Meetings Of Scientific Societies: A Time For Changes?

Ever since I learned about the birds and the bees, I asked myself: Why would a woman want to bear a second child? Over the years, I also began to wonder why anyone would want to organize the meeting of a scientific society for a second time. After all, there are similarities between the two processes: an exciting idea leading to foreplay (development of the preliminary program), joyful activity with a climax (meeting), morning sickness (retrieval of manuscripts), birth (publication of the proceedings), and the comments of family and neighbors on the child (reviews). Lately, though, the comparison may not hold. Modern medicine has made childbirth less painful and safer, while scientific meetings seem to have an increasing abortion rate. Now, doesn't this sound paradoxical? After all, the big meetings are getting bigger, some being attended by more than 10,000 people. Well, the answer depends on who you are. For a professional organizer or the director of a convention center, the trend toward megameetings is a blessing. However, the reaction of a basic scientist may be different. He or she may wonder: What did I get for the exorbitant room rate and congress fees? Why was there no time to discuss my most important questions? Who will ever read my contribution, abstract # 6789? When it comes to smaller scientific conferences, even the organizer may be crying the blues. For decades, the annual meetings of her society have been attended by several hundred people. She counted on about the same number of participants as always. Now, weeks before the event, it looks as if the attendance will be half of what it used to be. Her budget assumed an income from 250 more registration fees. How will she pay for typists; long-distance calls; faxes; postage; stationery and office supplies; fliers; name tags and holders; program and abstract booklets; coffee, soft drinks, and snacks for the breaks? How can she come up with thousands of dollars in travel funds for the plenary lecturers who all professed abject poverty (despite their sizable research grants)? What if the hotel insists on payment for the full number of rooms she reserved? Why, she wonders, didn't it help that she extended the deadline for submission of the abstracts twice? Why wasn't there a better response to the announcements that appeared issue after issue in the society's journal? Our unhappy organizer should have asked herself, at a much earlier date: What would make me come to the meeting if I were not in charge of it? The answer may have surprised her: Not much. She designed the program as suggested by the power brokers of the society. Alas, many members are interested in other topics; and besides, they do not care for plenary lectures by people who haven't worked on the bench for years. Our organizer could have asked more questions: Who wants to sit through hours of "platform" presentations, each lasting 12 minutes- talks that often do not match abstracts that were due five months before the meeting? What will speaker and audience get out of the following three-minute discussion if the answer to one question can take up all the time? Why should someone spend time and money on a meeting when there is no opportunity to join in-depth discussions of topics important to him or her? Why should a scientist looking for a job take chances that-just like last year-the lablord he wants to talk to in person arrives in the evening, gives a presentation on the following morning, meets with some friends for lunch, and leaves in the afternoon for home? Obviously, these questions highlight some of the flaws that make many of today's meetings unattractive. But is there a remedy? In my experience, there is one indeed, and it has two main ingredients: a program that provides ample opportunity for personal interactions between participants; and reasonable room rates and registration fees. Add to these a well-organized job market, the right time of the year, and the right place. Here are some suggestions for revamping the program: Replace the 12-plus-three-minute talks with poster sessions. If some attendees will not receive travel support unless they give a "talk," send them an invitation in which the word "poster" is replaced by the noncommittal term "presentation." If poster sessions are well-planned, they will allow in-depth discussions and yet save a lot of time. However, don't schedule too many posters on the same topic for a given session; provide sufficient preview time sans presenters so that people can study the posters without being bothered by frightening stares or garrulous sales pitches; and have ample discussion time during which the author(s) of the poster are present. Create workshops that involve the general audience. For instance, use a talk lasting no more than 20 minutes to introduce a topic, then have a few panelists acting as catalysts for a general discussion lasting 20 or 30 minutes. Follow this format with other topics, and close the session with an extended general discussion that allows everybody in the audience to raise questions. There is no need to intervene if the last discussion of the session goes overtime; happy participants won't mind being late for lunch or dinner. Needless to say, the success of this type of session depends very much on the choice of the panelists. They must be able to stimulate discussion but refrain from giving marathon monologues. Improve social interactions. Science should be fun. It is preferable to spend the evenings of a meeting wining and dining rather than whining and pining, as seems