Los Angeles

Date:
1981
Reference:
PP/CRI/E/1/29/18
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Los Angeles. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    21/41
    PROPOSALS FOR WORKSHOPS AND SYMPOSIA: GUIDELINES AND SUGGESTIONS The Program Committee received more than 80 proposals for symposia or workshops for the 1981 Annual Meet ing, of which only 20 could be accommo dated. Unless some important changes occur in the style of our Program (for example, abolition of slide presentations in favour of posters and symposia only) a similar acceptance ratio is likely to be repeated each year; clearly, even ex cellent suggestions have to be turned down. From the telephone calls and let ters 1 received before (and less happily, after) the time when the Committee made its 1981 selection, I thought that some tips on how best to select and present suggestions for these occasions would be useful. What follows are mostly somewhat personal views, not official policy (there is none, except the requirement for scientific merit), but I believe they are generally supported by the Program Committee. Choice of Topic This should not be almost a repeat of unless some recent and exciting devel opments have occurred, the meeting before that. On the other hand the prin cipal argument in favour of a topic should never be that it has not been represented for many years! A sympo sium should not be used simply as a vehicle for one new and even remark able advance, padded out by two or three relatively pedestrian presentations. This is a common drawback apparent in many proposals. Nor should three or four possibly exciting pieces of work be arbitrarily lumped together with no clear relationship between them. The symposium theme should really be obvious from the titles of the individual presentations. Incidentally, a modest overlap among presentations is infinite ly preferable to distinct islands, and cross-referencing among them can be truly rewarding, especially in somewhat controversial areas. Some excellent sym posia have come both from broad themes, and from relatively narrow ones; the former tend to be multidisciplinary and educational, the latter capitalize on new breakthroughs in emergingareas. (Workshops are often more appropriate than symposia for the latter category, but only when at least 4 or 5 [or more] different viewpoints can be represented.) Certainly not excluded are proposals aimed to summarize (and provide a consideration of its future) the state of a well-established field that is showing clear signs of movement. These less dramatic symposia have often been very successful, particularly with those want ing to catch up on other areas of neuro science. In general however go for sym posia that can expose the cutting edge of contemporary neuroscience, and don't shy away from the presentation of material that may not yet be home and dry—but is exciting, good science. Distinction Between Symposia and Workshops SYMPOSIA are aimed at audiences who are, for the most part, not based in the particular field under discussion, but who are eager to be informed and brought up to date. The educational objective of a symposium should of course be spiced with the excitement of recent advances and, when appropriate, even of controversy. WORKSHOPS are aimed at workers who are either in the field or planning to enter it and who are keen to discuss new techniques, new directions, recent advances, controver sial but fundamental issues, etc. Sympo sia generally consist of a chairperson and 4 participants, while workshops may have up to 5 or 6 participants, though these numbers may be modified at the discretion of the chairperson. of our biggest headaches have come through misunderstandings on this issue. In general the advice is—don't propose a foreign, or nonmember, speaker unless you are sure he or she can be present. Each participant should be familiar with the overall objectives of the symposium or workshop, and of the material likely to be covered by the oth ers. Always inform your proposed speakers of the necessarily high rejec tion rate of proposals! When to Put It Together The Program Committee makes the final selection usually in mid-January. This is the latest possible for the Com mittee to be sure that all symposia/ work shop titles will be included in the Prelim inary Program. Your proposal there fore should reach the head office ideally by mid-December or earlier. This means that it should be well developed in design, particularly in regard to (agreed) chairperson and speakers, sometime dur ing October/November. Some of the best-organized and well thought out proposals seem to have been finally and firmly put together actually during the current Annual Meeting. Since most proposals can hardly be conceived be fore the symposia/workshop titles are known for that meeting, i.e., when the Preliminary Program arrives in July, the available time is clearly limited to a mere 3-4 months at most. So—be think ing about it, telephoning, writing, plan ning, especially during the late sum mer/early fall period. The Participants It is almost essential to name in your submitted proposal a chairperson who has already agreed to be responsible for the event, and, ideally, at least 2-3 other speakers who have also agreed to parti cipate. Remember—the Society cannot undertake to meet any expenses of speakers, except the registration fee of nonmembers. The participants should not be led to expect financial support unless this is arranged privately. Some © How to Present It The Society headquarters has our standard Symposium/Workshop Pro posal forms, that can be requested, or picked up at the Annual Meeting itself. Some of the documentation required is obvious (title of symposium or work shop, names and addresses of proposer, proposed chairperson [if different] and participants, tentative titles of the indi vidual presentations proposed, or at Workshops and Symposia (Continuedfrom page©) least indications of the areas to be covered). It is particularly encouraging for the Program Committee if you make clear the extent to which the proposal is firm —e.g., the already obtained agree ment of the proposed chairperson and speakers. In addition it is important to address the following: 1. The objectives of the proposal. 