I am a researcher and I stopped regularly going to scientific meetings over two decades ago.
They were expensive, time consuming, and I rarely learned anything substantial. Often the three or four presentations I really wanted to see were booked at the same time, most of the material presented was uninspiring science, and the same themes were discussed year after year. The best part was renewing friendships with people from around the world over a nice meal, often in an exotic locale (for a guy from Ontario).
My attitude to meetings clearly made me an outlier among my researcher colleagues, and I struggled with what to advise the students and young faculty I mentored—“don’t go” because you will be largely wasting your time and money, or “go” because everyone else does, you may learn how to get more out of meetings than I have, you can turn them into an inexpensive holiday, and part of how your peers will evaluate you is whether you have presented at national and international meetings.
Climate change and its impact on the environment and the health of people across the world (especially the poor) now provide a compelling new reason to abandon the prominent place of scientific meetings in the global research enterprise. Air travel creates an enormous amount of greenhouse gas. A typical flight from Toronto to London, England and back creates two tons of greenhouse gases per passenger (about the same as the average person driving a car for a year). Large meetings such as those of the American Society of Hematology and the American Heart Association attract 20,000 or more attendees. That’s a lot of melted Arctic sea ice.
I feel that the role of scientific meetings in the exchange of scientific and clinical information is exaggerated. Much is made of the “late breaking” sessions of the American Heart Association, where the results of the most important clinical trials are presented to a crowd of thousands—surely we can all read the paper in the New England Journal of Medicine or the Lancet instead. When attending meetings, I have always felt sorry for the many presenters standing in front of posters describing their work, which almost nobody is looking at. I don’t know what proportion of work presented in oral or poster sessions is eventually published and cited more than 25 times—I suspect a small minority. My point is that the amount of paradigm- or practice-changing science presented at these meetings is small, and abandoning the meetings won’t be a big blow to scientific advancement.
At their best, international scientific meetings allow the dynamic exchange of ideas, the planning of complex studies and the development of the trusting personal relationships that are needed for some scientific studies. This does require face-to-face interaction, and because of this it is unlikely that we will be able to get rid of international air travel for science entirely. However, what often passes for “networking” at scientific meetings is the exchange of information that could easily occur via phone, email, reading of publications or a carefully planned video conference.
Among many academics, being a frequent attender of meetings around the world is a kind of stamp of approval. I went through a phase where I actually cared how many frequent flyer points I got! I would look at other researchers to see if the tag on their bag indicated they had Elite or Super Elite status, and felt smugly superior during the two or three years I achieved Super Elite status. Super-childish, but the fact that I was important enough to be flying around the world to meetings, some of which I literally attended for a few hours, was an academic status symbol.
We need to change our scientific culture so that flying across the ocean to attend a one-day meeting or for one scientific presentation is an embarrassment, not a status symbol.
Currently, presenting at international meetings is an important part of how researchers are evaluated by universities and research institutes. I have never understood that. To me, it is a low bar. What really matters are publications that are cited by others (the number of citations varying greatly by scientific discipline). I think it would be very easy for universities and research institutes to change their criteria for judging scientific excellence if annual international scientific meetings were to vanish.
It is harder for young women scientists to attend international meetings than their male counterparts because of the way child care is shared in most societies. The demise of scientific meetings might help, in a small way, to address the gender gap among researchers.
Climate change is the most important issue of our time, and has huge implications for health. Those of us who work in the health industry can’t ignore the carbon footprint we generate—to do so is exceptionally selfish. It is hypocritical to devote time on medical school curricula to the health effects of climate change and ignore the greenhouse gases health researchers needlessly generate. It is time for medical schools and other organizations involved in health research to make reducing our carbon footprint one of the top priorities in our strategic plans. What I am suggesting has been suggested by many others. We need to stop talking and start doing.
The comments section is closed.
Excellent opinion piece. Please send it to every University President; University Vice President, Academic and Research; Dean and Director of professional schools and faculties in Canada. Wouldn’t it be wonderful for Canada to set an example for the rest of the world! Thank you.
A thought provoking article. In addition to the high carbon footprint associated with travelling what baffles me is the indiscriminate use of plastic bottles (even at the so called ‘sustainability forums’). Need to take small steps towards changing this model of engagement for the scientific world.
I have read this very same idea at least three times in the past month. It was also a deciding factor in the mother of Greta Thurnburg’s decision to retire from her prestigious concert tour schedule. I could not agree more….. it is time to quit talking about it, and start acting DIFFERENTLY!
