…and this is a 
Jen has the full account, complete with a video, of my talk. I was a rude boy.
Right now, I'm in Bloomington, at the "Current Frontiers in Evolution, Development and Genomics" conference. I gave the keynote last night — which means I am now free to sit back and simply enjoy the meeting without fretting over a silly talk any more. I think I'll be able to get online in the auditorium, so you may be subject to more live-blogging of evo-devo over the course of the day.
I see we've got events scheduled all day long, up to 11pm. I might die.
Life Science
Comments
Posted by: daveau
|
November 14, 2009 8:03 AM
I called somebody at work obtuse once. They didn't have a clue what that meant, but they knew it was bad.
Haven't watched the lecture yet. It's too early for popcorn.
Posted by: Thomas Müller | November 14, 2009 8:09 AM
There's way too much background noise, I can't understand anything in the video. Not being a native speaker also doesn't help I guess. :(
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 14, 2009 8:21 AM
Capturing the video so I can watch it later. Time for breakfast, then raking leaves. I know a few obtuse people. The trolls here come to mind. And Jennifurret, nice summary of the days events.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 14, 2009 8:23 AM
Thomas Mueller,aus Woerstadt !! Das wird ja hoffentlich nie passieren dass unser Thomas Mueller fuer Werder Bremen spielt.(Bayern fan hier)
And Jennifurret is my hero since the creozerg thing.just sayin' !
Looking forward to the updates from the conference PZ !
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 14, 2009 8:28 AM
I hate to break it to you, PZ, but it's going to happen sooner or later. You're not immortal.
Posted by: daveau | November 14, 2009 8:30 AM
Thomas Müller-
The audio is kind of rough for even a native speaker.
Posted by: mikka | November 14, 2009 9:06 AM
I think live-blogging a scientific conference is just wrong (Unless, of course, you get permission from the speakers.)
Most conference organizers are now enforcing no-tweeting no-blogging policies. This is unpublished research you are seeing, and it's shared in that "you show me yours and I show you mine" spirit that allows conferences to happen and makes them beneficial. By live-blogging the proceedings you are spreading the information beyond the audience that the speakers expect, without any additional benefit to them or the conference. Are you sure you should do it?
Of course, this could be a different kind of conference that would actually benefit from live-blogging. But methinks that if they charge for registration it's more a professional conference, and i'd be rather pissed if i found out that someone was live-blogging my talk featuring unpublished results.
I realize that "information wants to be free" and all that, but until we get a better way of assigning credit in science, publications and primacy is what counts, so I think the speakers have a right to decide ho gets to learn about their research prior to publication.
Posted by: Zeno | November 14, 2009 9:39 AM
No, don't die, PZ! (There's plenty of time for that later.)
Besides, I'm grading math exams all day. There will be plenty of scholastic death coming right up!
Posted by: middlekk | November 14, 2009 10:01 AM
@7...reporting on scientific conferences goes on all the time without the permission of the individual presenters.
Most major scientific conferences even have press rooms where the great unwashed hordes of ink-stained wretches get a place to sit, power for their laptop, a handful of press releases, and maybe a stale donut or a mealy apple.
I myself attend medical conferences as a way to keep current and to update CME lectures on specific topics. I'm not alone. Nobody asks permission. It's implied. It's called "fair use" under US copyright law.
Some conferences used to have weird policies against photography and/or video recording of presentations - but this seems to be going by the wayside; primarily because everyone just ignored the injunctions and the conventions found out there were no negative consequences. The last conference I attended was CHEST in San Diego a couple of weeks ago - it was "open" for all forms of media capture. At last year's European Society for the Study of the Liver, the organizers expressly ENCOURAGED media capture.
None of this has any impact at all on the peer-review process. This was ALWAYS a myth, primarily perpetrated by the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine. 20 years ago, they announced a policy regarding authors calling press conferences in advance of peer review that they immediately retracted; since then, everyone's been confused.
