April 10, 2002, San Diego, CA

Pacific Salon 4&5 Town and Country Resort and Convention Center


2:00 - 2:10


2:10 - 2:50

         2002 PROGRAM COMMITTEE (Ken Burtis, Scott Hawley)

2:10 - 2:30

2003 PROGRAM COMMITTEE (Dennis McK. Helmut K.John A.)

2:30 - 2:35

         Meeting Format & Workshop Discussion

2:35 - 2:50


2:50 - 3:10

               GSA MEETING COORDINATOR (Marsha Ryan)

2:50 - 3:00


3:00 - 3:10


3:10 - 3:40

               TREASURER (Steve Mount)

3:10 - 3:20


3:20- 3:40


3:40 - 3:50


3:40 - 3:50


3:50 - 4:00

               SANDLER LECTURER COMMITTEE (Steve DiNardo)

4:00 - 4:10


4:10 - 5:15

               STOCK CENTER ADVISORY COM.        (Hugo Bellen)

4:10 - 4:15

BLOOMINGTON STOCK CNTR (Kevin Cook, Kathy Matthews)

4:15 - 4:30


4:30 - 4:40

               DIS (Jim Thompson)

4:40 - 4:50

               FLYBASE (Bill Gelbart)

4:50- 5:00




5:10 - 5:25




5:25 - 6:00



REPORT OF THE 2002 PROGRAM COMMITTEE (Ken Burtis, Scott Hawley, Chuck Langley)


Registration - Pre-registration for the meeting continues to be strong, as detailed in the report from Marsha Ryan.  To date (as of 4/4/02), 1392 people (only 38 fewer than last year's record high) have registered for the meeting; the breakdown is in Marsha's report.  An additional 100 participants are expected to register at the meeting itself. The strong attendance continues even with the increased registration fees and challenging air travel conditions this year.


Plenary Speakers - Fourteen plenary speakers were invited; this is three more than in previous years, due to the addition of a special plenary session sponsored by the NIGMS on "Drosophila in the 21st Century: Current and Future Role of Drosophila as a Model System for the Study of Human Disease and Normal Biological Processes."  The NIH is covering the costs of audiovisual rental and refreshments for the break, so there is no added expense to the Drosophila community. No traditional meeting activity was eliminated by the addition of this extra plenary session, although we did reduce by one the number of sessions at which poster presenters were officially encouraged to stand next to their posters, in order to avoid temporal overlaps with scheduled workshops.  This should not, however, detract from attendance at the poster sessions.  Plenary speakers were chosen for their excellent science and for their ability to communicate in talks.  We made efforts to cover a broad range of current topic areas, to include investigators at different stages in their careers, and to achieve gender and geographical balance to the extent possible (8 male and 6 female this year).  Ed Lewis was invited to be the keynote speaker for the opening night, and will speak on "The Legacy of Calvin Bridges."  An updated List of Plenary Speakers is appended to this report that includes the year 2002 invited speakers.


Abstract Submission- Abstracts were solicited under thirteen areas of primary research interest (one more area than employed during the 2001 meeting).  The list of 2001 topics is appended to the end of this report, including the number of abstracts submitted in each area.  In total, 1003 requests were received for posters and platform talks ( versus 966 in 2001 and 802 in 2000).  There were 377 requests for slide presentations for 144 available slots, allowing accommodation of approximately 37% of the requests (1% less than last year).  The number of speakers for each sub-topic was roughly in proportion to the number of abstracts submitted in each sub-field, insofar as possible without combining topical areas in a single platform session.

               The choice of session topics worked well, although there is definitely a higher chance of being chosen for a platform presentation in some areas relative to others (see table below).  The most popular submission topics were Signal Transduction and Neurogenetics and Neural Development, but other subjects such as Regulation of Gene Expression and Pattern Formation were not far behind.  We were able to deal with the higher numbers of submissions in the first two areas by offering two slide presentation sessions for these topics as opposed to one session for the less heavily enrolled subject areas.   There is an important issue that needs to be dealt with in coming years regarding the overlap between platform sessions and workshops; for example Immune System and Apoptosis  and Techniques are each represented by small platform sessions as well as workshops that have become, in reality, additional platform sessions.


Slide Sessions - We selected abstracts for slide sessions from among the pool of abstracts requesting such consideration using the primary criterion of scientific interest.  However, we felt that other criteria were also of importance. As far as possible, we tried to avoid having more than one slide presentation chosen from any one laboratory, although in some cases of large, highly productive labs or labs working in multiple disciplines, selections from the same group were appropriate.  The task of dealing with this issue would be simpler if abstract submissions had a field indicating the identity of the principal investigator so that abstracts could be sorted according to laboratory.


Workshops - There were 13 workshops organized.  The workshops have evolved to the point where they range from real workshops (e.g. Drosophila population genomics) with very loose organization, to alternative community-selected Platform Sessions (most of the "workshops", to an additional plenary session (the Techniques Workshop). Once again, as noted by the previous organizers, issues related to the workshops were the most time-consuming and vexing problems we encountered. 


A choice needs to be made: are the workshops meant to be workshops (informal groups of people meeting to discuss relevant issues), or are they meant to be another form of platform session, with the topic suggested by the community ? If the latter is the case, it would probably be more useful to get community input beforehand about desired areas for new platform sesssions, and then handle them in the same manner as the other platform sessions. It might then be useful to arrange for small rooms to be set aside for truly informal workshops, with reservations for space prioritized in some organized manner. Platform sessions should have abstracts and scheduled speakers; workshops should not.


Policies -  In general, the policies followed were similar to those for the 2001 meeting.  Complimentary hotel rooms were reserved -- as traditionally -- for GSA personnel, the major organizers (who have traditionally been felt to deserve something for their efforts, and we agree!), and foreign scientists (mostly from Russia) who could not afford the rooms. Registration fees were waived for all participants who asked on the basis of serious financial need.  We recommend that this policy be continued.


Future Considerations and Organization of the Meeting -


A. Audiovisual needs are being met as in past years, and there are no apparent problems to be dealt with in this regard, other than a tendency for some meeting participants to fail to read the information on the web site regarding what is available.


B.  Some efforts were made to obtain corporate sponsorship of T-shirts this year, but in the end, they were unsuccessful. The organizers were not inclined this year to take the T-shirt production and sales upon themselves, so there will be no official meeting T-shirt this year.


C.  Interactions with the GSA office and staff were excellent this year. Although the organizers are new each year, the GSA is becoming more and more experienced with respect to this meeting (thank you Marsha Ryan), and most issues were dealt with efficiently and expediently. The organizers have begun accumulating a compendium of advice (coordinated by Mariana Wolfner) to be passed along to future organizers, which includes both formal and informal wisdom about issues that need to be addressed. We will continue this tradition with respect to next year's organizers.


It was possible to save some money this year by doing things locally that would otherwise have to be done (at the normal expense) by the GSA office. For example, a web site was created for last minute changes and announcements that was developed by the program chair and created and hosted at Davis, rather than on the official GSA website. Links to this site were added by the GSA to the meeting web site. This approach could be used in many ways, presuming that the organizers are comfortable with web site creation.


As noted in last years report, it would be useful for the organizers to have contact information for meeting registrants (email and phone contact information). Unfortunately, not everyone is on the Flybase People database, and last minute emergencies (cancellations, etc.) could be handled more efficiently if the organizers had this information at their fingertips.


