SRNT Newsletter

Nov/Dec 2005, Volume 11, Number 4

President's Column

by David Balfour

Dear Friends,

The arrival of the fall signals, in Britain at least, the beginning the academic year. Attention now turns away from the pleasures and relaxation of the summer to the needs students, both undergraduate and postgraduate, who start their classes and are in the laboratory at this time. I don't wish to imply that I don't enjoy teaching students - I do - but it is a very busy time as we make sure that everything and everybody is the right place and doing the right thing. However, it is also the time when we begin looking forward to the coming year. Amongst my plans are the meetings and conferences I hope to be able to attend. At the top of my list, of course, is our annual conference in February. The pace quickens as the evenings draw in and, even this far from the US, I can almost feel Suzanne Colby, Eric Donny and Jennifer Tidey's collective pulse quicken as they finalize the plans for the conference. I know that we now have all the speakers for the plenary lectures in place and a very impressive slate of speakers it is. As I write this column I, with others, have the list of proposals that have been submitted for the conference symposia and we will have to make some difficult decisions about which to accept and which to reject. I know from personal experience that many of you put great thought into the symposia you suggest, and we receive many very sound proposals which are well-thought through and relevant to the themes of the conference. There just is not space for all the symposia that are submitted and I hope that those of you who are unsuccessful on this occasion are not discouraged from trying again next year. I think it is especially important that younger members of the Society take an active part in organizing and contributing to symposia and are not put off by the occasional set-back.

Another sign that the conference plans are gearing up is the fact that the closing date for abstracts has passed already. One e-mail we all noticed on the listserv was the fact that the closing date for abstracts was extended to accommodate those who might have been caught up in the effects of the hurricanes, especially hurricane Katrina, which lashed the gulf coast. I am sure all the members of the Society who live away from that part of United States or, like myself, in other parts of the world, join with me in hoping that those you in live in the states affected by the hurricanes have come through without too much harm to themselves or their families.

A number of issues have exercised the Executive Committee in last couple of months or so. One is the revision of the bylaws - we are on our fourth draft now. I think we (that is the 4 Presidents Committee of Ken Warner, Ellen Gritz, Nancy Rigotti and myself) have almost ironed out all the wrinkles, and we will shortly be in a position to present a draft to the Board as whole. Our target is the Board Conference call at the end of October. Although I was not directly involved in the formulation of the original bylaws of the Society, I am a founder or Charter member of the Society and can remember some of discussion that went into their final acceptance. I am only now realizing how difficult it is to try to think of everything. I don't think any of my fellow committee members are lawyers by training. However, trust me when I tell you that they go through every word with fine toothcomb to ensure that the Society is presented with a revised set of bylaws that are clear but sufficiently flexible to serve the Society well for the next decade. I must also thank Bruce Wheeler, from our management company, Rees Group, who patiently and without complaint to transcribe our thoughts and concerns into a rational document.

An issue raised by the members at the conference in Prague concerns the Society's finances. There was a view expressed that we seemed to be a rich Society. This not really the case when you consider our turnover. Additionally, the Society has been fortunate to receive support from a number of grant giving organizations such as NIDA, the American Legacy Foundation, and others. Some of these grants we know will not continue; others may not continue. The unconditional support which we have received from the pharmaceutical industry, which has proved so valuable in supporting the annual conference, is also not a secure form of income. Therefore we need to be prudent. Nevertheless, unlike a few years ago, we do now have reserves and we have begun to think more about our policies with regard to reserves versus expenditure. The finance committee has been charged with coming forward with a proposal for how large our reserves should be. Once this in place, we will be in a position to think more clearly about how we might spend any funds we may have that we feel can be spent without jeopardizing our future. A number of you have spoken in favor of supporting attendance at annual conferences for researchers from less well-off areas of the world. I have some sympathy with this view. However, I think we should also not forget young researchers in the US and other better developed areas of the world who often find it difficult to attend the conference because of lack of funds. Thus, my prejudice at this time is that one use to which we might usefully allocate funds is to support attendance at the annual conference in a way that balances the needs of both these important communities. But this is a personal view and it is important that members express their views, through the listserv and other routes, so that we come forward with plan that receives wide support.

Amongst members of the Society, there are strong sentiments in favor of selecting cities for annual conference that are smoke-free. This is a sentiment I broadly support. Within Europe, smoking is now banned in all enclosed public places in the Irish Republic, Norway, and Italy. Shortly (in March), my own homeland, Scotland, joins them. Interestingly, a complete ban on smoking in all enclosed public places had not originally been planned for Scotland. Pubs and private clubs were to be exempt because it was feared that it would be very difficult to enforce a ban in these environments - the Scots like a cigarette with their pint. However, our First Minister visited Ireland some months ago following implementation of the legislation in that country and, within 24 hours, had been completely converted to the merits of a complete ban on both social and health grounds. The prevalence of smoking in Ireland and, especially, Scotland is higher than some of the other countries in Europe that are more resistant to the introduction of complete bans, yet the bans are popular with both non-smokers and, perhaps surprisingly, many smokers as well. The courageous stand that the Irish government took has not only enhanced their standing within their own country it has also had a substantial and beneficial effect on the decision that my own regional government has taken on this issue. In the US, I understand that the issue of smoking bans lies more in the hands of city and state governments. Recently, I have been asked if I thought that SRNT might become directly involved in supporting comprehensive bans at local or state level. My prejudice is that the interests of SRNT may not be best served by becoming directly involved specific debates of this kind. However, I see nothing wrong in SRNT taking a more general view on the issue by expressing its support for the health benefits that would flow from comprehensive smoking bans in public places. This seems to me to be a form of advocacy that is entirely consistent with the philosophy of the Society and might provide influential support to those who are promoting this view. It is, perhaps, something we as a Society should be considering.