There has been a slow, but steadily-growing poster session photography movement that started well before the Web 2.0 revolution. As a graduate student, each year when I strolled around the poster session at my favorite meeting, I began to see more and more people walking around with cameras. Not that conspicuous at first, until I saw many using their cameras for uses other than documenting their attendance for the expense reimbursement office. These photographers were snapping shots of posters, usually when the presenter was not actually presiding over his/her precious results.
As cameras became smaller, and then became ubiquitously embedded in our phones, the practice of taking a little more than just a few notes from a poster exploded. These “poster paparazzi” have even made their way into oral presentations, as discussed in a recent Nature news article. So is this practice any different than simply taking really good notes at a poster or talk, or is this practice something that should be targeted and culled??
I for one find the practice of taking pictures of someone else’s data, whether it is projected on a screen or printed on poster board, as a bit tacky, unless the eager photographer has the permission and blessing of the data owner. But I definitely do not see it as anything different from writing the whole of the presentation down (to answer my own question).
Attending meetings is usually a two-way street; an attendee gives as well as receives. On the receiving side, the attendee/presenter not only receives valuable feedback on his/her project, perhaps even from future reviewers, but also takes away knowledge from the presentations of others. In return, the attendee/presenter provides information to the community in a nice reciprocal relationship that forms the backbone of the socialized science practiced at most meetings. Photography is nothing more than a comprehensive extension of this give & take relationship in order to take away the gift of data and knowledge. Some presenters are even so comfortable with their data that they actually set a pile of “poster reprints” next to the presentation for public consumption, thus removing the need to snap a poster portrait. If a scientist is willing to share his/her results at a meeting, then the researcher has to understand and accept the risks that come with revealing the novel findings. A few Kodak moments are not going to allow another lab to re-create your study and scoop you any more than writing down a few key elements and methods onto paper.
The problem I have is that focusing on photographing makes it too easy and tempting for the photographer to not keep up his/her end of the scientific exchange. One click and the secret agent is gone, on to the next unwitting poster victim. At least when an individual stood in front of my poster scribbling everything and anything s/he could, while trying to avoid making eye contact, I could engage them, and perhaps extract some discussion in exchange for my hard work on the poster. If used sparingly, with respect for others, and “for honorable purposes”, I am happy to tolerate the camera phone-crowd at posters, even if I refuse to adopt the practice in my own travels.
However, this form of “data capture” actually brings up an interesting issue that is now becoming relevant with the advent of new avenues to publish data quickly and without peer-review. What if scientists start taking matters into their own hands, as described in the Nature news article listed above, and began to post data collected through camera-based espionage on public servers, just to get the information out into the public, providing them with a source to cite when analyzing the data on their own?? This is essentially what happened regarding the physics data on anti-matter. Researchers may begin to conduct their own analysis of others’ data, providing their own spin and interpretation. Currently, a server like Nature Precedings does not allow such third-party submissions of data, but if an individual wanted to make data harvested from a meeting public, there are plenty of options.
With the rapid growth and discussion regarding blog-based critiques and reviews of work, I could easily see an environment where bloggers would compete to post the first response to a study, even before the work is peer-reviewed and published. They would be out there scouring the meetings for the next big thing, the new groundbreaking technique, the latest gossip, rushing back to their laptops to upload the photos and an accompanying story like…like…the paparazzi. Could this be where we are heading? As Rachel Maddow likes to say, I need someone to talk me down on this one.
Last updated:
Thursday, 09 Oct
2008 - 22:43 UTC
I am going to be the first to post about this blog! You better cite my comments in other blogs! :)
Seriously, another awesome post Noah, and I completely agree with your analysis here. On the opposite side I have become less excited about setting up posters at large meetings, because of fear of stolen data-and I had someone take pictures of my poster right in front of me without even saying hi…I said something to the person and they actually tried to run away…
My cynical side tells me that this is what you get when you base your scientific culture on getting tenure (which has a real economic payoff)-and base that tenure system heavily on being first to publish big papers. It is also a sickness which comes from a scientific culture that proposes to know just what the next big thing is. No one will know whether the real innovation is on a poster that no one thinks is hot and therefore does not take a picture…the early posts on my blog get at this point.
This is a symptom of thinking that sees the world in terms of a scientific bottom line that gravitates to the lowest common denominator.