In summary, everything went fairly smoothly this year; attendance remains at record levels despite the events of last year, and the meeting is projected to earn a substantial profit.  We look forward to an enjoyable meeting.



Acknowledgements:  This report used the report of the 2001 organizing committee as a template, and includes where appropriate some text from that report.

I. Updated Plenary Speaker list


Susan Abmayr                                             1995

Kathryn Anderson                      1999

Deborah Andrew                        1997

Chip Aquadro                               1994

Spyros Artavanis                         1994

Bruce Baker                                  1996

Bruce S. Baker                            2002

Utpal Banerjee                                            1997

Amy Bejsovec                                             2000

Phil Beachy                                   1998

Hugo Bellen                                  1997

Celeste Berg                                  1994

Marianne Bienz                           1996

Ethan Bier                                     2002

Seth Blair                                        1997

Nancy Bonini                               2000

Juan Botas                                     1999

Andrea Brand                               2001

Vivian Budnik                                             2000

Ross Cagan                                   1998

John Carlson                                 1999

John Carlson                               2002

Sean Carroll                                  1995

Andrew G. Clark                       2002

Tom Cline                                      2000

Claire Cronmiller                        1995

Ilan Davis                                       2001

Rob Denell                                    1999

Michael Dickinson                     1995

Chris Doe                                       1996

Ian Duncan                                    2001

Bruce Edgar                                  1997

Anne Ephrussi                                             2001

Mel B.Feany                                 2002

Martin Feder                                 1998

Janice Fischer                               1998

Elizabeth R. Gavis                    2002

Bill Gelbart                                    1994

Pam Geyer                                     1996

David Glover                                2000

Kent Golic                                     2001

Iswar Hariharan                           1998

Dan Hartl                                        2001

Scott Hawley                                2001

Tom Hayes                                    1995

Ulrike Heberlein                         1996

Ulrike Heberlein                         1998

Martin Heisenberb                     1998

Dave Hogness                                             1999

Joan Hooper                                 1995

Wayne Johnson                          2000

Timothy Karr                              2002

Thom Kaufman                           2001

Rebecca Kellum                          1999

Christian Klambt                         1998

Thomas B. Kornberg               2002

Mitzi Kuroda                                1997

Paul Lasko                                     1999

Cathy Laurie                                 1997

Ruth Lehmann                            2002

Maria Leptin                                 1994

Bob Levis                                       1997

Haifan Lin                                      1995

Susan Lindquist                           2000

John Lis                                          2001

Dennis McKearin                       1996

Mike McKeown                          1996

Jon Minden                                   1999

Denise Montell                            2002

Roel Nusse                                    1997

David O'Brochta                         1997

Terry Orr-Weaver                       1996

Terry L. Orr-Weaver              2002

Mark Peifer                                    1997

Trudy MacKay                            2000

Nipam Patel                                   2000

Norbert Perrimon                        1999

Leslie Pick                                     1994

M. Ramaswami                            2001

Pernille Rorth                               1995

Gerry Rubin                                  1998

Gerry Rubin                                  2001

Hannele Ruohola-Baker          1999

Helen Salz                                      1994

Babis Savakis                               1995

Paul Schedl                                    1998

Gerold Schubiger                       1996

Matthew P. Scott                       2002

John Sedat                                     2000

Amita Sehgal                                1996

Allen Shearn                                 1994

Marla Sokolowski                      1998

Ruth Steward                                1996

Tin Tin Su                                      2002

Bill Sullivan                                   1996

John Sved                                       1997

John Tamkun                               2000

Barbara Taylor                                            1996

Bill Theurkauf                                             1994

William Theurkauf                   2002

Tim Tully                                       1995

Barbara Wakimoto                    2001

Steve Wasserman                       1996

Kristi Wharton                             1994

Eric Wieschaus                            1996

Ting Wu                                         1997

Tian Xu                                           1997

Susan Zusman                                             1998



II.  Number of applicants and speakers in different topical areas



Number of applicants

(platform and poster)

Number of Speakers

Signal Transduction



Neurogenetics and Neural Development



Regulation of Gene Expression



Pattern Formation  



Gametogenesis and Sex Determination



Meiosis, Mitosis, and Cell Division



 Neural Physiology and Behavior



Genome and Chromosome Structure



Evolution and Quantitative Genetics



Cytoskeleton and Cellular Biology



Techniques and Genomics






Immune System and Apoptosis






III. Workshops.


Moderator:       Steve Robinow, University of Hawaii.


Mechanisms of Morphogenesis         

Moderator:       Susan Parkhurst, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.



Moderator:       Tony Ip, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester.


Drosophila population genomics      

Moderator:       Trudi Mackay, North Carolina State University.


RNA Processing          

Moderator:       Bill Mattox, University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center



Moderator:       Norbert Perrimon, Harvard Medical School


Signaling in the eye   

Moderator:       Nansi Colley, University of Wisconsin, Madison; Kevin Moses, Emory University School of Medicine.


Stem cells and asymmetric division during development   

Moderators:     Suma Datta, Texas A&M; Haifan Lin, Duke University.


Research at Primarily Undergraduate Institutions: Institutional Research Philosophy and Expectations/Institutional Resources and Support        

Moderator:       Beverly Clendening, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY


Cell cycle checkpoints            

Moderator:       Tin Tin Su, MCDB,University of Colorado, Boulder, CO



Moderator:       Tim Karr, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.



Moderator:       Sanford I. Bernstein, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.





Committee members:

Steve DiNardo, UPenn (Chair)

Lynn Cooley, Yale Med (2001 Chair)

Chip Ferguson, U Chicago

Helen Salz, Case Western


Mechanism of Committee Selection:  The current year's chair selects next year's chair (during summer), and also stays on for one year for "continuity".  The chair selects the other members; a list of recent members is pasted at the end of this document.  You need to have the committee chosen by early Fall.  Membershp numbers have varied; we had no problem with a committee size of four.  One should pay attention to gender, geographic region and perhaps specialty / area of expertise.


**Please contact Marsha as early as possible with the name and address of the chairperson so the information is included in the Fly Meeting Announcments.  The deadline for nomination should be given careful consideration, given the fluctuation in Fly Meeting dates.  This year's meeting (2002) was to be held relatively late, hence the January deadline.**


Key Contact at GSA: Marsha Ryan mryan@genetics.faseb.org


Selling points for committee work: not much work; really fun to read what is going on in fly field; responsibility to the meeting, which is FOR the students and postdocs, really. I let faculty "off the hook" for good reasons (grant due Feb / March 1 (this happened quite frequently), but made them give me two names as suggested committee members.


Operation of Committee: Because there were no major disagreements during both phases of the selection process (see below), the committee was able to correspond by email with no conference calls necessary.


Initial Nomination / Application: (thesis abstract, student's CV, Letter of support from Advisor):

As the Fall progressed I became concerned with the slow pace of nominations.  I asked Trudy if Flybase (Thom) could send out a reminder.  However, there were 13 nominees eventually, and most came in during the last week (prior to Thom's posting through a FlyBase email).


2002 Nominees (Advisor)

Bennet (Luke Alphey)

Bettencourt (Martin Feder)

Bradley (Debbie Andrews)

Furuyama (Peter Harte)

Gibson (Gerold Schubiger)

Kiesman (Bruce Baker)

Kusano (Barry Ganetzky)

Lebestky (Utpal Banerjee)

Lpez-Schier (Daniel St. Johnston)

Sonoda (Robin Wharton)

Torres-Vzquez (Kavita Arora)

Vied (Jamila Horabinhnston)

Wilkie (Daniel St. Johnston)



Initial round of selection:

Each member of the committee ranked the applicants from 1 to 6 based on the quality and impact of the research and the independence of the applicant. 

