Some headlines about CIA.
In this task, I have been
considerably helped in the past by the fact that another organisation carrying
the same acronym "CIA" but of much more dubious repute, has been
trotting along us for the past 40 years. Indeed, this double association has led
to innumerable jokes and sometimes serious misunderstandings, particularly at
the occasion of our first visit to America in New Orleans, when some outraged
American citizens wondered how the CIA had the nerve to hold an open meeting at
the Sonesta hotel, with agents relishing the bar and frolicking in the swimming
pool in the company of women, all this presumably at taxpayers’ expense. This
time, you will have noticed that we have been more careful not to use our
acronym but our full real name on all the panels.
Nevertheless, there were,
particularly in old days, many similarities between both organisations. We have
both been founded about at the same time, a few years after World War II. Our
goals, namely to chase the hidden truths and to uncover the unknown, were also
somewhat similar. Our membership list was most of the time rather mysterious, we
had members in many countries but many of them we soon lost track of. Some very
prominent people were members but nobody knew about it, sometimes not even
themselves. Since we were distributing membership certificates only on lean
years, this is not too astonishing. We had the same president for twenty years,
this is not too astonishing. We had the same president for twenty years, but he
knew nothing about the CIA affairs and operations, which was all for the better.
For these first twenty years, the CIA rules and bylaws remained buried in some
old register and nobody knew about them. My biggest mistake as young incoming
secretary twenty years ago in 1974 has been for the first time to dig out some
rules and make them public.
We have sometimes had a mole at
our meetings, some mysterious non registered visitor, probably belonging to some
unknown industrial organisation, and who had for obvious mission to spy on the
reports of our members.
This is why, on the eve of
coming for the second time to the United States, I have been following with
particular attention what the American press has to say about the CIA. Ladies
and gentlemen, it is appalling and I am afraid to say that we have to change our
name, because we can no longer afford to be mistaken for the other CIA.
I cannot, for technical
reasons, project to you the newspaper headlines which I have been collecting but
believe me, this is all true.
Wake-Up call for the CIA (Herold
Tribune, September 24, 1994):
"The CIA has been forced
to come to grips with the traditional practices and overt bias that have now
become the target of criticism... The CIA cannot function as a fraternity, much
less a white male one".
Stronger: "The US needs
intelligence but does not need the CIA", and finally the last straw:
Womanizing at the CIA (New York
Times, September 28, 1994):
According to the so-called
Glass Ceiling Report, half of the white female case officers in the operations
directorate reported experiencing sexual harrassement".
Ladies and gentlemen, it is
true that the CIA likes women, caters to women, appreciates that women and wives
always come so numerous at our meetings. We honor them, we love them, but call
this "womanizing"...?
No, I think that we have
plainly to change acronyms. I propose COL-INT-AL for Collegium Internationale
Allergologicum. It sounds appropriate, like the name of some new anti-allergic
drug. We shall trademark it, and if some of our corporate members take it up to
the market, it will bring welcome royalties to the association.
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to
finish on a somewhat more serious note. I have had the privilege to serve this
association, or rather this club, for over 20 years, first as secretary general,
then in the past eight years as vice-president and president and this gives me
both the right and the obligation to remind you about what the CIA has been, is
and in my eyes should continue to be, even in a rapidly changing world.
First and above all, the CIA
has been an elitist, never really democratic club, which has endeavoured to
foster a spirit of scientific research of the highest quality in allergology, to
bridge basic and clinical science, to consider on equal footings academic and
industrial scientists and also to provide a forum where the world leaders in the
field can exchange ideas and debate controversial topics in a spirit of fairness
and objectivity. The fact that we shall accept as members only people who have
already demonstrated their leadership ability and who have to some extent
established themselves in the field has certainly contributed to the particular
climate of these meetings, where nobody should feel that they has to prove he is
somebody and where the bad habits and manners of the daily rat race should be
left at the door. For me, the CIA is the meeting at which it was self-understood
to see Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo very civiliously co-chair a session, at
the height of and despite a very public controversy.
The CIA meeting is also a
particular occasion where you should have the incentive to really make new
friends, to meet scientists not only as an intellectual partner or potential
competitor, but also as a man or a woman with this family ties, his hobbies and
life interests. Without this peculiar touch, and each time the flavour of some
family reunion, the CIA or better COLINTAL(?) has no longer a real reason for
existence. We all attend plenty of scientific and business meetings but there is
none like the real CIA meeting.
Despite all the efforts of the
organizers, the goal is not always fully reached: the attractiveness of the
venue, the time available, the weather, the food, the sturdiness of the boat,
the mood of our wives or husbands are all contributing, beyond the science, to
make a memorable CIA meeting. But I am very encouraged, passing now the gavel to
our next president, Larry Lichtenstein, that we continuously learn from past
experiences.
I wish to thank our American
friends for their warm hospitality which has largely compensated for a mitigated
weather and for a sometimes hectic pace. The amount and quality of scientific
information were first class and the family spirit was there.
Now let us turn to 1996 and to
Schloß Fuschl, which in contrast to what many people here seemed to believe is
in Austria and not in Germany. Our friends Dietrich Kraft and Johannes Ring will
provide us with a very attractive setting and an unforgettable meeting. I wish
to see you all there.