{ C O N T E N T S }
Volume 9, Issue 1
President’s
Letter
Call for Leadership
Nominations
ISCB Membership
URLs in Grant Proposals
Your Feedback Requested
Announcing MentorNet
E-Mentoring Program

ISMB 2006 News & Updates:
- ISMB 2006 Registration
Now Open
- SwissProt 20
- SIGs & Satellite Meetings
- Introducing the PLoS Track
of Oral Presentations
- Student Council Symposium
- Help Send a Student to ISMB
- Advertise in the ISMB 2006 Newsletter

Other Conferences News
and Reports:
- RECOMB Celebrates 10 Years
- Affiliate Focus: OKBIOS
- Travel Fellowships Available
- Key Conferences: Key Dates

Student Travel Fellowships Yearbook
Bioinformatics
Books New Online Features
Post your Events
& News to ISCB Website
Upcoming Conferences &
Events
News From the Field
ACCESS
THE STUDENTCOUNCIL NEWSLETTER
ACCESS
NEWSLETTER ARCHIVES
Copyright
© 2006 International Society for Computational Biology.
All rights reserved. |
RECOMB
2006 Celebrates a Commendable, Long Term Success
The conference on Research in Computational
Molecular Biology (RECOMB), celebrated its 10th Anniversary conference
on the island of Lido in Venice, Italy. The Universita' degli Studi
di Padova, and the Department of Information Engineering at the
University of Padova, Italy played hosts to this milestone conference,
welcoming over 400 delegates for the four days of scientific talks,
invited lectures, panel discussions, poster sessions, social networking
and exhibitions. Conference and Program Committee chairs, Concettina
Guerra and Alberto Apostolico respectively (both affiliated with
Georgia Tech in the USA and University of Padova in Italy) worked
very hard during the past 12 months with various committees to produce
a praiseworthy result in a memorable location.
SUBMISSIONS & ACCEPTANCE
The 2006 program committee was comprised of 38 members including
the seven member steering committee and eight past program chairs,
to take on the scientific responsibility of reviewing 212 submitted
papers resulting in 40 oral presentation slots. Detailed
here is the number of submissions by country, sorted by acceptance
rate. Overall acceptance rate for RECOMB 2006 was 18.87%. Other
details and statistics from the 2006 conference are provided in
PDF (204K)
or Powerpoint
(6MB) formats.
Country
of Contact Person |
#
Accepted
(some overlap) |
%
Accept Rate by Country |
#
Submitted |
USA |
29 |
24 |
122 |
Germany |
4 |
33 |
17 |
Canada |
4 |
24 |
12 |
Israel |
2 |
25 |
8 |
Italy |
1 |
25 |
4 |
Sweden |
1 |
25 |
2 |
Singapore |
1 |
50 |
9 |
Hungary |
1 |
12 |
1 |
UK |
1 |
100 |
8 |
Australia |
1 |
20 |
5 |
Other |
0 |
0 |
24 |
Totals Overall |
40 |
|
212 |
TEN YEARS OF RECOMB
In recognition of the 10th anniversary
conference, the annual RECOMB business meeting on April 3, 2006
focused a good deal of attention on data gathered by Sarah Aerni
and Eleazar Eskin, both of the University of California, San Diego,
to reflect back on the conference’s roots and document its
growth and development over the years. The first RECOMB was held
in Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, in 1997. Since then the conference
has met five additional times in North America (once in Canada,
four in the U.S.), three times in Europe (including this year’s
conference in Venice, Italy), and one time in Asia. Global attendance
distribution remained fairly steady in the first five years, with
an average of approximately 66% coming from the U.S. and 34% from
outside USA, regardless of the actual conference location. However,
the first few years post 9-11 showed a surge in U.S. attendance,
reaching as high as 86% in 2002 when the conference was held in
Washington, DC, and remaining above 70% for the next two years in
the U.S. and Europe. In 2005 the Boston conference drew non-U.S.
attendance to a high of 46%, and in 2006 the conference in Italy
appears to have marked a return to the original average, with 65%
from the USA and 35% from everywhere else. It has been an interesting
evolution, to say the least, and next year in San Francisco will
either confirm or dispel the theory that early attendance trends
have in fact returned.
The program committee of the first ten years has
ranged from the combined volunteer efforts of 23 people in 1997,
to a 38 person PC in 2006. Four loyal scientists involved in the
first RECOMB have remained consistency active in the conference
in each of these ten years: Thomas Lengauer, Pavel Pevzner, Ron
Shamir and Mike Waterman.
Some of the notable developments in the history
of RECOMB include a trend toward accepted papers coming from collaborative
authors. In 1997 nearly 20 of the accepted papers were from single
