|
My first serious consideration
of the 35th IUPS Congress began with my appointment to the National
Organizing Committee (NOC) for the Congress. My first memories of the NOC
meetings involve the choice of a theme and, with it, an appropriate logo. We
all readily agreed that we wanted the theme to indicate the full range of
physiology from molecular genetics to the most complex integrative studies.
As I recall, the idea of “From Genomes to Functions” sprang from comments
from several people (Marty Frank being prominent among them) and was readily
accepted, although the discussion about whether “genomes” and “functions”
should be plural or singular was quite lively. I’ve often thought that the
chosen theme does not have a particularly melodious or memorable ring to it,
but I’ve been unable to think of any other, more striking way of conveying
the concept that everyone agreed on. In any case, it worked after all and I
think that we all have tended to remember it. Agreeing on the logo took much
longer and I remember several complex versions that were sent for everyone
to review.
As we were just beginning to settle on the theme and logo, however, the
question of the change in venue really took center stage for all of us. I
remember very well when the concept was brought to our attention via email
in the summer of 2000. I was in Germany doing research at the time and I
tried out the idea of the change in venue on some of my colleagues. My most
senior colleague, who would have to retire in 2004, was considering going to
the Congress in 2005 as a last international meeting. He knows the US well
and, whereas Washington, DC, would have drawn him, he felt that San Diego
would not. He didn’t attend. My other colleagues were indifferent to the
exact venue in the US. Other factors were more important. Some attended;
some didn’t. I personally believed that it was important that we get a good
attendance and I thought that the relationship with EB, with both the
Congress and EB maintaining sufficient independence. could be worked out. As
we all now know, it was and the venue worked beautifully.
Since I was not directly involved in the scientific programming (which
turned out to be excellent), I remember most two non-scientific areas that
provoked major NOC discussions. The first involved the very controversial
idea of commissioning Hector Rasgado-Flores to write his symphonic suite,
“Body Notes,” for performance at the Closing Ceremony. I remember that I
thought that it was an intriguing idea to have a talented composer, who was
also a physiologist and APS member, write music dedicated to the beauty of
physiology for the congress. It would certainly be a unique non-scientific
contribution to the congress and would set it apart from any other. However,
even with some preliminary excerpts, no one could say with certainty how
good such a composition would be. And as the cost to perform the piece
became obvious, many of us had second thoughts. If it hadn’t been for Marty
Frank’s conviction that this would be a successful event, I don’t think that
the NOC would have approved it. As we all know, “Body Notes” exceeded our
highest hopes and truly set the non-scientific aspects of this congress
apart from all preceding Congresses. It will be hard to top and Marty really
deserves plaudits for his faith in Hector and belief in the success of the
performance.
The second non-scientific aspect that involved much discussion was the
design of the medallion for the Congress. There were many divergent (often
diametrically opposed) views on the design. Although Shu Chien guided this
process and kept it moving forward, I recall that it was Ginger Huxley who
suggested the pattern for the two figures on the obverse side of the
medallion. In any case, we finally reached agreement on a design that came
out very well (particularly in the silver version). In this process, I, for
one, particularly enjoyed meeting with the engraver and discovering how
medallions are created. It was a real bonus for our work on the committee.
I’ve dealt mainly with the run up to the congress and some deliberations of
the NOC. I’ve also mentioned the success of the closing ceremony, which was
truly memorable. What about the congress itself? There were, of course,
numerous talks by scientists from many countries that would not have
occurred at the usual EB meeting. I also learned a great deal from a
satellite meeting in San Diego that would not have occurred without the
congress. There was also a discussion with colleagues from abroad about
possible collaborative work that took place only because the congress
brought us together. In addition, because of the arrangement of the
programming, I found myself interacting with a biomedical engineering
colleague from my own university, whose poster suggested an area on which we
might collaborate. We know each other well, but had not realized that
specific aspects of our work might benefit from a collaborative effort.
Finally, there were the interesting chance meetings, especially during the
social events. I remember one discussion with a woman from New Zealand, a
cell biologist who did not even consider herself a physiologist, during the
“beach party.” She only came to the congress because she was an invited
speaker but said that she was learning a lot. I’m sure that there were many
similar stories.
 |
|
