From: Robert C. Leif <rl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Date: Tue Mar 25 2008 - 12:45:10 EDT
Vince et al.
I believe that we
are in general agreement
and
should I get elected as the technical councilor,
we will have at least two votes
to try to keep the costs down and to keep ISAC vendor friendly.
ISAC effectively has three constituencies:
researchers, clinicians, and industry.
Fortunately,
our society
is not a zero sum game.
Rather
we are in a symbiosis.
As for arrays,
there is precedent to include them
with digital imaging of cells. In the case of a related standard,
arrays are within the area
of interest of the Pathology Working Group (26) of Digital Imaging
and
communications in medicine, DICOM.
The instrumentation and reagents employed to analyze arrays is
sufficiently close to that used for digital
microscopy
that including them together in the subject matter of a single
scientific society is reasonabe.
One other point of overlap is that arrays can
have
cells in their chambers.
As far as the costs of the meetings is concerned,
my favorite meeting was at Cambridge University,
perhaps it would be possible to be able to run
our
meetings at other institutions of higher learning.
Since
I have not seen the cost breakdown for Budapest,
I cannot comment on the source of the comparatively high cost of the
meeting.
However
I know from other meetings that
I have been involved in,
that the hotels either directly or indirectly
through
hotel occupancy taxes,
kick back to the convention centers.
I
Have added meetings that were considerably smaller than ISAC
where there was a food and drink minimum.
A banquet and lunches would often suffice to cover this minimum.
The SPIE seems to have their costs under control.
As a chair,
one has the meeting attendance fee waved
and
gets a free copy of the volume written by the authors at the meeting.
The chairs pay for their travel
and
lodging.
As far as the US is concerned,
I favor meetings in cities served by low cost airlines.
Even though I have also lived in Chicago,
please vote, but only once.
Bob Leif
From: vincent.shan...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Friday, March 21, 2008 3:48 PM
|
