|
Program ActivitiesICF-BSE College of Fellows Special Session At the 2008 World Biomaterials Congress Amsterdam - 31 May 2008
 The International College of Fellows of Biomaterials Science and Engineering (ICF-BSE) delivered a successful kick-off presentation of the Special Fellows Session at the 2008 World Biomaterials Congress in Amsterdam. Joachim Kohn chaired a series of talks by ICF members Buddy Ratner, Peter Revell, and Michael Sefton, who each offered historic perspectives on biomaterials science intended for an audience of both experienced and emerging scientists. Following the presentations, David Williams moderated a witty debate which offered the position: this House Believes that the Preclinical Testing of New Biomaterials is a Waste of Time. We thank all participants for a "fun, very interesting, and excellent" session that "reached out to a large audience of younger people." The ICF-BSE College of Fellows Special Session Programme at the 2008 World Biomaterials Congress, Amsterdam
 Critical changes in biomaterials science:
Presented on behalf of the ICF-BSE
Steering Committee.
Joachim Kohn, Chair |
|
 Biological Interactions at the Nanoscale:
How far can we go in mimicking nature?
Buddy Ratner |
|
 Twenty-first century biological methods
in biomaterials research.
Peter Revell |
|
 Beyond the foreign body response:
Understanding the mechanism of the
host response to biomaterial implants.
Michael Sefton |
|
| The Debate: |
|
 Topic:
This House Believes that the Preclinical Testing
of New Biomaterials is a Waste of Time.
Moderated by: David Williams
Every biomaterial introduced into commerce and clinical practice has to be assessed for biological safety, typically through a series of pre-clinical in vitro and in vivo procedures, for example those promulgated through ISO 10993. However, there is very good evidence to show that neither in vitro or in vivo tests are predictive of clinical performance and that many materials that pass the tests ultimately fail in some applications, whilst others that fail the test may have posed no risk to patients.
This debate, following the traditional format of debates, included arguments for and against the proposition, two from each side. No visual aids were used, the speakers were required to keep exactly to time.
|
|
| The Debaters: |
|
 David Grainger
USA
For the Motion
First Proposer |
 Peter Zilla
South Africa
Against the Motion
First Opposer |
 Sarah Cartmell
UK
For the Motion
Second Proposer
|
 Tom BarkerUSAAgainst the MotionSecond Opposer |
Minutes of Previous Meetings
April 2009 - San Antonio, TX / May 2008 - Amsterdam, The Netherlands / April 2006 - Pittsburgh, PA / December 2005 - Hawaii / September 2005 - Sorrento, Italy / April 2005 - Memphis, Tennessee / May 2000 - Kamuela, Hawaii
April 2006 - Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Minutes of the International College of Fellows
April 28,2006
Venue: US Society for Biomaterials Conf, Pittsburg, Penn
Present: Stuart Cooper (USA); Stuart Goodman (USA); Linda Griffitz (USA); Ulrich Gross (Ger); Allan Hoffman (USA); Rolfe Howlett (Aus); Young Ha Kim (Kor); James Kirkpatrick (Ger); Joachim Kohn (USA); Jack Lemons (USA); Linda Lucas (USA); Bruce Milthorpe (Aus); Nicholas Peppas (USA); John Ramshaw (Aus); Buddy Ratner (USA); Peter Revell (UK); Paul Santerre (Can); David Williams (UK)
1. Dr Kohn provided an overview of discussions with the member fellows over the past year and provided web site contact information for the College. He indicated that the website would be the only practical means to carry out exchanges during the course of the year and encouraged members to get their passwords activated.
2. Dr. Kohn indicated that during the period in which the College did not have an active executive and established by-laws, that activities for the current College would be managed by a steering committee now consisting of David Williams, Young Ha Kim, John Ramshaw, James Kirkpatrick, Paul Santerre and Joachim Kohn. Other member states were welcome to provide a representative.
3. Dr. Peppas asked for the time frame in which member societies would have to have their nominations for new fellows submitted to the College. It was indicated that names would be required by the Fall of 2006, in time to be considered by the College and voted at the meeting in Chicago in 2007.
4. The issue of non-active membership was discussed since this has created a problem for member societies with low membership. It was proposed and voted on unanimously that the College would create an Emeritus Status that would accommodate the non-active members. In so doing, Societies will be able to change their constitution so that their active College members (not including Emeritus) can not make up more than 10% of the Society’s membership at anyone time. The latter would be endorsed at the subsequent IUBS meeting on Saturday April 29, 2006.