The real danger is that it will close science off from the world and scientists from each other. As people trust each other less-they will hide findings, and that will ultimately cut down on scientific innovation.
Very nice post. I hate poster and session paparazzi, it is impolite to the presenter. And in my field these pictures are often reused in presentations by the photographer. That is not only a copyright problem, but also means that the audience of those presentations has to endure really bad pictures.
My poposal: Ask for permissions from all presenters. And then post the electronic versions of the presentations and posters from those that gave permission. One of the last meetings I went to did just that, although with a three month delay (or immediately during the meeting if you paid for it).
I think that you make an excellent point, when you write that the problem with just snapping a photo of a poster is that there is no exchange between the presenter and the attendee. But you are also right when you say that most photography happens when the presenter was not actually presiding over his/her precious results. This was my recent experience as well – if the presenter is there, than I could ask them questions, if not, then I could only snap a photo and pore over it later.
I don’t have a problem with this: why should I waste 15 minutes scribbling down notes, when a few seconds’ work will give me a copy of the whole poster?
If a poster presenter did not want a photo taken, a simple request written at, say, the top of the poster should be enough. If a presenter really didn’t want their data disseminated, then they shouldn’t put it on the poster.
Personally, I can’t see a world of eager bloggers frantically reporting on the latest scientific scoops. The facility to put talks and posters on the Web has been around for a while (not least where I work, where many conferences are recorded by default), and it’s hardly happened so far.
Encourage more people to use Nature Precedings. This repository is accessible by all and allows the poster author to retain copyright (creative commons licensing). Or if you are truly worried about the data you are presenting being scooped/stolen etc. don’t present it. There are no Non-disclosure agreements (NDA’s) implied when you present or look at posters.
Is the picture taking annoying, absolutely. But take the positive position of putting your work somewhere where you retain some rights. This will make people feel better, plus you can direct people to look at your research (it will have a time-stamp and I think a doi attached to it). This could be helpful when looking for a job.
I think the fundamental concern that researchers have is not the substitution of cameras for note-taking, but the distribution of their research (or pictures of it) without their consent and therefore outside their control. Researchers would be just as outraged if someone sat in front of their poster for a couple of hours, making a detailed sketch, and posted the sketch on the web. The camera only makes this process faster and easier.
This concern over lack of control of distribution includes concern over the possibility that audience members may begin to publicize their own interpretations. This problem is particularly acute if there is a First Mover Advantage in these situations. With so much emphasis placed on novelty, the risk is that the photog may get credit (although perhaps not publication credit) for being the first to come up with a novel interpretation, even if the original researchers eventually publish their data.
If so, one is left with two options: either don’t share any data which someone else might write about, or preempt sneaky behavior and claim your work by being more open. Craig makes an excellent point – If it is possible that your poster will end up on the web anyway as a grainy photo on Flickr, then you can try to ensure that you get full credit for the research by posting it to a site like Nature Precedings, where authorship is clearly established and all documents receive DOIs for citation purposes. By providing a high resolution version, you also help to ensure that people do not misinterpret or make wild conjectures about your work based on a misleading or poor-quality photo.
Finally, to make a minor correction to a point by Noah — Nature Precedings does not accept third-party submissions, which means that one is not allowed to post manuscripts on behalf of someone else (e.g. an assistant who is not an author of a manuscript cannot submit that manuscript to the site). This is partially because of the legal requirement that only the author of a work can agree to license that work for distribution. It also eliminates cases of mistaken submission by assistants who may not understand the purpose and use of the site. This restriction does not mean that another researcher cannot submit a manuscript detailing his/her interpretation of another researcher’s work. However, the inclusion of photographs of another person’s poster would likely constitute copyright infringement and would disqualify the manuscript.
This has been a most interesting conversation. I actually train undergrads I work with (as a writing/comm. instructor, not as a PI) to print 8.5 × 11″ copies of their posters with an overview, short bibliography, and pertinent contact information on the other side. Rather like a handout that interested parties can take with them in the hopes that it will keep the student’s name alive for networking purposes. I hadn’t considered the “scooping” angle before, though tend to think that a printed version could be copyrightable. I don’t know if undergrad research is appropriate in something like Nature, but such public ownership could be had if posters were attached to PI and/or lab web sites, perhaps solving a bit of the attribution problem while still maintaining the benefits of being visible.