Three of the six applicants were ranked similarly high on everyone's list. 


Those three (Gibson, Lebestky and Kusano) were asked to send copies of their completed thesis on CD ROMs (figures and text), which I mailed to the committee.

All but one committee member liked that format; this committee member (Chip Ferguson) asked for hard copy - I had the candidates themselves each send out one printed version to Chip.  No one else seemed bothered by viewing files on computer screen (or printing parts themselves that they needed).


Final round of selection:

Each member of the committee read the theses and ranked the three finalists. Although it was quite hard for one member to choose between two nominees, in the end Matt Gibson was everyone's first choice. 


The Award:

1.       Opening talk of the Drosophila Research Conference April, 2002. Chairperson introduces speaker; summarizes why the award exists, perhaps briefly mentions some things about the selection process, etc.

It is likely that most of us chosen to be on the selection committee these days (and forward) are going to be "removed" from the Sandler lineage.  Thus, I advise subsequent chairs to use a suggestion made to me by Lynn Cooley: take a look at Dan Lindsley's "Perspectives" about Larry Sandler (Genetics 151, 1233-1237).


2.      Publication of thesis as a monograph by Kluwer Academic Publishers (Joann.Tracy@wkap.com was the contact). 

This did not happen this year: I emailed the above person to no avail (mail undeliverable); asked Marsha Ryan what this whole thing was about and she did not know


3.      Sandler Award Plaque (see entry on "Plaque", below)


4.      Lifetime membership in the GSA (Arranged wholly by Marsha)


5.      All expenses to attend the meeting (Arranged wholly by Marsha)



This went exactly as planned, all by email.  I emailed the info, including the full name and the award date, and they contacted me back by return email to verify.


The history: Lynn Cooley (2001) arranged for 10 plaques to be made by Brinks Trophey Shop in Santa Cruz, CA (831-426-2505; staff@brinkstrophies.com).  Bill Sullivan laid the groundwork for this in 2000. Marsha Ryan (GSA) paid for the plaques and the silk-screening f the name / date of the award winner $690.00 total), and she has all the information on how to contact them.  The selection committee chairperson simply needs to contact Brinks Trophey so that the name of the winner and the date of the award can be silk-screened on one of the plaques. The only additional cost will be shipping of the completed plaque to the committee chair; sent by UPS ground.


Outstanding expenses:

$14.00 - Shipping of plaque to Steve DiNardo

$xx.xx - Shipping CDs to committee members (Steve DiNardo)


Previous Committee Members:

I found it useful to know who had served recently.  I suggest we keep a running record of this.

2000 Committee:

Amy Bejsovec , Tom Cline, Joe Duffy, Chris Field, Janice Fischer , Scott Hawley

Bill Saxton (Chair)

Bill Sullivan (1999 Chair)



2001 Committee:

Laurel Raftery

Haig Keshishian

Susan Parkhurst

Bill Saxton (2000 Chair)

Lynn Cooley (Chair)


2002 Committee:

Steve DiNardo, UPenn (Chair)

Lynn Cooley, Yale Med (2001 Chair)

Chip Ferguson, U Chicago

Helen Salz, Case Western





Advance registrations for the 2002 are excellent totaling 1392, though this figure is 38 fewer than in 2001. It is expected that another 50-100 people will register on-site in 2002. Hotel room rates for singles and doubles in 200 ($130-150 single or double) are significantly lower than in 2001 ($191 single, $214 double). Room pick-up is record at 751 rooms peak night. Note that room pick-up is of significant importance in leveraging the conference during negotiations with future conference facilities. Last year's peak night advance pick-up was 714 rooms.


The number of exhibits sold this year is 4 more than last year, totaling 16. Represented are 15 commercial companies and one not-for-profit organization.


2001: Geographic distribution statistics for pre-registrants follow:



ARGENTINA                      1

AUSTRALIA                       10

AUSTRIA                            4

BRAZIL                               5

CANADA                             61

DENMARK                          2

FRANCE                             37

GERMANY                         37

INDIA                                  1

ISRAEL                8

ITALY                                  3

JAPAN                                 28

KOREA                3

MEXICO                             7

NETHERLANDS                3

PORTUGAL                        2


RUSSIA                               6

SLOVAKIA                         1

SPAIN                                 4

SWEDEN                            8


TAIWAN                             8

UK                                       67

TOTAL FOREIGN         335 from 25 countries





ALABAMA                          12

ARIZONA                           11

CALIFORNIA                     159

COLORADO                       6



FLORIDA                            2

GEORGIA                           18

HAWAII                              2

IDAHO                                1

ILLINOIS                            33

INDIANA                            25

IOWA                                  17

KANSAS                             7

KENTUCKY                       10

LOUISIANA                       2

MARYLAND                       89

MASSACHUSETTS           115

MICHIGAN                        20

MINNESOTA                     14

MISSOURI                         29

MONTANA                         2

NEBRASKA                        3

NEVADA                             2

NEW HAMPSHIRE           4

NEW JERSEY                     57

NEW MEXICO                   6

NEW YORK                        100

NORTH CAROLINA          58

NORTH DAKOTA             1

OHIO                                   24

OKLAHOMA                      2

OREGON                            13

PENNSYLVANIA               63

PUERTO RICO                   3

RHODE ISLAND               9


TENNESSEE                       4

TEXAS                                 59

UTAH                                  18

VERMONT                         2

VIRGINIA                           15

WASHINGTON                 27

WISCONSIN                      15

TOTAL USA                1,095 from 44 states





Room rates at the Sheraton have been set at $180 single/double range per night. By the contract terms, based upon the Sheraton's group rate of $159 in 1999, our rate for 2003 was to be limited to no more than a 5% per year increase. Thus, the highest the rate could have been was $193 single or double. At the request of the Sheraton, in exchange for releasing a part of our exhibit/poster space the day before the Dros conference begins so the hotel could accommodate another group  1) the hotel set the sleeping room rate lower than they could have charge; 2) the hotel and the other group agreed to carpet the exhibit/poster area for the other group's function and leave it in place for Dros, thus reducing the amount of time our decorator needs to set up our exhibit/poster space (and thus reducing the expense of carpeting).

Note that because the meeting dates for 2003 are approximately 5 weeks earlier than this year, all major deadlines will need to be moved ahead accordingly. This means the deadline for abstract submission will be November 3. If the deadline for 2003 were the exact length of time before the first day of the conference as for the 2002 conference, the deadline would be October 31. Deadline dates already given to the 2003 Program Chairs are FIRM within 1-2 days and cannot be moved without causing considerable ripples in the overall preparation of publications and web sites for the conference. Also taken into account, though of much less significance is the timeline used by GSA staff members in preparing for the annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics. Conflicts and particularly heavy workloads for staff working on both meetings come in mid-late July this summer and early-mid October (ASHG meeting is Oct. 15-19). Major differences for the Program Chairs are the fact that they will need to get to work almost immediately, and that the heaviest load of their work (selecting platform abstracts, finalizing plenary speakers and workshops) must be completed before the December/January holidays (instead of over and during the holidays).



At the 2001 Fly Board meeting, the Board selected the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, DC, site of the 2001 conference, as the facility for the 2004 conference.



