153
the Observatories and the Institute, meeting and talking to people. During
the last part of their visit, in Mesa del Mar, they were boarded in a small and
very comfortable hotel far from touristic centres. It was there that they had
their discussions, reached agreement, and drafted the final document.
What I wrote in the preface of the small book that we published that contained the document just referred to reflected our attitudes and patriotic aims:
‘The handful of enthusiastic persons, which is the IAC, openly and humbly
endeavours to continue to improve its research work and fulfil its social duty
to deliver knowledge and technology directly to society, and takes this opportunity once again to seek help from the national scientific community’.
This document, published in Spanish and English with the title
Recommendations about the Future of Research at the IAC, which we referred to
among ourselves as the ‘Book of Wisdom’, did not fall on deaf ears. It is also
an historical document, for it summarizes what the IAC was at the time and
outlines what we wanted it to become. It was our bible for a long time. If a
comparative study is made at some time of what the IAC has become, the
influence of that little book will be evident. Even in such specific matters as
the most appropriate staffing levels for an institution such as the IAC, with
such a heavy observational burden, the book served as a point of reference.
The advice it gave was: for each researcher, two technicians and 0.5 administrative staff. I like to think that, thanks to having always attempted to maintain these staffing proportions, the IAC has not yet descended into total
bureaucratization, in spite of being ever more pressured by national and local
administrative regulations.
The manual gave advice on the most fruitful lines of research for the IAC
to follow, and even named the most suitable persons and research teams from
all over the world with which to form collaborations.
With this External Assessment Committee, we created an unusual (for
Spain) precedent. It took many years for this system, so effective and normal
at other latitudes, to be adopted in varying degrees at other research centres in
our country. But at the IAC calling on external teams of experts to make critical evaluations, suggest corrections, and offer advice has since that time
become an institution in itself.
This external assessment committee became enshrined in the early Royal
Decree concerning the Structure of the IAC as the Research Assessment
Commission (CAI after its Spanish initials). The CAI, the decree states,
Will be constituted of persons of recognized scientific standing designated by
the Governing Council and will be the senior consultative and assessorial body
of the Institute for the purpose of orientating its policy with regard to scientific
16 Towards Excellence in Research (1971–Present)
the Observatories and the Institute, meeting and talking to people. During
the last part of their visit, in Mesa del Mar, they were boarded in a small and
very comfortable hotel far from touristic centres. It was there that they had
their discussions, reached agreement, and drafted the final document.
What I wrote in the preface of the small book that we published that contained the document just referred to reflected our attitudes and patriotic aims:
‘The handful of enthusiastic persons, which is the IAC, openly and humbly
endeavours to continue to improve its research work and fulfil its social duty
to deliver knowledge and technology directly to society, and takes this opportunity once again to seek help from the national scientific community’.
This document, published in Spanish and English with the title
Recommendations about the Future of Research at the IAC, which we referred to
among ourselves as the ‘Book of Wisdom’, did not fall on deaf ears. It is also
an historical document, for it summarizes what the IAC was at the time and
outlines what we wanted it to become. It was our bible for a long time. If a
comparative study is made at some time of what the IAC has become, the
influence of that little book will be evident. Even in such specific matters as
the most appropriate staffing levels for an institution such as the IAC, with
such a heavy observational burden, the book served as a point of reference.
The advice it gave was: for each researcher, two technicians and 0.5 administrative staff. I like to think that, thanks to having always attempted to maintain these staffing proportions, the IAC has not yet descended into total
bureaucratization, in spite of being ever more pressured by national and local
administrative regulations.
The manual gave advice on the most fruitful lines of research for the IAC
to follow, and even named the most suitable persons and research teams from
all over the world with which to form collaborations.
With this External Assessment Committee, we created an unusual (for
Spain) precedent. It took many years for this system, so effective and normal
at other latitudes, to be adopted in varying degrees at other research centres in
our country. But at the IAC calling on external teams of experts to make critical evaluations, suggest corrections, and offer advice has since that time
become an institution in itself.
This external assessment committee became enshrined in the early Royal
Decree concerning the Structure of the IAC as the Research Assessment
Commission (CAI after its Spanish initials). The CAI, the decree states,
Will be constituted of persons of recognized scientific standing designated by
the Governing Council and will be the senior consultative and assessorial body
of the Institute for the purpose of orientating its policy with regard to scientific
16 Towards Excellence in Research (1971–Present)