- Email: [email protected]
X11th international conference on Medical and Biological Engineering and the Vth international conference on Medical Physics
Xllth INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING AND THE Vth INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MEDICAL PHYSICS Jerusalem
Israel August
24-29
1979
This joint conference of the International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineering (IFMBE) and the International Organisation of Medical Physics (IOMP) appears to be established as a regular occurrence, covering not only the overlap subjects but also those specific to either discipline. The conference opened on the Sunday evening with a lecture by the Fourth President of the State of Israel, Professor Ephraim Katzir, who is also a biochemist. He discussed the ethical problems facing the Bio-engineer and medical technologist. The general pattern adopted for the meeting was to start each day with a short plenary session followed by special subject sessions throughout the day. In addition there were poster sessions, some seminars or discussion sessions and an industrial exhibition. The opening plenary session was arranged and chaired by Professor Weinman, who chose as the theme ‘Twenty years of Medical Technology’. Had it been 21, it could have marked the coming of age of the IFMBE, which was officially formed in Paris in 1958, following the initiative of Dr. Vladimir Zworykin, now in his 90th year. One wonders how he would forsee the course which Biomedical Engineering (BME) will take during the next ninety. dowever, Heinz Wolff is also a man of ideas, though his interpretation of what the next twenty years of BME might bring did not meet the chairmans approval. Dick Bekkering dealt competently with an assessment of BME over the previous twenty years, but unfortunately Herman Schwan was unable to present personally his paper on the historical perspectives of BME and basic research. It was read by Colin Roberts. From here on I was in the same position as all delegates in having to decide which of the parallel sessions I should attend, so that a complete coverage of all subjects discussed was not possible. Most of the thirty subjects were dealt with in from one to four sessions , only cardiology (10) and biomechanics (5) exceeding this number. It was therefore a general subject no central theme. The conference
conference with sessions were
competently handled but, working on the basis that some delegates might wish to move to another session, all paper presentations were synchronized and held strictly to time. Thus all speakers were given 15 minutes including discussion, which inevitably resulted in a very limited specific discussion of each paper. In the modelling session, of which I was the chairman, I was lucky in that two speakers did not arrive so we were able to have a more useful general discussion upon the biomedical value of modelling. The opportunity for more general discussion was available in the seminars, I am sure the participants would have had their attitudes to microprocessors modified, either by the enthusiasm of Karl Amatniek, who organised the session on this topic, or by the apparent cynicism of Heinz Wolff, who preferred to slow down the technological advances in the coming twenty years. The exhibition was very well supported, with Israeli companies demonstrating BME equipment from all over the world. The major application of biomedical technology is undoubtedly through its commercial exploitation and it was evident from the complexity of the equipment demonstrated that once companies have defined a biomedical specification, they are well able not only to produce the equipment but to enhance it. Biomedical engineers have a collaborative role in the biomedical environment by producing prototype devices, and a development role in industry, by producing and improving the equipment. The companies at the exhibition seemed well aware of the need for them to support their engineering competence with an understanding of the biomedical applications by holding their own seminars in some of the major techniques. The Israeli societies of Medical and Biological Engineering and of Medical Physics can be satisfied with their technical achievement in organising a large scale international conference. However, the larger the conference, the more difficult it is for delegates to be able to meet each other informally and in this respect the social arrangements, apart from the mayor’s reception, were rather disappointing.
.I.
Biomed.
Engng.
1980,
Vol.
2, January
65
That the IFMBE and IOMP should collaborate in respect of overlapping subjects is agreed but is this large combined meeting every three years the only way? The real question is ‘Are large conferences of any value?’ In my view - not much. I rarely come away from a conference having learnt something specific. This usually comes from reading and doing. What I hope to get from conferences is a stimulation from other people’s ideas and attitudes which may change my own approach. This requires a totally different concept in the organisation of a conference with greater emphasis on detailed discussion. It seems to be accepted, though never proven, that delegates need to present a paper in order to obtain financial support. This leads to a situation where most delegates have to speak, irrespective of whether they have anything of consequence to say, so that the time available for the presentation and discussion of each paper is tmnecessanly restricted. At Jerusalem about 600 papers were allowed for, including poster sessions necessitating six or seven parallel sessions.
If grant authorities and administrators really do insist upon the presentation of a paper, I hope they will look more closely upon the adverse effect this has upon the quality of conferences. They should be supporting delegates for the benefit they might bring back to their units, not for the questionable value of their necessarily brief communications to other delegates. Perhaps they should consider providing funds to delegates who wish to listen, leaving conference organisers to meet the expenses of a limited number of selected speakers. It is perhaps unfair to use this particular conference as a basis for attacking a system as, within the constraints set by the system, it was quite well organised. The IFMBE and IOMP were merely following an established procedure, but surely their objective is the effective dissemination of information in their subjects. Together, they should be able to modify this procedure. I hope they will try,
W.J.