The Town and Country Resort & Convention Center has been asked for a proposal for 2005 and has been told that much of the decision to be made by the Fly Board in selecting the site for 2005 will be based upon the outcome of this year's conference and how the staff performs, the space meets the conference needs and the enthusiasm, or lack of enthusiasm, of the registrants indicate for the T&C.



April 6, 2002



(Data are from the GSA [Marsha Ryan], March 29, 2002)



                                                                             Actual 2001              2002 (Projections)


Registration                                                           $297,915                 $282,650[1]

Exhibit Fees                                                                12,600                       15,300

Mailing Fees & Program Book Sales                       1,476                        5,260[2]

Advertising                                                                          -0-                             500

Donations                                                                     2,500                        5,000[3]

Miscellaneous (Cancellations, etc.)                       5,076[4]                          5,100


TOTAL REVENUE                                                  $319,567                   $313,810



Fixed Expenses:

Hotel and Travel-Staff                                                     997                     $ 3,500

Printing (Call, Program Book)                                 28,464                       30,000

Mailing, Addressing, Shipping, Freight                    7,729                       10,500

Duplicating/Copying                                                       713                             800

Telephone - FlyBase room computer lines            5,325                          5,500

Telephone & Fax - Other                                                803                             850

Office Supplies (badges, signs, misc.)                   1,778                          4,000

Projection & Sound                                                   31,488                       30,000

Space rental (poster/exhibit hall space)                  2,000                               -0-

Masking, poster boards, tables, chairs                 29,743                       22,000

Exhibits                                                                          2,733                          3,100

Contracted Services (Reg desk, security)               3,623                          4,000

Computer Services                                                      1,380                          1,450

Insurance Expense                                                         941                               -0-

Miscellaneous                                                                    11                             100


Subtotal Fixed Expenses:                                  $117,728                   $115,800


Variable Expenses:

Salaries/Wages/taxes/benefits                            $57,158                     $58,000

Catering - Coffee/Soda Breaks                               31,313                      26,000[5]

Catering - Reception                                                 30,284                       30,000

Catering - Fly Base                                                      4,126                          4,100

Miscellaneous/Credit Card Expense                       7,303                          8,500


Sub-total Variable Expenses:                           $130,184                   $126,600


Total Expenditures                                              $247,912                   $242,400


NET REVENUE (EXPENSE)                                     $71,656                     $71,410




Pre-registration 2002 (San Diego):                                1,219                    $211,000

           Projected total registration 2002:                     1,454                    $282,650


Pre-registration 2001 (Washington):                             1,372                    $240,240

           Total registration 2001:                                        1,627                    $297,915


Pre-registration 2000 (Pittsburgh):                                 1,083                    $131,075

           Total registration 2000:                                        1,183                    $167,005


Pre-registration 1999 (Seattle):                                       1,142                    $156,350

           Total registration 1999:                                        1,366                    $191,425




Drosophila Main Fund






Net Income



# Meeting




$ 25,146































71, 656



2002 (proj)





Note:  Fund balance cap established by GSA Board is $250,000.


Sandler Lecture Fund


Net Income


Excess to Reserve



















































In contrast to the concerns expressed at last year's board meeting, and fears raised by the potential effect of the events of Sept. 11 on conference participation, the fund increased by $71,656 last year and a similar increase is projected for this year.  This is due to the large number of late registrations at the 2001 meeting, the relatively inexpensive venue for the 2002 meeting, and consistently lower actual 2001 costs relative to projections in many categories (e.g. $28,464 for printing vs. an estimate of $30,000).  In fact, if the projected net income from this year's Conference is realized, the fund will approach a balance of $190,000, relative to a fund balance cap of $250,000.  The board may wish to consider making adjustments by reducing registration fees for next year's meeting.  However, Marsha Ryan reminds us that many costs in Chicago will be greater than in San Diego.  The single/double rate will near $200 per night plus tax, which will make the rate about what attendees paid in Washington in 2001 (or slightly lower).  It is likely that these rates will reduce attendance.  Therefore, she does not recommend lowering the registration fee for the 2003 meeting.  She will be preparing the 2003 budget in May after fixed banquet menu prices are available.  I note that the fund balance fell rapidly from over $100,000 in 1998 to $42,470 in 2000 and was considered to be in serious danger of going negative at this time last year, so a reasonable cushion is certainly appropriate.




5. Election Report


Election Report


The Elections Committee consists of Gary Karpen (Chair), Debbie Andrews, Ulrike Heberlein, Steve DiNardo, and Eric Wieschaus.  We met virtually and chose the nominees listed below.  People were nominated by the committee as a whole, based on previous involvement in the fly community, our perception of their ability to perform the job.  We also tried to choose people that have not served on the Board for awhile, or ever, in order to infuse new blood into the organization.  Furthermore, based on our discussion last year about female participation, we made sure that there was significant female representation on the ballot. 


The following letter was emailed to all flypeople in the FlyBase rolls.


Dear Flyperson,


Enclosed you will find a ballot on which to cast your vote for a

representative from your region and/or the president-elect for the

national Drosophila Board.  The Board administers the finances for

the annual North American Drosophila Research Conference and the

Sandler Lecture Award, chooses the meeting organizers, provides

oversight for the community resource centers, and addresses issues

affecting the entire fly community.  There are nine regional

representatives on the Board, eight from the United States and one

from Canada.  The Board also has a President and Treasurer, as well

as individuals representing Drosophila community resource centers,

including the BDGP, Flybase and the Bloomington Stock Center. The

Board has a business meeting once a year, just before the start of

the annual meeting; during the year business is regularly addressed

with e-mail discussions and voting.  Further information about the

Board can be found at



Starting last year, the Board instituted community elections for regional representatives and for the President-Elect.

Please participate in this election, it is your opportunity to choose the people that will determine the scope and organization of the national meetings, as well as help set priorities and garner support for community resources.



The election ballots were tallied by Thom Kaufman, and the winners were:

Barbara Wakimoto for president elect,

Amy Bejsovec, for the Southeast region,

Sean Carroll, for the Great Lakes region

Laurel Raftery for New England.


This year we have to nominate and elect another President Elect, as well as regional representatives for the Canada, Heartland, and Midwest. We plan on doing this much earlier in the year in order to allow the President Elect to be exposed to the workings of the Board.


Drosophila Board Master List:                       


Officers:                                                                                 end of term*


Steven Wasserman               Past-President            2002          stevenw@ucsd.edu

Trudi Schpbach                  President                      2003                                                         gschupbach@molbio.princeton.edu

Barbara Wakimoto                 President elect           2004          wakimoto@u.washington.edu

Steve Mount                           Treasurer                   2002         sm193@umail.umd.edu

Gary Karpen                          Elections                      2003         karpen@salk.edu


Regional Representatives:


Paul Lasko                             Canada                      2002          Paul_Lasko@maclan.mcgill.ca

Sean Carroll                           Great Lakes               2004         sbcarrol@facstaff.wisc.edu

Susan Parkhurst                     Northwest                  2003         susanp@fhcrc.org

Amy Bejsovec                      Southeast                   2004         bejsovec@duke.edu

Judith Lengyel                       California                   2003         jlengyel@ucla.edu

Bob Boswell                          Heartland                   2002                                                           boswell@beagle.colorado.edu

Laurel Raftery                        New England           2004                                                         laurel.raftery@cbrc2.mgh.harvard.edu

