CELL PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGYVolume 1, Number 4, 2003© Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

Extreme Cryo 2003

The 5th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Biopreservation Society

January 31–February 1, 2003University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

219

THE CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR BIOPRESERVATION

AND CRYOBIOLOGY appropriately held theirannual research symposium, “Extreme Cryo,”in midwinter at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre,which is affiliated with the University of Cal-gary. In its fifth year, the meeting was expandedinto 2 days and was well attended by an inno-vative multidisciplinary group of researchersfrom Alberta, the United States, and Japan.

Presentations highlighted a wide range ofworks and interest in the field. The full rangeof topics can be viewed from the abstracts them-selves. Although all topics stood on their own,some of the highlights pertained to non-equi-librium thermodynamics, the introduction of anew paradigm of intracellular cryoprotection,experimental and theoretical work involving icegrowth in small capillaries, and a new methodfor assessing intracellular ice formation.

The second day was less formal and con-sisted of roundtable discussions. In the morn-ing, participants took their turn to discuss thethree most important factors that were cur-rently lacking in the science of cryobiology. Inthe afternoon session, participants attempted toprovide a solution to at least one of these prob-lems. The discussion was wide-ranging andrarely resulted in unanimous agreement. Thedominant theme that emerged is encapsulatedin the rallying cry, “Everybody is interested incryobiology, they just don’t know it yet.” Mostparticipants felt that we should make a virtueof the unavoidably multidisciplinary nature ofcryobiology, despite the current disposition of

funding agencies to give rhetorical praise tomultidisciplinary work while giving actualfunding to specialists. We should continue topress these agencies to make the necessarychanges that will allow the money to start fol-lowing the rhetoric. It was also felt that thebroad appeal of many themes encompassed byour science could be leveraged to garner inter-est among scientists and informed laymen. Bymaking experts from other disciplines aware ofthe “low hanging fruit” that is available in ourfield for those willing to apply their specialistknowledge to the work of a multidisciplinaryteam, we might convince many scientists thata significant and genuine contribution to a mul-tidisciplinary field might be more satisfyingthan a minute and hard-won contribution to anestablished specialty. Should we be successfulin attracting such experts, rigor and vitality willundoubtedly follow, enriching our field andthe body of knowledge produced by our sci-ence.

Overall the meeting was a resounding suc-cess. The continuing high quality of researchpresentations combined with the vigorous dis-cussion of issues that are central to science butrarely discussed at meetings made for a stim-ulating and enjoyable 2 days. Everyone leftlooking forward to reconvening in Edmontonin January 2004 for another low temperatureexperience.

Ken Muldrew, Ph.D.Stephen Sawchuk, Ph.D.