In recent weeks a number of Fellows have used the WAAS mails list to express views regarding the mission of the World Academy. For those who would like to review all the comments, we reproduce below those mails in the order they were sent out.
I observe the ongoing discussion with great interest. The core element of WAAS mission could be to develop a new functionalism for the governance of the World. The topics which are touched are all excellent and should be condensed to five points as
1. Political collaboration (including human rights and responsibilities, global justice)
2. Economy based to the experiences of the last month, there is a lot to do.
3. Security in all forms
4. Environment
5. Ecumenism in the cultures including interreligious dialogues and culture.
Thank you. I have been working on a brief, terse, to the point mission statement that occupies less than a page – the attention span of most when confronted with things to read. I will consider this.
I'm interested in the proposal made by John Allen. I think that for waas it would be difficult to make new and interesting contributions to such fields on global policy as environment,gendre equality,discrimination betwen those who have and those who have not etc..; all these items have nurished hundreds of books and meetings, originated specialized organizations and associations of "experts", political meetings etc.
For this reasons I believe that debates such as the proposed Cutting edge ,science, avangarde and creative history might be more congenial to waas mandate. When I mention a new Humanism I have in mind the beginning of Renaissance with people like Leonardo able to give the same considaration to engeenering, science ,art an technological creativity. Or Giovanni Battista Alberti scientist,artist, economist and entrepreneur. They were all humanists at the time in wich science, technology, economics and politics ( Macchiavelli) were all interlelated. Of course we are no Leonardos or Albertis but waas could give us the oportunity ,with its large costuency to debate such important subjects.
I agree with Augusto Forti’s ‘international think tank for a new humanism’; and Sesh Velamoor’s ‘need to clarify mission in clear, succinct fashion;
On Arthur Cordell’s remarks, I think the unique factor in WAAS is the planet-wide association on an equal basis of artists and scientists. I think strengthening this interaction between artists and scientists (values and facts, experiencements and experiments), finding the right form to continue its creative growth for the next crucial century, would make a good twenty-five year planetary scale project for the Academy. Objective: a world community of interacting excellent artists and scientists. Increasing and deepening this interaction would in itself bring many positive changes in the world.
For example, sponsoring a series of annual conferences (and/or long-running e-forums) to accelerate this action: some might be: Art, Evolution, and History
Cutting Edge Science, Avant-Garde Art, and Creative History
Images/Symbols, Nerves, and Molecules of Emotion
Paleontology, Archeology, and Architecture
Music, Time, and Astronomy
All the best on your stirring things up. Potentialities: immense.
Why do we need a Mission Statement at all? We need a Mission Statement to --
Define the basic purpose of the organization so that we are sure we agree on what we are trying to accomplish
Inspire the organization to achieve a meaningful purpose beyond the honoring of its distinguished Fellows and perpetuation of its own existence.
Guide us in making crucial strategic decisions that will decide the future of the organization, such as criteria for membership, types and criteria for programs, etc.
Guide us in the formulation of specific goals, objectives, strategies and plans for execution
Communicate to prospective and new members what the organization stands for and is trying to achieve
Communicate to the general public who and what we are and what our broadest objectives are
A Mission Statement can be defined as a broad statement of purpose that serves as a useful guide to the formulation of strategic decisions and to communicate the organization's purpose to the general public.
Mission vs. Vision: A Mission Statement is often usefully distinguished from a Vision Statement. A Vision Statement is a idealistic statement of what the organization seeks to become and/or achieve in the relatively distant future. A Mission Statement more specifically desribes what we are and what our purpose is in somewhat more pragmatic terms as a bridge between the Vision and shorter term goals and objectives. Regardless whether we have two separate statements or one, in combination they should convey the ideals and inspiration that have given rise to WAAS and which it aspires to promote and realize. Goals and Objectives usually relate to a specific period of time, e.g. 1-5 years. Goals are broader and longer term, objectives more specific and near term.
Preamble: To be effective, a Mission Statement should either clearly imply or specifically include as a preamble a statement of the context, challenges or opportunities that are the rationale for the Mission. In a company, this purpose is largely implied, because it is confined to the field of profit-making business. Our task is more complex because there may be many different views on why an organization such as the Academy needs to exist, what it should seek to achieve and through what broad means. Therefore, I believe WAAS needs a preamble to place the mission in clear perspective.
Questions WAAS Mission Statement should answer:
1. Who are we? What characteristics define our organization and membership and make us similar or different from other organizations?
2. What business are we in? Are we a group of intellectuals who come together out of professional or personal interest to foster our own individual fields of work or a group which sees a common need and shares a common aspiration to cooperate and work together to address larger social issues stated or implied in the preamble?
3. What is our main product or service? In broad terms, what do we have to offer to the world? Specific concrete activities such as research, education, conferences, seminars, publications? Or is our real product something more abstract -- generation of new ideas and integrated perspectives that changes the way people think by bridging the gaps between fragmented fields of knowledge and gives rise to truer, more ethical and effective conceptions, diagnosis of social problems, solutions, public awareness, and policy decisions?
4. What are we trying to accomplish? -- to promote generation of knowledge? exchange of knowledge between individuals or between disciplines? generate new and better ideas that can impact on society? disseminate ideas and take other steps to actually effectuate social change? etc.
5. What do we stand for? What are the core ideals or values we seek to promote or uphold? The answer may form part of a mission or separate vision statement, but is particularly important an organization such as WAAS. Is the ideal we pursue idealistic or practical? moral and ethical or mental and intellectual? the furtherance of science and techcnology for their own sake or for their potential contribution to the fulfillment of human aspirations for a better world and better life?
Once defined, the Mission Statement will serve as a basis for formulating 3-5 year goals, annual objectives, strategies, program criteria and specific plans of action.
WAAS is nearing its 60th anniversary. The world is very different now then it was when the Academy was founded, but the basic underlying need for an organization like WAAS remains remarkably real and urgent. Our founders were visionaries. Perhaps the time has now come when we can recast their vision into contemporary terms and make the kind of impact on the world that they aspired for when they created the Academy.
Just a line to say that I like what has been written as “Preamble, Mission Statement & Program Criteria”. However, may I suggest that you separate the three elements and make the mission statement very brief.
1. We are deeply committed to making a differnce to the truly strategic issues of the 21st Century.
2. We do not yet have a basic agreement on the question, "What is a mission statement?" "What kinds of things does it include and exclude?" "How does it differ from "Goals", "Vision statements", "strastegic intentions", etc.
Therefore, let me say that to me a "mission" statment is a summary statement that captures and crystalizes the kinds of differences that our work in the world will make over a fairly long time; at least a generation or two. In the language of the '60s it answers the question, "What are most deeply and truly about regradless of the immediate project or activity in which we are engaged?"
I do not insist that we agree on my understanding of a mission statement. I do recommend that those running the strategic planning process agree on what a mission statement is and is not and tell us, so we know at what kind of target we are aiming.
The image of our "mission" that come to me from our history and the current discussion runs something like this: (I am not wedded to the langauge.)
The mission of WAAS is "to develop and nurture the knowledge and ways of knowing that we require as a 200,000 year old and newly-powerful species in order to survive and possibly thrive in the emerging conditions and requiremnts of the 21st Century."
I recognize that such a statment does not define the Goals we should pursue over the next few years or the kind of projects in which we should engage. In my view, no well-fromed mision statment does that. However, it does specify the particular contribution of WAAS to any goal we set or project we undertake.
Thoughts on the Mission Statement by Winston P. Nagan
I read with considerable interest and appreciation the current efforts to clarify the mission statement. It struck me that Garry Jacobs draft comes close to what I think the mission of the Academy is or should be. Below I attempt to recast some of these ideas in a way that I think may make for a tighter fit in terms of the objectives of the founders namely, that the activities of the Academy focus distinctively on the social consequences and the policy implications of knowledge. The proposals do not address the question and insight implicated in the terms policy implications. Some concerns stress that there is a clear divide between the production and distribution of knowledge and the specific issue of policy making. Here I think the sense is that policy is institutionally a matter of politics at different levels of global governance. There is another possible take on this. This may be that in the process of generating and integrating knowledge we should be aware that this process itself generates knowledge, which implicates policy. This implicates the notion of intellectual and scientific responsibility for the uses to which knowledge is put and requires that science, the humanities and even the arts be more explicitly focused on the implications for scientific, humanistic and even artistic appreciation of the interface of policy and social consequences triggered by intellectual activity. The question then is, can the role of a scientist, humanist or an artist be blind to the issue of policy implications in the execution of their roles in the institutions specialized to enhancing the knowledge base of society?