Denise Montell                      Mid-Atlantic              2003         dmontell@jhmi.edu

Jeff Simon                               Midwest                     2002         simon@molbio.cbs.umn.edu


Ex Officio:


Bill Gelbart                             FlyBase                      ----             gelbart@morgan.harvard.edu

Gerry Rubin                           BDGP                        ----             gerry@fruitfly.berkeley.edu

Thom Kaufman                    Bloomington SC      ----                                                           kaufman@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu

Kathy Matthews                    Bloomington SC      ----             matthewk@indiana.edu

Kevin Cook                               Bloomington SC                           kcook@bio.indiana.edu

Jim Thompson                      DIS                             ----             jthompson@ou.edu

Michael Ashburner               Europe                       ----             ma11@gen.cam.ac.uk

Hugo Bellen                          SC adv. comm.          2003          hbellen@bcm.tmc.edu

Chuck Langley                     at-large                       ----             chlangley@ucdavis.edu

Allan Spradling                      P-element collect.      ----         spradling@mail1.ciwemb.edu

Larry Goldstein                     at-large                       2002         lgoldstein@ucsd.edu

Stephen DiNardo                 Sandler Lect.              2002                                                           sdinardo@mail.med.upenn.edu


(Gary Karpen to become member at large           2004)

(Steve Wasserman to become member at large  2005)

(Trudi Schupbach to become member at large   2006)


2002 Meeting Organizers:

Scott Hawley                         ---                                2003         rsh@stowers-institute.org

Ken Burtis                              ---                                2003         kcburtis@ucdavis.edu


2003 Meeting Organizers

Denis McKearin                                                                2004                                                        dennis.mckearin@utsouthwestern.edu

Helmut Kramer                     ---                                2004                                                           helmut.kramer@utsouthwestern.edu

John Abrams                             ---                                2004                                                           john.abrams@utsouthwestern.edu



Past Meeting Organizers:

Mariana Wolfner                   ---                                2002         mfw5@cornell.edu

Mike Goldberg                      ---                                2002         mlg11@cornell.edu


GSA Representatives:


Elaine Strass                           Exec. Dir.                   ----             estrass@genetics.faseb.org

Marsha Ryan                         Sr. Mtg. Coord.          ----           mryan@genetics.faseb.org


* year indicates the final year through which the members will serve, unless reelected.



Report from the Bloomington Stock Center Advisory Board (March 10, 2001) As usual, we are very happy with the performance of the Bloomington Stock Center. Most of the details of the performance of the Stock Center are found in its annual report. The collection is expanding and the use is higher than ever.


The major issue that will be discussed in this year's annual meeting are:

1.       The status of P-element genome disruption project, new efforts, community support (Bellen)



7. BLOOMINGTON STOCK CENTER REPORT (Kevin Cook, Kathy Matthews, Thom Kaufman)


Report from the Bloomington Stock Center


1. Holdings

Total stocks as of 4/4/02                               9,643


Added during 2001                                        1,091

        Lethal, sterile or visible alleles            362 (184 are sequence-mapped P-insertion alleles)

        Other sequenced-mapped P's            368 (many will prove to be alleles)

        Deficiencies                                             218

        Duplications                                              17 (plus 35 duplications in deficiency-primary stocks)

        Balancers                                                     4

        Other aberrations                                       2

        GAL4/UAS                                                  68 (includes 1 FRT/FLP and 1 GFP also included below)

        FRT/FLP                                                       9 (includes 2 GFP's also included below)

        GFP                                                               4

        lacZ                                                                2

        SNP mapping stocks                               25

        Other mapping                                            3

        Marker chromosomes                               8

        P mutagenesis                                           1


2. Use








































TABLE 1.  Numbers of registered user groups in each institutional category (U.S. Academic, U.S. Government, U.S. Commercial, U.S. Teaching, and Foreign (Non-US)) and percent of total, and the percent of registered groups in each category that received stocks in  2001.























TABLE 2.  The total number of registered user-group members in each institutional category for 2001. Only group members that have requested stocks in the last 3 years or were listed as current group members in an update from the laboratory are retained in our records.




US Acad






US Teach










6,127 (61)

72% (0.7%)





29 (10)

 0.3% (0.1%)










53,390 (335)

62% (0.4%)





151 (76)

0.2% (0.1%)









TABLE 3.  Degree of institutional use of the center during 2001. The number of shipments (Ships) and number of subcultures (Subs) received by each institutional category (U.S. Academic, U.S. Government, U.S. Commercial, U.S. Teaching, Foreign Academic, Foreign Commercial and Foreign Teaching) are shown, followed by the percent of the total each category represents. Use by Indiana University (internal use) is shown in parentheses under U.S. Academic and U.S. Teaching.


3. Fees


No. of Stocks

Cost per Stock

Account Fee

Range of Annual Fees*

1 - 5



$35 - $75

6 - 20



$80 - $150

21 - 50



$153 - $240

51 - 100



$242 - $342

101 - 500



$343 - $843

501 - 1000



$843.50 - $1,218




$1,218.50 and up


TABLE 4. New Fee Structure for 2001. * Note that these ranges include the account fee and the stock fee, but do not include the extra-shipping fee. The group with the most shipments in 2000 paid $400 in extra-shipping fees.












































Assessed Fees
















Invoiced Fees

















TABLE 5. Assessed and Invoiced Fees in Selected Use Ranges for 2001. The number of groups in each use range (and the percent of total active groups), the total number of subcultures received by those groups (and the percent of total chargeable subcultures), the assessed fees (and percent of total) for all groups in that range, and the invoiced fees (and percent total) are shown. Invoiced fees are assessed fees minus waived fees.

*The remaining 1,962 subcultures shipped in 2001 were unchargeable, either because they were replacements for stocks lost or killed in transit (1,793 stocks) or stocks sent in error (169 stocks).


4. Funding


Funding for FY 01/02

               NSF       $339,383

               NIH        $235,219

               IU           $ 40,518

               Fees      $223,950 (estimated as $233,281 - 4%) 


               Total      $839,070


We are currently in year 3 of a 5-year funding period. The collection is funded to expand to 15,000 lines over the next 2 years.


5. Endowment


The value of our endowment as of 2/28/02 is $496,555.


6. Advisory Committee


               Hugo Bellen (Chair)

               Michael Ashburner

               Ulrike Heberlein

               Norbert Perrimon

               Amanda Simcox




8. DIS REPORT (Jim Thompson)

Volume 84 of Drosophila Information Service is the first with the new December deadline for submission of materials.  Issues will now report contributions on a calendar year basis.  This was very successful, and the volume will be among the largest in terms of numbers of pages of research, technique, teaching, and mutant reports.  Over 70 articles are included, and the price will remain at $12.00 plus shipping and handling.  The only negative is that the camera-ready copy was provided to the printer in mid-January, less than two weeks after the manuscript receipt deadline, and the printer promised final delivery the first week in February.  It is now almost mid-April and the books have not yet been received.  Since more than 2/3 of the manuscripts were received after the beginning of December, this is still a rapid publication turn-around, but I am obviously not satisfied with it.  A new printing company has been located for next year.  The cost will be a little higher, but still within our operating expense limits if the size of the issue remains about the same.  I therefore do not plan an increase in cost of DIS 85.  As a hedge against future delays of this type, plans for implementing the DIS web page are well on track for the summer.  Data files are now being prepared, and the essential structure of the web page has been designed.  We will begin by providing tables of contents and key word cross-references to articles.  Previous articles will be archived for electronic access, beginning with the most recent three to five year's worth of technique, teaching, and research reports.  Ultimately, we plan to have all articles on line.  I also encourage members of the Board to send me information (e.g., lists of speakers and titles) for regional Drosophila meetings.  These are reported in a special section of each issue and can be a useful source of outreach for those seeking graduate school mentors or postdoctoral researchers.  All information can be sent to:  James N. Thompson, jr., Department of Zoology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK  73019;  jthompson@ou.edu.





