic countries Measures have been taken, not against scientists or at least not in principle, but at a general level. As we know, such measures can always, even if taken only for one group of offenders or one group of crimes, be spread out to others. I think we in ex-socialist countries know that quite well. I have also been thinking about our obligation back home in the area of the Network’s operation. Most probably, the academies and the scientific communities in ex-socialist countries should earlier or later (probably later) confront their own past during the past decades, because, in some cases, scientists and scholars have been prosecuted and also sentenced for what they have been studying and researching. I’m not sure the time has come for that yet. Perhaps more of a lapse of time is necessary. I have been following how the German criminal lawyers have been studying their past, and I’ve noticed that the first articles on how German lawyers acted during the Nazi regime were published in the 1980s. So it takes a long time. I don’t know whether we are, or when we will be, ready for that. On the question or problem of individuals, we have been shown the example of Palestinian-Israeli cooperation between two universities. I do not want to make any formal proposal, but I have a suggestion that maybe, in ex-Yugoslavia, an initiative to arrange such collaboration, between say Serbia and Kosovo or between Serbia and Bosnia, could be fruitful. Wiesel – The leadership in the academies or universities is critical for this to happen. It has to be initiated in the region. There is nothing we can do from the point of view of the Executive Committee without that. If such an initiative were taken, then of course we would be happy to facilitate and encourage such cooperation. I believe very much in bottom-up approaches. If such an initiative came, not from the Network, but from the region, then we could facilitate and assist it as a Network. Does your academy have a human rights committee? Selih – No, we don’t. We are a small academy, so our department of foreign affairs, the president of the academy, and I form an opinion together, and then the presidency, a body of 13 members which consists of representatives of all of the departments of the academy, takes a decision. Then we act. Wiesel – That sounds like a committee in a way. Are you in charge?

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies Selih – There are two of us, the head of the department for foreign affairs and me. Wiesel – In a sense, you have a structure within the academy to deal with these issues, which is all that is important. Emmanuel Roucounas, Academy of Athens – I have three remarks. First, I strongly support the idea that our Network should encourage participation of more academies from Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Second, usually we react to the Alerts from Carol Corillon, and most of us act immediately on individual cases. Perhaps the academies that have an infrastructure for the protection of human rights should communicate what they are doing to the Network in order that other academies can become aware of the activities of the different members. Third, I enjoy the theoretical approaches and the lectures that are given here. They are very important, and one day may be published, not necessarily by the Network itself but by the lecturers themselves in different reviews. I believe we should set up working groups before the next meeting and ask them to elaborate on a specific theoretical or practical question, in order to have a report to discuss, rather than just to react immediately after a lecture. Today we are speaking not only of human rights at large, but of human rights in very specific fields, such as patenting. I presided over a colloquium in Paris on human rights and the right to patent. If we touch on specific questions of general interest in the field of human rights and concerning learned societies, we should set up specific committees. Wiesel – The issue of patents seems to me more of an Inter-Academy Panel discussion. Human rights don’t necessarily come to mind when you want to patent. But, in terms of the other point, we do invite academies from all over the world. Carol Corillon, U.S.A., [Network Executive Director] – We send an invitation to every academy in the world, and often I follow up because we really do want to have much more involvement, particularly from Asia, Latin America, and Africa. In fact, I follow up sometimes three, four, and five times. Some people here were quite pressured by us to come. We really want to get more academies involved. I was hoping that an outcome of the Regional Group Discussions would be that those from the various regions in the Network would decide to encourage other academies in their regions to participate in the Network or to do it through the regional academies themselves. I also wanted to say that I took a look at the websites of many of the academies involved with the Network. Some of them have very detailed information about their involvement with this Network, such as the Turkish Academy. They show what they are doing, the different symposia they’ve held, the actions they have taken on human rights independently, and those that they’ve taken along with the Network. Other academies have nothing at all. No mention whatsoever of the Network. The Network would become much better known if every academy had a webpage devoted to their involvement with the Network. And then, as you know, the Network also has a private site through the National Academies in the United States. We are working to improve this site and to make it more

