Related Pages
International Award Committee
2008–2010 term
Chair
Anny Cazenave, LEGOS-CNES, Toulousse Cedex, France
Members
Laurie Brown, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts
Ben Chao, National Central University, Chung-Li, Taiwan
Brian Fraser, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
Oscar Mesa, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Medellin, Colombia
Sospeter Muhongo, International Council for Science, Pretoria, South Africa
Geraldo M.E. Perillo, Insituto Argentino de Oceanografia
Staff Liaisons
Laura Skoff
Danica Williams
Committee Charge
This Committee is charged with selecting the recipients of the International Award; the final decision is subject to the approval of the Executive Committee. The award is given for advancing science and benefiting society while laboring under adverse circumstances with limited resources. The award, which may be given to an individual scientist or a small team, is presented not more often than annually.
In evaluating individuals, the Committee should remember that not only does the award bring honor to the recipient but the choice of the recipients defines the nature and the stature of the award and reflects on AGU itself. This is a critical factor when selecting the first recipients of a new award. All candidates whose contributions reach the appropriate level of distinction should be given equal consideration. The Committee is asked to be especially mindful of the diversity of the community of individuals encompassed by this new award.
Any AGU member may propose a candidate. Members of the Committee should not, however, depend solely on unsolicited nominations but should be proactive by encouraging nominations through their own contacts. Of course, members of the Committee are ineligible for consideration for the award during their terms and must not participate in discussions or deliberations where they have a conflict of interest. Similarly, members of the Executive Committee are ineligible during their terms. If at least three nominations of viable candidates are not available, the Committee is not expected to recommend a recipient.
As part of their final recommendation to the Executive Committee, the Committee must state the number of candidates they considered, whether the candidates were nominations from the general announcements or were actively encouraged. After the first selection, the Committee will be asked to report on how many of the candidates considered were holdovers and how many were new. The Committee is also expected to describe the process used for reaching the decision. The role of the Executive Committee is to accept or reject the recommendation of the Committee on the basis of its evaluation of the process and its knowledge of the candidates. Whereas the Executive Committee may not substitute for the choice, it can ask for further clarification or additional deliberation.
All deliberations and recommendations of all AGU award committees must remain strictly confidential. Within this framework of confidentiality, the chair may provide feedback to nominators on possible future eligibility and on how nomination packages could be improved.
–July 2008