Reflections on Seattle

Ted Baker

The recent Congress of the IUCr, held in Seattle, was a marvellous success.

It was exciting scientifically and it was one of those truly international occasions through which we meet up with old friends and make many new ones.

Much credit goes to the organizers who devised the program and provided a venue with space for people to mingle, or view the posters and displays at leisure, when not attending lectures.

For me the Congress also brought about my election as President of the Union for the next three years. This was a very great honor, not just for me but for New Zealand and for the many smaller countries that are a vital part of the Union. It is also somewhat daunting, but I am very encouraged by all the good wishes and expressions of support I have received from friends around the world. At home my research group even produced a special T -shirt!

In this first letter I thought it appropriate to make some comments on the nature of our triennial Congress. It has become very large (more than 2500 participants in Seattle). It is also very broad, with so many different specialities represented. This inevitably leads to suggestions that it is too large or that particular areas are not given sufficient recognition in the program.

My own feeling is that our breadth is a great strength, and that it is very important that we have this one special occasion on which we all meet together. This was brought home to me particularly in some of the macromolecular sessions. The Seattle Congress brought a breathtaking array of new biological structures with profound implications for biology and medicine. Some of these were recently highlighted in Science (August 30, p. 1174: "Crystallographers pinpoint what goes where"). What struck me, however, was that the sessions on methods generated enormous interest, emphasizing that it is the crystallographic method that underlies all these achievements. In macromolecular crystallography, just as in other areas, methods constantly evolve - the growing importance of synchrotron radiation and of electron diffraction are but two examples.

Sir John Kendrew, in one of the Nobel Lectures, reminded us that it is the problem to be solved that determines what methods should be used. Our triennial Congress is then essential for the cross-fertilization that should result when so many crystallographers from different areas, with different approaches, are brought together. In the end, too, I hope that we all draw tremendous pleasure from some of the spectacular achievements that are presented. They vividly demonstrate the vitality and power of crystallography.