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies independent of the National Academies. This is not easy because of the way in which our system is set up, but we are looking for a way to make it totally separate so if there is information that individual academies would like to have posted, they can send it to me. We really don’t get much feedback from the individual academies, except the French and Dutch and a few other academies which do send us cases. We really need to have more back-and-forth; rather than having everything come from my office out to you. Michiatsu Kaino, Science Council of Japan – This is my first time at this conference, and I am very greatly impressed. Before the conference I contacted Carol to ask if I should prepare a statement but she told me that each academy has its own mission and that our main agenda is to improve cooperation with other academies on human rights. Human rights issues should be closely connected to the agenda for peace, which has become a much more important subject, especially in terms of human security. I have brought a paper that describes our council’s current activities. This kind of meeting is very useful in dealing with individual cases, but the larger human rights issues are also important. So my proposal is that the meeting should have two parts: one for general theoretical issues and one for individual cases. Theoretical discussion is much more important because in Asia, we have no such human rights declaration as the European Convention of Human Rights, but there are so many human rights issues in Asia, so maybe we should combine individual cases with theoretical discussions. That is my proposal. Wiesel – Most Asian countries have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Asia does not stand out in that regard. Yuan T. Lee, Academia Sinica in Taiwan – I’m the President of the Academia Sinica in Taiwan. I agree with what Dr. Kaino said. Our Network tries to help individuals, but it is difficult when we target somebody from China, from Russia, from various countries that are not at the meeting, then the Network is broken. Although everybody has signed the human rights declaration, as soon as some of us target an individual in another country to rescue, the Network breaks down. What I’m saying is that something more general, more theoretical is needed. Then they might come and say that they don’t agree with one-half of the discussion, but they want to participate in the other half. If what he suggested can remedy the shortcoming of the broken Networks, that might not be a bad idea. I come from Taiwan, and I try very hard to maintain the peace and stability in that area. So, I don’t want to say too much, because if I do, then my role will be diminished. What is interesting is that yesterday, when Sari Nusseibeh was talking about the one who is underneath having more freedom and more power, you have to realize that if somebody on top is 50 times heavier than you, then you can’t even breathe. Wiesel – Could you expand a little bit about the theoretical part that you feel should be more emphasized? Lee – When we talk about human rights or the universality of science, we could discuss in depth what does it really mean. This afternoon we are going to discuss the universality of science, and I can pursue that issue a little more. But the topic of human rights is really quite interesting, because different countries in Asia will have very different views. There are times when I can go

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies in and out of China, and at other times I’m not allowed. I don’t protest strongly, because I do feel that I have a bigger role to play. It is a very important period now. Henrik Zahle, The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters – I think we all agree about the importance of individual cases, and it works very effectively, so I will not elaborate on that. Concerning the more theoretical problems of human rights, where there is some disagreement, I agree that the Network consider this as part of its work, and it actually has done so. The lectures yesterday were in line with the theoretical approach. So perhaps we need to recognize what has already been done and rethink how it can be done more effectively in the future. The suggestion that the discussions should be prepared somehow in advance is one thing that could be taken up. Another possibility would be to organize the discussions in a more debate-like manner so that various positions are represented. If this is organized more openly, it would open up our minds and give a more reflective position to what human rights are and what the work of the Network actually is concerned about. I also agree with what has been said that it would be difficult for us to get an agreement or even distinct majorities on these problems. So, in the near future, at least at the beginning, I would suggest that we shouldn’t look for decisions on such matters. It should be a forum for discussion and could be reframed so that we are not only dealing with two different topics, those of individual cases and the theoretical questions, but also applying different instruments. On the individual cases, we express, both as a nation and as a Network, criticism or concern in relation to governments or other authorities. On the theoretical or general problems, our instrument is general discussion and open debate in this Network, and perhaps we have it published afterwards but we do not end with conclusions from the Network. Another topic that we might take up is human rights as a duty. When we think about human rights in scientific work, the question of duty is much more appropriate when you consider, for instance, biotechnology and human rights, the patenting law and human rights. As a scientist, you consider human rights as somehow a duty. This is a restriction on the work of the scientist, which is sometimes well founded and sometimes not, but it is basically a duty for scientists to respect some good, some value, that is always protected by somebody else’s human right. Wiesel – You’re getting into the whole question of ethics. Of course we all want to be ethical, but that is not really what this organization is about. There are international and national committees on ethics in the area of patents, for example, as you mentioned. We don’t have any special insights into that. On the other issue you raised, about how we should prepare, it seems to me each academy has a responsibility. If there is an issue that the Danish Academy is concerned about and wants to have a working group on, then it makes a proposal or a statement, which can be sent out to all participants, who can then discuss it. We don’t have a lot of resources—to have a meeting every other year taxes our resources beyond what we have so we are constantly trying to raise funds. Our National Academies in the United States have been doing this now for 10-12 years, trying to support this Network. We want other academies to also make some contribution

