Related Pages
Macelwane Medal Committee
2008–2010 term
Chair
Michael Manga, University of California, Berkeley, California
Members
Fran Bagenal, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
Roger Bales, University of California, Merced, California
Amy Clement, University of Miami RSMAS, Miami, Florida
Lou-Chuang Lee, National Central University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
Cindy Lee, Stony Brook University, New York
Joyce Penner, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Lianxing Wen, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York
Staff Liaisons
Laura Skoff
Danica Williams
Committee Charge
This Committee is charged with selecting the recipient of the James B. Macelwane Medal; the final decision is subject to the approval of the Executive Committee.
The Macelwane Medal is given for significant contributions to the geophysical sciences by an outstanding young scientist less than 36 years of age. The Committee may recommend as many as 3 Macelwane Medalists in any given year. Under exceptional circumstances, and by unanimous vote of the Committee, up to 5 Macelwane Medalists may be recommended in a given year. Recipients must be less than 36 years of age on 1 January of the year of presentation.
In evaluating individuals, the Committee should remember that not only does the medal bring honor to the recipient but the choice of the recipients also defines the nature and the stature of the medal and of AGU itself. All eligible candidates whose scientific contributions have achieved this 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 AGU.
Any AGU member may propose a candidate for the Macelwane Medal. Members of the Committee need not, however, depend solely on unsolicited nominations but may encourage nominations through their own contacts. Of course, members of the Committee must not participate in discussions or deliberations where they have a conflict of interest.
As part of their recommendation to the Executive Committee, the Committee must state the number of candidates they considered, how many of these were holdovers and how many were new, and whether the new candidates were nominations from the general call or were actively encouraged by the Committee. The Committee is also expected to define 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 medal 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