authors, yet this number has gradually dropped over the years, with
just one accepted paper of 2006 submitted by a single author. Two
or three authors is most common of today’s accepted papers
(with the highest number to-date having been 12!).
To view the full 10 Years of RECOMB presentation,
please click are provided in PDF
(2MB) or Powerpoint
(6MB) formats.
A PANEL OF LUMINARIES
Following the business meeting at RECOMB 2006,
in recognition of this being a significant tenth anniversary year,
a distinguished panel was convened to address the past, present
and future of computational biology. Panel members were Alberto
Apostolico, David Haussler Sorin Istrail, Thomas Lengauer, Michal
Linial, Ron Shamir, Terry Speed and Mike Waterman, with Pavel Pevzner
serving as moderator.
Pevzner asked three questions of the panelists:
1) What are the past glories of this discipline?
 |
Waterman: |
Bringing
models into the development of sequence analysis was very important. |
|
Lengauer: |
Genome assembly
was the basic engine for propelling an entire field into turbo
drive. |
|
Istrail: |
An eager and aptly
growing generation of computational biologists. |
|
Shamir: |
The word “bioinformatics.”
It did not exist ten years ago when RECOMB first started. |
|
Linial: |
The glorious thing
is that so many can now cite biological terms and concepts valid
for both computer scientists and biologists and mathematicians. |
|
Haussler: |
A cultural shift
is emerging between the communities of molecular biologists
and mathematicians. |
2) And what have been the past failures of computational
biology?
 |
Speed: |
A lack
of engagement of the statistics community in the RECOMB community
– Get your statisticians involved – collaborate
with them – bring them here! |
|
Lengauer: |
Linking up with
experimentalists. We need to get much closer to the bio reality,
instead of being in danger of creating bio worlds. |
|
Shamir: |
Had hoped by now
the RECOMB audience would be balanced with biologists and computer
scientists, but that is not yet so. |
3) What are the most important advancements of
computational biology, and what do you look forward to?
 |
Speed: |
Technology…
DNA technology… ChIP technology. Data is driving the field
and I look forward to finding out what systems biology is all
about. |
|
Lengauer: |
Communities much
more willing to talk across communal boundaries. |
|
Shamir: |
When computation
becomes an essential and basic part of biology. The next generation
is already getting an integrated education – a great advantage. |
|
Haussler: |
Basic science issues
– how genomes work. We are a long way from understanding
but have an extraordinary opportunity to sequence the genome.
We’ll probably be building our own genomes some day. This
is both exciting and scary. |
|
Waterman: |
If I was getting
my PhD today and entering a post doc I would look for an experimental
lab like the Carols Bustamante lab to work with single cell
molecules. It’s just amazing what these little machines
do. I find it very interesting. |
|
Apostolico: |
It is a bit dangerous
when technology advances faster than you know how to use it. |
After the questions by Pevzner the floor was opened
to questions from the audience. Both Pevzner and Lengauer took the
opportunity to make final observations before closing the meeting
for the night:
 |
Pevzner: |
A failure
in computational educational biology has shown that 20 years
has not changed much – every biologist should take introductions
to algorithms and statistics. The divide between biologists
and computer scientists will stay until every biologist takes
such courses. |
|
Lengauer: |
Engineering deals with
designs made for understanding. Here we are dealing with designs
not made for understanding. “Data fitting” happens
now, piece by piece working toward understanding. But this just
emphasizes the humility and grandeur of what nature is able
to accomplish vs. what man is able to accomplish. |
LOOKING AHEAD TO 2007
The next RECOMB will descend upon the San
Francisco Bay area of Northern California, April 21-25, 2007. Hosted
by qb3, the California Institute for Quantitative Biomedical Research,
a cooperative effort among private industry and three campuses of
the University of California (Berkeley, Santa Cruz and San Francisco),
RECOMB 2007 is being chaired by Terry Speed with the help of his
local organizing team. All sessions will take place at the Marriott
Oakland City Center hotel (in close proximity to the University
of California, Berkeley, campus).
Visit www.RECOMB2007.com
for news and updates, and see related article
in this newsletter for key dates.
 |