WHAT WE HAVE DONE
As detailed above, we have chosen to restrict the scope of our Ethics Committee activities to the conference itself, namely its community of stakeholders: participants, organizers and service personnel. We therefore aim to make recommendations for an acceptable code of conduct:
- For the decision-makers (e.g., selection committees, reviewers, etc.)
- For the users (on-site participants and remote participants)
For each item we have tried to devise an appropriate set of recommendations – or enforce a code of conduct where deemed necessary – that ensures that our practices reflect our values toward each other, in particular:
- Respect for each person with regard to values such as Fairness, as well as Inclusivity toward the actors within our community who have traditionally been unfairly marginalized
- Transparency and Accountability
These are the topics that we have identified as being within our scope :
- Recommendations regarding personal data collection
- Selection criteria for the content of the scientific program of the conference
- On-site code of conduct
- …
Recommendations regarding personal data collection
Why do we collect personal data
In a spirit of self-improvement, and in order to enable the ICC to track its progress over time with regard to aspects that are deemed important (e.g., accessibility, bias toward segments of our community, etc.), it appears to be appropriate to collect data from participants and from submitting authors.
How do we collect personal data?
We have made a unanimous decision to collect information on a strictly voluntary basis.
How will we use your personal data?
The anonymized data will be publicly accessible here after the conference. It will be officially presented to the IACS board and transmitted to the next ICC chairmanship in order to contribute to the monitoring of progress, transparency and accountability.
Attention to the CO2 footprint of the 18th ICC
Our commitment to be sensitive to the issue of CO2 emissions also raises ethical questions.
Why have a large conference at all?
One could raise the question of why there should be a very large scientific gathering at all. We believe that in-person exchanges within the community help forge bonds and collaborations and therefore improve the overall science that we collectively produce. We therefore believe that the existence of such a gathering - a relatively rare opportunity, which occurs every four years, is capable of attracting a very wide cross-section of the community, and is recognized as a “high point” for the catalysis community - is still very valuable.
Including valuable on-site experiences to make travelling more worthwhile
For example:
- by promoting PL and KN speakers to interact with participants throughout the entire conference
- by including program events that are best appreciated on site (round tables, short symposia, lively and extended panel discussions, exhibition events,…)
- ...
Selection criteria for the content of the scientific program of the conference
The construction of the scientific program for the ICC is a complex endeavor. It ranges from the choice of plenary speakers and session topics to the selection of orals and the nomination of chairpersons - to cite just a few examples - and entails thousands of evaluations performed by hundreds of actors. Here are recommendations we have followed in the aim of ensuring that the overall procedure reflects our values.
On avoiding biases
In order to counter recognized sources of injustice, we recommend that each decision-maker be exposed to training on selection bias mechanisms. The content proposed (e.g., video, text, etc.), along with the mechanism by which this exposure will be encouraged, monitored and enforced, is under review (e.g., pop-up text on biases before reviewing, explicit consent upon accepting to join the pool of referees?).
Selection criteria
The fairness of a selection procedure also relies on explicit criteria and processes known and agreed upon by the relevant bodies before the selection takes place. The following section contributes to these efforts in favor of transparency:
For plenary lectures:
The Steering Committee carries out the selection of PL, KN and Topics based on inputs from the IACS and the National Board. In March 2022, the Steering Committee recalled the ethical objectives to be remembered by IACS members when making nominations for lecturers and keynote speakers. The text was the following: “We would like you to remember the values of Fairness & Inclusivity when making nominations. We invite you to submit several nominations in order to better reflect the strength of our diverse community.” At the time of the selection meeting, the Ethics Committee did not have material to recommend for the training of decision-makers regarding unconscious bias. The recommended selection criteria for plenary speakers were:
- Significant contribution to their respective field.
- Representative of our communities (topic, geography, gender).
- Balanced selection between contributions that will mostly favor intergenerational transmission of experience with those that will showcase the emergence of new concepts and methods.
- Prior PLs are not considered for PL.