9. FLYBASE (Bill Gelbart)


Reannotation of the Release_3 D. melanogaster Genome:


The main focus of FlyBase over the last year has been to prepare for the global

reannotation of the Drosophila melanogaster genome.  In order to make this

reannotation effort produce the best possible product for the Drosophila community,

it was necessary to delay the projected start of the reannotation until several underlying

datasets and tools were in place, including,


Reannotation began in earnest at the beginning of November, 2001.  The strategy was to divide successive chromosome arms into ~350kb blocks (the submission size to the DNA databanks) and assign each block to a different curator at two of the FlyBase sites --Harvard and Berkeley.  A first pass of reannotation was carried on two arms -- 2L and 3R -- both as a learning exercise for the curators to encounter problematic predictions and set up a uniform set of guidelines of the conclusions to draw from various combinations of evidence.  This quality/consistency assessment has been extremely important since 10 curators are engaged in the reannotation effort.  Finally, in February, the last of the data sets (the DGC 1.0 cDNA sequences) were added to the annotation pipleline and the first arm, 2R, was fully annotated.  We are now in the process of submitting the annotation of the assembled release_3 sequence of chromosome arm 2R to GenBank, and it should be in public view through FlyBase, NCBI, EBI & DDBJ at the time of the fly meeting or shortly thereafter.


The first pass of chromosome arm 3R reannotation is being re-evaluated now with the additional cDNA sequence data, and it should be in public view by the end of April.  Chromosome arm 2L will be fully reannotated and in public view by the end of May.


There have been some delays in the completion of the finished sequence of the other 2 major chromosome arms, but 3L and X should be ready for reannotation by the time that chromosome arm 2L is completed.   Chromosome 4 will be done thereafter.  Hopefully, this will allow the public release of the fully reannotated release_3 genome by the end of July, 2002.


A special acknowledgement should be made to efforts of the entire FlyBase staff to support this global reannotation effort.  It has required a huge, highly coordinated effort to develop the informatics, to put the necessary datasets in place and to integrate the information into the FlyBase database and the public views of the data.


Acknowledgement of NHGRI for its generous support of FlyBase is equally important.  Were it not for NHGRI, there is no way that FlyBase could have come anywhere close to its current scope, and the fly community should recognize this major contribution by NHGRI.  FlyBase would also like to thank the Howard Hughes Medical Institute for support of two programmers at Berkeley.


FlyBase Web Server:


As part of the reannotation effort, FlyBase committed to providing an integrated view of the genome project and community data in our databases.  We have made use of an internal group of biologists from the project to work with our technical staff to develop an integrated and, hopefully, user-friendly entry point for Drosophila gene data.  This is a work in progress, and this group will continue to work on design and query-interface issues to make the data as accessible as possible to the scientific community. 



Future Reannotation:


Beyond release_3, our current plan is to continue reannotation indefinitely.  While the plans for the next phase of reannotation are not concrete yet (it is a topic of discussion for our spring FlyBase meeting), the general idea is to reannotate subsets of the genome according to the availability of new data and because the subsets have some unifying scientific principle.  For example, a genomic region containing a cluster of related sequences will be reannotated if there is new information on what these sequences correspond to.  Alternatively, the genes encoding a protein family may be reannotated if there is new information on the gene models they contain.  In both cases, we expect that a curator will be assigned responsibility for a particular scientific domain and will work with experts in the community to refine the definitive set of gene models.  Based on other genomes such as C. elegans, we expect changes to the underlying genome sequence to trickle in for the next 2-4 years, and occasionally, these will also necessitate reannotation of a genomic region.  Perhaps most importantly, the comparative sequence data that are now available from the mosquito Anopheles gambiae and will be available in several months from Drosophila pseudoobscura (which is being sequenced by Richard Gibbs and the Baylor Human Genome Sequence Center) will be rich sources of information for regions of conservation for gene models and for potential regulatory elements.  We will be evaluating how to best incorporate these data sets into our future reannotation strategy. 


In addition to our responsibility to maintain an up-to-date view of the gene products encoded by the D. melanogaster genome, it is also clear that a great deal of information will be coming out about cis-regulatory sequences and other domains in the D. melanogaster genome.  In general, it will continue to be our goal to attach all available biological information to the genomic sequence of D. melanogaster.  This is a challenge that should keep us in business for some time to come.


The Future of FlyBase:


FlyBase is now in its 10th year of NHGRI funding, and has begun the fourth year of the current 5 year grant period.  The FlyBase Consortium has already begun the planning process for the renewal application, which will be submitted in February-March, 2003 for funding beginning December 1, 2003.  We are taking this opportunity to do a complete reassessment of the goals and strategies that have evolved over the first 10 years of the project.  Some decisions have already been made at a January 2002 meeting of the PIs (Gerry Rubin, Michael Ashburner, Thom Kaufman, Kathy Matthews and myself). 


All current sites will continue to participate in FlyBase during the next grant period, at least at its inception.  There will however be some changes in responsibility and organization. 


One important behind-the-scenes change will be that the data currently housed in two separate data structures (often referred to as GadFly and the FlyBase-literature databases) will be merged into one integrated structure.  This true integration will enable even more powerful querying of the database and will provide a structure that can be downloaded by the ever-increasing number of users who wish global access to the FlyBase data sets.  The public FlyBase query interface will be redesigned to take advantage of this new integrated structure.  It is our goal to have the integrated database in place by the beginning of the new 5 year funding period. 


Obvious areas that FlyBase needs to evaluate are its roles in the collection and centralization of other data sets of interest to the scientific community.  Among these are developing transcript array and proteomic data sets.  It is not our intention to duplicate the efforts of central repositories such as GEO, but rather to reflect the value-added information on these datasets that the Drosophila community provides through the hard copy and electronic literature.  Similarly, FlyBase needs to play a role in presenting information on gene pathways and networks, but this area is in sufficient flux that we have not yet settled on a strategy for doing so.  Population genetic data is another area that FlyBase has not focused on, and with envisioned projects such as Chuck Langley's initiative to fully sequence large genomic blocks of many D. melanogaster haplotypes, incorporation of population-based data may become a high priority.


Some significant changes of responsibility are being planned for the beginning of the next 5 year cycle.  Most notably, since the genomic information on D. melanogaster will begin to stabilize, Berkeley views its role within FlyBase as winding down.  Several of the responsibilities of the FlyBase-Berkeley group will shift to FlyBase-Harvard.  The integrated database that will be co-designed by the Harvard and Berkeley technical staffs will be housed at Harvard, and almost all of the on-going molecular curation responsibility will be at Harvard.  The Berkeley group will maintain a FlyBase software development group and a small curation/annotation group for the first two years or so of the next 5 year grant cycle.


