|
The 35th IUPS Congress held in
March 31-April 5, 2005, in San Diego, California, USA was a great success,
as a result of the marvelous joint efforts by many wonderful colleagues all
over the world and the enthusiastic participation by thousands of
physiological scientists. I feel extremely fortunate and grateful to be a
small part of this extremely meaningful event in international physiological
sciences. The 35th Congress was one of the most successful IUPS Congresses,
but the road to this wonderful and memorable event was rather winding and
there was a time when it was not certain whether the Congress would take
place in the United States in 2005. I would like to share my personal
experience of being a part of this marvelous event and to note how the
mutual trust and joint endeavors among international physiologists have made
possible the success of this Congress and started a renaissance of
international physiology.
At the 33rd IUPS Congress in St. Petersburg, the General Assembly accepted
the invitation presented by Stanley Schultz on behalf of US National Academy
of Sciences President Bruce Alberts to hold the 35th Congress in August 2005
in Washington, D.C. This set the stage for the IUPS Congress to be held in
the United States for the third time in its century-old history, following
the Congresses in Boston in 1929 and Washington, DC in 1968. At the St.
Petersburg Congress, 1997, I was elected as IUPS Treasurer (a four-year term
ending in 2001) and thus became a member of its Executive Committee (ExCo).
As Treasurer, I had the pleasure of working closely with other ExCo members:
President Ewald Weibel, Secretary General Denis Noble, First Vice President
Ernie Knobil (who unfortunately passed away in April 2000), and Second Vice
President Ramon LaTorre, as well as the Executive Secretary Sue Orsoni. We
worked together on a number of matters, including the resolving of the
financial difficulties of the St. Petersburg Congress.
Following the 33rd Congress in St. Petersburg, Tony Macknight, Chair of the
34th IUPS Congress, and his colleagues worked very hard in preparing for the
Congress to be held in Christchurch in 2001. In the mean time, planning also
began for the 35th Congress in the United States. A US National Organizing
Committee (NOC) for the 2005 Congress was formed under the auspices of the
US National Committee (USNC) on IUPS, with Virginia [Ginger] Huxley as
Chair, of the National Academy of Sciences. USNC and NOC are composed of
representatives from six Societies related to physiology, viz., the American
Physiological Society (APS), Society for Neurosciences, Society of
Comparative Physiology, Society of General Physiology, Biomedical
Engineering Society, and Microcirculatory Society, with APS as the lead
Society for NOC and Allen Cowley as the Chairman. Under Allen’s leadership,
the theme of “From Genomes to Functions” was adopted as the theme of the
Congress. In May 2001, however, Allen Cowley was nominated to be the next
IUPS President to succeed Ewald Weibel.
As a result, I was elected by NOC (of which I was not a member at that time)
to be its Chair to replace Allen, and the notice of this election was sent
to me by email on July 8, 2001. On July 10, I received from APS Executive
Director Martin Frank a nicely prepared Prospectus for the 2005 Congress to
be held in Washington, DC in August 2005. I replied saying that “The 2005
Congress will be a very exciting one. We must take advantage of the New
Zealand Congress and transmit fully that excitement, both scientifically and
socially (including all the attractions in the DC area and vicinity, as you
so ably portrayed.“
On July 15, 2001, however, I received an email sent by Marty Frank to Allen,
Ginger, Walter Boron (US Scientific Program Committee Chair for the 2005
Congress), and me that the APS Council had just decided to have the 2005
IUPS Congress moved to San Diego in April to coincide with the Experimental
Biology meeting (EB 2005). The reason for this decision was to avoid
splitting the attendees from the physiology community for the two meetings
in the same year less than four months apart. Marty also informed us that
APS President John Hall and President-elect Barbara Horwitz wanted to set up
a conference call on July 18 to discuss the 2005 IUPS Congress. In reading
this email, I realized immediately that, while the proposed change is based
on good reasons, it would encounter many difficulties in receiving approval
from our international colleagues because of the potential perception that
the IUPS Congress (with an attendance of not more than 3,000 in recent
Congresses) would be overwhelmed by the larger EB meeting (often more than
10,000).
Although this proposal could be presented to the meetings of the IUPS ExCo,
Council, and General Assembly in Christchurch in August 2001, the one-month
period would not have been sufficient lead time for adequate deliberation in
order to obtain a positive reaction. Since I was still serving on the ExCo
and have been working closely with its members, I decided to phone Ewald and
Denis right away because I felt that it would be much better to speak with
them directly rather than using emails for such a difficult matter.
