- Email: [email protected]
Freddie Gutfreund—they are unnecessary, even detrimental to science
TIBS - September
N 198
1976
-DISCUSSIONFORM Are international congresses an expensive waste of time? Freddie Gutfreund - they are unnecessary, even detrimental science
to
H. Gurfreund is Professor of Physical Biochemistry at the Universjty of Bristol, U.K. His main scientific interests are in the kinetic and thermodynamic analysis of’theassembly and biological function qf maCromolecule systems. Interested in the development of new kinetic methods and the information contents of kinetic analysis H. Gutfreund has also written two books on Enzyme Chemistry and Physical Principals.
It is surely accepted that a scientific gathering is primarily intended as a means of personal contact between people working in related and overlapping fields. The complexity of modern science has resulted in the necessity of applying a wide range of experience to a specialized problem. Progress in Biochemistry and Biophysics depends both on the physical sciences and on the sister subjects of genetics, cell biology and physiology. The physical sciences not only provide the backbone of our subject, they also provide most of the techniques we use to obtain quantitative information. The importance of interdisciplinary contacts must not be exaggerated. On many occasions highly specialized meetings of people wishing to compare similar results are very useful. However, personal contact is particularly important between people with different backgrounds. Only under these conditions can the highly specialized jargon of the crystallographer, the spectroscopist or the kineticist be subjected to the intimate interrogation of the biologist wishing to understand the application to his subject. The above comments lead me to the conclusion that the small meeting of less than 100 participants can deal with detailed discussions of highly specialized topics, while meetings with up to 200 or 300 participants are suitable for interdisciplinary discussions. As the number of participants increases phase separations and mice11 formation occur and one ends up with a number of small meetings, which happen to take place in the same city. These segregations occur according to scientifically unfavourable selection rules: (1) Age and financial support segregates participants into different classes of accommodation at considerable distance from each other. (2) Old friends get together for parties, country walks and gossip. (3) The crowded programmes of the sectional symposia saturate the powers of absorbing information. This results in the large meeting becoming a series of small meetings held at some distance from each other and with incompatible timetables.
Peter Campbell-valuable :xchange of ideas
for
Peier N. Campbeil is Professor of‘ Biochemistry at the Middlesex Hospital Medical School, London, and Director of The Courtauldlnstitute. His research interests are roncerned w?th the biosynthesis qf’proteins in animal cells. Editor of Essays in Biochemistry Peter and Biochemical Education, Campbell is also chairman of the IUB Committees on Education and Symposia and a member qf the FEBS Committee on Advanced Courses.
fhere is little doubt that Freddie Gutfreund expresses well he viewpoint of many biochemists when he pleads that ‘the _Jnions should spend their money effectively by supporting imall meetings rather than International Congresses’. I would ike to explain how IUB does just this, how the international :ongresses are financed and to suggest that the latter may not ye quite as valueless as he claims. As I explained in a recent article in TIBS (May 1976, p. \T 1 1 1), IUB spends about $15,000 per year in sponsoring sym)osia all over the world. My committee has no rigid views In the size of such symposia; only that the meeting shall be If value to the participants and in particular to the biochemists If the host country. We would like to extend our sponsorship LOslightly larger meetings consisting of perhaps two or three symposia which would serve the needs of a region. The Council has decided to call these ‘Regional Conferences’ but no progress has been made because of lack of financial support. So far as international congresses are concerned the nearest IUB has ever been to financing these to my knowledge was to provide a guarantee to the Swiss in 1970 which was not taken up. Indeedtheorganizersofthecongressesin theU.S.A., Japan, Sweden and Switzerland have donated funds to IUB from the small surplus that was left to their organizations. The most recent donation from the Swedish National Committee has been invested to provide income for the Hugo Theorell Travel Fellowship Fund to support the attendance at IUB Congresses of young people. IUB has also obtained other funds for this purpose and with the cooperation of the organizers 32 awardees were chosen for the 10th Congress in Hamburg (TIBS, May 1976, p. N 115). The total amount of money thus disbursed was about $20,400. I note that Gutfreund refers to the loss of financial assets of IUPAB in meeting the deficit of the biophysics congress incopenhagen in 1975. Fortunately, IUPAB’s final share of the financial loss was substantially less than previously reported -’ in TIBS (February 1976, p. N25). If IUB does not provide finance for the congresses what is its role in this respect? Oddly enough, mainly through its
TIBS - September
N 199
1976
Freddie Gutjkeund
Peter Campbell