2. Why the proposed symposium or workshop is timely. 3. The extent to which it could have a broad appeal for the 4. Any other considerations that you think make the proposal espe- In general this sort of information need take no more than one page of typescript. Don't write a monograph, don't just enthuse about one particular breakthrough, and don't just complain of neglect. Keep to the guidelines indi cated in the Choice of Topic section above. Of course you may well want to mention when the topic was last repres ented in a symposium or workshop. If you can, have your proposal typed rather than handwritten, and send it directly to Society headquarters and not the Chairperson of the Program Com mittee; there is a superb communication between them, and it is vital that all proposals be processed by our adminis trative staff as soon as possible. Finally, you should note on your proposal what you regard as the Theme Classifica tions into which it best fits. The Com mittee tries to ensure that all the Themes are represented, if good proposals are available. (Themes to be listed in the 1982 Call for Papers are; [A] Develop ment and Plasticity; [B] Cell Biology; [C] Excitable Membranes and Synaptic Transmission; [D] Neurotransmitters, Modulators, and Receptors; [E] Endo crine and Autonomic Regulation; [F] Sensory Systems; [G] Motor Systems and Sensorimotor Integration; [H] Struc ture and Function of the CNS; and [I] Neural Basis of Behavior.) The final selection is made by the entire Program Committee, and the CHAPTER NEWS The Arizona Chapter held its First Spring Symposium in April at the Uni versity of Arizona Health Sciences Cen ter in Tucson. This was sponsored by the Department of Pharmacology. The guest speaker was F. E. Bloom (Salk Institute), whose lecture was attended by more than 100 individuals from all over the state of Arizona. Following Bloom's presentation, the Department of Pharmacology hosted a wine and cheese party for those who attended the It is hoped that this symposium, organized to supplement the Annual Fall Meeting of the Arizona Chapter, will become an annual event. There has been a growing interest in the neuro- Committee does what it thinks will best serve the interests of the Society and the success of the Annual Meeting. The Committee may choose to convert a proposed symposium into a workshop, or vice versa. It may wish to suggest substitutions of speakers, even to pro pose a different chairperson. The Com mittee may decide to coalesce two pro posed symposia into one, and to suggest which speakers should be best retained in that event. However, of great impor tance, it is the privilege of the chairper son who is selected and who accepts the responsibility of organizing the event, finally to decide upon its details. Sug gestions arising from the discussions of the Program Committee are passed on directly to the proposed chairperson; our experience has always been a good one in this regard. Note that proposals which fail to be accommodated one year will not be held over for consideration the next. (About one-third of the Pro gram Committee changes each year, and the Committee does not want to operate under constraints imposed by that of the preceding year.) However a proposal can be resubmitted the following year, and will of course receive the same con- I hope that these suggestions will be of use. If you need more information con tact the Publications Director, Gerry Gurvitch, in the central office of Jack Diamond, Chairman 1981 Program Committee © sciences in Arizona and a desire to increase interactions among neuroscien- tists at different institutions within the state. The Arizona Chapter is trying to facilitate these interactions by sponsor ing such events as Bloom's seminar and by encouraging active participation in the chapter by the state's neuro- Highlights of the 1980-81 year for the North Carolina Chapter included a special lecture by R. D. Lund (Medical University of South Carolina); a Grass Traveling Scientist lecture by M. D. Gershon (Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons); the Annual Address of the President-Elect, by J. N. Davis (Duke University); and the annual graduate student/postdoc toral fellow meeting, which consisted of a keynote address by M. W. Bright- man (NINCDS), a small platform ses sion, and a poster session. The poster session—a first for the chapter—was very successful. Attendance exceeded 100 persons, and excellent exchanges occurred among the younger and the more experienced neuroscientists in the area. The meeting was held at the Duke University Medical Center and was sponsored by the North Carolina Chap ter in association with the neurobiol ogy programs of Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The Puerto Rico Chapter has en joyed another active year, with semi nars from both local and off-island speakers. Local speakers at the month ly meetings included G. Escalona de Motta (Excitation-contraction Uncoup ling by Formamide in Frog Skeletal Muscle), C. Zuazaga de Ortiz (Molec ular Basis of Electrical Excitability of Muscle), V. Eterovic (What We Can Learn from Neurotransmitter Binding Studies), and A. Auerbach (The Inter action of Acetylcholine with Its Recep tor). The November chapter meeting consisted of a practice session for the Society Annual Meeting. In January and February, two visiting faculty mem bers of the University of Puerto Rico's Basic Course in Ophthalmology spent (Continued on page©)