5. With the creation of the Emeritus status, the society will send out a form to all members this year, requesting them to declare their status: active or Emeritus, with an explanation of the importance that this has for their society membership in the College. Only active member will have a vote on issues pertaining to the College.
6. The meeting then focused on the discussion of goals for the College:
- Linda Griffitz proposed that the College’s website could be a venue for raising awareness of international collaborative funding opportunities. Members could promote government and other such programs offered in their country for promoting exchange of scientific information.
- Nicholas Peppas raised interest in establishing “Standards Guidance” documents on nomenclature and methodology. There was some discussion on this with concern raised that we should be careful not to duplicate efforts carried out by National and International Standards Organizations.
- Bruce Milthorpe emphasized that we should ensure that our profile is visible. Allan Hoffman conveyed that our activities should be chosen so that they have clear impact, if it is desired to be visible.
- On the latter point, the topic of the 8th WBC conference in Amsterdam was discussed as our best chance to achieve visibility and impact. Key activities at that conference that were discussed as being goals included:
i) It was proposed that selected abstracts which described strong research and that would be best presented as posters would be selected for special 5 minute prelude presentations by the presenters in a special session attended and judged for best science by the fellows. From this group the Fellows would select the best research for an award(s) by the College.
ii) Stuart Cooper indicated that Fellows knowledge base should be used to identify key “Avant-Garge” topics for the WBC. Another topic along the same line was that the fellows could provide keynotes at the front end of symposiums.
iii) It was suggested that we should take note of the success that the “Presidents” lectures had at the Pittsburg meeting, and that we could copy this at the WBC with 1-3 seminars on the historical perspective of topics that have dramatically impacted the field of Biomaterials.
iv) Ulrich Gross raised that the fellows should use their contacts to encourage clinical scientists and clinical users of biomaterials to attend the WBC, with the goal of showing this group where the technological field is going.
7. On the establishment of an international exchange program, Joachim Kohn asked Linda Griffitz if she would be willing to serve as the coordinator of that program.
8. On the issue of forming by-laws, a sub-committee from the steering committee will be established to work on this.
9. There was no further time to discuss other sub-committees for the steering committee.
10. There was no new business
11. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 am.
December 2005 - Hawaii
Meeting of the Fellows in Hawaii on December 12, 2005 as part of the Pacific Polymer Federation Conference.
This was the third in a series of fact-finding meetings organized by Prof. Joachim Kohn in his capacity as the Interim Chair of the International College of Fellows (ICF). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the organization of the college and the role individual fellows can play. Below are the minutes of the meeting, as recorded by Prof. Buddy Ratner.
Fellows in attendance:
| Kazuhiko Ishihara |
 |
| Teruo Okano |
 |
| Kaznnori Kataoka |
 |
| Toshihiro Akaike |
 |
Young Ha Kim
|
 |
| Jindrich Kopecek |
 |
| Allan Hoffman |
photo coming soon
|
| Joachim Kohn |
|
| Buddy Ratner |
photo coming soon |
| Chong-su Cho |
 |
Dr. Kohn opened the meeting, welcoming all those present. He discussed the history of the International College of Fellows (ICF) and its relationship to the International Union of Societies for Biomaterials Science and Engineering (IUS—BSE). One of the most urgent action items for the ICF is how the Fellows can contribute to the next World Biomaterials Congress in Amsterdam in 2008. Kohn asked for input from the members on how the Fellows can organize themselves can how the Fellows can act as a coherent group.
Dr. Kim is currently the Chair of the IUS-BSE. He provided a short description of the IUS-BSE. He stated that there are currently 8 member countries. The IUS-BSE is responsible for selection of the site for the Biomaterials World Congress, similar to the way the International Olympic Committee selects the site for the Olympic Games but then allows the local organization to "run the show". The World Congress will be been held in 2008 in Amsterdam and in 2012 in China. The induction of new Fellows is based on a selection process which is under the control of from member societies.
Dr. Kohn discussed the ACTION ITEMS which were suggested by fellows in previous meetings. Such fellows meetings were held in April 2005 in Memphis (USA), in September 2005 in Sorrento (Italy). The current meeting in Hawaii is the last of 3 "fact finding meetings" organized by Dr. Kohn in his capacity as Interim Chair of the ICF.