A refreshing perspective Andreas. You have called out the elephant in the room. Yet, conferences are the main way that academicians demonstrate national/international impact. Our models need to change. Thanks!
Perhaps a clever scientist could invent a catalytic converter for the jet engine, thereby mitigating a portion of rapid travel’s harmful effect. Empirically, “clinical scientists” who choose to stay home rather than attend meetings tend to be laggards at adopting newer procedures and technologies. Evidence is a poor incentive for adoption. Herd behavior is powerful and nothing resembles a herd so much as a scientific convention. In the applied world (often deemed inferior to the theoretical), citation is a noun, not a verb.
I always experience at least one moment of guilt when flying hither and yon, for the reasons Andreas cited. Not exclusive to scientific meetings but, that is the bulk of my travel.
I equally feel the positive impact of F2F interactions for both organized meetings and serendipitous exchanges (e.g. in a conference environment where presentations stimulate collateral group-thinking).
There is currently no universally-easy alternative to flights for F2F meetings requiring travel, especially for globally-distributed research fields. But many meetings need not be F2F. Forward looking, electric high speed train travel within a continent would reduce the ridiculously heinous GHG emissions from the insanity of short-haul flights, which have become so affordable on most continents.
Overall: Unlikely that an absolute ban on scientific meetings would achieve all goals. Yet, highly likely that focusing exclusively on a few high-yield meetings, while expunging the unnecessary and sometimes predatory “scientific” meetings, would be a positive step. I doubt that issuing GHG-permits for scientific meetings would ever be tenable but I agree there are far too many meetings with unclear deliverables.
Great article. What advice would you give to doctoral students who are trying to gain credibility within their research field? How can we be visible and how can our research be known if we are not physically present? I agree citations of our work is a start. Perhaps the time for traveling and attending scientific meetings could be better spent writing and publishing.
I tend to agree. And I wonder how many research dollars are expended on associated travel and accommodation. I also wonder whether there are significant profit margins for the organizers of academic conferences, given registration fees and “exhibitors” contributions. Decades ago I organized an annual CME event at Whistler which was very enjoyable. Good company but I suspect what was learned (other than improved skiing) might have been acquired in other ways. One way or another these are taxpayers’ dollars.
Kudos to Andreas for tackling this important issue. The hypocrisy is real. The solution is not easy but it is known and it is actionable.
I agree with all of the points you have made, especially, of course related to the gender gap. As well as child care, travel to and attending meetings in exotic locations by oneself is hazardous in itself.
But I am glad you didn’t think this while in London!!
I just want to thank the author for this article. I fully agree with it!
I generally agree, but after I read this I reflected on my experience as a member of the Canadian Drug Expert Committee. We usually met once a month for a one-day meeting in Ottawa for which people flew in from all parts of the country. Occasionally we would meet via phone instead. What I think all would agree was that our discussions and deliberations–and probably our recommendations too–were much better when we met in person. And the more complex the case, the truer this was. (Also, on the phone the more assertive people tended to dominate more than they did in in-person meetings.) Adding a visual component to such call (e.g. using Zoom) helps some, but in my experience not all that much.
Does the same argument Andreas makes about conferences apply equally to meetings–and all kinds of meetings?
I have also been attending regional, national and international meetings >35yr. I soon learned that my learning style was not large lecture halls etc.
However, much to the point of attendance include: 1. networking – planned and unplanned 2. meet the authour at the Abstracts, where more meaningful discussions my occur with individuals you might never consider engaging; ideas never considered; serendipitous ‘discoveries’ which would unlikely be evident from the abstract book 3. per F Gavin – ensuring that meetings of international ‘collaborators’ occurs during the meeting, where f2f encounters allow more open and fruitful ‘deep dives’ not possible during t/c
Much appreciate this insight and discussion
Agreed, conferences with mainly stand-in-front-of-the-room lectures now have less value than they used to have. Not so for other types of conferences with interactive workshops, simulation group learning, etc… which have retained their value so far and for which attendance in person is necessary. In a similar vein as your essay, August 16 was the busiest day at Pearson airport in Toronto, 170,000 travelers mainly just for holidays, going over the whole world, without serving a real purpose. How many of these flights were REALLY necessary? 170,000 in ONE DAY! In ONE Canadian airport! We are all guilty.