Reflections on Planning the Program for the
2005 IUPS Congress

Walter F. Boron, Yale University, New Haven, CT
Chair, US Scientific Program Committee
Chair, International Scientific Program Committee

The 2005 Congress is now, thankfully, in my rear-view mirror. But before the Congress fades completely from view, Shu Chien—the Chair of the National Organizing Committee (NOC)—has asked me to share my thoughts on the scientific program for the meeting.

My first involvement with the 2005 Congress came in 1998 when, as President-Elect of the American Physiological Society, I became one of the three APS representatives on the US National Committee of the IUPS (USNC/IUPS). This group, which is the interface between the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS) and the major American physiological organizations, had recently learned that it had received the bid to host the 2005 IUPS Congress. In 2000, the USNC/IUPS appointed a group of individuals, including me, to the newly formed NOC, and charged us with the multifaceted task of making local arrangements for the 2005 Congress. To me, the NOC assigned the job of chairing the US Scientific Programming Committee (USSPC), which would take the initiative in developing the scientific program for the Congress and play a key role in the execution of this program. According to the bylaws of the IUPS, the ultimate responsibility for developing the program would lie in the hands of the International Scientific Program-ming Committee (ISPC), which is appointed by the IUPS Council. The ISPC consists of the chairs of the IUPS Commissions as well as six representatives from the USSPC. As it turned out, in 2002 the IUPS Council, with Allen Cowley as President, appointed me chair of the ISPC as well, with Ole Peterson (Secretary General of the IUPS) as co-chair. Although it is impossible to perform the control experiment, I believe that the dual leadership role made it possible for me to do my job more effectively.
2001

The big switch. The original proposal to the IUPS called for the US to host the 2005 Congress in Washington, DC—in the heat of summer. In the spring of 2001, before the 2001 Congress in Christchurch, the Council of the APS, which would largely be responsible for funding the 2005 Congress, suggested that the 2005 IUPS Congress be moved to occupy the niche normally occupied by the APS at the annual EB Meeting, which in 2005 was scheduled to be held in San Diego. The rationale behind this shift was to minimize the odds that the 2005 Congress would be a major financial drain on the APS. There is no doubt that the proposal was bold and innovative. However, it was also controversial. The IUPS rightfully worried that it might lose its identity at an APS-style meeting. On the other hand, many in the APS were concerned because, in 2005, they would not have an annual meeting as such.

Once the IUPS approved the move to San Diego, the job of chairing of the USSPC became more complicated. From the outset, I had three goals for the scientific program: quality, quality, and quality. Because I had carte blanche in choosing the members of the USSPC, I was confident that my colleagues could assemble an exciting program. But could we sell this program to an ISPC with legitimate concerns about identity? And could we sell this program to APS Sections with legitimate concerns about losing their 2005 meeting? In fact, I actually had two jobs: 1) producing a high-quality program and 2) building trust between the IUPS and the APS Sections. The first would not be possible without the second. Thus, a major goal for me was to communicate with both groups and eventually to establish close and cordial communications between the two groups. It was my hope that we could blur the turf sufficiently that those with a stake in the 2005 Congress—the IUPS Council, the ISPC, the USSPC, and the APS Sections (whose meeting was being supplanted)—would forget which hat they were wearing and instead work together with each other to produce a successful scientific program. In the end, it worked nicely.

The APS Sections. Beginning in December 2001, I began a series of regular meetings with the APS Section Advisory Committee (SAC, which includes the chairs of each of the APS Sections), and with the APS Joint Programming Committee (JPC, which includes the programming representatives of each of the Sections). At the first meetings, I explained the mechanics of the programming process and the interaction of the USSPC with the ISPC. I also emphasized that the 2005 Congress was their opportunity to play host to their international colleagues, and that I hoped that traditional functions at the APS annual meeting (e.g., Section Dinners, Distinguished Lectures, Student Awards) would not only be retained but expanded to include international participation. Although the APS Sections had no formal standing with the IUPS, I urged them to get involved early in making suggestions for generating the scientific program within the official NOC/IUPS structure. I also pointed out that several APS representatives would be among the members of the USSPC, and at that first meeting announced the first such representative—Curt Sigmund, the incoming chair of the JPC. Finally, we agreed that it would be advantageous bringing together, as soon as possible, the IUPS Commission representatives and their counterparts in the APS Sections—establishing IUPS-APS communications. Although some misgivings remained, SAC and the JPC generally came out of those December 2001 meetings with a very positive attitude toward the 2005 Congress.