The previously discussed Action Items are:
1. Fellows participation in the programming of the 8th Biomaterials Congress
2. International Scientist Exchange Program
3. ICF as an informal quality assurance mechanism
4. Distance Learning and international curriculum development
A lively discussion started among all participants.
Dr. Kim stated that the International Scientist Exchange Program should be primarily self-funded rather then government funded. He also asked what is the minimum standard for a “biomaterials program”?
Dr. Hoffman felt this was too sensitive to “judge” other programs. He strongly recommended to stay out of the area of accreditation or quality judgment. However, he felt that the fellows can perhaps help others start biomaterial programs.
Dr. Ratner notified the fellows that an international exchange program is already happening.
Dr. Cho wanted to know how the Fellow could get funding for the program.
Dr. Hoffman brought up the example of the Ischia Summer School program and made the strong recommendation that the Fellows organize a traveling summer school program modeled after the Ischia program.
Dr. Okano made the general comment that there is no specific aim for the fellows and that the Fellows must decide on a mission and a goal first, before going into detailed discussion of action items.
In regard to the Fellows participation in the 8th World Biomaterial Congress, Dr. Kohn said the aim is to increase the visibility of the ICF. The honor of being elected to the College is only of value if people know about the college and recognize its importance.
Dr. Ishihara commented on the new Fellows web page which was established by Kohn and which is sponsored by the New Jersey Center for Biomaterials: Ishihara said it is informative and benefits young scientists.
Commenting on the Scientist exchange program, Dr. Akaike felt a “general exchange is not successful”. The program should encourage information exchange between different disciplines/fields; for example, by bringing in a cell biologist into a materials science group.
Dr. Kataoka reminded everyone the results are most important in this program.
Dr. Kopecek stated defining clear goals and implementing them is the first step to obtain name recognition for the ICF.
Dr. Kohn compared the function of the ICF to that of an “International Academy of Biomaterials”. Dr. Kohn has established the website http://www.fellowsbse.org/ to facilitate the communication needs of the Fellows. He suggested that one way the Fellows can participate in the program of the 8th World Congress by hosting a major session entitled "Fellows Overview of Critical Areas in Biomaterials Science".
Dr.Okano stressed the need for a strong College of Fellows, having active members and the need to encourage young scientists. More gender diversity is required. Too many fellows are no longer active – limiting the number of younger scientists that can be nominated to join the ICF.
Dr. Kohn then thanked the Fellows for their attendance, and the meeting was concluded.
Minutes taken by Buddy Ratner.
September 2005 - Sorrento, Italy
College of Fellows - International Union of Societies of Biomaterials Science & Engineering
Minutes of Meeting held at the ESB, Sorrento, Italy, September 14th 2005
Attendance: Luigi Ambrosio, James Anderson, Mario Barbosa, Clemens van Blitterswijk, Adam Curtis, Klass de Groot, Ulrich Gross, C Rolfe Howlett, John Jansen, Young Ha Kim, James Kirkpatrick, Joachim Kohn, Paolo Tranquillo Leali, Bruce Milnthorpe, Josep Planell, Etienne Schacht, Liz Tanner, Michel Vert, David Williams
1. Joachim Kohn, Chair of the Steering Committee opened the meeting, thanking Gino Ambrosio for making the arrangements to hold the meeting during the ESB Conference.
2. David Williams agreed to take notes and asked for members to briefly introduce themselves in a Tour de Table.
3. Joachim briefly discussed the background of the College of Fellows and the recent history, with reference to meetings in Sydney in 2004 and Memphis in 2005.
4. The main discussion point was the offer of the organisers of the 2008 World Congress of Biomaterials to be held in Amsterdam to involve the College of Fellows in a substantial way. This was introduced by James Kirkpatrick and would include a major involvement in a Poster Session and possibly a reception. The majority of members strongly supported this action although there was extensive discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of the various possibilities of a Collage of Fellows supported session.
5. Joachim also introduced the possibility of an International Scientific Exchange Programme, which would be especially beneficial to scientists in the third world. The current problems of foreign students gaining visas for the US were raised. With respect to students, the possibility of the European PhD Programme, soon to be adopted by the ESB being extended to other continents was discussed and David Williams explained the details of this scheme. It was agreed that once this scheme was running successfully, its extension could be discussed seriously by the College of Fellows.
