AGENDA

1. Call to Order

2. Election of Officers

2.1 President-Elect
2.2 Secretary

3. Standing Committees

3.1 Science Policy Committee
3.2 Program Committee
3.3 Exhibitor Liaison Committee
3.4 Equal Opportunities Committee: Chair required

4. Board Representatives

5. Reports

5.1 Report of the LOC for the Edmonton Meeting – Vern Paetkau
5.2 Meeting site, 2000 – Peter Dolphin

6. Board Discussion of Future Directions for CFBS

6.1 Report of Society Presidents on their Deliberations
6.2 Options, Expectations and the Means to Achieve These

7. Other Business

Minutes

Peter Dolphin, President Carol Cass, Member-at-Large
Judy Anderson, Past-president Gene Herzberg, CSNS
Arthur Hilliker, Hon. Treasurer Peter Lewis, CSBMCB
Linda McCargar, Chair, Program Committee Mike Morrow, BSC
Davis Andrews, Member-at-Large Vern Paetkau, LOC
Gary Burkholder, CAANCB
Staff: Paul Hough, Natalie Lamarche

1. Action: J. Anderson to contact Ken Fisher re the opportunity of becoming the Hon. Secretary.
2. Action: P. Dolphin to contact Heather Durham to see if she would assume the role of equity advocate.
3. Action: P. Dolphin to write letters of appreciation to the Board representatives on external bodies.
4. Action: V. Paetkau was asked to write up a list of points to consider in arranging comparable meetings.
5. Action: J. Anderson will try to find the CFBS manual on meetings and provide that to A. Hilliker or to the future Hon. Secretary.
6. Action: G. Herzberg to inquire as to the meeting schedule of the aquatic science society and the contact people.

1. P. Dolphin called the meeting to order at 10:38 a.m. His opening remarks included:

• A sincere vote of thanks to the Edmonton LOC for having organized a very smoothly run conference.
• A request to all societies for them to notify CFBS of their new executives.

2. Election of Officers

• J. Anderson reported that her efforts to identify a possible candidate had produced a couple of people, but not for the coming year, only next year.
• The suggestion was made that a current member of the Board consider the opportunity, but all present provided substantive reasons that would prevent them from assuming this position.
• A target date of August 21^st (two months after the Board meeting) was set to find a new president-elect. If necessary, an e-mail discussion and/or vote could be arranged.

• J. Anderson noted that Ken Fisher’s name had come up in several conversations concerning the position of Hon. Secretary. A motion was made (A. Hilliker/Gary Burkholder) to formally ask Dr. Fisher if he would assume this position, and to accept this if he agreed. Carried.

3. Standing Committees

• P. Hough noted that he maintains an extensive e-mail list of people interested in science policy issues. He relies on them for input on the issues and for the dissemination of information to a broader audience. There is no "committee" as such.

• Re the Winnipeg meeting, there is an urgent need to confirm the Plenary and PMAC lecturers. The target date to complete this is July 15^th. Suggested people included Janet Rossant at the University of Toronto, Alex Joiner, and a fellow in neurobiology at the University of California (Carol Cass to provide the name).
• A motion was made to thank the Edmonton LOC for their efforts in having such a successful meeting (P. Dolphin/D. Andrews). Carried (enthusiastically).

• The location in Edmonton was excellent, with the posters and the exhibits in close proximity requiring people to pass by the exhibits to reach the posters.
• Having a food concession there was also important, especially as few lunch places were close to the Convention Centre.
• Providing a comment card to the exhibitors each year would help make subsequent meetings better.
• Exhibitors also expressed the need to know in advance when it was likely to be busy with lots of people in the hall.
• This year was the first year that CFBS had the exhibitors remain through the Saturday. While this decision was made for good reasons, it is not a practice that exhibitors support.
• Efforts need to be made to attract back some large and long-standing companies (e.g., VWR and Fischer were not in Edmonton).
• V. Paetkau noted that it requires personal contact to attract exhibitors.
• D. Andrews suggested that CFBS encourage exhibitors to put on demonstrations. He also noted that the business cards of companies could be placed in the margins of the one-page pullout, and that advertising space could be sold for the back of this page.
• C. Cass suggested that some companies might want to put on half-day workshops, technical talks, etc.

• CSBMCB had conducted a poll of its membership and had found that the view was that such a committee is no longer needed as a formal committee. However, they had not considered the role that such a committee had been designed to play to more members from Quebec.
• A motion was made (J. Anderson/G. Burkholder) to replace this committee with an advocate who should be a Member-at-Large, to continue efforts to highlight the principles of equality, and to remind LOC’s to pay attention to issues of gender and equity. Carried. Heather Durham was suggested as the first such advocate.

