|
When I think about the 35th IUPS Congress I
remember primarily an exciting scientific event, but I also recall the
stumbling blocks that lay on the road to this event, stumbling blocks
experienced mainly by the leadership of IUPS. I do hope that the worries and
concerns of the time contributed to making the San Diego Congress the
success it eventually was.
The story began in 1997 at the General Assembly that preceded the memorable
33rd IUPS Congress in St. Petersburg. That was the time when the IUPS
delegates had to decide on the venue for the 35th Congress in 2005. IUPS
Council had received seven invitations, from Canada, France, India, Israel,
Japan, Spain and the United States, some of them very attractive. In
preparing for the General Assembly, Council felt that one of the most
important selection criteria must be the geographic distribution over the
past 30 years, and this was one of the greatest stakes in favor of the US
invitation because the last Congress to be held in this most active country
took place in Washington, DC, in 1968. But it did not turn out to be an easy
decision. It took four rounds of secret voting before the US bid prevailed
over that of our Canadian colleagues by a rather slim majority of 47 to 39.
Personally I was much relieved by this decision and I looked forward with
excitement to a Congress organized by the US National Academy of Sciences
and the American Physiological Society with its extraordinary, impressive
constituency of physiologists active at the forefront—even though the
prospect of spending a hot and muggy week in Washington in August tempered
the excitement.
So all was well and quiet, until the time came when the US invitation to
hold the Congress in 2005 in Washington was to be confirmed at the
Christchurch General Assembly in August 2001. Well, this is perhaps not
quite correct, as there had been, in the fall of 1998, a dispute between the
US National Committee and myself as IUPS President that was carried out in a
video conference and continued at a joint meeting of USNC and the IUPS
Executive Committee in 1999. One of the main issues in this debate was the
future of IUPS Congresses. My American colleagues questioned whether the old
style Congress was really fit for the future. I replied that IUPS gives a
lot of freedom to the local organizers, in this case the USNC and the APS,
to reinvent the Congress at each occasion, that IUPS would be excited if the
US organizers would come up with a radically new format, as long as the
international nature of the IUPS Congress was respected (in retrospect, I am
not sure how radically new the 2005 Congress was, but it was a success
nevertheless). And then the fundamental question was raised, whether there
was a justification for IUPS to exist——I must confess that this debate left
me with serious concerns.
So the 2001 Congress in New Zealand approached and the USNC was asked to
present the final invitation for confirmation by the General Assembly that
met in Christchurch on August 26, 2001. This document reached the Paris
office of IUPS on July 9, 2001, in time for the mailing to the delegates to
the General Assembly. As this mailing had to leave the office on July 26 the
document had been copied 100 times and packed. Then came the surprise, and
the concerns: on the night of July 19 I received a call from Shu Chien
informing me of new plans to merge the IUPS Congress with EB2005, to shift
it to San Diego and April. After a few moments of reflection I answered as
follows: “I believe it is a good strategy to combine a local physiology
meeting with the IUPS Congress ... Where I do see conflicts in combining
IUPS with EB is that young American physiologists may be faced with a
choice: the international physiological community versus the US experimental
biologists. How can we make sure that IUPS is sufficiently attractive? ...
If a good scheme can be worked out it can be very successful....” To Allen
Cowley I wrote “My main concern is that, in the end, there will be no
genuine IUPS meeting in 2005, that we will simply all go to the EB meeting,
as many of us do anyway ... your new proposal is not merely a change in date
and venue: it is a change in the principle of the IUPS Congress.” Of course,
my concerns had their roots in the video conference debate of 1988 discussed
above, where such deep skepticism against the IUPS and its congresses had
been voiced.
I immediately communicated the new proposal to IUPS Council. The reactions
were quite strong: some advantages of the merger with EB were noted, but in
general there was very wide concern that “this could be the end of IUPS, as
we know it” and so on. The fact that APS had come up with this new
arrangement at such short notice, and after having confirmed the original
invitation in the first place merely two weeks earlier, added to the
concerns of Council members. This gave me some sleepless nights as I did not
immediately see how this problem could be resolved in the couple of weeks
that remained until the General Assembly, how I could defend the best
interests of IUPS as was my duty. What would happen if there was a motion in
the GA to reject the new proposal—the GA had on occasion proved to be a bit
erratic in its decision-making process. Also I remembered that it had not
been easy to get the US invitation accepted in 1997. So I knew that the
Executive Committee and Council had to resolve all the problems before
raising the item at the GA.
It was fortunate that USNC and APS had appointed Shu Chien as the Chair of
the National Organizing Committee for IUPS2005. Shu was still the Treasurer
of IUPS and by that member of the Executive Committee. So he was fully aware
of the concerns raised by Council members. Shu and I then sat together as
soon as we had arrived at Christchurch and started to draft an agreement
between APS and IUPS that addresses all the concerns and sought a solution
agreeable to both sides. It is thanks to Shu’s statesmanship and diplomatic
skills that this could be achieved by the end of a joint meeting between
IUPS Council and representatives of USNC. An agreement was signed by me as
IUPS President and the USNC Chair Virginia Huxley, stating the conditions
under which IUPS considers the new arrangement acceptable. The main point
was to safeguard IUPS identity and ensure a broad contribution of the
international community of physiologists to the scientific program. With
that in hand we could confront the General Assembly. After some discussion
the new arrangement was accepted with a vast majority. I felt much relieved.
Four years passed, four years of hard work on the part of the Organizing
Committee under the leadership of Shu Chien, of APS and its officers led by
Marty Frank, of the International Scientific Program Committee chaired by
Walter Boron, and of the IUPS leadership with Allen Cowley at the helm. I
could sit back and wait. I attended the Congress as a regular participant,
chairing two sessions, a symposium on comparative physiology and a forum on
ethics in physiology. I truly enjoyed this meeting, and I must say that the
IUPS-APS part of the EB2005 meeting was so rich that I did not branch out to
the other fields, not even to see my anatomy friends!
The concerns have turned to excitement again at the end. I wish to
congratulate those who did all the work to make this 35th Congress a success
— they did a very fine job. 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 wish to thank particularly the institutions responsible for
this success: the American Physiological Society and its partners in the US
National Committee for IUPS as well as the US National Academy of Sciences.
I would indeed be curious to find out—but fortunately I never will—how the
video debate of 1988 would go after the experience and excitement of this
Congress. 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. In view of this fundamental function
“innovative formats” are not so important. To gather people from all over
the world in the pursuit of physiological understanding is in itself a great
excitement.
|
