=========================================================================
Subject: Biophysical System Dynamics SIG
From: Rouwette, E.A.J.A. (Etiënne) < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 14:40:00 +0100
Dear Policy Council members,
At our last conference, in Washington, Jim Rogers and Ed Gallaher proposed to form a "Biophysical System Dynamics" SIG. We had a discussion on the extent to which this SIG-to-be would overlap with the Health policy SIG. I personally feel the topic areas are sufficiently different to support the formation of this new SIG. I would like to propose a vote but would like to hear everyone's ideas first.
We now have two weeks to discuss the proposal, after which the final version of the motion will be posted and we will have another week for discussion. Finally, there will be one week for voting.
Thanks,
Etiënne
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Biophysical System Dynamics SIG
From: David Lane < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 16:15:48 -0000
I think that it might be worth checking on who would be members iof the SIG, who its officers and who would propose and second the motion. Do we have this information in up-to-date form?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Biophysical System Dynamics SIG
From: Rouwette, E.A.J.A. (Etiënne) < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:57:40 +0100
Hello all,
The guidelines on the formation of a SIG ask for two leaders and at least six members that are members of the SD Society. Leaders are James Rogers and Edward Gallaher and the following nine members committed themselves (of which more than six are SD Socoety members):
1. Jim Rogers
2. Ed Gallaher
3. Louis Macovsky
4. Geoff McDonnell
5. Diana Fisher
6. Wayne Wakeland
7. Mark Paich
8. Ozge Karanfil
9. Craig Hocum
There is a six page report of the planning meeting of the proposed SIG, which includes a vision and proposed activities. I have listed these below. If anyone wants to see the full report I can ask Ed Gallaher if it is OK to send this.
Purpose:
Vision Statement: The Biophysical SIG will focus on understanding of the basic biomedical sciences (physiology, biophysics, pharmacology, biochemistry, and others), with three long-term goals in mind:
1. The development of a core set of models (and teaching materials) to serve as a foundation for the study of biological dynamics.
2. The incorporation of ST/SD into everyday practice within laboratory and clinical research environments.
3. The translation of resulting new insights into practical and effective clinical protocols.
Collaboration with the Health Policy SIG: The success of the previous goals will require careful consideration of administrative structures, current policies, individual skill sets (and attitudes), and the economics of experimental research and clinical practice. As a result, we anticipate close collaboration between the Biophysical and Health Policy SIGs.
Anticipated Initial Activities Subject to Conference Planning Meeting Results Documented Below:
Initiate a one-year series of exploratory focus groups via online web-meetings.
Monthly meetings (2 hours?) will focus on 3-4 major topics (TBD), discussed at 3- to 4-month intervals on an overlapping schedule throughout the year. Within each topic this schedule allows for the clarification of key issues, providing windows to explore and refine the issues, and to identify short-term action items and longer-term goals. Participants may choose to participate in one or more focus groups according to individual interests.
Examples include:
I. Development of an organizing framework within which to categorize classes of biophysical models.
II. Development of a set of basic structures that illustrate core concepts in biophysics, and biophysical ST/SD (similar to ‘molecules’ currently available in other areas of SD).
III. Development of introductory course materials (one quarter or one semester course; modified as necessary high school students, undergraduates, graduate and medical students, and post-graduate biomedical professionals).
a. 1 week: Why study ST/SD in biology and medicine? Examples…
b. 2 weeks: Overview of system dynamics principles (for biomedical students)
c. 2 weeks: Overview of core biological concepts (for system dynamics students)
d. 5 weeks: Application of ST/SD to biology and medicine. Examples of project development and case studies.
