The Dahlem Format Deserves Imitation

A conference at which no one reads a single paper may seem a contradiction in terms. In fact, Dahlem Konferenzen, which this month reach 50 in their unique series of highly successful gatherings in West Berlin, are of exactly that sort. Dahlem conferences generate their prestigious state-of-the-art reports through a sensitively structured five-day program of group discussions and feedback. They contrast starkly with the type of congress at which fragments of worth are lost among a phalanx of predictable material. Having attended the 49th Dahlem just six weeks ago, I'm surprised that this remarkably productive format has not been copied elsewhere in the world. Perhaps the reason is finance—met in Berlin by the City's Senate, the Stifterver-band fur die Deutsche Wissenschaft (a foundation supported by German trade and industry), and the Deutsche For-schunsgemeinschaft (the German Science Foundation). Add up the costs of planning meetings by an international program advisory committee of eight to 10 scientists, travel and stylish accommodations for 40 participants, plus such delights as a concert by the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, and it's clear that Dahlem Konferenzen are not cheap. But while richly enjoyable, these are not occasions for leisurely contemplation. Their prime mover, Silke Bernhard, has evolved a structure that wou1d make it very difficult for participants not to pull their weight. Dahlem topics are divided into four subthemes, aspects of which are reviewed initially in papers prepared by group members. All participants receive these papers before setting off for Berlin, their comments and questions being circulated during the conference. After an opening plenary on Monday morning, the four groups discuss proposed agendas, which moderators present for comment to a further plenary. Throughout Tuesday and Wednesday, vari-ous combinations of two groups then meet simultaneously, members of other groups at-tending as they wish. A crucial part of these deliberations is to highlight areas of ignorance and suggestions for further research. Thursday morning sees another plenary, at which rapporteurs present their delibera tions for comment. Then in the afternoon and often late into the night, rapporteurs and Dahlem's tireless typists draft reports to be discussed in a final Friday plenary. After further revisions, these reports, augmented by the background papers and a chairperson's introduction, are published—just eight months Iater. Our subject was humic substances. A heterogeneous group of macromolecular organic compounds originating from chemical and microbiological transformàtion of plant material, these occur in soils, sediments and fresh and marine waters. First isolated a century ago, they are now known to participate in many environmentally important processes such as the control of soil pH and moisture. In fresh, estuarine and ocean waters, dissolved humic substances control several processes, including the binding and mobilization of organic pollutants, and are a source of potent mutagens during the chlorination of drinking waters. But such is the complexity of humic substances, and the diversity of opinions about them, that Ifreely admit that I wondered whether the Dahlem formula was right for this subject. Welcomed at the airport by Dr. Bernhard, we were whisked to our hotel and given programs and meal allowances with Teutonic precision and charm. After a personal pilgrimage to view Nefertiti at the Egyptian Museum, I joined the opening session. To my shock, we were gathered on the l9th floor on the Europa Centre, a glass monolith with spectacular views over both sides of Berlin. To the East was the Wall, steeped in CoId War symbolism, and to the West the "Remembrance Church" ruins—both of which rekindled memories of my childhood as a Palestinian refugee roaming the Middle East. Surely, scientific detachment shou1d be foremost in our minds—yet here was a strong moral perspective. Dahlem had brought us from diverse countries, scientific fields and traditions, and placed us high above this epicenter of human conflict. In a flash, my objective as a moderator crystallized: to encourage my group to rise above parochialism, brainstorming toward new in-sights and avenues for future research. And so, I believe, it proved. To take just one example, my group concluded that the very process of isolating humic substances causes chemical and structural changes that may bear no relation to what happens in nature. Because their "properties" are actually averages drawn from what is really a continuum, humic substances can be defined only in operational terms. Working in this field, in other words, we are latter-day Heisenbergs, conducting experiments in damage limitation. It was with that and many other insights generated by Dahlem that I returned to work from a scientifically and culturally most enriching experience. Mantoura is a biogeochemist working at the Institute for Marine Environmental Research, Prospect Place, The Hoe, Plymouth PLJ 3DH, UK

The Dahlem Format Deserves Imitation

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of