2002
I was fortunate to be able to recruit a small group of extremely talented scientists, with interests covering a wide range of physiological sub-disciplines, to form the USSPC (Table 1). A small subgroup would meet at the Lansdowne in January 2003 (see below) to forge the overarching philosophy of the meeting and also serve on the ISPC, thereby serving as a vital link between the USSPC and the ISPC. Because many in the subgroup had been colleagues of mine on the Editorial Board of Physiological Reviews, I reasoned that a healthy esprit de corps would develop quickly and that the group would work well with each other.

In 2002 a call went out to all national physiological organizations around the world, inviting them or their members to make specific suggestions for the scientific programming.
The APS Council. In April and again in November 2002, Shu Chien and I met with the APS Council to discuss our progress in developing the program

The APS Sections. In December 2002, I met again with the SAC and JPC.

2003

The Lansdowne Group. The small USSPC group met in January of 2003 in Lansdowne, MD. First, we decided that, in terms of meeting format (e.g., times and lengths of sessions, protected times for posters), the 2005 Congress would run like the APS portion of a typical EB meeting. The programming elements would be symposia (four 30-minute lecture slots), featured topics (one or two 30-minute lecture slots plus 10-minute presentations chosen from among the submitted abstracts), lectures, and posters. Our philosophy was that because we had only one chance to organize the meeting, we would use the program format that the APS had successfully honed over the preceding several years. Moreover, Martin Frank agreed that Linda Allen and her APS programming staff would provide the administrative support for the 2005 Congress. Without this able support, the scientific program would never have evolved as successfully as it did. We all owe a great deal of gratitude to Dr. Frank and Ms. Allen.
The USSPC Lansdowne group also decided to build the 2005 Congress around a number of tracks, each of which would revolve around an exciting area of physiology. A track would comprise a series of related sessions that would take the attendees on a journey that examined the scientific problem at the level of the proteins, comparative genomics, genetic manipulations, diseases, modulation or adaptation, integration at the level of the organ or whole animal, and environmental interactions. Because not all the important topics would neatly fall into a track, we estimated that perhaps 40% of the program would consist of free-standing sessions that were independent of the tracks.

In terms of meeting content, the USSPC Lansdowne group put considerable effort into identifying some of the most exciting areas of physiology—or that should be physiology. In addition, it generated the first iteration of a “wish list” of potential speakers for the Congress.
San Diego—The IUPS Council. In San Diego, just before the official start of EB 2003, Shu Chien, Curt Sigmund, and I met with the IUPS Council. We reassured them that the IUPS would play its proper role in organizing the scientific program for the 2005 Congress. Privately, I was counting on the blossoming of interpersonal relationships.

San Diego—The Mega-meeting. Also at the EB meeting, the ISPC (Table 2) met by itself, the USSPC met by itself, and then both groups met jointly with the IUPS Council and JPC attending as guests … perhaps 100 people in a small ballroom. It was at this joint meeting, I believe, that all parties—finally meeting face to face—established a camaraderie, took off their political hats, and began working with a single, unified purpose. Breakout groups—each consisting of ISPC, USSPC, and JPC working together members—initiated the long process of developing specific programming ideas for individual physiological disciplines. Personal relationships continued to develop as ISPC and IUPS Council members interacted with USSPC and APS members throughout EB 2003, both at scientific sessions and at Section meetings and dinners. The lines of communication were established, relations were most friendly, and at this point I was confident that we would succeed in putting together an excellent meeting.
 