Fortunately, I was able to reach both of them by phone on July 16.
Ewald was naturally surprised by this sudden change. After considerable
discussions, during which I explained the benefits of avoiding the split of
attendance and interacting with other disciplines in experimental biology
that were offsprings from physiology, he began to feel that there might be
positive aspects in this proposed change. He sent me an email on July 19
saying that he believed that it was a good strategy to combine the American
Physiology meeting with the IUPS Congress as it would ensure the
participation of the local physiologists. So in that sense he would approve
this in principle. While he had some concerns, Ewald said that if a good
scheme could be worked out it could be successful and that there might be
the fringe benefit of having some non-physiologists exposed to physiology.
But he rightly wanted it to be clear that IUPS 2005 would not simply be a
small corner of the big EB 2005. He said that the change in time from August
to spring should be no problem, but the change in location from Washington
to San Diego would have to be justified, because the US invitation, which
was accepted by the General Assembly in 1997, was built strongly on the new
Washington Convention Center. He did note, however, that UK and NZ also
changed the Congress locations in 1993 and 2001, respectively. He gave the
valuable advice that we present this as a new option for approval, but not
as a fait accompli.
It was very fortunate that my phone call to Denis on July 16 caught him just
in time before his leaving for a trip. I presented the proposal of changing
the venue and time to him. After some thoughtful discussions, Denis was in
favor of holding the meeting in San Diego in April. His main concern was
also the identity of IUPS. He would not like to have the international
community to have the conception (or misconception) that IUPS would become a
subset of American Physiology.
I was not able to reach Ramon LaTorre until July 24. Ramon and I also had a
fruitful discussion. His reaction was similar to that of Denis. He felt that
overall the pluses override the minuses, but he would like to give this more
thoughts and then contact me later. The major issue he brought up was again
the identity of IUPS, and he wanted to be sure that the role of IUPS would
not be lost in the process. Thus, the three IUPS ExCo members all felt that
it was feasible to make the change, but, as I expected, there was a great
deal of concern about the identity of IUPS in a larger crowd at the EB
meeting.
While I was discussing this matter with the IUPS ExCo members, Marty
contacted the EB office and the Executives of some FASEB Societies who would
participate in EB 2005 and sent emails to NOC members. Geri Swindle of the
EB Meeting Management Office said that it would be possible to hold the
Congress along with EB and have a separate headquarter hotel assigned to
IUPS. Two of the Society Executives contacted did not have objections but
pointed out some of the potential difficulties. Most of the NOC members were
in favor of the shift of IUPS 2005 to San Diego in April, but two members
strongly disagreed with these proposed changes because of their concern of
the adverse reactions by the international physiological communities.
During the APS teleconference call on July 18, 2001, I reported my
conversations with Ewald and Denis, and Marty reported his communications
with the EB office, FASEB Societies, and NOC societies. Following extensive
discussions, the consensus was to do everything possible to assure the
identity of the IUPS Congress by starting it ahead of and then in
conjunction with EB in San Diego in April 2005. It was concluded that, while
there would be difficulties, they were not insurmountable. The pluses of the
proposed change include a better attendance, the planning of a single
meeting in 2005, the attraction of participants from the sister EB
societies, a pleasant venue with an amenable climate, easy accessibility for
participants from the Pacific rim, and the availability of a large exhibit.
The minuses include the potential impressions by the international
physiology community that the EB meeting might overwhelm the IUPS Congress
and by the EB sister societies that this would be only a Physiology meeting.
Other factors are that schools would be in session and that the West Coast
is less accessible from Europe. The results of the teleconference were
summarized by an email sent by Ginger to the leadership of the six Member
Societies of the USNC for comments and suggestions.
Based on the concerns about the IUPS identity, as expressed by the ExCo and
some NOC members, I made the following statement in my July 24 email to NOC.
