Read on Twitter
@BozelosP & I wrote a thing on the 'status quo et quo vadis' of "Talking Science, online", out today @NatRevNeurosci. Also, of course, about @worldwideneuro & @neuromatch conference (COI) but more generally on the trend & sustainability of online seminars: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41583-020-00408-6
TL;DR? We weigh the pros (cheap, accessible, green) against the cons (exclusive focus, prolonged and informal discussions, networking, organised exposure for ECRs) and come to the conclusion that online lectures are here to stay, but as an addition, not a substitute.
The most surprising bit? A conference like SfN has a carbon footprint equal to that of 450,000 EU citizens in the same time period. That means, each of us produces 13times their "allocated" CO2 each day at SfN. @neuromatch? Only 0.33 kg extra. Kinda good argument for going online
What we don't speak about, but what I have been pondering lately is a kinda "retro" trend by more prominent institutes (subtweeting) to shutter their online events to the world, and only let their own in. I think that kinda sucks!
I am of the opinion that if one gets invited to an online talk they should ask if the talk will be made public. What's more, I think not making it public is a disservice to science, (and possibly a misappropriation of funds). Unless your talk sucks, in which case, thank you. :)
Obvs, I have a COI here too, having built @worldwideneuro (really, @BozelosP built it), and wanting so see it thrive; and there is some ok-ish arguments for shuttering access:
Reason 1) Zoom bombing. Ok, no, that argument is total bullshit. I have hosted ~ 40 talks w/ 1 minor incident. In my limited experience, the worst kind of lecture vandalism has been in person & perpetrated by the lecturer himself.... Just sayin', imo zoombombangst is BS.
Reason 2) Lecturers get more out of multiple presentations (more qs), and connect better w/ the local 'community' - Meh, I think one can present lectures multiple times online (maybe make sure it's not recorded, for that "live" effect) + the fanboys can attend EVERY talk.
For our own series, we try to give back to the speaker via one-on-ones, student group zooms, a post talk room, and a generally full programme. So far we've had good feedback. It takes extra attention, but it's fun (Thanks @ptheodoni for ideas). https://www.worldwideneuro.com/seminar-series.html?name=The_Neurotheory_Forum
Reason 3) The community suffers, and most questions come from out-of-institute audience members. - To that I would say, "Sharing is Caring", and if your community suffers from a few outsiders asking questions then maybe it's COVID that's fucking shit up and not world-wide access.
Reason 4) Yeah, I don't think there is a reason 4. In summary, I think your talks should be public. On @worldwideneuro Feel free to post your strong and unfiltered (and wrong ;) opinion. In any case, check out the piece, and check out http://worldwideneuro.com Have a lovely day.
... and to the haters that will point out that the opinion piece is not open access,... yep. You got a point. We is sorry. We also have an elife piece. Oh, and obvs, @Sci_Hub offers a substantial discount that makes things really affordable. https://elifesciences.org/labs/d8f1d697/making-neuro-science-accessible-world-wide-online-seminars-for-the-globe
