136 December 2005 G E R I A T R I C S T O D A Y

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

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.

References1. International Association of Gerontology. The 18th Congress of

the International Association of Gerontology’s final program. Riode Janeiro: SBGG; 2005.

2. Gray DA, Burkle A. Meeting report: 4th European Congress ofBiogerontology. Sci Aging Knowledge Environ 2005;23(8):5.

3. EU Geriatric Medicine Society. Third Congress of the EUGeriatric 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.

C O R R E S P O N D E N C E

18th World Congress of Gerontology:A Babel Tower?

GT_Nov_05_129-160.qxd 12/12/05 10:37 PM Page 136