6. Next the question of inactive and / or retired members was discussed in the context of the rules concerning the number of Fellows who could be admitted to IUSBSE, current rules limiting the number to 10% of members of each constituent society. It was unanimously agreed that retired / inactive members should not contribute to the number of such Fellows, each Society being required to consider how this could be implemented.
7. Attention was drawn to the originally stated aims of the College of Fellows, which were concerned with upholding professional standards in biomaterials science. Fellows should act as role models for younger scientists, with a special responsibility for the careful development of the subject in third world countries. Fellows have an important role to play in the development of educational material, and in acting as mentors with respect to the careers of younger scientists.
8. The College needed visibility at the highest levels (e.g. within WHO). It was suggested that some declaration of the principles of the College should be established (The Sorrento Declaration?) and David Williams agreed to draw up a draft of such a declaration
David Williams
Liverpool
December 2005
April 2005 - Memphis, Tenessee
International College of Fellows: Biomaterials Science and Engineering
Notes of Meeting Held on April 29th at Memphis, USA
In Attendance: Joachim Kohn (USA-2004), David Williams (Europe-1996), Paul Santerre (Canada-2004), Kazuhiko Ishihara (Japan-2004), Chong-Su Cho (Korea-2004), Robert Baier (USA-1996), Tom Horbett (USA-1996), Rena Bizios (USA-2000), Xingdong Zhang (China-2000), Zhongwei Gu (China-2004), John Ramshaw (Australia-2000), Young Ha Kim (Korea- 2000), Stuart Goodman (USA-2004), Tony Mikos (USA-2000), James Kirkpatrick (Europe-1996), Mike Sefton (Canada-1996), Chandra Sharma (India-Observer), Ajit Nair (India-Observer)
Joachim Kohn (JK) took the chair and David Williams (DW) agreed to take notes. JK referred briefly to the history of the College of Fellows. A meeting had been held at the World Congress in Hawaii in 2000, where various actions had been proposed and a few individuals charged with the responsibility of implementation. However, by the time of the World Congress in Sydney in 2004, nothing had happened. A meeting there, hosted by John Ramshaw (JR) discussed the way forward and it was agreed that JK would prepare an action plan, to be presented to this meeting in Memphis. It was agreed not to dwell on this history but to move forward, recognising that if we did not take any action now, the opportunity would probably be lost for ever.
JK emphasised the goals of the International College of Fellows were concerned with creating a sense of community in the international arena of biomaterials science, the members providing role models and exemplars of professionalism. The College of Fellows was independent of the IUS-BSE and of individual Societies for Biomaterials and it was up to us to create the rules under which we would operate. The group would progress these issues during 2005 through the meetings in Memphis, Sorrento (September) and Hawaii (December).
The meeting was advised of comments received by JK from seven members before the meeting, including Clemens van Blitterswijk, Yoshito Ikada, Bruce Milthorpe, Hanns Plenk, Klaus de Groot, Peter Revell and JK himself. Members present added comments about the need for funding, quality control over abstracts and advice on conference presentations. The group considered all comments received and made the following observations, giving JK a mandate to pursue certain of these as indicated.
The group considered one suggestion that, since the number of Fellows nominated from any one Society was limited to 10% of their members, and since the list of Fellows included many whom were either retired or otherwise inactive, there was a serious limitation on the numbers of new Fellows who could be elected. It was unanimously agreed that this was an important issue, although it had to be handled delicately. Terms such as ‘retired’ were ambiguous and others such as ‘inactive’ could be offensive. Two alternatives were thought possible, including ‘senior’ or preferably ‘Emeritus’. JK was asked to formulate a recommendation to the IUS-BSE that individuals be asked to confirm whether they wished to be transferred to Emeritus Fellow status, and that these would not be counted towards the 10% limit.
The group agreed a recommendation from DW that it would not be involved in organising conferences or meetings.
On the other hand, the group did feel that the most important role for the Fellows would be the facilitation of the internationalisation of biomaterials science education through short term exchanges. JK was asked to follow up this proposal, possibly using the new European Doctorate model, details of which would be provided to JK by DW. It was advised that we should keep clear of an ‘ accreditation’ system but use Fellows to facilitate exchanges through some ‘endorsement’ process. It was suggested that Fred Schoen may have some details of a previously discussed US scheme. The discussion of this option should include consideration of whether Institutions or Individuals should be involved.
