On the eve of SFN, 2009, I thought I would pose a question that you may not see on the sanctioned blogs for the event. Usually when I write my blog posts, I have a general sense of how I feel about a topic and I like to make an argument for or against a position and let my readers come to their own conclusions based on my argument, their own research, and my comment section. In this case, I don’t have a strong opinion about this-but think it is an interesting question to ask, and I will be curious to see my readers’ thoughts.
Of course the idea that scientific meetings may be harmful to the environment is not new, and I am not the first to bring this up.
In fact, an article by Simon Young in the September Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience (Rethinking scientific meetings: an imperative in an era of climate change. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2009 September; 34(5): 341–342) addresses this question in an eloquent way.
Young writes, “A recent analysis of CO2 emissions of the employees of an atmospheric research institute in Norway is instructive. More than 90% of the emissions from their work-related travel were from air travel, with only 3% from ground travel and 5% from hotel use. The annual travel-related emissions for scientists from that institute was 3.9–5.5 metric tons of CO2 per capita, which, as the authors point out is more than the global average per capita emission and greater than that of many countries such as China (3.8 metric tons) and India (1.2 metric tons).”
These numbers are disturbing, considering that the pace of neuroscience research is expected to double within the next 10 years-and with increased research output will come increased attendance at meetings. Furthermore, as neuroscience research centers become more global and less regional, the requirement for increased air travel to attend meetings is surely going to become more widespread.
Are scientific meetings really necessary anyway? Most neuroscience pre-docs will tell you that preparing a SfN is a rite of passage and a way to prepare for the publication of their results.
Again, Young writes, “Nature has recently published a series on meetings that had world-changing consequences, but also suggests in an editorial that “scientists these days rarely expect to hear much new science at a conference” and that the proliferation of meetings is sometimes driven “by researchers wanting to pad out their CVs, and by the prestige conferred on an institution by hosting such an event.” Assessments of researchers for tenure and promotion often include consideration of presentations given internationally, but this attitude has to change.”
Would it make more sense for SfN to have more regional symposia that focus on poster presentations, and save national meetings for major research initiatives and speakers? In that case SfN could utilize technology-based solutions like web-conferencing like GoTo Meeting and Skype.
What about “networking”? To quote Young again, “Of course networking at a meeting can be as important as listening to talks, but not every presenter has to be present in person. The logical extension of this, the virtual conference that occurs in cyberspace, has been around for long enough…The bottom line is that those organizing meetings need to experiment with modern technologies and to assess how they impact those attending both in person and virtually.”
With the advent of social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Friendfeed-I see no reason why networking should falter in the absence of a large meeting. In fact, the use of these technologies may actually increase networking and productivity, because scientists can expose themselves to many more people in a faster time-frame than they would be able to at a scientific meeting. When connections are made, scientists may then be able to set up smaller, more focused meetings in order to design focused collaborations.
However, there is one alternative that I am strongly against and that is use of “carbon offsets”, and this is where I disagree with the recommendations given by Young as alternatives to large scientific meetings.
Young writes, “An article in Science, “Greening the Meeting,” mentions that when the Ecological Society of America added an optional fee for carbon offsets to their meeting registration fee only 6 members paid in 2006, but 500 paid in 2007…I would like to think that eventually researchers will accept this as a compulsory part of every meeting registration.”
By creating a compulsory “meeting tax” with no clear understanding where that money goes, or for what purpose, we will be setting up a roadblock for all meetings, large or small, and this may stifle innovation.
With all the current alternative technologies available, there is no need for any added carbon tax or the bureaucracies that would grow up around it. We can find a better way and still stay green.
To SfN’s credit-they are addressing their carbon footprint, and you can read about that here. However, this focus has only been tangentially applied to the annual SfN meeting and I have not observed any serious discussion anywhere.
SfN meetings are scientific meetings-no doubt-but I do question the influence of large biomedical corporations and medium-sized vendors on the absence of a serious consideration of downsizing and regionalizing the meetings in favor of reducing the waste of both productivity and fossil fuels.