The fact that the founders thought that a policy sensitivity or awareness is critical to the mission of the Academy therefore suggests that a particular focus of collaboration should be the way in which knowledge is mapped onto policy and decision-making. This also requires that we understand the nature of policy and decision-making, its architecture and the way in which policy may in fact determine research agendas and matters of global salience. There is a lacuna in the way in which our discourse approaches this issue. Possibly, it requires us to be more refined about the nature and functions of decision in the process of influencing policy. For example, a former President of the Academy (Harold D. Lasswell) spent a lifetime on unpacking the architecture and functions of decision-making. This is useful not simply for the institutions of politics or law, but also for scientists, specialists in the humanities and the arts to more carefully understand the policy implications of their work. Thus, the functions of decision-making include intelligence, prescription, promotion, invocation, application, termination and appraisal.
The critical question is if we analogize the knowledge base to the intelligence function of decision-making, then it is obvious that we must ask discriminating questions about the control and uses of such knowledge or at least the parts of that knowledge that have important social consequences and implicate policy. This implicates a better understanding of communications theory about who is authorized or mandated to communicate what, about what, to whom, with what results, and effects. Also implicit in this is the notion of intellectual responsibility for the scope and character of networking and disseminating intelligence. It will be obvious that the nature of the knowledge generated will have an impact on other decision functions implicating the prescribing of regulatory rules or norms, and these may be outcomes of both private and public decision-making. In addition, there would be the promotion function, which seems to have moved members of the Academy in terms of promoting its scientific intelligence capacity. There are other aspects of policy implicated in the functions of decision-making I have listed above.
The reference to policy implications and social consequences also implicates a level of self-appraisal about the scope of scientific humanistic and artistic responsibility and the tacit prescriptions that should inform this level of responsibility. In this short statement, I have not referred to the broader impact of policy in terms of national and global reach. However, it seems to me that the self-awareness of these challenges for science and the arts are an important starting point for the development of a mission statement and for the normative guidance, it might provide for the particular initiatives that have emerged as recommendations for focus and action.
Of the three central issues of global concern identified by Martin Shubik, the first is the most urgent one. The attached article addresses some of the psychosocial impediments to achieving environmental sustainability.
In my 1985 book Technology: Philosophical and Social Aspects, http://www.tau.ac.il/~agass/joseph-papers/technoln.pdf I have presented the four P’s: Poverty, Pollution, Population-explosion, and Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as the great central issues for the survival of humanity and claimed that Paul Rosenstein-Rodan has offered a solution to some of them in the form of international income tax. Now Raphael Sassower has offered a book (dedicated to the memory of Rosenstein-Rodan) called Post-Capitalism: Moving beyond Ideology in America’s Economic Crisis (Paradigm Press, Boulder and London, 2009) that goes in his wake. The concerned among members of the World Academy may wish to glance at these books
I have been following this debate from New Zealand.As a former Minister for the Environment here I agree with Martin's issues completely. There is one issue I would add to his list. The need to develop a new international law that reflects the international society we have become and contributes better to the protection of humanity and the environment.
I agree with Martin Shubick on the central importance of these global issues, and may I also add the following complementary and interrelated themes for which WAAS can and needs to foster through education, research and advocacy:
interfaith dialogue and the dialogue among cultures and civilizations toward a culture of peace
promoting human rights and responsibilities
building a world based on local and global justice that meets the well-being of all humanity and our planet
dismantling a culture of war including conventional militarization and micro-level forms of violence (family, community)
practising conflict transformation and active non-violence
cultivating spirituality and wisdom for "gross national (and global) happiness"
I would add only 4 words (in green) to the vision statement offered anonomously on July 1st.
A Vision and Mission for The World Academy of Art and Science
Over the next five to ten years, our vision for the World Academy of Art and Science is to become widely recognized in the world by being seen as a preferred globalplatform where thinkers and organizations from all regions can collaborate effectively to create and offer meaningful innovative responses to the greatest challenges facing humankind.
Our work will make significant positive differences, have lasting impacts, and attract participants of global caliber and potential in every arena of our focus.
This vision will be the chief criterion guiding the World Academy as seeks its Fellows, facilitates and assesses their work, arranges collaborations, and organizes its activities and operations.
While our vision will not be preemptive of other activities and goals of the World Academy, it will always be our first priority in making every decision in planning, managing, and funding its activities.
I am interested in taking these subjects through a series of conferences at the great universities of the world testing ideas and disciplines around serving a dominance model or liberation.
Dear participants in this debate, and other Members,
Although I am following this discussion from the beginning I am participating for the first time today..During global (trans world !) economical crisis is of vital interest to discuss about the role of science in knowledge based society from all aspects. In developed countries ( Scandinavian, UK, Germany, Japan, USA , Korea and some others ) society in general ( scientists and inteligent politicians !) understand the role of excellent basic research and high education as crucial elements (= prerequisite ) for social and economical advances. However, this is not the case in poor countries in Africa, some Asian and Latin American countries, and in the majority of Eastern EU countries (EU-12 )! There are tremendous problems in all levels, which urgently need to be solved. Even in EU we face up the growing differences between EU-15 and EU-12 . As I understand there is the will among the members of the Academy to be pro-active. Therefore I support the idea of one or two areas of importance where we can act effectively . In this direction our Academy can play crucial role in the near future. Start with action ASAP.
Dear Fellows I have not joined this WAAS debate to date, but this recent exchange has drawn me in. This organization (WAAS) obviously has tremendous intellectual resources, and if it so desired, could become a useful think tank, provided it raised money, developed appropriate political skills, and made enough connections. However, Augusto Forti has made a very good point: why does the world need yet another think tank? If it is true that the original purpose of WAAS was not to achieve political influence, but rather to try to bridge the two cultures of academe, (which by now have probably become three), then I fully support the notion that we should stick to the pursuit of this very important goal, and expand our influence within academe, globally. This would be a very challenging objective in its own right, without trying to take on all the major issues confronting the G20, which seems almost what we are contemplating. It was my understanding when I accepted to join that the WAAS was dedicated to an inclusive, cross-domain dialogue within academe on a number of issues that tap the wisdom of all three domains of academe: science, the humanities, and the social sciences. Have we, and have the executive and leadership of WAAS, given up on this? Or is this objective still in force, and still at the very heart of WAAS? If it is still in force, there are many issues waiting for our attention, from our global educational objectives, to the uses of technology, to the definition of human dignity and human nature itself. Best wishes, Merlin
As you know WAAS – or at least the post WWII events influencing the history of WAAS – has in part veered from the theme of “art and science” (which you correctly expand to cover more areas). In my short time as president I have expressed concern that we work to return to this theme. But because of the history, other concerns and emphases have been the focus of various WAAS efforts, and are likely to stay in place, in part because there hasn’t been a history of greater involvement of the membership (not necessarily because of unwillingness on the part of fellows). Part of the reason for opening this conversation to the membership is precisely to provoke comments such as yours, Augusto’s, Arthur’s, and everyone else who has taken time to engage in this. As I stated in my first presidential e-communication, WAAS has to work at correcting the gender bias and imbalance in representation both intellectually and internationally; I would also include considering younger, more mid-career individuals with a promising “track record” for nomination to membership. But this cannot be done by one person or a board of trustees alone. It must be the concern of all the membership, or at least those who think that in principle and spirit WAAS is a worthwhile endeavor and are willing to devote some time and energy to “making it work” in the larger sphere. This includes minimally not only engaging (as time and inclination permit) in these conversations, but in being vigilant in identifying and nominating (which can be done through our website, www.worldacademy.org) individuals who will collectively contribute to a wider representation, both globally and intellectually. This is particularly complicated by the fact that a nomination is supposed to come through a fellow. But, not unexpectedly, there are an overwhelming number of countries (particularly in Africa, Latin/South American, and regions throughout Asia) in which there are no fellows. Thus, while the tendency is to nominate someone we know from our own adjacent countries, our joint task, through our broader knowledge of who is doing interesting work farther afield, must also be to identify these individuals.
