At the same time, however, our cardinal rule has always been to promote scientific communication. We have therefore never sought to prevent scientists from presenting their work at conferences, or from depositing first drafts of submitted papers on preprint servers. So Nature journalists or those from any other publication should hear results presented at a meeting, or find them on a preprint server, the findings are fair game for coverage -- even if that coverage is ahead of the paper's publication. This is not considered a breaking of Nature's embargo. Nor is it a violation if scientists respond to journalists' queries in ensuring that the facts are correct -- so long as they don't actively promote media coverage.Sounds good to me, and I hope to see similar clarification from other journals in the near future.
Genetic Future
Commentary on human genetics and evolution, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, and the personal genomics industry.
Search
Profile
Daniel MacArthur
I write about the genetic and evolutionary basis of human variation, and the companies trying to sell you information about your genome.
Subscribe via RSS.
Follow me on Twitter.
Recent Posts
- More on return of research data to participants from Genomics Law Report
- Research subjects should have access to their own data
- First ever association study using whole genome sequences
- What happens when a DTC genomics company goes bust? Follow up post on Genomics Law Report
- 23andMe presents novel genetic associations at American Society of Human Genetics meeting
- Off to Hawaii... and looking forward to new associations from 23andMe
- 23andMe performs genome-wide association study on NFL players, fails to find athlete genes
- Scientists call for changes to personal genomics based on comparison of test results
- Nature special issue a treasure trove for personal genomics fans
- IBM's foray into nanopore sequencing: are they serious contenders?
Recent Comments
- Neil on Research subjects should have access to their own data
- Daniel MacArthur on First ever association study using whole genome sequences
- drH on Research subjects should have access to their own data
- Matt Mealiffe, MD on First ever association study using whole genome sequences
- Dan Vorhaus on Research subjects should have access to their own data
- asdf on Research subjects should have access to their own data
- HC Howard on Research subjects should have access to their own data
- Mr. Gunn on Research subjects should have access to their own data
- Daniel MacArthur on Research subjects should have access to their own data
- Jeff Barrett on Research subjects should have access to their own data
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
Blogs I read:
Consumer Genomics:
Genomic Science:
- Anthony Fejes
- David Dooling
- Dan Koboldt
- Luke Jostins
- Pathogenomics
- Jan Aerts
- Popgen Ramblings
- Adaptive Complexity
- Genomicron
Genetics/Evolution Blogs:
- John Hawks
- Gene Expression
- Gene Expression SB
- Eye on DNA
- Dienekes
- Yann Klimentidis
- European Genetics
- Discovering Biology in a Digital World
- The Genetic Genealogist
- business|bytes|genes|molecules
- Thomas Mailund
- John Halamka
General Science:
Corporate Blogs:
Skeptics:
« Free genome scans - but what's the business model? | Main | Nobel laureate Paul Nurse on his family story »
Blogging conference presentations doesn't break Nature embargo
Category: conference blogging
Posted on: June 19, 2009 7:37 PM, by Daniel MacArthur
Find more posts in:
Life Science
Medicine & Health
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More




Comments
Personally, I think that the conditions under which scientists should go into secret society mode are rare and ephemeral. In those think sessions ... the weekly lab meeting, the get together at someone's room at a conference to brainstorm the grant you'all are writing, and so on .... these are conversations that should not be twittered. But a conference is a venue for open discussion in almost all cases. I don't understand the need to get up in front of a group of people at a conference and somehow know that some or much of what you say will be somehow private or not subject to being further discussed.
The strange situation that emerges when we contrast the rules of the press and the rules of bloggers is a temporary situation that will go away shortly and is of no consequence.
If there are scientists who have been speaking at conferences about things that should not be disseminated, they need to reassess what they are doing at these conferences.
Indeed, to push this along, I think all conferences should be live blogged.
I've not live blogged a conference, but the last two that I attended certainly got blogged as the conference was going on. In each case I sent the presenter a link to the blog post and in each case I got a thank you.
Posted by: greg laden | June 19, 2009 8:15 PM
Nature generally seems pretty good about these things. They also have a forum on Nature Network called Ask the Nature Editor, so you can grill them on this and other things in detail.
Posted by: Bob O'H | June 20, 2009 6:21 AM
Or just ask me right here.
Posted by: Noah Gray | June 20, 2009 10:55 PM