The selection of speakers is usually also influenced by politics as much as by scientific merit. The essential features of a good meeting are first and foremost a good scientific programme and secondly a natural participation of all without admonition or organization. Interaction between all ages and interests must be made inevitable by accommodation in close proximity and joint eating facilities. While accommodation need not be lavish it should be sufliziently comfortable to make life easy and relaxed. None of these desirable features is possible at large congresses. Although, in principle, it should be possible to have individual symposia at large congresses which are just as good as a small meeting, in practice this does not turn out to be the case. The complexity of the organization makes sectional symposia inevitably inferior to isolated meetings. If I am contradicted on this point of personal opinion I can provide specific comparisons. It is an essential part of my case that large congresses are not only unnecessary, they are actually detrimental to the cause of science. The points I made above only indicate that small meetings are better whan congresses. If resources were unlimited it could be argued that we should have both types of gathering. However, cost effectiveness must be taken into serious account. Before long the financial loss that ‘IUPAB sustained in meeting the deficit of the International Congress in Copenhagen’ will be repeated with reference to other unions. Meetings of up to say 300 participants can be organized in most universities without costly outside help. The registration fees charged at international congresses bear witness to the fact that considerable professional help and accommodation has to be paid for. I have enjoyed meeting the same group of friends at international functions in Vienna, Budapest, Paris or New York and we had much fun and many good meals together. However, I have learned far more and met people who could advise me on future experiments or who, perhaps, needed my advice on the interpretation of theirs, at Gordon or Harden Conferences, FEBS and EMBO workshops or meetings organized by one or other of the national biochemical or biophysical societies. The unions should spend their money effectively by supporting small meetings and enabling young people to attend ‘select’ gatherings to the advantage of the ‘select’ who are often isolated from the real action! Last but not least it seems ludicrous to make 3000 people travel to hear a few celebrated lecturers. It would be much better to spend money on lecturers travelling to their audience. One of the conditions of such occasions should be ample time for free discussion with all those locally interested and not just red carpet treatment for the celebrity.
Council to choose between those countries who compete to hold congresses at three-yearly intervals. Thus, the next congress is in Canada in 1979 and the one after that in Australia in 1982. We live in a changing world and it may be that the financial situation will change in such a way that the national academies backed by their governments will one day fail to provide such financial guarantees, but it has not happened yet. As a member of the Council of IUB I ask Gutfreund: ‘Should I vote against the acceptance of these invitations when IUB itself is not asked to provide any money? The major threat to such congresses seems to me the inability or unwillingness of people to attend because of the high cost of travel and accommodation and, to a lesser extent, the registration fee. This happened at the Biophysics Congress already referred to and as Gutfreund suggests this experience will certainly be repeated. Some alleviation of costs will come from the provision of cheaper hostel accommodation but the expense of travel is bound to be a major hindrance. I reach the conclusion therefore that the Council of IUB is hardly in a position to put an end to congresses even if it wanted to, so long as people are willing to attend. A badly organized congress is, of course, unjustified but provided it is well done, are such congresses as useless as Gutfreund makes out? As one who has had the good fortune to attend them all I do not think so. The following points come to mind. (1) The symposia are often extremely useful both to the teacher who is struggling to participate in a wide range of teaching and to the expert. (2) I know that Freddie Gutfreund, almost more than the rest of my friends, has enjoyed knowing the leaders in the game. Might he not give the youthful biochemists of today a chance also to experience this pleasure. (3) I wonder if he has shared the exhilaration of standing by his poster for three hours while people from all over the world come up to talk about the work on display. (4) I take a rather naive view of the opportunity we have as scientists to foster human relationships through science. I marvel at the way which scientists can communicate sincerely with one another, building on the mutual respect they share through their science. I do not believe that this can happen to quite the same extent in other gatherings as it does at congresses sponsored by the International Unions. The governments of the various countries who control our travel respect the unions and their congresses and it seems to me a pity for us willingly to throw away this respect. I certainly agree that very large meetings of many thousands of participants present their problems even if they are well organized. The feeling of lost opportunities because of the number of multiple sessions is serious. The size of congresses has been getting smaller and I feel that, just as Gutfreund has suggested optimum numbers for the smaller types of meetings, two to three thousand is reasonable for an international congress. I also very much agree that the accommodation should be concentrated within a reasonably small area. I think that with the reduced number of participants this should be possible in future. We must also do everything we can to enable young people to attend congresses and the more international competition we can engender in this respect the better. On a lighter note I like to ponder on the way in which humour among scientists knows no boundaries. I remember a friend from Japan giving a rather lengthy and complex talk and then asking me if I knew what he was called by the younger people in his laboratory. His reply was ‘The unfinished symphony’. I look forward to Perth in 1982.
The debate is now open readers’comments whichmay be publishedas letters to the editor are welcome. They shouldbe sent to the Staff Editor, 58 MuswellHill Road, London,N.10 ??