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies and not only the U.S. academy. If people say, I don’t want to be part of this Network because it costs me money, then that says something. Maybe academies would become more engaged if they actually had a budget for these Network meetings. Zahle – I didn’t expect that what I am talking about should cost a lot of money. And I didn’t expect that it should be a big change in the work of the Network. Actually, as I said, it is just a reframing of what is already being done. It is a proposal on how to organize the meeting in a manner that takes up the many voices which have asked for a more theoretical approach to some of the human rights problems than we apply when we work on individual cases. van Dijk – It would be very helpful if this discussion would also clarify your opinions about the role of the Executive Committee between the biennial meetings. Our Norwegian colleague said very clearly that, in his opinion, the Executive Committee should have its own authority and could act on behalf of the Network irrespective of whether everybody agrees. Others will support the autonomy of their academies, which should not be represented by an Executive Committee without being consulted before hand. Zahle – I am very much against the Executive Committee expressing a position somehow pretending to represent the global Network of scientific organizations. Harald Reuter, Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies – I think we should go back to the roots of why the Network has been created, and it was very clear that the original idea was to help colleagues around the world who spoke up against what they believe was unjust in their countries or elsewhere and for that are imprisoned or badly treated, etc. It could be defined out of the environment where we live—namely the environment of academia. I am very much in favor to think also about what the theoretical reasons are for why we are doing this and what the theoretical reason is for human rights. However, if we consider how we have acted over the last 14 years or so, we have been very much oriented towards the European scientific environment and spoke from that point of view. Six out of seven of our meetings have been held in Europe and one meeting in the United States in Washington. Do we really know by experience what the demands and difficulties are in countries in Africa or Asia, etc? So, to actually make ourselves familiar with the problems, at the site, where the problems primarily are, my suggestion would be that we have the next meeting, in a very practical sense, in a country outside Europe. There is one special issue that has also arisen in the context of September 11 and that is visas. We discussed this already in the meeting in Switzerland and what we can do about it. Even in a country which is not known for particularly brutal actions, at least like Switzerland, even colleagues from my department had difficulties in going to meetings in the United States. One colleague applied for a visa three weeks before the meeting took place, and he got the visa when the meeting was over. This is a very common experience. Wiesel – You must keep in mind that we have been very fortunate in that the countries in which we’ve had meetings, the academies in those countries have been able to help financially to organize the meeting. So, there is a question of resources. In some academies in other parts of

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies the world there is no money available so it would depend on the generosity of the participating academies in the Network. Erling Norrby, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Sciences, Antiquities and Letters – Part of this will be a bit repetitious, because there is consensus on a number of questions, but I’d like to make three points. First, we should continue to support the individual cases. My question to Carol is How is the Network operating? Do you get proposals with the information that you need, or could we enlarge that? Are we sure we are covering this in an efficient way? The individual academies could be activated to take more initiative. I think you are actually carrying the entire burden on your side. Another issue is to improve contacts between academies to further peace. I think the initiative that was taken at the meeting in Switzerland for the organization of IPSO is an important one. It is also important that it is followed up right now. I understand that it is now at a stage at which there are a number of proposals for collaboration, but a lack of money. Here is something that every academy can consider. Can you do something? We are taking some initiatives in Sweden and hope that maybe we can do something. I enjoyed the idea that this initiative could serve as a seed for new initiatives of the same kind, such as in the former Yugoslavia and other parts of the world. That is very attractive but the vehicle that we should use is contact between scientists because science, by definition, is without any borders, as is knowledge, and that is why we have this joint Network. So, we need to make sure that IPSO is successful in its efforts, and this is a critical time right now. Regarding selected general statements, I understand that, over the years, two statements have been made—one after 9/11 and another on academic boycotts. So we need to consider very carefully when time is mature to make a statement of that kind. What I would like to leave on the table is the theme that we are coming back to and that is the fact that some countries, because of national security measures, are restricting the means of access to information and the freedom of its citizens. We should only deal with that situation when it concerns our fellow scientists— there are restrictions on freedom of movement of scientists, on doing research, on publishing, and storing information. It would be proper for the Network to reflect on making a statement on this. Also, it would be good to have a less then one page summary of what has happened at the meeting that individual members could bring back home. We could see if we can activate it in the press and get it out there. It was interesting, coincidentally, that this morning on the BBC News, the new committee for human rights in Morocco was discussed in depth, on which we have information here. But that is a little beyond our responsibility as a network of academies. I have found this meeting very constructive and rewarding so thanks to those who have organized it. Moises Wasserman, Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical, and Natural Sciences – Most regional groups addressed the general but very specific problem of the threats to the free circulation of scientists. I think it is very clear to all of us, after this conference, that the personal cases are extremely important and appropriate to the activity of the Network. On the subject of the boycott, we were right to condemn it, as it was not against one particular person but against a group. I am not happy to tell you this, but for a citizen of Colombia to come to a meeting in