So, once again, I invite and urge all fellows to engage and have more of a voice, say, and stake in the future of WAAS.
Dear Jeff/Garry If I may intrude here, the proposal on the Revolution in Human Affairs would actually be looking at the social consequences of knowledge as it is disseminated via the information-communication revolution and try to test our thesis that one aspect of this knowledge (increasing expectations far beyond the realities) actually has led to increase in the sense of relative deprivation among the youth at tha lower ends of socio-economic spectrum in a world full of socio-economic disparities and inequities (even among the same community in a country). This obviously would only be a small part of the larger question that has been raised; though its advantage might lie in its focused approach to the consequences of knowledge of disparities now being internalised in far corners of the world.
I have followed with great interest the recent messages from you, Augusto Forti, Arthur Cordell, Sesh Velamoor, Tay Kheng Soon and other Fellows offering ideas on the future mission of WAAS. This is precisely the kind of discussion the Board had hoped to elicit when we launched the Strategic Planning Process. It is encouraging to see more Fellows coming forward now to share their thoughts and provide inputs. Formulation of a Mission is a very serious affair, because it involves raising fundamental issues and making core decisions that will affect the Academy for many years to come. The raising and in-depth exploration of these questions can be an invaluable source of new ideas and opportunities. Therefore, we need not rush to final conclusions until the discussion has had time to fully develop and ripen as inspiration, as it did for our founders 60 years ago.
Your message raises an important distinction between two possible roles of the Academy – briefly denoted as cross-domain dialogue and public policy formulation. You emphasize the origin and unique potential for the Academy to help bridge the intellectual divide between fields and the academic cultures of science, social science and humanities. At the same time you question both the need and the feasibility of WAAS playing a meaningful role in influencing public policy on key global issues, a skepticism many Fellows share.
I accept the validity of this distinction in view of the common ways in which other think tanks and policy institutions presently function. However, your message makes me wonder whether we need necessarily chose one alternative over the other. If that is necessary, then I would agree with your choice of cross-domain dialogue as the natural domain from WAAS. But when we examine major problems facing the world today, we find that at their root, virtually all of these problems arise from and are perpetuated by the very absence of the cross-domain dialogue which WAAS has always intended to foster. We might even go further and say that a mere exchange of perspectives between disciplines is not sufficient to solve these problems. It is necessary to seek out a common basis of principle and knowledge that underlies, unites and integrates knowledge from different domains – an effort that has been very much neglected even within each of the broad domains – science, social science and humanities – let alone between them.
The International Financial Crisis is a case in point. In my own understanding, the root of the issue is not confined to financial markets, economics, or even economics, business, law, national politics and global governance. It is founded on core assumptions and attitudes about the origin, nature and role of money as a social institution which evolved over centuries to serve functional social objectives (history, sociology) and has recently usurped and come to dominate the very society it was created to serve (a phenomenon that, like humanity’s willful subordination to technology, rightly falls within the domain of psychology). The crisis is intimately related to the fundamental rights and value accorded to human beings in an age where money value reigns supreme, as the power of aristocratic heritage once did in the past. As a truly global crisis which is still being managed by tentative coordination among national governments, the crisis raises fundamental issues about the role of organizations in the process of social development, including the inevitable tendency of social growth to outstrip existing organizations and compel the development of new ones. WAAS may not be the best qualified institution to advocate specific short term solutions to stabilize financial markets and revive economic growth, but I can think of no more appropriate forum for examining the roots of the crisis, formulating broad measures designed to eliminate the possibility of its recurrence and envisioning the rightful role that money can play in the future evolution of global society.
In the mid 1980s, McKinsey business consultants Peters and Waterman published In Search of Excellence, which became an overnight best seller – the first management book ever to do so -- not only within the business community in America and overseas, but also among policy makers, public sector managers, students, educators and the public at large. Reviewing the book 25 years later, one may find little in it worthy of inspiring a global craze. But it did. I believe the reason for it was not the depth of the author’s analysis or practicality of its recommendations, but rather the spirit of an emerging social movement which they sensed and expressed in the book. Themselves a product of the 1960s revolution, they were surprised to discover that the spirit of freedom and the value of individuality that were proclaimed on campuses 20 years earlier had now permeated corporate America, tearing down walls of stifling bureaucracy, liberating creative energies and spurring a revolution from within. Their passionate call to recognize the value of the individual employee and customer and to support freedom for individual creativity and initiative struck an answering chord among managers, employees, students, faculty, bureaucrats, policymakers, women and minorities. Though the authors were hardly conscious of its significance, their message became an awakening call to humanity that has had far-reaching impact beyond corporate America.
I cited this example at length to illustrate that a deeper insight into the human situation when properly formulated and projected can have an impact that far exceeds the expectations of the initiators or the modest means available to disseminated it. I see no reason why the Academy with its unique concentration of varied intellectual insights cannot seek to play such a role today by combining in principle the objectives of cross-domain dialogue with the aspiration to influence the future course of human development. In fact, I find that a number of the proposals submitted to the SPC may very well have that potential, if rightly and seriously approached.
My intention here is to further the excellent discussion which you and others have brought to life in the confidence that it will help us all arrive at a clearer vision of the opportunities and potentials of WAAS.
Is knowledge being used for the pursuit of liberation, social and personal, or domination? If this remains a relevant question then an organization of thinkers can add value and give leadership.
I would add to this discussion something I proposed when I was on the Board of Trustees. I think it may be useful as we consider future directions.
While all of the ideas advanced thus far contribute to and lay the basis for future activities, the current discussion provides an opportunity for Fellows to explicitly and formally begin a strategic discussion on our vision and goals, on our resources and assets....and how best to use them. What is the unique contribution we see WAAS making and how does the Board facilitate the process?
Thank you Arthur, I feel that the points you offer are important and need to be addressed. Surely we need to brainstorm and think what we want (and can do ) to celebrate our first half a century of activities and to promote our mission. warm regards Alberto
Arthur, For some time I have been thinking about the possibility of creating ISIS - The International Society of Independent Scholars. Now I realize that it already exists in WAAS. My thought about ISIS was that it would carry out studies - assessements on specific topics in the way that the National Academy does in the US and sometimes the Royal Society in the UK and Canada. There difference being that it would be International, really Independent, and that the breadth of WAAS membership is that such that an interdisciplinary group could be put together from multiple countries and specializations to suit almost any topic. Of course stdies and assessment would have to be commissioned by international institutions public or private or both, but such bodies do not really have an independent group to whom they can turn - ICSU no longer fills that need in my view although some of its subsidiaries might. Of course there is a long list of potential topics ...... One that occupies me at the moment is "the ethics of climate change" or it might be more broadly cast as "global environmental justice"
Does WAAS have the necessary credibility? If just one such exercise could be funded and be successfully completed then the reputation and capacity would grow. Who knows who would commission the first study-assessment? Ian
it seems to me the great strength of waas is its members. they have a great wealth of intellect and experience in so many diverse fields of intellectual, scientific and human affairs to share with the world. yes i agree with joe and mike, the issues of datelines, focus and institutional support have to be addressed. but how? waas should not become another action agency or think tank. let waas advertise its willingness to be called upon by think tanks, universities, corporations and governments to contribute ideas and perspectives. groups of interested members can then be assembled to blitz an issue, any issue to turn knowledge into policy where ever it is relevant and required. to do this, waas should make available to potential partners its capabilities. waas may even go on a media blitz and let possible partners know the possible contributions waas can make to their agenda. waas can also make known its special areas ofpolicy formation it is interested in. this way,funding and time tables will be established with funding agencies and partner institutions.