Integration and Coordination with other Model Organism Databases:


The major model organism databases have had a very effective dialog over the last few years.  One spin-off of this dialog has been the GO Consortium (Gene Ontology), a functional annotation collaboration that originated with FlyBase (through Michael Ashburner) and its mouse, yeast and Arabidopsis companion databases, and which has been adopted as a standard by a great many informatics groups.  A new project that is being funded by NHGRI and NIGMS, called GMOD (Generic Model Organism Database) has the goal of creating a suite of software tools that can be used essentially off the shelf as the underpinnings of the burgeoning number of new model organism databases.  One by-product of the GMOD project will be higher levels of coordination and collaboration among the major model organism databases, perhaps including joint public interfaces for compatible subsets of our data collections.  Discussions of GMOD will undoubtedly be an important component of our next 5 year renewal.


Community Input:


FlyBase will meet with its advisory board in October to discuss the grant renewal and database integration plans in detail.  The advisory board consists of Drosophilists and bioinformatics specialists, and has been extremely helpful in mapping out FlyBase's paths.  However, advice from a broader swatch of the scientific community is crucial as well.


Input from the Fly Board (and the fly community in general) on ours plans, priorities, organization, etc., is especially important during the preparation of the competitive renewal application.   Please encourage your regional communities to pass on their suggestions and criticisms so that we can factor them in during our planning process. 


Bill Gelbart  (PI - FlyBase)



10. Community Resources Committee Report - Bill Gelbart


Because of time constraints, there has been no consultation with members of the committee; Bill is solely responsible for any opinions and erroneous facts.


The Community Resources Committee went into hibernation after the production of the Drosophila whitepaper, but now that it's spring (albeit a year later), it's the appropriate time to  reactivate the committee.


Several of the initiatives that are discussed in the whitepaper are underway.  The status of the major points of the whitepaper  are:


1)      Funding for the sequencing of the D. melanogaster cDNA Unigene set (the DGC or Drosophila Gene Collection, which has been assembled and is being sequenced by the BDGP), has been provided by NHGRI and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.


2)     Funding for expansion of the Bloomington stock center is in the  process of being provided.   There should soon be carrying capacity  for 10,000-15,000 strains. 


3)     Database supplements for the reannotation of the Drosophila genome  were provided by NHGRI.  The competitive renewal of the FlyBase grant  will be submitted in February-March, 2003, and this will likely  request funds at the level described in the whitepaper.


4)     The Baylor Human Genome Sequencing Center was recently awarded an  NHGRI grant to produce a ~7-8X whole genome shotgun assembly of the  Drosophila pseudoobscura genome.  Some EST and full length cDNA  sequencing is also envisioned by Richard Gibbs (PI) as part of this  project.


5)     An application for a molecular stock center and community  microarray facility is currently being revised for resubmission to  NIH.


With these projects underway, it is time for the fly community to  evaluate further needs.  One reason that this is timely is that NHGRI  has set up a new mechanism for community input into the prioritization  of BAC library production and whole genome sequencing targets by the  major NIH-funded sequencing centers (Whitehead, Wash U and Baylor).   If we think that it is imperative that further Drosophila species be  sequenced, we have to develop a specific proposal as a white paper  that has clear community support.  The NHGRI committee (called GRASPP)  reviews these white papers with the goal of triaging potential  sequencing targets, so that in the future, available capacity of the  sequencing centers is directed toward the highest priority group of  genomes.  I suggest that the Community Resources Committee be assigned  the task of identifying a Drosophila genome sequencing program by  early fall of 2002.


Other projects are under consideration by various members of the fly community, and their success in part will be determined by the level of support within the fly community.  One example is Chuck Langley's project to sequence the genomes of about 50 Drosophila melanogaster haplotypes through hybridization-based resequencing technology.   Another is an offer from Amanda Simcox to produce embryonic cell lines  from a variety of strains.  I believe that it would be helpful for  the Community Resources Committee to play a role in helping to develop  these proposals and to serve as a vehicle for community input.


If the FlyBoard endorses these ideas, then the make-up of the  committee and its chair should be reviewed as part of the discussion. 


Respectfully submitted,


 Bill Gelbart







International Congress of Genetics (Phil Batterham)

Genomes - The Linkage to Life

Melbourne Australia

July 6-12, 2003


The Melbourne Congress - July 6-12, 2003


ICG 2003 in Melbourne will be a huge event.  Over 3000 delegates will gather at the Melbourne Exhibition and Convention Centre, half of these coming from countries other than Australia.




The Congress web site (www.geneticscongress2003.com) has been launched.  This site will provide regularly updated, detailed information on all aspects of the Congress.  Registration, accommodation bookings and the submission of abstracts will also be managed via this site. 


Satellite Fly Meeting in Cairns (Australia) in July 2003


Cairns is on the Great Barrier Reef.  Aside from being situated in tropical paradise, Cairns offers excellent meeting venues easily reached from around the Pacific rim.

While such a meeting could be organized by locals, a cooperative venture drawing upon the experience of the Drosophila board would be preferable.  We seek support with promotion of this meeting and in development of an attractive program.  The professional conference organizer for the Congress can fully handle administration of the meeting.


Dr. Philip Batterham

Secretary General

International Congress of Genetics 2003




Summary of Board Meeting 2002, San Diego



2001 Minutes were approved.

Thom Kaufman and Bill Gelbart will post Minutes of the meetings on Web and revamp the link from Flybase to the Board documents so that these documents become a little more accessible to the uninitiated browser. Gary Karpen and Steve Wasserman will try to locate old Board Meeting Agendas and Reports, and send them to Thom Kaufman.


Program committee report:

The Board made the following recommendations, in response to the report by Ken Burtis:


Workshops: Since the past and present meeting organizers have found the workshops to be the most troublesome part of the meeting to coordinate, the Board discussed guidelines to make this part of the job easier.  Workshop chairs should be told to encourage more discussion. Workshops should not be exactly like platform sessions. Overlap between workshops and platforms should be avoided.  Overall, the honor system for giving only one talk at the meeting seems to work quite well. Only the title of the workshop and name of chair(s), time and room will be printed in the program book from now on; the workshop abstracts and speakers will no longer be included.  Organizers should therefore not have to worry about the exact workshop programs and speakers. But in turn for being given free reign, workshop chairs have to allow time for discussion and think of ways to encourage discussion.


Poster Sessions:  More time should be allotted for poster sessions; possibly a greater number of workshops could be held in parallel to avoid the conflicts of workshop and the poster sessions. This change will require that we rent more rooms, and therefore will cost more (projection costs would increase as well). Marsha Ryan will investigate whether this will be possible in Chicago. Big advantage would be that it would free up time. Since there is some extra money, it should be possible to try this.  In addition, the poster sessions are growing. This may pose space problems in the future. Right now, space for all posters is available, as long as the slightly smaller poster boards (4x6) are used. This size seems acceptable, and will be used in the future in order to accommodate all posters, unless there are complaints after the San Diego meeting.  But if poster numbers increase a lot more, it is possible that two different sessions will be necessary in the future. 


T-shirts.  These have to be an option left to organizers.  Some organizers may choose to have T-shirts, while others may not. No one should feel obligated to make T-shirts available. Ken Burtis suggests that people who want T-shirts can email the organizers to obtain the art design of the program book as an electronic file, and they can make their own T-shirts.


Future sites: We are moving toward a three-site rotation (Chicago, Washington DC, San Diego) but we can remain flexible and decide whether sites live up to expectation (this may also give some bargaining power).




The meeting has now a substantial surplus. This allows for some flexibility.