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies Comment – Could you say something about the extent to which you think scientists can really influence government, and how best that is done? Lee – I think it depends. As president of the academy in Taiwan, which falls under the office of the President, I can access the president [of the country] at any time. If I want to persuade him to do certain things, such as discuss an increase in funding, for example, I can do that. I am also chief scientist for the Prime Minister, so I do have a group of people [working with me] to advise the Prime Minister. In that sense, in Taiwan, scientists are very powerful Clegg – I guess I would say our record is mixed, but we have much more influence by being organized effectively, by creating strong institutions of science, than we would have otherwise. Our academy has a fairly good history of influencing decisions at the point at which science intersects public policy. We don’t always succeed, but sometimes we do in the long term. We may do an in-depth study of a major issue that lies quiescent for a decade or more before, suddenly, the time is right, and it is picked up. In cases like the Alaska pipeline, economic forces and political interests are so powerful that they are determined not to hear the voice of science. One of the confusing things during our last presidential election was that, at one point during the election campaign, our president said that climate change was real because the National Academy of Sciences said so. That was a pretty remarkable admission for him. There is recognition, particularly in the United States, that a substantial portion of our wealth and success traces directly to science and technology. For example, everybody expects to have better health care, which is rooted in science. In some sense, the science community has been vital to the success of the country. So they do listen—not always—but they tend to listen. For us to be effective, we have to create the institutions and organize them in ways that amplify their voice in public policy—and that has happened. It has evolved for us over 150 years; it wasn’t really done by design. Our academy was started, unlike almost all other academies, with a service mission, which was to advise government. It was created not only as an academy, but also as a think-tank. That role has amplified over the years and become more and more influential. I think the record is a pretty good one. Clegg – [in response to inaudible comment] As I said, the record is mixed. We don’t have a perfect record. We don’t have absolute control. It is a pluralistic society in which we are only one voice among many. But we feel we have been successful enough, that it is a model worth studying. One of the big aims of the global science community, as reflected in the Inter-Academy Panel, is to try and help other academies acquire the tools and capabilities to be more effective in influencing the policies of their government that have a science and technology component. We think that is a worthy aim. Wolfendale – Could you enlarge on what you mean by creating institutions? Do you mean ad hoc for each program? Clegg – I don’t mean ad hoc. What I do mean are institutions—and I hope our academy is an example—that are strong and well embedded in the society, so that their voice not only is heard, but also provides support for the scientific community. There are two big themes that we focus on: one is what we call science for policy, and these kinds of issues that relate to global climate

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies change or medical errors or endangered species management. There is a huge array of them. The other is policy for science. What should our government and our society be doing to be sure it has a healthy scientific enterprise and how do we do that? Wolfendale – I suppose in a sense the most important scientist in the world is the scientific adviser to your president, whether you like it or not. My question is Will he get the output of our Network? For example, that document that we agreed on this morning, short and sharp, is the sort of thing that would be useful for him to actually see from us, rather than through a biased and circuitous route. Agre – I don’t have a good answer, but the sad truth is that the presidential science advisor is a fairly new institution. Jerome B. Wiesner was the first one, with President Kennedy in 1961. Science adviser to the president has been downgraded: the office is now three blocks away, and the group is staffed. He may get the mail, but I’m not sure he will be able to convey that to the higher office that makes decisions. So I think we are in a difficult time. I’d like to ask Mike a question: Is the delay you describe frustrating? An outstanding committee deliberates and evaluates all the information on a scientific topic and the government doesn’t act on it for 10 years. Is there something that can be done? Clegg – That is not always the case. In some cases, there is pretty quick action, and in some cases, there is never any. What can we do? We have to move the public. It is the people to whom the government responds in one way or another, so that means we have to be able to communicate the values and importance of science, health, and engineering, to the communities in each of our countries, so that the public stands behind science as an investment that they value. If that is the case, then the politicians will be moved. We try to do that, although we have limited resources as a private organization. We don’t have a pipeline into the government’s tax revenues or anything, but we try to do that by reaching the press effectively. We are very careful about seeing that high-profile reports that address important, often controversial issues are presented to the press in a way that it can assimilate them and, in turn, present them to the public. We do make every effort to do that, although more could be done. Comment – I have two questions. First, you have spoken of the natural sciences and engineering. What about the social sciences? Second, your reports—are they part of your mission, or are they your own initiative? Clegg – They are both. Taking the second question first, a little more than 80 percent of the reports are issued in book format. They are quite detailed, and often either the Congress or an agency of government, or sometimes the executive branch will make a request for us to look at a specific question. Let me describe one that came up in an interesting way, because it had political overtones. Shortly after the election in 2000, the new government decided to relax the standards for arsenic in drinking water. Arsenic in drinking water is a problem in many communities around the country and in many other countries as well. They decided this policy change on political grounds and didn’t even bother to consult with their newly appointed head of the Environmental