I agree completely with Joseph Coates' remarks. Some weeks ago I started , but never finished, an article reviewing the effect(s) of some of the books that have been published since "Silent Spring" in 1962 - which had a response mainly from the wider public . For example "The Doomsday Book", "Planet in Peril", the WAAS "Bioresources for Development".&&& I could go on but the point I wish to raise is how many have had a real effect on global policy? How many such studies have had the effect the authors hoped for? If not why not? Then I ask what influence can WAAS have on the decisions to be made in a few weeks in Copenhagen? Why have so many good studies failed?Is this a question the WAAS should be addressing? Can WAAS bring into its studies more top level representatives of the bodies that make the decisions and can thus influence global policies?
I suppose I did not finish the article because I did not find the answers............... maybe WAAS can?
Thank you both for your comments and concerns, which I share entirely. One of the things that’s been emphasized in the weekly conference calls of the SPC is the relevance of any suggested project etc to WAAS, whether other organizations are already pursuing the topic and can do it better, if a project seems within WAAS’s scope should we consider collaborating with other organizations, and – most critical, at least to me – is what the “product” will be, how it will get beyond the confines of WAAS, and will it actually have an impact (or potential impact). If you consider the past activities of WAAS, most have been conferences and if a publication ensues it remains unknown. There has not been an emphasis on projects with goals. Hopefully we can begin to change that, but do so within the capabilities of WAAS. Of course critical to this attempt is the active participation of WAAS fellows. Although we received numerous responses to our request for “ideas” in reality they were authored by a very few fellows. After we whittle down the potential topics to a reasonable few, I intend to put them to the membership and ask for fellows to commit to being willing and available to participate in one. Of course, if no one responds, or the response is low, that will be telling. But there is also history to this, whereby the culture of WAAS has not emphasized an active and involved membership – which is one reason why WAAS is in reality invisible as an organization. If fellows don’t want to be active, we’ll take it from there. I’m hoping that some will rise to the occasion and contribute to changing WAAS, both in visibility and participation in a larger community.
I have read with interest the numerous e-mails that have been produced concerning the future role of the Academy and how it can effectively direct its development. Although the Academy is a powerful force with many important members, I would suggest that perhaps we could select two areas of importance and devise some type of co-operative scheme with a much larger body such as the Royal Society of Art. We have several Fellows who are members of both groups and are already active in similar activities – i.e.” the social consequences and policy implications of knowledge.” Such a co-operation could raise awareness of the Academy and our goals yet allow us to work jointly and independently as the programme develops. We must continue to retain our original goals, yet attune them to be a dynamic force in the 21st century.
Jeff, I have been perusing the exchanges vis a vis the future directions for WAAS but have refrained from inserting myself.
Having been involved in the affairs of the FFF at practically every level from founding to today, I have some thoughts on what WAAS might want to consider going forward. Also having participated in the GA in Hyderabad, wonderfully organized and executed, all kinds of high intellectual content, but with little or no public attention, visibility, recognition, scant attendance etc. etc. was somewhat in my mind less than satisfactory.
I would like to put forward the following suggestions. If all this is rendered moot because it has all been already deliberated upon, I beg forgiveness.
1.WAAS first with the help of its fellows,supporters, observers, needs to clarify its mission in a clear succinct fashion.
2.Its operating structure needs to be reviewed keeping the mission in mind. Here, I would advise a structure that is inclusive of a high powered advisory board ( that has no operational responsiblities but gives it a high profile and credibility) and a management structure that is slightly more expansive including roles specifically defined as to administration, Programs, public relations, membership and other drives, finance/endowment development etc..
3. A fixed set of programs that occur routinely. Modest at first but expanded slowly.
4.A vigorous effort to establish official connections with like minded organizations, foundations, entities world wide. These would be either link organizations, cooperating organizations, or co-hosting organizations for events.
5.A well organized program for documenting, recording, taping, transcribing and publishing the outputs from the various events including the GA.
May I suggest that you all go to the website for the FFF www.futurefoundation.org and see what is relevant and then take it from there.
I personally greatly enjoyed the interaction at the GA, treasure the relationships I have built with you and Walt over the years and WILL PARTICIPATE/CONTRIBUTE IN ANY MANNER OR FORM YOU SEE FIT.
I apologize for the long delay in reconnecting with you Jeff, but the press of events has kept me buried in the affairs of the FFF.
I applaud both your efforts to reorient WAAS and head us in a more robust direction and the additions/reminders of those who have responded on the listserv. These are signs of life.
I would add a piece of work to your/our plate; work that to my mind is logically prior to strategic plans (Mission, Roles, Goals, Strategies, etc.) and, therefore, normally left out of strategic plans; statements.
I think we need short summary statements that are a response to this double-barreled question, “To what existing or emerging conditions in history do we see a re-vitalized 21st Century WAAS as a creative and courageous response, and what differences do we intend to live for/make in the face of these conditions?”
In my experience, such context-defining statements help in several ways:
·First, they remind us that the new life we seek as an organized community is as servants of the wider world at this time in history and not an end in itself.
·Second, they help to renew us by forcing us re-stating why we exist in current terms; to not just rely on our illustrious history or membership.
·Third, they help us recognize that several (many?) others share a good deal of our sense of the times and what it now requires of us. This is good news. All such organizations are potential Partners with whom we can get in harness for specific purposes, e.g. world conferences, research projects, web resources, …
·Fourth, they challenge us to clearly define the contribution (value) we seek to make to the wider work -- our mission and core roles – in a way that is both appropriate and unique to our community.
For example, the concern expressed by Augusto and Arthur could be part of what we want to say – that soul-less technologically-driven responses to the conditions of the 21st Century will not get us to the future we claim to desire – humane, just, sustainable, etc.
Sesh: Thank you for your suggestions. I have been working on a mission statement for months, and think I’m near a draft I can circulate to the board and membership. You are correct. Without a mission statement WAAS activities appear even more ad hoc and unorganized. I will think about the rest of your email, visit the FFF website, and would very much like to talk with you upon your return.
If my inertia vis a vis WAAS has been melted by your mail, credit goes to you. I have been thinking about this very precise issue as to why such an a distinguished group has not been able to make the impact that it can.
There are several reasons and i will only suggest a few and then request that we re-initiate the process of building bridges across and with future.
a) can we get a spread sheet with key areas of expertise of all fellows and then each one of us can suggest areas in which he /she can contribute to some body else's research domain in which ever way she can?
b) so long as we focus on only what we can get pursue with in our existing domain through WAAS, it will remain a non-starter. Unless we strengthen each other's goals's, real fellowship can not emerge.
c) public goods: In this age of excessive stress on markets as mediator of human density, creation of public goods may not attract too many adherents. But then it is a good worth trying. For instance , if we create a pool of our respective publications and put them in creative commons or open access ( i have already done that, www.sristi.org/anilg all of few hundred papers are copyright free and downloadable without my permission), that itself will be a great contribution with clear spill over effect on research and education for those who lack access to literature databases. CD of such databases can be shared in Africa, Latin America and other disadvantaged regions without any restriction. It will have contributions from Africa as well. Similarly, research protocols in various research streams could be put on open access server of WAAS.
d) we have a huge open access Honey bee database of green grassroots innovations and traditional knowledge, indigenous common property institutions etc., all of which is dedicated to people to people learning ( see www.sristi.org , www.nifindia.org ), Link between formal and informal science can be forged in so many areas.
i hope that some collaborative research, aiming at impacting public policy will emerge in the process. See www.Techpedia.sristi.org a portal of more than 3600 projects of young technological students of India. It might grow to ten thousand projects soon and the goal is half a million projects done every year by the students. Why not we engage with youth and help them learn from each other across national boundaries and then improve the originality and innovation quotient. At the same time, social problems which have remained unaddressed worldwide ( see the site) despite MDGs and UN conferences and meetings, could also get into focus.
Enough for the day. I complement the adminsitration of WAAS in taking this initiative and hope that dialogue will lead to some concrete action agendas.
