GT_Nov_05_129-160.
qxd 12/12/05 10:37 PM Page 136
CORRESPONDENCE
18th World Congress of Gerontology:
A Babel Tower?
To the Editor
As with the last World Congress in Vancouver, 4 years ago, the 18th
World Congress of Gerontology (June 26–30) took place in a
breathtaking city, Rio de Janeiro. For a congress that aims to bring
together geriatricians and gerontologists with such diverse
backgrounds as, say, sociology and molecular biology, business
administration and philosophy, politics and psychology, the meeting
was a success.
The first day saw the “Iberian-Latin American Meeting.” “How to
Become (Make) a Geriatrician—Directly, from Internal Medicine or
from Family Medicine: Pro and Cons” seems to have been the most
interesting session of the day, at least for geriatric educators.
On the second day, Dr. Alexandre Kalache (of the World Health
Organization [WHO]) presented “Active Aging in the XXIst
Century: An Agenda.” That evening, in an extraordinary exposition,
Prof. William Hazzard discussed the theme “Why Women Live
Longer than Men.” Maybe the only point missing was to close up
with the so-called grandmother effect.
For those who thought that getting old in Africa is not of social
interest, “Aging in Africa” by Dr. Nana Apt (Ghana) was therapeutic.
In the closing ceremony, Prof. Renato Maia Guimarães, chair and
congress president and one of the most renowned geriatrics
professors in Brazil, deservedly received the International
Association presidency for the next 4 years.
However, despite the diverse program, coffee break commentaries
were similar to those heard in Vancouver: “With such a scattered
program, what did you learn that is new?” asked a geriatrician to his
colleague. “Indeed, little,” she replied. A physical therapist told me,
“Too much medical stuff.” On another occasion, a nurse insisted,
“Too much vague ‘blah blah blah.’” A geriatrician mentioned that a
World Congress of Geriatrics (physicians only) “would be more
interesting for us geriatricians.”
Are these reactions due to the old medical difficulties in working
with a multidisciplinary team? Partly, yes. But what can be said about
the existence of this opinion among other gerontological
professionals? To be sure, many reticent ones were satisfied and think
(as we do) that the interdisciplinary benefit outweighs the potential
problems in putting together professionals with such different
backgrounds. This is a problem that the congress’s diversity of
presentations can minimize, but not solve.
Cohesiveness into a unique congress makes a world conference
more viable financially and stimulates multidisciplinary exchanges.
Nonetheless, it creates scattered programs and decreases subarea-
specific interchanges.1
Gerontology has grown, and it is perhaps time to start thinking
about the pros and cons of a world multidisciplinary congress of
gerontology vis-à-vis many world congresses of gerontology
separated by subareas, such as geriatric medicine, biogerontology
136 December 2005
and gerontological psychology, nursing, sociology, and so on. In fact,
the first society to make its own international congress was the
International Association of Biomedical Gerontology, which is
already in its 11th edition and is held every 2 years.
Maybe the solution would be to make new subarea-specific world
congresses instead of keeping the multidisciplinary one. Europe
already has a European Congress of Biogerontology (held every 2
years) and an annual EU Congress of Geriatrics coexisting with its
quadrennial Congress of Gerontology.2,3
Yes, the specialty has grown, but the truth is that we belong to a
scientific area that is still new and, as such, we are relatively few. And
the few should be together to make history. We will need much
strength to keep subareas from separating. The question is, is it for
the common good?
Not a Tower of Babel, yet.
References
1. International Association of Gerontology. The 18th Congress of
the International Association of Gerontology’s final program. Rio
de Janeiro: SBGG; 2005.
2. Gray DA, Burkle A. Meeting report: 4th European Congress of
Biogerontology. Sci Aging Knowledge Environ 2005;23(8):5.
3. EU Geriatric Medicine Society. Third Congress of the EU
Geriatric Medicine Society. 15–18 September 2004, Vienna.
Available from: http://www.eugms.org/congress/index.jsp.
Matheus Roriz-Cruz, MD, PhD candidate, Department of
Geriatrics, Kyoto University, Japan; Department of Internal Medicine,
Division of Geriatrics, Federal University of Brazil—State of Sergipe,
Brazil.
Idiane Rosset, BN, MPH candidate, Department of Geriatrics, Kyoto
University, Japan.
Thadeu Roriz-Cruz, DO, MSc, Department of Odontology, Division
of Gero-odontology, Kyoto University Hospital, Japan.
Rosalina AP Rodrigues, BN, PhD, Department of Nursing, Division
of Gerontological Nursing, University of São Paulo, Brazil.
Antonio C. De Souza, MD, PhD, Instituto de Geriatria e
Gerontologia, Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil,
WHO Collaborative Center in Latin America.
Kozo Matsubayashi, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine,
Division of Geriatrics, Federal University of Brazil—State of Sergipe,
Brazil.
G E R I A T R I C S T O D A Y