Perkins
PLASTICS IN MEDICINE AND SURGERY Twente
Universityof
Technology
Enschede in the Netherlands
The third conference to be organized by the Plastic and Rubber Institute on the theme Plastics in Medicine and Surgery was attended by approximately 160 delegates from 16 countries attended the meeting, testifying to the topicality of this subject. As usual with any conference, there were some good points and some not-so-good points about the meeting and many of the remarks I made in the report on the Keele biomaterials conference (Vol 1, No. 1, ~67) are equally applicable here. The primary raison d’etre of an international conference is the co-existence of delegates from different centres within one location, to discuss their work. This cannot be achieved if the delegates are scattered about in different hotels and their activities are constrained by coach departure times. It must be said that the fact that this situation existed at Enschede was no fault of the P.R.I. who had their room allocation on the campus decimated at a late stage. However, it did have a significant influence on the meeting. The perennial parallel session problem arose yet again, the solution here being to hold concurrent sessions on the afternoon of one of the two days. Whilst again understanding the reasons for this, I do believe this is the wrong solution and that it is
66
J. Biomed.
Engng.
1980,
Vol.
2, January
June 21-22
better to have greater selectivity in the papers rather than adopt parallel sessions to accommodate more speakers. On the positive side, the preprinting of the papers in a booklet (available from PRI, 11 Hobart Place, London SWlW OHL) is excellent, both in concept and practice. This is perhaps the best answer to the problem of publishing conference proceedings. When authors have to submit abstracts for a conference a year or so before the meeting, and then submit written papers at the time of the conference for a publication that will appear a year, or even years later, there is a considerable time lag between performing the work and seeing it in print. In the method adopted by the PRI the authors can spend the time between submitting the abstract and a few months prior to the conference writing up the paper, in camera-ready format so that all the papers are available at the time of the conference. Such a publication is invaluable, both for prior reading and subsequent reference. A few interleaved clear pages might be an added benefit to supplement with notes, should any author want to update or retract any statements. Forty papers were delivered during the two days of the conference which was opened by the chairman and host, Professor Bantjes. The first paper,
Israel August
24-29
1979
This joint conference of the International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineering (IFMBE) and the International Organisation of Medical Physics (IOMP) appears to be established as a regular occurrence, covering not only the overlap subjects but also those specific to either discipline. The conference opened on the Sunday evening with a lecture by the Fourth President of the State of Israel, Professor Ephraim Katzir, who is also a biochemist. He discussed the ethical problems facing the Bio-engineer and medical technologist. The general pattern adopted for the meeting was to start each day with a short plenary session followed by special subject sessions throughout the day. In addition there were poster sessions, some seminars or discussion sessions and an industrial exhibition. The opening plenary session was arranged and chaired by Professor Weinman, who chose as the theme ‘Twenty years of Medical Technology’. Had it been 21, it could have marked the coming of age of the IFMBE, which was officially formed in Paris in 1958, following the initiative of Dr. Vladimir Zworykin, now in his 90th year. One wonders how he would forsee the course which Biomedical Engineering (BME) will take during the next ninety. dowever, Heinz Wolff is also a man of ideas, though his interpretation of what the next twenty years of BME might bring did not meet the chairmans approval. Dick Bekkering dealt competently with an assessment of BME over the previous twenty years, but unfortunately Herman Schwan was unable to present personally his paper on the historical perspectives of BME and basic research. It was read by Colin Roberts. From here on I was in the same position as all delegates in having to decide which of the parallel sessions I should attend, so that a complete coverage of all subjects discussed was not possible. Most of the thirty subjects were dealt with in from one to four sessions , only cardiology (10) and biomechanics (5) exceeding this number. It was therefore a general subject no central theme. The conference
conference with sessions were
competently handled but, working on the basis that some delegates might wish to move to another session, all paper presentations were synchronized and held strictly to time. Thus all speakers were given 15 minutes including discussion, which inevitably resulted in a very limited specific discussion of each paper. In the modelling session, of which I was the chairman, I was lucky in that two speakers did not arrive so we were able to have a more useful general discussion upon the biomedical value of modelling. The opportunity for more general discussion was available in the seminars, I am sure the participants would have had their attitudes to microprocessors modified, either by the enthusiasm of Karl Amatniek, who organised the session on this topic, or by the apparent cynicism of Heinz Wolff, who preferred to slow down the technological advances in the coming twenty years. The exhibition was very well supported, with Israeli companies demonstrating BME equipment from all over the world. The major application of biomedical technology is undoubtedly through its commercial exploitation and it was evident from the complexity of the equipment demonstrated that once companies have defined a biomedical specification, they are well able not only to produce the equipment but to enhance it. Biomedical engineers have a collaborative role in the biomedical environment by producing prototype devices, and a development role in industry, by producing and improving the equipment. The companies at the exhibition seemed well aware of the need for them to support their engineering competence with an understanding of the biomedical applications by holding their own seminars in some of the major techniques. The Israeli societies of Medical and Biological Engineering and of Medical Physics can be satisfied with their technical achievement in organising a large scale international conference. However, the larger the conference, the more difficult it is for delegates to be able to meet each other informally and in this respect the social arrangements, apart from the mayor’s reception, were rather disappointing.