This is a vital and urgent topic and I would be prepared to support a global initiative in this area which might really make a difference. However, I share Joe’s concern expressed below about an academic exercise without a clear strategy for directing its impact
I like the sound of Mike’s suggestion to build on what’s already been researched and written about before and understand how and why some studies have be a real catalyt for change whilst others appear to have withered on the vine, certainly in policy terms. Having concluded this in a tight but realistic timescale, then use WAAS’s collective networks and influence to get a coherent message across to key movers and shakers (and/or support them in what they are already doing).
Message from Unger Felix
I observe the ongoing discussion with great interest. The core element of WAAS mission could be to develop a new functionalism for the governance of the World. The topics which are touched are all excellent and should be condensed to five points as
1. Political collaboration (including human rights and responsibilities, global justice)
2. Economy based to the experiences of the last month, there is a lot to do.
3. Security in all forms
4. Environment
5. Ecumenism in the cultures including interreligious dialogues and culture.
Message from UR Rao
May I propose a short mission statement for WAAS as follows:
"Role of WAAS in promoting a smooth transition into a knowledge based, sustainable, prosperous and peaceful global society of the 21st century".
Message from Jeffrey Schwartz
Thank you. I have been working on a brief, terse, to the point mission statement that occupies less than a page – the attention span of most when confronted with things to read. I will consider this.
Message from Augusto Forti
I'm interested in the proposal made by John Allen. I think that for waas it would be difficult to make new and interesting contributions to such fields on global policy as environment,gendre equality,discrimination betwen those who have and those who have not etc..; all these items have nurished hundreds of books and meetings, originated specialized organizations and associations of "experts", political meetings etc.
For this reasons I believe that debates such as the proposed Cutting edge ,science, avangarde and creative history might be more congenial to waas mandate. When I mention a new Humanism I have in mind the beginning of Renaissance with people like Leonardo able to give the same considaration to engeenering, science ,art an technological creativity. Or Giovanni Battista Alberti scientist,artist, economist and entrepreneur. They were all humanists at the time in wich science, technology, economics and politics ( Macchiavelli) were all interlelated. Of course we are no Leonardos or Albertis but waas could give us the oportunity ,with its large costuency to debate such important subjects.
Mesage from John Allen
I agree with Augusto Forti’s ‘international think tank for a new humanism’; and Sesh Velamoor’s ‘need to clarify mission in clear, succinct fashion;
On Arthur Cordell’s remarks, I think the unique factor in WAAS is the planet-wide association on an equal basis of artists and scientists. I think strengthening this interaction between artists and scientists (values and facts, experiencements and experiments), finding the right form to continue its creative growth for the next crucial century, would make a good twenty-five year planetary scale project for the Academy. Objective: a world community of interacting excellent artists and scientists. Increasing and deepening this interaction would in itself bring many positive changes in the world.
For example, sponsoring a series of annual conferences (and/or long-running e-forums) to accelerate this action: some might be:
Art, Evolution, and History
Cutting Edge Science, Avant-Garde Art, and Creative History
Images/Symbols, Nerves, and Molecules of Emotion
Paleontology, Archeology, and Architecture
Music, Time, and Astronomy
All the best on your stirring things up. Potentialities: immense.
Purpose & Definition of a Mission Statement
Why do we need a Mission Statement at all? We need a Mission Statement to --
A Mission Statement can be defined as a broad statement of purpose that serves as a useful guide to the formulation of strategic decisions and to communicate the organization's purpose to the general public.
Mission vs. Vision: A Mission Statement is often usefully distinguished from a Vision Statement. A Vision Statement is a idealistic statement of what the organization seeks to become and/or achieve in the relatively distant future. A Mission Statement more specifically desribes what we are and what our purpose is in somewhat more pragmatic terms as a bridge between the Vision and shorter term goals and objectives. Regardless whether we have two separate statements or one, in combination they should convey the ideals and inspiration that have given rise to WAAS and which it aspires to promote and realize. Goals and Objectives usually relate to a specific period of time, e.g. 1-5 years. Goals are broader and longer term, objectives more specific and near term.
Preamble: To be effective, a Mission Statement should either clearly imply or specifically include as a preamble a statement of the context, challenges or opportunities that are the rationale for the Mission. In a company, this purpose is largely implied, because it is confined to the field of profit-making business. Our task is more complex because there may be many different views on why an organization such as the Academy needs to exist, what it should seek to achieve and through what broad means. Therefore, I believe WAAS needs a preamble to place the mission in clear perspective.
Questions WAAS Mission Statement should answer:
1. Who are we? What characteristics define our organization and membership and make us similar or different from other organizations?
2. What business are we in? Are we a group of intellectuals who come together out of professional or personal interest to foster our own individual fields of work or a group which sees a common need and shares a common aspiration to cooperate and work together to address larger social issues stated or implied in the preamble?
3. What is our main product or service? In broad terms, what do we have to offer to the world? Specific concrete activities such as research, education, conferences, seminars, publications? Or is our real product something more abstract -- generation of new ideas and integrated perspectives that changes the way people think by bridging the gaps between fragmented fields of knowledge and gives rise to truer, more ethical and effective conceptions, diagnosis of social problems, solutions, public awareness, and policy decisions?
4. What are we trying to accomplish? -- to promote generation of knowledge? exchange of knowledge between individuals or between disciplines? generate new and better ideas that can impact on society? disseminate ideas and take other steps to actually effectuate social change? etc.
5. What do we stand for? What are the core ideals or values we seek to promote or uphold? The answer may form part of a mission or separate vision statement, but is particularly important an organization such as WAAS. Is the ideal we pursue idealistic or practical? moral and ethical or mental and intellectual? the furtherance of science and techcnology for their own sake or for their potential contribution to the fulfillment of human aspirations for a better world and better life?
Once defined, the Mission Statement will serve as a basis for formulating 3-5 year goals, annual objectives, strategies, program criteria and specific plans of action.
WAAS is nearing its 60th anniversary. The world is very different now then it was when the Academy was founded, but the basic underlying need for an organization like WAAS remains remarkably real and urgent. Our founders were visionaries. Perhaps the time has now come when we can recast their vision into contemporary terms and make the kind of impact on the world that they aspired for when they created the Academy.
Message from Pushpa Bhargava
Just a line to say that I like what has been written as “Preamble, Mission Statement & Program Criteria”. However, may I suggest that you separate the three elements and make the mission statement very brief.
WAAS Mission
It appears to me from the posts to date that:
1. We are deeply committed to making a differnce to the truly strategic issues of the 21st Century.
2. We do not yet have a basic agreement on the question, "What is a mission statement?" "What kinds of things does it include and exclude?" "How does it differ from "Goals", "Vision statements", "strastegic intentions", etc.
Therefore, let me say that to me a "mission" statment is a summary statement that captures and crystalizes the kinds of differences that our work in the world will make over a fairly long time; at least a generation or two. In the language of the '60s it answers the question, "What are most deeply and truly about regradless of the immediate project or activity in which we are engaged?"
I do not insist that we agree on my understanding of a mission statement. I do recommend that those running the strategic planning process agree on what a mission statement is and is not and tell us, so we know at what kind of target we are aiming.
The image of our "mission" that come to me from our history and the current discussion runs something like this: (I am not wedded to the langauge.)
The mission of WAAS is "to develop and nurture the knowledge and ways of knowing that we require as a 200,000 year old and newly-powerful species in order to survive and possibly thrive in the emerging conditions and requiremnts of the 21st Century."
I recognize that such a statment does not define the Goals we should pursue over the next few years or the kind of projects in which we should engage. In my view, no well-fromed mision statment does that. However, it does specify the particular contribution of WAAS to any goal we set or project we undertake.