N 198
1976
-DISCUSSIONFORM Are international congresses an expensive waste of time? Freddie Gutfreund - they are unnecessary, even detrimental science
to
H. Gurfreund is Professor of Physical Biochemistry at the Universjty of Bristol, U.K. His main scientific interests are in the kinetic and thermodynamic analysis of’theassembly and biological function qf maCromolecule systems. Interested in the development of new kinetic methods and the information contents of kinetic analysis H. Gutfreund has also written two books on Enzyme Chemistry and Physical Principals.
It is surely accepted that a scientific gathering is primarily intended as a means of personal contact between people working in related and overlapping fields. The complexity of modern science has resulted in the necessity of applying a wide range of experience to a specialized problem. Progress in Biochemistry and Biophysics depends both on the physical sciences and on the sister subjects of genetics, cell biology and physiology. The physical sciences not only provide the backbone of our subject, they also provide most of the techniques we use to obtain quantitative information. The importance of interdisciplinary contacts must not be exaggerated. On many occasions highly specialized meetings of people wishing to compare similar results are very useful. However, personal contact is particularly important between people with different backgrounds. Only under these conditions can the highly specialized jargon of the crystallographer, the spectroscopist or the kineticist be subjected to the intimate interrogation of the biologist wishing to understand the application to his subject. The above comments lead me to the conclusion that the small meeting of less than 100 participants can deal with detailed discussions of highly specialized topics, while meetings with up to 200 or 300 participants are suitable for interdisciplinary discussions. As the number of participants increases phase separations and mice11 formation occur and one ends up with a number of small meetings, which happen to take place in the same city. These segregations occur according to scientifically unfavourable selection rules: (1) Age and financial support segregates participants into different classes of accommodation at considerable distance from each other. (2) Old friends get together for parties, country walks and gossip. (3) The crowded programmes of the sectional symposia saturate the powers of absorbing information. This results in the large meeting becoming a series of small meetings held at some distance from each other and with incompatible timetables.
Peter Campbell-valuable :xchange of ideas
for
Peier N. Campbeil is Professor of‘ Biochemistry at the Middlesex Hospital Medical School, London, and Director of The Courtauldlnstitute. His research interests are roncerned w?th the biosynthesis qf’proteins in animal cells. Editor of Essays in Biochemistry Peter and Biochemical Education, Campbell is also chairman of the IUB Committees on Education and Symposia and a member qf the FEBS Committee on Advanced Courses.
fhere is little doubt that Freddie Gutfreund expresses well he viewpoint of many biochemists when he pleads that ‘the _Jnions should spend their money effectively by supporting imall meetings rather than International Congresses’. I would ike to explain how IUB does just this, how the international :ongresses are financed and to suggest that the latter may not ye quite as valueless as he claims. As I explained in a recent article in TIBS (May 1976, p. \T 1 1 1), IUB spends about $15,000 per year in sponsoring sym)osia all over the world. My committee has no rigid views In the size of such symposia; only that the meeting shall be If value to the participants and in particular to the biochemists If the host country. We would like to extend our sponsorship LOslightly larger meetings consisting of perhaps two or three symposia which would serve the needs of a region. The Council has decided to call these ‘Regional Conferences’ but no progress has been made because of lack of financial support. So far as international congresses are concerned the nearest IUB has ever been to financing these to my knowledge was to provide a guarantee to the Swiss in 1970 which was not taken up. Indeedtheorganizersofthecongressesin theU.S.A., Japan, Sweden and Switzerland have donated funds to IUB from the small surplus that was left to their organizations. The most recent donation from the Swedish National Committee has been invested to provide income for the Hugo Theorell Travel Fellowship Fund to support the attendance at IUB Congresses of young people. IUB has also obtained other funds for this purpose and with the cooperation of the organizers 32 awardees were chosen for the 10th Congress in Hamburg (TIBS, May 1976, p. N 115). The total amount of money thus disbursed was about $20,400. I note that Gutfreund refers to the loss of financial assets of IUPAB in meeting the deficit of the biophysics congress incopenhagen in 1975. Fortunately, IUPAB’s final share of the financial loss was substantially less than previously reported -’ in TIBS (February 1976, p. N25). If IUB does not provide finance for the congresses what is its role in this respect? Oddly enough, mainly through its
TIBS - September
N 199
1976
Freddie Gutjkeund
Peter Campbell
