Letters to the Editor

Indian Pediatrics 2002; 39:698-699

XXXIX Annual Conference of IAP

I read with keen interest both the articles (1,2) related to the XXXIX Annual Conference of IAP. I, hopefully with many other colleagues share the same views as the authors and have a few points to add as below:

1. The statement ‘The scientific program should be prepared by the IAP Scientific committee and not just left to the IAP President, Secretary General and the local Organising Secretary’(1) is a bit confusing. Who selects the executive body? How could one keep faith on the scientific committee members if we suspect the capabilities of the President and Secretary General of IAP, who are instrumental in selection of all the committees of IAP? In fact the transparency of action taken by the most powerful members are in question. But as rightly pointed out ‘ her lone critical voice sounded a discordant note and her valid comments were considered very inappropriate———in the valedictory session’(2) the weight of the voice depends on how much support it has in terms of the number of followers (influential ?) he/she can manage to gather rather than the truth inside it. Some times I feel IAP is turning into a political organization.

2. Regarding the article by Dr. Agarwal (2) I hope everybody will support his views. But I have a few questions regarding his suggestions : i). ‘ The office bearers of IAP should take a pledge————’ my question are they superhuman? Do they live outside the materialistic world in which we live? Can we demand such sanctity from them? ii) Regarding scientific programs, mostly one poor(?) delegate finds out that there is no time to interact with the faculties on the topic due to supertight schedule and his voice is almost ignored to give time to the next speaker. Most of the time the organizers will ask you to contact the faculty during recess to clarify your queries. Is it legitimate to refuse the ordinary delegate who has paid for his registration , travel and accommodation and sacrificed his practice to play the role of a mere silent audience who should clap, praise, stand in que for everything, and send good wishes card to the organizer once back home?

3. One can’t satisfy the objectives of social mixing, the pleasure of sightseeing and scientific knowledge upgrading together in this large heterogeneous 12,000 strong IAP crowd in one place at a time. That is why the CME done by AIIMS/PGIMER or other similar Institutes with high fees and restricted seats are being attended by real (?) knowledge lovers.

4. The poor delegate who comes for knowledge in the conference is fascinated by two facts: i) The superpower faculties who are mostly sponsored by the pharmaceutical houses to voice so called research results; ii) The super power practitioners who run on imported vehicles, dine and stay in big budget hotels and travel in superclass flights; iii) One can only guess wildly who will be their future idol.

E-mail: [email protected]

 References

1. Shrivastava R.N. XXXIX Annual Conference of IAP, Viewpoints. Indian Pediatr 2002; 39: 444-445.

2. Agarwal.S. Pharmaceutical Industries and Sponsorship of delegates for National Conferences, Viewpoints, Indian Pediatr 2002; 39: 445-448.