One of the particularly refreshing aspects of the Mega-meeting was how the group decided to handle special lectures. The APS Sections sponsor 12 Distinguished Lectures each year, and the Society sponsors a few more, including the prestigious Cannon Lecture. The IUPS and some of its Commissions also have a tradition of sponsoring lectures, including the prestigious Fenn Lecture, at IUPS Congresses. Inasmuch as this was an IUPS Congress we were planning, the IUPS could have insisted that the APS lectures be dropped. Rather, the group decided to enrich the meeting by staging all but one of the APS and IUPS lectures. The lone exception revolved around August Krogh, after whom both the APS and IUPS had named lectures! The relevant parties decided to have a single joint Krogh lecture. For all of the APS Distinguished Lectures, the group decided that the lecturers would be chosen jointly by APS Sections (who would make several nominations) and their IUPS counterparts. The ISPC would make the final decisions. This process worked very smoothly.

The role of the JPC. At EB 2003, and refined at other meetings, we agreed that the JPC would play three crucial roles. First, like others worldwide, the JPC and the APS Sections that they represented would have the opportunity to make suggestions of specific scientific sessions for the 2005 Congress. The deadline for submission of these ideas would be in the late spring of 2003. Second, after these ideas had been submitted, the JPC would organize and evaluate the ideas at their annual June (2003) meeting in Bethesda. The results of their efforts, which formed the basis of much of the programming, were presented to the USSPC and the ISPC. Third, in June 2004, the JPC would “grid” the program elements, assigning each a room and a time. Finally, in December 2004, the JPC would assign the abstracts to sessions and, in consultation with the USSPC and ISPC, select from the abstracts the 10-minute presentations to be made as part of the Featured Topics.

The suggestions. Although the Mega-meeting in San Diego was a terrific start, we still did not have even the beginnings of a scientific program. In June 2003, the JPC, planned, organized and evaluated the programming suggestions that had come into the IUPS website from around the globe.

The Cluster Groups. I planned to convene a three-day meeting of the USSPC during the summer of 2003. Unfortunately, it was impossible to get even as many as half of this group together at one time, despite the expert help of Linda Allen. Therefore, rather than trying to hold a single, poorly attended meeting, we decided to hold a series of seven “Cluster” meetings—two in San Francisco, two in Chicago, two in Bethesda, and one in Boston—during the late summer and fall. The cluster groups consisted of members of the USSPC and—reaching out to the IUPS but still keeping costs under control—North American members of the ISPC. Each cluster group had, as the basis for its deliberations, a large binder that contained the suggestions that the JPC—with the skillful assistance of Ms. Allen—had so nicely organized as the result of their June meeting. However, the binder was only the beginning. At each meeting, the group began with a brainstorming session to produce a list of the hottest topics (e.g., feeding, fuel, and fat) in their particular sub-discipline (endocrinology and metabolism). The goal was to develop one or more themes around which we could build exciting track(s). In addition, we identified other important topics that would fall outside the tracks. At this stage in the planning, the groups were more interested in topics than particular speakers, although they identified a few key speakers. In some cases, the cluster group drew session suggestions from the binder. In others, the group merged two or even three suggestions to produce the session that it was looking for. In still other cases, the group generated sessions entirely de novo. In the end, each cluster group proposed more tracks and more free-standing sessions than we could afford to produce at the Congress. That would allow the ISPC to do some picking and choosing.

Lansdowne II: The IUPS Council & ISPC. In November, the IUPS Council and ISPC met in Lansdowne for three days to finalize the broad outline of the meeting. The most difficult job was to select the final tracks from a larger number, and to decide on the number of sessions per track. After much thought, the group reduced the number of tracks to less than ten. After second thoughts, the number ramped up to 15. The ISPC assigned one member of the ISPC, USSPC, or IUPS Council to act as the organizer for each track. With more or less six sessions per track and a limited number of Congress days and Congress meeting rooms, not to mention a non-infinite budget, the tracks put a squeeze on the number of free-standing sessions. Lansdowne II also finalized most of the special lecturers for the Congress. Of the 20 lecturers on the final program, 10 were international and at least two more had immigrated to the US.
2004

The LAX meeting. Even after Lansdowne II, our job was far from over. The tracks were set, and in some cases we had a clear idea of individual sessions. However, we needed to 1) reduce the number of sessions in most tracks; 2) finalize session titles; 3) decide whether individual sessions would be produced as symposia or featured topics, 4) select free-standing sessions (which had been ignored for lack of time at Lansdowne II), and 5) generate a list of speakers. These jobs were on the agenda of the final meeting of the USSPC, held at a hotel in the shadow of Los Angeles International Airport. We more or less completed items 1–4, although we continued to make adjustments for several months afterward.