To be more succinct: media reporting of data presented at scientific conferences in no way interferes with the author's rights, and does not impede their ability to publish that data in peer-review. And blogging IS media reporting - new media for sure, but media nonetheless.
If you don't want your data to be reported on, don't present it in open session. It's really that simple.
Posted by: Jennifurret | November 14, 2009 10:01 AM
Hmmm, is the sound quality really that bad...? It sounds fine to me, but maybe I'm just not that picky.
Though if you want to donate a high quality video camera to our club, go ahead ;)
Posted by: mikka | November 14, 2009 10:21 AM
@middlekk
We obviously go to different conferences. The ones I go to detail that any public reporting of proceedings NEED the permission of the speaker. About the ugly practice of photographing/filming slides and posters and taping talks is frowned upon if not explicitly prohibited. The professional conferences that tape the talks for archival and review only give access to conference participants. And the closest thing we get to press is editors from journals. Maybe medical conferences are different from fundamental research conferences.
With all due respect, until it's published I want control of who gets access to my results. I choose to share it with conference co-participants to get their input and discuss stories before they are in publishable shape. But making my results available to all and sundry, a google search away, would jeopardize my chances to publish ahead of the competition.
If, as you say, I can't present unpublished results without fear of them being broadcast, then I won't. But that defeats the purpose of a conference. I certainly would not spend the time and money to go to a conference where only published data was presented.
Posted by: Rrr | November 14, 2009 10:23 AM
Don't die today, PZ!
Remember the fine vocal quartet from the mid-70's, Manhattan Transfer? They did a song calling for a 15-minute intermission, as the last track on Side A of the LP (remember those?):
"you'll never get to heaven if you treat us this way!"
I never heard you sing, but hey, everybody deserves a break.
Sadly, the group never quite recovered to the same perfection and punch after one of them had to be replaced (she got her brain bashed out in a traffic accident or something). Still good, just not as good, in my view.
Posted by: middlekk | November 14, 2009 10:42 AM
Yes, it appears we do attend different conferences.
However, the "permissions" requirement for reporting on results the conferences you attend is bogus and not in line with the "fair use" provisions of US copyright law.
Regards.
Posted by: mikka | November 14, 2009 10:58 AM
@middlekk
I don't think anyone is saying that someone live-blogging from a conference is breaking any laws.
But this is not simple "content". This is a personal communication from the speaker to you, and if you abuse this confidence and report the contents without his/her permission you are at least hurting him, and I would argue that you also hurt science as a whole by making everyone less likely to share unpublished results.
Re-reading your first response: what is that about peer review? how did they say reporting hurt it?
Posted by: middlekk | November 14, 2009 11:31 AM
Sorry, no. That's not what US copyright says, and there's no evidence to support such an assertion.
The NEJM had initially come out with a policy that said author-initiated press conferences in advance of submitting a paper to their journal for peer review would be viewed by them as prior publication of data. They backed away from that policy after MAJOR objections from the research community, the media, and threats of lawsuits.
Peer-review is a DIFFERENT PROCESS from media reporting. Media reporting does NOT, in any, way, shape or form interfere with the peer-review publication process. They're two completely different pathways.
My livelihood depends on my knowing where the boundaries lie. And I've been doing this for 30+ years. There are entire industries that rely on this kind of reporting. The conferences themselves acknowledge that the external reporting of results is important - that's why they offer FREE convention attendance privileges to the working media. And I can guarantee you as a former member of the daily news media that reporters NEVER ask permission. If they're there, permission is explicit.
Sorry, but if you think this kind of reporting interferes with your rights as holder of the data, or prevents you from being published in your journal of choice, you're just wrong. If it's presented at a conference open to the public (and that's what I am - a nonmember paying conference attendee) in an open session (whether oral or poster presentation), it's fair game for "fair use".
How could it not be otherwise? You're saying that science should be or is done in SECRET? That's there's some mysterious CABAL that closely holds onto knowledge until THEY decide it's OK for the "rest of us" to know about it?
Nonsense. That's conspiracy theory stuff. Might as well be claiming that someone somewhere has done an alien autopsy and only the "science elite" knows about it.