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies Protection Agency (EPA), the former governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman. When they released these relaxed standards, it created a small political furor and also embarrassed the new director of the EPA. She came to us and requested a fast-track study on the medical and health evidence related to levels of arsenic in drinking water. What could we say? We did a study, looked at all the evidence that was available, were very careful to be sure that everything was evidence-based, not opinion based—the evidence has to be cited in the report in a way that shows how well founded the conclusions and recommendations are. The report found that the preexisting standards were, if anything, a little too lax, and certainly the new standards were much too lax. That caused a rolling back of the policy almost immediately. It is interesting that the study was commissioned by an agency of the federal government, the same government that relaxed the standards in the first place. A certain number of studies we do with our own money. Over the years, the academy has managed to accumulate an endowment. It is not a huge endowment by the standards of major private universities in America. It is a very small endowment, but it is an endowment that we can use on our own to address issues that we think are so crucial that we can’t wait for the public or the government to come and ask us. There are several examples every year of high-profile studies that are self-financed. One I can cite was done shortly after the 9/11 event. The academy took $1.3 million of its own money to do a very complicated study on homeland security issues in the United States, because it was quite clear that fast-track legislation was going forward to create a new department of government, and there was a huge amount that science could say about what the real threats were and how they might be intelligently managed. It was unlikely that, without our advice or the advice of some other science and technology organization, they were going to get it right. There were a lot of vulnerabilities the government had never even thought about—chemical plants, for example, and how to manage containers coming into the country. There was a huge range of issues that had to be thought through. That is why it cost $1.3 million to do the study. That study turned out to be very influential in the way in which the organization of this new agency of government was approached. We felt that it was a service to the country to ask that question, even though we had to pay for it. Ali – Can I make a comment about this issue of increasing the public education of science and this universality of science issue? I think it is true that there are leaders of science who can act, as was said yesterday [audio problem] leaders of science who can act as head of the state, like … said in the case of Korea. Things change. The same thing happens … in India. You know the famous seven o’clock race … story how that was the beginning of Indian science and technology, immediately after the British…. So, the … man will definitely do what he says because he is a man of action. But, then he will cut out the technology … so, … bureaucrats … 10 percent of people should have brought from outside for the sake of political control … immediately knew where to begin that since we still have doubts about our capability to produce that quality … 10 percent of our people should give…. So, every state has to be of course convinced, but, more than that, I think if the public position of science [audio problem] that is the … science should be that now we are living in an information age … and I personally am always recommending that every nation have a

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies knowledge network like they have in Vancouver, in Alberta…. For example, in Bangladesh, child mortality rate has been drastically reduced. How? They showed on the media that if you give the six shots, then the child is immune from these diseases. Irrespective of the fact that the mother has a school education or not, everybody takes the children in the rural clinics, and the child mortality has decreased a lot. So, once in a while, how we are today and why we came to the state in which we are now, 150 years ago there was no electricity, 125 years ago there was no radio, and 30 years ago there was no…. So, how do we come here? I think this development should be conveyed to the members of the public as to how much science can do for the betterment of life, so we are using these unfortunate … in all countries – all these challenges and information [audio problem] but they are using more for entertainment and other things, apart from increasing and promoting the cause of science. So, I think the importance of the media is a very important tool for increasing the public position of science. Lee – I want to make two comments. We are facing enormous problems as we enter the 21st century. Some of the problems are scientific, and although current scientific knowledge or technology cannot solve them, if we keep on acquiring new scientific knowledge and developing new technologies, then we can solve many of the problems we are facing. That is part of the reason we keep on saying that science can do wonders. If we look from a different angle, if I were to look at the development of human society and we follow the trajectories, then we will find that at the present time we have enormous problems. The problems come about because the earth used to be an infinity—without too many people, and human activity was quite limited. But, as we enter the 21st century, there are six billion people, and every human being is consuming about one ton of fossil fuel, an enormous consumption. Suddenly, we realize that the earth is finite. When I say “we” realize, some of us realize; especially those who lived in the United States and have come back to Southeast Asia and see the trajectory from infinity to finite earth as a cross-point that we are already exceeding. So, I would say that the way human society is developing, in the future we are going to face enormous difficulty, but somehow we are not awakened yet. If you see recent developments, with China becoming a military center, she will buy all of the natural recourses that she can buy, from copper … and all over the world, is not sustainable. Whether we talk about universality or not, within the next 10-20 years, we are going to face an energy crisis that will come about because of the debt between the supply and the demand for petroleum. When the energy crisis comes, the world will not be peaceful anymore. Very often we glorify what science can do, but when we look at the trajectory of human society, we have to worry. In the universality of science, we talk about ethnic origin, religion, citizenship, language, political stance, and so forth. Unless the entire world operates as one community—last year at the APEC (Asian Pacific Economic Community) meeting in Chile, the slogan used was “One Community, Our Future”—unless we learn to work together and the science keeps on developing, then we will continue to see high-tech economic competition that is nation-based. There will be winners and losers. To my American scientist friends, (I used to be American), it is really important to take on the carbon dioxide problem and to become energy-sufficient with renewable energy. This is the challenge that I always give to my friends. In 1989 I served as a