Ideas on how to spend the surplus were discussed and the strongest support was for providing a free breakfast to attendees. This can be organized after the registration deadline, i.e. when it becomes clearer what the financial outlook of the particular meeting will be. If there is a substantial surplus, there could be two free breakfasts. Also snacks could be offered at the poster session, in addition to the free drinks that are traditionally available. The meeting organizers together with Marsha Ryan and the Board president can decide on these expenditures on a flexible basis.

New expenditure: The Board decided that finalists of the Sandler award competition should also be invited to the meeting. Their travel and registration will be paid for by the general fund, and their names will be announced at the meeting.


Reserve amount:  Keeping a reserve amount against future losses was generally approved by the Board. The exact amount has not been determined. Several board members felt that $150,000 would be a comfortable amount, which could offset two years of losses on the order of the Pittsburgh meeting. Marsha Ryan and Steve Mount thought $150,000 is too much to set aside.  We will ask the Board members to consider this issue further and decide soon on an amount to keep in the reserve. 



The election committee nominates delegates living in the different regions to ensure diversity on the Board.  It was agreed that everyone in the fly community can vote for the proposed delegates, including any of the regional representatives who are on the ballot that year.


To ensure long-term memory on the Board, former presidents will usually become members at large for three years after their terms expire. In this particular year, that means that Gary Karpen, who served as president in 1999/2000, and past president in 2000/2001 will become a member at large serving through 2004, Steve Wasserman will become a member at large serving through 2005.  The job of organizing elections will also be rotated off, such that this year Steve Wasserman will be in charge of elections, and will he will transfer this duty next year to Trudi Schupbach.   


Sandler report

Thesis of the finalists are now usually submitted on CDs, saving the candidates money in printing copies of their figures and making shipping easier.  In addition to the winner, the finalists will be invited to the meeting (see above, under Finances). This will be paid for by the general meeting fund. The Sandler chair, Steve Di Nardo, will select a new Sandler committee chair, and serve on next year's committee.


Community Resources
Hugo Bellen reported on efforts to generate new P-element insertions. Many new P-elements have already been sent to Bloomington, and by the spring of next year, in the order of 4,000 new P-elements should be at Bloomington. Different P-element vectors will be used to ensure diversity in insertion sites.

Question about Piggyback insertions: Michael Ashburner reported that Cambridge is about to sign an MTA with Exelixis to be able to distribute Piggyback insertion strains. The exact legal issues are not clear, but it may be worthwhile for the US P-element team to check with Michael. Hugo Bellen also reported that Piggyback, while being great at having a different insertion propensity, and therefore good for targeting new genes, has drawbacks as a mutagen. However, Allan Spradling is improving their use.


Stock Centers:

The Bloomington Stock Center continues to do extremely well. 

Kyoto Drosophila Genetics Resource Center:  This stock center will begin distributing stocks during 2002.  They intend to serve as the primary distibutor of common stocks to Asia and this should alleviate some of the work/costs of Bloomington in sending stocks to Asia. They also intend to distribute many unique stocks.  While they may face difficulties during their initial years of operation, their success is important in adding to the total worldwide stock maintenance capacity.


Kathy Matthews explained that the United Nations Convertion on Biological Diversity has drafted a protocol (the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety) concerning the international transfer of genetically-modified organisms.  The protocol exempts research model organisms from detailed risk assessments, but there is some concern that adoption of the protocol by member nations would negatively impact the free exchange of fly strains between researchers via the mail.  Should the U.S. sign the protocol and the U.S. Postal Service propose or implement new regulations, the Drosophila Board should comment on proposed guidelines and/or petition for relief from burdensome requirements.  Current postal guidelines are not explicit in their requirements for the international transport of most fly strains (transgenic or non-transgenic), but it has not proven to be a problem.  Should practices change, the Board may need to petition the Postal Service to draft guidelines specifically mentioning Drosophila, such as those regulating the transport of other insects (e.g. silkworms, honeybees).




Bill Gelbart reported on new genome annotation. Also, Flybase is introducing much valuable new data on gene expression. (The demos at the meeting were indeed very impressive).



Bill Gelbart and Gerry Rubin stated that the nomenclature rules for Drosophila are in many ways cumbersome in this era of electronic curation and searching with electronic tools. Many programs, for instance, do not distinguish between upper case and lower case, and thus B and b cannot easily be distinguished as different genes.

The Board decided that a Nomenclature Committee should be formed. Scott Hawley was designated as its chair, and he will convene a committee.  He selected Kevin Cook as one member.  It was suggested that at least one additional member be a Flybase person to ensure that the new rules are "computer compatible". The committee will look at all the nomenclature rules as they are posted on FlyBase, and will make recommendations for consideration by the Board. 


New Genome Sequencing Projects


The Anopheles sequence should be on line soon.


Sequencing of Genomes of other fly species would be very valuable.


Bill Gelbart stated that there are deadlines this year (June and November) where big sequencing projects can be submitted to the NIH. This may be the last opportunity for funding large sequencing projects for some time, given insecurities about funding from year to year and shifts in NIH priorities.  With this in mind, it was agreed that it is in the best interest of the Drosophila community to consider what the highest priorities should be for the next large scale sequencing projects.  Gelbart suggested that whitepapers outlining these priorities would be useful.  Chuck Langley agreed to assemble a group that would assess the value and strategies for sequencing different strains of D. melanogaster for studies of intraspecific variation.  Gerry Rubin agreed to assemble a group that would consider which species of Drosophila might be most useful to sequence.  These groups will report back to the Board as soon as possible.  Bill Gelbart will advise of exact requirements for submission of the NIH proposals.  


There is also a grant already submitted by Gary Karpen and collaborators that proposes a Heterochromatin Genome Project for D. melanogaster.  It seems that this is an excellent grant, with good chances for being funded.  The Board will find out whether anything can be done to lobby for this and other sequencing projects with the granting agencies.


In general, it was decided that the Board could do more to educate the NIH of the importance of supporting Drosophila research and community resource projects.  This effort is especially critical this year because of the recent turnover of key NIH personnel and a proposed reorganization at the NIH being considered. Laurie Tompkins has been recommended by many people as an excellent resource to advise us of name/contacts of people at the NIH that we should talk with. Trudi Schupbach and Barbara Wakimoto will contact Laurie Tompkins immediately. It was also recommended that the Board should encourage prestigious, well-spoken Drosophila researchers (including Board members) to go to Washington to meet with officials of the NIH or other granting agencies (or to meet with officials when Board members are in Washington anyway). In addition, if any Board Members become aware of opportunities along these lines, they should advise the Board.







[1] As of 3/27/02 registrations totaled 1,389. To make budget of $282,650, approximately 150 people need to register on-site.

[2] In 2002, advance mailing fee raised to $15 from $5 in 2001. Only 284 registrants requested advance mailing in 2002 compared to  659 in 2001. Additionally, because most of those who requested advance mailing from overseas in 2001 did not receive their books in time for the meeting, overseas registrants wanting advance mailing were required to pay cost of Federal Express. No overseas requests received in 2002.

[3] This figure is the projected amount for which NIGMS will contribute based upon costs of audiovisual equipment and the coffee break for their sponsored plenary session.

[4] This figure includes a reimbursement from the Gelbart Lab for the catering expenses incurred by the FlyBase Room in the amount of $4,126 (shown in expenses under Catering - FlyBase).

[5] Coffee/Soda Breaks are based on 1400 registrants; and coffee is significantly less costly than in Washington, DC.