You’ve noted that several of the programs that got under way during the past year were an outgrowth of changes in the drug discovery field and in the vision for the society. Please elaborate.

RH: The field of high-throughput screening (HTS), which is what really launched the society 10 years ago, is starting to reach a middle stage of maturity; clearly, we’re beyond the initial baby steps that we were taking in the early ‘90s. Today, it’s important to have a perspective on where the field fits in the larger picture of pharmaceutical drug discovery, and to have a feel for how the society can contribute to that with new initiatives. We need to look, for example, at applying the discovery technologies that got their start and grew up with HTS to some of the more downstream technologies in drug development, such as secondary biological testing and ADME-Tox testing. We need to look for ways that the society can support the application of screening technologies to parts of the pharmaceutical sector that haven’t really benefited from them.

At the same time, we need to increase the breadth of our membership beyond the narrow field of industrial HTS. We’ve made some strides in trying to get new people and new thinking into the organization. The Academic Outreach Committee, which launched in April, is part of this effort (see article on p. 2). We realize that industry doesn’t have the market cornered on new ideas; a lot come from the academic community, but people there don’t always know what the requirements are for applying them in the real world. So I’m hoping that we can serve as a forum, bringing together the developers of some of the more avant-garde theoretical applications being worked out in academia, and the industrial practitioners of these technologies. Then we can begin to foster ongoing communication between industry and academia.

One example of the benefits of this communication can be seen in the area of cellular imaging, or fluorescence microscopy. Until a few years ago, this was primarily a low throughput technology for academicians who were trying to understand cellular physiology. Then some biotech and instrument companies began to experiment with using higher throughput methods, working with academia and the industrial side to try to bring that into practice. And now things have moved to the point where cellular imaging is much closer to being a production technology for high-throughput screening. So promoting dialogue between academia and industry is an area where the society can make a real contribution.

What about efforts to expand the society’s geographical reach?

RH: The society recently decided to hold regional meetings in Europe during years when the main conference is in the USA. SEBIOT, which is being held in Madrid on November 13 to 14, is the first example (see box, p. 3). The purpose of such meetings is to allow more access to our science to people outside the USA and to expand the society’s presence in Europe (and ideally, in Asia as well). Regional meetings also offer learning opportunities to scientists who can’t afford to go to a big meeting. So we’ll be doing regional meetings every year in a location that is complementary to the annual meeting, and some of these will be joint efforts with other scientific organizations that share interests with the SBS.

You alluded to a new role for the SBS Board of Directors. What do you envision?

RH: Now that we’ve made progress in changing the Board’s role from an operational to a strategic one, it’s important for Board members to define a long-term vision for the society, and communicate that vision to members and to the executive office staff. In effect, the Board can help the office fulfill the society’s long-term vision by carrying out short-term activities. This has already started happening, and we will continue to move in this direction.

The two main products of the society are the conference and the Journal. While we are interested in adding more products, it’s critical to maintain and improve the quality of the scientific content within these endeavors. We’ve already taken some tangible positive steps in this direction, which I believe are paying off, and this will continue. As the quality of the Journal improves and becomes better known, more people will want to contribute to it, and so it becomes a positive cycle. This will also help move the Journal into other areas where HTS technologies may apply, such as genomics and proteomics.

You’ve been an enthusiastic supporter of efforts to bring new members into the society and to get these members involved. Why is this important to you?

RH: We really need to have a good mix of people coming into the society and a diverse representation of the membership—not just the same people—on the Board, on committees, and so forth. The way for that to happen is for people to come forward and volunteer their time. I realize everybody is busy with their jobs and lives, and so this typically isn’t something they can put on the top of their lists. But it’s important that the society be represented by its entire membership, not just a small proportion.

I’d like to see more people who have been standing on the sidelines watching and benefiting from the society take a role in participating and bringing their own ideas—particularly those who may have some constructive suggestions about how things can be improved. I believe strongly that If you volunteer, you can make a difference.