“I think it is time for us to be magnanimous and be willing to say that we
will NOT have an APS meeting as such and that we throw all our support to
the IUPS Congress, which deals with the same science anyway. We should start
the Congress 1 1/2 to 2 days ahead of the EB to hold the opening ceremony,
some special lectures, workshops, etc., and start the regular symposia and
poster sessions together with EB. As far as the relationship with EB is
concerned, we can proceed in the regular way, but the banners and printed
materials must say only IUPS. APS can still have its various functions,
including the Section Distin-guished Lectures, etc., but APS should be
big-hearted enough to label the regular sessions IUPS. APS will not lose
from this, but rather it will gain a tremendous amount of good will and
appreciation from the international community, which is more precious than
APS gaining any direct billing.” On July 25 I sent an email to Marty saying
that “I understand some of the difficulties involved in emphasizing IUPS and
putting APS more in the background, but we must do as much as we can toward
that goal. The principle is to give the international physiology community a
clear sense that IUPS Congress is not a subset of the EB Meeting. I am sure
that the IUPS Congress will bring better science and more scientists to the
EB meeting in 2005. It is a win-win situation, and EB and IUPS should be
partners for the betterment of science.”
Following the July 18 teleconference and many email exchanges among the
participants, Marty drafted a proposal to the IUPS for the United States to
host the 35th Congress in San Diego in April instead of Washington, DC in
August 2005. I made a number of revisions to further emphasize the identity
of IUPS (while holding the Congress with an overlap with EB) and the
benefits of the interactions with sister disciplines. I also made it clear
that this was only a possible alternative (i.e., not a fait accompli) to the
original proposal for the IUPS ExCo, Council, and General Assembly to
consider for approval. We did not want to have this perceived as a
unilateral decision, but rather as a proposal to the IUPS leadership, who
clearly has the ultimate authority to make the decision. This proposal
received the enthusiastic support of USNC Chair Ginger Huxley and most of
its members, but several members expressed their concerns, particularly with
respect to the question of the identity of IUPS.
Our proposal was submitted to the ExCo, Council and General Assembly of IUPS
on July 31, 2001. It met with considerable opposition, with most of the
email responses being negative, including suggestions of moving the Congress
from the US to Canada, which was a close second in the 1997 voting by the
General Assembly on the 2005 Congress site. In response to these messages,
Ewald sent an email to the ExCo members on August 9, saying that “My
concerns about the US proposal are rising.” Then, with the consent of the
ExCo, he sent an important message to IUPS Council on August 10, making the
following points regarding the proposal: “(1) It appears as an interesting
proposal to expand the spectrum of the physiological sciences … in EB. (2)
The chief concern is that the proposal … may not safeguard the identity of
the IUPS Congress, for two reasons: (2a) The actual IUPS events are limited
to two days. …., after which the IUPS Congress becomes part of EB. (2b)
There will be no specific registration for the IUPS Congress whereas all
participants will have to register for the EB meeting.” He asked the Council
members “to look at these questions carefully and to also consider the
consequence this new proposal will have on IUPS as an institution in the
long run.”
Ewald’s message was received about a week before Allen Cowley and I were to
depart for the New Zealand Congress. In the ensuing days, we had several
telephone conversations with APS President John Hall, discussing with him
the importance of assuring the identity of IUPS if the 2005 Congress were
held in conjunction with EB. John made the important decisions of making ALL
2005 San Diego physiology sessions as IUPS instead of APS events and
requiring all APS and its guest society members to register through IUPS.
Given these new directions, I further revised the proposal to move the 2005
Congress to San Diego in April during my flight to New Zealand. This new
revision included the following key points:
1. Registration for IUPS Congress will be clearly identified for all
participants. APS will require all of its members to register through the
IUPS.
2. The scientific program in physiology during IUPS 2005 (and EB 2005) will
be that set up by the IUPS prepared by the International Scientific Program
Committee.
3. Meeting
a. IUPS will have its headquarters at a top-level hotel adjacent to the San
Diego Convention Center. On March 31 and April 1, IUPS will be the only
meeting. On the ensuing days, IUPS Congress will have its own separate site
and clear identity, and yet is close enough to others for interdisciplinary
exchange.
The IUPS poster sessions, i.e., all physiology posters, will be positioned
in a clearly identified area with definitive indication that they are the
IUPS posters. They will be set up in such a way that the world physiological
community can meet in that area for exchange of information.
I arrived in Christchurch in the afternoon of August 21. That evening Ewald
invited Denis, Ramon, Allen, Sue Orsoni, my wife K.C. and me to have a drink
in his suite in the Parkroyal Hotel, and then we had dinner together. Allen,
who was sitting next to Ewald and Sue, told me after the dinner that it did
not seem likely that we could get the proposed change approved. I arranged
to have breakfast with Denis the next morning to review the proposed change
for the 2005 Congress. Denis agreed with the rationale for the change, but
felt that it was a difficult proposition to get approval and likened it to
walking on a tight rope. He and I agreed that we would have to do everything
right in order to succeed. I then spoke to Ewald and to Ramon about this.