The group agreed the College of Fellows would not become involved in the presentation of awards, at least in the short term.
It was agreed that the College should become involved in the support of biomaterials science in developing countries, this being done with diplomacy and more with respect to intellectual support rather than lobbying for financial support.
It was also agreed that the recommendation from Klaus de Groot to increase the visibility of the College of Fellows was important. In addition, the College did have a responsibility as an advocacy group, for example with international health care agencies such as the WHO and to support the biomaterials – based industries with respect to raising the public awareness of the successes of biomaterials science.
JK reminded members of his Draft By-laws, but time did not permit detailed discussion of these. These would be re-circulated to members for on-going discussion and consultation between and at the various meetings. It was hoped that these could be finalised for adoption at the time of the Amsterdam World Congress in 2008.
In drawing the meeting to a close, JK asked for volunteers to assist him with the work of guiding these discussions, and DW, Stuart Goodman, Young Ha Kim, John Ramshaw and James Kirkpatrick agreed to do this.
Professor D.F.Williams
Liverpool
May 1st 2005
May 16, 2000 - Kamuela, Hawaii
Minutes of the First Professional Meeting of the International Fellows of Biomaterials Science and Engineering
Meeting held on Tuesday, May 16, 2000, at Kamuela, Hawaii, in conjunction with the World Biomaterials Congress.
Convenor and Moderator: Andreas F. von Recum, Ohio State University
Panel: William Bonfield, Queen Mary and Westfield College, U.K.
Cameron Rolfe Howlett, University of New South Wales, Australia;
Teruo Okano, Tokyo Women’s Medical University, Japan;
Frederick Schoen, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, U.S.A.
Invited delegates in attendance:
Eugene Lautenschlager, Northwestern University, U.S.A.;
Takao Yamamuro, Kyoto University, Japan;
Yao-Ting Yu, Nankai University, China (PRC);
Xingdong Zhang, Sichuan University, China (PRC);
Sam Hulbert, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, U.S.A.;
Jack Lemons, University of Alabama at Birmingham, U.S.A.;
Peter Revell, Royal Free and University College Medical School, UCL, London, U.K.;
Larry Katz, Case Western Reserve University & University of Texas-Houston Medical School, U.S.A.;
Karin Caldwell, Uppsala University, Sweden;
Robert Baier, University at Buffalo, New York, U.S.A.
Bengt Kasemo, Chalmers Technical University, Sweden;
Wenter Dhere, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands;
James Kirkpatrick, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany;
Paul Ducheyne, University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A.;
Jan Feijen, University of Twente, The Netherlands;
Sung Wan Kim, University of Utah, U.S.A.;
J.E. Davies, University of Toronto, Canada;
Nicholas Peppas, Purdue University, U.S.A.;
James M. Anderson, Case Western Reserve University, U.S.A.;
YoungHa Kim, Korea Institute of Science and Technology, Korea
Harold Alexander, Orthogen Corporation, NJ, U.S.A.
Dr. von Recum opened the meeting, welcoming all those present. He then invited the members of the Panel to each comment on their views of Biomaterials education today, and the potential benefits of creating a College of biomaterials specialists, whose members together might help create a biomaterials curriculum of universal applicability.
Dr. Okano emphasized the Fellows’ responsibilities as stewards of the discipline, and outlined his views on what a Biomaterials curriculum should contain.
Dr. Schoen stressed the need to balance the three different components of Biomaterials Science, namely the Engineering Sciences (materials, mechanical, chemical, electrical, etc.), the Biological/Medical Sciences (anatomy, cell/molecular biology, pathobiology, immunology, etc.) and the Practice, i.e. its Clinical and Corporate aspects. He stressed the desirability of a modular approach to teaching this discipline, with considerable attention given to problem solving and case studies. In his view, the group should carefully evaluate how much biology should be incorporated in the training of future biomaterials specialists. He also suggested that a valuable service might be rendered if the group could collect clinical and corporate documentation and make it available through electronic channels.
Dr. Howlett stressed the need for networking to best accomplish the delicate task of mixing materials students with students of the biological disciplines.