Ruben
Thoughts on the Mission Statement by Winston P. Nagan
I read with considerable interest and appreciation the current efforts to clarify the mission statement. It struck me that Garry Jacobs draft comes close to what I think the mission of the Academy is or should be. Below I attempt to recast some of these ideas in a way that I think may make for a tighter fit in terms of the objectives of the founders namely, that the activities of the Academy focus distinctively on the social consequences and the policy implications of knowledge. The proposals do not address the question and insight implicated in the terms policy implications. Some concerns stress that there is a clear divide between the production and distribution of knowledge and the specific issue of policy making. Here I think the sense is that policy is institutionally a matter of politics at different levels of global governance. There is another possible take on this. This may be that in the process of generating and integrating knowledge we should be aware that this process itself generates knowledge, which implicates policy. This implicates the notion of intellectual and scientific responsibility for the uses to which knowledge is put and requires that science, the humanities and even the arts be more explicitly focused on the implications for scientific, humanistic and even artistic appreciation of the interface of policy and social consequences triggered by intellectual activity. The question then is, can the role of a scientist, humanist or an artist be blind to the issue of policy implications in the execution of their roles in the institutions specialized to enhancing the knowledge base of society?
The fact that the founders thought that a policy sensitivity or awareness is critical to the mission of the Academy therefore suggests that a particular focus of collaboration should be the way in which knowledge is mapped onto policy and decision-making. This also requires that we understand the nature of policy and decision-making, its architecture and the way in which policy may in fact determine research agendas and matters of global salience. There is a lacuna in the way in which our discourse approaches this issue. Possibly, it requires us to be more refined about the nature and functions of decision in the process of influencing policy. For example, a former President of the Academy (Harold D. Lasswell) spent a lifetime on unpacking the architecture and functions of decision-making. This is useful not simply for the institutions of politics or law, but also for scientists, specialists in the humanities and the arts to more carefully understand the policy implications of their work. Thus, the functions of decision-making include intelligence, prescription, promotion, invocation, application, termination and appraisal.
The critical question is if we analogize the knowledge base to the intelligence function of decision-making, then it is obvious that we must ask discriminating questions about the control and uses of such knowledge or at least the parts of that knowledge that have important social consequences and implicate policy. This implicates a better understanding of communications theory about who is authorized or mandated to communicate what, about what, to whom, with what results, and effects. Also implicit in this is the notion of intellectual responsibility for the scope and character of networking and disseminating intelligence. It will be obvious that the nature of the knowledge generated will have an impact on other decision functions implicating the prescribing of regulatory rules or norms, and these may be outcomes of both private and public decision-making. In addition, there would be the promotion function, which seems to have moved members of the Academy in terms of promoting its scientific intelligence capacity. There are other aspects of policy implicated in the functions of decision-making I have listed above.
The reference to policy implications and social consequences also implicates a level of self-appraisal about the scope of scientific humanistic and artistic responsibility and the tacit prescriptions that should inform this level of responsibility. In this short statement, I have not referred to the broader impact of policy in terms of national and global reach. However, it seems to me that the self-awareness of these challenges for science and the arts are an important starting point for the development of a mission statement and for the normative guidance, it might provide for the particular initiatives that have emerged as recommendations for focus and action.
Message from Martin Shubik
There are at least three central issues of global concern
The Academy should try to be a moral and scientific force on all three.
Message from Albert Bandura
Of the three central issues of global concern identified by Martin Shubik, the first is the most urgent one. The attached article addresses some of the psychosocial impediments to achieving environmental sustainability.
Message from Jordan Pop-Jordanov
I agree completely with Dr. Shubik, and I could be involved in topics 1 and 2.
Mesage from Joseph Agassi
In my 1985 book Technology: Philosophical and Social Aspects, http://www.tau.ac.il/~agass/joseph-papers/technoln.pdf I have presented the four P’s: Poverty, Pollution, Population-explosion, and Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as the great central issues for the survival of humanity and claimed that Paul Rosenstein-Rodan has offered a solution to some of them in the form of international income tax. Now Raphael Sassower has offered a book (dedicated to the memory of Rosenstein-Rodan) called Post-Capitalism: Moving beyond Ideology in America’s Economic Crisis (Paradigm Press, Boulder and London, 2009) that goes in his wake. The concerned among members of the World Academy may wish to glance at these books
Mesage from Eliora Ron
I totally agree with this short and focused idea!!
Message from Geoffrey Palmer
I have been following this debate from New Zealand.As a former Minister for the Environment here I agree with Martin's issues completely. There is one issue I would add to his list. The need to develop a new international law that reflects the international society we have become and contributes better to the protection of humanity and the environment.
Message from Toh Swee-Hin
I agree with Martin Shubick on the central importance of these global issues, and may I also add the following complementary and interrelated themes for which WAAS can and needs to foster through education, research and advocacy:
Message from Diego Hidalgo
"At least"; although all of them are interrelated, in my modest opinion there are more:
(a) a lack and need for a global governance structure capable of making binding decisions on the problems below;
(b) lingering problems of democracy with billions of people living under dictarorships where human rights are not respected;
(c) growing and widespread poverty and inequality, with a whole continent (Africa) in worsening conditions
(d) danger of uncontrolled epidemics and pandemias.
A New Mission Statement for WAAS
I would add only 4 words (in green) to the vision statement offered anonomously on July 1st.
A Vision and Mission for The World Academy of Art and Science
Over the next five to ten years, our vision for the World Academy of Art and Science is to become widely recognized in the world by being seen as a preferred global platform where thinkers and organizations from all regions can collaborate effectively to create and offer meaningful innovative responses to the greatest challenges facing humankind.
Our work will make significant positive differences, have lasting impacts, and attract participants of global caliber and potential in every arena of our focus.
This vision will be the chief criterion guiding the World Academy as seeks its Fellows, facilitates and assesses their work, arranges collaborations, and organizes its activities and operations.
While our vision will not be preemptive of other activities and goals of the World Academy, it will always be our first priority in making every decision in planning, managing, and funding its activities.
Message from Jonathan Granoff
July 13, 2009
I am interested in taking these subjects through a series of conferences at the great universities of the world testing ideas and disciplines around serving a dominance model or liberation.
Jonathan Grannoff
Vito Turk
Dear participants in this debate, and other Members,
Although I am following this discussion from the beginning I am participating for the first time today..During global (trans world !) economical crisis is of vital interest to discuss about the role of science in knowledge based society from all aspects. In developed countries ( Scandinavian, UK, Germany, Japan, USA , Korea and some others ) society in general ( scientists and inteligent politicians !) understand the role of excellent basic research and high education as crucial elements (= prerequisite ) for social and economical advances. However, this is not the case in poor countries in Africa, some Asian and Latin American countries, and in the majority of Eastern EU countries (EU-12 )! There are tremendous problems in all levels, which urgently need to be solved. Even in EU we face up the growing differences between EU-15 and EU-12 . As I understand there is the will among the members of the Academy to be pro-active. Therefore I support the idea of one or two areas of importance where we can act effectively . In this direction our Academy can play crucial role in the near future. Start with action ASAP.
Vito
Message from Merlin Donald
June 12, 2009
Dear Fellows
I have not joined this WAAS debate to date, but this recent exchange has drawn me in.
This organization (WAAS) obviously has tremendous intellectual resources, and if it so desired, could become a useful think tank, provided it raised money, developed appropriate political skills, and made enough connections. However, Augusto Forti has made a very good point: why does the world need yet another think tank?
If it is true that the original purpose of WAAS was not to achieve political influence, but rather to try to bridge the two cultures of academe, (which by now have probably become three), then I fully support the notion that we should stick to the pursuit of this very important goal, and expand our influence within academe, globally. This would be a very challenging objective in its own right, without trying to take on all the major issues confronting the G20, which seems almost what we are contemplating.
It was my understanding when I accepted to join that the WAAS was dedicated to an inclusive, cross-domain dialogue within academe on a number of issues that tap the wisdom of all three domains of academe: science, the humanities, and the social sciences. Have we, and have the executive and leadership of WAAS, given up on this? Or is this objective still in force, and still at the very heart of WAAS?
If it is still in force, there are many issues waiting for our attention, from our global educational objectives, to the uses of technology, to the definition of human dignity and human nature itself.
