EDITORIAL
TOO MANY CONGRESSES?
There is a clear need for periodic meetings to publicize advances in any medical field through speeches by experts who not only can describe their own work, but also synthesize the current state of knowledge in a specific part of the field. This is the purpose of the so-called "plenary sessions" of congresses. "Round tables" address specific topics that are discussed by several persons who are assumed to have experience with some aspect of the topic in question. The same congresses also offer opportunities to present "free communications" about what could be called minor advances, which are described and discussed.
However, the question is whether scientific advances really are occurring so rapidly as to require this many congresses, whether the frequency of meetings of individual associations is justified, and whether annual meetings of every regional association in a country are needed, in view of the increase in the number of congresses per country and the frequency with which the same speakers and almost the same audience attend. When continental meetings (Europe, America, etc.) and world conferences are included, it is understandable that the number of congresses being held every year in every field of medicine seems excessive.
The "plenary sessions" presented by relevant figures at times serve only for the speaker''s personal satisfaction, rather than for the purpose of communicating major advances. "Round tables" should offer recent findings related with the participants'' work, not a rehash of what is already known, in order to create conditions for a broad discussion in which the opinions of the audience, who may be researchers on the same topic, are welcomed. However, they sometimes seem like "plenary sessions" in which a number of people participate but not much discussion is generated. Nonetheless, these are probably the most useful sessions if sufficient time is allowed for broad and constructive discussion. Compared with these two types of session, "free communications" seem to be considered less valuable, although it is likely that these small contributions are the grains of sand that will be used to construct much of future development in a given area of medicine. It is a shame that these communications often are presented in uncomfortable rooms to small audiences, sometimes including only groups of people making presentations. Here is where pioneering work often sees the light, generally in the form of communications by young researchers who deserve the stimulus of having their work appreciated.
Congresses that cover a broad range of topics attract huge audiences, which complicates organization and leads almost inevitably to problems and expense, for the most part sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. The true value of these broad-based congresses should be considered. Monographic meetings may be more useful and productive since they attract persons who are really interested in the topic and researchers in the same field, thus providing opportunities for more in-depth discussion of specific points. On the few occasions in which such meetings have been held, their effectiveness has been demonstrated.
Therefore, medical associations should reconsider the need for so many meetings. Regional meetings in a single country should be united and effort should be pooled. More monographic meetings should be held, which would help to avoid simultaneous scheduling of more than one conference, roundtable, or communication of interest to attendees, who then must choose to attend one and forego the others, as occurs at large congresses.
One positive aspect of meetings should be underlined, that is, the opportunity that all meetings give for networking with colleagues. Sometimes conversations with colleagues are more interesting and constructive than the conference itself.
F. Muñoz-López