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies secretary of energy advisory board member and came up with a national energy strategy and worked on the energy-sufficient program. The book is still there, although it has been delayed for so long. Wiesel – At the same time that scientists are aware of the energy crisis, the investment made by the government in support, for example, in physics, has declined. The National Science Foundation (NSF), which is the main funding agency in the United States for fields outside biomedicine, had a decline in their budget last year. The center of work on fusion has moved away from the United States. Europe and Japan are now the strongest. Russia used to be, but, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, this has disappeared. This is where we have to hope that you, [Yuan T. Lee] with your expertise in chemistry, and Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, as a physicist, can make the difference. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget in the United States is $29 billion for biomedical research. NSF support for all other sciences is at about $5 billion. It is a tragedy for science that more resources are not allocated to basic science. Universality of science is a good thing, but one has to address these real problems more openly. So many reports are written and put on shelves, and nothing happens. Armand Lucus, Royal Academy of Belgium – I come from one of those failing or about to fail countries. All nations are destined to fail. If there is only one thing in history that we can remember, it is that not only nations fail and states fail, but also empires fail if you wait long enough. Belgium has been going along since 1830, and it hasn’t failed completely yet, but it has had some difficulty. For the moment the United States is dominating the world economically and culturally and militarily, but that may not last for more than 50 more years. Since we are universal-oriented intellectuals, we should realize this and certainly not be arrogant with respect to the rest of the society. You just mentioned a number—$25 billion for biomedical research for NIH in the United States. In Europe, research spending is not more than 2-3 percent of the gross national budget. Agriculture spends 25 percent of the budget. The military may spend 50 percent. Education is 50 percent. It is really nice to be conscious that we are doing a universal business, but, let’s face it, the public is not convinced of that. The public is not aware of the very important role that we think we play in society. In fact, it may even be the reverse. The public suspects us of being the source of all the problems. As Professor Lee mentioned, we are at the same time creating problems by developing technology, and the problems are now universal and fantastically difficult. As it has been said several times here, the media are probably the best tool to attempt to use, as people having some credit, since we pertain to academies. In Belgium, the relationship between the academies and the media is severed more or less. Why? Because most of us are more than 65 years old, we have nothing to say anymore, and we don’t even advise the government. You are lucky in the United States that the academy is consulted sometimes. In my country, the academies are just a bunch of retired people.

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies Let’s be not too arrogant and try to improve our public image. Maybe then, because the public is the voters, our budget will be increased and we can exercise our responsibility better. Wiesel – I think this is a good point. The reason the NIH budget is so large is not because of the administration, but because of Congress. They have pushed very hard, and they increase the president’s budget allocation for NIH every time. You are absolutely right: if you want change, you have to operate through your elected officials. They should speak for you and for the people. In the United States, many of the scientific societies send scientists to talk to the members of Congress and the staff working for them, to educate them about the importance of science. This is legwork that you need to do in your own countries if you are really going to influence policies in science. Clegg – There may be some other things that ought to be said about this funding issue. In the United States, about 65 percent of research dollar is actually spent in the private sector. Only about 35 percent is spent in the public sector. If you look at the total fraction of domestic product that is spent on research, it is about 2.7 percent, and that includes both the public and private sectors. That places us somewhere down around 6th. Sweden spends about 3.7 percent of domestic product on research, so our level of investment is not necessarily as high as it could be, or as high a fraction of domestic product as it once was in the United States. It was higher back in the 1960s as a fraction of the gross domestic product than it is today. We’re doing okay, but we could do a lot better. We all agree that the pressing issues that the science community ought to be concerned about on a global level are how to accommodate another 3 billion people, how to deal with emergent diseases, and how to deal with global water resources. There is a long list of very pressing issues that we can see coming down the pike. They are all driven by demographics, so in the short term we know they are going to confront us as societies. Casselton – We had a meeting at the House of Lords to which we invited experts on such diseases as HIV and malaria to present these issues to government. Unless we have the press on our side, the public is frightened, and the press can manipulate the public. In this country, we tried so hard to sell genetic modifications, but the press had already destroyed the case before it ever came up for public debate. By the time it came up for public debate, the people had lost interest. I think it is very important that we are in a position to present to governments and give informed opinion. Wiesel – These are all obviously pressing issues, as is the failure of us as scientists to communicate. I think that what has happened with genetically modified foods in Europe is very interesting. It didn’t happen, for the most part, in Asia or the United States. That shows the kind of erratic behavior that can occur. We fail all the time because we don’t pay enough attention to informing the public. Before moving on to the next topic I would like to thank our two discussion leaders. Also, we’ve already thanked Ruth Cooper here at the Royal Society, and I would also like to mention Jane Lyddon, from the British Academy, who has played a tremendous role in the organization of this meeting and showed uncommon kindness and generosity in making it possible not only for us to hold a reception at the British Academy but also agreeing to host an

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies IPSO meeting there, following this meeting. I know from Carol that you have been invaluable in making all this possible. So, we want to give you a token of our appreciation.

