Scientific Advisory Board reports

Joint Task Force of the Defense Science Board and the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, Report on Acquisition of National Security Space Programs. Washington, DC Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. May 2003. 

The current accessible information from this company do not show any records on BDS activities, the most recent recorded event correspond to 2000 activities. On November 14, 2001, their report announced a restructuring process of the Company s Scientific Advisory Board, replacing members with scientists and physicians with experience in cancer, production of therapeutic proteins, preclinical development and clinical trials. That indication for a new orientation and focus to the health sector did not last enough, and soon after, the company disappeared from the SEC (and any other financial) listing. 

For a detailed discussion, see the report from the lUPAC Workshop, Impact of Scientific Developments on the Chemical Weapons Convention , Bergen, Norway, 30 June-3 July 2002, published in Pure and Applied Chemistry (official journal of the International Union of Pure and Apphed Chemistry), 74 12 (December 2002). See also the Note by the Director-General Report of the Scientific Advisory Board on Developments in Science and Technology , document of the First Review Conference, RC-1/ DG.2, dated 23 April 2003. 

Note by the Director-General. Report of the Scientific Advisory Board on Developments in Science and Technology, OPCW document RC-1/DG.2, 23 April 2003. 

Although not reflected in the Report or the Political Declaration, the report7 of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) prepared for the First Review Conference makes it clear that consideration was given to a number of scientific and technological developments. The Scientific Advisory Board made a number of observations ... 

The Scientific Advisory Board took up many of these themes in its report that was submitted to the Review Conference. The SAB inter alia noted that it ... 

Recalling that the issue of the reporting of ricin production was referred to the Scientific Advisory Board (Conference decision C-II/DEC.5, dated 5 December 1997), and that advice was received from the Scientific Advisory Board in this respect (SAB-II/1, dated 23 April 1999) ... 

Having considered the Note by the Director-General on the report of the Fourth Session of the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) (EC-XXTV/DG.2, dated 9 March 2001), as well as the technical considerations of the SAB on the relevant aspects of the applicable concentration limits for mixtures of chemicals containing Schedule 2Aand 2A chemicals (SAB-fV/l, dated 6 February... 

The Second Review Conference requested the Council, through a meeting of governmental experts open to all States Parties, to consider the report by the Scientific Advisory Board which the Director-General had forwarded to the Second Review Conference. 

The Second Review Conference noted that it is essential for effective verification that the Secretariat s approved inspection equipment remains up to date and that the list of such equipment can be adjusted promptly as items become obsolete. It requested the Secretariat to review the operational requirements and technical specifications first approved by the Conference at its First Session (C-I/DEC.71 and Corr.l, both dated 23 May 1997), seeking the advice of the Scientific Advisory Board, and to submit a report to the Council. 

Recalling that the terms of reference of the Scientific Advisory Board were hsted in the Final Report of the Preparatory Commission for the OPCW to the First Session of the Conference as an unresolved issue (paragraph 81 of PC-XVI/37),... 

The Director-General may dismiss any member of the Scientific Advisory Board for just cause, such as a breach of confidentiality, or a gross breach of the code of conduct detailed in Rule 8 above. In case of dismissal, the Director-General shall communicate in writing the reasons for the dismissal to the Board members, including the Board member concerned. Thereafter, the Director-General will report any such dismissal to the Conference of the States Parties, as appropriate. 

Government Grant Board. He received the Davy Medal of the Royal Society in 1948. For many years, he was a member of the select Royal Society Dining Club. Following the end of the 1939-1945 war, he continued his work for the Scientific Advisory Council of the Ministry of Supply, especially with the Chemical Engineering Committee. Fora period, he was a member of the Plants and Soils Committee of the Agricultural Research Council, and was a member of the Blackman Committee which reported on research and related matters for the natural-rubber industry. His work for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (D.S.I.R., later the Science Research Council) was of special importance here, he served on the Studentships Committee and as Chairman of the Chemistry Sub-Committee, and, during 1950-1955, he served as Chairman of the Chemistry Research Board. For several years, he acted as D.S.I.R. visitor to the Jute Industries Research Association, Dundee, and he was for a time a member of the Forest Products Research Board. 

U.S. Science Advisory Board, 1989. Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Report Review of the Lead NAAQS Exposure Analysis Methodology and Evaluation, Report No. EPA SAB-CASAC-89-018. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

By the end of the third assault, the nation s food safety programs were clearly dysfunctional. A 2009 report prepared for the Trust for America s Health concluded that the food safety laws had not kept pace with scientific advancements. . . and changes in eonsumer eulture. The report echoed a November 2007 report prepared by a subeommittee of FDA s Science Advisory Board, which concluded that the nation s food supply was at risk, because the agency s ability to provide its basie food system inspeetion, enforcement and rule-making functions had been severely eroded. ... 

The FDA Science Board (1) and the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science (2) discussions on the current state of pharmaceutical manufacturing, challenges faced, and opportunities for improvement are the primary basis of this report. Information gathered at several national and international scientific workshops provided examples of scientific and technological opportunities and afforded the opportunity to debate and develop a shared vision for the future. This vision is articulated as the desired state for pharmaceutical manufacturing in the 21st century. 

---