The era of the Conference Call. With track organizers working independently, and in a seemingly endless series of conference calls, we gradually completed the work of adjusting the session titles and speakers, as well as inviting the speakers. The final program contained some sessions exactly as they appeared in the binder (i.e., as submitted by physiologists around the world), some sessions resulted from our combining two or more similar suggestions, some sessions came partly from the binder and partly from our own ideas, and some sessions that were entirely de novo. Those who submitted programming ideas—even if unrecognizable in the final program—should feel comforted that we examined them all, and that almost every one contributed something—either concrete or philosophical—to the final program.

Most of our work was completed by the end of April. However, minor changes continued for many months either because we had difficulty filling certain slots or because speakers reneged on their commitment. Some pessimistic colleagues—including one dear friend who occupies a particularly high position at the APS central office—had warned me that, because we had aimed so high in terms of speaker notoriety, we would experience a flood of “no-shows” at the Congress. This turned out not to be the case. To be sure, we had a few cancellations about a month before the meeting, and a few more last-minute cancellations due to illness. However, the attendance by the invited speakers was outstanding. I credit at least some of our success in this area to our outstanding USSPC—friends do not like to disappoint friends.

Our goal was to achieve a 50-50 ratio of American to International speakers, as well as a high ratio of female to male speakers. In the final analysis, we fell somewhat short of my goals on both counts, though not for lack of trying. I presume that it was because the Congress venue was far from both Europe and the Pacific Rim that we had a significantly lower success rate in convincing international invitees (vs. American invitees) to accept our invitations. We also had a lower success rate with female (vs. male) invitees.

The “gridding.” In June, the JPC assigned the times and rooms for each of the Congress sessions, using an outsized checkerboard created and continuously updated by Linda Allen.
The abstracts and featured topics. In December, the JPC—in consultation with the ISPC and USSPC—programmed the abstracts and selected from the abstract submissions the speakers who would fill the 10-minute slots in the featured topics.

2005
In late 2004, we finalized the listing of the tracks and other sessions on the web, with the expert help of Linda Allen at the APS office. In the months leading up to the Congress, we also developed a “cross-linked program” that identified all sessions that might interest Congress-goers with particular interests. For example, we created a schedule of all sessions that dealt with hypoxia, and another for genomics, and so on—a total of 21 such groupings. In the weeks leading to the meeting, along with Martin Frank and Linda Allen, we made last-minute improvements in the signage, including the signage in the hallways and in front of the meeting rooms.

And then the Congress happened. After being so deeply involved in the program, I wanted to attend every session. But, alas, I could see only a tiny fraction of the exciting science that I had heard so much about in the many planning meetings. The success of the scientific program at the Congress is the fruits of the labors of a long list of people—especially those in Tables 1 and 2, but also the IUPS Council, the APS Council, SAC, and JPC—who worked tirelessly and, for the most part, anonymously. For me, it was an honor to work with them, and I am touched that they gave so freely of their precious time. To them I offer my sincerest thanks. In addition, the scientific program of the Congress owes it success to the staff of the APS, most especially Martin Frank and Linda Allen. To them I also extend my thanks. And next time you need someone to organize the scientific program of an IUPS Congress, I urge you to contact one of my younger colleagues!
 

Peter Agre, Fenn Lecturer and Walter F. Boron, Chair, International Scientific Program Committee.

[Index] [Walter C. Randall Lecture] [Chapter News] [Section News] [Membership] [APS Membership Statistics] [Public Affairs] [Communications] [Experimental Biology 2006] [Positions Available] [Obituary] [People & Places] [Senior Physiologists’ News] [Scientific Meetings and Congresses] [APS Membership Application]