IV. Exploration and Development of Cooperative Initiatives with federal agencies (NIH, NSF, CDC, FDA, others?) and research foundations (American Cancer Society, etc.)
a. The ST/SD community can inform funding agencies with respect to the potential benefits of ST/SD in biology and medicine, criteria for evaluating exemplary modeling practice, realistic expectations, and the limitations (or boundaries) of the ST/SD approach.
b. Funding agencies can inform the ST/SD community with respect to emerging needs within the basic science, clinical medicine, and public health arenas. Additional information may serve to inform (and nurture) ST/SD practitioners with respect to grant strategies
c. A joint task-force with members from both communities can develop informational materials and training sessions for the research, clinical, and funding communities.
i. Within the funding agencies, staff members and review panels need to be informed about the potential of ST/SD. This knowledge will provide a basis for the development of RFAs (requests for applications), and the review and management of emerging research programs. (This inquiry should include critical comparisons of ST/SD with other modeling strategies such as agent-based modeling, data mining, statistical analysis, etc.)
ii. As this infrastructure takes shape within the funding agencies, similar workshops (satellite symposia; panel discussions; etc.) can be provided at major research and clinical conferences; presentations should include speakers from both the funding agencies and the ST/SD communities, and in time, investigators who have begun incorporating these strategies within their research programs.
V. Support for cross-platform software development.
a. Initiatives are already underway among the various developers of SD software to facilitate the transfer of models from one software package to another. These are innovative companies, but they are small companies with limited resources.
b. Similar approaches have been identified as priorities within NIH, NLM (National Library of Medicine), and other agencies, to leverage data- and knowledge-transfer and encourage collaboration.
c. The BPSD SIG might play a role in identifying funding support for this effort, thus mitigating the financial burden borne by the software developers.
VI. Integrating ST/SD Disciplines Within The Cultural Anthropology of Academic and Clinical Communities
a. Teaching institutions, basic science departments, clinical departments, non-academic health-care providers, research funding agencies, and federal health-care funding agencies (e.g. Medicare) each operate within their own cultures. How can the practice of ST/SD be incorporated into these cultures to provide long-term benefits (as opposed to ‘pilot studies’)?
b. For example:
i. How does a small research lab (6-8 people) function on a day-to-day basis? How is progress evaluated on a week-to-week basis?
ii. How are new concepts introduced, discussed, refined, and expanded?
5
iii. To what extent are dynamic processes evaluated in the experimental lab? Conversely, to what extent do research strategies ignore (obvious) dynamic questions due to lack of understanding, intellectual training, and tools?
iv. Could lab meetings be conducted using causal-loop and stock-and-flow diagrams?
v. To what extent might simulations guide the design of laboratory experiments? Might parameter values be examined via simulation, before running the (predictably) wrong (and expensive) experiments?
vi. To what extent might experimental results be interpreted in comparison to simulated predictions?
vii. To what extent might the conceptual framework of the research problem, experimental design, statistical analysis, and interpretation be organized within a ST/SD umbrella? Or stated differently, to what extent would the research endeavor benefit from a ST/SD ‘lens’, beginning with the grant proposal and review process, through the management of the laboratory, and in the presentation of the results in the professional journals?
c. Fundamental changes in the practice of biomedical research will not arise spontaneously due to the availability of a cohesive set of prototype models! To what extent can the Fifth Discipline (Senge, 1994) and The Dance of Change (Senge, et al., 1999) contribute to a deep-seated adoption of a dynamic mindset?
VII. Interaction with the Health Policy SIG: Biological Modeling Within the Clinical Environment
A fundamental goal of this SIG is to focus on the dynamic behavior of biological processes as opposed to issues such as resource allocation, economic viability, etc. For example, in our investigation of the basic science of anemia, we quickly learned, that applying the biological insights requires must include consideration of relevant policy and economic issues embedded within the surrounding environment. As a result, there will be relevant issues that will benefit from close collaborative between the Biophysical and Health Policy SIGs. We expect many members will choose to participate regularly in both groups.
Thanks,
Etiënne
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Biophysical System Dynamics SIG
From: David Lane < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 15:17:42 -0000
That is helpful. thank you.
David Lane
D. C. Lane BSc MSc DPhil FORS
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street, LONDON WC2 2AE, Britain
Tel: (UK)(0)20 - 7955 - 7336
Fax: (UK) (0)20-7955-6885
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Biophysical System Dynamics SIG
From: James Patrick Thompson < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 08:43:21 +0800
From my health systems experiences, a Biophysical SIG separate from Health Policy makes complete sense. The issues, audiences and investigational techniques are very different, even special.