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies Status and Future of the Israeli-Palestinian Science Organization (IPSO) Discussion leader: Harald Reuter Harald Reuter, Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies – I can make this brief because I believe most of you, if not all of you, are aware that an organization, IPSO, the Israeli-Palestinian Science Organization, does now exist. The main players and the originators of IPSO are all here. The first idea of IPSO, as far as I’m aware, actually came up at a UNESCO meeting in Paris in the fall of 2002, in which Menahem Yaari, Sari Nusseibeh, Torsten Wiesel, and, of course, Carol Corillon, came together and discussed the possibility of setting up a science organization between Israelis and Palestinians. The next step was in the last meeting of our Network in Ascona, Switzerland. Menahem and Sari were invited to present the idea of this organization, and they did it very forcefully. There were, of course, discussions. There was even skepticism with respect to the question of political impact. I think they handled the situation very well. The outcome was that the Network, our Network here, supported the idea of IPSO unanimously. From then on, they went ahead. When I say “they,” I mean Menahem and Sari and two other people who were instrumental, Dan Bitan and Hasan Dweik. Dan Bitan is one of the directors of IPSO on the Israeli side, and Hasan Dweik is the director on the Palestinian side. Right from the beginning, the idea of IPSO was that the business was handled equally on both sides. Of course, there needs to be very close cooperation. The cooperation started between Menahem and Sari, on the basis of friendship. This apparently carried over to Dan and Hasan, because the way they are now directing IPSO as an organization is really quite admirable. After the meeting in Ascona, there were approximately 25 or 26 academies in our Network who endorsed IPSO strongly. Endorsement is a very questionable thing, because it is very easy to write down a name and say yes, morally we support this wholeheartedly, but we don’t know what to do further on. The main impact of the ideas of IPSO needs more than moral endorsements. What is the idea? I will read it as it was actually worded in the initial statement: The Israeli-Palestinian Science Organization will rekindle, foster and fund scientific cooperation and scholarly endeavors between Israelis and Palestinians. This bi-national, non-profit and non- political organization, to be located in the city of Jerusalem, will support cooperation in high quality research, in science and learning between Israeli and Palestinian scientists and scholars, working together typically in institutions of higher learning.

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies I think that sets the borders of what IPSO is supposed to do and what they want to do. Two issues: scientific cooperation and learning. How can this be done in such a troubled region? It can only be done from the bottom up. I’m a very strong believer, just like Torsten, in bottom-up approaches. It is a very lucky situation because there are two people, now four people, who are strongly in favor of this sort of cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians. There have been two meetings of the International Scientific Council (ISC) of IPSO so far. The council is supposed to oversee IPSO’s progress in the short and the long run. The ISC, at the moment, consists of 13 people from various parts of the world, seven of whom are Nobel laureates. We have met so far twice, once in Washington a year ago, when the goal of IPSO was again discussed extensively and measures were being taken to constitute the organization. It is certainly a great achievement, mainly by Dan Bitan, that IPSO is now registered in Belgium as a legal organization. It is a lot easier to convince governments that this is something real and to try to raise money when it is written down legally. Such an endeavor requires not only moral support but also money. What we did in Switzerland—and that is the second part of my report—is that three people set up an organization to support IPSO: Swiss Friends of IPSO. One is a lawyer and businessman, Dr. Rolf Bloche. He was also the chairman of the Jewish community in Switzerland. The other two are Peter Shindler, who was here earlier, who is a physicist, and myself. We set up statutes for our goal to support IPSO morally and financially. The moral support is very easy. We have to go to various people and tell them what a good organization it is. We tell them and they say yes, we wholeheartedly support this. The hard thing is to convince them to give money. Since IPSO is an academic institution, we decided to ask the academic community whether they would be willing to support it. There was great enthusiasm among individuals to provide financial support for IPSO. We ask the faculties of the universities to spread the word by means of a leaflet in which the IPSO organization is explained, and people are invited to join the Swiss Friends of IPSO by contributing 200 Swiss francs a year. That is basic, because we need the support of the academic community. From this point, we can go on to ask the government to provide money. This negotiation has just started. We had a negotiation with representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Internal Affairs. They are quite willing to help, although it is not quite clear yet in what way and at what level. The third party that we address in Switzerland is, of course, industry, and we have started doing this. So far, it is still very much at the beginning. We have made some progress in this beginning year. We have accumulated some money and hopefully will continue to do that for the next few years. Money is essential to the support of 30 projects a year, which is the goal of IPSO. We will see how well we can succeed.