During the ExCo meeting on August 22 we first discussed many of the other
IUPS agenda items, including budget, etc. The 2005 Congress was on the
agenda for the next day, but Ewald decided to bring it up that afternoon. I
presented the revised proposal that would assure the identity of IUPS, and
it was generally well received. The discussion continued on the next day,
and by the end of the ExCo meeting there was a consensus that the new
proposal represented a workable solution. I was extremely pleased that Ewald
asked Denis to draft a memorandum of agreement between IUPS and USNC to be
signed by Ewald and Ginger, covering these points. Denis prepared a draft
memo based on the document that I had prepared for the ExCo. Ginger arrived
in Christchurch on August 23 and I briefed her about the situation and gave
her the memo to be signed prior to the deliberation of this matter by
Council at its meeting on August 24-25.
Originally, the 2005 Congress was an agenda item to be discussed at the
Council meeting on August 25 in the morning, followed by the 2009 Congress
site selection. Ewald felt rightly that, in order to allow sufficient time
for Council to deliberate on the proposed changes in venue and time of the
2005 Congress, this issue should be brought up at the Council meeting in the
afternoon of August 24. Ewald invited Ginger, Marty, and Wendy White of the
National Academy of Sciences to also attend the Council meeting when this
2005 Congress was to be discussed. Marty arrived in Christchurch in the
morning of August 24, and I was able to arrange for Ginger, Allen, Wendy,
Marty and myself to meet immediately after his arrival. I went over the
recent developments. With Marty’s input, we were able to incorporate in the
memorandum the financial arrangements, i.e., USNC/APS will allocate 5% of
the registration fee to IUPS, as well as $100,000 or 25% of net profit,
whichever is greater. I did everything I could, including running back and
forth between the meeting room and the business office in the hotel for
revisions, printing, and photocopying, in order to have the memorandum ready
for signing prior to the IUPS Council meeting. I was pleased that Ewald
approved this memorandum, which was signed by him and Ginger in the morning
of August 24. At lunch time on August 24, I went over with Ginger, Marty and
others the Powerpoint presentation on our alternative proposal, which
incorporated all the key points of discussion, as well as slides on the
Convention Center, hotels, and other attractive features in San Diego. This
presentation was initially prepared by Marty, and I continuously worked on
it, prior to leaving San Diego, during the flight, and in Christchurch.
In the afternoon of August 24, I made the presentation on the alternative
proposal to Council. The members had several questions, mainly focused on
the identity of IUPS and the mechanics of having the Congress overlapping
partially with EB. At the end, they were satisfied with the answers. In the
morning of August 25, I was very pleased that Council voted unanimously to
approve the alternative plan. This was a critical step that positioned us
for the General Assembly meeting to be held on the next day.
During the General Assembly meeting on August 25, Ewald gave an opening
statement that summarized the events leading to the alternative proposal and
stated that this proposal had received careful considerations by the ExCo
and Council. He distributed the memorandum he signed with Ginger to the
members of the General Assembly so that the members could understand the
conditions involved. Ginger made an excellent presentation on the
alternative proposal, using a further updated version of the Powerpoint
document. There were a few questions from the floor, which Ginger answered
very well. Denis made a superb summary of the actions taken by the ExCo and
Council on this proposal. A secret ballot was taken, and our alternative
proposal received an overwhelming endorsement by the General Assembly with a
vote of 71 for and 3 against. This greatly exceeded our expectation!
Having received the IUPS approval, we next needed the approval by the EB
Board to implement this joint effort. The Chair of the EB Board was Paul
Insel, Professor of Pharmacology at UCSD, and I was able to discuss this
issue directly with him. He was supportive of the idea of holding the IUPS
Congress in conjunction with the EB meeting in 2005 and invited Marty and me
to meet with the EB Board on January 24, 2002 at the FASEB headquarters in
Bethesda, MD. I contacted the other five members of the Board by phone prior
to the meeting and sent them an email message on January 2, 2002, outlining
the proposal. At the meeting on January 24, I made a presentation to the EB
Board, emphasizing the mutual benefits of the proposed joint venture. After
some questions and answers, the Board enthusiastically endorsed the holding
of the IUPS Congress in conjunction with the EB 2005 Meeting in San Diego in
2005. Paul communicated to me in writing the endorsement by the Board and
the Board’s view that this would be a great opportunity and an excellent
precedent, and that this should be a win-win situation. He also transmitted
the comments and suggestions by the Board on the mechanics of the meeting,
which was satisfactorily addressed by the NOC at its meeting on April 24,
2002. Paul said in this collection of Congress articles, “Did the experiment
work? From my personal point of view and that of those with whom I have
spoken, including scientists who have interests that focus on either EB or
IUPS, the answer is unquestionably ‘yes’. I hope that this success
encourages other international scientific congresses to consider joint
meetings with Experimental Biology—perhaps even IUPS at some future time!”
