v
EDITORIAL The dilemma of attending (or not) scientific conferences I recently attended a meeting in Europe. It was organized in the best possible way. Media center, large conference rooms, simultaneous sessions from which to choose, and an impressive slate of well respected, internationally renowned speakers. There was only one problem: it was being held in Florence, Italy. Florence is a city of cultural charm. It holds some of the most impressive collection of paintings and sculptures that the world has ever known. Michelangelo's “David” is but one prime example that is found in the Academy in Florence. If I was on holidays, such a location to spend a few days would not represent a problem. However, because of this wealth of culture, it becomes difficult to resist the allure of visiting the outside world at the expense of attending the scientific lectures presented at the conference. Other conferences held in attractive locations like New Orleans, Los Angeles, Paris, London, New York and a host of other exciting cities across the world hold similar distractions. These are all fun to visit, exciting places that attract visitors to come to the meeting, but unfortunately pose a double-edged sword for attendance at the conference. It is a dilemma. The end result from a scientific perspective can be disappointing to say the least. The scientists spend a lot of money to attend these scientific conferences and then they visit local tourist sites instead of religiously attending the lectures that they intended on attending. Some of the best scientists in the world give lectures on their data to less than optimal audiences. In some cases, the size of the audience to which they are speaking is downright embarrassing. I feel bad for the speakers who have travelled such a long way to give their talks to what can be a very paltry audience. Students who come to present their data in poster form frequently experience a similar scenario. Few attendees are interested enough to come to the poster sessions with so many exciting distractions occurring outside of the conference site. Is this a waste of our resources to hold these meetings? Should we quit supporting such conferences? Are we better served by the new electronic technologies for transferring scientific information to an international audience? After all, we could be using Skype to transmit our information to our audience at a fraction of the cost of travelling to a meeting somewhere around the world.
Can. J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 92: v (2014) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjpp-2013-0412
As it turned out at this meeting, I conversed with a number of scientists with whom I never would have met except through a meeting such as this one in Italy. We established a collaborative, scientific interaction that would never have occurred if I had not attended the meeting and met them informally there. Just as importantly, I established new relationships with those researchers and many others that may be scientifically useful in the future. Ultimately, therefore, the resources expended for me to attend the conference were fully justified and will be very productive in the long run. However, I can't help but wonder if there isn't a better way. A better way to spread the scientific news to as many scientists at these meetings as possible. A better way for us all to learn from this significant congregation of scientific superstars. Maybe there is. And maybe it is just waiting for someone to create a new way to organize scientific conferences. Or maybe it isn't and maybe it is important to recognize that scientists are humans too. They are rewarded for hard work in the lab with the occasional trip to an exotic location (or even a location that isn't so exotic but is still a whole lot different than the 4 walls in their lab in which they spend far too much of their lives). Scientists have a social side too, and it is often this aspect that leads to important collaborations and the help that everyone needs to advance their work, no matter what work that may be. We now call it networking. Meetings are critical for networking. And networking is increasingly important to advance scientific collaborations. Team collaborations are, in turn, being increasingly demanded by granting bodies. We are appreciating more and more these days that science is no longer a one man show but requires team work to make the advances necessary to advance the field in novel ways. In the end, I can't help sympathizing with both sides of the argument. These meetings are critical to the advancement of science. However, these meetings also await a creative mind to optimize what we all invest in attending a scientific conference and what we reap from that investment. Grant Pierce Editor
Published by NRC Research Press
Copyright of Canadian Journal of Physiology & Pharmacology is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
EDITORIAL The dilemma of attending (or not) scientific conferences I recently attended a meeting in Europe. It was organized in the best possible way. Media center, large conference rooms, simultaneous sessions from which to choose, and an impressive slate of well respected, internationally renowned speakers. There was only one problem: it was being held in Florence, Italy. Florence is a city of cultural charm. It holds some of the most impressive collection of paintings and sculptures that the world has ever known. Michelangelo's “David” is but one prime example that is found in the Academy in Florence. If I was on holidays, such a location to spend a few days would not represent a problem. However, because of this wealth of culture, it becomes difficult to resist the allure of visiting the outside world at the expense of attending the scientific lectures presented at the conference. Other conferences held in attractive locations like New Orleans, Los Angeles, Paris, London, New York and a host of other exciting cities across the world hold similar distractions. These are all fun to visit, exciting places that attract visitors to come to the meeting, but unfortunately pose a double-edged sword for attendance at the conference. It is a dilemma. The end result from a scientific perspective can be disappointing to say the least. The scientists spend a lot of money to attend these scientific conferences and then they visit local tourist sites instead of religiously attending the lectures that they intended on attending. Some of the best scientists in the world give lectures on their data to less than optimal audiences. In some cases, the size of the audience to which they are speaking is downright embarrassing. I feel bad for the speakers who have travelled such a long way to give their talks to what can be a very paltry audience. Students who come to present their data in poster form frequently experience a similar scenario. Few attendees are interested enough to come to the poster sessions with so many exciting distractions occurring outside of the conference site. Is this a waste of our resources to hold these meetings? Should we quit supporting such conferences? Are we better served by the new electronic technologies for transferring scientific information to an international audience? After all, we could be using Skype to transmit our information to our audience at a fraction of the cost of travelling to a meeting somewhere around the world.
Can. J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 92: v (2014) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjpp-2013-0412
As it turned out at this meeting, I conversed with a number of scientists with whom I never would have met except through a meeting such as this one in Italy. We established a collaborative, scientific interaction that would never have occurred if I had not attended the meeting and met them informally there. Just as importantly, I established new relationships with those researchers and many others that may be scientifically useful in the future. Ultimately, therefore, the resources expended for me to attend the conference were fully justified and will be very productive in the long run. However, I can't help but wonder if there isn't a better way. A better way to spread the scientific news to as many scientists at these meetings as possible. A better way for us all to learn from this significant congregation of scientific superstars. Maybe there is. And maybe it is just waiting for someone to create a new way to organize scientific conferences. Or maybe it isn't and maybe it is important to recognize that scientists are humans too. They are rewarded for hard work in the lab with the occasional trip to an exotic location (or even a location that isn't so exotic but is still a whole lot different than the 4 walls in their lab in which they spend far too much of their lives). Scientists have a social side too, and it is often this aspect that leads to important collaborations and the help that everyone needs to advance their work, no matter what work that may be. We now call it networking. Meetings are critical for networking. And networking is increasingly important to advance scientific collaborations. Team collaborations are, in turn, being increasingly demanded by granting bodies. We are appreciating more and more these days that science is no longer a one man show but requires team work to make the advances necessary to advance the field in novel ways. In the end, I can't help sympathizing with both sides of the argument. These meetings are critical to the advancement of science. However, these meetings also await a creative mind to optimize what we all invest in attending a scientific conference and what we reap from that investment. Grant Pierce Editor
Published by NRC Research Press
Copyright of Canadian Journal of Physiology & Pharmacology is the property of Canadian Science Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