Jim Thompson
James P. Thompson PhD | Health Systems Design Lab
Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School | Health Services and Systems Research
8 College Road, Singapore 169857
Cell: +65 9455 6630 | Tel: +65 6601 1362 | Fax: +65 6534 8632
Email:
http://www.duke-nus.edu.sg/web/research/faculty/thompson-james-patrick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Antwort: Biophysical System Dynamics SIG
From: Markus Schwaninger < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 15:44:34 +0100
Dear colleagues
Biophysics is in the domain of the material.
Health Policy is in the domain of the social.
Some people have tried to explain social systems in terms of physics, but these approaches were reductionist.
The two domains can be equated in terms of analogies or metaphors. However, for rigorous studies we need to look at each one of these domains in its specific terms. Therefore, in principle, two SIGS are needed.
Best,
Markus.
---------------------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Markus Schwaninger
Institute of Management (IfB)
University of St. Gallen
Dufourstr. 40a, 4. Stock
CH-9000 St. Gallen
E-mail:
Tel.: ++41 71 224 23 82
http://www.ifb.unisg.ch/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Antwort: Biophysical System Dynamics SIG
From: Yaman Barlas < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 19:12:22 +0200
Dear all,
I was present in one of the related meetings in D.C. Her is the essence of what I said/proposed in that meeting: Rather than creating a new SIG, I think it would be more productive/flexible/interactive to carry out the two types of medical-health research in a single SIG. To do this, the name of the current SIG (and its scope) should be changed to: Medical and Health Systems.
This way, there would be two 'unnamed' sub-interest groups in the M&HS SIG:
- Health Policy
- Biomedical
The advantage is that many natural beneficial interactions between the two groups can occur. And this way the total SIG membership would be large enough (hence never face a SIG meeting that can gather only 3-4 people!)
After a few years of trying, the two groups can separate if things do not work (but I think they will).
When I (and some others) argued for this approach in the meeting, many people seemed to support it. I am not sure what has happened since then.
thanks and best to all,
Yaman Barlas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Antwort: Biophysical System Dynamics SIG
From: Peter Hovmand < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 05:03:26 +0000
I think Yaman's suggestion makes a lot of sense for several reasons.
First, there is a major focus on individualized medicine that ties into more basic biomedical systems. Such examples include research on DNA risk factors related to various diseases and how individualizing treatment around DNA risk may improve population health. If the SIGs were separate, then we would miss important opportunities for seeing important connections between the two.
Second, I think bringing the two perspectives together in the same SIG encourages participants to explore and see what the relative contributions are between a more macro health systems perspective vs. a more micro oriented approach. I think this is essential to the field of system dynamics. It is not at all clear, for example, which population health problems are best solved by improving the health care delivery systems vs. improving our understanding of biophysical aspects of individualized care or the "long tail" distribution.
Peter S. Hovmand, PhD
Founding Director, Social System Design Lab
George Warren Brown School of Social Work
Washington University in St. Louis, Campus Box 1008
700 Rosedale Ave.
St. Louis, MO 63130 USA
Phone: (314) 935 7968
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Biomedical SIG Proposal
From: Rouwette, E.A.J.A. (Etiënne) < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:23:46 +0100
Dear colleagues,
Please see below for a clarification of the proposal on the Biophysical SIG by Ed Gallahar.
Thanks,
Etiënne
For everyone's sanity, I start with the conclusion, followed by two levels of supporting material.The ending material may be more than you want to know, but I believe illustrates the considerable difference between basic biomedical research and health policy issues.
(And thanks for your contributions to the governance and administration of the ISDS.)
---------------------------
The Issue:
There has been an ongoing discussion regarding the scope of the proposed Biomedical SIG and its relationship to the current Health Policy SIG.
---------------------------
My Conclusion (EJG):
ACTION ITEM:
To resolve this discussion and move forward with the purpose of the SIG, (assuming we have met the procedural requirements of the Society), I respectfully request that the SIG be approved as originally proposed.