After the approval by both IUPS and EB, we began to work on the planning of
the Congress in San Diego to be held in conjunction with EB. The NOC met
regularly for planning of the Congress and addressing the various relevant
issues. Several subcommittees were formed. These include the Scientific
Program Committee (chaired by Walter Boron), Fund Raising Committee (chaired
by Gabe Navar and Bob Gunn; unfortunately Bob became ill after the
appointment and passed away shortly after the Congress), and Local
Organizing Committee (chaired by Frank Powell). Marty, working with Gabe,
did a marvelous job in fundraising, getting the support by the constituent
societies of USNC, by the members of these societies, especially APS, and
from industry. With their relentless efforts, generous corporate
contributions were obtained from scientific organizations, academic
institutions, IUPS adhering bodies, US government funding agencies, private
foundations, and industrial and publishing firms.
Scientific programming is one of the most important aspects of the Congress.
The US Scientific Program Committee (USSPC) was first established, with
Walter as the Chair, and he assembled an outstanding committee composed of
leaders in physiology in the US. The IUPS ExCo needed to form an
International Scientific Program Committee (ISPC), which would be composed
of 18 members, with six from the host country (i.e., from USSPC). In the
1997 Congress, Stan Schultz was the Chair of the ISPC and he was the leader
for the programming at St. Petersburg. For the 2001 Congress, Rainer Gregor
was the Chair of the ISPC; unfortunately, he was struck by lightening while
riding a bicycle shortly after the Program Committee meeting in 1999, and
this led to his not being able to work on programming; unfortunately, most
of the program-related materials on his laptop were also lost in that
incident. Tony Macknight did a fantastic job in picking up the
responsibility of programming for the Christchurch Congress.
Thus, the programming of these two Congresses proceeded well with one person
at the helm, though in one case this was the result of a very unfortunate
circumstance. I felt that the 2005 programming should also be done with one
person in the lead, rather than two different chairs for ISPC and USSPC.
Therefore, prior to the IUPS ExCo meeting in July 2002, I contacted the ExCo
members and made the suggestion that they consider appointing Walter as the
Chair of ISPC with a Vice Chair from outside the US. I was very pleased that
the ExCo made the decision of appointing Walter as the Chair and Ole
Peterson as the Vice Chair of ISPC. Walter and Ole worked together very well
to lead the extremely successful planning of the outstanding scientific
programs. Walter, who provided outstanding leadership in programming, has
written an article in this volume detailing the team efforts of ISPC, USPC
and the APS Joint Program Committee.
At the end of May 2002, Marty, Linda Allen and Linda Dresser of APS and Geri
Swindle (Director of EB Office of Scientific Meetings and Conferences) and
Pauline Minhinnett of EB came to San Diego to have a site visit of the
headquarter hotel for IUPS and other venues, including the symphony hall for
the closing ceremony and the symphony performance on “Body Notes.” The APS
Headquarter Hotel had been decided to be the San Diego Marriott Hotel. In
order to keep the identity of IUPS, we wanted to select another hotel. The
initial plan was going to be the Weston Hotel, which held a very nice
reception after giving us a tour of the facilities. Although the hotel is
excellent, I felt the distance from the Convention Center (more than ten
minutes of walk) was too far, and we then looked at hotels closer by. We
finally decided upon the Gaslamp Hilton Hotel just across the Harbor Drive
from the Convention Center. It is less than five minutes on foot. The hotel
is smaller in size so that the IUPS Council members would be the major
occupants, which is a desirable feature. The facilities are excellent, the
rates are reasonable, and the hotel is close to restaurants with different
ethnicities in the Gas Lamp District. Therefore, we decided on suggesting
the use of Gaslamp Hilton as the IUPS Headquarter Hotel.