References:
1. Young, SM (2009). Rethinking scientific meetings: an imperative in an era of climate change. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2009 September; 34(5): 341–342.
2. Meeting expectations. Nature. 2008;455:836.
3. Lester B. (2007) Greening the meeting. Science. ;318:36–8.
Personally, I would like to see far more business done via webcam (Skype, video conferencing) and the like, and far less by physical travel. It is extraordinary, the amount of compulsive travel that is undergone by many, as a routine way of life. What is the point of this whirl? I suppose it won’t happen, but it would be very good for the planet, as well as people’s health and family life, if we travelled less and used the technological options open to us to do more. (Or even indulged in more contemplation and less frenetic activity.)
You know, I actually disagree here.
I was going to say something about meeting and gathering around the fire as being a very human thing to do in my latest post here, but left it out because it didn’t fit the mood. Another time maybe.
I can’t decide – I love the idea of having meetings online. It’s less expensive for everyone, and it’s better for the environment. BUT, I like the idea of meeting people face-to-face, and with all these networking sites on the internet, we’re losing more and more of that interaction.
I agree with Alyssa. Is a basic interaction.
For the most part I agree with Maxine on this issue; however, I also have some sentimental attachments to the SfN meeting, and remember how much I enjoyed interacting with colleagues and seeing old friends in that context. It seemed especially important to attend when I was active in the neurotrophin/neuronal apoptosis field, and less so once my research was focused more on cancer biology. It is kind of funny, though, that many of us in science cling to these opportunities for face-to-face schmoozing, and at the same time tout the wonders of teh interwebz and admonish others to adopt new technologies and change with the times.
As an aside, I think the “carbon offsets” market is rife with abuse, hypocrisy, and denial. I remember reading about one option for first world travelers, in which the carbon offset money would be used to replace the gas-powered water pumps used for irrigation in developing countries, with human-powered pumps. I thought it was a sick joke at first.
Addendum: I don’t mean all meetings, but some people never seem to be off the circuit. It’s the frenetic “must have meetings and be travelling constantly” life that I’m writing about here, not someone who goes to a couple of key conferences relevant to them, to catch up and network, etc, each year.
Kristi – just noticed your point about the pumps. Yes, that does seem very nasty. There are all kinds of strange knock-on debates, eg some people “boycotting” Kenyan green beans when those same green beans are grown by local, small farmers in receipt of global development/sustainable funds – so the boycott makes them go bust, etc. Cue comment about trampling on a butterfly…..life is full of unintended consequences. But, even so, I do think that a lot of people are indulging in a lot of unnecessary travel and other materialism – and not being very strategic about it.
I think the better solution is one demanding massive investment in infrastructure. The USA is cursed by the automobile industry to have a dismal passenger rail system. If folks must travel to meetings (and I’m flying for Chicago and SfN Saturday) then the best option is rail. High-speed transcontinental rail would make taking a train to Chicago a reasonable option for residents of North America. I would certainly prefer spending more time in a spacious and well-padded chair on a rail car to the lightly-padded passenger vise preferred by the airlines in order to more efficiently sardinize their clients. The extra time for the trip might be offset by a slightly lower fare. However, it’s all a lovely dream without national will and massive investment.
For those residents of the UK who habitually bash their system: try planning a rail trip in the USA someday. I envy you. My recent trip from Edinburgh to Oxford convinced me that rail is an attractive option for low-carbon-emission travel.
Now Jon, that is a darn interesting idea-and even more attractive if you look at it in the light of “science advancing the greater good”. And I totally agree. I LOVE the train!
Richard- I am not arguing that we need to take the hanging around the campfire aspect of this totally away, and I agree with you Alyssa and Alejandro that face-to-face interactions are important. My argument here is, why not streamline it a little. Let’s have a more focused campfire and possibly get better collaborations out of it.
Maybe we start with the technology based approach for the national meetings-but this does not preclude still having smaller-more carbon friendly regional meetings…