One issue that has probably been overlooked is the following -- in addition to meeting the interests of current Society members, we are trying to create a SIG that will serve to bring a variety of biomedical professionals into the Society.
---------------------------
Conceptual Supporting Material:
As I understand it, a SIG is a collection of Society members that coalesces for the to pursue in detail a focused topic area within System Dynamics. The Society, appropriately, has identified a minimal set of guidelines for SIGs, and (appropriately) more stringent requirements for Chapters. Consistent with these guidelines, Jim Rogers and I submitted a proposal for the founding of a Biomedical SIG. (Discussions regarding Biophysical vs. Biomedical have been resolved in favor of the latter.)
At the first mention of the Biomedical SIG at the 2011 Conference there was an immediate response within the Health Policy SIG that these two groups could exist under one umbrella. For a variety of reasons neither Jim nor I were enthusiastic about this strategy. Later in the week we held an organizational meeting with about 15 attendees to discuss possible topic areas for future discussion. The issue of joining the Health Policy SIG was briefly discussed, again with no enthusiasm among the participants. Nevertheless, this issue continues to percolate among members of the Policy Council.
I am puzzled that individuals outside this (or any other) proposed SIG seem to be re-defining the scope of the ‘special interest’ itself. Shouldn’t this be left to the organizers, and, of course, the prospective members of the group?
I can understand the potential for overlapping interests, but Jim and I worked through this issue in detail before submitting the proposal, and we felt (and still feel) that there are significant reasons to keep the groups separate. We intend to participate in the Health Policy SIG, and would encourage interested members of that group to join us as well. But there are issues we want to address that may not be of interest to Health Policy members. Likewise, I am personally interested in selected Health Policy issues, but with limited time and resources my primary interest remains in the research lab rather than the political arena.
-----------------------------------------------------
Technical Supporting Material:
Overview of Selected Insulin Mechanisms: Implications for Diabetes
Since I am writing this for a System Dynamics audience, I ask you to read between the lines and consider the various rate constants, leverage points, feedback loops, endogenous delays, and dynamic behaviors.
• Insulin is synthesized and stored in the pancreas.
• Insulin release is stimulated by sensors that respond to increasing blood glucose concentrations.
• Following its release, insulin circulates throughout the body; it is removed from the blood with a characteristic time constant.
• Ligand-Receptor Binding:
• Insulin (a small molecule, or ligand) binds reversibly to a large (macromolecular) cell-surface receptor protein.
• The binding rate is influenced by the ambient insulin concentration.
• The un-binding rate is characteristically a first-order decay.
• The steady-state saturation of the receptor is a consequence of these rate constants, and circulating insulin concentration.
• The metabolic activity of the insulin receptor is proportional to the degree of saturation of the receptor population.
• The ultimate gain of this specific step is related to the absolute number of insulin receptors -- unless a subsequent down-stream process becomes rate-limiting.
• Insulin receptors are synthesized within many cell types throughout the body.
• The rate of receptor synthesis depends on the level of mRNA within the cell.
• Insulin receptors migrate to the cell surface (with a characteristic time constant), where they interact with circulating insulin molecules.
• Cell-surface insulin receptors have a characteristic lifespan.
• Receptor decay rates are often increased or decreased by ligand binding. Therefore, the steady-state receptor concentration may depend upon time-averaged insulin levels.
• Insulin Receptor mRNA
• Insulin receptor synthesis is (typically) rate-limited by the availability of the specific messenger RNA (mRNA) template.
• mRNA synthesis may be constitutive (constant), but is typically under the control of intra-cellular feedback control.
• mRNA has its own characteristic first-order decay rate.
• mRNA(t) will thus be influenced by the relative synthesis and decay rates.
• Insulin Receptor Activity and Second-Messengers
• Upon binding, the ligand-receptor complex initiates a cascade of events, described as a second-messenger cascade.
• Second-messenger cascades typically include several sequential steps, which serve to amplify the initial signal.