It so happened that the EB2003 was also held in San Diego, and IUPS Council
decided to hold its meeting during that period so that they could use this
opportunity to have an assessment of San Diego as a Congress site and to see
the operation of the EB meeting. Arrangements were made for this council
meeting to be held at the Gaslamp Hilton on April 8-10, during Experi-mental
Biology 2003. This gave the Council members an opportunity to test out the
suitability of this hotel as the IUPS headquarters. They were very pleased
with the experience at the hotel, and the decision on Headquarter Hotel was
finalized.
In the evening of April 9, 2003, K.C. and I invited members of IUPS Council
and the Program Committees, who came from various parts of the world, to a
reception and dinner in our house in La Jolla. There were 30 people at this
dinner. Three tables were set up in our living room after removing all the
furniture. It turned out to be a wonderful social event that provided the
participants a chance to relax and get to know each other away from the
meeting table. Several people stood up and told excellent jokes. The
atmosphere was wonderful. Everyone had a great time.
Because I reside in San Diego, IUPS Executive Secretary Sue Orsoni asked me
in July 2004 to find a restaurant for the dinner party to be hosted by IUPS
in honored of the USNC, APS, and other US organizers on the eve before the
beginning of the Congress (March 30, 2005). K.C. and I were just beginning
to add a wing to our house, and we thought that would have been done by the
time of the Congress. Therefore, we suggested to have the dinner at our
house again. Although there would be more people than in 2003, our added
rooms should be able to accommodate the party well. The IUPS Executive
Committee was enthusiastic about this arrangement, and Sue asked me to
arrange the catering on behalf of IUPS. San Diego normally has very little
rain, but in January-February 2005 it rained heavily and this retarded the
progress of our house addition. As the end of March drew near, we had only
the shell of the new addition finished, but there would be no electricity or
water supply by March 30. We went to Plan B, i.e., to use the unfinished
entertainment room for pre-dinner reception. We brought in electricity from
the old part of the house with extensions, though it was still reasonably
bright at reception time. The walls were primed but not yet painted, and we
hung up K.C.’s paintings in the afternoon of March 30, with the help of the
caterer. The polite Chinese saying when an artist gives his/her painting to
someone is that, “This is for you to patch the wall,” and we literally did
that. The reception was most lively and people were having great times
talking with one another, whether old friends or new acquaintances, or from
whatever part of the world. When dinnertime came, I had to ring the Swiss
bell that Ewald had given me to call everyone’s attention for Allen to give
his gracious remarks before this dinner hosted by IUPS. We had emptied four
rooms in the old house and set up tables there plus the dining room for a
catered sit-down dinner for 70 people. The food was delicious and the wines
recommended by Peter Wagner were superb, but most of all the company was
fantastic. Everyone had a wonderful time, as mentioned in the articles by
Denis Noble, Irene Schulz and Frank Powell in this collection of Congress
articles. With the invitations, Sue had transmitted my message of “no gift
please” and said that the guests are welcome to bring a CD of the music of
their country. These were played during the dinner, though at times drown
out by the happy conversations that were going on. Frank wrote that the
dinner party “provided a wonderful beginning to a week of renewing and
making new friendships with colleagues from around the world. People who had
collaborated by email on special events for the Congress finally got to meet
and shake hands. All of the hard preparatory work had been done. The
atmosphere at the party was filled with both excitement and relief as
everyone anticipated the opening of the Congress the next day”. Irene noted,
“The dinner given by Shu and K.C. was in an atmosphere of anticipation of
pleasure, of inspiration and friendship.” Denis said, “The atmosphere was
one of excitement and anticipation.” As the evening came toward a close,
Denis played a beautiful troubadour song, which he had also played at an
ExCo dinner in Christchurch, using a guitar in our house. This was indeed “a
lovely touch connecting the confident present to the uncertain past,” as
Denis wrote in his article.
Throughout the remainder of 2003 and 2004 we continued to prepare for the
Congress in every aspect, including scientific programming, fundraising,
local arrangements, planning of social activities (including the Symphony on
“Body Notes”), establishment of the Congress website, preparation of
registration, coordination with EB, designing and minting of Congress
medals, etc., as noted by colleagues responsible for these activities in
this collection of Congress articles. As we moved into 2005, the pace of the
planning sped up, and we had to deal with several issues that arose as the
Congress was getting closer in time.
In order to streamline the registration procedure for the conjoint meeting
and allow participants to attend both IUPS and EB sessions, we decided to
have a single registration fee at $250 for early registrations. This is
almost half of the registration fee four years ago at Christchurch.