Posted by: middlekk | November 14, 2009 11:44 AM
And just to close this discussion - cuz I have things to do.
The exact same "fair use" provisions of US copyright law apply to published data.
If I report on a paper published in any journal, that's my right. I extract data and summarize their important findings. No permission needed.
If I create my own graphics based on data contained within that paper, that's also "fair use" where permission is not needed.
However, if I copy a table or figure from the journal, THEN I need to seek reprint permission. But NOT from the author of the paper, but from the holder of the COPYRIGHT, which is the journal.
The author of the paper has not one thing to say about it. No kidding.
Posted by: mikka | November 14, 2009 12:22 PM
I didn't know abut the "prior publication" stuff. I agree that it's nonsense.
But I disagree with your view of how science is done/reported in conferences. Once again, I think this is because we work in different fields. If a conference thinks that widespread reporting of results is important it must be because those results are not preliminary and have repercussions that cannot wait for publication. I do not deal in those kind of results. I think we are talking about entirely different kinds of conferences and results. When you say that there are industries that depend on this kind of reporting it's obvious to me that we are in different fields, because I can't imagine an industry depending on anything I would do, which is quite fundamental molecular biology.
The major repercussions of broadcasting my results to the world before they are ready for publication would be: 1. putting my name under a report of data that may not be ready for publication and that may be misreported and beyond my control, and 2. alert my competitors of what I'm working on and how far along I am. I do not want either of those to happen.
About the first, well yes, I think that somebody has to decide when it's OK for the "rest of you" to know about it. Normally it's peer review. Since I'm the one generating the primary data, I think I should also have a say, if only because I'm probably the one better suited to judge its reliability in the first stages of the project. The alternative is wholesale communication of unfinished, unreviewed and preliminary data that will simply add to the confusion.
about number 2, I'm not getting legal about any of this. The notion that I am a "holder of data" with legal "rights" hadn't even crossed my mind. I have no right to keep natural reality a "secret", that is nonsense. I'm not worried that a journal will reject my submission because I'm talking about it at conferences. What worries me, and any professional scientist ducking it out for the little precious grant money out there, is losing an edge that will allow a competitor to publish something before me that will detract from the novelty of my story. We are talking about food on my kids plates. So you bet I keep my research a "secret", until it's published, or until I judge I and science are better served by sharing it with people that will help improve the science without turning around and stabbing me in the back. If you think that doesn't happen then you don't know what you are talking about. So yes, I want to control how far my communications go before publication.
If, as you say, the moment I open my mouth whatever I say becomes legally free as the wind, then I'm afraid I will have to keep it shut.
Posted by: middlekk | November 14, 2009 12:32 PM
No kidding, you have way fewer rights than you think you do.
If you present data in open session during open conferences, that audience as a PERFECT right to report on it to external audiences. Any audience they wish. The level of detail that is "fair use" is a gray area, but not their right to let others know what you're working on.
Perhaps you've never had your data reported on before. OK. Fine. But you clearly don't understand the rules. I do.
As I said in my first post, if you don't want your data to be reported on from a conference, don't present that data.
There's a difference between a scientist keeping his own data close until it's ready to report and reporting that data in an open session and expecting everyone in the audience to basically forget about it the instant the presentation is done - which is basically what you're advocating.
How in the world does THAT advance the cause of science? Doesn't. Impedes it, frankly.
Really gotta go. TTFN.
Posted by: Lucinda Lurker | November 14, 2009 12:44 PM
Changing the topic from mikka's and middlekk's discussion-
I just want to say that I really enjoy PZ's live-blogging from science conferences. Since I lack a strong science background, realistically I wouldn't attend those conferences. However, reading the live-blogging gives me an opportunity to pick up some bits of science here and there I wouldn't otherwise access. Granted, there are a number of parts that go over my head, but reading Pharyngula has piqued my interest in science. I now find myself searching out more science sources (books, tv programs) than ever before, and I have to credit PZ and those who make comments here for influencing the change.