• Each step of the cascade turns on the next step.
• The duration of each signal typically depends upon its endogenous decay rate.
• The ultimate biological response is thus removed in space and time from the original insulin-receptor binding event.
• The biological response may (or may not) persist long after insulin itself has been cleared from the circulation.
• Glucose Transporters (GLUT-4)
• GLUT-4 is another protein within the cell, with its own synthesis and decay rates.
• GLUT-4 synthesis is influenced by GLUT-4 mRNA, with its own synthesis and decay rates.
• GLUT-4 resides in equilibrium between the cytoplasm and the cell surface, dependent on its characteristic forward and reverse rate constants.
• As a result of second-messenger activation, the GLUT-4 equilibrium shifts from the cytoplasm to the membrane.
• On the surface, GLUT-4 facilitates the diffusion of glucose from the blood to the cytoplasm, where it serves as the primary energy source for the cell.
• The decay rate of GLUT-4 may be different depending on its location (cytoplasm or cell surface). GLUT-4 levels may therefore depend upon glucose, insulin, insulin receptor, and second-messenger levels.
Yes, the obesity epidemic is of great concern. Obesity leads to high blood pressure and diabetes, which leads in turn to cardiovascular disease, blindness, and kidney failure.
However, as you can clearly see, the scope of analysis for the special-interest group we are considering is very different from the scope of analysis in the Health Policy SIG.
--------------------------------------
Respectfully submitted,
Ed Gallaher
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Biomedical SIG Proposal
From: Yaman Barlas < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 23:04:36 +0200
Dear all,
Thank you Ed Gallahar for detailed information.
Since I am one of the people who suggested that it would perhaps be a better idea to have the two SIGs under one umbrella, let me say a few things and then I will shut up.
- I have always been interested in Health modeling and more recently I have been doing and advising biomedical modeling. That is way I thought it would be appropriate for me to offer an opinion (having been invited to do so by an email that I received as a member of this PC list).
- The fact that we now have a strong biomedical/physical interest group is simply GREAT. I think it will be very useful for SD and outside world.
- On the other hand, for reasons that I listed already, I think it would be more productive/synergistic to have two related groups under one umbrella.
- My suggestion did specifically include renaming and enlarging the purpose of the existing SIG to Health and Medical modeling. (It would be inappropriate to include biomedical research in the current Health Policy SIG as is).
- Finally, if there will be a new and separate SIG, I think biomedical is a better name than biophysical. Biomedical is broader and the term medical is important, whereas biophysical is quite specific, with no apparent medical-disease-diagnosis-treatment orientation. (Since both terms are being used in these emails, I just wanted to touch this side point).
These are my personal opinions. They can of course be completely ignored. I hope I am able to convey them without upsetting anybody.
thanks and best wishes
Yaman Barlas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Biomedical SIG Proposal
From: Ed Gallaher < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 14:11:38 -0800
Yaman and colleagues:
Easy question first. --yes, BIOMEDICAL should replace Biophysical.
I appreciate your concern and consideration regarding out pending proposal - most importantly, I want to be clear that open discussion is highly desirable. The initial message from Etienne asked for 14 days of discussion, followed by 7 days to vote, and, of course, when invited to discuss, there should be no ruffled feathers as a result. 'Creative tension' perhaps, but we're all experienced in that arena, aren't we?
I understand your reasoning, including (by necessity) a possible name change. And, of course I respect your experience, your body of work, and your first-hand participation in both areas. (I loved the thyroid presentation!)
I still see advantages for two separate groups. I believe they will both flourish, and that advances on the research front will lead to significant advances in Health Policy. Conversely, HP concerns might very well be applied to research funding issues, which are no less important than applying the fruits of the research in the clinical setting.
We couldn't separate these overlapping issues if we wanted to (which we don't...). But I still favor separate SIGs!
One of my lifetime goals is to see SD incorporated into the very fabric of biology and medicine. SD could allow K-12 students exposure to concepts that are currently beyond reach. (I've done a lot of work with Diana Fisher, and we have proven this to be the case. )
Sent from my iPhone
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Biomedical SIG Proposal
From: Ed Gallaher < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 14:49:04 -0800
Cont:
Sorry! Pushed the send button prematurely.
