154
and technical research, and the programming of its activities in a coordinated
manner in accordance with the prescriptions of the National Plan for Scientific
Research and Technological Development.
To avoid cronyism and favouritism arising from too frequent well-received
visits to the Canaries, new members would be regularly welcomed onto the
Commission.
To give a concrete idea of what we are talking about and of the rigour with
which we proceeded, I give as an example the constitution of the CAI that
met in 1996. The Commission then comprised Margaret Burbidge, Steven
Beckwith, Cornelius Zwaan, Gerry Gilmore, Martin Rees, and Guido
Münch—all astrophysicists of great repute.
Also members were the secretary of the National Plan for R&D and a representative of the National Commission of Astronomy. The objective was, in
this manner, to combine IAC research with Spanish science policy so as to
unite the astrophysics community of the whole country.
The meetings were meticulously planned, and the CAI members were provided with full information before their arrival, and sufficient time was given
to allow the Commission members to talk with whomever they wished at the
Institute during their stay.
One of their recommendations was to allow researchers the freedom to
work on the topic of their choice. In my opinion, a small centre such as the
IAC with scant resources ought to concentrate on a small number of lines of
research in order to avoid attempting too much and achieving too little. This
recommendation, not to everybody’s liking, has resulted in the Institute covering too wide a spectrum of topics: the Universe and cosmology, galaxies,
stars, the sun, the interstellar medium, planetary systems, atmospheric optics,
high spatial resolution, the design and construction of telescopes, and optical
and infrared instrumentation for terrestrial and space astrophysics. I would
have preferred the IAC to be a clear world leader in one or two of these topics.
The CAI report, accompanied by a ‘Plan of Action’ prepared by an ad hoc
working group, would always be presented to the IAC’s Governing Council in
order to put the CAI’s advice into action.
It pains me to report that it has not been at all easy to keep this useful external
assessment committee intact. Incredibly, we have had to fight many battles to
prevent it from being disbanded as the result of successive legal regulations that
try to ‘normalize’ the IAC. These battles have taken place at all political levels
with successive governments of Spain and the Autonomous Community of the
Canaries. Finally, the CAI was given the mission of appointing the Director of
the IAC. All this has been described earlier. What a cross to have had to bear!
F. Sánchez
and technical research, and the programming of its activities in a coordinated
manner in accordance with the prescriptions of the National Plan for Scientific
Research and Technological Development.
To avoid cronyism and favouritism arising from too frequent well-received
visits to the Canaries, new members would be regularly welcomed onto the
Commission.
To give a concrete idea of what we are talking about and of the rigour with
which we proceeded, I give as an example the constitution of the CAI that
met in 1996. The Commission then comprised Margaret Burbidge, Steven
Beckwith, Cornelius Zwaan, Gerry Gilmore, Martin Rees, and Guido
Münch—all astrophysicists of great repute.
Also members were the secretary of the National Plan for R&D and a representative of the National Commission of Astronomy. The objective was, in
this manner, to combine IAC research with Spanish science policy so as to
unite the astrophysics community of the whole country.
The meetings were meticulously planned, and the CAI members were provided with full information before their arrival, and sufficient time was given
to allow the Commission members to talk with whomever they wished at the
Institute during their stay.
One of their recommendations was to allow researchers the freedom to
work on the topic of their choice. In my opinion, a small centre such as the
IAC with scant resources ought to concentrate on a small number of lines of
research in order to avoid attempting too much and achieving too little. This
recommendation, not to everybody’s liking, has resulted in the Institute covering too wide a spectrum of topics: the Universe and cosmology, galaxies,
stars, the sun, the interstellar medium, planetary systems, atmospheric optics,
high spatial resolution, the design and construction of telescopes, and optical
and infrared instrumentation for terrestrial and space astrophysics. I would
have preferred the IAC to be a clear world leader in one or two of these topics.
The CAI report, accompanied by a ‘Plan of Action’ prepared by an ad hoc
working group, would always be presented to the IAC’s Governing Council in
order to put the CAI’s advice into action.
It pains me to report that it has not been at all easy to keep this useful external
assessment committee intact. Incredibly, we have had to fight many battles to
prevent it from being disbanded as the result of successive legal regulations that
try to ‘normalize’ the IAC. These battles have taken place at all political levels
with successive governments of Spain and the Autonomous Community of the
Canaries. Finally, the CAI was given the mission of appointing the Director of
the IAC. All this has been described earlier. What a cross to have had to bear!
F. Sánchez