Biophysical Society Bulletin | June 2021

President’s Message

Future of Professional Society Conferencing Recently, Jennifer Pesanelli (Exec- utive Officer), Dorothy Chaconas (Director of Meetings & Exhib- its), and I attended the American Institute of Physics (AIP) Assembly of Society Officers to discuss the future of scientific meetings. Before the Assembly, we were asked to view pre-recorded content and read attending from anywhere in the world but believe that virtual events have not been able to reproduce the level of network- ing seen at in-person meetings. As well as ease of accessibility, the lower carbon footprint offered by virtual meetings is a great benefit. As an example, the 2019 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), held in San Francisco with more than 25,000 attend- ees, is estimated to have produced the equivalent of 80,000 tons of carbon dioxide due to participant travel (KQED, https:/ www.kqed.org/science/1966164/covid-19-is-pushing-scien- tific-conferences-online-maybe-thats-where-they-belong).

Frances Separovic

a report published by AIP entitled “The Future of Association Convening: Envisioning for The Sciences (FACETS).” The report is accessible to all through the AIP website at https:/www. aip.org/facets. The authors of the report, who were also the session panellists, envision that future meetings will allow for content to be consumed in advance and leave more time for active exchange, one of the great benefits of scientific society conferences. However, unlike the anticipation with which I typically ap- proach the long-haul flight over the Pacific prior to the Biophysical Society (BPS) Annual Meeting, I did not have the same eagerness in 2021 for yet another Zoom meeting. Instead, rather than being bolstered by the excitement of my fellow participants, which is a tremendous help to overcome jet lag, I found myself struggling to keep awake at 2:00 AM and formulate my thoughts. Rather than coming away ener- gized, I felt exhausted. Although a new study discussed in the April 17 issue of The Economist (https:/www.economist.com/graphic-de- tail/2021/04/17/a-new-study-suggests-that-zoom-fa- tigue-is-worse-for-women-than-men) suggests that “Zoom fatigue” is worse for women than men, I suspect this is a common problem, especially when trying to balance differ- ent time zones. According to Microsoft, video meetings are hard work and tire people quickly (https:/www.itnews.com. au/news/microsoft-eeg-studies-show-video-meetings- stress-people-out-550248). Using electroencephalogram (EEG) equipment, they found that markers associated with overwork and stress are significantly higher in video meetings than in other work such as writing emails. However, many scientists want virtual meetings to stay after the COVID-19 pandemic according to a Nature poll (https:/ www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00513-1). Online research conferences have brought big benefits, but it will be a challenge to blend virtual and in-person meetings in the future. Respondents to the poll appreciate the ease of

In-person meetings also disadvantage researchers from countries with low rates of vaccination against COVID-19. We need to rethink traditional conference models that require multiple trips per year and instead provide a better virtual experience for scientists. However, paying for in-person con- ference venues in addtion to a virtual platform is expensive, and trying to forecast audience size for multiple modes of participation is also a challenge. Velvet Chainsaw Consulting, a leading consulting firm in the conference industry, questions whether synchronous hybrid meetings are even sustainable and notes that “between diminished revenue, additional costs for in-person events and platform/content capture expense, the pressure on event leaders is significant” (https:/ vel- vetchainsaw.com/2021/03/15/the-high-cost-of-hybrid/). Scientific conferences have been vital for exchanging results and ideas and learning about the latest advancements in the field. They inspire attendees; strengthen collaborations and forge new ones; provide opportunities for professional devel- opment and new job prospects; and allow for meetings with vendors, publishers, and funding agencies. We need to plan for future conferences that serve scientists better than they do now. How effective is the BPS Annual Meeting format, which is based on a face-to-face (F2F) meet- ing? In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we quickly made the decision to hold the 2021 Annual Meeting virtually, and we began offering more virtual content outside the meeting. In 2020, we hosted the “Biophysicists Address COVID-19 Challenges” symposium and nine member-led virtual events with organizers in Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, and South America, with attendees logging on from 44 different countries. This year, we shifted most BPS Committee-orga- nized programming from the Annual Meeting to virtual events spread throughout the year and added some new events as well. While participation increased for some events so far, feedback indicates that the in-person aspect of certain ses- sions is preferred.

June 2021

2

T H E N E W S L E T T E R O F T H E B I O P H Y S I C A L S O C I E T Y