I’ve been thinking about the role of conferences in academia now that we can’t go to any (in person). I think this “pandemic pause” in scientific conferences is an opportunity to re-think how we operate to make to make science more equitable and accessible. A thread 1/15

Conferences, especially small conferences focused on a specific field, offer many great opportunities – networking, illuminating scientific discussions that go well into the night, feedback on work before publication. I have certainly benefited from this. 2/15

But the unintended impact of these meetings is also problematic. New data and ideas are presented in small, focused meetings, well in advance of publication. By the time a paper or even a pre-print is published, discoveries can often no longer be “cutting edge”. 3/15

The result? To have a chance at doing truly innovative work in a field, one has to attend lots of lots of conferences to keep up with what other leaders are doing, to understand where the field is moving. 4/15

There are generally 2 ways to attend these conferences: by invitation to give a talk (and thus attend for free or at reduced cost, subsidized by the rest of the attendees), or use grant $$ or personal $$ to attend. 5/15

If one is able to become part of the “recognized conference speakers” club in a field, then this provides a tremendous advantage. It is often a very small number of speakers within a field that dominate most conferences, with little change year after year. 6/15

The barriers to in-person conference participation and inclusion are not just $$, and disproportionally limit attendance based on gender, racialization, dependent care responsibilities and disability, among other factors. 7/15

This is not meant to criticize accomplished scientists who have fascinating insights and research to share, year after year and do so at conferences. I’ve been fortunate to be inspired by such people many times. I have tremendous respect and admiration for great scientists. 8/15

However, the small conference format has as an unintended consequence the exclusion of a lot of scientists from the conversation. A relatively small number of people attend most conferences that many others can’t attend or can’t attend frequently enough. 9/15

This creates a self-reinforcing loop. The leaders in a field attend the conferences, and by doing so are better able to do innovative work, and thus are much more likely to be invited to attend again. Many who could also contribute are forced to sit on the sidelines… 10/15

…because they are mostly only able to attend a few (or no) conferences and/or rely on the published literature to learn about innovative ideas or results. The pandemic shutdown might change this loop, by forcing scientists to communicate “cutting-edge” work elsewhere. 11/15

I’m not aware of a study that has looked at this yet, but my impression is that the pandemic shutdown is leading to more papers in my field(s) being posted on @bioRxiv. This is a more accessible forum to distribute cutting-edge research than small, exclusive conferences. 12/15

Online conferences offer the opportunity for more to attend and see talks, by reducing cost of attending to nearly zero. But the challenge remains to replicate the less formal interactions at conferences, the spontaneous hallway or dinnertime scientific discussions… 13/15

Maybe we can add a sort of “chat roulette” dimension for attendees at online conference to experience an unplanned interaction with fellow scientists in which more people can have a chance to participate. We have a lot of room to innovate in this area. 14/15

This pause allows us to rethink how we share ideas and discoveries. The pre-pandemic model had many flaws that helped (often unintentionally) create barriers. Re-thinking our reliance on travel and conferences could help make science more accessible and equitable. 15/15