Is your meeting really necessary?
Maxine Clarke
Friday, 17 October 2008 16:52 UTC
Scientists need to ask themselves if their meeting or conference is really necessary. (see Nature 455, 836; 16 October 2008, free to access online)
This week, Nature publishes the last in a series of essays on ‘Meetings that Changed the World’, with an account of a conference held in 1986 in Santa Fe, New Mexico, that helped launch the human genome project (see page 876). The meetings highlighted in the series were unusual in that they deployed the latest science in support of larger goals. Yet most scientific meetings do not aspire to such heights. Indeed, scientists these days rarely expect to hear much new science at a conference; rather, the greatest value of meetings comes from interaction and networking. At the same time, there are now so many meetings that it is impossible for scientists to attend more than a fraction of what is on offer. So are scientific meetings really necessary?
Yes, the pace of science is quickening. But the proliferation of meetings is sometimes influenced as much by researchers wanting to pad out their CVs, and by the prestige conferred on an institution by hosting such an event, as it is with a desire for real intellectual exchange. All too often, meetings lack clarity of purpose and seem hastily constructed.
However, according to the Nature Editorial, ‘Technology cannot — at least for the time being — match the power of direct interaction. Conferences are where reputations are forged — the humble poster session remains important for up-and-coming researchers to get themselves noticed and as a place for discussion. Online networking itself works better with people who know one another personally, and collaborations flow naturally from people who enjoy good relationships.’
Do you agree that scientific conferences are necessary and retain an important role in the research enterprise? And also that more careful thought needs to be exercised before sending out yet another call for papers?
Update 18 Feb 09. Nature News ran a story (subscription) the following month about a call by an atmospheric chemist, Andreas Stohl, for climate scientists to set an example and cut down on their conference attendance, based on emissions data he reported in a paper in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. There are some interesting responses in the online commments to the News story – not the ones from the person who believes carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant, but the other ones. One of them is by Pamela Jull: "It is an interesting challenge to suggest that people concerned with carbon emission issues should set the stage for more innovative ways to do business differently, rather than as usual. However, the intellectual cross-pollination that occurs as a result of conference travel, collaborative work and presentations has such great value, that inhibiting such could have the unintended consequence of inhibiting progress towards scientific advancement. Some climate change activists and researchers that I know of are making commitments to reduce their personal carbon foot prints in other ways – especially in the transportation choices on a daily basis, rather than the 24 days a year of airline travel they use. Perhaps a continuing discussion of net effects would be worthwhile? " Let us know what you think, here or at the Nature news website.
Updated 18 February 2009 09:37 UTC
-
Replies
-
Although I think that real-life conferences are really important, I fully support the notion that there is far too many of them. Some scientists I know go to more than thirty a year! Seeing all these little conferences that could be clones of each other in terms of topic and invited speakers has been bugging me for a while, and I really was happy to see this editorial.
There is the story of a prolific scientist from the Netherlands, who once had his wife come to Amsterdam airport to bring him a new suitcase with clean clothes, inbetween flights from and to conferences… This is excessive, and serves not much of a purpose. There is no way that this can be good for science if key intellects are travelling all the time.
It is nice to be an invited speaker, and to be at a meeting and discuss science with your peers. But many of the more specific conferences feature always the same club of invited speakers, and there is in my view little scientific outcome. I often do get gossip how bad this and that meeting were.
Of course it is nice for local PhD students and postdocs to be able to go to a meeting in your own town and meet high-profile invitee, but conferences make only sense if there is a real effort by everyone to present novel findings and if there is plenty of time for open and honest discussions. In any given field there are probably only a few conferences each year where this applies, and for some of them you already know this in advance. I think it is relatively easy to be selective. As editor I actually have to be quite selective already, and need to avoid wasting time on pointless meetings, and I find that with a bit of experience it is possible to pick the good meetings.
Therefore, in addition to ask conference organisers to be more cautious in having yet another meeting, we also need to remind participants to be more elective as well! After all, this is a supply-and-demand process, too, and if people don’t turn up in good numbers organisers will think twice before having another meeting.
Finally, let’s also not forget the significant carbon footprint excessive conferencing creates…
-
The networking aspect of in person meetings reminded me of something I read a while ago, and already posted on Nature Network (I forgot that I did, but I found it while Googling: ), about Hans Ulrich Obrist and the non-conference.
