Finding A Name
For ASCO members in 2004, the notion that the Society’s now familiar name was once a matter of spirited debate among its founding members might seem puzzling. Indeed, what moniker besides “American Society of Clinical Oncology” more aptly conveys the Society’s comprehensive mission to “improve cancer care and prevention” by “assisting oncologists in addressing the challenges of the modern-day practice of oncology”? During 1964, however, as ASCO’s founders worked to define the organization’s purpose and primary objectives, much discussion focused on the potentially alienating effect the inclusion of the word “clinical” in the Society’s title might have on members of the contemporary oncology communities.

In the seminal organizational document, “Some Considerations Relevant to the Present Status of Clinical Oncology,” Arnoldus Goudsmit, MD, PhD, proposed that, “in the interests of the optimal diagnosis and treatment of patients with malignant neoplastic disease, and their optimal management by maximally knowledgeable physicians, there be established an organization by such physicians which might be known as THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGISTS.”

The name appears again in two rough drafts of the Society’s constitution, respectively dated January 1, 1964, and June 1, 1964. By the time the final version of the first constitution was presented to ASCO’s founding members, on November 5, 1964, the provisional title had been replaced by “The American Society of Clinical Oncology,” but not before several of the oncologists invited to join the young Society had expressed misgivings about the priorities and activities of an organization so named.

Among the most vigorous opponents to the founders’ choice of name was B. J. Kennedy, MD, MACP, who communicated his reservations in a series of letters submitted to ASCO leadership in October 1964. As many of Dr. Kennedy’s statements from these letters illustrate, much of his objection to the use of the word “clinical” stemmed from a belief that an organization devoted solely to patient-oriented concerns would detract from the activities of physicians engaged in cancer research, then widely perceived to be of more imminent value to the general oncology community.

In a letter to Robert W. Talley, MD, dated October 5, Dr. Kennedy was quite frank in his assessment of the name “American Society of Clinical Oncology.” “The word Clinical would be the death toll of this society,” he began. “There is prevalent in the country an attitude that those people dispensing pills and shots have a very superficial approach to the study of malignant disease and its control. By establishing a society of Clinical Oncologists, one automatically would confirm this feeling.”

He provided further justification for his opposition to ASCO’s proposed name and mission in a letter to Jane C. Wright, MD, just a few days later, on October 9. “I had some reservations regarding the name of the society as well as its relationship with other organizations,” Dr. Kennedy wrote. “I am sad to see the split from the American Association for Cancer Research. Though the latter has always been weak in the clinical aspects, I believe the organization of the American Society of Clinical Oncology would further deplete the ranks of that organization.” While conceding that the idea for ASCO was an interesting one, Dr. Kennedy concluded his letter to Dr. Wright by noting that he was more “interested in … the need for the preservation of the time of the scientific investigator so that he can spend more time at home in active research and not in the process of attending innumerable meetings and filling out innumerable forms.”

Dr. Kennedy was by no means a singular voice of opposition during the months leading to ASCO’s incorporation. There is no question about his eventual tremendous contributions and commitment to the Society, and his early words are reflective of the general attitude toward the care of patients with cancer prevalent at the time of ASCO’s creation. They unwittingly reveal the enormity of the task the Society’s founders had set themselves in proposing an organization dedicated primarily to the study and improvement of patient care.

Creating the Brand
As ASCO developed its 1999 Strategic Plan, it also initiated a project to update the Society’s logo, which had remained unchanged in the 35 years since the Society’s inception. The ASCO Publications Committee was charged with overseeing the development of the new logo, and while the task might not at first have seemed daunting, the process of choosing a new symbol to represent the Society’s growing membership and increasingly diverse activities engendered much lively debate.

ASCO’s original logo was thought by many contemporary members to be too complex, and no longer sufficiently representative of the Society’s mission. Patrick S. Loehrer, Sr., MD, then a member of the Publications Committee, concisely summarized the necessity for a new logo. “When the American Society of Clinical Oncology was formed over three decades ago by a small band of oncologists, one could not have guessed the growth and the impact that the Society would have at the present time. What began as a forum to present a few clinical research papers now stands as one of the major sources for cancer information in the world. Our membership and our mission is much broader than it was 35 years ago, and our logo should reflect our modern attitudes.”

How, though, could the Society’s “modern” mission and attitude be best represented graphically? The first step was simplification. As the following (dizzying) description of ASCO’s original logo by Publications Committee member Lawrence Leichman, MD, illustrates, this would be no small task: “The logo is in the shape of a circle with our name in caps (AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY) and our date of origin (1964) just within the circle’s circumference. There is a diamond shape within the circle encompassing another circle within it. The cancer crab sits in the inner circle, which is itself within a map of the United States (the original 48). On the four borders of the diamond are the four ASCO missions: education, treatment, research, and prevention.”

As Dr. Loehrer quipped in a memorable “Point/Counterpoint” column (once a feature in ASCO News), “Imagine driving down a highway and seeing a billboard with our current logo. Could you even read its nine words or make out the crab and the outline of the United States without causing an accident, let alone making a connection to our organization?” His solution was to make the acronym “ASCO”—the instantly recognizable signature of the Society—the focus of a new, drastically simplified logo. As he said, “It is hard to get more simple and to the point than the four-letter, two-syllable ‘word,’ ASCO. […] The ASCO logo does not need to define who we are, but it should mark us with a familiar signature that is broadly recognized.”

Thus was the current ASCO logo conceived. To better reflect the expanding international membership base and evolving worldwide influence of the Society, the decision was also made to replace the original (and obscured) map of the United States with an image of the globe, to be placed prominently within the circle created by the “O” in the ASCO acronym. Now nearly five years old, the “modern” ASCO logo is seen on each issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology as well as on all of the Society’s print and online materials. Doubtless future debates over the relevance and import of the ASCO logo will occur, but the current symbol of the Society is well positioned to carry ASCO into the 21st century.