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies I can only encourage other academies in the Network to do similar things and try to raise money from their own environments in order to support this very important organization in a troubled area. Corillon – The list of all 63 proposals received from Israelis and Palestinians who want to do joint scientific research studies are in your agenda books. So far, 25 academies have endorsed IPSO. Some have given money; for example, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has given $20,000, the academy in the Netherlands has given $10,000 and the Academy of Athens has given $1,000. If your academy has not yet endorsed this organization, we ask that you consider doing so. Wiesel – We must keep in mind that each grant is estimated to be about $75,000 per year, and they are for three years. To give a grant, we must be able to fund the entire duration. We are discussing an annual budget of around $2 to $3 million to run the program. There is a great sense of urgency here because those who apply for the grants want to be funded if they successfully pass review by the International Scientific Council. Johannes Eckert, German Academy of Natural Sciences-Leopoldina, Germany – The human rights committee of the German academy of sciences has also considering establishing a small supporting committee but then we made some inquiries and discovered that the German Science Foundation is supporting research programs in Israel since 1995—about 27 projects. The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research has special programs for cooperation between Israel, Palestine, and Jordan. [audio problem] We therefore came to the conclusion that it makes no sense to establish a small group of a few people but, rather, it is better to refer projects to the large science foundations in Germany. We would be happy as a human rights committee to help make the links and to lend our support. Dan Bitan, Israel [Co-Director, IPSO] – In doing our fundraising for research proposals we have found that it is best if the various academies contact high level officials in their governments and we in Palestine and Israel also contact the embassies or local delegates to get their reaction and guidance. This approach could work in Norway because we’ve begun to work in this way, and in France it begins to work too, because a letter from the President of the French Academy went to President Chirac and he replied and referred it to the French Prime Minister. There was a contact with the Foreign Minister, and we worked with the French embassy in Tel Aviv. Sometimes we must mount a siege to get the funds that may be available in the different countries. Reuter – For example, the Swiss Minister of Internal Affairs will go to Israel in September. He will be informed about IPSO and its goals. I’m sure, Menahem, that he will also be in contact with you at that time. It is at that level at which people could get together; at a relatively high or a very high level, and from there it could spread down. It is a useful approach, at least in our relatively small country. Corillon – We are creating a Friends of IPSO organization in the United States. We have five members from the U.S. National Academies who are serving on the board; they are well connected and are helping also with fundraising, approaching both foundations and individuals.

OCR for page 102
International Human Rights Network of Academies and Scholarly Societies Our academy’s council put up $20,000 for staff support and to have the first meeting of IPSO. It is allowing me to volunteer time through the academies to help IPSO when it needs assistance. They have now, through the Bronfman Philanthropies, hired Janet Lowenthal, who I seated in the back, and is now actively helping to raise funds in the United States for IPSO. Wiesel – Thank you all for coming here, for spending two and a half days listening to the discussion, participating, and making very fine comments. I think the value of these meetings is that we can become friends and look each other in the eye and exchange our views. I am concerned that, because of financial problems, it is possible this could be our last meeting, but the Network will still survive. As the representative from Morocco left, he said he would welcome a letter from us on the possibility of having a meeting in Morocco. But we will need some kind of miracle for us to continue having these meetings. Remember that the Network is primarily a Network, and Carol is sitting in the center of this web. We will continue to update you on cases. Please look at our website, both the public and private ones. At your own academy, you should talk to the persons who are in charge of the website to post information about the Network there. You will receive, through email, the report that we discussed, with some agony, this morning. I think there was general agreement on the final wording. And there is also the excellent report that Arjuna made as a record of this meeting. Of course, these reports are very brief. To make a full report of this meeting, everything has been taped. Anyone who has organized a meeting knows the amount of effort and time and money that needs to be spent to transcribe tapes from meetings and put them into order. Some have said it would be nice to have Sari Nusseibeh’s speech, which you all enjoyed very much and was one of the high points of this meeting. If there are other things that you would like to have, let us know and we can see if it is possible to get a tape of this event and then maybe make it available, in some form, to you. I would like to conclude by thanking the person who has been instrumental, much more than anyone else, in making this meeting possible. You can’t imagine the amount of effort and work, the number of hours, weekends, and overtime that she has spent in making this all possible. We want to show Carol that all of her efforts have been worth it so we should all show our appreciation by standing up and giving her our applause. Thank you, this 7th Biennial Meeting of the Network is now adjourned.