I have found four models in the literature for doing conference summaries:

1. 1. The Literal Summary.

   One summarizes all t h a t has been presented, preferably interspersed with comments as “of particular interest was…”.

2. 2. The Historical Perspective.

   One places all (or some) presentations within a historical background, preferably implying that science progresses smoothly in well-planned, orderly fashion.

3. 3. The Future Perspective.

   One points out the way to go, preferably in overly optimistic vein.

4. 4. The personal Impressions.

   One concedes lack of wisdom to forego balanced summarizing, prefering to discuss primarily one's own interests.

Which model to choose here? Literal summarizing seems superfluous for the oral presentations. They are printed in the preceding pages, each is effectively a summary of work published elsewhere, and many have an author's summary already. It won't be useful to summarize them here once more, but some perspective may be worthwhile.