The second quote I posted there is relevant. -
Yes I think conferences in meatspace are important but not as critical as they used to be.
It is always a treat to physically meet for the first time people you’ve been collaborating with for months or even years. It can be especially strange to meet people that you know well through their Second Life avatars. For example, when I met Andy Lang at the last ACS meeting I was expecting a gray-haired older guy, which is not at all the case in real life. Even after meeting him in person I still picture his avatar when I try to remember what he looks like. I wonder if he still thinks of me as a cat :)
But what I’ve found interesting is that personalities are generally well represented by our interactions in Second Life, FriendFeed, blogs, email, etc.
From an academic credit standpoint, presenting at conferences is still a strong motivator. It is also a good opportunity to update my slides or tailor a talk to a different audience. It used to really annoy me to travel to a conference and have only a few people show up. Since I’ve been recording my talks that is no longer an issue. Anyone who wanted to attend but missed it can just watch the screencast.
-
A few points:
1)One should be selective in the meetings they attend and ask yourself: what do you want to get from the meeting? Is it to network or to go to a great location or to spend travel funds before they disappear? Do you really have something new to present (this question alone would reduce attendance at most meetings)?2) Towards the end of my academic career I stopped going to the big annual conferences and only attended one or two more selective/topic oriented ones. These were always more useful and a better use of funds/time.
3)On a somewhat tangential note…I recently was asked to attend a conference on a topic I knew almost nothing about. The conference was not too big and it was a great way for me to get a feel for the field and meet many many people. Since it is likely that I will be involved in research and development of products related to this field I will likely attend many conferences on this topic for the next year – until I know the pace of research and which conferences have the most information important to my project.
So, when moving into a new field multiple conferences can be very important. However, once you know how quickly (or not) the field changes you can likely go to a “big” meeting every other year and pick one small meeting to keep up contacts.
-
The editorial “Meeting expectations” (Nature 455, 836, 2008) rightly questions the necessity of holding so many scientific meetings, argues for greater parsimony and prioritization, and suggests some basic guidelines to follow if a conference is absolutely necessary. As it makes a reference to the conference held in 1986 in Santa Fe, New Mexico, that helped launch the human genome project, as ‘Meetings that Changed the World’, I would like to highlight that as a participant I found the recently held Human Genome Meeting (http://hgm2008.hugo-international.org/) in Hyderabad, India, a great success. I found many parallels with the suggested guidelines. Even attempt was made by some participants to convert their air travel to rail journey. Interesting enough, HUGO has decided (http://hgm2009.hugo-international.org/) not to hold HGM in 2009 because HGM2008 was held late in the year. Parsimonious decision, indeed!
-
I typically go to 3 or 4 meetings each year by choice and through my group we have presence at two or three times more. Would I/should I go to more? If I am invited and someone else will pay for me to go to a meeting, I will usually do it out of interest or maybe vanity. This year I went to Brazil to give a plenary lecture and the meeting was very interesting as it made me realise how much good work is going on there and how good are the students (who would not normally attend meetings in the USA or Europe).
I used to think that conferences were a good environment to put forward new, not quite fully formed ideas or work in progress – without publication. Of course you could do that on a website but there are no agreed ways of publicising such output at present. Perhaps we need more virtual poster sessions with friend feed or twitter exchanges with authors at defined times?
Networking cannot be fully carried out online but things may change as the medium becomes more mainstream. Of course a conference forces attendees to synchronise time zones for a chat.
-
I wonder if anyone has yet come up with the c index, or conference index, which weighs up all these parameters (everyone raises good points, I think, especially the outreach one) – to enable you to decide in an instant whether to accept an invitation or not? (Not a serious question, but I would not be surprised if someone has done or will do this.)
In the meantime, here is a free-access version of a related Correspondence to Nature by David Grémillet of the Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, Montpellier, and the University of Cape Town, with the title ‘Paradox of flying to meetings to protect the environment’.
-
Post updated 18 Feb 09, in the light of this Nature news story .
-
I think that the value of networking at a meeting is invaluable, especially to a young scientist like myself.
Also, while experienced investigators may not learn much from a regular meeting, young scientists will learn about new disciplines and possible postdoc opportunities. experienced investigator should think meeting attendance as supporting the future of science:)
-
