I was at the Aquatic Food Products Division (AFPD) leadership meeting at the Institute of Food Technologist (IFT) meeting in Chicago last month, and I can’t help but reflect on the changes I have seen over the past 20 years. At one time, the AFPD executive meeting (now called a leadership meeting) used to be a lively, and some would even contend, raucous event. All were welcomed to attend, and you would typically see twenty to thirty people around the table representing various institutions, agencies, and industry. It was, for the U.S., the one time in the year when seafood people from both coasts could get in the same room, along with their international colleagues, and brainstorm and discuss important issues impacting the seafood industry that they thought should be addressed through symposia and scientific oral and poster sessions. It was also an opportunity for new individuals seeking a means to become involved and provide service and leadership to be integrated, introduced, and mentored into the aquatic food product community. I can’t help but feel of pang of regret that this format has been all but lost to us at IFT, and I wonder, in the long term, how to stem the tide of even further erosion of leadership in aquatic foods. I have been heartened by the fact that a new, albeit much smaller, community of aquatic food products leaders do seem to be, despite the obstacles they face, finding a way to emerge. But, the reality is, it is becoming harder and harder to develop a scientific community around aquatic food products. This begs the question: do we need scientists with a specialization in seafood? Is it good enough to be a broader practitioner, a food microbiologist, a food chemist, a food engineer, and just call it good from there? Science depends on an exchange of ideas; it is essentially a slow clambering up on the shoulders of those who preceded you, a finding of a way to design the experiment better, and form the hypothesis more succinctly to answer pressing questions of day. Without interchange of ideas and rigorous review and critique from a community of peers, the science becomes stagnant and loses its relevancy. This is what we advocate for at JAFPT, but at a stage where results are published. However, scientific meetings are still needed to provide an avenue for scientists to float new ideas and to develop in themselves the ability to critically evaluate and constructively enhance the seafood community through discourse. I do think the seafood industry is also served best when research can be discussed and vetted at scientific meetings. It is at these venues that scientists (especially young scientists) receive inspiration regarding new approaches to problems. I do think there is a benefit in commodity specific sessions that bring together scientists with that specialization whether they are from academia, agencies, or industry. The benefit comes not only from focused discourse but mentorship and community building.