Best wishes,
Merlin
Message from Jeffrey
July 12, 2009
Dear Merlin Donald:
As you know WAAS – or at least the post WWII events influencing the history of WAAS – has in part veered from the theme of “art and science” (which you correctly expand to cover more areas). In my short time as president I have expressed concern that we work to return to this theme. But because of the history, other concerns and emphases have been the focus of various WAAS efforts, and are likely to stay in place, in part because there hasn’t been a history of greater involvement of the membership (not necessarily because of unwillingness on the part of fellows). Part of the reason for opening this conversation to the membership is precisely to provoke comments such as yours, Augusto’s, Arthur’s, and everyone else who has taken time to engage in this. As I stated in my first presidential e-communication, WAAS has to work at correcting the gender bias and imbalance in representation both intellectually and internationally; I would also include considering younger, more mid-career individuals with a promising “track record” for nomination to membership. But this cannot be done by one person or a board of trustees alone. It must be the concern of all the membership, or at least those who think that in principle and spirit WAAS is a worthwhile endeavor and are willing to devote some time and energy to “making it work” in the larger sphere. This includes minimally not only engaging (as time and inclination permit) in these conversations, but in being vigilant in identifying and nominating (which can be done through our website, www.worldacademy.org) individuals who will collectively contribute to a wider representation, both globally and intellectually. This is particularly complicated by the fact that a nomination is supposed to come through a fellow. But, not unexpectedly, there are an overwhelming number of countries (particularly in Africa, Latin/South American, and regions throughout Asia) in which there are no fellows. Thus, while the tendency is to nominate someone we know from our own adjacent countries, our joint task, through our broader knowledge of who is doing interesting work farther afield, must also be to identify these individuals.
So, once again, I invite and urge all fellows to engage and have more of a voice, say, and stake in the future of WAAS.
Thank you.
Best Jeff
Message from Jasjit Singh
July 12, 2009
Dear Jeff/Garry
If I may intrude here, the proposal on the Revolution in Human Affairs would actually be looking at the social consequences of knowledge as it is disseminated via the information-communication revolution and try to test our thesis that one aspect of this knowledge (increasing expectations far beyond the realities) actually has led to increase in the sense of relative deprivation among the youth at tha lower ends of socio-economic spectrum in a world full of socio-economic disparities and inequities (even among the same community in a country). This obviously would only be a small part of the larger question that has been raised; though its advantage might lie in its focused approach to the consequences of knowledge of disparities now being internalised in far corners of the world.
Jasjit Singh
Message from Garry Jacobs
July 12, 2009
Dear Merlin
I have followed with great interest the recent messages from you, Augusto Forti, Arthur Cordell, Sesh Velamoor, Tay Kheng Soon and other Fellows offering ideas on the future mission of WAAS. This is precisely the kind of discussion the Board had hoped to elicit when we launched the Strategic Planning Process. It is encouraging to see more Fellows coming forward now to share their thoughts and provide inputs. Formulation of a Mission is a very serious affair, because it involves raising fundamental issues and making core decisions that will affect the Academy for many years to come. The raising and in-depth exploration of these questions can be an invaluable source of new ideas and opportunities. Therefore, we need not rush to final conclusions until the discussion has had time to fully develop and ripen as inspiration, as it did for our founders 60 years ago.
Your message raises an important distinction between two possible roles of the Academy – briefly denoted as cross-domain dialogue and public policy formulation. You emphasize the origin and unique potential for the Academy to help bridge the intellectual divide between fields and the academic cultures of science, social science and humanities. At the same time you question both the need and the feasibility of WAAS playing a meaningful role in influencing public policy on key global issues, a skepticism many Fellows share.
I accept the validity of this distinction in view of the common ways in which other think tanks and policy institutions presently function. However, your message makes me wonder whether we need necessarily chose one alternative over the other. If that is necessary, then I would agree with your choice of cross-domain dialogue as the natural domain from WAAS. But when we examine major problems facing the world today, we find that at their root, virtually all of these problems arise from and are perpetuated by the very absence of the cross-domain dialogue which WAAS has always intended to foster. We might even go further and say that a mere exchange of perspectives between disciplines is not sufficient to solve these problems. It is necessary to seek out a common basis of principle and knowledge that underlies, unites and integrates knowledge from different domains – an effort that has been very much neglected even within each of the broad domains – science, social science and humanities – let alone between them.
The International Financial Crisis is a case in point. In my own understanding, the root of the issue is not confined to financial markets, economics, or even economics, business, law, national politics and global governance. It is founded on core assumptions and attitudes about the origin, nature and role of money as a social institution which evolved over centuries to serve functional social objectives (history, sociology) and has recently usurped and come to dominate the very society it was created to serve (a phenomenon that, like humanity’s willful subordination to technology, rightly falls within the domain of psychology). The crisis is intimately related to the fundamental rights and value accorded to human beings in an age where money value reigns supreme, as the power of aristocratic heritage once did in the past. As a truly global crisis which is still being managed by tentative coordination among national governments, the crisis raises fundamental issues about the role of organizations in the process of social development, including the inevitable tendency of social growth to outstrip existing organizations and compel the development of new ones. WAAS may not be the best qualified institution to advocate specific short term solutions to stabilize financial markets and revive economic growth, but I can think of no more appropriate forum for examining the roots of the crisis, formulating broad measures designed to eliminate the possibility of its recurrence and envisioning the rightful role that money can play in the future evolution of global society.
In the mid 1980s, McKinsey business consultants Peters and Waterman published In Search of Excellence, which became an overnight best seller – the first management book ever to do so -- not only within the business community in America and overseas, but also among policy makers, public sector managers, students, educators and the public at large. Reviewing the book 25 years later, one may find little in it worthy of inspiring a global craze. But it did. I believe the reason for it was not the depth of the author’s analysis or practicality of its recommendations, but rather the spirit of an emerging social movement which they sensed and expressed in the book. Themselves a product of the 1960s revolution, they were surprised to discover that the spirit of freedom and the value of individuality that were proclaimed on campuses 20 years earlier had now permeated corporate America, tearing down walls of stifling bureaucracy, liberating creative energies and spurring a revolution from within. Their passionate call to recognize the value of the individual employee and customer and to support freedom for individual creativity and initiative struck an answering chord among managers, employees, students, faculty, bureaucrats, policymakers, women and minorities. Though the authors were hardly conscious of its significance, their message became an awakening call to humanity that has had far-reaching impact beyond corporate America.
I cited this example at length to illustrate that a deeper insight into the human situation when properly formulated and projected can have an impact that far exceeds the expectations of the initiators or the modest means available to disseminated it. I see no reason why the Academy with its unique concentration of varied intellectual insights cannot seek to play such a role today by combining in principle the objectives of cross-domain dialogue with the aspiration to influence the future course of human development. In fact, I find that a number of the proposals submitted to the SPC may very well have that potential, if rightly and seriously approached.
My intention here is to further the excellent discussion which you and others have brought to life in the confidence that it will help us all arrive at a clearer vision of the opportunities and potentials of WAAS.
Best regards
Garry Jacobs
Chair, SPC
Message from Jonathan Granoff
July 12, 2009
Is knowledge being used for the pursuit of liberation, social and personal, or domination? If this remains a relevant question then an organization of thinkers can add value and give leadership.
Jonathan Granoff
Message from Arthur Cordell
July 10, 2009
I would add to this discussion something I proposed when I was on the Board of Trustees. I think it may be useful as we consider future directions.
While all of the ideas advanced thus far contribute to and lay the basis for future activities, the current discussion provides an opportunity for Fellows to explicitly and formally begin a strategic discussion on our vision and goals, on our resources and assets....and how best to use them. What is the unique contribution we see WAAS making and how does the Board facilitate the process?
Looking forward to the continuing discussion
Arthur Cordell
Message from Alberto
July 11, 2009
Thank you Arthur,
I feel that the points you offer are important and need to be addressed.