to be the fashion of the day. Several years ago, we introduced "Socratic Workshops." They gave colleagues with common interests a chance to spend an evening talking science in a relaxed atmosphere in a restaurant with reasonable prices. Over cocktails, dinner, and wine or beer, all participants could bring up questions. Up to 30 participants per workshop were invited by the leaders. To avoid lengthy introductions, leaflets containing the specific areas of research, technical expertise, information sought, and interest in cooperations had been exchanged in advance. Up to seven parallel workshops per evening were held so that all participants of the meeting could attend at least one workshop. The result was an unprecedented number of international cooperations. An evening at a "Socratic Workshop" may be more productive than listening to an idiosyncratic after-dinner talk. One of the greatest concerns with scientific meetings is the steep increase in costs. Of course, if a society is of interest to an industry, say pharmaceutical firms, there is no need to worry. However, the more basic or "untargeted" the research, the more miserable the financial outlook. If the current trend continues, some societies may well add S.D.S. to their name (Sugar Daddy Supported), while others could choose B.B.S. (Begging Basic Scientists). There may soon be the day when the members of the former continue to be showered with daily receptions in the Croesus Lounge, while the B.B.S. crowd waits in line at Greasy Grumpy's for a miniwich and aquacola. But then, that vision may be wrong. Many basic scientists may have had it with expensive meetings even if the program is superb. If a basic scientific society charges $400 in registration fees (no meals included) for a meeting to be held in a hotel that charges $160 per person per night in the off-season, then the members have a right to ask what went wrong. In cases like this, the dilemma may stem from the selection of the wrong place (expensive resort), an unrealistic contract with hotels (too many guaranteed bookings), an inefficient (overstaffed) business office and/or a professional congress service that the society simply cannot afford. All too often, it seems that the leadership of a society decides on a financial matter before asking the most obvious question: How many annual membership fees will it cost? Other frequently ignored questions are: After payment of the business office and/or the professional organizer, how much money will be left for the running of the meeting? Can we afford paid plenary lectures? Can we afford travel allowances for the officers of the society? An amazing number of people who spend their lives working with numbers make foolish financial commitments. Here are some suggestions for how to save money: Avoid unnecessary frills such as memorabilia and large posters on multicolored paper. See if your "official" bank, airline, or host institution will pay for the honor of its name on your portfolios and pens. Ask the host city or province to sponsor an evening with local folklore, food, and/or drinks. Avoid intermediaries when dealing with hotels or bus services-do it yourself, but have a realistic idea of the discount you are shooting for. If you consider a contract with a hotel or meeting facility, consult with colleagues who have dealt with the management before. Their experiences may help you avoid traps such as exorbitant charges for coffee or rental of equipment, or overtime payments for employees and security guards. Your colleagues may also advise you on what room rates to ask for. Do not rent meeting facilities unless there are considerable trade-offs. Besides providing reasonable room rates, your official hotel should give you the meeting rooms plus boards for poster sessions for free, offer a reasonably priced luncheon buffet, and sponsor at least one reception for your participants. If your meeting is held at a facility without accommodations, check the distance between hotels and meeting site. The daily round trip to a distant budget motel may increase a participant's daily expenses above the amount he or she would have paid in a three-star hotel near the meeting site. Besides, participants suffering from jet lag or intestinal problems want to be close to their rooms. If they have to wait-and pay-for a taxi or shuttle bus, they may not return to the sessions, especially after lunch. Keep down the cost of the abstract volume and program booklet, unless they can be recovered from advertisements. There is no need for glossy, high-quality paper. Ask yourself if you really need published proceedings; in dynamic disciplines, they will be outdated in two years (the time it takes some publishers to get them out). If you can't avoid proceedings, see whether the participants of your meeting are ready for modern technology. CD-ROMs can be produced fast, are cheaper than books, and make you feel good because you did not support the destruction of a helpless tree. Even today, a society with a limited budget can have meetings that are enjoyable and fruitful. All it takes is a hard-working leadership with common sense and imagination-and the preparation of the next meeting will be more fun than the preliminaries to pregnancy. Almost, that is. August Epple is a professor in the department of pathology, anatomy, and cell biology at Thomas Jefferson University. He is the author of Organizing Scientific Meetings (Cambridge University Press, 1997). E-mail: epple1@jeflin.tju.edu.

Meetings Of Scientific Societies: A Time For Changes?

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of