Reflections

This section collects the essays from Reflections from the Frontiers (Explorations for the Future: Gordon Research Conferences 1931-2006), GRC's 75th anniversary commemorative publication.

Transcendental GRC Principles
Paul R. Ortiz de Montellano
Paul R. Ortiz de Montellano
University of California at San Francisco
A Family Reunion

Gordon Conferences are like family reunions–complete with the tug of opposing egos, earnest discussions about the future and revisiting of the past, the pleasure of old friends and anticipation of new faces, and gossip about scientific “divorces” and new “marriages.” There is also the “Oh, he isn’t here again, is he?” syndrome, the planning of new ventures, the nurturing of younger generations, and the farewells of the old. Beyond that, however, Gordon Conferences provide a testing ground for new ideas, a place to match wits with colleagues and competitors and to obtain advice and guidance. All this flows naturally in the context of usually isolated meeting sites and accommodations that often strip individuals of the external trappings of authority (which explains in part why many Gordon Conferences even now prefer the New Hampshire prep-school venues with their too-short beds and down-the-hall baths to sites with hotel-like amenities).

Gordon Conferences are governed democratically, with future GRC chairs selected by popular vote, unlike most serial conferences where a mysteriously appointed group of older statesmen and -women (although rarely) determine who will run the next conference. Although the mechanism for choosing a GRC chair varies from conference to conference, most frequently the slate of nominees for chair is chosen by a committee of previous chairs, with encouraged nominations also from the floor. I remember a meeting of the Agricultural Science Conference when it was trying to reverse a decline in ratings and attendance. Many attendees were from Europe, as agricultural research has a strong presence there, but the nominees proposed by committee were exclusively American. An excellent and personable scientist with academic experience both in the United States and Europe was overlooked in the nomination process. I therefore nominated him from the floor and, not surprisingly given the constituency of the meeting, he was elected as incoming chair. This is not unusual: I have often seen nominations from the floor supersede those offered by the nominating committee. The GRC election process, like all democratic processes, occasionally selects a candidate who turns out not to be a good chair, but the bottom-up process is essential for the continuing renewal of individual Gordon Conferences.

Debate is common at Gordon Research Conferences because the format is specifically set up to promote discussion, which often results in disagreement. I recall one Chemistry and Biology of Tetrapyrroles Conference in which two opposing camps on a contentious issue were asked to make their presentations in a debate format, with each side presenting its case, followed by time for rebuttal. The floor was then opened to the audience to grill the advocates. Was the issue settled? No, but the result of the debate was a crystallization of the possible sources of the disagreement that led eventually to its experimental resolution. This is only one example of the scientific interaction made possible by the intimate nature and flexibility of the GRC format.

Serving a term on the GRC board of trustees was one of the most enjoyable and rewarding experiences of my career. Working with Carl Storm, a highly effective director; staff members who were professional and loyal to the organization; and board members who put aside their personal agendas to work together (at very pleasant meeting venues) made my six years of service gratifying and memorable. Everyone made a strong commitment to the role of GRC as a driving force in international science.

As chair of the search committee that recruited Nancy Ryan Gray to take over the GRC directorship when Carl Storm retired, I had many interactions with the firm that facilitated the search. The firm’s director repeatedly expressed surprise and delight at the ability of the GRC board to focus on issues and to work together for the benefit of the organization (apparently in contrast to many of the searches the firm carried out for other scientific organizations and academic institutions). While I was associated with the organization, its achievements–an aggressive commitment to internationalize GRC by establishing meeting sites in Europe and Asia, funding and construction of GRC’s first independent headquarters, the key recruitment of Nancy Gray, financial strengthening, increase of the chairs’ fund, and the managed growth of the conference portfolio–certainly did not occur without spirited discussion. But discussion always showed that everyone’s concern was focused on the good of the organization.

As a board member and an attendee of conferences at many sites, I was surprised to observe that the ratings of the venues by attendees did not differ greatly from site to site. Some sites were clearly better than others, and the personal comments from the few individuals who bothered to make them reflected this. The overall scores, however, were surprisingly similar, which is a reminder in dealing with a large number of people that individual expectations and requirements differ greatly. For some the proverbial pea-under-the-mattress is a distressing discomfort, while for others not even a boulder in the same location would cause an impression. For some only caviar would bring praise for the GRC meals, but for others even army rations would be happily accepted. Fortunately, enough information filters through the survey process for GRC to carry out a continual pruning of weak sites and replacement with better ones.

The collegial nature of Gordon Conferences brings out the fact that the attendees are human beings and that most are passionate about their work. I can recall the glow of triumph in a young man who had for the first time wowed the audience and tears in the eyes of someone who had just lost out in a scientific race, and even an occasion when a member of the National Academy of the Sciences heaved a can of beer in disgust at a Nobel laureate. Science and the passion that feeds it are the core of the GRC experience.