While this presented a financial problem for the organizers, it had the
advantage of providing a lower cost for the attendees, and this was
particular valuable for scientists from economically disadvantaged nations.
To encourage international scientists, especially the young ones, in the
less developed countries, and underrepresented US scientists to participate
in the IUPS Congress, $200,000 were allocated for an IUPS Travel Award
program. Following reviews by NOC, awards were made to 167 of the 413
applicants, and 140 of these were able to attend the Congress. The APS and
its sections also made awards to over 125 additional graduate students and
postdoctoral fellows from both the US and abroad in recognition of their
scientific presentations. Details for this are given in the article by Marty
Frank.
Because of the tightening of the visa granting process by the US State
Department after 9/11,
some of the international scientists had difficulty getting their visa.
Laura Sheehan of the National Academy of Sciences provided a link to the NAS
web site entitled, “Information for Scientists Travelling to the United
States and for those Planning International Scientific Meetings in the
United States.” When visa problems arose, Marty worked closely with Laura
and others at the National Academy of Sciences, who had access to the State
Department to deal with this problem. Fortunately, this was worked out in
most cases, but there were a few scientists who could not get visa in time
to participate in the Congress. For this, I sincerely express our apology
and regret.
In order to assure that the symposia organizers and invited speakers would
know the program schedule and be present at the Congress, letter and email
reminders were sent by Linda Allen to everyone for confirmation, and these
were followed up with phone calls in some cases. Inevitably, a few of the
invited speakers could not come at a very late moment, and arrangements had
to be made to carry on the program effectively. All of these efforts made it
possible for the program to move on smoothly.
Because of the need to assure the identity of IUPS at this conjoint meeting
with EB, as repeatedly mentioned above, I had frequent discussions with Geri
Swindle about the signage at the Convention Center and the arrangement of
the scientific sessions and posters. She assured me that every effort would
be made to make the signage of IUPS prominently displaced and the sessions
clearly identified and yet juxtaposition to the EB meeting sites to promote
interactions. Geri fully utilized the new addition to the San Diego
Convention Center in making superb arrangements. When Walter, Marty and I
went to the Convention Center on March 30, 2005, the day before the Opening
Ceremony, we were very pleased by the arrangements. The signage in front of
the Convention Center was elegantly prepared, with IUPS having at least
equal, if not more prominent, billing as EB. The logos of IUPS and the
Congress were beautifully presented, side-by-side with the EB logo. The
sight was very impressive and moving. The meeting rooms for IUPS were in
nicely arranged locations with clear display of elegant banners for IUPS
with the logos. I am grateful to Geri for her wonderful arrangements for
this conjoint meeting of IUPS and EB. These thoughtful arrangements,
together with ways in which the excellent scientific and social programs
were organized, removed the doubts about the identity of IUPS at this
conjoint meeting and made our international fellow scientists feeling
comfortable and positive about the 2005 Congress.
On March 31, 2005, the 35th IUPS Congress took off with a marvelous
beginning at the San Diego Convention Center. As Master of Ceremony, I
declared the official opening of the Congress with a warm welcome to all the
participants and read an declaration by San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy that
“March 31, 2005, is the International Union of Physiological Sciences Day.”
Ginger, Neil Granger (APS President) and Allen gave excellent welcoming
remarks. Allen then introduced the Fenn Lecturer Peter Agre, who delivered a
superb lecture. The Opening Ceremony was followed by a buffet reception at
the Convention Center terrace, overlooking San Diego harbor, with wonderful
food, drinks and jazz music. The official opening was the moment we all had
been working toward and waiting for over many years, and it certainly
started with a bang, both scientifically and socially.
On April 1, following Allen Cowley’s outstanding IUPS President’s Lecture,
Congress attendees participated in a most enjoyable and relaxing IUPS Beach
Party held at the North Embarcadero near Seaport Village, with Southern
California beach music, barbeque, and beach activities such as volleyball,
keg races, and surfing. There was a dramatic, beautiful fireworks display
arranged specifically for the IUPS attendees.