SD in biology and medicine:
With the appropriate curriculum materials, SD could also provide a basic science foundation for undergraduate premed students. Then it should be possible for this training to carry seamlessly through graduate/medical school and into the laboratory and the clinic.
To accomplish this, I believe it is critically important to identify an effective entry point into the system. This perceived entry point is the individual lab director (principle investigator). He or she will typically have a lab group of 3-10 people, lab techs, students, and post docs. The PI is an entrepreneur, continually seeking 'venture capital' in the form of research grants. I believe a SIG focused at these influential decision-makers provides a real opportunity to change the game.
My goal is to attract a whole new and very important constituency into SD. The only hope for this is to create a SIG that speaks directly to this audience, very clearly and concisely, and with no peripheral 'noise'.
I want to very clear -- by no means do I believe the HP SIG to be ineffective, irrelevant, or anything of the sort.
However, the PI will have several very blunt, wholly pragmatic questions:
• Can I do this?
• What is the cost/learning curve?
• Is it worth the trouble? Will it really help me do better science?
• Can I get this work published?
• Will it help me get (or hinder) my next grant?
Believe me --Anything else is noise to this audience.
And for very good reason; the success rate for research grants varies from 10-25%, the competition being very dedicated, motivated, highly-productive M.D.s and Ph.D.s like themselves. They simply do not have the luxury of dealing with 'health policy' issues. An unfortunate state of affairs, perhaps, but realistic nonetheless.
I appreciate the opportunity to amplify my thoughts, and I hope this clarifies my seeming 'obstinance' over this issue.
Respectfully,
Ed Gallaher
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Biomedical SIG Proposal
From: Kim Warren < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 08:57:00 +0000
I have been watching this discussion, but not contributed because frankly I don't know enough about it, so as of today, the only honest position for me is 'abstain'. However, I respect and trust those involved so would *not *want this misinterpreted as "don't really like it, but suppose I'd best put up with it".
Sorry if I have foolishly missed something, but I have not seen a substantial paper explaining the case for this SIG, although the debate is certainly filling in the blanks [especially Ed's comments below]. The one piece of data that would get me strongly in favour would be a listing of those devoted to this SIG, and highlighting those *only* devoted to it.
With a couple of exceptions, some of the names I have seen so far are very busy with other things too, and a SIG made up of people who get dragged into other things seems likely to fall apart [I speak from disappointing experience of the Business SIG!].
Kind regards - Kim
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Biomedical SIG Proposal
From: Rouwette, E.A.J.A. (Etiënne) < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:08:22 +0100
Dear all,
Apologies for not sharing all information from the outset. There is a report on the first meeting of the SIG-to-be that is relevant to this discussion. I copied the mission and members from that in an earlier mail, but here is the full document.
Thanks,
Etiënne
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Voting on Motion #102
From: George Richardson < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 05:48:26 -0500
Dear Policy Council Members:
Electronic voting on motion #102: Nominations to fill out the Publications
Committee will be conducted via the Policy Council Menu. Please vote YES,
NO or ABSTAIN. Voting will open on Monday November 7, 2011 and close
November 15, 2011.
TO VOTE ON THIS MOTION:
1. http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb
2. Click on the button "Policy Council Menu"
3. Find motion and click on "details"
Motion by George Richardson, seconded by Kim Warren.
Formal Motion: As Vice President for Publications, I am forwarding to the Policy Council my nominations for terms on the Publications Committee. I move that the Policy Council affirm these appointments:
* Susan Howick, University of Strathclyde, to fill out the final year of the term of Rogelio Oliva, and to fill a three-year term of her own, 2013, 2014, 2015.
* Edward Anderson, University of Texas, to fill a three-year term, 2012, 2013, 2014.
Notes on Supporting Material: The full three-person Publications Committee will now consist of these two plus Etienne Rouwette, Radboud University Nijmegen, finishing his three-year term 2011, 2012, 2013.