.I.
Biomed.
Engng.
1980,
Vol.
2, January
65
That the IFMBE and IOMP should collaborate in respect of overlapping subjects is agreed but is this large combined meeting every three years the only way? The real question is ‘Are large conferences of any value?’ In my view - not much. I rarely come away from a conference having learnt something specific. This usually comes from reading and doing. What I hope to get from conferences is a stimulation from other people’s ideas and attitudes which may change my own approach. This requires a totally different concept in the organisation of a conference with greater emphasis on detailed discussion. It seems to be accepted, though never proven, that delegates need to present a paper in order to obtain financial support. This leads to a situation where most delegates have to speak, irrespective of whether they have anything of consequence to say, so that the time available for the presentation and discussion of each paper is tmnecessanly restricted. At Jerusalem about 600 papers were allowed for, including poster sessions necessitating six or seven parallel sessions.
If grant authorities and administrators really do insist upon the presentation of a paper, I hope they will look more closely upon the adverse effect this has upon the quality of conferences. They should be supporting delegates for the benefit they might bring back to their units, not for the questionable value of their necessarily brief communications to other delegates. Perhaps they should consider providing funds to delegates who wish to listen, leaving conference organisers to meet the expenses of a limited number of selected speakers. It is perhaps unfair to use this particular conference as a basis for attacking a system as, within the constraints set by the system, it was quite well organised. The IFMBE and IOMP were merely following an established procedure, but surely their objective is the effective dissemination of information in their subjects. Together, they should be able to modify this procedure. I hope they will try,
W.J.
Perkins
PLASTICS IN MEDICINE AND SURGERY Twente
Universityof
Technology
Enschede in the Netherlands
The third conference to be organized by the Plastic and Rubber Institute on the theme Plastics in Medicine and Surgery was attended by approximately 160 delegates from 16 countries attended the meeting, testifying to the topicality of this subject. As usual with any conference, there were some good points and some not-so-good points about the meeting and many of the remarks I made in the report on the Keele biomaterials conference (Vol 1, No. 1, ~67) are equally applicable here. The primary raison d’etre of an international conference is the co-existence of delegates from different centres within one location, to discuss their work. This cannot be achieved if the delegates are scattered about in different hotels and their activities are constrained by coach departure times. It must be said that the fact that this situation existed at Enschede was no fault of the P.R.I. who had their room allocation on the campus decimated at a late stage. However, it did have a significant influence on the meeting. The perennial parallel session problem arose yet again, the solution here being to hold concurrent sessions on the afternoon of one of the two days. Whilst again understanding the reasons for this, I do believe this is the wrong solution and that it is
66
J. Biomed.
Engng.
1980,
Vol.
2, January
June 21-22
better to have greater selectivity in the papers rather than adopt parallel sessions to accommodate more speakers. On the positive side, the preprinting of the papers in a booklet (available from PRI, 11 Hobart Place, London SWlW OHL) is excellent, both in concept and practice. This is perhaps the best answer to the problem of publishing conference proceedings. When authors have to submit abstracts for a conference a year or so before the meeting, and then submit written papers at the time of the conference for a publication that will appear a year, or even years later, there is a considerable time lag between performing the work and seeing it in print. In the method adopted by the PRI the authors can spend the time between submitting the abstract and a few months prior to the conference writing up the paper, in camera-ready format so that all the papers are available at the time of the conference. Such a publication is invaluable, both for prior reading and subsequent reference. A few interleaved clear pages might be an added benefit to supplement with notes, should any author want to update or retract any statements. Forty papers were delivered during the two days of the conference which was opened by the chairman and host, Professor Bantjes. The first paper,