The selection of speakers is usually also influenced by politics as much as by scientific merit. The essential features of a good meeting are first and foremost a good scientific programme and secondly a natural participation of all without admonition or organization. Interaction between all ages and interests must be made inevitable by accommodation in close proximity and joint eating facilities. While accommodation need not be lavish it should be sufliziently comfortable to make life easy and relaxed. None of these desirable features is possible at large congresses. Although, in principle, it should be possible to have individual symposia at large congresses which are just as good as a small meeting, in practice this does not turn out to be the case. The complexity of the organization makes sectional symposia inevitably inferior to isolated meetings. If I am contradicted on this point of personal opinion I can provide specific comparisons. It is an essential part of my case that large congresses are not only unnecessary, they are actually detrimental to the cause of science. The points I made above only indicate that small meetings are better whan congresses. If resources were unlimited it could be argued that we should have both types of gathering. However, cost effectiveness must be taken into serious account. Before long the financial loss that ‘IUPAB sustained in meeting the deficit of the International Congress in Copenhagen’ will be repeated with reference to other unions. Meetings of up to say 300 participants can be organized in most universities without costly outside help. The registration fees charged at international congresses bear witness to the fact that considerable professional help and accommodation has to be paid for. I have enjoyed meeting the same group of friends at international functions in Vienna, Budapest, Paris or New York and we had much fun and many good meals together. However, I have learned far more and met people who could advise me on future experiments or who, perhaps, needed my advice on the interpretation of theirs, at Gordon or Harden Conferences, FEBS and EMBO workshops or meetings organized by one or other of the national biochemical or biophysical societies. The unions should spend their money effectively by supporting small meetings and enabling young people to attend ‘select’ gatherings to the advantage of the ‘select’ who are often isolated from the real action! Last but not least it seems ludicrous to make 3000 people travel to hear a few celebrated lecturers. It would be much better to spend money on lecturers travelling to their audience. One of the conditions of such occasions should be ample time for free discussion with all those locally interested and not just red carpet treatment for the celebrity.
Council to choose between those countries who compete to hold congresses at three-yearly intervals. Thus, the next congress is in Canada in 1979 and the one after that in Australia in 1982. We live in a changing world and it may be that the financial situation will change in such a way that the national academies backed by their governments will one day fail to provide such financial guarantees, but it has not happened yet. As a member of the Council of IUB I ask Gutfreund: ‘Should I vote against the acceptance of these invitations when IUB itself is not asked to provide any money? The major threat to such congresses seems to me the inability or unwillingness of people to attend because of the high cost of travel and accommodation and, to a lesser extent, the registration fee. This happened at the Biophysics Congress already referred to and as Gutfreund suggests this experience will certainly be repeated. Some alleviation of costs will come from the provision of cheaper hostel accommodation but the expense of travel is bound to be a major hindrance. I reach the conclusion therefore that the Council of IUB is hardly in a position to put an end to congresses even if it wanted to, so long as people are willing to attend. A badly organized congress is, of course, unjustified but provided it is well done, are such congresses as useless as Gutfreund makes out? As one who has had the good fortune to attend them all I do not think so. The following points come to mind. (1) The symposia are often extremely useful both to the teacher who is struggling to participate in a wide range of teaching and to the expert. (2) I know that Freddie Gutfreund, almost more than the rest of my friends, has enjoyed knowing the leaders in the game. Might he not give the youthful biochemists of today a chance also to experience this pleasure. (3) I wonder if he has shared the exhilaration of standing by his poster for three hours while people from all over the world come up to talk about the work on display. (4) I take a rather naive view of the opportunity we have as scientists to foster human relationships through science. I marvel at the way which scientists can communicate sincerely with one another, building on the mutual respect they share through their science. I do not believe that this can happen to quite the same extent in other gatherings as it does at congresses sponsored by the International Unions. The governments of the various countries who control our travel respect the unions and their congresses and it seems to me a pity for us willingly to throw away this respect. I certainly agree that very large meetings of many thousands of participants present their problems even if they are well organized. The feeling of lost opportunities because of the number of multiple sessions is serious. The size of congresses has been getting smaller and I feel that, just as Gutfreund has suggested optimum numbers for the smaller types of meetings, two to three thousand is reasonable for an international congress. I also very much agree that the accommodation should be concentrated within a reasonably small area. I think that with the reduced number of participants this should be possible in future. We must also do everything we can to enable young people to attend congresses and the more international competition we can engender in this respect the better. On a lighter note I like to ponder on the way in which humour among scientists knows no boundaries. I remember a friend from Japan giving a rather lengthy and complex talk and then asking me if I knew what he was called by the younger people in his laboratory. His reply was ‘The unfinished symphony’. I look forward to Perth in 1982.
The debate is now open readers’comments whichmay be publishedas letters to the editor are welcome. They shouldbe sent to the Staff Editor, 58 MuswellHill Road, London,N.10 ??