4. Board Representatives

• Letters of thanks are to go to Randy Johnston and to Earle Nestman from P. Dolphin for their work on the Boards of the NCIC, and the ACTC Science Board respectively.

• The Youth Science Foundation (YSF) had previously been supported by CFBS at a level of $500/year. In 1997, they requested that CFBS also provide the funds for administering the awards, which would have raised the contribution to $1,500. CFBS did not provide support in 1997 to YSF, and the decision at this meeting was to not provide support in 1998 or in subsequent years unless the financial situation improves a great deal.

5. Reports

• The substantial support obtained from the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR) had been essential for this meeting to be a success.
• In addition, the people at the Shaw Convention Centre were excellent, and quite capable of making rapid decisions in the face of changing circumstances. It was suggested that a letter of thanks from CFBS be written to the Centre noting that meeting ran exceptionally well.
• It would benefit future LOC chairs if the duties could be defined at the outset. A one-page description of these would be very helpful.
• More attention needs to be paid to the details involved with the various awards, including the Gordon Kaplan Award. A formal letter will go to Robert Barclay from P. Dolphin inviting him to make his presentation in Winnipeg. D. Andrews suggested that a nomination form be devised for this award, requesting a nominating letter and CV of the individual for consideration by the selection committee. A consistent approach will make the selection easier and the reasons evident. When CFBS chooses the recipient of the Malcolm Brown Lecturer Award, notification should be sent to department chairs and heads of institutes, the Board, and to the Deans of Medicine and of Science. The proposed Awards Committee was discussed, and the suggestion made that it consist of the past-president and a few Board members.

• The convention facilities at UBC have been provisionally booked for CFBS.
• P. Dolphin is to contact people to determine if an LOC can be formed in Vancouver. The suggestion was made that a go/no go date be set, and that potential people at McMaster be considered if Vancouver is not confirmed by that date. Hamilton could also be considered for 2001.
• C. Cass noted that in Edmonton, they had a few meetings of people who had been involved in CFBS activities and this process resulted in identifying members for the LOC.
• George Mackay, the chair of the Dept. of Biochemistry at UBC, was suggested as a potential chair. J. Anderson also agreed to contact the Vice-President, Research, Bernie Bressler.
• Themes for 2000 might include Biotechnology (there are a number of biotechnology companies being created in BC), Molecular Genetics (Michael Smith is heading important work on cancer genetics), Aquaculture, and Natural Products (e.g., neutraceuticals, toxicology, etc.). G. Herzberg noted that the aquaculture scientists might not attend as the focus of their society is very applied.

6. Future Directions for CFBS

• CSBMCB had discussed this at some length, centred on the expectations of what CFBS does for the society. A general feeling was expressed that CFBS needs to be more relevant to CSBMCB than is currently the case. This prompted the observation that all the societies need to be relevant to their own members, especially the younger ones. That way, it would be easier for CFBS to succeed.
• A major aspect that affects the knowledge or prevailing perceptions is communications. Good communications are essential.
• Most societies are having a difficult time attracting new members, for a variety of reasons.
• There is the perception among many members that the lobby effort has not been effective. The fact that it has been very effective must be communicated much better to the individual members. In particular, the key role played by CFBS in convincing the government to restore the funding of the granting councils must be disseminated widely.

• P. Hough was urged to provide a letter highlighting the lobby impact for distribution to member societies and to potential members. Such a note could be disseminated through the society presidents, but it must be short.

• CSNS had previously considered the options available if CFBS folded, but these fears have diminished greatly as it became apparent that CFBS is in at least stable condition.
• Discussions need to be conducted with the individual societies on the concept of having individual memberships. Any such campaign should emphasize the importance of strong, active societies. It would be aimed at those people who are not members of constituent societies, yet who support the efforts being made by CFBS.
• The suggestion was made that all correspondence have a box that highlights the importance of having strong societies, and a similar message could be placed on the web site, with the invitation to join the society most relevant to the individual’s interests.
• The Annual Meeting was discussed in the context that while it is not a big meeting, the scientific content is always very good. Perhaps one way of attracting more people would be to extend the themes into all day programs, taking care to not schedule parallel programs that would conflict as far as the science is concerned.
• Several of the societies recognize that the CFBS meeting is an important interdisciplinary event. It would help if the abstracts were published, such that literature searches would pick them up. All the societies need to make their members realize that the meeting subsidizes the operations of CFBS, not vice versa as some believe.

7. Other Business