Surely we need to brainstorm and think what we want (and can do ) to celebrate our first half a century of activities and to promote our mission.
warm regards
Alberto
Message from Ian Burton
July 11, 2009
Arthur,
For some time I have been thinking about the possibility of creating ISIS - The International Society of Independent Scholars. Now I realize that it already exists in WAAS. My thought about ISIS was that it would carry out studies - assessements on specific topics in the way that the National Academy does in the US and sometimes the Royal Society in the UK and Canada. There difference being that it would be International, really Independent, and that the breadth of WAAS membership is that such that an interdisciplinary group could be put together from multiple countries and specializations to suit almost any topic. Of course stdies and assessment would have to be commissioned by international institutions public or private or both, but such bodies do not really have an independent group to whom they can turn - ICSU no longer fills that need in my view although some of its subsidiaries might. Of course there is a long list of potential topics ...... One that occupies me at the moment is "the ethics of climate change" or it might be more broadly cast as "global environmental justice"
Does WAAS have the necessary credibility? If just one such exercise could be funded and be successfully completed then the reputation and capacity would grow. Who knows who would commission the first study-assessment? Ian
Message from Tay Kheng Soon
July 10, 2009
it seems to me the great strength of waas is its members. they have a great wealth of intellect and experience in so many diverse fields of intellectual, scientific and human affairs to share with the world. yes i agree with joe and mike, the issues of datelines, focus and institutional support have to be addressed. but how? waas should not become another action agency or think tank. let waas advertise its willingness to be called upon by think tanks, universities, corporations and governments to contribute ideas and perspectives. groups of interested members can then be assembled to blitz an issue, any issue to turn knowledge into policy where ever it is relevant and required. to do this, waas should make available to potential partners its capabilities. waas may even go on a media blitz and let possible partners know the possible contributions waas can make to their agenda. waas can also make known its special areas ofpolicy formation it is interested in. this way,funding and time tables will be established with funding agencies and partner institutions.
Message from Mike Baker
July 9, 2009
Message from Jeffrey
July 9, 2009
Dear Joe and Mike:
Thank you both for your comments and concerns, which I share entirely. One of the things that’s been emphasized in the weekly conference calls of the SPC is the relevance of any suggested project etc to WAAS, whether other organizations are already pursuing the topic and can do it better, if a project seems within WAAS’s scope should we consider collaborating with other organizations, and – most critical, at least to me – is what the “product” will be, how it will get beyond the confines of WAAS, and will it actually have an impact (or potential impact). If you consider the past activities of WAAS, most have been conferences and if a publication ensues it remains unknown. There has not been an emphasis on projects with goals. Hopefully we can begin to change that, but do so within the capabilities of WAAS. Of course critical to this attempt is the active participation of WAAS fellows. Although we received numerous responses to our request for “ideas” in reality they were authored by a very few fellows. After we whittle down the potential topics to a reasonable few, I intend to put them to the membership and ask for fellows to commit to being willing and available to participate in one. Of course, if no one responds, or the response is low, that will be telling. But there is also history to this, whereby the culture of WAAS has not emphasized an active and involved membership – which is one reason why WAAS is in reality invisible as an organization. If fellows don’t want to be active, we’ll take it from there. I’m hoping that some will rise to the occasion and contribute to changing WAAS, both in visibility and participation in a larger community.
Message from Carl Edwin
July 10, 2009
Dear Jeffrey Schwartz and Garry Jacobs
I have read with interest the numerous e-mails that have been produced concerning the future role of the Academy and how it can effectively direct its development. Although the Academy is a powerful force with many important members, I would suggest that perhaps we could select two areas of importance and devise some type of co-operative scheme with a much larger body such as the Royal Society of Art. We have several Fellows who are members of both groups and are already active in similar activities – i.e.” the social consequences and policy implications of knowledge.” Such a co-operation could raise awareness of the Academy and our goals yet allow us to work jointly and independently as the programme develops. We must continue to retain our original goals, yet attune them to be a dynamic force in the 21st century.
Carl
Message from Sesh Velamoor
July 10, 2009
Jeff,
I have been perusing the exchanges vis a vis the future directions for WAAS but have refrained from inserting myself.
Having been involved in the affairs of the FFF at practically every level from founding to today, I have some thoughts on what WAAS might want to consider going forward. Also having participated in the GA in Hyderabad, wonderfully organized and executed, all kinds of high intellectual content, but with little or no public attention, visibility, recognition, scant attendance etc. etc. was somewhat in my mind less than satisfactory.
I would like to put forward the following suggestions. If all this is rendered moot because it has all been already deliberated upon, I beg forgiveness.
1.WAAS first with the help of its fellows,supporters, observers, needs to clarify its mission in a clear succinct fashion.
2.Its operating structure needs to be reviewed keeping the mission in mind. Here, I would advise a structure that is inclusive of a high powered advisory board ( that has no operational responsiblities but gives it a high profile and credibility) and a management structure that is slightly more expansive including roles specifically defined as to administration, Programs, public relations, membership and other drives, finance/endowment development etc..
3. A fixed set of programs that occur routinely. Modest at first but expanded slowly.
4.A vigorous effort to establish official connections with like minded organizations, foundations, entities world wide. These would be either link organizations, cooperating organizations, or co-hosting organizations for events.
5.A well organized program for documenting, recording, taping, transcribing and publishing the outputs from the various events including the GA.
May I suggest that you all go to the website for the FFF www.futurefoundation.org and see what is relevant and then take it from there.
I personally greatly enjoyed the interaction at the GA, treasure the relationships I have built with you and Walt over the years and WILL PARTICIPATE/CONTRIBUTE IN ANY MANNER OR FORM YOU SEE FIT.
I apologize for the long delay in reconnecting with you Jeff, but the press of events has kept me buried in the affairs of the FFF.
sesh
Message from Ruben Nelson
July 10, 2009
Jeff, an all,
I applaud both your efforts to reorient WAAS and head us in a more robust direction and the additions/reminders of those who have responded on the listserv. These are signs of life.
I would add a piece of work to your/our plate; work that to my mind is logically prior to strategic plans (Mission, Roles, Goals, Strategies, etc.) and, therefore, normally left out of strategic plans; statements.
I think we need short summary statements that are a response to this double-barreled question, “To what existing or emerging conditions in history do we see a re-vitalized 21st Century WAAS as a creative and courageous response, and what differences do we intend to live for/make in the face of these conditions?”
In my experience, such context-defining statements help in several ways:
· First, they remind us that the new life we seek as an organized community is as servants of the wider world at this time in history and not an end in itself.
· Second, they help to renew us by forcing us re-stating why we exist in current terms; to not just rely on our illustrious history or membership.
· Third, they help us recognize that several (many?) others share a good deal of our sense of the times and what it now requires of us. This is good news. All such organizations are potential Partners with whom we can get in harness for specific purposes, e.g. world conferences, research projects, web resources, …
· Fourth, they challenge us to clearly define the contribution (value) we seek to make to the wider work -- our mission and core roles – in a way that is both appropriate and unique to our community.
For example, the concern expressed by Augusto and Arthur could be part of what we want to say – that soul-less technologically-driven responses to the conditions of the 21st Century will not get us to the future we claim to desire – humane, just, sustainable, etc.
Ruben
Message from Jeffrey
July 10, 2009
Sesh: Thank you for your suggestions. I have been working on a mission statement for months, and think I’m near a draft I can circulate to the board and membership. You are correct. Without a mission statement WAAS activities appear even more ad hoc and unorganized. I will think about the rest of your email, visit the FFF website, and would very much like to talk with you upon your return.
Message from Jose Furtado
July 10, 2009
Sesh: Thanks. This is what I thought strategic vision and planning demands.
Best, Jose
Message from Anil Gupta
July 9, 2009
Thanks Jeff
Message from Geoffrey Bush
July 9, 2009
Dear Jeff
I am writing as a passive WAAS fellow to date.
This is a vital and urgent topic and I would be prepared to support a global initiative in this area which might really make a difference. However, I share Joe’s concern expressed below about an academic exercise without a clear strategy for directing its impact
I like the sound of Mike’s suggestion to build on what’s already been researched and written about before and understand how and why some studies have be a real catalyt for change whilst others appear to have withered on the vine, certainly in policy terms. Having concluded this in a tight but realistic timescale, then use WAAS’s collective networks and influence to get a coherent message across to key movers and shakers (and/or support them in what they are already doing).
With good wishes,
Geoffrey Bush