Roger Thomas
Editor

https://doi.org/10.36866/pn.107.5

This issue of Physiology News is full of interesting material. The long and thoughful article by Keith Siew about aspects of the open science movement (part 1, part 2 will be in the next issue, written by Vivien Rolfe) is very thought-provoking. Of course, prestigious journals such as The Journal of Physiology are not at first ‘open’, since subscribers have to pay. The Society does benefit considerably. There is an intriguing article by Tilli Tansey about physiologist winners of the Nobel Prize. Many Nobel laureates were Members before winning, others were only elected afterwards. Universities like to boast about winners who studied there, even if their research was done elsewhere. There is also a fascinating article on the 1923 International Congress, held in Edinburgh. It was too soon after the First World War for some Europeans to feel able to attend. There are also two articles about aspects of stress, and there will be more in PN 108.

If all goes well, this issue should appear just before the IUPS congress in Brazil, which replaces The Society’s normal main summer meeting. I have been to several IUPS congresses, most memorably in Sydney, but I cannot make it to Rio de Janeiro. I hope all who attend have a great time. We remainers in the UK will have the consolation of an exciting Annual General Meeting (AGM) in London at 14.30 on 12 July. The AGM will be followed by 2 hours of selected Affiliate presentations – flash oral communications and posters. After that there will be a President’s Lecture and a reception. When I joined The Society, the AGM was always held in University College London; this year it will be held in the Wellcome Collection nearby. It is remarkable how few meetings, if any, are now held in Universities, when not so long ago they almost all were. One reason, I suppose, must be the multiplication of suitable conference centres, which undertake all the arrangements previously left to the hosting departments. Sadly, such venues rather rule out any demonstrations, which for many were the highlight of meetings of The Society. I was myself the local organiser of several Society meetings in Bristol, one involving a train ride to Bath for the meeting dinner in the pump room. I suppose my efforts were all rather time-consuming and irrelevant to the Research Assessment Exercise. But I do miss the opportunities to see what is going on in other physiology laboratories.

Members may be interested to know that oversight of Physiology News has passed to the Policy Committee of The Physiological Society, which has been renamed the Policy and Communications Committee (PCC). The change was discussed and agreed by all of Council, and also agreed by the PCC committee and the Chair of Publications Committee. PN was previously seen as a publication and was thus overseen by PubComm. I am happy with this new arrangement. To be fair, PubComm is concerned with peer-reviewed journals, and PN cannot be so described. It did start life as Committee News, and I am pleased that it will now include more reports from The Society’s many committees. It has taken me over a year to persuade some of the various committee chairs to supply such information. When Committee News was launched in 1983, The Society had only the one committee; now it has 12 if I include the Council of Trustees. Admittedly there were various sub-committees in earlier days. Actual membership of The Society has perhaps only doubled over the same period.

I have already participated in a meeting of the PCC, but only via telephone. This was my first experience as a teleconferencer rather than as chairman of a meeting with one or two members phoning in, and I was not always able to work out who was talking. I look forward to reading the minutes so I will understand what we all agreed. I complained about the excessive use of acronyms in the minutes of the previous meeting, held before I was an ex-officio member.

As the exam season is now upon us, I am reminded again of my personal doubts about whether the UK method of examinations for biology-related subjects is fit for purpose. How important in real life is it to be able to write essays on a relevant topic with no access to any notes, books or the internet? The current system rewards good memory rather than any real understanding of the subject being examined. I understand that the Italian system is quite different, with mostly oral exams, but of course it still rewards a good memory. This may be even more stressful than four sessions of writing three essays in three hours, and the lack of paper evidence may lead to accusations of favouritism. It does avoid the problem of poor handwriting at least. The big advantage of the UK system is that it’s hard to cheat as long as mobile phones and similar technology is eliminated from the exam venue, but reading and assessing great piles of essays is extremely taxing for the examiners. I earnestly hope that soon some way will be found to allow candidates to use word-processors. Medical student handwriting is often appalling.