I will be going to a scientific conference next week. Believe it or not, this will be the first purely scientific meeting I'll attend since I quit grad school and started blogging (all the others had to do with science communication, blogging, technology, journalism, Internet, publishing...). So, I am thinking....
I remember going to scientific meetings meant going to a nice little Florida resort and spending a couple of days with one's friends and colleagues, isolated from the rest of the world, talking about science 24/7. It is an opportunity to share your latest work and ideas with an inner circle of the field. Seeing one's findings and words plastered all over the Internet is probably not what most people there will expect to happen and some may get dismayed. Has this world changed since the last time I went there? Are the people more aware nowadays that everyone in the audience may be a journalist or a "journalist"? Do they like seeing their ideas disseminated more widely?
So, what is the proper behavior in regard to liveblogging conferences these days? I will see a bunch of talks and posters and will probably find some of them exciting enough to want to write about. I can always approach the speaker afterwards and ask (or warn) or even do a semi-formal interview. But some I just want to quickly liveblog in passing, as things happen. I will bring a notepad, a few good pens and will take good notes, and will have my laptop with me in case I want to liveblog directly into the computer.
The program is publicly available, including all the abstracts. Some posters or slides may even show up online afterwards. There is nothing illegal about blogging about it, but is it against any new unwritten rules?
How about hallway chats? Hotel-room drunken hypothesis-spinning? Beach-side frolicking with crazy geeks who cannot talk about anything but science? Should I warn people that a blogger is in the room?
- Log in to post comments
This scientist will probably spot you a mile off... Speaking as one who doesn't blog any of her own science, I'd be wary of speaking to anyone about unpublished work or very preliminary findings if I thought it was going to be publicized further.
But having said that, I think most scientists would love their ideas to be heard of and discussed outside of the immediate community.
I've live-blogged meetings, and intend to continue doing so. A "big" meeting with proper abstracts is open, so I think talks posters etc. can be freely discussed (and even photos put up). The presentations are effectively public - in principle anyone who's interested in the work will be able to turn up and see it - so you're not breaking confidences. I can't see why someone would object to their work being disseminated more widely: I guess most people will be flattered.
I would advise not posting about beach-side frolicking though, unless they refuse to pay up.
Speaking as a scientist, I can assure you that most "of us" are very happy to face intelligent questions about our work, and that we would be pleased to see an intelligent summary reach the mainstream.
So yeah, approach and request, while being clear what your intentions are. However, I think that you should be sure to specify that you are not just ANY (typically science-challenged) journalist, but that you are closely associated with PLoS and have actual scientific credentials. Even offer to have your victims review your summary before you post it.
It could depend upon the organisers, AHA has a press embargo.
In any case, since you are a professional blogger/journalist/whatever it would be correct for you to declare your intentions to the organisers as well the presenters of any talk/poster that you intended to describe.
To declare yourself as representing PLOS would only be valid if you then posted only on the PLOS site.
I think you should declare your intentions as a professional blogger and journalist, both to meeting organizers and to presenters. The abstracts in this case are publicly available, but because abstract deadlines usually precede the meeting by several months, I think most of us researchers present new(er) unpublished data at the meeting, beyond those described in the abstract.
That being said, I think that liveblogging a scientific meeting is an extremely useful service, especially for those who can't attend the conference because of financial or work-related constraints.
I agree with Barn Owl that you should make your intentions known. Not necessarily for the abstracts, talks, or posters--I think anything that's known to be publicly-available information is fair game--but for any information that may be given during a private conversation, especially if that information contains additional unpublished data. I don't know of any unspoken rules about this sort of thing, but if it were me, I'd appreciate knowing that what I said would be posted online somewhere.
Some societies have "official" or "recommended" policies on media coverage (and blogging would certainly be under this), as noted above. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology often (but not always, I found) has a statement in its abstract volume that says, "Observers are reminded that the technical content of the SVP sessions is not to be reported in any medium (print, electronic, or Internet) without the prior permission of the authors."
This is for very good reason, due to issues of nomenclatural priority as well as the fact that some granting agencies (particularly National Geographic) have "right of first refusal" for any media stories resulting from their funded work.
I personally like having my ideas disseminated widely, but I agree with most folks that its good to know beforehand - particularly so I can have a little say on making sure my work is presented accurately.
Bora, I have an active-scientist friend who would write for The Lancet about proceedings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting. His name badge read "Press" instead of "Member" so it was clear to anyone speaking with him that he was acting in his journalism role.
I'd check to see if your conference makes these distinctions directly on the attendee badge and inquire and register as a member of the press, thereby officially noting your intentions to abide by press rules for that particular conference.
I think you'd be best served by obtaining permission from any scientist whose work you're going to write up for the blog. Although it depends on the individual meeting you're attending, I believe at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the policy is that the meetings are considered "confidential" in some ways. The disclaimer in the abstract books reads the following:
"These abstracts should not be cited in bibliographies. Material contained herein should be treated as personal communication and should be cited only with the consent of the author."
Treating the talks (and comments and anything else) as you would "personal communication" style material is probably a good policy. In particular, since you work for a journal publisher, you don't want to burn any bridges, or upset any potential authors. Most speakers will probably be happy to get noticed, but you never know.
Since I'm a science writer, not a scientist proper, folks kind of assume things are on the record, so to speak. And yet I always ask if it's okay to blog a meeting. Even at the Kavli Institute, where I was a Journalist in Residence, and where they post all their talks online in Podcast and Streaming Video formats, I still asked if it was okay to write about the various talks I heard. Because it's polite, mainly, but also, there might be some fine print somewhere that I didn't notice. And I don't want to alienate potential future sources (or potential friends).
Some of the best stuff can be found in casual conversations after the talks, of course. And again, if I want to use something on the blog, I ask. Most people are okay with that. Only one person asked to check with the PR folks at the lab before giving permission for me to write about a small behind-the-scenes funny lab anecdote that I thought really illuminated how science is actually done.
Honestly? I've never had anyone decline. I think if they know you (or at least your solid reputation), and you ask, you should have no problem.
Since I'm a science writer, not a scientist proper, folks kind of assume things are on the record, so to speak. And yet I always ask if it's okay to blog a meeting. Even at the Kavli Institute, where I was a Journalist in Residence, and where they post all their talks online in Podcast and Streaming Video formats, I still asked if it was okay to write about the various talks I heard. Because it's polite, mainly, but also, there might be some fine print somewhere that I didn't notice. And I don't want to alienate potential future sources (or potential friends).
Some of the best stuff can be found in casual conversations after the talks, of course. And again, if I want to use something on the blog, I ask. Most people are okay with that. Only one person asked to check with the PR folks at the lab before giving permission for me to write about a small behind-the-scenes funny lab anecdote that I thought really illuminated how science is actually done.
Honestly? I've never had anyone decline. I think if they know you (or at least your solid reputation), and you ask, you should have no problem.
Whoa... you need to ask. (!!!) Ask before you take pics, ask before you blog, ask before you put ANYTHING about them or their work online on the internet where everyone can see it and it's there for posterity! If I found out someone blogged about my work without having asked my permission in advance, I would be FURIOUS. People have a right to privacy, because being in a closed scientific conference does NOT mean that you have given everyone permission by default to plaster anything about you on the internet. Duude...
Solution I came up with (and we'll see if it works in practice) is to do a series of blog interviews with the people I saw there (I asked many and got Yes as an answer from most). Thus, they can choose just how much to reveal on my blog as they wish.