Back to Lurkerland!
Posted by: Susan | November 14, 2009 12:56 PM
But at least you'll die happy, knowing how much pleasure you've given us.Posted by: Peter G | November 14, 2009 1:29 PM
Off topic but Norm Jensen has an excellent video posted at onegoodmove. Mr. Deity at the 2009 AAI conference. Well worth watching.
Posted by: uncle frogy | November 14, 2009 1:47 PM
here I would like to make a technical suggestion. I am listening to the conference presentation video. the quality of the video is very good the audio is rather poor it is understandable mostly but it gets lost in the reverberations of the room and is picking up mike noises and other crap from close to the mike. I do not know what camera is being used but I can tell the the mike is located on the camera some distance from the lectern which is OK if you are recording in your living room but if you are going to be recording a talk that uses a PA system it is much better to take an audio feed right off the mixer or at least from the lectern directly with a separate mike, in that way you will get a much better signal but still get some of the room presence
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 14, 2009 1:56 PM
It clearly depends on the conference. The abstracts of the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology are embargoed till the time of their presentation; the rest of the content of the presentations is top secret forever (or anyway till the paper that will result from it is published) unless the authors give explicit permission. (Some do bring the media in.) The reason – the only reason – is that some journals, most famously and most extremely Nature, won't publish stuff that anyone not involved in the submission of the manuscript has ever heard of. There are rumors about cases where Nature threw manuscripts out after acceptance!
Science doesn't even enter the question. It's a matter of capitalism. Certain journals want to sell breaking news; if they have already broken, they can't sell them as breaking news anymore.
Also, in some countries, scientists are basically paid for getting published in those exact journals. They can't say "screw it, I'll just submit to the Occasional Papers of the Town Museum of East Bumfuck, Texas" if they want, say, tenure.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 14, 2009 2:00 PM
As the curator of the Museum of East Bumfuck, and the editor of Occasional Papers of the Town Museum of East Bumfuck, Texas, I invite all submissions.
Anyone?
We publish poetry, too.
Posted by: mikka | November 14, 2009 2:11 PM
I'm not saying that the people that listen to my talk can't talk about it. That's what you communicate science for. But conferences and publications are different forums, and while the content may be bound to the same legal regulations, the etiquette is not the same. The fact that it's legal does not make it polite to spread something that someone has communicated to you with the understanding that you would not spread it.
And talking about it and publishing a summary of it on the web are qualitatively different ways of spreading.
I'm not saying it's illegal, I'm saying it is uncool.
And yes, it hurts science to do it this way. But, as I said in the first post, in order to have fully collaborative science we will need radically new ways to give credit where credit is due.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 14, 2009 2:17 PM
There was a young man from Racine....
Posted by: vanharris
|
November 14, 2009 2:21 PM
Antiochus Epiphanes, you can expect a flood of papers from the Discovery Institute now. But they won't be poetic, but might be noetic, not being based upon fact; so you won't need much tact, when you tell 'em they lacked, what it takes to be classed as science.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 14, 2009 2:37 PM
This pisses me off quite a bit: Over here in physics-land, we've had the arXiv for over fifteen years now. Everybody can see at least a preliminary version of anything anybody has written. Sure, sometimes weird drivel shows up, but that just means you have to train your BS filter (a skill a working scientist should have developed anyway).q
Posted by: mikka | November 14, 2009 3:21 PM
yay for an arXiv for biology!
believe me, we've been lusting for something like that for ever. I guess PLoS one is trying something similar.
Posted by: charley | November 14, 2009 3:22 PM
@Jennifurret #10
Thanks for the video. I could hear it, but the audio was pretty weak. Still worth posting, though. A couple of ideas if you care:
The problem arises from trying to record so far from the audio source. The easiest thing to try is to sit closer to the PA speaker. If your camera has a place to plug in an external mic, you could put a mic by the PA speaker. The sound technician might be able to patch your camera into the sound system.
Another approach is to record the audio separately on a laptop placed near the PA speaker and synch it with the video from the camera using video software later.
