A scientist should behave as a good citizen in the scientific community. You cannot  expect that other colleagues perform all the unpleasant jobs and that you can spent all your time on science.  I am referring to low-reward activities like reviewing papers, reviewing grant proposals, sitting on review panels, being an editor of a scientific journal, sitting on program committees and - which is the subject of my present post - really organizing a conference.

I still remember those days that my thesis supervisor didn’t have to justify why he wanted to buy a particular, expensive, piece of equipment. When I became a group leader those golden days were already gone forever.

Nowadays scientists fight for research money in fierce competitions. I certainly agree that some competition is healthy. Although, I would like a situation where the science policy makers themselves and the board members of science-supporting agencies, for the sake of improving their quality, would have to write and defend as many proposals as we scientists have to do; given the funding rate that these science managers find socially acceptable for us, I would suggest for them also a funding rate of about 5%.

After many years of experience I come to the following conclusion: Giving a good talk for a lay audience is extremely difficult and not very rewarding. Reading this statement will upset a number of people. So I have to do some explaining.

I very much like the following quote from Groucho Marx:

I don’t care to belong to a club that
accepts people like me as members

Recognition
Many professional societies like to acknowledge members that are exceptionally good at their profession. If in addition the activities of these specialists are useful and visible to a broader public, acknowledgment can also come from outside the professional circle. As a result prizes, without and with competitions, and other tokens of recognition are bestowed on the exceptional achievers. The community of scientists also has its medals, prizes, and decorations.