Dr. Bonfield reported that Cambridge University now is implementing a new biomaterials curriculum at the undergraduate level, whereby students enrolling in the Natural Sciences program can select Biomaterials Science as one out of three areas of in-depth studies, the others being e.g. chemistry and physics.
To guide the formation of a College of Fellows, he has procured copies of the Articles of the Royal Academy of Engineering. Based on these, he suggested formulating the purpose of this group as follows:
The aim of the International College of Fellows is to pursue, encourage, and maintain excellence in Biomaterials Science and Engineering.
He stressed that the purpose of the organization would best be formulated in a small committee, whose creation should be an important outcome of the present meeting.
A general discussion followed.
Dr. Katz stressed that the interdisciplinary nature of the subject necessitates group teaching. This form of education is generally resented by the students; although they like the level of expertise it brings, they tend to strongly dislike the resulting diversity in teaching styles. One mission for this group might be to help in the integration of the different parts of a biomaterials curriculum.
Dr. Schoen agreed that it requires good coordination, and Dr. Katz suggested that syllabi publicized on the Internet would be most helpful.
Dr. von Recum pointed out that education was but one issue that the College ought to address..
Dr. Baier reiterated Dr. Okano’s notion of stewardship over the discipline, while Dr. Kasemo, returning to the issue of curriculum development, stressed the importance of personal contacts, in addition to electronic communication, in order to develop the discipline. Dr. Ducheyne called for better information about the various programs offered at different universities around the world, stressing that it is human nature to opt to teach ones own specialty, and that information about colleagues’ syllabi might provide a useful supplement in the course design.
Dr. Peppas voiced the opinion that there was no need for an international fellows group. The US Biomaterials Society already performs the duties discussed here. He also stressed the need to recognize that the future lies with the thirty-five year olds, and not with this group of “Old Boys”.
In countering this, Dr. Hewlett stressed the importance of forming an international group, while Dr. Yamamuro suggested that a group of more senior researchers can offer perspectives on general aspects such as the cost-effectiveness of the education. In addition he wished to see video films developed for all levels of education, from the most introductory to the cutting edge. Dr. Lemons pointed to the fact that the instruction in Biomaterials is woefully inadequate in most veterinary, medical, and dental professional training programs.
Dr. Revell feared that the group might be getting too mired in details. He wished to see us as sources of inspiration for the younger generation and warned against becoming an Old Boys Club. This opinion was seconded by Dr. Kirkpatrick, who suggested that efforts be made to inspire a segment of today’s cadre of expert molecular biologists to move into fields closer to ours, such as Tissue Engineering and Drug Targeting. Dr. Feijen reported that Engineering education in Holland has undergone a recent revision. In the new training program, students spend their first two years being educated in general engineering disciplines. The third year is a year of differentiation, while the fourth and fifth years are devoted to a specialization, which can include Biomaterials science. He expressed great interest in the modular training program outlined by Dr. Schoen. One mission for a College of Fellows should be to activate young scientists and inspire them to work in the Biomaterials field. This should involve a curriculum dialogue with the students.
Dr. Katz reminded the group that the US government recently had granted funds for the development of a medical curriculum in Thailand. In his opinion, a group such as ours might be quite effective in developing biomaterials programs in other parts of the world.
This concluded the general discussion.
Dr. von Recum then took a vote on whether or not to formally create a College of Fellows. The vote was by the raising of hands, and was unanimously in favor such a creation. Abstentions were not counted.
The US Society of Biomaterials has made clear that it does not wish to have responsibilities for the nomination of Fellows. Similarly, the UK Society wishes to refrain from making such nominations, as communicated by Dr. Revell, who also suggested that nominations be made by this College every 4 years.
Dr. Anderson proposed that the College be represented by a “Chairman” – as opposed to a “President”. This was seconded by Dr. Bonfield, who warned against the formation of a complicated bureaucracy, but recommended that the chairman be assisted by a secretary. Together, these two should assemble a working committee to assist in developing a productive format for the College.
Dr. Anderson further proposed Dr. Feijen as candidate for the Chairmanship and Dr. Okano as Secretarial candidate. The two declared their willingness to serve. No other candidates were nominated, and their election was unanimous.
Dr. Feijen then thanked the Fellows for their confidence in him, and the meeting was concluded.
Minutes taken by Karin Caldwell, as per request by Dr. von Recum |
|