If you have a Mac, you can use Audio Recorder, a free download that's simple to use. Just use the built-in mic in the mac. Put the laptop on a chair facing the PA speaker (not right next to it though). Set the audio level while somebody speaks into the sound system. Save the audio file, upload the video from the camera and and use iMovie to combine them.
Posted by: Rrr | November 14, 2009 3:24 PM
Well, du Skandinavien Killer-Diller du, when in Purdue, I guess there must have been other anagrammatical combinations available which might, under inauspicious circumstances, have been viewed as much worse. ;-) Not that there's anything wrong with that. Ja ja, nevermind.Posted by: Guy Incognito | November 14, 2009 4:14 PM
You're honestly surprised "there weren't many creationists there, or they were just keeping quiet?" Come on, man, I figure you'd be used to preaching to the choir by now.
You're such a smart guy, so you have to be aware that you don't change minds doing what you're doing, you just harden people to their original positions. What is the purpose of visiting universities and talking to an friendly audience composed primarily of liberally educated people who uniformly agree with you about the flaws of creationism? Yawn, man, like crazy yawn.
Posted by: Lynna | November 14, 2009 4:28 PM
Jennifurret @10
I'm sure several people have already told you this, so I'll just be repeating the advice. But, it's true that you don't need to replace the video camera (though it's always nice to have new and better video toys). What you do need to do is record the sound separately. PZ should have been wearing a lapel mike, or (second choice) put a mike on the lectern, or give him a handheld mike.
And don't plan on becoming an audio engineer because you don't have the ear for it. :-)
Posted by: Calypte | November 14, 2009 4:39 PM
Most of this talk is unintelligible. And there is so much persistent playing with the mike and/or leads, that much of the presentation is simply covered up by noise.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 14, 2009 5:15 PM
mikka (#29):
The arXiv already has a quantitative biology section, which would probably be better off if more biologists used it. I mean, not all physicists who try to do biology are as bad as Vincent Fleury, but the state of interdisciplinary research could still be improved.
Guy Incognito (#32):
To pick only one reason, "harden[ing] people to their original positions" is a good thing when it means teaching them more science. Many anti-creationists have a general understanding of biology but would like to learn more. Hearing the same answers to the common creationist claims over and over again is boring. (How many ways can we answer a question like, "If human beings came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?") There's always a new transitional fossil, or a recent discovery in molecular biology, which the lay enthusiast of science hasn't heard about yet, even though they've already learned enough to know that Ray Comfort is a liquid-fuelled doucherocket.
Posted by: llewelly | November 14, 2009 5:44 PM
Jennifurret | November 14, 2009 10:01 AM:
If you have previously heard a lecture, and you listen to a recording, your brain will automatically cover up any flaws in the sound with what you remember. It's entirely normal for the sound to sound "okay" to someone who has already heard the lecture, but incomprehensible to those of us who have not.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | November 14, 2009 9:18 PM
I didn't care for the sound quality either, but it was adequate. And the talk was excellent.
Posted by: plublesnork | November 14, 2009 11:42 PM
I also found the audio very difficult to listen to, and as a vision impaired person, the audio is all I care about.
An idea did occur to me, though:
PZ: If your loyal minions chipped in to pay for a camera + wireless microphone of relatively compact sizes, would you be conveniently able to take these to conferences you present at so you can ensure recordings are made with non-crappy equipment?
I think a wireless mic that you can use in conjunction with other people's equipment would be well worth having at the very least.
We love watching your talks, and love them even more when we can actually hear and comprehend what you're saying.
And as this is my first comment, allow me to send you warm greetings and thanks for the wonderful service you do for furthering education and rational thought.
Posted by: Robbie | November 16, 2009 11:17 AM
I hope your this ruthless at tonights debate against the creationist. I am super pumped to see you in action.
Posted by: Stéphane Scot | November 18, 2009 2:57 PM
Thanks for stopping by our unexciting campus, PZ! Easily the most interesting event of this semester.