The roadmap of the IUBMB in the years 2007 ‐ 2012

Abstract

George Kenyon called on 11 December 2006 to inform me of his resignation from the presidency of the IUBMB: this was a consequence of an apparent conflict of interest with his new activity at the National Science Foundation. I expressed to him my deepest regret, and a sincere one, due to his talent, capable of making him become an important president of the IUBMB. I would like to express to George my personal gratitude and that of the Executive Committee of the IUBMB for his generous nature and the collegial environment he had immediately created. It was obviously unlucky for me to leave the ‘comfortable’ position of president elect and take up the IUBMB presidency two and half years before my term of office would have begun. Bill Whelan, in his email of congratulations wrote, ‘Another Harland Wood’. In fact, Harland Wood succeeded Feodor Lynen in 1979; a few weeks after their election to president-elect and president, respectively, Feodor Lynen had died. Already in previous reflections I had asked myself if the IUBMB, just 50 years old, still fulfills the important role it had in the past. The congresses, the conferences, the special meetings, the IUBMB jubilee lectures, the Wood-Whelan fellowship program remain as milestones in the activity of the Union. The IUBMB journals represent a great achievement in the field of science publishing and of biochemistry education. The last 50 years have created a revolution in the field of biochemistry and molecular biology. At the same time a revolution has been created by the Internet in the way of communication among scientist and in the way papers are published. Did IUBMB evolve at the same pace? Are we missing something? Should we give an opportunity to our Adhering Bodies to judge the Union and to give, if needed, new impulses? A comparison with the other Unions would be also useful, to see how they have evolved and are evolving. An analysis should be made to assess this and other aspects of a complex organization like the Union in a changing world. It is, I believe, accepted by almost everyone, that biochemistry and molecular biology are the basis of modern biological sciences: without biochemistry and molecular biology we cannot understand the basis of diseases and in particular those that most affect human beings, such as cancer, and cardiovascular and degenerative diseases. Also in the field of plants, biochemistry and molecular biology have occupied important positions, both in the systematic as well as in the understanding of plant physiology and of the active principle present in plants. Also environmental studies require our disciplines to answer questions such as the effect of the surroundings on our bodies, on the survival of species and on the maintenance of biodiversity. Natural medicine and phytochemicals require molecular explanations and mechanisms that can largely be given only by biochemistry and molecular biology. The role of biochemistry and molecular biology is becoming every day more evident as a consequence of the refinement of the methods that it can offer, useful to dissect molecular pathways, to find targets of drugs and to propose potential remedies. A form of applied biochemistry is biotechnology, with its exponentially growing result output, ready to be used as a medication, a prophylactic measure or a nutritional recommendation. In fact nutrition is a field per se, where the introduction of biochemistry and molecular biology has given a great impetus. Is such a central image of biochemistry and molecular biology generally perceived? Certainly, not enough. One of the roles of the Union should be to cast a new and more correct light on the merits of its disciplines, with due respect for all the fields that have stemmed from it. Can we augment the visibility of these values, not only vis-a-vis the new, more target-oriented disciplines but also in public opinion? Can we make the name of IUBMB well known and appreciated not only within specialized circles? Revamping the image of the IUBMB and of its structures, in the direction of a needed basic foundation to understand disease, both in terms of education and research, may become attractive for donors and make more support available for further reaching the Union’s goals. Received 4 January 2007; accepted 7 January 2007 Address correspondence to: Angelo Azzi, Vascular Biology Laboratory, Office 622, JM USDA-HNRCA at Tufts University, 711 Washington Street, Boston, MA 02111, USA. Tel: þ1 617 556 3271. Fax: þ1 617 556 3224. E-mail: angelo.azzi@tufts.edu IUBMBLife, 59(4 – 5): 196 – 198, April –May 2007