NOTES:
- You can change your vote until the closing vote day.
- All votes are shown.
- All dates are midnight Albany time.
George P. Richardson
O'Leary Professor of Public Administration and Policy, and Informatics
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany, SUNY
518-364-6334
http://www.albany.edu/~gpr/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: No Subject
From: "Ford, David" < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:35:06 +0000
TO: System Dynamics Policy Council Listserv (Officers, Members and Other Interested Parties)
FROM: David Ford, President-Elect and Chair of the 2012 Winter Policy Council Meeting.
RE: Notification of Dates for 2012 Winter Policy Council Meeting
DATE: November 28, 2012
The Policy Council Meeting is open to all interested parties and you are welcome to attend.
Deadlines and Key Dates for the 2012 Winter PC Meeting:
Beginning of December: Posting of Preliminary Agenda, Call for additions to agenda and discussion items
December 22, 2011: Reports available on the PC Menu
December 23, 2011 - January 4, 2012: Online comments and discussion of reports
January 5, 2012: Face-to-Face Meeting (Boston area)
January 12, 2012: Motions posted on PC Menu
January 13 - 27, 2012: Online discussion of proposed motions
January 28 - February 12, 2012: Final discussion (one week) and voting (one week).
February 13, 2012: Meeting Adjourned
For the 2012 Winter Policy Council Meeting we will again use a combination of a face-to-face meeting and a subsequent electronic meeting. The purpose of the face-to-face meeting is to discuss administrative and open policy issues, and then refine and propose motions for the subsequent electronic discussion and meeting. All motions will be discussed and voted electronically after the face-to-face meeting.
The face-to-face portion of the 2012 Winter Policy Council Meeting will be held on Thursday, January 5, 2012 in the Boston area. I hope that as many of you as possible will attend.
In addition to the Policy Council meeting on Thursday I invite you to participate in a half day working session on a strategy for the ISDS, to be held on Friday morning, January 6th. Kim Warren has offered to lead us through part of a process that has been successfully used by an organization similar to the ISDS to develop a strategy. This working session will be the first of several interactions as part of developing a strategy. I hope to see you at this important meeting, as well.
The Society has a range of activities that its officers are administering and that will be dealt with at the meeting. However, I want all Society members to feel engaged with the governance of the Society. So, if you have any agenda items that you would like discussed or motions that will need a vote, please email them to me ( ) with a copy to Roberta Spencer (roberta@systemdynamics.org) as soon as possible (and by December 22) for inclusion in the face-to-face meeting.
Sincerely,
David N. Ford, President (2012)
reply to: office@systemdynamics.org
2012 Officers and Members of the Policy Council:
President: David Ford
President Elect: Kim Warren
Past President: David Lane
Founding President: Jay W. Forrester
Secretary: J. Bradley Morrison
Vice President Chapter Activities: Martin Schaffernicht
Vice President Electronic Presence: Robert L. Eberlein
Vice President Finance: David F. Andersen
Vice President Meetings: Andreas Groessler
Vice President Member Services: Etiënne A.J.A. Rouwette
Vice President Publications: George Richardson
System Dynamics Review Executive Editor: Rogelio Oliva
Policy Council Members Allyson Beall, Laura Black, Peter Hovmand, Florian Kapmeier, Rod MacDonald, Len Malczynski, Ignacio Martínez-Moyano, Markus Schwaninger, Lees Stuntz, Burcu Tan, Sylvia Ulli-Beer, Nicole Zimmermann
*************************
David N. Ford, Ph.D., P.E.
Associate Professor and
Urban/Beaver Development Professor
Zachry Department of Civil Engineering
Texas A&M University
Email:
Voice: 979 845 3759
LEED Green Associate
**************************
SYSTEM DYNAMICS SOCIETY
Milne 300, Rockefeller College
135 Western Avenue
University at Albany, State University of New York
Albany, NY, 12222, U.S.A.
phone (518) 442-3865 fax (518) 442-3398
E-mail office@systemdynamics.org
http://www.systemdynamics.org/