In the six-day meeting, the IUPS Congress had over 3,000 abstracts and 5,600
registrants, which were approximately 37% of the numbers for the conjoint
meeting of IUPS and EB. Therefore, the representation was nicely balanced,
rather than what was feared as a possible lopsided meeting. As reported in
Walter’s article, the program consisted of symposia, special lectures,
featured topics, and poster sessions. A unique aspect of the scientific
program of this Congress was its organization along 15 thematic tracks
highlighting the frontier areas in physiology. Each track was composed of a
series of sessions that followed a progression from genomes to functions, in
accordance with the theme of the Congress. Before and after the Congress,
there were 11 satellite symposia, and most of these have reports in this
issue written by the organizers. The conjoint meeting attracted a large
exhibit program. All of these together provided a collection of scientific
programs rich in content and excellent in quality, allowing the Congress to
achieve its goal of bring together physiologists from around the world to
converge in a single place to exchange novel knowledge and make/renew
acquaintances. As Peter Brown from Manchester, UK, said in his reflection
that has been reprinted from the Physiology News in this collection of
Congress articles, “Any fears that IUPS would be swamped by Experimental
Biology/FASEB failed to materialize. If anything, IUPS seemed to be swamping
EB!” Ewald said, “The concerns have turned to excitement at the end. It was
a good congress in the best tradition of the IUPS Congresses. The science
was at the forefront, on the cutting edge of physiological research, and it
had the broad international representation we expected. I still believe
there is a place for IUPS and its scientific meetings in this world. Perhaps
they can contribute to peace and to fair understanding between the peoples.”
During the 34th IUPS Congress at Christchurch, NZ, there was a vocal group
of animal activists protesting at the meeting site, making some of the
participants uncomfortable walking in and out of the Congress site. In mid
February 2005, a web site of animal activists in California sent an
electronic message calling attention to California Activists that “A Huge
Vivisection Conference Is Coming to San Diego” and asking them to “Join San
Diego Animal Advocates to Protest March 31-April 5, 2005.” The message
called for a number of activities, including a “Massive protest on Sunday,
April 3.” In anticipation of a possible repeat or escalation of the
demonstrative activities at Christchurch, a IUPS media response team was
formed with the help of Marty Frank and APS Public Affairs Officer Alice
Ra’anan. The team would serve as spokespersons for the Congress, and they
were provided with relevant information and documents. During the Congress,
however, there were only about 30 people there on April 3 giving a rather
silent protest, with some acting of “mad scientists.” To their credit, these
activists did not cause any disturbance or disruption of the meeting.
All good things must come to an end. On April 5, 2005, the 35th Congress
held its Closing Ceremony at the Copley Symphony Hall, and it was as
glorious as the Opening. On behalf of IUPS, Allen thanked the host country
for providing the international community of physiologists with an
outstanding scientific meeting and social activities to promote interactions
between colleagues from around the world. I expressed my appreciation for
the support provided by the IUPS and international community and for the
opportunity given to the US to host the Congress once again. After my
passing of the IUPS flag to Akimichi Kaneko to symbolize the transition of
the IUPS Congress to Japan in 2009, Aki congratulated the US on an
outstanding meeting and invited the world physiologists to the 2009 Congress
in Kyoto, Japan. At the end of this memorable Closing Ceremony, Marty
introduced the world premiere of the wonderful symphony suite written by our
outstanding APS colleague Hector Rasgado-Flore entitled “Body Notes,” which
was played beautifully by the San Diego Chamber Orchestra and won thunderous
applause from the Congress participants in audience. What a great way to end
this unbelievable week! This marvelous Congress will be remembered for years
or even centuries to come.
In summary, with the team of International and American Physiological
Committees working together and with the participation of thousands of
physiological scientists worldwide, we did collectively “bring the fragile
boat of IUPS to its safe haven in San Diego,” as stated by Denis Noble (this
collection of Congress articles). Although the road to this wonderful and
terrific Congress was winding and tortuous, and at times the Congress in San
Diego seemed like an impossible dream, it is the cooperative endeavor and
mutual trust of everyone involved in this great international physiology
community that finally won out and made it work. The more difficult and
challenging the situation is, the sweeter and more satisfying is the
consummation of the task. Everyone is happy that the 35th Congress ended on
a high note, and I believe its success has started a new beginning or a
renaissance for IUPS. A decade ago, I wrote a report with members of the APS
Long Range Committee on the future of APS and Physiology with a title of,
“The sun breaks through the clouds: A bright future for physiology” (The
Physiologist 39:375-388, 1996). I think this also applies very well to
IUPS and International Physiology. By putting the emphasis on “From Genomes
to Functions”, the discipline of physiology will again take the center stage
in biomedical sciences in our efforts to enhance the health and well-being
of humankind.
|
