The First Twenty-Five Years

At the initial meeting of the AES, held in November 1927, among the resolutions passed, two were of particular significance. They were: 1. That the object of this Society be to promote the study and discussion of epidemiological problems. 2. That membership shall consist only of those active and interested in the study of epidemiology. Although the by-laws did not specify that unfinished work could be presented at the scientific sessions, apparently "research in progress" was acceptable since the investigator might benefit from free discussion. At the fifth meeting of the Society, held in December 1929, a halting but important step was taken to eliminate disinterested (or only mildly interested) members. It was a reminder that the second object of the Society was to be taken seriously. Thus, it had become apparent early in the Society's history that it was not concerned with enlarging its size but had focussed attention on those members who were genuinely interested in the promotion, study, and discussion of Epidemiology, spelled with a capital E. This thought was expressed in the passage of the following resolution: Any member who shows lack of interest in the Society by failing to attend three consecutive meetings without good excuse may be put on the inactive list at the discretion of the Membership Committee and the Officers Ex-Officia. It was said at the time of this meeting that there were seven such members. Subsequently, this resolution was only casually enforced, but at the time of its passage it had the effect of producing a small epidemic of resignations because a delinquent member preferred to resign rather than to have his name placed on the inactive list. From the start, however, there was a liberal policy with respect to inviting distinguished guests to the annual scientific sessions, either as coauthors of papers or as visitors. Guests were encouraged to join in the discussions. During the period 1927-52, it can be truly said that the AES pursued the course of a cross between a private club in which it had immense pride, and a learned Society devoted to academic causes. For one thing, the membership, apart from an occasional dissenter, was composed of a homogeneous group who mostly saw eye to eye on the main issues. These were concerned almost entirely with problems of infectious diseases, and naturally the background of the early members had been mainly along these lines. Differences …